Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 3

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fundamental Issue

There seems to be a complete dearth of information on evolution itself here on the page. Almost the entire article focuses on refuting evolution's claims. The article should probably be entitled "Criticisms of Evolution", rather than purporting to be an entry that gives affirmative (i.e. talking about what evolution is, rather than what it is NOT) information about evolution. Wikipedia provides numerous entries on all the varying forms of belief pertaining to the beginning of the world, and the ways which different biological forms came about. They have pages on the different sorts of creationism, evolution, the criticisms of each, timelines, history, schools of thought, and every other aspect of belief on the subject, each with their own entries. This page, on the other hand, reads like a vitriolic, reactionary response to something that we Christians are insecure about. Why not give evolution its own page, focusing on its proponents beliefs, give the criticisms of each their own respective pages, and write the creationist article in such a way that focuses on what the creationists actually do affirmatively believe. It seems to me that the issues need to be skillfully separated, being sure to not step on each theory's feet. Let's also remember that providing evidence that evolution is false adds nothing to the argument FOR the various forms of creationism. Essentially: Let's separate the articles, and not be too crass in our critcisms of each theory. Violent, muddled responses wihin articles show nothing but pathetic insecurity. Just my 2cents. Not trying to get banned, just trying to evoke a civilized discussion.--WOVcenter 17:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I made every attempt to keep the tone of the article encyclopedic and vitriole free. Where is the rancor in the article? Conservative 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
There is a lack of balance here, though. Surely you'll admit that? Right now, your article (Yes, your article. If my count is correct, you contributed 248 of 329 edits as of this edit. That's more than 75%. The next most contributing member is PhilipB with 11 edits.) has the sole aim of proving that evolution is wrong. Moving it to a more fitting name (like WOVcenter suggested) would at least solve the problem of balance in a trivial way, even though it would not solve the open points people raised on the Talk pages. --Sid 3050 18:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I will certainly admit the article is very conservative in content. I don't think that is all inappropriate given that the article is in a online encyclopedia called Conservapedia and that conservatives have been at the forefront of opposition to the evolutionary position since at least the time of Darwin. Secondly, as far as your edit percentage I think you should take into account that conservapedian Aschlafly did create the "Macroevolutionary Position and Implausible Explanations" material first and I merely revised his material to make it more cautionary in tone but at the same time gave more examples. So in at least one case, I have made the article more gentle on the evolutionary position. Conservative 18:59, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
At edit counts of your dimension, those... five or ten or so edits reduce your percentage by less than half a percent or so. My point still stands. As does the point about this article being named incorrectly. I know this project is about "conservative values", but... oh, forget it. Total waste of my time trying to argue for balance. This thing will never be more than a permanently locked "Why evolution is wrong" essay. You're right. Stay the course. --Sid 3050 19:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I believe that you have confused "conservative" with "anti-science luddite". The two are not synonyms. Being a conservative does not necessitate rejecting the theory of evolution solely for religious reasons backed by faulty logic and outright falsehoods. Dimensio 19:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

WTF?!? This article isnt about evolution at all! it is just a criticism of evolution. You guys are embarrassing yourselves. Jirt 19:50, 14 March 2007

I just now noticed that there's a page called 'Evolution', and another page called 'Theory of Evolution'. The 'Evolution' page addresses my earlier concern, and does in fact focus affirmatively on the theory of evolution (albeit in a comparatively cursory manner), and the 'Theory of Evolution' page addresses the Creationist concerns with the Theory of Evolution. I don't understand the naming. The difference between 'Evolution' and 'Theory of Evolution' is negligible at best. Do a google definition search (define:word), and essentially the same Darwin-related definitions are brought up. Granted, 'Evolution' is the broader term of the two (lots of non-biological things evolve too), but both Conservapedia articles speak to essentially the same, Darwin-focused things. Shouldn't the 'Evolution' article be named 'Theory of Evolution', and the current 'Theory of Evolution' page be entitled 'Criticisms of the Theory of Evolution'? My original argument still hasn't been addressed, too. The 'Theory of Evolution' page still presents virtually no affirmative information on Evolution, and mostly focuses on non-Evolutionary subjects (i.e. Creationism). Thoughts? --WOVcenter 20:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Good plan.--AmesG 20:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Also, this "Theory" article just keeps getting worse, which you would think would stop at a certain point, but no, it just keeps going and going. Can some other admin, not Conservative, look at this drivel?--AmesG 20:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
If you check the second archived Talk page you will see that I made a number of suggestions for improving the article by adding more content in the same vein as the information already present. Dimensio 20:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Why is that this article does not discuss fundamentals of the Theory of the Evolution? Namely mutations of the DNA? As I understand this theory, without explaining science behind evolution, it is very easy to misrepresent facts. --Aramis 23:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Arismus, thank you for your input. For the sake of brevity, I covered that material here: Creationists assert that evolutionary biology is speculative and goes against much of the present evidence in biology that points to creationism. [1][2][3] Conservative 04:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Creationists are free to assert whatever they like, howevere that does not change the fact that their assertions are in direct contradiction to reality, nor does it change the fact that the "Theory of Evolution" page here is rife with logical errors, factual errors and quotes that have dishonestly been presented out of context. Dimensio 08:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
With all due respect, almost all evidence in biology points to evolution. I can accept that other areas of evolution are shaky (fossil records, etc.) but biology is one that I cannot. ColinR 04:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Colin, please review the section in the article titled: "Little Consensus Regarding an Evolutionary Process" Conservative 05:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Conservative, picking quotes out of context is not how science is done. Take a read of Futuyama's text book on evolution, and you will see it is not built up of quotes, but rather hard science. I've already said from first-hand experience that Simon Morris's quote has been presented in a deliberately deceptive way to distort his opinion, and I'm very sure that most of the others have as well. Nematocyte 05:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, the 'Evolution' page is now gone, and now redirects to the vehemently anti-Evolution 'Theory of Evolution' page. This isn't an article with information about Evolution, but rather a page about Creationism, and how it relates to Evolution. Shouldn't this be renamed 'Criticisms of the Theory of Evolution'. Is a Conservapedia sysop going to respond to my substantive concerns? Thanks. --WOVcenter 00:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Is no sysop going to respond? This is a critical issue, no? I'm just looking for ways to fix this article, and feel I've been fairly civil so far. --WOVcenter 04:02, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

WOVcenter, I appreciate your civility (AmesG was not very civil in his post above) and appreciate you wanting to improve the article. However, I don't believe that Conservapedia is going to make any substantial change in direction in regards to being against the evolutionary position. Here is what User:Aschlafly (who has authority over the Admins) has said about the Theory of Evolution article: "By the way, Theory of Evolution ranks number 3 in our most-visited pages, after the Main Page and Bias in Wikipedia. Well done!--Aschlafly 00:17, 27 February 2007 (EST)"[4] Conservative 04:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Conservative, thanks for responding. I don't at all want Conservapedia to change its stance on its response to Evolution; it's pretty clear that your beliefs are strong. I'm merely trying to make the point that encyclopedia titles should match their content. Sorry if I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but I feel this is incredibly important, and I'd like to have a cogent response to this particular point. If you have an entry called "Theory of Evolution", the article should speak to what that "Theory of Evolution" is, rather than what it is not. I have no doubt that all the anti-Evolution positions mentioned in the current article are positions that you hold dear. The fact still remains, though, that all these points are on the subject of controversy surrounding Evolution, rather than Evolution itself. All the books mentioned in your 'further readings' section quite correctly identify themselves as such. They're titled "Refuting Evolution", "Darwin on Trial", the "Creation-Evolution Controversy", etc. All of the titles of these books identify themselves as presenting arguments against Evolution, as part of the controversy surrounding Evolution; perhaps the article should do the same. This separation is something that Wikipedia does often, and rightfully, I feel. For example, say I'm a strong proponent of looser gun/ccw laws. There's no disagreement that there are varying disputes on the subject of gun control. So, where do I look for information on this on wikipedia? There's a page called 'Gun Politics'. My side's beliefs aren't found on the 'Gun', or 'Pistol/Handgun' page itself, and rightfully so. Okay, I'm not conflating gun control and evolution, but, the way these controversial issues should play out on an encyclopedia is important. My position on the structuring of this article is in no way trying to refute the claims made in the article. I'm merely saying, on a base writing-style level, that the article's title should more closely relate to the actual content. This is an article about the Evolution Controversy, as all your sources indicate, and as your content clearly illustrates. Labeling them as anything other than this just isn't correct. The article isn't about what Evolution is, it's about what it is not. If these basic tenets of encyclopedia article writing aren't followed, at worst, this page may never come-off as anything more than angry hatespeech, and at best this page will come off as being poorly written. Please keep the articles intellectually honest. Thank you. --WOVcenter 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
WOV, I have to leave very soon but given your desire for sincere and respectful discussion I would briefly say the article is not about "Evolution". The article is about the "Theory of Evolution". I think there is a difference. Conservative 13:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Well, okay. I agree with that. That's true in the broadest sense. The article does, in fact, pertain to The Theory of Evolution. But more acutely, what this article focuses on (rather than what it broadly pertains to) is the controversy surrounding evolution. Your sources rightfully identify this distinction; I just thought you might want your article to as well. Thanks. --WOVcenter 13:47, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

There is nothing inherently 'conservative' about denying evolution. Charles Lyell was politically and religiously conservative, but he nonetheless accepted evolution based on scientific merit despite his personal distaste for the idea. Many, many professional scientists whose beliefs might also be described as conservative have also supported, even promoted evolution. Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the 20th century's greatest evolutionary biologists, is one example. Why is there the assumption that the term conservative is synonymous with 'christian'? Can't Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. be politically or socially conservative? Does this project exclude those people? Conservative, you need to step aside here and allow people who are much more qualified than you are to take over. Your basic lack of scientific and historical understanding is shocking--or are you just more comfortable believing that every one of the dozens of posts attacking your miserable lack of knowledge of this subject is written by a liberal who is out to get you? --porkchop 10:17, 15 March 2007

Porkchop, conservatives have a long tradition of denying the validity of the theory of evolution. When you read the press who are the ones who deny the theory of evolution? The conservatives. What did most of the early church fathers and traditional Judaism teach? Young earth creationism (YEC) as I documented in the YEC article. I am also betting that traditional Islam upholds YEC. Therefore YEC is truly a conservative view. Lastly, I see no reason to dignify the more acerbic criticism portions of your post with a lengthy response. Conservative 10:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
That most of those who object to evolution are conservative doesn't imply that most conservatives object to evolution. Tsumetai 10:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm conservative and I don't object to evolution. As I've mention before I find YEC to be anti-Christian on theological grounds, and non-conservative as I believe conservatives should maintain a strict scientific viewpoint. Nematocyte 11:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Technical question, article length

Conservapedia Scorpionman says the talk page was too long and I noticed it took about 2 seconds to scoll down the talk page. This talk page caused Scorpionman's browser to have problems.

Also, I noticed that the "Evolution" article at Wikipedia takes about 2 seconds to scroll down.

Here is my question. I was thinking of creating one more section but I don't want the article to become too big so people have internet browser problems. When is an article too big from a technical point of view. Conservative 17:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
I think that answers your question. --Sid 3050 18:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I have no complaints from the Conservapedia staff that the article is not concise. The article is currently about half the size of the Wikipedia article on the same subject. Conservative 18:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Well, gee, I wonder why the Conservapedia staff didn't complain... *rolls eyes* And I don't have an issue with article length in general. Maybe you should talk to Scorpionman about why his browser can't even handle a few kb of text...
Sid, perhaps you should go to Wikipedia and complain that their article which is far longer than ours is not concise. Given the intensity of support for the evolutionary position at the liberal site Wikipedia [5], I don't think you will get too far! Conservative 19:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Do you even think before, while, or after you write a reply? Conciseness is a Conservapedia rule. Why should I go to WIKIPEDIA and complain that they break CONSERVAPEDIA's rules? UGH. --Sid 3050 19:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
And even more, don't you think it's a wee bit hypocritical to go "Wikipedia is bad because they don't listen to us!" while at the same time blocking out everybody who disagrees with your view? Critical articles are "protected" against "liberal vandalism" with no unlocking being in sight, and the points raised on Talk pages are simply ignored. --Sid 3050 19:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
And don't you think it's a bit bold to compare your "Evolution is wrong wrong wrong!" essay with Wikipedia's article about evolution? --Sid 3050 18:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Evolution is a theory and to present it as fact would be to misconstrue scientific opinion. This article takes a fair and balanced approach.
That should be: a Fair And Balanced™ approach JamesK 19:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah yes. The old "It's a theory. As such, there are no signs indicating that it may be true. So theory is just another word for wrong!" routine. Why am I not surprised? And it must be a funny universe in which "fair and balanced" is true even when the entire article just goes on and on about one side while misrepresenting or ignoring the other side. --Sid 3050 19:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Your article is not what a reasonable individual -- conservative or not -- would consider to be "fair and balanced". Your article references numerous falsehoods and appeals primarily to out of context quote snippets, a creationist practice known as "quote mining", wherein you quote only a small portion of a person's statement to make it appear that they agree with your position or statement, when in reality the context of their statement taken with other statements made at the same time shows that they in fact do not agree with your position. Dimensio 20:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This "quote mining" was used to pretend that Stephen Jay Gould actually believes there are no transitional fossils! Here is a brief excerpt of what he really said (for the complete quotation go to "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes"): "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

Gould wrote: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we NEVER see the very process we profess to study. [6] In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." [7] (emphasis added)Conservative 07:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
This was followed immedeately by "Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no, and I invoke two recently supported cases of discontinuous change in my defense.", then ""If we must accept many cases of discontinuous transition in macroevolution, does Darwinism collapse to survive only as a theory of minor adaptive change within species? . . ." and then ""But all theories of discontinuous change are not anti-Darwinian, as Huxley pointed out nearly 120 years ago. Suppose that a discontinuous change in adult form arises from a small genetic alteration. Problems of discordance with other members of the species do not arise, and the large, favorable variant can spread through a population in Darwinian fashion. Suppose also that this large change does not produce a perfected form all at once, but rather serves as a "key" adaptation to shift its possessor toward a new mode of life. Continued success in this new mode may require a large set of collateral alterations, morphological and behavioral; these may arise by a more traditional, gradual route once the key adaptation forces a profound shift in selective pressures." You are again presenting only a small segment of a quote and distorting the idea that the original author was attempting to convey. You cannot falsify the theory of evolution by selectively quoting words of biologists and ignoring others. Dimensio 08:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Concise does not necessarily imply short in length. Concise just means free of extraneous information. ColinR 20:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Merriam-Webster says "marked by brevity of expression or statement; free from all elaboration and superfluous detail", Encarta says "short and clearly written or stated: using as few words as possible to give the necessary information, or compressed in order to be brief", and Dictionary.com says "expressing or covering much in few words; brief in form but comprehensive in scope; succinct; terse".
So the definition implies "short in length" AND "clear in statement". These two things are connected and have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. You couldn't cover the entire Bible in just two paragraphs without omitting critical information, but doing a sentence-by-sentence analysis of it would not be concise, either. Similarily, you probably can't cover all aspects of evolution with 30kb (rough size of this article last time I checked), but this entire article can be summed up as "Evolution is the theory of how life changes over time. Creationists say that it's wrong, and you should believe them." I don't see how adding even more sections is going to say any more than that. It just goes on and on until the reader says "Okay! Fine! I believe that evolution is a lie!".
The current article touches evolution, macroevolution, transitional forms, fossil record, design theory, and how the Bible has been right where science had initially been wrong. The only problem is that all of these complex fields are just brushed briefly without really giving context or explanations. Some sections only consist of a few lines of text and several paragraphs of quotes. If it's clear to you, then you have been in the Creationism/Evolution debate long enough not to need this article anyway.
Likewise, this reply was not concise. A concise reply would have been: "The word concise implies shortness and clarity. This article fails to fulfill either aspect." --Sid 3050 21:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

What's biased in this article?

For a creationist treatment of evolution, please see go to theTheory of evolution page.

Biological evolution, first formally proposed as a theory by Charles Darwin, is the structure by which organisms change over time, in small spurts, or in massive shifts.[1] Both rest on firm scientific backing, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a common ancestor.[2]

The mechanism for evolution is natural selection, which is to say that organisms adapt to new circumstances, by means of spontaneous genetic mutations found in the generation after a change is encountered, or they die. This is not to say that mutations only occur during environmental change; rather, they are always occuring, but only matter when an external pressure favors one species with a certain mutation. Certain large-scale environmental pressures can force an abrupt dying-off of species that are unfit for the circumstances, leaving only those who can withstand a changed situation. The remaining species then attempt to find their own niches in a new food chain. The most successful species at finding their own niches have more children than the less successful, and continuing evolution then favors a development of traits favored to that niche.[3] This process is without termination. Humanity itself is still evolving.[4]

Evolution is highly controversial in the United States. A near-majority of Americans do not believe, or at least seriously question, evolution, based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, the two are not mutually exclusive, regardless of those perpetuating conflicts to the contrary. In fact, many people are deeply religious, and believe, for instance, that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. - From user AmesG

Pretty much all Catholics, and most European Christians believe that, for starters. Creationism is pretty much unique to the USA and parts of the Third World. --Scrap 02:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Creationism appears to be spreading in Australia (compare the two footnotes)[8][9] Conservative 03:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Poor Australia. I didn't realize that times were so hard there.--11:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)


Current Talk Topics

Current talk topics are discussed here. Once topics are resolved please add them to the Archives above with most recent topics in the archive of the highest number.

Spent time proofreading

I received a short note regarding grammatical errors in this article. I was a writing tutor at a university so I did some proofreading and found some grammatical errors in the article. I also made some minor stylistic changes to sentences that I had composed. If anyone has any further input regarding this matter your comments would be appreciated. Conservative 02:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Let a scientist get a crack at it? Nematocyte 05:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
A scientist may introduce too much undesired fact. This article is clearly designed to be a showcase of typical creationist reasoning: devoid of actual fact, rich in quote mining and dishonesty. Clearly the author of this article wishes to give the impression that all conservatives are backwards champions of stupidity, and that conservatism means using lies to support a purely religious movement to destroy observed reality. I cannot fathom the reason for this, except to speculate that the Theory of Evolution page was actually written by a liberal who seeks to make liberalism look reasonable by comparison. Dimensio 09:03, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Dimensio, your vague allegations and attempts at mind reading are not exactly impressive. :) Conservative 10:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Nonetheless, you could let a scientist have a shot. Or are you afraid?--AmesG 11:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
It must be said conservative's understanding of biology does not appear to streach beyond quoting random biolgists. Nematocyte 11:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Not all conservatives, some conservatives are, dare I say it... Atheist. ToryBoy
I think he meant the user Conservative, versus all conservatives. But worse than not understanding biology, Conservative is not even willing to learn, which is just plain sad.--AmesG 11:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Attempts to focus on me and my mental state are rather futile, given that I cited an abundance of creationist scientists and non-creationist scientists. I have noticed a lot of unsubstantive criticism on this talk page although I have certainly taken advantage of constructive criticism that has been offered at this website in regards to this article. Please try to focus the criticism on the article and not on me. It certainly would be taking the high road. Conservative 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I've made it quite clear that the entire tactic of simply quoting little soundbites from various scientists in an attempt to distort the scientific posistion is not the proper way to write an article. You could read a few of the mainstream texts on the issue (I gave Futuyama's as a good example) before passing yourself off as an expert. Since you are currently the only person editting the article, focusing on you appears a valid topic. Nematocyte 11:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative - the most obvious criticism of the article, to my mind at least, is that the various sections consist primarily of quotes. I think it would be greatly improved by synthesizing findings and allowing the reader to judge, rather than listing judgments that others have already made.--Murray 11:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Nematocyte, why is it that evolutionist have a strong penchant for claiming things are random. I chose the scientists I cited. They were not "random". Conservative 11:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I'm guessing you picked them from premade lists of quote mines compiled by creationists. Am I close? Nematocyte 11:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Nematocyte, again I think you need to focus on the article and not me. Conservative 11:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
That's a "correct", then? Since your are the only person editting the article I think it's highly important to discuss your credentials on the matter. Perhaps editting should be done by a person who's actually read the titles you're quoting from? Nematocyte 11:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Murray, a substantial portion of the article is non quotes. However, quotes are an effective means to powerfully convey with precision what an expert has to offer. Aschlafly used a number of quotes for his portions of the article. Conservative 11:35, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

OR, we could accurately and concisely convey the scientific consensus position on the matter by reviewing the mainstream authoratative text books and scientific reviews. Just mabey. Crazy thought, really. Nematocyte 11:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Please see the article in regards to the scientific consensus and the evolutionary view. Conservative 11:39, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I'm an actual scientist. I deal with this subject on a day to day basis. Every day I meet and talk to other biologists, and read the literature on the subject. You only need to open the latest issue of Nature, Science, Cell or any other mainstream journal to see the consensus position. Nematocyte 11:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
And a substantial portion of it is quotes. Again, from my perspective the article would be much improved with more original content. This is particularly glaring in the section on experimental data, which contains no actual discussion of the experimental data, merely a secondhand quote.--Murray 11:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I think we're probably about to hear Conservative claim that Nematocyte is a biased, God-hating atheist evolutionist, whose well-reasoned statements are nonetheless not due any deference.--AmesG 11:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Please keep your focus on the article. The talk page is intended for talk about the article and not about me. Notice the heading: Talk:Theory of evolution Conservative 11:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Seeing as how you remain the only editor of the article I would like you explain why that isn't an important topic. Moreover I would like to directly ask, what are your qualifications regarding the understanding of the theory of evolution? Nematocyte 12:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Is this a joke?

I just read through this article and I think I laughed. I can't tell if this entire article was written as a huge joke or not. Is this a serious article?MatteeNeutra 11:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to ridiculeConservative 11:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
It's not a joke. This is what User:Conservative seriously believes the mainstream scientific position on evolution is. Nematocyte 11:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Again, see the two sections of the article focusing on the Scientific Consensus issue. Conservative 11:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Conservative, it's also a fallacy to, when your reasoning is attacked, fall back on your reasoning as proof of itself. That's circular logic. Your statement of the "current position" is full of errors, that Nematocyte would gladly correct.--AmesG 11:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
The entire article is an appeal to ridicule. I'm not enitrely sure how someone can be so single minded and blunt? At least liberals allow for all PoV to be considered. This article has whiffs of Stalin-esque censorship about it.MatteeNeutra 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't think anyone has been put in a death camp or shot for criticizing this article. Please no theatrics. Conservative 11:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
How many months was it you tried to block JoshuaZ for? Nematocyte 11:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
That does not answer the point that there is definitely censorship of many PoV from this article. Articles are locked, by Sysop's, to stop vandalism. Sysop's should not then continue to edit the page. That is plain abuse of privilege. MatteeNeutra 12:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
The owner of Conservapedia does not seem to mind that I continue to make additions to the article in order to adequetely cover the conservative view. 12:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
That's logic, is it? As I've said before I do not regard YEC as synonymous with conservatism, but rather as a form of paganism. Nematocyte 12:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
(Wow, my colon key has never been used so much) How about covering the liberal PoV, the evolutionist PoV, the actual scientific PoV or many others besides? This site claims to be minimising bias, not creating it.MatteeNeutra 12:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I want to ask a serious question that I hope you take a long time to think about. Let's assume, arguendo, that evolution is fact, and "Genesis" is not meant to be read literally, but as an allegory. It's no longer "six twenty-four hour days," but "six ages." How does that change your religion? It certainly makes life more complex, and makes faith more complex. But does that weaken your faith, or strengthen your faith by showing you the the ability of God to hide deeper truths in plain view? Suppose man did evolve from lesser forms of life. God did not create Adam and Eve as they were. Does that end God's role in man's life? Isn't God still responsible (in your view) for making us human, giving us souls, raising us above our base anatomy as provided by nature? Isn't God still great because of that?

The irreducible minimum is this: do you think religion should change over time? Should a set of beliefs change with the believers, or should it ossify a culture, insulating it from all other outside change, and holding all values constant, for all time? Should we return to Job's treatment of pain and suffering, and if we're ever sick, should we just take it, as Job did, or should we try to cure ourselves with modern medicines? Isn't it possible that God sent us medicine through Louis Pasteur, or whoever you choose, as an aid to us?

And finally, is science actually destroying God, or just revealing more of His true nature? And does he suffer from that? Think long and hard before you answer.--AmesG 12:21, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Ames, nicely written. Have you ever read Bradbury's "Christus Apollo?" It speaks just to this: fulfilling God's Will by questing and striving to learn.--Dave3172 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
  1. Carroll, Sean B (2005)., Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom, W. W. Norton & Company
  2. Richard Dawkins, "the Blind Watchmaker."
  3. Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770
  4. "Still Evolving: Human Genes Tell New Story," New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07evolve.html?ex=1174017600&en=5ecaa22626de424b&ei=5070