53
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 413:
Line 413: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 18:46, November 14, 2008
, 18:46, November 14, 2008no edit summary
RodWeathers reinstated the 'consciousness' entry with the edit comment "''Evolution requires a 'chain of being,' including varying consciousness''". I would like to know what this means and how it addresses the concerns with this entry already explained earlier on this page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
RodWeathers reinstated the 'consciousness' entry with the edit comment "''Evolution requires a 'chain of being,' including varying consciousness''". I would like to know what this means and how it addresses the concerns with this entry already explained earlier on this page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
==Recent Revisions==
I'm back, taking a much-needed break from research, and I've started out with some relatively minor edits. As promised, here are some explanations.
1) I removed the example of the giraffe's neck because it is very easily explained by the naturalistic theory of evolution. And that's not just from me and the rest of evolutionary biology, that's from Dr. Behe.
2) I removed the example of the whale because it deals with common descent, which is (again citing Behe) accepted by scientific critics of evolutionary theory.
3) I added some clarification to the opening paragraph so that readers can better understand the premise of the article and the limitations of the counter-example argument. It is relatively technical compared to other entries, but as this is a technical subject, this article must unfortunately reflect that. I am not trying to say that the re-wording makes the arguments less legitimate, only that they focus the reader's attention on what exactly is at stake (the power of random mutation, which is the only thing questioned within the scientific field [and as an aside, that's being generous with "scientific", but I digress...]).
4) Finally, some of the examples needed rewording to actually reflect the argument. If anyone wants the technical explanations, I'll be more than happy to provide them, but suffice it to say for now that these arguments have to be worded very specifically to be true.
I think that covers all of them. If any of them are in question, please post here and I'll explain my actions. Please don't blindly revert them without a reason. That's unscientific. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 13:46, 14 November 2008 (EST)