nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − ==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,<br /> − 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. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT) − </blockquote> − {| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;" − | style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]] − |} − __TOC__ − − == Blocked? == − − You call Wikipedia biased, and yet block any article that has a chance to be tampered with. You're almost as bad as New York Time, but would never insult you enough to put you at the same level. Why do we point out that Isaac Newton and Aristotle never thought of evolution? They also didn't think of several things, but that doesn't disprove anything. It is yet another embarrassing point that demeans our credibility.--[[User:Jaden13|Jaden13]] 17:45, 13 October 2007 (EDT) − − :I have to agree, Jaden13, I do find it almost sickening that this article refers to completely unrelated scholars in a hope to demean the theory of evolution. There is no documented fact that Aristotle didn't believe in evolution, so why is that implied to successfully in this article.--[[User:Metatron|Metatron]] 19:49, 29 December 2007 (EST) − − ==Darwin an atheist?== − :Interestingly, Darwin says in that extract that he considered himself a theist at the time he wrote ''[[Origin of Species]]''. Indeed, he explicitly cites God as creator in ''Origin''. And even in the quote provided, well after the publication of ''Origin'', Darwin did not profess atheism, but only agnosticism. How then can we say that Darwin's theory of evolution (as articulated in ''Origin'') was intended to provide a godless / antisupernaturalist theory of natural history, when he was a theist at the time he devised it? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 18:51, 12 September 2007 (EDT) − :::Ungtss, I suggest you read the [[Charles Darwin]] article again. Here are two portions: "Scholars refer to the private notebook in which Darwin stated he was a materialist as the "M" notebook of 1838.[9] Ernst Mayr wrote that "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a 'materialist' (more or less = atheist)". [10]" Also, "In 1831 he graduated from Christ's College at Cambridge with a BA degree in the classics and theology. On December 27 of the same year he departed on the HMS Beagle for a five year voyage of exploration. The Beagle returned to English shores on October 2 1836. In 1837, Darwin drew his now famous depiction of common ancestry in the form of a branching tree [1]." Therefore two things can be said based on the material cited. It is unclear if Darwin was a theist or atheist at the time he believed in common descent. Second, it appears as if Darwin lied to people regarding his atheism. I think you are being naive here and taking Darwin at his word in that extract (rather than being skeptical) since it appears as if Darwin lied about his atheism to people. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:57, 12 September 2007 (EDT) − :::: 1) If you will concede that it is unclear whether he was a theist or an atheist at the time he wrote ''Origin'', then we need go no further, because the issue is resolved. How can we say that evolution was an inherently "naturalistic/godless" natural history if we're not sure whether Darwin was an atheist at the time he articulated it? − :::: 2) Even if Darwin ''did'' intend evolution as a defense of materialism, why are we justified in calling evolution itself inherently naturalistic, when far more evolutionists are theists than are atheists? Surely evolution is far more than Darwin's opinion when he wrote it. It's been about 150 years! Why not say "The Theory of Evolution is the idea that all life on earth is related, and that all diversity in life is wholly the result of genetic variation and natural selection. It can either be naturalistic (denying that God guided the process), or theistic (asserting that God guided the process)." [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:38, 12 September 2007 (EDT) − :::::::Ungtss, we know Darwin started lost his faith sometimes between 1836-39. The Darwin branching tree diagram came in 1837. I think it would be foolhardy to go by Darwin's public pronouncements since he lied publically about his apparent atheism. But the point is irrelevant anyways. We have a methodological naturalism and/or atheism theory of evolution article and a theistic evolution article. They are two different concepts. And I can't see creating a third article, stating well Darwin might have been an atheist or theist so here is a we don't know what Darwin was article. I think we need to stay current and now there are "methodological naturalism"/atheism proponents (that is how it is taught at most universities/colleges/high schools) and theistic evolution proponents of the evolutionary concept. Anyways, given my past interactions with you, I don't believe I am going to attempt to have further dialogue with you on this point.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 12 September 2007 (EDT) − ::::::::But Darwin ''could have'' believed that God created evolution. So far as I know Darwin offers no explanation for the origin of the mechanism itself. Since we all agree that [[microevolution]] happens, we know that God must have created that, so someone who believed that God created that could also believe God created evolution operating on a somewhat larger scale. [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:27, 14 September 2007 (EDT) − : You're still evading the points at issue. − :: 1) Although the talk-page says this article is to be edited only by the Student Panel, it is only being edited by you; − :: 2) This article does not describe evolution -- it skips right to rebutting it. And that's not what encyclopedia articles should do; − :: 3) This article does not even effectively rebut evolution, because it gets caught up in superficial non-sequiturs and ad hominems that only damage our credibility; − :: 4) I'm not proposing a new article. I'm proposing that this article describe the theory of evolution ''as it is'', neither inherently theistic nor inherently atheistic, that ''this'' article only describe the theory itself, something this article does not do. − :: 5) Dialogue is something we've never had, because you never address my points. I'd like to begin dialoguing with you, if you're interested. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:14, 12 September 2007 (EDT) − :::Ungtss, I took the panel's decision, "will not be changed in any major way" to mean that they liked my 100% anti-evolutionary article I largely created and did not want the direction of the article to be changed in any major way. Namely, they did not want ANY pro-evolutionary propaganda in the article. So I added a few sections and expanded some sections. I would add that the article's web traffic increased while I made the improvements. I would also add that while I am very pleased with the panel in general (they did like my article), I was a little disappointed that when people were communicating with them they were not getting responses although I can understand the panel deciding not to respond to much that was directed at them. However, people have busy lives so I can merely say I was a little disappointed. Secondly, how can you "describe evolution" when [[macroevolution]] does not take place? Next, the panel must have liked my adequacy of defining what the theory is because they said it has been improved significantly on that point and never posted subsequently. Next, you waste everyone's time by making unsubstantiated charges about the article (non-sequiturs and ad hominems). Lastly, the article never states the theory of evolution is atheistic but merely says it uses methodological naturalism. And given that the article was not at all theistic evolution orientated when the panel made their decision and given that Andy wanted the article to say that the theory of evolution was purely a materialist theory but compromised with methodological naturalism and citing that since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position have been atheists (sentence changed to methodological naturalism), I don't think your agenda here has much of a chance. I also believe that giving a conservative view in regards to methodological naturalism is helpful (article links to methodological naturalism). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:12, 12 September 2007 (EDT) − − ::::In that case, you should not call the Article 'Theory of Evolution', but something more fitting. Perhaps 'Arguments Against Darwinian Evolution'. Then you can create a page that explains what Darwinian Evolution is. [[User:PsychoDolly|PsychoDolly]] 10:57, 20 December 2007 (EST) − − − Pro-evolution article? You do realize that you are trading in realivist teritory son. Keep an eye out-you may start denying objective reality any day now. − − Describing evolution 101: − * not all living things are the same. − * living things resemble their parents − * not all the young of every birth survive − * there are differences between creatures that affect their odds of survival and reproduction − * Those with differences that increase their odds of survial and reproduction will proliferate, while those with the opposite will go extinct − It is a little more complicated for speciazation and ecology, but those premises are the bases. − − -Sam − : Sam, could you please sign your posts by using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) or by clicking on the signature button above the editing box? Thanks. And I hope you don't mind that I formatted your post into a bulleted list. − : The reason I reject that as an adequate description of evolution is because every single one of those points is also consistent with creation. − : [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:19, 28 November 2007 (EST) − ::As a proponent of evolution, I'm not entirely sure what Sam was intending to prove with his terse statements. It's a relatively flimsy argument if you ask me. The only thing I can conclude is that said inidividual is quite unfamiliar with the science, or scientific theory. I don't mean to offend anyone with my statements, afterall I could be wrong. Maybe he's a famous Ph.D in the area, but I doubt it. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 23:31, 28 November 2007 (EST) − ::::Hello Conservative, − − ::::<blockquote>"...I don't think your agenda here has much of a chance."</blockquote> − − ::::I'm not sure that you understand Ungtss' agenda. Here are a couple of quotes which might illustrate it better: − − ::::<blockquote>"You don't have to misrepresent evolution to debunk it. Fully explain it and it debunks itself."</blockquote> − − ::::<blockquote>"You have to describe evolution before you debunk it."</blockquote> − − ::::And, from a discussion elsewhere: − − ::::<blockquote>"Evolution is so ridiculous on its own terms..."</blockquote> − − ::::My agenda, for reference, is clearly explained by the following quote: − − ::::<blockquote>"[Y]ou assume that I am an evolutionist. This is not the case... I want readers to walk away from the article with an improved understanding of the theory of evolution, and I want the criticisms of the theory to be better presented, and at a more opportune time, than is currently the case."</blockquote> − − ::::In summary, Ungtss' and my agenda is to provide a better explanation of the theory of evolution in a purportedly encyclopaedic article, and to see criticism presented in a more structured fashion. You seem to have misinterpreted our desire to improve the article as a desire to include "pro-evolutionary propaganda". This is not the case, and I would be pleased if I could disabuse you of this misconception. :) − − ::::<blockquote>"[H]ow can you "describe evolution" when [[macroevolution]] does not take place?"</blockquote> − − ::::The same way you would describe Latter-Day Saint theology (assuming one is not LDS), or the plot of Hamlet. The clarity of the article is compromised by every descriptive statement being followed by criticism, instead of criticism being provided once the user actually understands the "theology" in question. If I were writing an encyclopaedia article about "Friends," I'd wait until after I had delivered the main premises of the show to explain contradictions or holes in the plot. (E.g. how on earth do they afford those apartments?)—[[User:Jordan|Jordan]] 13:46, 13 September 2007 (EDT) − ::::: Well said, Jordan. I only wish there was a wiki around that embodied your philosophy. FYI, there's been an ongoing debate over what approach will be taken with respect to articles like this. There was a recent arbitration on the atheism page in which the conflict revolved around virtually identical problems. Mr. Shafly (who owns this wiki) has yet to make a determination on the arbitrator's recommendations in that case. When he does, we'll all know what direction he wants his wiki to take -- whether he wants articles to take an "us vs. them hit 'em with everything you got 'cause they're evil" approach, or a "describe accurately and let the facts speak for themselves because the facts support conservative beliefs in the end" approach. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 23:14, 13 September 2007 (EDT) − :Ungtss, you want us to present various views and make no indications on what is true or false and to supposedly take a neutral position. I don't see the point of a encyclopedia that has an article on the [[earth]] and spends a lot of time on the flat earth view and the round earth position and takes the same approach in the rest of the article in regards to whether there are really astronauts (giving the pros and con positions) and then spends a lot of time on conspiracy government view versus whether the government is not largely conspiratorial. Such a methodology is taking a [[postmodernism|postmodern]] approach and is not fitting for a real encyclopedia. There is such a thing as objective truth and postmodernism is a liberal ideology and not befitting '''Conserv'''apedia (we are not '''Neutral'''pedia! )[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:45, 13 September 2007 (EDT) − ::It's also not meant to me '''Retardo'''pedia. The student panel said "However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution" yet there is '''no''' description of what modern evolutionary is, and repeatedly confuses the scientific fact of evolution with neo-darwinian theory that explains it. It's hardly postmodern to include a description of the most influential intellectual movement in the history of biology even if you think it isn't true (are there articles on Britanica or wikipedia on Lamarkism? saltationism? Orthogenesis? - all theories of evolution that have been superceeded but are important parts of the intelectual geneology of evolutonary thinking...). It would certianly be better than a long quote mine interspersed with extrapolations and missconceptions that noone is allowled to fix...--[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 00:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT) − ::: conservative, i addressed your allegations against me on my user page because this is not the appropriate forum for that. Your analogy to an article about the earth fails because it is a false analogy. If the article were about ''flat earthism'' then i would ''hope'' we'd describe the pov before bunking it. Same here. The panel acknowledged the absence of a meaningful, concise, accurate definition of the toe. I proposed one. You ignored it. Nothing new. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:24, 14 September 2007 (EDT) − − Criticizing evolutionary theory on the basis of it having been misused to justify Communism, Nazism, etc., is largely irrelevant and perhaps dishonest. The fact that a theory has been misused for some dubious purpose is not in itself grounds for criticism of said theory. If I might be permitted to strike a little too close to home, Christian theology has used to justify slavery and racism of various kinds, something that I'm sure would not sit too well with a lot of Christians.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 17:19, 27 September 2007 (EDT) − :Nothing in the theory of evolution explicitly forbids placing a racist or totalitarian construction on it. Indeed, the very ''thrust'' of evolutionary theory is that superior species--or races--shall inevitably triumph over their inferior rivals. I can hear the Wagnerian strains even now as I write this--not to mention ''Horstwesselleid''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 22:48, 27 September 2007 (EDT) − ::::Obviously nothing will convince you; your mind is already made up, but here goes: Note again what I said about how Christian theology has been misused to justify slavery and racism.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 23:36, 27 September 2007 (EDT) − :Who was the key figure in fighting racism in the United States? An evolutionist or was it the Reverend Martin Luther King? Second, here is what the African American author Thomas Sowell wrote: "The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called "the religious right" and its organization was created by conservative businessmen."[http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4126] I challenge you to show me that the evolutionary community were the key players in ending slavery and not the "religious right". By the way, you might wish to do a study on the gentleman William Wilberforce. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:28, 28 September 2007 (EDT) − :: I thought about the speeches I heard from MLK and it seems to me as if he could be a evolutionist and so I checked into it and found he was an evolutionist. [http://books.google.com/books?id=k8uPHtrU8BsC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=%22martin+luther+king%22+and+theory+of+evolution&source=web&ots=nwZjR0zyux&sig=yHyzIFd0gqWh4XgzOZQZqA6RJT0#PPA99,M1] However, I stand by the Sowell comment. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT) − :::You have still missed the point Conservative, Wilberforce and other abolitionists where inspired by their religious thinking but equally the Southern Baptist Convention saw a justification for slavery in the Bible. As [[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] has said criticising a scientific theory for the way some people have extended it beyond it's actual purpose (to explain elements of the natural world) into societal or even moral/ethical theories is kind of irrelevant. Christianity can still be true even if some racists used it to justify slavery and evolutionary theory can still be right even if evil people used to justify their evil deeds. It's also a bit rich to imagine that the 'evolutionary community' could have done much to end slavery, the emancipation proclamation was made 4 years after Darwin published the origin and the abolitionist movements (in the UK in particular) go back much longer than that. --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 22:24, 1 October 2007 (EDT) − − Actually the civil rights community was heavily made up by communists and secularists. They were of two minds A) make the US look bad for its racism or B) continue the fight against injustice where ever it springs up. King only used the churchs and religious language because they worked. However SNEC was definately secular and MLK's inner circle included commies. Oh and ironically enough Stalin and Hitler didn't believe in Darwinian evolution. Hitler believed the German's were descended from giants and Stalin was a Lammarkian. Social Darwinism is what you are attacking. I fail to see how it is any different then the divine right of Kings when it comes to opprssing the poor. Except the fact that it has been shown to be false. The only Western country that didn't give in to the Eugenics movement was Britain, due interestingly enough to a Libertarian member of the house of commons. Also note gravity was used to design more efficient ways of shooting artillary and killing people. -Sam Line 270:
Line 178: − − ==First paragraph== − The CBS report in the opening paragraph is by now three years old. Yes, at the bottom of the page it says the date is July 14, 2007, but, when you click on the link it says quite clearly that the report was printed on Nov. 22, 2004. Below this it clearly says: ''(This poll was conducted November 18-21, 2004.)'' Could someone with access to editing this page replace it with a recent poll? The most recent poll on evolution I could find is one conducted by the Gallup Organization on May 14, 2007 which you can see [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm here]. − (I know there is no category in the poll on God-guided evolution, but this is the best I could find at the moment.) [[User:JK899|JK899]] 16:34, 4 December 2007 (EST) − :I've changed the date in the footnote of the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:12, 5 December 2007 (EST) − :You'll find that religious tolerance is generally not a website that is viewed as being forthright in their presentation of information. It may be better to find the information from Gallup directly since religious tolerance has a tendency to leave things out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:53, 5 December 2007 (EST) − − ==Error in judgement== − − Yes, many great scientists didnt discover evolution, most likely because it was no where near their area of expertese!!! Your arguement is like saying that Babe Ruth never won the NBA!!!--[[User:Athiest101|Athiest101]] 16:01, 5 December 2007 (EST) − − == Scientific Community Consensus == − − There seems to be a few errors of judgment in here. For example it says how bloodletting was once thought to be able to help sick people. However it is <i>because of science</i> that it is known to be unhealthy now. Lead was once thought to be harmless but now it is well known to be harmful, unless you do not trust the medical community enough to believe them when they say something is poisonous? Anyway, the point that I am trying to make is that while scientific consensus may not always be right, it is not always wrong. Of course I'm not really sure what this section has to do with evolution to begin with − And with the animals that the bible was right on? What about where the bible states that serpents eat dust? Just because scientists were wrong doesn't make everything they say wrong, the same should go for the bible as well. The fact is science makes an effort to find out if they are wrong and will revise things accordingly. -[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 22:38, 7 December 2007 (EST) − :The point of it is to show that the Bible is always right, whereas science is not. Of course science is right a lot of the time, but it would be silly to use science to argue that the Bible is wrong when science itself is sometimes wrong. The Bible is not wrong about snakes eating dust, as is explained [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1298 here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:06, 8 December 2007 (EST) − ::Which version of the Bible do you read?[[User:RyanMiller|RyanMiller]] 15:21, 8 December 2007 (EST) − :::: Usually, but not exclusively, the NIV. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:54, 9 December 2007 (EST) − :::Philip, not to stir up controversy, but exactly what is the point of any article or person attempting to show/say that the Bible is always correct? That's a lot of hubris there if you ask me. Yes, science has been wrong, but that's the definition of science and scientific theory - it needs to be falsifiable and testable with the ability to generate new hypotheses. Things obviously change as we learn. Anyway, perhaps you could clarify your comment for me.... [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:09, 8 December 2007 (EST) − :::: I didn't put that bit in the article, so in one sense I can't say why it's there, and neither can I say that I would have included it. But I guess the point is that so many people believe that science has proved the Bible wrong that it's good to point out that science is not infallible, whereas nobody yet has proved the Bible wrong, despite many attempts to do so. So why use a fallible source to pass judgement on another source which has demonstrated its reliability? Which one is more believable? − :::: By the way, to the readers from another website which doesn't deserve the publicity by being named, note that I did ''not'' say that "science is useless". But then you can't expect anything approaching accuracy and fairness from that site. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:54, 9 December 2007 (EST) − :Rainedaye, I believe you showed a lack of due diligence in regards to your snakes/eat/dust comment. You really should be more careful in regards to your presumptiousness in regards to the Bible and its alleged lack of scientific accuracy. If you had gone to footnote 191 and done your due diligence you would see that snakes do eat dust (see: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1298/ ). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:36, 15 December 2007 (EST) − − − == '''Glaring Errors'''== − − This article is a travesty to the conservative American cause. It is replete with glaring omissions, lies, quotes mines, etc. Among them: − − - An incomplete definition of evolution − − - Almost a complete absence of the mechanisms of evolution − − - The assumption that a theory’s validity should be subject to the popular view of the scientifically ignorant public − − And these three observations are all applicable to the first few paragraphs. I could go on and on about the many errors but I'll just highlight one example in paragraph four. Mark Ridley is quoted as asserting ''"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."'' The reference given for this quote is: Mark Ridley, '''Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831''. − − Funny enough, when I checked the reference I found the entire quote in context, all you had to do was read what Ridley said on the pages immediately prior and following: − ''"Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media. '''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. 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. 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."'' ''Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, '''p. 830 - 832.''' '' − − Needless to say, you are, at a minimum, misrepresenting what Ridley is claiming. Checking the archives I noticed that this error was pointed out months ago and has gone uncorrected, so it seems this is more than just a case of simple misrepresentation. This is the type of reasoning I'd expect from a lunatic fringe blog, not an encyclopedia.--Jimmy 12:46, 16 December 2007 (EST) − − :You may or may not see a reply to your contestion anytime soon. The overwhelming majority of this article was written by one editor, but he's often busy with one project or another. If you don't hear back and you'd like to follow this up, I can direct you to his talk page [[User Talk:Conservative|here]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:04, 16 December 2007 (EST) − − − : There's things about the article that I'd like to see changed too, so I won't comment on most of Jimmy's points, but as far as the quote from Mark Ridley is concerned, he hasn't explained ''how'' it is out of context. "Out of context" means that some of the context ''that changes the meaning of the quote'' has been omitted. How does anything that Ridley said in your extended quote of him change the fact that he said that the fossil record is not used as evidence in support of evolution? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:06, 16 December 2007 (EST) − − ::How does Conservative take Ridley's comments out of context? For many reasons that should be obvious. − − ::1. Conservative quotes Ridley as saying, "The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is counter evidence to the evolutionary position", and then quotes Ridley saying the fossil record doesn't favor evolution. Yet what Conservative quoted said nothing about counter evidence to evolution, Ridley is silent on that part of Conservative's assertion. − − ::2. Conservative said the article would provide further discussion about his two points, yet this does not happen. All he provides is three partial quotes and a link to more quote mines. − − ::3. Ridley's comment when taken in its entirety is not supporting the point Conservative is trying to make. Ridley starts by saying the creationists, amongst others, are getting it wrong and there are many other arguments that can be used for evolution. − − ::4. Ridley is stressing several points about the fossil record. Creationists are wrong, evolutionists aren't using the fossil record to favor evolution over creation, evolution is not unproven, yet none of these points seem to be credible in the eyes of Conservative. − − ::To sum up, Conservative is only addressing one of the points Ridley is trying to make and then he is misrepresenting what Ridley is trying to say. Ridley is saying evolutionists aren't using the fossil record to prove their theory. Yet Conservative thinks otherwise and he is asserting that because the fossil record does not support evolution, this somehow means this is evidence against evolution, even though Ridley says otherwise.--Jimmy 16:03, 16 December 2007 (EST) − − ::: 1. You are incorrect to claim that the article quotes Ridley saying "The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is counter evidence to the evolutionary position". That is not part of the Ridley quote. The ''article'' says that the fossil record (a) does not support evolution and (b) is counter to the evolutionary position. It is true that the Ridley quote only supports one of these two points, but that does not mean that Ridley is being quoted out of context, and the article does not claim that the Ridly quote supports ''both'' of those points. − ::: 2. I haven't checked the rest of the article to see if you are correct on this point, but this has nothing to do with whether or not the Ridley quote is out of context. − ::: 3. Ridley's quote taken in its entirety is not supporting all the claims in the article, but it is not intended to. The fact that it only supports one claim does not mean that it is taken out of context. − ::: 4. Yes, Ridley says makes several ''other'' points, but they don't change the meaning of the point that he is being quoted on. − ::: In summary, you have failed to demonstrate your original contention that the quote was taken out of context. − ::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 16 December 2007 (EST) − − ::::I see the error I made in point 1. I should have said ''Conservative claims "The fossil record..." '' But my point still stands, Ridley starts by saying creationists are getting it wrong and then says evolutionists do not say fossil evidence supports evolution. Yet Conservative is saying evolutionists are doing just that. If he had quoted Ridley correctly, there is no way he would have used this quote mine in the first place.--Jimmy 23:15, 16 December 2007 (EST) − − ::::: I thought this issue was clear from the italicized full quote you provided above - after giving it a thorough once over I have to concur with Jimmy. The quotation is being used disingenuously. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:00, 17 December 2007 (EST) − − :::::: No, the issue is not clear at all, and Jimmy's complaint was that it was "out of context", not that it was "disingenuous". He has not demonstrated that it was out of context. − :::::: "''...Ridley starts by saying creationists are getting it wrong...'': Creationists are getting "what" wrong? Presumably something that he's already referred to ''before'' the section that you've quoted. And presumably not what he then goes on to talk about. In other words, that does not show that the quote is taken out of context. − :::::: "''[Ridley]...says evolutionists do not say fossil evidence supports evolution''": True, he is saying essentially that, although I'd point out that the context indicates that he is talking about evolutionary ''scientists'', not the average man in the street who believes evolution to be true. As an aside, this is why this point is pertinent, because the average man in the street will point to the fossil record as the main evidence for evolution. − :::::: "''...Conservative is saying evolutionists are doing just that.''": No, he doesn't say that evolutionary scientists are using the fossil record as evidence of evolution. There is an ''implication'' that the fossil record supposedly supports the idea of evolution, but this ''implication'' does not specify that evolutionary ''scientists'' use it as evidence, and can just as easily be read as referring to the average man in the street who believes that the fossil record supports evolution. − :::::: "''If he had quoted Ridley correctly...''": He DID quote Ridley correctly. Your accusation was not that he quoted Ridley incorrectly, but ''out of context'', yet you have still failed to show how the ''meaning'' of the article's quote is changed by the fuller quote. − :::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 17 December 2007 (EST) − :::::::Tell ya what Phil, why not try to convince Conservative to use this quote from Ridley? '''"Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media. 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."''' There is no question in my mind that he won't because creationists tend to be in the habit of using quote mines and selective quotations to get their point across. That's why Stephen J. Gould<ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html</ref> made the following comment; ''"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."'' --Jimmy 20:27, 17 December 2007 (EST) − :::::::: "''Tell ya what Phil, why not try to convince Conservative to use this quote from Ridley?''": So you're giving up your claim that Ridley was quoted out of context? Tell ya what, Jim, how about admitting your mistake if you want to be taken seriously? − :::::::: What would be the purpose in providing the fuller quote? The first problem is that it is out of context. That is, the word "it" in "Someone is getting '''it''' wrong" looks like it is referring to something that he's being talking about earlier (as I have already pointed out). So without that context, the quote is somewhat pointless. The second problem is that it appears to be just expressing an opinion that is in line with his views. To put it another way, if an evolutionist says "I believe that the evidence supports evolution", that's hardly noteworthy, because that's what you'd ''expect'' him to say. If, on the other hand, an evolutionist says "I believe that the evidence does not support evolution", then that ''is'' noteworthy and worth quoting, because it's ''not'' what you'd expect him to say. My point is that there needs to be a good reason for quoting someone, and you haven't given a good reason for the fuller quote from Ridley, and I don't see a good reason. − :::::::: "''..creationists tend to be in the habit of using quote mines and selective quotations to get their point across.'': And anti-creationists tend to be in the habit of throwing out sweeping accusations like this without the evidence to back it up. I've personally checked quite a few claims of supposed quoting out of context by creationists, and most turn out to be incorrect, trivial, or otherwise unsubstantiated. You have provided such an example yourself, by claiming that Ridley was quoted out of context, and that claim was incorrect. So why should I take any notice of your unsubstantiated sweeping claim? − :::::::: As far as Gould's comment is concerned, see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1585/ here]. Gould's comment can be explained in two ways: (A) that creationists are guilty as charged, or (B) that he didn't like the accusations from fellow evolutionists that he was providing ammunition to the creationists, so was trying to pass the blame on to creationists. Note that he didn't substantiate his charge against creationists; he merely asserted it, and as far as I know nobody has shown how creationists quoting Gould are doing so out of context. So I opt for (B). See also point 5 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610/#disagreement here]. − :::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 17 December 2007 (EST) − :::::::::Providing the the full quote from Ridley would be taking him "out of context"? You've got to be kidding! Just imagine the fun people could have by simply using fancy editing to prove their point. This evolution article is full of it, open your eyes! If you can't see how Ridley's comment is being misused, it would be pure folly for me to try and convince you that Gould is being mis-quoted by creationists. I looked at your references, just another example of creationists mis-quoting and quote mining. Take a look at the Talk Origins Quote Mine project, it is interesting[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html]. Continuing this conversation will get us nowhere, I've made my point and the readers of our comments will make up their own minds.--Jimmy 21:52, 17 December 2007 (EST) − :::::::::: This is little more that argument by assertion and argument by outrage—neither of which are valid forms of argument. I can't see how Ridley's quote is being misused because you have totally failed to explain how the meaning of it is changed by its context. You haven't even ''tried'' to do that! So don't go accusing me of being close-minded when you have not even tried to substantiate your claim with an appropriate explanation. − :::::::::: "''I looked at your references, just another example of creationists mis-quoting and quote mining.''": On the contrary, your reply was yet another sweeping claim with no evidence to back it up. Yes, people can make up their own minds, but I'd suggest that they will see that you have done nothing to back up that sweeping claim and dismiss your comments as pointless. − :::::::::: I have looked at the Talk.Origins quote mining project before. It's one of the sources I had in mind when I wrote above that I've checked out such claims and found them wanting. See, for example, [http://www.creationwiki.net/Quote-mining_(Talk.Origins) this article] on CreationWiki, that, from memory, I wrote. − :::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:47, 17 December 2007 (EST) − − == Errors in Disproving Evolution == − − Well, the sheer number of things I could say about this page are extensive, but I'll restrict myself to one passage - the part about scientists being 'wrong' about animal behaviour and the Bible being right. Why this section is on this page is a total mystery. It seems to be attempting to disprove the theory of evolution by disproving...well...science, basically. However, the main point is that upon reading the sources for these claims, the evidence is not as clear-cut as this section makes out. Let's take the lions first. Firstly, the source claims that 'Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw', and goes onto say that this is contradicted by the Bible which states that, 'The lion...strangled prey for his lionesses'. Well, firstly, how did the lion strangle the prey? My guess would be, maybe, biting it in the throat or neck - one of the two ways given by this source that naturalists claimed the lion killed it's prey. Secondly, even this source agrees the Bible got it wrong - it is the LIONESSES that do most of the hunting, not the lions. − − Let's move onto the snakes. The source says that zoologists and scientists have claimed that snakes are deaf, or almost totally deaf. It then provides a passage from the Bible which seems to claim that snakes can hear. It then provides third-hand evidence in the form of a newspaper article quoting a Dr. David I Macht who was told by 'a number of Hindu physicians' that snakes respond to musical tones. Hardly conclusive. It then goes onto provide what seems to be a wealth of evidence DISproving that snakes can hear - instead they sense vibrations through the ground they are on. It then goes onto providing evidence that suggests snakes MAY be able to hear certain limited frequencies of sound. Not that snakes DEFINITELY hear. − − Then let's address ants. Firstly, this source tells of a passage in the Bible where the diligence of ants storing up provisions is an example to be emulated. This source then goes onto to quote another source that 'It is well known that the ancient Greeks and Romans believed that the ant stored up food'. This, presumably, also included the ancient Greek and Roman thinkers and philosophers, what we would, perhaps, call 'scientists' now. He then provides another source which explains it all in full detail - 'The ancient writers lived around the Mediterranean where harvesting ants are common. Probably they considered all ants as harvesters. Many centuries later, the beginning of modern science blossomed forth in more northern temperate countries, where harvesters are unknown. And so it was that these northern scientists by the eighteenth century began first to question, then to refute, the existence of any such creatures. The pendulum of scientific thought had swung in the opposite direction, despite the fierce opposition met in defying the word of the Bible. − In the nineteenth century, as ants were studied more carefully and in additional parts of the world, it was gradually learned that some ants, although not all, are harvesters. Thus was removed the tarnish that in some scientific circles had dulled the veracity of Solomon.' The earlier thinking that ants were not harvesters was not proven wrong, per se, but merely proven incomplete - all of the ants in temperate ares were not harvesters. Some of those further south, nearer the Mediterranean, were.[[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 11:27, 18 December 2007 (EST) − :Harvester Ants are a species native to Arizona. Maybe a better term should be used to aviod confusion. Maybe 'agricultural' ants? {{unsigned|PsychoDolly}} − : I'm not going to address most of your post, because most of it refers to matters that I don't know a lot about, but regarding your first comment about why the section is there, see the [[#Scientific Community Consensus|Scientific Community Consensus]] section above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:23, 19 December 2007 (EST) − ::Well, even the claim that 'it is there to prove that science is sometimes wrong and the Bible is always right' does not make sense - one of the sources used for this claim even actually agrees that certain behaviour by lions seems inconsistent with the Bible's claims. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 10:16, 19 December 2007 (EST) − − == What does the ToE have to do with atheism? == − − Last time I checked the theory of evolution was a scientific theory, not a metaphysical view of the world, therefor it has nothing to say on the existence of any gods whatsoever. By conflating the Theory of Evolution with atheism the authors of this article are being intellectually dishonest. {{unsigned|2112}} − :That evolution is a scientific theory is one of the claims of its supporters, but is questioned by creationists. Whether it is considered scientific or not, it is based on the assumption of naturalism, i.e. that there is no God. At least two prominent evolutionists have said that it was Darwin's intention to explain things without God. And others have said that evolution supports their atheism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:00, 19 December 2007 (EST) − ::That's not the point. The point of the poster was to highlight the fact that it's 100% possible to believe in a created world and an intelligent designer, AND evolution. In fact since evolution has evidence and a created world has no evidence the evolution theory is more valid than the created world theory. − ::Darwin was a Christian, who did not feel comfortable with his theory as it did seem to him to remove the power of God, but it actually makes God even more impressive. What's more powerful, to click your fingers and the universe to be created, or to click your fingers and the big bang occurs, creating the evolution of the universe and all organisms within it? Darwinian Evolution is NOT evidence against the existance of God, nor is it in any way related except to unintelligent fundamentalists who believe that a book written slowly over thousands of years by humans with political aims, is the direct word of an invisible man who lives in the sky. {{unsigned|PsychoDolly}} − :::: I don't agree that that was the point of the poster, and I'd suggest that you don't know for sure either, unless you are he under a different name. But even though you are correct that it is ''possible'' to believe in both evolution and a Creator (although not the God of the Bible), I didn't actually say that it wasn't possible, did I? I was basically making a case that the two are closely intertwined; I didn't say that they were totally inseparable. − :::: That there is no evidence for a created world is nothing more than anti-creationist nonsense. In fact, as creationists have said before, both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is the interpretation put on that evidence. − :::: Darwin was raised in a Christian society and was nominally Christian to start with, but became an agnostic or atheist. I cannot agree that evolution makes God more impressive, but that's a non-issue really. The point is that evolution is ''contrary'' to both the biblical record and to the nature of God as described in the Bible. So it's not just a question of whether God could have used evolution, but whether he ''did'' use evolution. The biblical record says that he did not, so belief in evolution requires (if one is being consistent) a disbelief in what the Bible teaches about creation. That is, the two are not compatible. − :::: And your contempt for what you term "fundamentalists" and for the Bible is blatant. When you resort to abusive ad hominem arguments to make your point, you have no point. − :::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:59, 20 December 2007 (EST) − :::::Anyone who cannot see that an English book is not the word of a non-physical meta being just because it says so, does not live up to the levels of intelligence I expect from people who accept to be taken seriously. You can believe ungrounded 'facts' if you like, but I've never met an intelligent religious person who thinks that the world was literally created in six days as is, and that all the evidence of historical and modern natural selection and evolution was planted by God to fool us scientifically minded folk who investigate our universe. So to all intelligent, non-fundamental theists can and should accept evolution if they consider the evidence in favour of it. If they don't then coming up with something other than "but this doesnt sound like what was written down thousands of years ago when we didnt understand the universe like we do today". − :::::The point is, that the article is saying "Atheists believe in evolution, therfore it is wrong." But that's absolutely not the point, atheism (the existance or non existance of God has absolutely nothing to do with whether evolution exists.[[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:18, 28 December 2007 (EST) − :::::: "''...an English book ...''": An English ''translation'' of a book written mostly in Hebrew and Greek. Not that that changes anything, but that's the point: Your mention of it being English is irrelevant, and suggests that you don't really know what you are talking about. − :::::: "''Anyone who cannot see that an English book is not the word of a non-physical meta being just because it says so does not live up to the levels of intelligence I expect from people who accept to be taken seriously''": We don't believe it to be the Word of God "just because it says so". Anyone who thinks that's the only reason we consider it God's word shouldn't expect to be taken seriously. − :::::: "''I've never met an intelligent religious person who thinks that the world was literally created in six days as is...''": Neither have I. We don't believe that it was created in six days "as is". We believe that it was created perfect (without fault) in six days, but that because man rejected God, it has deteriorated since. Furthermore, God later destroyed the world with a flood. So the world that you see today is ''not'' the world that God created in six days. If your point was the "six days" rather than the "as is", then, hello, I'm Philip. Pleased to meet you. There, you've just met an intelligent person (I like to think so anyway) who does believe that. − :::::: "''...all the evidence of historical and modern natural selection and evolution was planted by God to fool us scientifically minded folk who investigate our universe.''": Oh, so much wrong with that one sentence! − ::::::* Creationists ''believe in'' natural selection! It was described by a creationist before Darwin popularised it. But [[natural selection]] is not evolution. − ::::::* We don't believe that God "planted" evidence to fool us. We accept the evidence (fossils, rock layers, etc.), but have a different story to explain them. − ::::::* Creationists ''are'' scientifically-minded. That's why many creationists are scientists! − ::::::* Science ''is based on'' creationism. See [[natural science#Beginnings|Natural science]]. Science was started by people who believed that God created a world that was able to be investigated. − ::::::"'''If they don't then coming up with something other than "but this doesnt sound like what was written down thousands of years ago when we didnt understand the universe like we do today".''": That doesn't sound like a complete sentence. But more to the point, that's not the rationale for creationism, and that presumes what it's trying to argue. That is, it ''presumes'' that God doesn't exist or didn't create as explained in the Bible, and that the Bible was therefore written by primitive men who didn't know what really happened. Conversely, if the Bible is true, then it had the all-knowing God Who created the world as its ultimate author, and He ''understands the universe and knows what happened''! An argument that assumes its own conclusion is a circular argument. − :::::: What your post has shown is that you have no idea of the issue that you are discussing. If you want to be taken seriously on a subject, make the effort to find out about it before ranting off about how wrong it is and its supporters are. − :::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:42, 28 December 2007 (EST) − − ::: As [[Richard Dawkins]] said evolution allows people to be intellectually fulfilled atheists. Without evolution atheism fails. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 15:41, 20 December 2007 (EST) − One way of phrasing it, perhaps, is that evolution is a ''necessary'' condition for atheism but not a ''sufficient'' one. That is, atheism requires a naturalistic explanation of origins, but evolution (even if it's correct) does not preclude the existence of God. Or, alternatively, atheism requires evolution, but evolution does not require atheism.--[[User:Recorder|Recorder]] 16:16, 20 December 2007 (EST) − : True, except as I've just added above, evolution is inconsistent with the biblical record and with the God of the Bible. That is, I'm only agreeing that evolution can be consistent with a god of one's own invention. Another point is that many atheists use evolution as an argument against God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 20 December 2007 (EST) − − Agreed, at least in part. In my comment above, I meant to refer to God in a more general sense, not the God as presented in the literal Biblical record in particular--sort of a "natural knowledge of God" vs. "revealed (biblical) knowledge of God" distinction. I'd add that I think that the "evolution occurred, ergo no divine being can exist" argument is pretty weak, and I speculate that more than a few atheists would agree. I'd say (although I could be wrong) that atheists would view evolution as an "enabler" of their (non)belief system rather than a basis for it, which might be what the Dawkins quote that SkipJohnson mentioned refers to.--[[User:Recorder|Recorder]] 12:15, 21 December 2007 (EST) − − :That's very true. Just as "no missing link has been found therfore hominids did not evolve from primates but were placed on Earth by God" is a nonsense argument. If God created the world, God created evolution. I see no reason to suppose that the Bible need be 100% literally correct for God to exist. God and the bible are again, totally unrelated. All you know of God is what other people have told you, why are you to suppose they are correct? − :The question of the nature of God is one that cannot be answered, so instead in our investigation of the world we look at evidence and conduct experiments to determine the nature of things. Should they prove a few popes wrong, I dont see how that is an attack on God. 'God' is not the same thing as 'religious doctrine' [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:18, 28 December 2007 (EST) − :: "''Just as "no missing link has been found therfore hominids did not evolve from primates but were placed on Earth by God" is a nonsense argument''": Which may be why creationists don't use it. But a legitimate argument is, "no missing link has been found therefore ''it's reasonable to conclude that'' hominids did not evolve from primates but were placed on Earth by God". That is, a lack of evidence for evolution doesn't ''prove'' creation, but it does tend to ''support'' the idea. − :: "''If God created the world, God created evolution.''": That presumes that evolution exists, which is really the point in contention, isn't it. A circular argument again. − ::"''I see no reason to suppose that the Bible need be 100% literally correct for God to exist.''": Most Christians don't consider the Bible to be 100% literally correct. They recognise the existence of analogy, parables, metaphor, etc. But creationists ''and non-creationist experts'' do consider the creation account to have been written as literal history. − ::"''God and the bible are again, totally unrelated.''": That's your unsupported opinion, not an argument. I believe that there's good reason to believe otherwise. − ::"''All you know of God is what other people have told you, why are you to suppose they are correct?''": That opinion relies on your previous unsupported opinion. Most of what I know of God is what the Bible tells me. − ::"''The question of the nature of God is one that cannot be answered...''": How do you know it cannot be answered? − ::"''...we look at evidence and conduct experiments to determine the nature of things''": As do creationists, who, unlike you, don't ''a priori'' rule God out as part of the explanation. − :: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:59, 28 December 2007 (EST) − − Man you have to get edits to talk in quick before being banned for 'Not using your real name'. Odd how it's not required when you sign up. User1601 is PsychoDolly [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:18, 28 December 2007 (EST) − : The registration page says (my emphasis): − {{QuoteBox|Offensive user names will result in that user name being blocked and perhaps the IP address being blocked. '''Frivolous user names''', names of prominent living persons, and user names consisting of, for example, all capital letters or all the same character, '''may also result in that user name being blocked'''. User names based on your real name or initials are preferred.}} − : [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:59, 28 December 2007 (EST) − − == Quote Mines == − − This article is of extremely poor quality. Over half of it consists of quote mines. The author took quotes from well respected scientists and quoted them in a way that makes it look as if those scientists were doubting the theory of evolution. If the author would actually go to the original source and find the quotes for himself or herself, instead of relying on creationist sources, they would quickly find out that the intention of the scientist is far from what the quote mine suggests. {{unsigned|2112}} − : Please specify which quotes make the scientists look like they doubt evolution. I ask because (a) we can't correct it if we don't know which ones you are talking about, and (b) I've heard this claim made incorrectly before, so I doubt that it's true. I will add, though, that I'd agree that the intention of the scientist is not to question evolution, but that doesn't mean that you can't quote them saying something that contradicts evolution. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:04, 19 December 2007 (EST) − ::I agree with the OP. I was reading it trying to find something actually <i>about</i> the Theory of Evolution, but could not. The entire article is very quote heavy (approx 50% is pure quotes). If you submitted this in any form of achedemic examination it would achieve a failing grade. − ::While it may well be that the theory of evolution is not complete; and indeed creating the very FIRST life has not been possible to replicate; to not explain what it is and instead simply quote out of context many people (some names such as Matt Ridley are even incorrect) and to then lock the article so it cannot be edited... It really makes me think this website is worth nothing when it comes to reliability of information and balenced reporting. {{unsigned|PsychoDolly}} − ::: I'm not defending the article overall, and have said before that it's not the way I'd like it, but you repeat the accusation of the quotes being out of context yet despite all the discussion on this above, still don't actually show how any are out of context. So I think that ''your accusations'' (well, that one anyway) are "worth nothing". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:08, 20 December 2007 (EST) − ::::I honestly don't know of half of the quotes used on the article. Those that I have heard of were not intended to be taken to the extreme they have been. For example; Darwin's statement that he could not imagine how the eye could evolve - yes he could not imagine it, nor can I. It does not mean we think that defeats our argument. − ::::You use evidence of a bacterial flagellum, which the article claims cannot be reduced - well yes it can. The proteins that are in the plasma membrane are the same as those found in active pumps, meaning that a flagellum is not evidence of something existing that cannot have evolved. − ::::While trying to post comments to this talk page I've been banned twice, so forgive me if I don't care what you think of my opinions. Nobody can change the page as it is locked, and the people writing it had an obviously biased viewpoint. I'm not in the slightest bit convinced you are interested in the truth. [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:25, 28 December 2007 (EST) − ::::: Umm, what statement from Darwin about the eye? I just did a search on "eye" in the article, and could find no such statement. Perhaps you mean the statement by Mayr? Okay, you're right: It doesn't mean that Mayr rejects evolution. But that's the point: Here's ''an evolutionist'' admitting that not only is there no evidence for something, it's barely even possible to ''imagine'' how it could happen! − ::::: That the plasma membrane has the same proteins does not negate the argument. That's like trying to refute an argument that the motor of a train could not have come about by evolution by pointing out that the nuts in the motor are also found in the body of the train. − ::::: As for bias, you wouldn't be biased on this, would you? − ::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 29 December 2007 (EST) − − == Examples of Transitional forms == − − In your section on transitional forms you should include some positive evidence for the theory of evolution, instead of blatant quote mines. There are plenty of transitional fossils in the record, such as tiktaalik, the 'fishibian', and archeopteryx. {{unsigned|2112}} − : "Plenty"? Then why is it that the same handful of questionable ones keep getting cited? From memory, Gould rejected the Archaeopteryx as transitional, and tiktaalik is far from convincing[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4250/]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:17, 19 December 2007 (EST) − ::Since we were talking about Gould earlier, you may want to know that he considered archaeopteryx a transitional, or in his own words, ''''… is as pretty an intermediate as paleontology could ever hope to find - a complex mélange of reptilian and avian features.'''' P144 - 145 of ''Bully for Brontosaurus'', copy write 1991. My question is this. Since you consider Gould to be an authority on whether or not a specimen is transitional, will you heed the suggestion of the previous commenter and recommend archaeopteryx as an excellent example of a transitional form and include it in this article? − − ::Why did you link to a Jonathan Sarfati article concerning ''Tiktaalik roseae''? Why not the original peer-reviewed article in ''Nature''? --Jimmy 14:00, 20 December 2007 (EST) − ::: There appears to be a distinction between ''intermediate'' and ''transitional''. We were talking about ''transitional'' fossils; Gould referred to Archaeopteryx as ''intermediate''. In order to show that one creature has evolved into a quite different creature (such as a reptile into a bird), you need more than just a third creature that has aspects of both. Reptiles lay eggs, mammals have fur, and the platypus both lays eggs and has fur. Does that make it transitional, or just a creature with features in common with both? (I hope the answer is obvious.) What you need is a whole series of transitions that demonstrate a smooth process. Gould's point, apparently, was that there is no such thing. Archaeopteryx was the nearest one could get to an intermediate form, but failed to show this smooth transition. The quote that I was referring to from Gould is, "Smooth intermediates … are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)." So whilst he ''may'' not have been rejecting it as intermediate between reptiles and birds, it is not an example of a ''transitional'' form. − ::: The Sarfati article provides the reference for the Nature article, so you got both for the price of one! Secondly, the Nature article is only available for members or for a fee. Thirdly (though in no particular order), I'm sure that the Nature article would not have highlighted the problems with considering the fossil to be intermediate. − ::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:37, 20 December 2007 (EST) − ::::I can tell you are grasping at straws here. An intermediate fossil is for the most part synonymous with transitional, please read up on the difference before casually discarding Gould's assertion. Where did you get your quote mine about Gould anyway? This is just one of the things that aggravated him when he made his famous quote about creationists and stupidity. His theory of punctuated equilibrium was the explanation for why there are no "smooth intermediates … even in thought experiments." Do yourself a favor and try to get the quotes of biologists from primary sources, not creationists; it's less embarrassing that way. − − ::::As far as the ''tiktaalik roseae'' article is concerned, should I believe an article that has gone through a rigorous peer-review or a short blurb written by someone operating on the fringes of science? I wonder why Sarfati didn't submit his rebuttal to ''Nature''; it would be nice if creationists participated in the scientific process instead of merely critiquing others.--Jimmy 23:18, 20 December 2007 (EST) − ::::: If you had asked politely instead of with such insult and arrogance, I would have provided the source, but you can find it for yourself now. − ::::: I agree that "for the most part" an intermediate fossil is synonymous with a transitional one, but Gould seems to be making something of a distinction, and I was trying to accommodate what he was saying, not "discard" it, as you seem to be doing by arrogantly referring to it as a "quote mine", despite me doing nothing different to you, i.e. quoting Gould. − ::::: Was Gould really aggravated by Creationists ''misquoting'' him, or by the fact that other evolutionists were criticising him for providing ammunition to the creationists? I believe the latter to be the case, if for no other reason than I've never seen an explanation from him of just ''how'' he was misquoted. Rather, there was just the bald assertion. − ::::: Sure, I totally agree that 'His theory of punctuated equilibrium was the explanation for why there are no "smooth intermediates … even in thought experiments."'. But you seem to miss the point. Punctuated equilibrium was the explanation for an ''observation'', yet you seem to think that creationists shouldn't quote him on that ''observation''. − ::::: I'm not the embarrassed in the slightest by getting quotes from creationists, when I know that those creationists are careful to check from the primary sources that the quote is accurate. Your slur against creationists is offensive and I ask that you apologise for it. − ::::: I also ask that you apologise for the slur that creationists operate "on the fringes of science". That is arrogant evolutionary elitism. Why didn't Sarfati submit his rebuttal to ''Nature''? Apart from the fact that he wrote it for a different audience, he knows better than I do that secular journals like ''Nature'' don't publish views supporting creation, ''simply because it supports creation''. Yes, it would be nice if such journals ''allowed'' creationists to participate in the scientific process instead of being excluded from it. Can I count on you to argue for that as strongly as you've argued in your post here? Please forgive me for jumping to the conclusion that your answer will be 'no'. − ::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 21 December 2007 (EST) − ::::::If you have some evidence that a significant number of scientists accused Gould of providing ammunition for creationists, then please provide it. Until then, Gould's words stand as they are plainly written. I am insisting that creationists are misusing Gould's comments about punctuated equilibria because Gould made the accusation himself and he was tired of it, it's that simple. − − ::::::I'll try again, if you want to know how creationists are misquoting Gould, try reading what he wrote, don't read the articles of creationists that claim they have the inside scoop on what Gould or scientists like him actually said. − − ::::::I didn't intend to slur anyone. Facts are facts. There are still creationists like Duane Gish that insist Gould's theory meant a bird hatched from a reptile egg.[http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html] I find it hard to believe that some creationists actually think Gould supported that drivel, yet you don't have to look far to find it. − − ::::::It is a fact that creationists are at the fringes of science because the vast majority of biologists, anthropologists, etc are evolutionists. The creationist biologists don't even try to get their papers published in journals, they just try to force their views by using public opinion, the legislature and the courts. If you think I'm wrong, then show me a paper sent to a journal from the likes of Sarfati. − − ::::::What did Darwin do when he published his book? He had to convince his peers that his theory had merit. I don't ever recall reading about him complaining to his city council or gripping about the mean ol' men that didn't like his theory. If we could actually look a creationist paper that was rejected by a science journal, then we could see why it was rejected. I don't know of any paper, do you? I would love to see creationists work within the science community; then maybe we wouldn't see the constant harping that goes on. − − ::::::Thank-you for referring to evolutionists as elitists. These scientists have worked very hard over the past few centuries and evolution has withstood everything that has been thrown at it. These educated men and women are truly the elite, I thank you again.--Jimmy 14:19, 21 December 2007 (EST) − − ::::::: "''If you have some evidence that a significant number of scientists accused Gould of providing ammunition for creationists, then please provide it.''": How about Gould's own words? − {{QuoteBox|But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate about theory that has brought new life to evolutionary biology. It provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion. Perhaps we should lie low and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment—a kind of old-time religion on our part.}} − ::::::: Do want to know where that came from? From the reference that ''you'' provided! Here's another (also from Gould): − {{QuoteBox|Our theory became the public symbol and stalking horse for all debate within evolutionary theory. Moreover, since popular impression now falsely linked the supposed ‘trouble’ within evolutionary theory to the rise of creationism, some intemperate colleagues began to blame Eldredge and me for the growing strength of creationism.<br /><br />Thus, we stood falsely accused by some colleagues both for dishonestly exaggerating our theory to proclaim the death of Darwin (presumably for our own cynical quest for fame), and for unwittingly fostering the scourge of creationism as well,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1585/]}} − ::::::: "''I'll try again, if you want to know how creationists are misquoting Gould, try reading what he wrote, don't read the articles of creationists that claim they have the inside scoop on what Gould or scientists like him actually said.''": Then I'll try again too (because you've added nothing new): I'll keep using creationist sources when I know that those creationists are careful to check from the primary sources that the quote is accurate. Furthermore, I'm doing no different than you seem to be doing. Your claims that creationists are misquoting seem to not be taken from the creationists' quotes, but from anti-creationist accusations about them. How about ''you'' go to the original creationist sources? − ::::::: "''I didn't intend to slur anyone. Facts are facts.''". Of course facts are facts. But rhetoric and opinion are not facts, and much of what you wrote was opinion. And opinion that puts someone down is a slur. − ::::::: "''There are still creationists like Duane Gish that insist Gould's theory meant a bird hatched from a reptile egg.''": Still? I thought that you were claiming "facts"! Your reference doesn't say when Gish said that, but your reference dates to 1981! So Gish said that, at a minimum, more than a quarter of a century ago! And you've misrepresented Gish anyway. According to your source, Gish actually said that this is what Gould ''apparently'' believed. Furthermore, he had reason for doing so. − {{QuoteBox|In this regard Gould spoke favourably of the ideas of Richard Goldschmidt, a German palaeontologist from the mid-1900s who ... proposed a ‘hopeful monster’ theory, where the major body plans were seen as arising suddenly, by some sort of macromutation. This was popularly portrayed as being like a bird emerging out of a reptile egg—a ‘hopeful monster’ theory.<br /><br />Undoubtedly some creationists have misconstrued Gould’s work, conflating Gould’s writings on speciation and macroevolution, and then characterizing PE as a ‘hopeful monster’ theory. But some evolutionists have ‘misunderstood’ Gould too. Maybe this is not surprising, since Gould’s article had the term in its title,["The return of hopeful monsters"] and he said:<blockquote>‘I do, however, predict that during the next decade Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology.’</blockquote>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1585/]}} − ::::::: "''It is a fact that creationists are at the fringes of science because the vast majority of biologists, anthropologists, etc are evolutionists.''": That creationists have a different view of origins doesn't mean that they are 'on the fringes of science'. Many creationary scientists do normal (empirical) science, often for secular institutions. There's nothing fringe about their science, it's just that they have different views on origins. − ::::::: "''The creationist biologists don't even try to get their papers published in journals,...''": They often don't because they know from experience that it would be a waste of time. But it's simply not true that they've never tried. − ::::::: "''...they just try to force their views by using public opinion, the legislature and the courts.''": Ha! It's the evolutionists who censor creationist views from classrooms. It's evolutionists who scream if the media promotes creationists views. It's evolutionists who censor creationist views from science journals. Yet you've got the gall to say that it's the ''creationists'' who are trying to force their views on people! The attempts to use legislature (which, by the way, the leading creationist organisations do ''not'' support), have for the most part been attempts to stop the censorship by evolutionists, and most of the court cases have been by evolutionists trying to overturn the legislation to maintain that censorship! − ::::::: "''If you think I'm wrong, then show me a paper sent to a journal from the likes of Sarfati.''": Do you mean: − :::::::* a paper showing that a creationists can do publishable science? Try [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TXM-3YB50V4-1R&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=088c21882fc8cb4e2481d561f5866d46 this one] by Sarfati. − :::::::* a paper published in a secular journal that puts views opposed to evolution? There's [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science this famous one]. − :::::::* a paper submitted to a secular journal but rejected because it was from a creationist? Try [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/journal_of_creation/vol19/costtheory.pdf this one]. − :::::::"''If we could actually look a creationist paper that was rejected by a science journal, then we could see why it was rejected. I don't know of any paper, do you?''" If it was rejected, there's a good chance that I can't show it to you. Nevertheless, see the third bullet above, which was rejected by (at least) two secular journals. − :::::::"''Thank-you for referring to evolutionists as elitists. ... These educated men and women are truly the elite, I thank you again''": Whilst that's a clever play on words, I'm sure that you know as well as I do that that's not what it means. − :::::::"''...evolution has withstood everything that has been thrown at it.''": Bald, unsubstantiated, assertion, and of course a view that I strongly disagree with. − ::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:41, 21 December 2007 (EST) − − == Evolutionist = Atheist? == − − Don't you think its intellectually dishonest to claim that defenders of evolution are atheists, for two reasons, # 1, most scientists are religious theists, and # 2 - quoteing sources that are anti-evolution is probably not accurrate. − Also, how can religious theists have it both ways, suggesting that Charles Darwin recanted on his death bed but then suggesting he is an atheist. I for one love our lord and savior jesus and think jesus would be sad to see that us good christians are lieing on this page. − -soliderforjesus − − : The most outspoken promoters of [[evolution]] are, like [[Richard Dawkins]], [[atheists]]. It is a fact. Sure, some people can be found who say they both believe in [[evolution]] and are [[Christian]], just as one can find [[Americans]] who burn the American flag. But the exceptions do not prove the rule, and there's no doubting that [[evolution]] is pushed and promoted by [[atheists]] more than by churches.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:39, 27 December 2007 (EST) − − :: No I don't think that it's honest to do so ''if'' it is presented as an absolute rather than a generalisation. But you didn't quote the sentence, and I don't feel like looking for it from that description, so I can't comment more. − :: But your comment that "quoteing sources that are anti-evolution is probably not accurrate" appears to be bigoted nonsense, if I understand you correctly. Perhaps you can elaborate and/or justify? − :: That Darwin recanted on his death bed is an urban myth, and rejected by the leading creationist organisations. So no contradiction there. − :: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:40, 28 December 2007 (EST) − − ::I'm not sure you're correct there. 'Most outspoken atheists believe in evolution' would probably be better. I'd imagine most atheists believe in evolution as the 'God did it' answer can't apply to them. I know a lot of theists believe in evolution, but have never heard of an atheist who did not. While all atheists may be evolutionists, not all evolutionists are atheists. I think a distinction needs to be made there. [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:29, 28 December 2007 (EST) − :::: As I said, the specific sentence wasn't quoted, so without what's likely to be a fair bit of searching, I can't comment further. Point me to the specific sentence and I will probably change it if I think it's misleading. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:18, 29 December 2007 (EST) − − :::Philip, I think what he/she meant by "quoteing sources that are anti-evolution is probably not accurrate" was that the article garners most of its content from creationists attempting to debunk the evidence. I don't feel it was made in bad faith. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:18, 28 December 2007 (EST) − ::: Well, it was vague enough that you might be correct, but that's why I asked the poster to elaborate. But I'm still not sure that justifies it. It's still basically saying that those who interpret the evidence to mean something other than evolution are not accurate, does it not? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:01, 28 December 2007 (EST) − :Just to provide you with some numbers: According to Miller et al [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5788/765], 78% of all Americans agree with the statement ''Over periods of millions of years, some species of plants and animals adjust and survive while other species die and become extinct'', while 62% agree with ''Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life.''. This means that at least 40% believe both, like it or not. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:48, 28 December 2007 (EST) − :: I don't have access to that article, and perhaps it's not so bad in context, but as you've quoted it there, that first question is poorly worded. Apart from the "millions of years" bit (which is not what is being discussed), I (a young-Earth creationist, for those that don't know) could agree with that first question. So it may well not be an accurate figure of evolutionists. − :: Regardless, I think Andy's point was not so much about the average man in the street and what he passively "believes", but the ''promoters'' of evolution. − :: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:18, 29 December 2007 (EST) − :I can't tell you what the numbers for science communicators are. If you or Andy has some, and a reference to them, I would be interested to know them, too. To access the paper ''Public Acceptance of Evolution'' by Miller, Scott, and Okamoto, you or your institution will need to have an subscription. I can tell you that if you google for Miller, Scott and Okamoto and the title "Public Acceptance of Evolution", you'll find easily a copy that is freely downloadable. The figures and questionnaire are given in the document with the supporting material. The respondents had to tell for a few statements if they were "true", "not sure" or "false". Given the statement ''Over periods of millions of years, some species of plants and animals adjust and survive while other species die and become extinct.'', 78% said "true", 16% "not sure", and 6% "false". Given the statement ''Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life.'', 62% said "true", 2% "not sure", and 36% "false". There were other statements too. As said, this are the numbers for the general public, and I don't know the numbers for science communicators, but it'd be grateful if someone could provide them. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 14 (view source)
Revision as of 10:47, December 30, 2007
, 10:47, December 30, 2007Remove content that is still in the talk page.
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
== Precise definition of evolution ==
== Precise definition of evolution ==
:How is this relevant to anything? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 19:11, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:How is this relevant to anything? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 19:11, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::It's relevant to the question in the heading, but why the question was raised, then immediately answered, I don't know. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:08, 25 November 2007 (EST)
::It's relevant to the question in the heading, but why the question was raised, then immediately answered, I don't know. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:08, 25 November 2007 (EST)