Changes

On 23rd January, 2009, I posted the following entry in the Main Page News section<ref name="lost">Subsequently lost when Conservpedia crashed and was restored from a week-old backup.</ref>.

On 23rd January, 2009, I posted the following entry in the Main Page News section<ref name="lost">Subsequently lost when Conservpedia crashed and was restored from a week-old backup.</ref>.

{{QuoteBox|'''[[Evolution]] is dead. Long live evolution!''' It looks like a "central tenet" of evolution—the evolutionary "tree" of life"—is being discarded.[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html] But does this evidence mean that evolution is wrong? Of course not! We just invent a new version of evolution, because we can't have those "blinkered" creationists being right!.[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126923.000-editorial-uprooting-darwins-tree.html]}}

{{QuoteBox|'''[[Evolution]] is dead. Long live evolution!''' It looks like a "central tenet" of evolution—the evolutionary "tree" of life"—is being discarded.[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html] But does this evidence mean that evolution is wrong? Of course not! We just invent a new version of evolution, because we can't have those "blinkered" creationists being right!.[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126923.000-editorial-uprooting-darwins-tree.html]}}

This was subsequently challenged, both off-site (in the Sock Drawer), and on the main talk page. I responded to one off-site challenge by Kallium [[user talk:Kallium|here]]<ref name="lost" />. The main-talk-page challenges are reproduced below:

This was subsequently challenged, both off-site (in the Sock Drawer), and on the main talk page. I responded to one off-site challenge by User: Kallium<ref name="lost" />. The main-talk-page challenges are reproduced below:

{{Quotebox|The headline asks: "But does this evidence mean that evolution is wrong? Of course not! We just invent a new version of evolution, because we can't have those "blinkered" creationists being right!." This is problematic for several reasons. (1) Evolution is not the same as the tree of life. Descent with modification is still occurring, there are just more sources of modification than anticipated. (2) New "versions" are not just "invented" out of the blue. Revised versions of theories are generated using extant theory and research findings and, moreover, must account for as much or more phenomena than their predecessors. Anyone who thinks new theories are just conjured out of thin air has never been involved in scientific research. (3) It is a false dichotomy to assert that if some part of evolution is wrong then creationism is right. Many, if not most, creationist explanations I've seen use a model of separate creation where "kinds" are not related to one another. Evolution argues there should be relationships among all organisms. DNA evidence overwhelmingly supports the interrelatedness of all living things- it's just more complex than Darwin's original thinking led us to believe. This is not surprising as scientific theories get revised in light of new evidence. Yet, that added complexity doesn't negate the DNA evidence showing that all life is massively interrelated. In sum, then, certain details of a model can be wrong without that necessarily favoring an alternative explanation. Or, if you prefer an analogy, finding evidence that Catholicism is "wrong" doesn't automatically mean that Hinduisim is correct. (4) The article you cite remarks, "While vertical descent [i.e. the tree of life] is no longer the only game in town, it is still the best way of explaining how multicellular organisms are related to one another." Thus, the tree of life remains a useful approximation at one level of analysis, much as Newtonian mechanics remain a useful approximation of relatively for most day-to-day activities. One could argue that Einstein showed Newton to be wrong (specifically: he showed why Newton was wrong) but it's more appropriate to say that Einstein produced a model that was more accurate. -Drek}}

{{Quotebox|The headline asks: "But does this evidence mean that evolution is wrong? Of course not! We just invent a new version of evolution, because we can't have those "blinkered" creationists being right!." This is problematic for several reasons. (1) Evolution is not the same as the tree of life. Descent with modification is still occurring, there are just more sources of modification than anticipated. (2) New "versions" are not just "invented" out of the blue. Revised versions of theories are generated using extant theory and research findings and, moreover, must account for as much or more phenomena than their predecessors. Anyone who thinks new theories are just conjured out of thin air has never been involved in scientific research. (3) It is a false dichotomy to assert that if some part of evolution is wrong then creationism is right. Many, if not most, creationist explanations I've seen use a model of separate creation where "kinds" are not related to one another. Evolution argues there should be relationships among all organisms. DNA evidence overwhelmingly supports the interrelatedness of all living things- it's just more complex than Darwin's original thinking led us to believe. This is not surprising as scientific theories get revised in light of new evidence. Yet, that added complexity doesn't negate the DNA evidence showing that all life is massively interrelated. In sum, then, certain details of a model can be wrong without that necessarily favoring an alternative explanation. Or, if you prefer an analogy, finding evidence that Catholicism is "wrong" doesn't automatically mean that Hinduisim is correct. (4) The article you cite remarks, "While vertical descent [i.e. the tree of life] is no longer the only game in town, it is still the best way of explaining how multicellular organisms are related to one another." Thus, the tree of life remains a useful approximation at one level of analysis, much as Newtonian mechanics remain a useful approximation of relatively for most day-to-day activities. One could argue that Einstein showed Newton to be wrong (specifically: he showed why Newton was wrong) but it's more appropriate to say that Einstein produced a model that was more accurate. -Drek}}

{{QuoteBox|I have to thank Conservapedia for bringing this article to my attention, I can't remember the last time I've seen a major scientific theory go through a revision like evolution is facing. The article does mention, many times, that just because the "tree of life" is being rethought to be more like a "web of life" by no means makes evolution wrong. It's a blessing to live in this day and age with so many advances in what we can see, measure, and experiment with. The outcome of these debates will serve to refine and strengthen the theory of evolution and help fill i some of the "holes". It is amazing to be able to watch scientific history being made.[[user:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 10:25, 23 January 2009 (EST)}}

{{QuoteBox|I have to thank Conservapedia for bringing this article to my attention, I can't remember the last time I've seen a major scientific theory go through a revision like evolution is facing. The article does mention, many times, that just because the "tree of life" is being rethought to be more like a "web of life" by no means makes evolution wrong. It's a blessing to live in this day and age with so many advances in what we can see, measure, and experiment with. The outcome of these debates will serve to refine and strengthen the theory of evolution and help fill i some of the "holes". It is amazing to be able to watch scientific history being made.[[user:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 10:25, 23 January 2009 (EST)}}