Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 19

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I dare say this has been answered before, but what makes you all so sure that evolution is fundamentally incompatible with a Christian faith? There are huge numbers of Christians who accept it as a sensible theory.
In any case, surely the issue is of little consequence? Whether God created the universe in seven days or created a system that allowed life to bloom is surely of very little importance compared with the bigger truths involving Jesus. Look how much importance the Bible attaches to the issue - a mere page. Surely too much attention has been given to this one small issue, to the detriment of other, more important areas of the faith, such as actually saving people - and, dare I say it, to the reputation of Christianity? These are my thoughts upon reading the article (can't say I found anything in there that inspired me to be a better Christian either). Please reply! Cheers, --Sforzando 14:02, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I fully agree with you that it is of no importance with regard to Christian faith. But this is one reason more why the snake-passage should be removed from the article. Even if a snake was able to hear, this wouldn't mean anything.
Sforzando, if the issue is meaningless and/or unimportant then why did you write a post on the talk page? Your post seems rather hypocritical. Anyways, I suggest you read this resource in regards to your above post: Conservative 20:28, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

"survival of the fittest" was a statement made by herbert spencer and is the basis for his belief in social darwinism. Social darwinism has been broadly rejected by the scientific community and does not share relation with darwinism or modern theories of evolution. the quote "survival of the fittest" should be and is not in any was associated with the term natural selection as natural selection is based on the adaptability of an individual or species and not on whether it is "fit".

Why Not Use the Theory Of Evolution Itself to Disprove Itself?

The theory of evolution can be easily disproved using various other theories regarding extinction. A species can become extinct when there are only less than 20 of the species left in the world due to the limited size of the gene pool creating inbreeding. Therefore if the theory of evolution is correct it would mean that all at the same time over 20 jelly fish decided to jump out of the sea grow legs and arms and trot off to McDonalds.

Just my idea.

This is absurd. First of all species do not automatically become extinct just because they are endangered. (Less than 20 is a meaningless and arbitrary number to pick anyway, no sources for that statement I bet?) They become extinct when there is none left. Secondly most jellyfishes have two life stages, in one they reproduce sexually, but as polyps they reproduce by asexual budding.But even if you ignore this then inbreeding between less than 20 jellyfish would never cause jellyfish to "jump out of the sea and grow legs and arms" which does not disprove evolution because evolution would never predict that to happen in the first place (Yea, I believe they call that a Strawman argument). As a matter of fact that idea is so illogical that nothing scientific would predict that outcome. The only way it would happen is something was able to bend the very laws of the universe in order to make it happen, such as something supernatural, such as a god with a sense of humor pointing his finger at the jellyfish to made them grow arms and legs and rise out of the ocean (If you see that happening then you have a case against the atheists then don't you?). Inbreeding would only cause the gene pool of these jellyfish to become homozygous which might further harm the population my bringing out harmful recessive mutations or by making the small population less likely to adapt to new situations due to the said homozygosity. --Rainedaye 18:32, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

If you were to counter Evolution with creartionism, creationism too would certainly fail using your own argument. I belive in your creation myth Noah brought many less than 20 (your arbitrary number for extinction) of each animal on his boat. Thus using this logic, all animals are extinct in your beleif? - Damien

Gaps in the webpage

Early in the article on evolution there is an assertion that it can not be reproduced in a laboratory.

This is not true as bacteria build up antibiotic resistance by reproducing extremely rapidly (and observably). A few bacteria have mutations that render them immune to the drug (the only way an immunity could be accounted for). These resistant bacteria reproduce (observably) and thus the bacteria have evolved.

Observations aren't made due to time constraints.

Many of the articles and positions against evolution cite the fact that no evolution has ever been seen. This is much like placing a pot of water on a stove, turning on the heat and then immediately saying "Look! Heat doesn't make water boil!" It takes time to make the water boil, and if you don't watch it over a certain time period, you won't see any changes.

The Earth has been around for billions of years. The changes of which evolution speaks occur over huge chunks of time, sometimes hundreds of millions of years. If you live for a few million years, I suspect that you will see some very obvious examples of evolutionary change. If you only look at the last few hundred years of history - probably not.

Please see above comment on antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Bacteria reproduces at such an astonshing rate that we can get around the millions-of-years problem and actually observe evolutionary changes. The bacteria that mutate to be immune to certain antibiotics continue to live and donate their DNA to the next generation of bacteria. Those that are not resistant die off. Pretty soon, ALL of the bacteria are resistant to a certain antibiotic and then we have to find new ones to combat disease (which is, by the way, why you should always finish your entire course of antibiotics, AND why doctors need to be careful abot over-prescribing them.)

Please see this article:

Keep an open mind, and always seek truth!

I can become resistant to poison if I take a little bit at a time over a long period. Am I evolving? Jinxmchue 10:22, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Not the best analogy, Jinx. If you became resistant to poison and then passed that resistance on to your offspring, that would be a better analogy. --Benp 10:54, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
That's not a good analogy either, Benp. It's more like if an entire population was poisoned then those that survived due to random mutations that enable their survival rate to be higher than others would be more likely to reproduce, which would pass on the mutated genes on to their offspring. If the offspring of the previous population were poisoned again, and then allowed to bear children who were once again poisoned...ect ect. Then those with the genes that prevent dying from the poison would be dominant in the population. ----Rainedaye 18:11, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Problems with the article. (Part I)

  • Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.

First of all only about 1.6% and 2.4% of all Americans are atheists according to the [Pew Forum], however about half of the population believes in evolution most of which are Christian[[1]]. While some prominent and vocal public defenders are atheists a vast majority are not such as Michael Zimmerman who organized the [Letter Project] along with other Christians opposed to scientific illiteracy.

  • 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 is a multitude of serious problems with the theory of evolution.

By "many" against the theory of evolution of course you mean fundamentalists. Most countries [[2]] accept evolution, many of which are composed of even larger numbers of Christians than the U.S. So who opposes evolution the strongest? Mostly Islamic and Hindu fundamentalists, along of course with Christian ones. Other than the objections of these groups, many of which are uneducated and do not understand even the basic concepts of evolution, the theory of evolution is accepted completely in academia and has a staggering amount of evidence to support it.

  • The theory of evolution posits a process of self-transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.

The "simple->complex" wording is just poor to begin with. Some people wrongly see evolution as life increasing in complexity until cumulating to the most complex life form: humanity. We are not the most "complex" and while we do contain a number of what may be considered more complex organs which came from simpler predecessors (like eyes, although some species have eyes much more complex than ours) we are genetically not the most complex. Indeed pufferfish have many more genes than us and some single celled amoebas have many times more than pufferfish! If it is advantageous for an organism to become "less complex" then they will (think of blind cave fish who have eyes that have degenerated to being useless or almost useless). As for duplication in the laboratory as I said the definition of "complex" is ambiguous and so you won't see any scientific papers titled "ORGANISM IN LAB GETS MORE COMPLEX!"

  • The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the many flaws in the theory of evolution.

The fossil record completely supports evolution. Whoever wrote this statement is either completely ignorant of the fossil record in it's entirety or lying. [Here's] a nice video of all the transition fossils that "don't exist".

  • Even evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford, stated the following: "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."

BEWARE STEPPING ON THE QUOTE MINES! Quote mines are a deceitful way to twist the words of a respectable person (often one with a real degree) by taking them out of context in order to support an argument. The paper this came from supports evolution and is a rather good one so it just shows how well people read through the sources (at least this one wasn't from the one creationist ministries website that almost all the other citations are from...seriously just link the page and save people from some typing). Here is the fuller version of this: "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." (page 831) Strange how that following sentence got cut out...but sadly enough this is not an isolated incident quote mines are numerous among creationist propaganda (and therefore this site) look at this handy dandy [quote mine page] for more info.

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.

You know this is just poor logic. These people didn't invent electric lighting or a theory of relativity either but that doesn't mean that there is something wrong with either of them... Science is cumulative you can't make one advancement until you have a thorough grounding of how the that thing works...often discovered by someone else before you.

  • Prior to Charles Darwin publishing his work On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a materialist, which is a type of atheist.[14] Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been a merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his materialistic theory.

Darwin was never an atheist, so the first part was wrong and the second part just paranoid speculation. Just because you site the same Creationist Ministry Site doesn't make it true. How about you read his private notebooks and quote where he says "HAHA, I'm a materialistic atheist bastard degenerate who is using the creator as a ploy to spread my evil anti-Christian views HAHA" giving a page number and everything like a real respectable citation. Here's a real [quote]:

"What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. … In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."


  • Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a naturalist who supported the theory of evolution. Lamarck's theory of evolution asserted that evolution occurs because organisms are able to inherit traits acquired by their ancestors and this has been rejected.

This is a little misleading Lamarck did not support "the theory of evolution" like we know it today. Indeed he died before Darwin's discoveries. While the Lamarckian idea that organisms gain traits that their parents obtained has been shown to be false (a cat whose tail has been cut off doesn't bear tailless kittens). However he did speculate that the environment a species lives in can cause change which is true.

--Rainedaye 20:30, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Under the heading Theory of Evolution - Mutations and the Life Sciences in General, the statement "In regards to the various theories of evolution, most evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation, genetic drift and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after life first came about on earth.[23]" fails to incorporate gene flow, one of the four main forces of evolution accepted by the scientific community. gene flow is the process of genes or alleles being transferred from one population to another.

This article is neither encyclopedic nor well written

This article is never going to be taken seriously by anybody if it doesn't hold its content and sources to some standard of integrity. The first fifteen words ("The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth ") start off in the right direction, but after that, it just becomes a fundamentalist mud slinging contest of no academic value whatsoever. If this is the best that this website can do on a high profile subject such as this one, we should all just give up now and find a different hobby. As somebody who has read Jon Sarfati's entire body of work (as opposed to most people who quote him, having never actually read any of his work) I can comment on the fact that Sarfati simply makes the conservative viewpoint look silly. Sarfati's books are nothing more than page after page of grasping at straws trying to sell the Bible as a text from which one can derive good science, regardless of the fact that there is none to be found in there.

Furthermore, picking three quotes from obscure sources does not, contrary to this article, prove "There is little scientific consensus on how macroevolution is said to have happened." If anything, there is a vast consensus on the matter (ignoring the fact that the term 'macroevolution' is a term created by the anti-evolution circles in order to ignore demonstrable evolution) and this article glanced over scores of quotes from reputable sources in order to find three dissenting opinions from people who do not fit the description of 'mainstream scientists.' This could be overlooked if it wasn't completely dishonest, but it is. I understand that you want to build an encyclopedia free of "liberal bias," but is wholesale deception any better than ideological bias? I would probably argue to the contrary.

This article states that "Dr. Stephen Meyer published an article favoring intelligent design in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the evolutionary position." While this statement is technically correct, he did publish the article in this normally peer-reviewed journal, Dr. Meyer's paper was reviewed solely by Richard v. Sternberg, and the journal in question sparked a statement from the Journal expressing their official position that Dr. Meyer's work was unworthy of being in the journal: [3] Included in this statement is the following quote saying that the paper should never have appeared in the journal and that they wouldn't even dignify it with a rebuttal: "The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity." Keep in mind, this is not some third party making this statement, but rather the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, the key individuals behind the journal which erroneously published Meyer's paper in the first place. Considering this is the only peer-reviewed paper on ID to ever appear in a reputable journal, and it was only peer-reviewed under dubious circumstances, and it was later retracted by the journal in question, perhaps it is better to just not mention peer-review anywhere in this article.

The next section is about fraud and hoaxes in evolution. Yes, there have been hoaxes over time. They've been debunked. Sometimes people just go for a quick buck. Considering the fact that an overwhelming majority of scientists believe in evolution, it's not really a surprise that a couple of them have falsified information in order to get results. It's not like the anti-evolution crowd doesn't have its own history of moral flexibility, I mean Kent Hovind is still in jail for his own transgressions. The real issue here though is that we're trying to pretend as though this article is encyclopedic, but three sections in and we're being told about hoaxes and fraud (while ignoring all of the legitimate research and science which greatly overshadows these issues) but we still haven't even gotten a straightforward explanation of evolutionary theory. If you can call this article anything other than deceptive propaganda, you are a liar.

The next section is all about the "lack of clear transitional forms." I would love to provide a detailed analysis of this section, but there's no good reason. It's flawed in concept. The "missing link" argument has been bashed to death more times than necessary already, but sadly nobody : [4] [5] [6]

I could go on, section by section, pointing out why this article is complete and total rubbish, but there's really no need. It fails to meet any criteria of being 'encyclopedic' and is simply a collection of deception and lies intended to preach to the choir. It hits a hilarious climax somewhere around the section "Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates" which provides no evidence to back up its position and is probably best described as embarrassingly delusional. Considering that not a single example is provided, and that such a metric is exceedingly hard to quantify, I have to assume that whoever wrote this article made this statistic up and found a couple loosely related (yet completely unsupported) quotes to back this position up.

Face it, if this is the best that this website can do on this subject, this site will never be taken seriously.Bingosherlock 22:26, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Kent Hovind is in jail for tax evasion, not anything to do with falsifying evidence, so I'm not sure why you brought him up other than to get a cheap shot in. And this site will never be taken seriously by anyone who has blind, unquestioning faith in Darwinism. Jinxmchue 00:09, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
Bingosherlock, re: little consensus and evolutionary position, I cite the following: "When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11 Now I wasn't aware that Cambridge and the science journal Cell were disreputable. :) Thank you for clarifying this matter. :) Conservative 02:19, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

The 1st of your (Bingosherlock's) references does not address the major factor about transitional forms; virtually none have been found in invertebrates, which make up the numbers and diversity of life today. NikD 05:41, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

It is because of the nonencyclopedic nature of this article that it is becoming more and more well known on the internet, just like the atheism article. No one should delude themselves by saying that people are seeing these articles and telling their friends because of the articles' accuracy. They are becoming well known because they are being ridiculed!--JArneal 19:15, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

My claim above is not without proof: --JArneal 19:49, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Problems with the Article (Part II)

  • However, Pierre Grasse, who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following: "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Grasse pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists are organisms which produce the most mutants.

Ah yes Mr. Grasse (or should I say Monsieur?), who was an important man...who died back in 1985, and who believed in Lamarkism. Lamarkism has been shown to have little evidence to support it since the 1800's and this quote was written back in the 70's.This statement is misleading because evolution does not occur because of mutations, it is mutations as well as natural selection, and both are known to occur. Also, the mutation rate is actually lower in bacteria than that of eukaryotes (including us). In all fairness however to M. Grasse the fields of genetics and molecular biology have had rapid expansion in the past 30-40 years since this was written so it could be that the mutation rates for either bacteria or eukaryotes were known at the time.

  • Grasse then points that bacteria are considered to have "stabilized a billion years ago!".[24] Grasse regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.

Bacteria have not "stabilized a million years ago" (first of all I those that wrote this article didn't believe in a million years ago). New strains of bacteria are constantly evolving. Indeed the bacterial kingdom is much larger and complex than was ever imagined. And there is a final evolutionary effect. MRSA is the direct result of the overuse of antibiotics. And what about the creation of nylonase? A protein that only helps in the digestion of nylon (created by man in 1935) could not have occurred from a simple fluctuation.

  • In addition, Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations."

I'm positive that this is another sample of a blatant quote mine taken out of context from a finely respected individual whose life work supported the idea of evolution. If any changes are made to this article I ask first and foremost that at least the quote mining be removed since it is blatant dishonesty. I can not find where this quote came from or from whence it was taken but it does not say that sense organs cannot evolve simply that is seems odd to say so. I'm positive this is taken out of context however because of other things he has said on the matter. From What Evolution Is (2002): “It had been shown that by morphological-phylogenetic research that photoreceptor organs (eyes) had developed at least 40 times independently during the evolution of animal diversity. A developmental geneticist, however, showed that all animals with eyes have the same regulator gene, Pax 6, which organizes the construction of the eye. It was therefore concluded at first that all eyes were derived from a single ancestral eye with the Pax 6 gene." He doesn't just believe that an eye was able to occur from random mutations, but that it had done so around 40 times.

  • Creation scientists believe that mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift would not cause macroevolution.[27] Furthermore, creation scientists assert that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the theory of evolution.[28] Homology involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be demonstrated by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different organisms.[29] An example of a homology argument is that DNA similarities between human and other living organisms is evidence for the theory of evolution.[30] Creation scientists assert that the homology argument is not a valid argument. Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that speciation occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionist believe is the case.

This paragraph doesn't make a whole lot of sense. First of all I had thought that "macroevolution" had meant the evolution of new species. But seeing as how this paragraph says that macroevolution does not occur but then ends with creationists believing that speciation occurs it seemed kind of contradictory. So I looked up this sites definition of macroevolution to make sure we were on the same page here and found "Macroevolution is the theory that natural selection can, given enough time, lead to the creation of new clades which are groups of organisms consisting of a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor." I then looked up clade and found "A Clade is a group of organisms, such as a species, whose members share homologous features derived from a common ancestor. " also on this site. ... It still seems pretty self-contradictory here. Also, it says that creation scientists believe and assert all sorts of things...but where is the proof? This is normally the place where you would stick references to data that support this sort of thing...if creationist scientists have data that is. Also, to be picky: get rid of the large link to "homology" the same page has an internal link to it in the sentence before and it does not need to be repeated, especially not with such a large internal link as "homology argument is not a valid argument". Also, it needs to be evolutiontists in the last sentence there.

  • Critics of the theory of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the theory of evolution have diluted the meaning of the term "evolution" to the point where it defined as or the definition includes change over time in the gene pool of a population over time through such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

That's because that is what evolution is. "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." "Changes in allele frequency over time." "A change over time in the proportions of individual organisms differing genetically in one or more traits. Such changes transpire by the origin and subsequent alteration of the frequencies of genotypes from generation to generation within populations, by alteration of the proportions of genetically differentiated populations within a species, or by changes in he numbers of species with different characteristics, thereby altering the frequency of one or more traits within a higher taxon."

  • "...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved. The PBS Evolution series and the Scientific American article are full of examples of this fallacy."

This is word mongering at it's worst. Evolution is a result of natural selection and mutations. New taxa occur because of evolution. The theory of evolution explain why new taxa occur. There is no bait and switch going on here. Examples of change over time are examples of evolution and the "GTE" explain why they occur and can make predictions on what may happen next (the ability to make predictions is essential for a good theory.) --Rainedaye 19:20, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Raineydaye, Mayr quote about feather, etc: conservative 22:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Ah, ok so it was from the 1942 Systematics and the Origin of Species the first of many books that Mayr wrote. It follows with this line: "However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternate explanation that was supported by substantial evidence." This does change things a bit. He isn't saying that it is impossible for random mutations to form complex organs, only that at the time the idea seemed insubstantial. He is in no way supporting that random mutations could not produce feathers or eyes. However, as I stated earlier that was back in the 40's. Mayr lived for 100 years and published his books on evolution during about 60 of those years (and scientific papers for about 80 years). He was one of the most prominent experts on the subject of evolution. A lot of scientific progress had taken place in his lifespan; for instance DNA was not discovered until a year after this book was published. Further study and increased understanding led Mayr to better understand the processes that could produce complex organisms like an eye and as I stated earlier he even had data to support that eyes had evolved more than once in other organisms. This quote is hardly appropriate, it's only added as an "argument from authority". If you wanted a quote that showed a famous person who could not believe that complex organs could be formed evolutionarily then find someone who actually believed that and who didn't spend the majority of their life refining and gathering evidence for the evolutionary theory. --Rainedaye 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Rainedaye, I think you may be wrong (or perhaps imprecise or perhaps not giving adequate information) about another matter. Please read the following regarding Grasse: conservative 02:24, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Hitler Picture

I believe it only hurts our credibility to use such an emotionally charged picture that is only tangentially related to evolution. What was wrong with a photo of Darwin? It was much more professional. --IanG 09:33, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Come on! Hitler? Really? This article should be moved to the Essay space if this is the kind of quality that's going to come of a protected article. Conservapedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia built on collaboration. HelpJazz 13:02, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Tangentially related to evolution? Care to support this claim? Why aren't the fruits of the evolutionary worldview relevant to this article? conservative 19:29, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Care to support how Hitler is more definitive of evolution than Darwin? --IanG 22:20, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Or alternatively, you could just put MORE Hitler in there. Darwin doesn't even make an appearance til halfway down the page, and you're practically the only one who can edit this article. This is a personal rant, not a tool for research. --IanG 22:57, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Related or not, it's unprofessional and unencyclopedic. It also draws upon the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. If Hitler weren't known for his evil deeds, then he would likely be irrelevant to this article. Let's please make this article something to be proud of. HelpJazz 00:17, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
I don't often come her much these days, but I must say that the picture of Hitler at the head of the article is so wonderfully absurd that it made me laugh out loud. Please keep it in - it sets the scene perfectly for the rest of the article.--British_cons (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Actually I hadn't thought about it that way. Conservative, ignore everything else I've said; keep the picture in, so that unsuspecting Cubans don't think they are reading a real encyclopedia entry. HelpJazz 14:42, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
HelpJazz, are you a evolutionist? Secondly, logical fallacies are used to point fallacies in arguments. If you could kindly show that this encyclopedia article is an argument I would be deeply appreciative. However, as it stands I see no problem with an encyclopedia article citing history. Lastly, if you could kindly show where the article states that the evolutionary position is invalid due to Hitler subscribing to it, I would also be deeply appreciative.  :) conservative 15:31, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
To be brutally honest, I have a hard time understanding much of anything with respect to the content of the article. I've never gotten much past the first couple paragraphs. However if you can't see that the article is trying to make an argument for the ToE, you should probably not be the one editing it.
As to your questions, let me answer them with a question: if Hitler had not been a committer of evil deeds, would you put his picture at the top of the article? If no, then you are Poisoning the well. If yes, then find a more appropriate picture of Hitler; one where he isn't wearing a Swastika, or heiling (sp?), perhaps one where he is reading Darwin.
And because you will think I'm evading the question if I don't answer: no, I'm not an "evolutionist", nor am I a "creationist"; the only thing that matters in this context is that I'm a "encyclopedist". Now, if your article isn't making an argument, what difference would it make what my personal feelings and beliefs were? HelpJazz 15:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
I support user Conservative completely. Under no circumstances remove the Hitler picture.--British_cons (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
HelpJazz, I also wish to add that poisoning the well is used when you disclose information about an opponent to discredit him so people do not listen to his arguments. I would kindly ask you what opponent did I disclose information about? If you could be more reasonable when flinging about supposed logical fallacies I have committed I would be deeply appreciative. conservative 15:49, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
You didn't address any of my points. You are going to have to take a less-than-literal interpretation of poisoning the well here (ironically enough, whenever I'm "too literal" I'm charged with being a liberal):
  • Hitler is an evil man (implied)
  • Hitler believes in evolution (stated)
  • Hitler would not have been evil if not for evilution (stated)
  • (here's the stretch) Therefore evolution must be related to being evil (implied)
I ask again: would you show the picture of Hitler if he weren't known for his evil deeds? If not, can you find a more appropriate picture? HelpJazz 17:20, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Hitler strongly pushed evolutionary racism and millions of people lost their lives. I don't see why that is irrelevant to an article on the evolution issue. conservative 20:27, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
So you admit that the picture of Hitler is only there to make evolution look bad. Thank you for your honesty. Now, do you think a respectible encyclopedia article about evolution should have Hitler as the very first thing someone sees? If so, then I'm done with this argument. If not, then please, make this article at least look respectible. HelpJazz 00:34, 14 September 2008 (EDT) (PS: It was wise of you to remove the fence sitting comment)
Hitler and the nazis were racists indeed, but the racism pre-dated Darwin and they did not stress Darwinian evolution--they thought the races were unchanging and that the Jews could never be improved. Having his picture seriously misleads our readers. RJJensen 20:36, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Following the Hitler theme, I suggest adding pictures of Stalin, Vlad the Impaler, Charles Manson and Satan to various parts of the article. I'm sure that with a bit more inventiveness on the part of the editor they could all be tied into evolution in some way.--British_cons (talk) 05:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
British cons, do you have a picture of Satan? If so, was it taken before he was cast out of heaven or afterwards? conservative 11:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Mmmm. Can I take your question to mean that if I had a picture you would include it? It would certainly go nicely with the Hitler picture. But sorry, I've not got one, or at least I haven't got a photograph. On the other hand there are many artist's impressions - so one of those might be appropriate. There are lots of Stalin of course. This is one of the more common images of Vlad. Not too sure about the copyright though. But it would certainly liven up the article.--British_cons (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Hitler's racialism drew on Darwin's theory of natural selection & the survival of the fittest, not directly on his theory of the evolution of the species. If this picture of Hitler belongs anywhere in relation to Darwinism (which I'm not at all convinced that it does), it should be in the 'natural selection' article rather than with the 'theory of evolution' one. I don't know of any evidence confirming that Hitler even believed that mankind had evolved from animals. Sideways 13:32, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

The social elements of survival of the fittest might have had more to do with Spencer's ideas of Social Darwinism - and the exact nature of Hitler's religious convictions remain a matter of some debate in some circles. But I still maintain that the Hitler picture is a fantastic introduction to this article. It immediately advises anybody who knows anything about the subject what they should expect in the text. Please, please keep it in. It's absolutely perfect.--British_cons (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
If you must keep it, please sort out the caption, which currently contains three quotation marks. It looks bad and makes it wholly unclear which part of the caption is a direct quote from Hitler. It would seem that whoever pasted wrote the caption is themself unsure of this, since half of what they have claim to be from Mein Kampf is actually from a historian writing about Hitler. Only the last line, "to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile" is a direct quote from Mein Kampf. Sideways 15:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Sideways, thanks for the correction. It is fixed now. conservative 05:12, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
I think that it should be noted that Hitler did not have a firm grasp of evolution. From what he says it appears he thinks that a form of "Elitist" selection is the way forward. The deleterious effect of elitist selection is the diminished diversity of the gene pool. By selecting to breed from only the “best” in the population you stand to lose a substantial amount of potential beneficial genes which may be dormant in lest fit but perfectly viable members. Algorithmically, elitist selection limits the scope of possible outcomes. Hitler failed to grasp this and therefore I don’t see the relevance of him in this topic, other than to point out his stupidity. Although I do agree with British_cons, it is does set the scene well.--twopir 19:46, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

The Hitler picture really isn't appropriate. Hitler used eugenics which was not supported or even created by Darwin. However, it wouldn't matter even if he quoted from The Origin of Species itself since one fanatic who misuses an idea doesn't condemn that idea. For instance Hitler was also a Christian who stated in Mein Kampf that he persecuted the Jews because of religious reasons:

  • "What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race ... so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. ... Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence."
  • "[Jesus] made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross."
  • "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. .. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison."

Darwin in fact was an abolitionist and his work refuted white supremacy since he saw humankind as one species only with minor variations. He stated there was no mental difference between races and that the appearance of difference had to do with different cultures.

  • "We had several quarrels; for instance, early in the voyage at Bahia, in Brazil, he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered "No." I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answer of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything?"

- Charles Darwin; The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887 Religion at the time of Darwin actually justified slavery as being "God's will".

  • "We must, of course, acknowledge that Adam is the ancestor of the white race. The scriptures are evidently meant to be so understood, for the generations deriving from him are certainly white. This being admitted there is nothing to show that, in the view of the first compilers of the Adamite genealogies, those outside the white race were counted as part of the species at all."

- Arthur de Gobineau; An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, 1853

  • "Why all this rant about Negro equality, seeing that neither nature or nature's God ever established any such equality?"

- John Campbell; Negro-Mania, 1851

  • "On the lawfulness of holding slaves ... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."

- Rev. Richard Furman; President, Baptist State Convention, 1822 Neither religion nor evolution should be condemned because of a few bad apples, or for outdated views no longer held by a majority of scientists or religious people. --Rainedaye 23:19, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Eugenics was a tool for scientific and applied evolution. QuickFixer 23:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
QuickeFixer was a tool for scientific and applied evolution.

...doesn't prove much does it? Eugenics is not supported from an evolutionary standpoint because there is no fundamental difference between races and Eugenics would reduce heterozygosity by limiting the gene pool (which is bad). --Rainedaye 15:23, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

The use of this image is most heinous and should deeply trouble even the most insensitive persons. Are we trying to imply that racism did not exist until 1859 when Darwin published his theories? Are we forgetting that regardless of Hitler's beliefs, everyone who executed the Holocaust was most certainly Christian? What about these creationist gems in Hitler's Mein Kampf:

   For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x
   From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier

It is not only erroneous to call Hitler an evolutionist, it is offensive--to suggest a causal connection between scientific theory and genocide. This shoul bother everyone. --Stirlatez 23:30, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I still maintain that the Hitler picture is the best possible image to have at the head of this article. It sets the tone perfectly for what follows both in terms of accuracy and logic.--British_cons (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

What logic? It doesn't make any sense. Eugenics weakens gene pool diversity, which is evolutionarily unsound. There is no connection between Hitler's policies and evolution science. --Stirlatez 16:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I see the image has been removed. Thanks Conservative! --Stirlatez 18:22, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Why was the Hitler picture removed? I thought it was very appropriate.--British_cons (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Darwin was not an evolutionary racist? Please explain the following: "At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla. " -Charles Darwin conservative 01:58, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
Great! Hitler is back at the start! You are a Conservative to rely on!--British_cons (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
This hardly seems realistic given that many racist arguments have been characteristically religious in nature (i.e., curse of Ham, etc.). If the acceptance of evolution science actually made people racist you would have expected the Confederate States of America not to have been 100% creationist, wouldn't you?
I will reiterate that from a Darwinian perspective racism makes no sense since: 1) It shows that all races and in fact even all living things are essentially the same and have a common ancestor. 2) Destroying diversity in the gene pool through eugenics, etc. is not beneficial from an evolutionary perspective. Darwin himself was both an abolitionist and a vegetarian, both views I suspect were influenced by his discovery of evolution.
As for the quote, Darwin is simply remarking that from his perspective at the time whites will destroy other cultures. This does not mean he endorses this, he is predicting that it will happen. It was the time of Imperialism, after all. The use of words like "savage" and "uncivilized" etc. are racially charged now, but at the time were not. Much in the same way that "Negro" used to be an acceptable term for individuals of color but is now considered racist. See what I mean?
Regardless, I feel this image is not appropriate at all. As per the reasons I already discussed. Did you not see the quote in which Hitler clearly showed his creationist leanings? --Stirlatez 16:56, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
Stirlatez, please support your comment about "savage". Also, please address this portion of Darwin's quote as I think your absence of commenting on it is quite telling: "as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." conservative 00:01, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
You know what? Maybe you're right. Maybe Darwin was a racist. I'd like to think he wasn't, but it really doesn't matter because regardless of whether or not he was a moral person, it absolutely doesn't change the fact that there is an overwhelming amount of physical evidence for his theories.
This aside, is it not telling that you have declined to address the example I provided of the 100% creationist Confederacy? Is it not telling that you have declined to address the clearly pro-creationist statements made by Hitler himself? --Stirlatez 16:06, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
I don't see why supporting a comment is all of a sudden necessary. Perhaps Stirlatez should buy a cheap domain name and put up a site in order to be able to cite him/herself? It seems that any website regardless of bias or authenticity is allowed to be used as sources to support points in the articles so it hardly seems fair to ask for evidence on a talk page. Of course asking for support should be encouraged since otherwise opinion tends to get in the way of facts. As I have pointed out before a lot of the sources for quite a few of the pages are often unverifiable and need to be done over. Also, I quite agree that even should Darwin have been a racist, though I did quote him earlier that he found slavery an abomination; a view that wasn't prevalent at the time, and even if Hitler was influenced by it, it in no way changes the way people should view evolution. For instance Lincon was a great president and did much to fight slavery, however he had some racist views (racist by today's standards):
  • "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." -Abraham Lincon 1858 Fourth Joint Debate at Charlston
Does this make Lincon's accomplishments less important? Should all of his work, including the 13th amendment be discarded because he happened to be wrong about the equality of races. Darwin was wrong, but he was working in a day where he didn't even know about DNA or even about particulate inheritance (poor Gregor Mendel was unknown at this time). Now we know that biologically speaking race doesn't exist. Evolution can and has been used for the wrong reasons. But that's true for just about anything; people have been murdered with hammers but that doesn't mean we should stop building houses. The Holocaust was a tragedy brought about by many social and political reasons and to make it look like evolution was a main contributing factor is not only misleading but disrespectful. --Rainedaye 17:03, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Mutation and Mathematics

I have to confess to not having the time to read and digest the entire article this Saturday morning, but having read several sections I feel further insight is needed regarding mutation and algorithmic representation of systems. As yet there is no serious mention in the main article of genetic algorithms, a tool which allows us to simulate evolution, and there are clear gaps in the understanding of the role of mutation.

It is correctly stated in the main article that mutation is just a swing to left or right and does not provide the mechanism for evolution. It seems however that there is the view that mutation is the core of evolution and that it alone is responsible for the intricate designs of nature, this is a misinterpretation of Darwin’s theory. Mutation does just result in a fluctuation about a mean point, and this fluctuation represents potential new genetic material. It is selection which sifts the resultant diversity, discarding the non-beneficial mutations and it is this interaction between mutation and selection which is significant for evolution.

If we take Darwin’s theory and make an algorithm out of it we can run simulated evolution to further our understanding of the interaction between mutation and selection. Here is a loose (hand-wavy) definition of how such a model of evolution would work.

-Initialize a gene pool or population 
  (think table with each row representing one member of the population).  
  Each member of the population has a genome (e.g. just a simple string of 0’s & 1’s 
  or something more complex). Initial genomes can be completely random or all the same.
  -Pick at random two members from the population
  -Make a new member by combining the genomes of the selected pair 
   (in a way comparable to either human recombination or the recombination of simpler life forms).  
   Typically this recombination will be probabilistic and will result in a 
   new genome with around 50% material from either “parent” (depending on configuration)
  -Apply a probabilistic mutation to the new genome 
  (typically this is a very low probability of a single gene undergoing a small unguided change)
  -Pick another random member from the population and test it against a “fitness” criteria*1
  -Test the new genome against the same criteria.  
  -The one which has the best performance will be admitted back into the population 
   and the looser discarded.
-Repeat the loop n times where n is an arbitrary number of generations 
  (e.g. 200 in a simple situation).

*1 The fitness criteria in an algorithm is an assessment of how well the product of the 
  genome (its phenotype) performs in a simulated environment.

With such an algorithm we can vary the factors of evolution and observe their implications. From such experimentation the need for both mutation and selection is clear; if you start a population and remove any beneficial genes from the initial gene pool and run the algorithm without mutation then evolution will not occur. With just mutation but no selection there will be no direction to the gene pool’s change. In order for a solution to evolve both mutation and selection are required, however if sufficient genes to construct a good solution where scattered about the initial population then mutation is not required. The processes of selection and recombination are sufficient to produce evolution and a great deal of intricacy can be attributed to just these two processes.

Mutation is the vector for NEW genetic material; this is not the same as saying it is the vector for all genetic material. In the simpler beginnings there was a great diversity of potential material (e.g. around the Cambrian explosion and earlier) and new functionality could be added simply by recombination, without the need for mutation. Recombination and selection will eventually drive every member of the gene pool toward identical genomes and does so with a rate of change which decreases exponentially. Mutation’s importance increases as the population tends towards genetic similarity (convergence) as it acts to oppose this and so helps protect against genetic blind alleys.

It is incomplete to speculate on how intricate design occurred from mutations; a more holistic appraisal of the system is required when grappling with the origins of natural systems. We also need to exert caution when regarding these systems; we are oft blinded by intricacy, failing to consider if such intricacy is optimal. It is only our arrogance that assumes that we and all around us are perfect in design and that our design is the only solution to the problem.

In the section “Genetic Code, Processing of Biological Data, and Biological Information” it is stated that no man made algorithm is able to produce the intricacies of even simple organic life, and no one would argue this, but to be fair we have only been programming for a couple of generations. Who is to say it is impossible to algorithmically describe a life form, it would be foolish to say “that because we can’t do it, it can be done”. If we take something biological, which we completely understand, we can describe it in terms of chemistry. A cell or simple life form can be broken down into just the chemical interactions if it’s molecular makeup. If you where a highly skilled physicist you could describe all the chemical interactions in terms of pure physics and if you were an unhinged mathematician you could further reduce it into nothing but maths. By which point, even for a simple life form, you would be dealing with terrifyingly complex algorithms, but algorithms none the less. Eventually we take everything we understand and make a model out of it, physicists are the masters at this, but more and more chemistry and biology has been well modelled, which of course has the prerequisite of mathematical comprehension.

It turns out that what Darwin described is a type of fuzzy search logic capable of traversing search spaces of N-dimensional complexity and solving NP problems (a problem considered hard or impossible to calculate with logic (terrifyingly complex algorithms)). Models of evolution are able to solve algorithms and do so with absolutely no “understanding” of the maths needed to compute the problem. A genetic algorithm (GA) which solves simultaneous equations does not contain any code that has anything to do with simultaneous equations.

It is hard to dismiss a theory which was derived from nature and just happens to be a mathematical system of the sort able to deal with the awesome maths of genetics. It is harder still to dismiss it after having watched algorithmic evolution produce behaviours which were not human programmed, behaviours akin to natural behaviours, and is apparently “clever” enough to abuse limitations of the man made simulation. A frequent problem when trying to write a GA to produce a human desired output is that the GA will “out-smart” the designer and come up with its own solution, which was not what the designer was after. The mathematical model of evolution which was designed around Darwin’s theory is demonstrably capable of producing novel design and so far the limitations to intricacy are due to our inadequate implementations. The fossil what? This is the evidence of the theory’s validity.

Darwin’s theory is an example of a particular way of thinking which has enabled us to shed old cumbersome ideas like top-down hierarchical design and realise the power of simple distributed systems. These concepts which literally saved the field of “intelligent systems design” from failure are comparable with the concept of evolution.

Since understanding how a system can produce macro effects though micro manipulations we have started to see this distributed design everywhere in nature. It is exemplified in the design of human muscles; a system of molecules, each one representing on quanta of power and only producing the slightest force, but able to move us with ease. Hive and other group social behaviours are further examples of natural distributed systems, in this case each unit is an entire life form, but act as a whole in a cohesive manner. Before we comprehended these concepts we tried to build robots with centralized (top-down) control and failed and we tried to find the “command neurones” in mammalian nervous systems and have not found them. The realisation of distributed design has enabled us to get passed this and to make capable robot AI’s based on these principles and to greatly further our understanding of biological nervous systems. The concepts of distributed design are not hard to grasp, they just require a different, sideways approach. With these concepts it is possible to see how something is able to construct itself from nothing (autopiesis), how complexity can arise from simplicity and to see the elegance of this mind shatteringly simple system.

NB: The above has been written off-the-cuff (in my dressing gown this Saturday morning) and I have not had the time to do the protracted task of hunting down references. I feel that if you are as interested in this topic as I am, you will be able to find a lot of what I have said in recent literature. Furthermore everything that I have said about genetic algorithms is self provable on your own computer. This may be a bit out of the grasp of some but if you understand the basics of programming I urge you to write or download a genetic algorithm and take it to pieces. I have written one designed to be understandable to someone with a better grasp of biology than maths and is written in a Ruby making it very easy to understand if you speak English. If you don’t want to go through the pain of trying to write your first GA mail me and I’ll send you my (sort of complete) source code and you can have evolution in a can (the complexity of the can is up to you).

--Ev01ve 14:30, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Further to what I've posted above, this paperis a fairly good introduction to genetic algorithms without going too abstract. Its touches on a couple of the aspectects (mutation, search spaces) mentioned in the above post.--twopir 19:17, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Request for a several minor edits to this full-protected page

A few errors found by MS Word...

1. The last sentence of the section titled "Genetic Code, Processing of Biological Data, and Biological Information" reads:

The editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Dr. Richard Sternberg, came under intense scutiny and persecution for the aforementioned article published by Dr. Meyer.

The misspelled "scutiny" should be changed to "scrutiny".

2. The first sentence of the fourth paragraph of the section titled "Theory of Evolution and Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms'" begins:

Creationist assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years...

It should begin:

Creationists assert that...

3. The introduction to the second quotation in the section titled "Paleoanthropology" reads:

Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleonanthropology:

The highlighted "n" is superfluous and should be removed.

4. The second paragraph of the section titled "The Issue of Whether the Evolutionary Position Qualifies as a Scientific Theory reads:

In respect to the falsifiability of the evolutionary position, although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, commited evolutionists Louis Charles Birch & Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal Nature the following:

The misspelled "commited" should be changed to "committed".

I hope my description of where the errors are located is good enough for whoever reads this to figure out what I am talking about.


Samtheman 11:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

If the page were unlocked like it should be, then these problems likely wouldn't be there. HelpJazz 14:02, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Thanks. Made corrections. conservative 17:50, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Where has the discussion gone?! I thought that this was a place where ideas could be debated and we could challenge each others views and test the metal of our understandings/theories? Not to mention all the other topics covered on this page that are now gone, I had written an article ("mutation and mathematics") which i was hoping to have debated by the readers of this site. I was very disappointed to see that this page has been erased, and think it a bit unfair that non-compatible ideas are disposed of before they have had the chance for reasonable debate. I hope that this has happened in error not as the result of censorship, as that would seem hypocritical. --twopir 19:17, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Try the archive box instead of jumping to conclusions. Tsch. Bugler 19:21, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
What Bugler said. --IanG 19:21, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Wasn't the page archived prematurely? It wasn't getting long and there were a number of points that had not been addressed. Could the page be restored please? --Horace 19:38, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, my bad. However i agree with Horace, can we bring back the page or at least parts of it?--twopir 20:20, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Am I to understand that the tenor and receptiveness of discussion on this topic has improved? When I last made suggestions (back in archive 13), the one user authorised to edit this article largely ignored my comments; as I recall, the bulk of his/her response consisted of accusations that I was an evolutionist, Monty Python references and a comic strip about a fairy tale, which concluded by questioning my ability to write coherently or informatively. I must say that (s)he quite demolished my initial enthusiasm. I simply couldn't bear writing under such obtuse editorial control.
If thick asbestos undergarments are no longer part of the dress code, I'd quite like to contribute. — Jordan 13:09, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Jordan, I am sorry to hear you complain that I have taken a "the beatings of evolutionary thought will continue until evolutionists morale improves" approach, however, the material in the theory of evolution article and the many sources it cites does clearly show the total unreasonableness of the evolutionary position. Therefore, being dismissive of the evolutionary approach is entirely appropriate. conservative 16:29, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Yes, but, back on topic, I assume no-one objects to the reinstatement of the talk page as suggested. --Horace 17:51, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Hello again, Conservative.
I would be grateful if you would take a moment to consider my experience of our exchange. You see, I was raised to be polite and respectful towards others, even when I disagreed with them. If you will refresh your memory of our previous discussion, you may identify the fruits of my upbringing in my conduct towards you.
To my eyes, your response could scarcely have contrasted more sharply. Perhaps you did not realise it, but I was trying very hard to be nice to you and make constructive suggestions; in answer, you wrote me off cursorially, patronised me, accused me ex cathedra of being an evolutionist, and made jokes at my expense. If your aim was to exhaust my supply of good will, you succeeded admirably, and I soon found that I couldn't honestly say anything very nice about my experience with you. Again, I was raised on the dictum "if you can't say something nice about something, remain silent," and so I stepped out.
The reason I was disappointed was because of your dismissive attitude towards me—not evolution. If you had shown a little respect towards me, or even credited me with some integrity, perhaps I would be less so.
Thank you for responding and apologising. I really hope you will consider what I have said and think a little about your online persona. You might well be thoughtful and civil in real life, Conservative, but I submit that this is not the impression that you conveyed to me.—Jordan 16:49, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
I Brought back archived discussion as it wasn't as long as normally archived discussions. I archived as it did not seem that there was much interest in the current discussions. conservative 05:56, 22 September 2008 (EDT)


I'm torn between laughing my rear end or and being flat out disgusted over the first most prominent graphic on a page about evolution being that of Hitler in full glory of his rhetoric. I mean, really people... Hitler? Jros83 23:28, 6 October 2008 (EDT) I'd ask what others think and take the position that it should be removed but, well, we all know how that would end up...

This has already been discussed at length. LiamG 23:36, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Multiple times. HelpJazz 23:37, 6 October 2008 (EDT)


This article seems somewhat biased. Sure, I'm conservative, but if someone asks me if I believe in evolution or creation I'm gonna say guided evolution. What do I mean? The fact that things evolve is almost scientific fact, but how it happens is up in the air. My opinion is that god guided evolution along (to argue that evolution does not exist because of god- is denying the ability of god to do it). I'm a strong Conservative on many issues, but I believe that this needs to be cleaned up.

Coming attraction

The history of Conservapedia articles that have become more popular among conservatives suggest that Conservapedia evolution article will likely keep climbing up the search engine rankings (The Conservapedia atheism article has excellent search engine rankings and I certainly would not suprised if the same thing happens to Conservapedia's evolution article). The Conservapedia evolution article will likely see a significant uptick in traffic. Given that the evolutionary position is slowly losing support in the United States which is one of the scientific powerhouses of the world, the Conservapedia article gaining more and more exposure certainly is not helpful in regards to evolutionists propagating their evolutionary dogma on the internet. conservative 00:56, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Wow that jet picture is cool! What is going to happen to evolution? It is about time all those dogmatic evolutionist got what was coming to them. Jwillis 22:24, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

You guys are crazy

Evolution is a theory, that is correct, but all evidence so far points in the direction of evolution. Creation cannot be proven and is thus religion. Religion has nothing to do with science. Richard81 08:54, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Notice: User:Richard81, not content with making the above provocative statement, unilaterally changed a related article. For that he is now blocked.--TerryHTalk 09:01, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Hitler? You've got to be kidding!

I've seen some wacky things on this site, but trying to equate evolution with Hitler and the Nazi movement is beyond words. I know this a Christian encyclopedia, but are you people so desperate in your fight against science that you have to resort to this? I don't know how you can expect to be taken seriously even by the most fundamentalist Christians with such an absurd comparison. Mike770780 15:23, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Mike, if you were trying to make an argument you failed. conservative 18:34, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Problems with the Article (Part III)

The heading "The Theory of Evolution and Little Consensus" is not worded well. If you must have this section (it's not very convincing, just a bunch of quotes) why not something more coherent like "Lack of Consensus in Evolutionary Theory" so you at least sound like you know what you are talking about. The first quote from Morris does not show a "little scientific consensus on how macroevolution happened" like the sentence before it implies. Firstly, it is agreed that genetic variation in populations combined with natural selection is the underlying cause of evolution. This article does not even begin to deny that. What it does state is that there are different theories on how much molecular processes are subject to evolution. Some of these are very well accepted, it's just that multiple mechanisms for macroevolution can exist depending on the conditions. Differing theories existing of course is natural for the sciences. It promotes a healthy understanding of the principals involved. Those theories that are able to be supported by hard evidence eventually become accepted and those that don't or have evidence piled against them fade away. A stagnant science is a dead science. As for the second quote. It's true that we will never be able to construct a complete tree of life. Given the sheer random sampling that we have of the fossil record, and the fact that we are unaware of possibly the majority of species alive even today. However, this does not pertain to the subject of macroevolution in particular nor does it show a lack of consensus. Any biologist knows that you can never prove anything, and that you must keep an open mind to accept a contradicting theory if the evidence allows. If this was not the case Einstein wouldn't have been listened to, and we would still have a Newtonian understanding of gravity. The quote from Niles Eldrige uses the word "superficially" for a reason. The last quote from Pierre Grasse is also true in that evolution is not a "simple, understood, explained phenomenon". There is a lot of evidence for evolution, and it widely excepted, however there are certain details about evolution that we do not know. Since darwin concepts such as punctuated equilibria, bottlenecked population, founder's effect, mutation rates, ect. have led to a large amount of new information for evolutionary biologists to sort out (note: since 1977 our understanding has been increasing rapidly, especially when the advent of quicker, cheaper, more efficient molecular technology). This is not against macroevolution. This just states that there is more to evolution than was previously thought and that some biologists do not fully understand this. --Rainedaye 22:16, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

I cannot speak for others but I found your argumentation less than convincing. I would suggest actually quoting the first two sentences of the Morris quote. However, we both know that if you did quote the first sentences of the Morris quote your "argumentation" (if you want to call it that) would come tumbling down! conservative 02:14, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Noticed Bias on this Article

I notice a lot of bias on this article. Here are a few pointers:

  • Evolution isn't supposed to describe the origin of life, it explains the diversity of life on this planet.
  • Hitler used Eugenics in the Holocaust. Eugenics is artificial selection, not natural selection.
  • A theory is a hypothesis that has a lot of proof going for it.
  • Evolution happens on the microscopic level. Remember, we are made of trillions of tiny organisms called cells.
  • When bacteria, mold, viruses, ecetera become immune to current medicine, drugs, chemicals, that is also evolution because the organisms that survived had an advantage in its conditions.
  • There is no such thing as macroevolution because as I said before, Evolution occurs on the cellular level, and all complex life on Earth is made of cells. JudgeKing 13:29, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Where does the article state the evolution is supposed to describe the origin of life? I don't believe it does! I will let the readers decide if the rest of your material is lacking in relevance/substance as well! conservative 02:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

incorporate into article, american medical doctors and evolutionary position

incorporate into article: american medical doctors and evolutionary position: conservative 23:38, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Incorporated the material at the beginning of the article.conservative 10:12, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
You actually just copied it word for word. But doesn't "1/3 of medical doctors support ID over evolution" mean that "2/3 of medical doctors support evolution over ID"? Shouldn't the larger number be the more relevant statistic? HelpJazz 13:07, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Same comment as homosexuality

Will someone let us edit this, not for content, but for style? It's a huge mess as written now, and could be more effective if cleaned up. ----ToJones 12:07, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

You have rather vague commentary for someone who supposedly wants to provide additional clarity to the evolution article. conservative 12:24, 1 November 2008 (EDT)