Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 18
1. "The great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version." That is the blatantly stupid statement I have seen on this site. Well no duh. Charles Darwin is credited with it. I'm sorry that doesn't look anything like Isaac Newton. That has no purpose in an "encyclopedia" a term I use loosely based one
2. There is no mention of the Miller-Urey experiment in this entire article. The Miller-Urey experiment proved how early life could have formed in in pre-oxygen rich atmosphere. It is actually a very interesting study, and should be mentioned. There are countless problems with this article, and to write them all down would take about as many words as this article. Please don't sacrifice the facts in your attempt to disprove evolution. Sincerely, Rellik 20:19, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
I agree with your first point, Rellik. The statement is weak at best - it's an argument from silence (Because these intellectuals never supported it, it must not be credible). Furthermore, this statement promotes several intellectuals as having the ultimate say on science, which could be considered a 'card-stacking' fallacy. I dunno who's in charge of maintaining this article, but it's probably in Conservapedia's best interest to revise that statement. Hampshire2600 09:24, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
DNA Proves it
- Strange that tissue with recoverable DNA would survive after 68 million years of fossilization... Jinxmchue 22:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
- Not really, biochemists have made claims for years about the stability of DNA. I read the research paper about this and the tissue was actualy fossilized. Pretty neat if you ask me:)--Able806 09:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
is this article protected, i wanted to make a small edit but i cant Rubico 18:49, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
- that was pretty classy conservative, deleting the category on the talk page then protecting it, seems like... censorship? Rubico 20:03, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
Does this statement have any basis in fact?
- 19th century European naturalists were wrong about ant behavior. The Bible was correct about ant behavior.
There is no supporting documentation, no explanation, just this statement hanging in space. Everwill 10:03, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
Also, this page has a logical fallacy that assumes that scientific inquiry stopped at Aristotle or Netwon or someone. It uses the faulty logic that "if Newton didn't believe in evolution, it must be false," though by that logic we're only lucky to have the theory of gravity and we shouldn't even think about germ theory or atoms or anything recent that science has discovered.
- Amusingly Newtons "Laws" (a term no longer used by science describe any new thoughts), have since been proven wrong. They are accurate enough for even space travel, but they aren't correct, Relativity did away with them.Raggs 13:13, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
- The ant claim is footnoted. Read the footnote. Conservative 23:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Aristotle didnt think of ID either AdenJ 23:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
This needs updating as several new transtional fossils have been found recently. See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357129,00.html and http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ plus http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330553,00.html and this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000317051940.htm AdenJ 07:02, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
The opening has this line: "Although the defenders of the theory of evolution contend there is evidence that supports the theory of evolution, there are many who are against the theory of evolution and state there are many problems with the theory of evolution."
Suggest a slight rewording for obvious reasons. How about:
"Although the defenders of the theory of evolution contend there is evidence that supports it, many disagree and assert that the theory has a litany of problems." Rick99 19:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
I'll take that as a "no." Rick99 17:22, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
- Your version is too fancy. mine is to plain. going to do compromise version. Conservative 21:10, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
What would the compromise version be?
I'm all for this article, though as of now lines like the one I mention above seriously weaken the integrity. Could anybody with the power to do so change it? Rick99 21:43, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
"is a multitude of serious problems"
"ARE a multitude of serious problems." Number agreement.AliceBG 21:13, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
nnnnope. It's "IS a multitude". It's ONE MULTITUDE. IS one multitude of serious problems.--JackSmith 10:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Please update this!
Firstly, as mentioned above - This needs updating as several new transtional fossils have been found recently. See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357129,00.html and http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ plus http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330553,00.html and this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000317051940.htm
And secondly "The great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version" - these greats never came up with Intelligent Design either . Further to that you state "Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution." You could say the same about ID and thus, using your own two examples from above, I am able to make the same case against ID. It is an outragous contradiction to use a case against evolution that is also a case against ID. This needs fixing and the transistional fossils updated. AdenJ 06:23, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
- Tiktaalik is not a transitional form. It is a fish with unusually lobate fins and an unusual number of cervical vertebrae. It's a shame that the Flood extinguished Tiktaalik forever, so that we shall never know more about it than we know already. But making Tiktaalik out to be a transition between fish and amphibian is making far too much of it. (Besides, amphibians did not have many of the features now vaunted for Tiktaalik.)
- And you ignore some salient facts about the great intellectuals, and most especially Isaac Newton. He was a creationist, and no one on the creation side has ever tried to portray him otherwise.
- Last of all,the point of "Even after the theory was proposed..." is that evolutionists today have tried to allege that it has been settled science since it was proposed. That is not correct. And now, if it was ever considered settled, it is not settled any longer and can never be settled.--TerryHTalk 09:23, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Terry, tiktaalik is more than “a fish with unusually lobate fins and an unusual number of cervical vertebrae”. It had skeletal structures of shoulder, elbow, and wrist. Its neck was able to move independently of its body. As for Isaac Newton, I am not sure that creationist would suffice to describe his religious views. He kept most of his views quiet except a few that contradicted with the Catholic Church. If you have some information to say otherwise please share it, I studied Newton’s life and am always interested in findings. I know that Pfizenmaier claims that Newton had more of an eastern orthodox view of Christianity but others have claimed otherwise. However, to the point, Newton really is unnecessary when talking about the theory of evolution since: A. It was 132 years after his death when Darwin published. B. He worked with math and physics more than biology and considering his contributions, to believe that he had time to study biology to the degree necessary to formulate a theory like evolution would just be extreme. C. 58 years after his death was when Uniformitarianism was first mentioned by James Hutton, thus no foundation to look at the earth as being older than what was taught at that time, outside of Newton's astronomical work which was about movement more than dating. As for settling, I am not sure that any scientist would believe that the theory is completely settled. We are finding, developing better research techniques and publishing more evidence every year, thus making adjustments to our views of what evolution truly is. --Able806 10:07, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
- Adenj, See material on one of those supposed transitionals in the evolution article - namely the Tiktaalik. Also, evolutionary bunk is not going to go in the article and I believe you are practicing the logical fallacy of the slothful inductive fallacy in regards to the fossil record which is decidedly creation science supportive. Your handful of dubious transitional fossils are not helping your case. Conservative 19:38, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Suggestions for restructuring the article
The benefits of such a restructuring would be great... (1) it would show us where the article is lacking, or has too much of one thing. (2) It would help visitors locate content quicker. (3) It would allow for better placement of new content in the future. (4) Related to 3, it may make it easier to think of new content in certain categories.
Here is how I would do it:
[Intro paragraphs] History of the Theory The Theory in Culture Creation Scientists Tend to Win Debates Design Statements Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside the Specific Field of Biology The "Fossil Record" Liberalism Paleoanthropology Punctuated Equilibrium Scientific Journals Social Effects of the Theory Criticisms and Responses to the Theory Age of the Earth and Universe Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes, and Speculation Genetics and Biology Implausible Explanations It does not qualify as a scientific theory Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms Little Scientific Consensus on Macroevolution Mutations and the Life Sciences in General Miscellaneous Further Reading
Like I did with the atheism article, I will just apply the changes until someone objects. Some of these sections it was difficult whether to place them under a cultural heading, or whether it was really a criticism. Feel free to move them around. --Ymmotrojam 18:59, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
- I sent you a email on this. Conservative 19:20, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
- I sent you a email on this. Conservative 19:20, 16 June 2008 (EDT)