Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 6

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Propose a change to this page

If you wan't to see something added to this page add it here. Please no comments, only post the material you want to see on the page. Thanks.


Hello all users, As you know, CPWebmaster will be submitting this article to the Politburo to decide whether or not to allow a scientific perspective on the article. I propose that we write a petition, in small parts, at this petition site on my user page. I have alerted CPWebmaster to its existence so he can consult it and give it to the kids.

What I think would be best is if each user submits his or her reasons for thinking that a scientific perspective is needed. I will then organize them into a nice format so that CPWebmaster can take it into account.

I realize that this may be a target for continued debate; please do it on the talk page. Comments on the petition against the scientific petition will be deleted. It's my user page; get out.

Please, PalMD, Hoji, Mtur, etc etc all contribute!-AmesGyo! 10:55, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I kind of expected that. Anyone who doesn't agree will be removed. Now doesn't that sound very openminded! ScorpionStep on me and get stung 23:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Scorpion. See, the difference is, mine is a persuasive argument to be presented to an arbitrator. Those are supposed to be biased. You wouldn't very well be writing a defense brief for a client, and leave a line in saying, "But, to be fair, my client did commit the crime," now would you? BUT on an encyclopedia, you're supposed to be unbiased and present all sides. Try as you might, you shall not find a chink in my armor. It's made of Unobtainium.-AmesGyo! 23:04, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

A material which doesn't exist. There's several chinks, Ames. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 23:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
The sarcasm... she does not get conveyed over the interweb so well.-AmesGyo! 23:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Pretty hard, isn't it ScorpionStep on me and get stung 10:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, when is the Board going to evaluate this article? It's been a couple days right? Two articles, they aren't that long. Myk 01:38, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

They probably have reviewed them, and have not changed their minds. Too bad. Ratso 10:46, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Well gull darn it there's a submission page now. Conservapedia:Panel/Submit Someone more invested in this want to submit it to the shadow council? Myk 18:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Representing the Roman Catholic viewpoint

At a Vatican press conference on November 7th 2005, Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said that the Catholic church does not consider Genesis and Evolution to be incompatible or exclusive. "The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim." He said the real message in Genesis was part of theology: "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

He emphasized the church's belief that a Creator is responsible for orchestrating the universe, and that the specifics of how fall into the realm of science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view.Britinme 11:19 March 27 2007 (EDT)

Interpreted by whom? My interpretation is precisely the opposite: that he supports Intelligent Design.
ID opponents like to claim that the pope agrees with them, but I think they are being deceptive. And supporters of evolution are deceptive in other ways, e.g., claiming that more than 15% of Americans agree with them.
They use a shifting ground argument, based on a changing Definition of evolution. I will explain more, once I go ahead and turn that red link blue. --Ed Poor 11:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Fair enough if you don't interpret it as a rejection of intelligent design. It was the media in Italy who so interpreted it, and maybe you think they're biased. However, the fact remains that even if you take out that last line, the rest of it ought to go in to represent the official thinking in the Catholic church on the issue.Britinme 20:58 March 27 2007 (EDT)

Folks, he's back!

Conservative, you should unprotect this article. Good work was being done.-AmesGyo! 20:16, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Protect and revert

(diff) (hist) . . Theory of evolution‎; 19:59 . . (-1,191) . . Conservative (Talk | contribs) (people can get darwin information in the darwin article, i also think a history section is better at the back of article)

(Protection log); 19:57 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs) (protected "Theory of evolution": wait until the board makes their decision [edit=sysop:move=sysop])

Don't you think it would be reasonable to have not reverted after protecting and at least waited until 'the board' made their decision? Right now it looks like "lets wait until some group decides something in the future, and in the mean time it will be my version that you read." This looks very selfish and hypocritical. --Mtur 20:22, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Sysops, feel free to use this template: {{bias}}.-AmesGyo! 20:24, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that was also my concern in the "#WAIT" section. The article should be temp-blanked with a note pointing out that the page is currently in flux and awaiting a decision by The Shadow Council Conservapedia Panel. --Sid 3050 21:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Ha ha, that's pretty funny. "Shadow Council" ScorpionStep on me and get stung 23:00, 27 March 2007 (EDT)


It's time for the page to be archived again; it's getting pretty long. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 10:16, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Since nobody's interested in giving their feedback, I'll go ahead and archive it. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 15:33, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Actual Fact?

I think it would be nice to put some actual facts on this page. So far, it reads like this: Brief introduction. Criticism. Brief history. Brief definition. Table of contents. Criticism. Criticism. Criticism. Criticism. Criticism. Criticism. Criticism. Criticism. Criticism. (I think you get the idea). Nowhere are the actual tenets of evolution put forward. If I want to find out what evolution is, I am told that it is "survival of the fittest" caused by "selective pressure." No explanation. No actual facts. No science. And while the article does a great job of rebutting evolution, it never lists any evidence in support of it. Just take a look at the reference list: it's littered with "answeringgenesis", "creationontheweb", and "christiananswers." There's even an "evolutionisdead." How many links are there to actual scientific journal articles about evolution (regardless of whether they support or reject it)? Zero. Can we get some actual science in here? Maybe a section before the criticism about what evolution is? Or some scientific support for it? Right now, this article presents a very biased, one-sided argument. I think that this is clearly one article in which Wikipedia has succeeded far better than Conservapedia in delivering unbiased information: in the Wikipedia article, at least, the article presents evolution for what it is, THEN gives a listing of the major criticisms and alternate views. Believe it or not, some conservatives out here actually do support evolution over creationism. --FPiaco 12:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Aloha, my friend. Welcome to our little Island of Resistance! Here is your "Please change this article" shirt, your official member card, and a plush toy of Darwin!
If you followed the discussions on the Talk page here (including the archives), you might notice that many here will fully agree with you (I'm one of them). However, the chances of actual chance are currently slim, and our best chance is that The Conservapedia Panel will make a decision that supports us. You might want to take a look at #PETITION to the CONSERVAPEDIA PANEL (if you haven't done so already), where you can make your voice heard in the probably best way.
In the meantime, feel free to stick around, you're in mostly good company :) --Sid 3050 12:31, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, I can't believe it. Despite the fact that there are plenty of pro-evolution sites out there and Wikis, you guys all congregate here like daddy-long-legs so you can squelch the few sites that actually support YEC. I really wish you'd just stick to Wikipedia and leave this site alone; if it's just a joke, why bother?! ScorpionStep on me and get stung 15:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
And your little "Island of Resistance" thing is total ignoramus. It's more like a communist revolution. We're the ones with the little Island of Resistance. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 15:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
YEC is a wonderful story to believe in - to accept on faith. The difficulty comes when one attempts to claim that it is fact and uses poor or faulty scientific method to try to prove that this is the case. You are then left with a mismash of science and religion that does neither of them any credit. I am curious as to why it is so important that YEC be proved? Is it part of salvation that one accept this particular story? --Mtur 15:37, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
The thing is, this site "supports YEC" without saying it anywhere. Conservapedia pretends to be "neutral to the facts" and at the same time assigns a bias to certain points of view while at the same time leaving out any sort of actually helpful information that backs another view. That's not called "neutral to the facts", that's called "biased". Similar arguments go for "true and verifiable" and other things that (even though they're not in the rules) should be covered by common sense and intellectual honesty (quote-mining, for example).
Many people here try to go for BALANCE or at least some structural SENSE. We're not trying to turn this into an article that says "Evolution is the only way there is, it's 100% correct!", but right now, this thing doesn't even make sense unless you already know quite a bit about the debate.
Until Conservapedia is honest with its readers, don't expect too many people telling you that the current article is mighty fine.
Oh, and when the mighty Overlord Andy and his henchman Conservative basically rule over an article and merrily break their own rules to push their point of view, I wouldn't call that an "Island of Resistance". Considering that WEEKS of trying did not result in change, it should be clear who is in charge and who is resisting. --Sid 3050 15:42, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
There's no reason to take any of what you just said seriously. YEC is science, not a "story" (although, evolution is more close to that). Your extremely, extremely narrowminded viewpoint is characteristic of all evolutionists. See ya. :P ScorpionStep on me and get stung 15:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Er, sorry, YEC is a made up story. It is exactly as plausible and scientific as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Where would you get the idea of YEC without the Bible? Literature is not a source of scientific fact.--Zerba 16:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
It must be an incredible feeling to know that you can insult entire groups of people without the risk of being warned or banned since you push an approved point of view... --Sid 3050 15:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Why is YEC correct and the Hindu story of creation incorrect? Or the native Australian? or native American? Evolution and natural science attempt to explain the world around us without invoking anything that is super natural. The method of inquiry requires a formalized approach that includes falsifiability and through that be able to make predictions about what else would be true and test that. This is what science is about. YEC does not make unique predictions, nor does it have anything that is falsifiable. Please, give me an example of something that is unique to YEC theory of the world and how one would go about determining if that is true or false. --Mtur 15:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure about Scorpion, but I could give an example. YEC's are the only ones who take the Bible literally—especially Genesis. Whether this view is true or false, can be determined by simple observations of such things as the geomagnetic field. Studies of the geomagnetic field show that it, and consequently the earth, could not be more than 6-7,000 years old. Now looking at that evidence, macroevolution takes millions to billions of years, therefore it couldn't be possible in this case. Ratso 16:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Could you please elaborate on this? What prediction does a 6-7k year old earth make on the geomagnetic field? --Mtur 16:07, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
A source would be nice. If possible, one that's not a creationist site like AiG. --Sid 3050 16:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I find this truly fascinating. One one hand, we have nuclear decay. The theoretical framework through which nuclear decay is understood is quantum mechanics, unquestionably one of the single most successful scientific endeavours in history. And what QM tells us is that nuclear decay rates are largely based on a) fundamental constants, and b) constant properties of the nucleus. As such, QM predicts that decay rates ought to be pretty much constant. Not only that, vast quantities of data gathered over decades of research confirm that nuclear decay rates are pretty much constant under any realistic conditions.
On the other hand, we have the rate of change in the strength of Earth's magnetic field. There is no simple calculation based on first principles for this. Rather, we have a massively complicated, non-linear problem based on multiple parameters. Enormous amounts of computing power are required for even a numerical solution to the problem. And those computer simulations tell us that the decay rate is not constant. Furthermore, the available data confirms this. Both theory and observation tell us that the decay rate is not constant; not only does it vary, it has an annoying tendency to reverse.
So of course, YECs claim that extrapolation of nuclear decay rates, which both theory and observation tell us are constant, is unwarranted assumption. But extrapolation of the decay rate of Earth's magnetic field, which both theory and observation tell us is not constant, is apparently just fine. Amazing! Tsumetai 05:33, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I assume you're talking first about radiometric decay. Here's couple of links: [1], [2], [3]. These answer the question about initial conditions. And for nuclear decay: [4]. Ratso 11:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

None of those four articles actually address any point I or anyone else was making. With respect, it is clear that you don't actually understand the physics involved in either nuclear decay or geomagnetism; rather, you're simply picking out key phrases and looking for articles which you believe to be related. Unforunately, the same lack of knowledge that prevents you from making a direct rebuttal also prevents you from evaluating the quality of your sources, and so you select those which support your beliefs. CreationWiki is notoriously unreliable, I'm afraid. Tsumetai 07:23, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I'll give you an indirect link: [5] The site is creationist, but some of the sites it links to are not. I tried visiting some of them but my browser kept giving me that "Page not found" junk. Perhaps you might be able to view it. Ratso 16:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry - you need to do the research and hunt it up. You are probably looking for something along the lines of [6]. In the mean time, you might want to read about the magnetic reversals documented on the crustal plates [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] I hope that you are not going to claim that the US Geological Survey is part of the liberal conspiracy. --Mtur 16:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
In the mean time, what is the prediction that is trying to be made? That the Earth's magnetic field will disappear? How does this account for the magnetic reversals observed in the sea floor that are mirrored on each side of the spreading fault? Models seem to indicate that its not that it will disappear completely, but it will reverse - north will become south (this can be seen to already be happening with the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly [12]. This reversal of the poles can be seen in the Sun on an 11 year cycle, the Earth's cycle is quite a bit longer. You need to make a prediction that can be tested and detail what it entails. --Mtur 16:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I'll check out those links and get back to you. However, it may not be anytime soon since I'm busy with my studies right now. Ratso 18:17, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Here's a couple of links (to creationist sites, too bad): [13] and [14]. I know you're probably going to attack their validity, and probably question why I didn't link to Talk.Origins, but firstoff if I'm going to read Talk.Origins material you can certainly read some CW material. Ratso 10:46, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Scorpion, no one here is trying to "quash" the YEC point-of-view. All we're trying to do is adhere to the supposed Commandments, one of which is to have no bias. And by continuously trying to squelch and distort the evolutionist POV, you show that Commandment to be a flat-out falsehood. If Andy would just say "We have a conservative bias" I'd say no more. At least then it would be out in the open.--Dave3172 16:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I must ask that if conservapedia is going to list this article and say that this website can be used as an educational resource for children then perhaps it should list facts and evidence and not people's beliefs (unless there are facts and evidence supporting them conclusively). The TOE page is a bunch of drivel, misrepresentations of a person who seems to have no understanding of science. Conservative please answer what education you have to make edits to the article that actual scientists have added? I truly would like to know what makes you more qualified than a scientist in this field? Andrew, I pose the same question to you. --TimS 16:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

What IS Conservative's educational background? I know Andy graduated from Harvard Law, but I think his scientific background is thoroughly lacking (I question his legal background too).-AmesGyo! 16:45, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Why do you question his legal background? That would be questioning a secular university, and far be it from you to do that! Ratso 10:47, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Dawkins, Punctuated Equilibrium, Gradualism, Gould

Some person put this sentence in the article:

"This is the basis for there being two major divisions of evolutionary theory, Punctuated equilibrium (PE) and gradualism. Gould is the best known proponent of PE, Richard Dawkins is a partisan of gradualism."

I realize that Dawkins has criticized PE or thought or gave lukewarm reviews of it. Please see: and

At the same time I read things such as this:

"Dawkins (1986, 240-252) argues that punctuated equilibrium is not a "new" theory. Evolution under punctuated equilibrium occurs gradually, as it was assumed to do under Darwinism before punctuated equilibrium was proposed. Dawkins notes that Eldredge and Gould are "truly as gradualist as anybody else" (1986, 243; see also Eldredge (1995, 98-100)). Their theory merely proposes that the rate of evolution varies. According to Dawkins, this conclusion arises out of common sense; no biologist ever claimed that the speed of evolution has never varied. Dawkins says that "It isn't true that Darwin believed evolution proceeded at a constant rate" (243), and implies that neither has any serious evolutionist since his time." from:

Also here is what Dawkins says himself:

"The theory of punctuated equilibrium itself is gradualist (by Gad it had better be) in the sense in which Darwin was a gradualist – the sense in which all sane evolutionists must be gradualists, at least where complex adaptations are concerned. It is just that, if punctuationism is right, the progressive, gradualistic steps are compressed into a timeframe which the fossil record does not resolve. Gould admits this when pressed, but he isn’t pressed often enough." from:

At the same time I read:

"To strengthen the punctuationism case, Gould cited Goldschmidt's views on macroevolution, indicating that "during this decade Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology" (Gould, 1980:186). Goldschmidt had claimed that the differences among subspecies, and more broadly all geographic variation, was caused by minimal genetic changes, mutations of alleles, mostly being selected merely for climatic adaptation. Such changes would not permit any transgression of the ancestral type. Any genuine evolutionary novelty was due to the origin of a "hopeful monster," caused by a systemic mutation. This thesis followed from Goldschmidt's rather eccentric conception of nature of chromosomes and the genotype. According to him, a systemic mutation is a complete change of the primary pattern or reaction system into a new one and has the capacity to produce a strikingly different new individual that could serve as the founding ancestor of a new type of organism. As J. Maynard Smith (1983:276) pointed out, hopeful monsters, by contrasts, are drastically altered phenotypes. They are possible, at least in theory, and it should be possible to discover empirically how often they occur and how often (if ever) they are selectively superior." from:

If anyone wants to help clear this matter up, I would appreciate it. In the meantime, I removed the sentence. It would have been helpful if the person who added the entry had footnoted it. Conservative 17:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrim

Crud! I knew I might get sucked back into this. I added the sentence in question. Your paragraphs above are quite confusing, that is, I'm not sure what you are asking. However, let me quote from the excellent Mayr article you cited above--

The theory of punctuationism, to repeat, consists of two basic claims: that most or all evolutionary change occurs during speciation events, and that most species usually enter a phase of total stasis after the end of the speciation process. The two claims are to some extent two separate theories.
Curiously, some authors also mistakenly assume that the occurrence of stasis would refute Darwinism. Teleological thinking requires continuous evolutionary change, but Darwin rejected teleology (Mayr, 1984a) and accepted stasis (Rhodes, 1983). An evolutionary lineage may continue to vary genetically without undergoing any major reconstruction. Alternatively, a stable lineage may continue to send out founder populations, some of which, through peripatric speciation, could become more or less distinct daughter species.
The fourth reason why punctuationism faced so much opposition is that at one stage Gould pleaded for a revival of Goldschmidt's ideas and implied that they were akin to punctuationism. This claim clearly indicated that there was considerable conceptual confusion as to what punctuated equilibria really means. Before the possibility that Goldschmidt was a forerunner of punctuationism can be discussed constructively, it is necessary to discriminate among four interpretations of punctuationism.
An evolutionary novelty originates by a systemic mutation: the individual produced by such a mutation is the representation of a new species or higher taxon.
Evolutionary change is populational, but all substantial evolutionary changes takes place during bouts of speciation. As soon as the process of speciation is completed, the new species stagnates ("stasis") and is unable to change in any significant way. Early statements by Eldredge and Gould (1972) and Gould and Eldredge (1977) gave the impression that this was their interpretation.
Phyletic lineages ("evolutionary species") can evolve slowly and gradually into different species and even genera, but the more pronounced evolutionary changes and adaptive shifts take place during speciational bouts in isolated populations. This has been all along my own interpretation (Mayr, 1954, 1982b) and is presumably that of many evolutionists familiar with geographic speciation.
A multiplication of species (the branching of lineages) occurs but is of no greater evolutionary importance than changes within lineages. In fact, phyletic gradualism is responsible for most evolutionary change. It was this view, held by the majority of paleontologists, that induced Eldredge and Gould (1972) to propose their theory of punctuated equilibria.

The basic idea, as I understand it, behind the development of the idea of PE was to better describe the events of evolution and their impact on the fossil record. It was posited, briely, that species remain relatively unchanged over long periods of time until a major selective pressure, such as isolation occurs, at which point speciation can occur quite quickly, in geological terms. I hope that helps to enlighten. PalMD 17:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

It seem to me that Gould was not a gradualist and that Dawkins was putting words in his mouth. Gould's comment saying "during this decade Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology" shows this. Do you agree? Conservative 17:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Actually, Gould and Eldridge coined the term PE, but it is basically a refinement of gradualism. It really depends on your view of time. The "sudden" changes of PE still take very long periods of time, and to the casual human observer would seem gradual. The two ideas do have their uses, but I doubt many of your loyal readers who visit the page really give a crud or will bother to take the time to see the distinctions.PalMD 17:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Punctuated Equilibrium is a good way to explain how much of the evolution subscribed to by secularists is better encompassed by Great Flood theory. Species were created by God, but if they've changed at all since Eden, they've probably changed between Mt. Arat and today. I think it is important, Conservative, that we tie in these secularist principles and make sure people see how they also serve Biblical Truth. DunsScotus 18:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't think PE was originally gradualist due to Gould's comment about Goldschmidt being vindicated. Did Gould ever back out of saying Goldschmidt would be vindicated? Conservative 23:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
You are perseverating (look it up). It isn't really relevant whether some off the cuff comment was retracted or whatever. Gould's work is facinating in its entirety, controversies and all.--PalMD 23:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservative, this is a little off topic but - YOU ARE A BULLY. You just reverted my edit without explanation and locked the page. Who do you think you are? Do you think this page belongs to you? --Horace 23:33, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Aw, give up - it's hopeless! --Petrus 06:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


I'm sick to death of this article being protected. User:Conservative always uses pitiful excuses to lock the article. Please don't vandalize this article or it will be protected yet again :( niandra 11:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. I removed the sentence at the top: "About 87% of adult Americans reject evolution as it is taught in American schools"[15], since it's a gross distortion of what is said in its reference. If a paragraph about the beliefs of evolution of Americans & teaching it in schools is wanted, I or someone else could put one in. :--JamesK 11:38, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Actually the statement, was backed up by the ref. --CPAdmin1 11:51, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I think the problem here is identifying "how it is taught in American schools". I'm familiar with the polls, having writted the (deleted) Evolution poll article at Wikipedia. I got in a lot of trouble over that.
15% accept a purely materialist explanation. 45% are Creationists. It's the status of the 40% in the middle that everyone's tussling over.
Let's first clarify whether American schools say "...and God had no involvement in the process". --Ed Poor 11:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah thanks Ed, I was going to reword the article to the actual statement in the ref, and reply here, you beat me to both! --JamesK 11:59, 29 March 2007 (EDT) (Edit: Though of course that sentence doesn't really belong there anyway, though at least it's factually correct now.)
Let's see how it evolves. I expect an intelligent design will emerge. --Ed Poor 12:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Curious, when Conservative protected it (again) and it was unprotected (again) it was also reverted (again) to a version with a bunch of glaring errors or simple schoolboy logical errors - specifically some of the end parts visible at this diff record. Will someone mind if I revert to that version? It just takes us back to where we were before Conservative Rampage #7.-AmesGyo! 12:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

'We will not hesitate to reprotect it': who is we? --Petrus 12:25, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Obviously the editorial we, meaning a sysop or bureaucrat. An eventuality we can postpone by agreeing on changes here on the talk page and avoiding edit wars. --Ed Poor 12:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Who do you think? Also, curious. I have a bunch of internet connection problems at the law school. Could one of you edit out the "Age of Earth" section, along with the section that says that science used to be wrong, therefore it's always wrong? Those sections make my skin crawl. I'd do it myself, but stupid internet...-AmesGyo! 12:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh *bleep*! My favorite section about how lions kill their prey is still in the article? *LAUGHS* I'd edit the entire section out since it's nothing but creationist FUD that has NOTHING to do with evolution (except for one of the polls to a certain degree, but that one could be removed without losing much, or it could go to a "Public opinion" mini-section), but then, Conservative would quite likely ban me and protect the article again.
To make up for it, here's something from Wikipedia, I think it's obvious why I'm quoting it: "A chilling effect is a situation where speech or conduct is suppressed or limited by fear of penalization at the hands of an individual or group." --Sid 3050 14:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Quote Mining

Wow - people are really watching this article. The Gould quote was horrible - taken way out of context - here's the full article:

I think this article should be completely rewritten - maybe AmesG could lead the effort since he seems to be interested. Is "conservative" for real!? Bob2 13:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Quote mining, in the sense of cherry-picking and taking quotations out of context, is not the sort of scholarship I personally would consider worthy of an encyclopedia. This project aims to earn its readers trust. I'd like to know what sources really meant to say - not merely what someone else wishes they said. --Ed Poor 13:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
AmesG asked me to post this: Bob2 13:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Exactly right, Ed. Those sources that Conservative cited are quote-mined in extreme. Bob, it's good to have someone like you on the site. I think we're a lot alike, and I am interested, but I've tried a million times and been shot down by user:Conservative, an extremely childish admin who reverts everything he disagrees with, and then protects the article. It definitely needs a full rewrite. There's an alternative article being developed (see top of talk page) but alternately, start writing your own, and when the time comes, just copy-paste. Go to user:Bob2/Evolution to create an article on your user page that you can use as a "sandbox," a blank page to do with what you want. I'll help you.-AmesGyo! 13:13, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


I have...criticism of critics.[T]alk pages...I...from time to time..want to be pestered by users over and over.I...think we are going to reach it Conservapedia. I certainly hope we do[,]become another Wikipedia...though. I..remind you that the creationist side quoted a...dinosaur... Conservative 22:31, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative


Regards. Crackertalk


I don't understand. Don't make a fact sound like a fact? That makes no sense. Yes, it makes sooo much more sense that some magical guy appeared out of no where and went ALAKAZAAMM and made earth apear. Just because you are afraid of the truth doesn't mean you should try to hide it.

Manual of Style - citing sources

As seen in Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style#Citing_Sources, it appears that wikis in general are not acceptable sources to cite. Could someone please clean up the references to creationwiki in the article? --Mtur 15:32, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Nevermind - already gotten. --15:32, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
"Faster than speeding bullet!" ;) And thanks for mentioning it here, my edit alone might look odd since not everybody has the MoS link handy :) --Sid 3050 15:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Simply Shocking

Who does this guy think he is? Re-protected! Ick. -AmesGyo! 17:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

No it isn't, he just hasn't noticed that it's been unprotected. Bless. --JamesK 17:39, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


One sided edits of a protected page while waiting for a decision by some panel does not help one's assertion to supporting the truth. I urge all sysops to not modify the page until such a decision is reached. Conservative - if you want to edit it, make a copy of it in your space and go play with that. This page shouldn't be subject to locked edits while you are claiming that others can't edit it until some decision has been reached. --Mtur 17:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Great idea. No edits at all, by anybody, including Conservative (unless these are spelling or grammatical corrections). --Hojimachongtalk 17:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
So how are you going to keep him from editing? Ratso 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, good suggestion. Too bad that Conservative just can't stop adding more quote collection sites. --Sid 3050 16:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Fact and theory

The warning at the top of the page has got to go. It is an embarassment. First, we must parse out fact from what Conservative calls "theroy". This must be made clear. For instance, natural selection is fact. Period. Evolution as a description of life is as close to fact as anyone has ever come, in that it is the only extant theory to have actual evidence, be able to make predictions, and be falsifiable. Not all "theories" are created equal. Just because we call two different ideas theories, like ID and Evo, does not make them equally likely. KEY POINT HERE. One is clearly, based on evidence and scientific method, more likely.--PalMD 17:44, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course, this will get you nowhere, because as long as it's not proven (though as close as it will ever come), creationists will have a (very small) platform to stand on. --Hojimachongtalk 17:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
You'll need to provide ref's for both sides of "Natural Selection is fact", because that proposition has been disputed. It has been argued by Creation Science that "no evidence for natural selection has ever been shown" (See my revision of Creation Science at Wikipedia - which I made a few minutes ago.) --Ed Poor 20:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

See, this is the basic problem; just because it is not proven to a particular person's satisfaction does not make it less likely to be correct. It is currently the theory that best describes life. Probability is important here. YEC may be right, but its reasoning is not scientific, and it is MUCH LESS likely to be right than Evo, or something based on Evo.--PalMD 17:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

But as long as YEC's don't accept science as factual, then scientific proof has no meaning to them. Don't get me wrong, I am firmly opposed to YECism, but this is a touchy issue. --Hojimachongtalk 17:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

And there, of course, is the fundamental problem. That is why I strongly advocate a page devoted to evolution, with a link to a page expressly devoted to alternative theories of origin and critiques of Evo--PalMDtalk 18:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok I dont want to be the one to do it, but that 3rd line in about the cbs news report is NOT a useful source and should be eliminated.--PalMDtalk 19:51, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Great, someone made a good edit, and CPWebmaster just undid it and blocked the whole thing again...what kind of cow dung is that?--PalMDtalk 20:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

The Triumvirate (Conservative, Schlafly at times, and CPWebmaster) seems to me to be counter to the idea of a Wiki. Call me crazy, but...-AmesGyo! 20:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

What a joke. Not surprising. niandra 20:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I have only one good thing to say about this...if you were not here discussing this, the article would have been locked up permanantly months ago. Still, it's looking rather hopeless at this point. --PalMDtalk 20:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Another good thing is that Conservative can't just erase all protest posts here as he does on his User Talk page. --Sid 3050 20:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Umm..yes he can. He just hasn't decided to yet.--PalMDtalk 20:13, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I meant "can" in the sense of "Not even he would be that stupid, and it would be abuse on a level even Andy may not tolerate". --Sid 3050 20:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Every day that this "article" (I use the term loosely) is up, it is an offense to reason and educated men and women everywhere. When will the panel makes its call?-AmesGyo! 20:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Does the panel even exist? This could be like, 1984! --Hojimachongtalk 20:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Also, I'm fairly sure Andy will just fail the ones that don't vote his way :-/ -AmesGyo! 20:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't mean to offend anyone, but frankly, I'm surprised Andy hasn't blocked you already for talking so disrespectully of him like that. Why don't you talk to him about it. Ratso 14:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

As far as I know, silencing someone for treating the "Dear Leader" with disrespect is more of a North Korea thing.--PalMDtalk 14:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Suggest removing the pseudo-initialism PE for "punctuated equilibrium"

I'm willing to consider evidence that it's a recognized abbrevation, but I don't think it is. Not among biologists, anyway. I'm not sure who does use it, actually. Dpbsmith 08:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Irrelevant minor edit...just un-abbreviate it already!--PalMDtalk 12:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't, as the article is currently protected. So I'm requesting that someone do it for me. Dpbsmith 21:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservative's Experience

Conservative what education do you have about this topic? You seem to high jack the article when you are here. I would just like to know what makes your edits more authoritative over the scientists that have been editing who actually do research in this field?--TimS 16:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I put a more general question onto the CP main page, and that is, if someone is to have their edits challenged, the challenger should probably state why they are the more qualifed person (or at least minimally qualifed) to contribute. This is not always possible, but perhaps it would be useful if more people stated their qualifications. Not aimed at anyone in particular.--PalMDtalk 16:21, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

That sounds like a reasonable solution. I am just bothered by Conservative's obvious bias in this article. I would not have issue with it except he protects it often preventing others from editing it. Just looking at the history page for this article you can see that he has written at least 80% of what is on the page. I believe this is a gross abuse of his sysop rights in terms that the article is one sided towards his bias. A challenge to his creditability of understanding the theory of evolution in order for school children to use the article as a resource is warranted. If he has no formal education of evolutionary theory then perhaps he should allow others with experience to flesh this article out. For now he seems to quote and cite sources that have been proven to be incorrect and misleading by research scientists.--TimS 16:29, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

TimS, please see archive 4 ( ) where the qualification issue was raised before. Conservative 17:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Erm, you dodged the question in archive 4 as well. Since you are pretty much the only editor to this article (alas, all others were reverted by you), then your qualifications are extremely relevant. One who does not understand evolution could misinterpret or misrepresent key ideas in the theory, or worse, provide arguments against these misinterpretations. Seeing as how both of these things have happened through your editing, I am skeptical as to your qualifications regarding writing this article. --Hojimachongtalk 17:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, I don't "misunderstand evolution". I merely provided resources which dispute the macroevolutionary theory position. I also do not believe you supported your contentions regarding my past behavior in your last post. Conservative 17:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Conservative there is no declaration of your qualifications in neither the archive nor your talk page so please provide them. That is all we are asking, you to support your actions of reverting edits made by research scientists versed in this topic by informing us of why your edits have greater value so as to supplant ours. Truly, it is just a matter of clarification. Because someone cites a source does not mean they understood the article. Do you realize that most research scientists spend much of their undergrad years breaking down research articles to truly understand what is being conveyed? Just by pulling sources from the web and skimming the articles do not make them valid nor does not understanding the sources that are cited. This is why we question your qualification, especially since you have a sysop authority over the article in question.--TimS 17:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Buried in there (you have to dig) Conservative claims to be a graduate of a secular university. It would be nice to know what the degree is in and what classes related to biology and geology where taken? To answer this question for myself before anyone asks it of me, I hold a BS in CS and took Geology 110 "Evolution and Extinction" and Geology 107 "Life in the Past". Furthermore, I worked with the radiocarbon dating laboratory of the geology department writing software for them. Additionally, I took many philosophy classes - intro, ethics, logic, philosophy of science, ancient philosophy, modern philosophy, and philosophy of religion along with History of Science "The Origins of Scientific Thought" and "The Making of Modern Science". I could probably dig up the transcripts and pay stubs if necessary (from over a decade ago). --Mtur 17:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I will answer as well, I hold a PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology specializing in transgenics. My BS is in biochemistry and MS is in virology. I have been researching and teaching for 15 years now. Most of my work has been with genes being transcribed in other organisms and mutation of genes in viral vectors. I am well versed in evolution and in intelligent design, I have contributed to both pandasthumb and to uncommondescent. So Conservative please inform us…--TimS 17:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I think we should drop this issue. This will ultimately work to the benefit of those who support the theory of evolution. The only people that come here will be people that want their view supported... certainly no one comes here to learn anything. While here they will merely reinforce the garbage science they already know. And then what they know will be soundly mocked when it comes time to discuss evolution with someone who actually knows how it works. I long to be there when they defend their lack of knowledge by saying, "Well that's what it said on Conervapedia!" Let the debate die in peace.Myk 17:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

So Conservative you just "merely provided resources which dispute the macro evolutionary theory position." This seems very biased, in fact an admission to the fact you do not weigh the sides equally to write or rewrite the edits made by people in this field.--TimS 17:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Smells like Essjay. niandra 17:56, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Everybody please stop picking on User:Conservative. It is not civil.

Propose useful modifications to the article, or go write another article. --Ed Poor 18:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed that is what we have been trying to do but everything gets reverted and then protected. This is why the issue with User:Conservative, he is the one responsible for the majority of reverting as well as most of the locking of the article. It is not civil for a sysop to abuse his privileges by making a biased article without allowing anyone to edit it. You saw his own response to what he does "merely provided resources which dispute the macro evolutionary theory position." This coupled by the lock down of the article makes it very biased and prevents the article from being used as a resource for students because it provides a lack of understanding of the theory.--TimS 18:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Ed Poor, did you say it's incivil to "pick" on him? Your suggestion won't be happening, as you are well aware, because even if they are approved on the talk page, it will be deleted by Conservative. And if anything is incivil, it is Conservative's inability to communicate, deletion of legitimate comments, abuse of sysop priviliges, etc. His abuse is well documented. And don't say he is a pariah, or anything like that, because bad editing practices which were criticized there have carried over here, which is unacceptable. --Hojimachongtalk 18:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, feel free to speculate on whether I am a certain editor or editors at Wikipedia or other websites. Given that I have cited material that is widely available at various sources, I think you are going to have some difficulty regarding your speculation. Conservative 18:21, 30 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Wait, you're denying that you were kdbuffalo at Wikipedia? This was brought up before, and the editing styles are identical, as are the mined quotes. --Hojimachongtalk 18:24, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
If the checkuser thing is still available to sysops, you should be able to match them against the netblock given here. Not a perfect indication but should satisfy your own curiosity. --Mtur 18:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, you will receive no confirmations or denials or clues regarding my identity because I believe that certain evolutionists want to go into personal attack overdrive at this point. So at this point I see no incentive to give you clues in regards to my identity unless of course you want to change the conservapedia commandments to make anonymous editing no longer acceptable. I do think though that your time would be better spent concentrating on content. Conservative 18:38, 30 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

(unindent)Conservative, you say we should "focus on content", yet you revert anything that is added. Also, regarding you as kdbuffalo, I was pointing out that you edited Wikipedia, and were thoroughly criticized for your editing. Instead of admitting to being this person, or even saying "no comment", you outright denied it. I had a problem with the lie, not your identity. --Hojimachongtalk 18:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Hoji, I merely said you are free to speculate on whether I am a certain editor or editors at Wikipedia or other websites. I also said, "Given that I have cited material that is widely available at various sources, I think you are going to have some difficulty regarding your speculation." If you want to pretend otherwise then go right ahead and do so. However, please do not expect me to wrangle with you regarding this matter. Again, Hoji, "you will receive no confirmations or denials or clues regarding my identity because I believe that certain evolutionists want to go into personal attack overdrive at this point. So at this point I see no incentive to give you clues in regards to my identity unless of course you want to change the conservapedia commandments to make anonymous editing no longer acceptable. I do think though that your time would be better spent concentrating on content."Conservative 19:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Conservative, it is amazing that you would resort to defending your claims of not providing your expertise by the right of anonymous editing but yet to continue to prevent other editors from working on this page. I would however point out that you are not allowing others the right to edit this page and as such your qualifications come into question, your qualifications of understanding research papers, your qualifications of understanding the correct relevant scientific disciplines that contribute to the science and finally your qualifications as to why your work's bias is allowed over the continual advise of research professionals.--TimS 13:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
TimS, I don't believe you can show any factual errors in the article. I think that is why you want to resort to the diversion of focusing on me. And again, I cited many scientists in the article so your objection is moot.Conservative 22:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Conservative, I would not focus on you if you were not the one editing and locking the article each time another person placed an edit that opposed your view point. Conservative most of what you sited are links to AIG 32 links out of 113 over a quarter of your cites from one website. 104 out of 113 are biased against evolution. You will not even add anything that supports it. Now as for pointing out what is fact and not, I will give you an itemized list by your cites.--TimS 10:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

here's an example of conservative's sly reverts -

proven ip evasion cited

niandra 19:43, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, are you open to criticism now? I'll start. The "Age of the Earth" section needs to go - irrelevant. So does the "Bloodletting" paragraph - ridiculous! So does the section about "evolution's impact on astronomy" or whatever the frack that is. Irrelevant and misleading.-AmesGyo! 22:46, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

From a medical doctor regarding paradigm shifts: "For example, as early as during the French Revolution, blood letting occupied a place of honor. Leeches and blood letting were said to be in harmony with political liberalism, because they acted by "relieving the patient from oppression" as opposed to the mere treatment of symptoms. In fact, France alone was importing more than 41 million of these medicinal slugs every year. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy." By the way, the scientific consensus was wrong when it came to ants, lions, and snakes and the Bible was right! [16] Conservative 22:54, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Conservative, where you get it wrong (and painfully so) is that science doesn't make a claim to infallibility. EVER. Let that sink in for a minute. What it does make a claim to is that it is currently the best explanation to account for all the facts, and it also claims that it will change as new facts occur. The fact is that creationism is not a good explanation for the way the world works, and YEC is just willfully blind - science explains more, better. That doesn't mean that it won't ever be proven wrong though; but when it is, it'll admit it.-AmesGyo! 23:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure of the relevance here, but since, as far as I know, Im the only medical doctor around, ill comment. Medicine has changed dramatically in the last 20 or so years under the model of "Evidence-based medicine". Currently, for treatments to become widely accepted, they must be proven, not tradition. There are obviously exceptions, but EBM is rapidly pervading all aspects of medicine. The hallmark is the Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). The statistical techniques used were not available 150 years ago. This doesnt quite represent a paradigm shift, as much as a shift in methodology. Your above example is not really what Kuhn had in mind, as it is a smaller issue.--PalMDtalk 23:02, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Dj Futuyma and "Evolutionary Biology"

The edit in question can be found here.Conservative, does it make any sense to forget the fact that the book in question (Biological Evolution, DJ Futuyma, 1979) is one of the most relevant if not the most relevant to the actual content of the article (evolution, not why evolution is wrong). And the author, DJ Futuyma, has a B.S. from Cornell, and an M.S. and PhD from UMich. I would assume this is a credible resource in writing about the topic at hand, given the fact that it's relevant, well-sourced, and written by a widely respected author. --Hojimachongtalk 17:53, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Futuyma is the author of the widely used textbook Evolutionary Biology and Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, an introduction to the creation-evolution controversy. His most recent textbook, Evolution, was published early in 2005 as an introductory textbook for undergraduates.


  • A remarkable book presenting arguments in favor of evolution as a counter to the rise of creationism. Written in 1983, Futuyma's arguments are perhaps even more relevant today, in light of recent developments in Kansas, Michigan, and other states. Futuyma's writing style is exceptionally clear and he presents science as it really operates and exposes the gaping factual and philosophical holes in the creationist movement.
  • The author presents many of the creationist arguments, and spends time refuting them. As I mentioned above, he really gets irate when he considers their criticisms of evolutionary theory. "Abysmally ignorant", "nonsense", and "absurd" are some of the modifiers he uses when discussing them. His main points are that creationists perform no original research of their own, but instead try to discredit evolution by such means as: quoting scientists out of context; using disagreements between scientists as evidence that evolution is in trouble; conveniently disregarding evidence that they cannot explain; and promoting arguments inappropriately such as the second law of thermodynamics. [17] - The preceding unsigned comment was left by User:Ed Poor. And I still don't know how to use this template Myk 18:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
If this is your argument, Ed, than what's keeping all of the other "further reading" books on the list? All they do is spend time refuting evolutionist claims as well. So some criticism is OK, but other is not? --Hojimachongtalk 18:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

My 'argument' is that we should go easy on User:Conservative. You are all putting a lot of pressure on him. I'm a mature man in my late 40s. I can handle pressure.

I also know quite a bit about several branches of theology and the methods and history of science. But my first love is ancient Greek literature. --Ed Poor 18:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Uncle Ed for your reasonable comments! It would be helpful, however, if Conservative could actually disclose his age group to us. Or at least be open to discussion. --Hojimachongtalk 18:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

But my first love is ancient Greek literature. Ever read the fable of the Wind and the Sun? The harder you blow the cold blustery gusts of 'mainstream' scholarship, etc. --Ed Poor 18:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

My favorite is Herodotus. --Hojimachongtalk 18:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I've got to go with Heraclitus, though Aristotle is a close second All men by nature desire to know.--Mtur 18:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't read much ancient Greek literature because I don't enjoy it. I think it's because their paragraphs don't start with topic sentences. Dpbsmith 10:30, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Im sorry, Im sure Conservative is a good guy basically, and trying to create relevant work, but perhaps he can take his talent elsewhere for a little while. It is not reasonable to censor references to further reading, from whichever side. Standard texts of evo and id are relevant in just about any conceivable way. I have a little idea, if anyone is willing. Let me flush it out for a few minutes.PalMDtalk 19:00, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

"... pair of ideas together is doubted by as many as 5%"

Biologists call these two ideas "common descent" and "evolution through natural selection". Neither is accepted by Young Earth creationists, and pair of ideas together is doubted by as many as 5% of scientists in all fields.

Could you provide a citation to that? Furthermore, what does a mathematician have to say about evolution? It would be much more useful to see a count for number of people within biology and directly related fields say. --Mtur 20:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

  1. Evolution has several facets. The first is the theory that all living species are the modified descendents of earlier species, and that we all share a common ancestor in the distant past. All species are therefore related via a vast tree of life. The second is that this evolution is driven by a process of natural selection or the - "survival of the fittest". (New Scientist)
  2. Source: 1997 Gallup Poll [18]

Citations provided. --Ed Poor 20:48, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment above is rather nonsensical..could you elaborate, with better citations?PalMDtalk 20:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

The awkward part with the 5% is as specified on the page: "The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc." Technically, I am a scientist then - even though I have done no research what so ever. I could have gotten the degree I have now without even so much as taking a real biology class (I didn't - it was some paleontology, but a forestry class would have done just as well). If you want to use that claim, then I would suggest changing it to "individuals with a professional college degree." --Mtur 20:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I am also going to point out now that 'professional college degree' is important wording. If you extend it to 'college degree' which includes people who majored in French or dance, then that is a different poll represented on the page. --Mtur 20:53, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Further... what is the margin of error on the poll? Myk 21:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

"Completely Unbiased"

Those of you here who want this page to be "fair and balanced", I will tell you this: it isn't possible. Man's ideas, man's writings, are always going to be biased in some way. They will always point toward his belief, however hard he may try to not do this. Therefore, if this page were to stop being biased toward Young Earth Creationism, it would instead be biased toward the theory of evolution, like the Wikipedia article is. Ratso 09:28, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I beg to differ. It really is possible to write unbiased prose. You just have to want it enough. I've managed to craft articles collaboratively at Wikipedia, when the other contributors shared my goal of producing a neutral article. It's only on a small core of hot-button controversial topics that Wikipedia's NPOV policy breaks down. I've been there 5 1/2 years; give me some credit for knowing what I'm talking about.
Look at articles like Chile_coup_of_1973 for example. I set the tone from the very first edit, and all of us there managed to get in both sides of every issue in the topic. It's a success Wikipedia can be proud of. --Ed Poor 09:47, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Ratso, check out my little essay User:Palmd001/Bias

Still, you can't be unbiased in the area of natural history. Since nobody "was there", we can't say what actually happened. Ratso 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
A dead deer is laying on the side of the road with marks from tires on the carcass. Since no-one who was there at the time is at the scene now we can take a guess at what had happened.
  1. The deer ran across the road and keeled over from a heart attack and lay there for several minutes dying. After the animal had died a man, (probably talking on his cell phone), ran over the carcass leaving the tires marks.
  2. The deer was hit, run over and killed by a vehicle.
  3. The deer actually live several hundred miles away but was caught up in a tornado, (much like the storm that must have deposited kangaroos in Australia), and deposited at it's current, (though demised), location. A woman, (definitely talking on her cell phone), ran over the dead creature while in her SUV that should have it's own zip code.
  4. A fifth possibility: the deer was drunk, found a paint can and painted tire marks on itself. Then it lay down and played dead. Ha ha! This whole thing is becoming a joke. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 15:29, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
  5. None of the above.

Crackertalk 10:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Who says they were tire marks? You are assuming an Intelligent Marker, or in this case a Negligent Driver.
Nice try, fellas, but it lacks intellectual rigor. --Ed Poor 10:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
The whole argument is pointless. There are no "tire marks" by which you can determine for sure that the earth is billions of years old. Come one! ScorpionStep on me and get stung 15:27, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Still says nothing about evolution!

How long is this going to go on? An encyclopedia article about the TOE has to actually describe the TOE! At the moment we have a short paragraph at the start and then the lengthy rebuttal! What a joke! --Cgday 14:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

As it stands, the article is truly ridiculous. I have offered several times to help, and given opinions on format. That's about it for me. If my "science classroom" ever gets up and running, Ill address things there.--PalMDtalk 14:47, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Ha ha! Ho ho! Hmm hmm! ScorpionStep on me and get stung 15:30, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Im not really sure what those grunts of yours mean, but it is starting to confirm my suspicion about your age.--PalMDtalk 15:35, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
My age has nothing to do with this. And those weren't grunts, they were just laughs. You know, laughing at what you said. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 19:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Question about the panel

When is the panel going to speak? Have they been officially "petitioned" or whatever is going on? MountainDew 20:25, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Another hoop was added with a submission page. I'm not sure if that has been jumped through yet. Myk 22:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
I entered a submission to the panel. I linked to the argument on Conservapedia talk:Panel, AmesG's petition, and Hoji's alternative language. The ball needed to start rolling on this. Feel free to add to the petition Conservapedia:Panel/SubmitMyk 22:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
The current edit war is not helping. I encourage everybody to look at the differences (Conservative keeps inserting a mined version of a quotation), and decide which version is right. Voice your opinions here. --Hojimachongtalk 22:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Then maybe the sane one will be the first to STOP? -- Crackertalk 22:49, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I already withdrew because no productive work is going on there.--PalMDtalk 22:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Request Renaming

Change name to "User:Conservative/Theory of Evolution" for obvious reasons.--PalMDtalk 23:18, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

The direction of the article should not be changed

Here is what Aschafly wrote:

I applaud that spirit of cooperation and sportsmanship! :-) Now let's seize this opportunity to call a cease-fire on the Theory of Evolution page. I'm a bit miffed at my own edits have been largely removed from that entry! Anyway, this is something for the student panel to decide, and I know it has been working on it. A status quo for when the student panel began looking at it a few days ago makes sense, so that it is not considering a moving target. Thanks for your cooperation.--Aschlafly 23:21, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative 23:36, 31 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Which obviously means that nobody should be editing it. Doesn't that mean we should revert back to this version and not edit at all? That seems perfectly reasonable if we're going to interpret Andy's statements like that. --Hojimachongtalk 23:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
That version will be the version. I certainly hope that is the version the Sysops will respect in light of Andy's request. Let that version be the version until the panel decides. Conservative 23:58, 31 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Thank God. --Hojimachongtalk 23:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
I just added a small period at the end of the article so I could put a warning to SYSOPS in the edit log. Conservative 00:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I wonder when the panel will decide...

Nice "Warning"

I'm assuming someone used the template incorrectly, because the warning is the following: WARNING is LOCKED from editing until the panel decides on the direction it shall go. ANY and ALL edits will be reverted on sight. Sigh... GofG ||| Talk 19:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Please try to be tolerant and take into account that this site is largely administered by teenagers. Emotions are bound to run as high as the standards are low. I only hope their actual schoolwork gets more attentio then their hobby. Godman 19:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Here's a great idea for a video game: Destroy All Creationists! Pthbthbthb haaaahoooo