Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 9

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Note: an alternative version of this article is currently being written here.

Danger of spreading the Anti-Christian Message

I think that this article ignores hugely the threat that the exponents of evolution pose to God and decent Christian Americans. Even explaining evolution on this site is a bad idea, as it is a theory that makes a lot of sense, due to a lot of evidence being planted by God to test us. If people hear about evolution there is a danger that they end up understanding it and, particularly if they are scentifically minded, believing in it. Explaination of Evolution on the internet is a dangerous thing. Signed Revilo314.

I second the idea of abandoning the article entirely, for a different reason. Look at the page, and at this discussion. Absolute chaos. A total mess. Bickering and fighting, and not the slightest hint of a consensus. Its clear that the moment that page is unlocked, a hoard of people will decend upon it. Some vandels, but mostly just well-meaning people who want to be sure that their own personal view is the one reflected in the page. As long as the page on evolution exists, its going to be nothing more than squabbleing. - Suricou
Are you claiming that God is a trickster? That it is His intent to mislead people into not believing? --Mtur 14:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
--TerryHTalk 17:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)God does not play tricks on people. But people often play tricks on themselves. They say to one another, "This can't possibly be true." And before they know it, they've blinded themselves to the evidence that God's Word is true.
Well, I don't know about that. There appear to be a number of times in the Bible when God does that very thing, for example hardening the heart of the Pharoah and so on, often with the words "lest they believe and were saved", and such. And God tricks Jonah when he sends him to declare that a city will be destroyed and then doesn't go ahead with it. People these days tend to look a sort of Hellenized philosophical God, but there are plenty of passages in the Old Testament that reveal the thoroughly Jewish Jehovah as having a decidely different outlook to the "Philosopher's God" of the Greeks. Can't think of any exact quotes now. Will find them if I have to. Others may be better prepared than I am. --MylesP 04:38, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
What evidence would that be (outside the Bible, which doesn't count because it is the word of God itself)? There is no archaeological evidence for the Kingdom of David. There is strong evidence for live on earth a million years ago. There is little evidence even for the life of Jesus. The main historian of Judea during that period is Josephus. His very long detailed historical writings do not mention Jesus or his followers. (The one reference seems to have been inserted by copyists during the middle ages.).
Anti-Christian message? There are many Christians who also think that evolution is a correct theory. Also, this is an encyclopedia and should have a neutral point of view, which it currently does not. With many articles biased towards conservative Christianity, this website is defeating its own purpose. To make this article credible it should have information on the theory of evolution added and the panel must authorise this addition as soon as possible. --TomT 15:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
To Revilo314: Are you genuine? I don't know how else to express this, except straight-out: what you wrote sounds like a "seminar post."
Of course, part of the problem is that nobody seems to agree on exactly what evolution is anymore. Back when I was in high school and college, evolution included abiogenesis. Now, of a sudden, it doesn't.--TerryHTalk 17:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I assume you were taking general biology classes; abiogenesis (aka "chemical evolution") is definitely a topic that should be discussed in a biology class and even mentioned when discussing evolution (as in, 'how did this all start?') but its not properly part of the Theory of Evolution (as I mentioned in a previous comment, some sort of disambiguation in the page would probably be a good idea). Note that the Merriam-Webster definition quoted in the article makes no mention of the origin of life. People use the word "evolution" in various contexts, but the Theory of Evolution refers to something very specific... I'm thinking I might turn the "Evolution" page into a disambiguation page. -- Limulus 17:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Limulus, you hit the mark. I did hear about abiogenesis in a general biology class. What I find absolutely positively blow-me-down remarkable is the attempt, here and elsewhere, to dissociate two concepts that in my school days were considered hand-in-glove interrelated. But yes, you ought to create a disambiguation page, so that everyone may have a current definition in mind. Only don't forget to mention the original linkage between evolution and abiogenesis, back when those two concepts were taught in biology classes as though they were each part and parcel of the other.--TerryHTalk 18:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
They do logically flow together, but they aren't the same :) The thing is that the teaching of evolution varies considerably from state to state (or even school to school in a given state), even today, so what may have been true in your experience may not have been for others. What's really more important than what you were taught, was what have scientists published? If you look at, the case for chemical evolution is presented as hypothetical ("much of the origin-of-life scenarios is still hypothesis" [2]) vs the case for biological evolution as established while the modern version of Darwin's Theory of Evolution is still scientific theory ("Biologists consider evolution to be a fact in much the same way that physicists do so for gravity. However, the mechanisms of evolution are less well understood, and it is these mechanisms that are described by several theories of evolution." [3] This duality is what I was trying to point out before with the quotes from the OoS). I was just over on the "Evolution" page, but its locked, so I requested the change in its talk page. -- Limulus 19:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no problem with any bias being displayed, as long as it is explicit. THe problem here is the name of the page. If it were made explicit what the biases are here, no problem as far as I can see. That being said, the information in this article is scientifically useless. Keep it, fine, but rename it. My 2 cents.--PalMDtalk 15:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

TerryH, I don't suppose you kept any of those old biology texts or notes, did you? I'd love to see them. Myk 17:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, that was thirty years ago, so all I have is my own memory. My teachers did not teach abiogenesis out of Darwin's Origin. They taught it in order to close a gap in the theory, on the quite reasonable assumption that they had to talk about origins to settle any doubts in anyone's mind. Among other things they stated that genes were mutant viruses, that mitochondria and chloroplasts were originally independent organisms that got swallowed up into the animal and plant cells we know today, that prokaryotes descend from a primitive bacterium, and that eukaryotes descend from blue-green algae.
Lo and behold, back when Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel were playing around with their directed panspermia theory (the one that talked about an ancient civilization firing a brace of guided missiles everywhere), they figured that the payload would consist of primitive bacteria and blue-green algae. And if Crick and Orgel have now abandoned that theory, then that's because a number of people have pointed out the incompleteness of that theory, and also that it was an infinite regression. So now they say that abiogenesis was "a bit more likely than they thought," or words to that effect--possibly because they realize that directed panspermia sounds like science fiction--because it is.
The point is simply this: if abiogenesis, in all its Miller-Urey glory, is no longer being taught in schools today, then that is a significant retreat from the confident position that evolutionism had when I heard it in school. And I have only certain people's word that this is the case today--and considering the high stakes that the evolution debate surely has, I don't find that trustworthy without independent corroboration.
How low in their priorities is the issue of truth for most people when matters are involved about which they have strong feelings.
Nathaniel Branden
Please explain how not addressing the subject of abiogenesis is an expression of a lack of confidence in the theory of evolution. Be specific. Dimensio 14:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
It betrays a lack of the supreme confidence that evolutionists had, when I was in school, in the sufficiency of total materialism to explain anything and everything, including how life came to be, given enough research time, grant monies, et cetera. That is a confidence that, I notice, even you do not repose.
If you're going to repose confidence in evolution of anything, then that presupposes something that came into being to be subject to evolution.
Let's be clear: evolutionists claim that all life came from a very limited number of common ancestors. If you deny that, then there goes your basis for denying special creation. Because any given species came to exist on earth in exactly one of exactly four ways:
  1. It macro-evolved from another species.
  2. it sprang into being from primordial soup.
  3. It was deposited on earth by a guided missile.
  4. It was created.
Now you can test any of the first three hypotheses. If you undermine them all, then creation is all you have left.--TerryHTalk 14:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I believe that you have confused the theory of evolution with some other claim. The theory of evolution does not suggest or state that materialism is sufficient to explain "anything and everything". The theory of evolution merely describes a mechanism by which extant biodiversity emerged through common ancestry. I fail to see how not addressing the subject of abiogenesis relates to what you have stated above. Dimensio 15:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Revilo, this is the problem with your idea; you assume that if we explain evolution at all, people might actually believe in it! So, you think we should censor the information due to your view that some people may be "weak-minded"? It's offensive to think that people won't have strong preconceived notions. --Hojimachongtalk 17:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I find it funny that Revilo's obviously satiric message is being taken seriously. I think this demonstrates just how hard it is to differentiate a parody of Creationism and the real thing. I've had the same problem, only in reverse, when I've mistaken the real thing for a parody (that was actually kind of embaressing...) Sureal 19:04, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Firstly, God does play tricks in order to test us to see whether we are worthy of his kingdom, think Tree of knowledge in eden. Secondly, those who believe in evolution and claim to be Christians are NOT Christians. If one believes in some but not al of the bible, then they are no more than Heathens who believe in certain parts of the Bible, like Jews or Muslims. The so-called "scientists" who claim that evolution is compatible with Christianity are merely trying to give their pseudoscience further belief by associating it with the word of God. There will be true scientists who ascend during the rapture, but these evolutionists will not be among them. Signed Revilo314

God provided a test for Adam and Eve in the form of the tree, but it wasn't a "trick".
It is not for you to judge who is and isn't a Christian, at least on the basis of their belief in evolution. Belief in evolution is not a test of one's salvation. Christians aren't perfect, so chances are there will be something in the Bible that they don't believe, so you can't claim that a true Christian will believe all the Bible.
(By the way, I'm another one who wouldn't be surprised if you are not genuine, but parodying creationists.)
Philip J. Rayment 11:13, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Right you are, Philip. I think this guy is probably from Uncyclopedia; and he probably wrote this article. Ha! ScorpionStep on me and get stung 11:36, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Revilo's post is a bit odd, but to say that the Hebrew god did not play games with man is just as odd. The test of Job is clearly a game set up between god and satan (in the original meaning of adversary, no reference to "hell") in order to test Job. Additionally, the concept of a god that plays juvenile manipulative games with its creation is not very appealing -- it merely leads to faith out of fear rather than out of love. NousEpirrhytos 13:37, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Isn't it interesting that no one can tell the difference between a real creationist and a parody? If it looks like a duck... (Dimitar 20:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT))

SO you guys all know the OP was being facetious right?--Elamdri 14:29, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

What right to we have to question anything?

Example : God wants us to suceede, right? Then what better way to help us then to give us the ability to change to our enviroment, not surviving, thriving.


God is an immortal being. Time realy has no meaning to him. like that joke

Guy: what is a million years to you? God: a million years is like a second. Guy: What is a million dolars to you ( im not the worlds best speller, FYI) God: i million dollars is but a penny Guy: well then...Can i have a penny? God: Sure, just a second

The point is, we shouldnt trust time like that, when god, being immortal, could have easlly just told us that to simplify. Also, the bible shouldnt be translated word for word. Example : When god said let there be light, who was he talking to?


Who cares?

"An article by CBS News begins with the observation that, "Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved."[2]"...and this is relevant how, especially as the second sentence of the article? The vox populi is often the vox fallaciae -- hell 20% of Americans believe that the sun goes round the earth, and a sizeable percent believe in UFO's/aliens, Nesie and Bigfoot. Touting ignorance is certainly not the road to knowledge. NousEpirrhytos 08:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Your argument assumes a priori that evolution is a fact, and that all who disagree with it are ignorant--or as Hans Christian Andersen would say, "stupid or unfit for their posts." When what is really happening is that a growing segment of the populations of the English-speaking world are beginning to question whether the emperor has any clothes on at all.
I'll acknowledge that proof by numbers is not a valid argument. (Of course, I expect you to acknowledge the same in other contexts as well, but that's another topic.) But aren't you engaging in proof by authority?
At a venture, I would say that the relevance of these facts about the numbers of people who don't accept pure materialism any longer is to show that that position has more currency than some might suppose. Let the Panel decide whether those numbers belong in a section deeper into the article than its introduction. But it is still relevant.
And as for "Voice of Fallacy," the authorities who tout evolution (and secular humanism along with it) are the real voices of fallacy. I certainly hope that the article eventually gets into all the social evils to which the theory of evolution removes all philosophical and moral grounds for objecting.--TerryHTalk 09:17, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
People keep forgetting, and hopefully the panel won't overlook this, but this article should be about the Theory of Evolution and then a separate article should go into who believes what and the perceived critisisms of ToE. Jrssr5 10:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, I'm not a panel member. Off-hand, I would say that the only real reason to split an article would be that the article has grown too large to load comfortably on most browsers. If we can at least agree on what one or more articles ought to contain, then we can decide how to format them. But surely the panel will read everything written here and can take all of it under advisement.--TerryHTalk 11:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps you could justify your assertion that the theory of evolution "removes all philosophical and moral grounds for objecting" to any social evils, rather than merely making the empty assertion. Dimensio 13:10, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Evolution--in its most general sense, and that includes what you now call "chemical evolution" (the primordial soup out of which abiogenesis says that life sprang)--says that God need not exist, and indeed, need never have existed.
Evolution also says that death has always been a part of life, and that the killing of inferior forms of life--the extinction of species--constitutes evolution in action.
Evolution looks at life and says, "There is always room for improvement, and the scribbled notes must always be burned."
And most importantly, evolution tells us that man is in no way special, and even says that man in his present form is not the end of the process.
A number of years ago, ABC-TV tried to introduce a show titled Prey. Its premise was that a number of persons had been born who differed as much from the rest of us as we all differ from chimpanzees. Those people declared war on us "obsolete models." The only reason why some of them did not join in that war was that they remained loyal--but loyal to what? Friendship and sentiment strike me as a mighty flimsy standard of moral value. But that's all that evolution leaves you with.--TerryHTalk 14:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I see your problem. You haven't actually studied the theory of evolution beyond the false claims made on creationist websites. I'll have to pick apart your various incorrect statements about the theory so that you can understand why the conclusion that you have drawn from what you believe the theory states is, in fact, founded upon an entirely false premise.
The theory of evolution makes no statements whatsoever regarding the existence of any deities. There is no possible means to use the theory of evolution to derive the statement "God need not exist" or "God need not ever have existed". The theory of evolution addresses the emergence of biodiversity through common ancestry by proposing a mechanism for this diversification. The subject of God does not, in any way, factor into that mechanism. Your initial premise, therefore, is clearly false.
Evolution doe snot "say" that "death has always been a part of life". Death is an observation of life. Organisms die. This is observed. That is a fact of biology in general, not just the theory of evolution. The concept that organisms die existed well before Darwin was born. Also, evolution does not say that "killing inferior forms of life" is "evolution in action". In fact, evolution can occur without any "killing" (where "killing" is defined as one living organism bringing about the death of another) at all. Evolution is driven solely by environmental pressures acting as a filter on heriditable traits such that only a subset of heriditable traits -- genetic features -- are the traits most likely to be expressed in subsequent generations. A population of organisms where only members with a specific genetic trait reproduce, and the rest die of old age without ever bearing offspring would constitute "evolution in action", without any "killing" being involved. Clearly, evolution does not require the "killing" of anything to occur, and it certainly does not confer a moral imperitave to kill. Moreover, if there is an already established prohibition of killing in some fashion -- such as a commandment from an authority against individuals (such as humans) killing members of the same species -- then the theory of evolution would not "override" that prohibition. The theory of evolution is merely a description of a subset of events in the universe. It describes. It does not justify.
Evolution does not really "say" anything. It's simply something that occurs over time. Also, "improvement" can be misleading; what constitutes "improvement" for a population in one environment can be disasterous in another. Evolution is not working toward "perfection" or a "goal". Evolution is simply what happens when a subset of organisms in generations of a population are better able, due to heriditable traits, to reproduce than others. I have no idea what you mean when you say "the notes must be burned".
It is not accurate to say that evolution says that "man is in no way special". It is more correct to say that the science of biology -- of which the study of evolution is a subset -- does not itself confer or define any special qualities to homo sapiens. This does not mean that biology or evolution states that humans do not posess any "special" qualities that set them apart from all other biological organisms, it only means that any such special qualities are not qualities that can be identified or studied through the field of biology or through the specific study of evolution. It is also not a certainty that homo sapiens is not the "end result" of the process of evolution. Humanity may one day become extinct, making it a dead end, with no successor species emerging from the line. It may also be possible -- though not addressable through the field of biology -- that a divine agent will prevent such a divergence amongst the species. But even if it is true that another species will descend from homo sapiens, this in no way shows that the theory of evolution removes moral prohibitions against "evil".
It is not appropriate to refer to a work of literary or televised fiction as support for an argument about the implications of a scientific theory. I have heard individuals refer to the television programme Deadwood when arguing in support of gun control, and I found their arguments wholly unconvincing. You have, however, altered your original claim. Your initial statement was that the theory of evolution "all philosophical and moral grounds for objecting" to various social evils. You must therefore show that evolution actually removes these grounds. Showing that the theory of evolution does not itself introduce any new grounds for objection is insufficient. Dimensio 15:23, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Consider it this way;The "theory" of gravity doesn't say anything, doesn't imply anything... it's just observed. You can choose not to believe in it, but when you jump off a a building, you will still fall at 9.8ms2, and you will still die when you hit the pavement. Trying to vilify evolution as "evil" doesn't work, as it is just a set of observations and studies, nothing more, nothing less. --Hojimachongtalk 15:29, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Evolution doesn't "look at life and say..." It's an explanation. It doesn't do anything. It has nothing whatsoever do to with whatever crazy things people may claim it justifies. If you want to say that based on the theory, you draw the conclusions that you've listed above, or that others have done so, that's all well and good. Just as other ideas have been used by people as justification for killing other people or doing whatever else. Murray 14:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Nevertheless, evolution removes all reasonable grounds that people have for objecting to any particular policy that anyone might propose while citing evolution to support that proposal. My main objection is not merely to evolution per se but to materialism, the school of philosophy that says that matter is everything, and matter can and will explain everything, given enough time, grant moneys, et cetera.
In sum, evolution "explains away" God and "explains away" the special quality of man.--TerryHTalk 15:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
And the obvious counter-argument to your claim is that your fundamental premise, that evolution "explains away God", is false, and thus your conclusion is faulty. Dimensio 15:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Yep. In fact, what most creationists fail to realise is that evolution is silent on the existence of a god or gods. The existence or lack thereof of deities makes absolutely no difference to evolution, and in fact, cannot be addressed by evolution as a belief or lack of belief in a paranormal entity is outside of the boundaries of science. That's the reality, folks, deal with it.
BTW, TerryH, what I noted above implies nothing a priori. However, evolution is at least disprovable, the existence or non-existence of a deity or deities is not, and as this article is allegedly about a scientific theory such observations regarding the vox populi have no place in the discussion. Also, see my above'll see that the mnain religious argument against evolution, a peculiarly American argument, has all the value of a cold bucket of hamster spit. NousEpirrhytos 16:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Your vulgarism does you little credit.
But in any event: I smile--indeed, to paraphrase the actor Spencer Tracy, I find myself barely able to continue this discussion without breaking out in uncontrollable laughter--when I see you and other evolutionists loudly proclaim that "evolution never says such-a-thing!" Tell that, if you please, to Richard Dawkins, who has published a book that says that all who believe in God are deluded.
You say that evolution is silent on the existence of God. That, sir, is a distinction without a difference. Evolutionists are very vocal in their denunciation of the concept of God. Evolution makes God unnecessary, and therefore most evolutionists insist that God is--not.--TerryHTalk 17:13, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Dawkins's book is an expression of his theological opinions, not a statement of the direct implications of the theory of evolution. Moreover, while Dawkins is a brilliant biologist, he is a piss-poor theologan at best, unable to consider the existence of only the most narrowly-defined "God" and concluding that because reality does not correspond to "God" as he believes that God must be, God is not likely to exist. That's not a logical conclusion of the theory of evolution, it's just bad theology. His claims regarding the existence of a deity -- which he calls unlikely, not impossible and not unnecessary -- are his own opinion, and not a logical derivation of the theory of evolution. That some who accept the theory of evolution are "vocal" about their lack of belief in any gods is not an indication that the theory of evolution states or implies that no gods exist. Unless you can actually explain how the theory of evolution as the described mechanism for extant biodiversity from common ancestry logically leads to the statements "God does not exist", "God is unnecessary" or "Anyone who believes in God is delusional" then your claims of the implications of the theory of evolution have as much merit as the implications that you have expressed: none. Dimensio 18:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I have to tell you, Dimensio; you do seem to be retreating further and further all the time--not so much from anything you youreelf have written, but rather from the considered and common-knowledge position of evolutionists everywhere. Do you really think that I don't know that Richard Dawkins is not the only evolutionist to proclaim a disbelief in God? Eugenie Scott, signatory of the Humanist Manifesto, has been actively anti-theistic even longer than Dawkins has.
The Bible gives the definitive reason for all the "biodiversity" in the world today: that God initially created every kind of plant, animal, and protist that we see today. That is to say, He created all of the genera that we see. Evolution won't concede even that. Evolution says that all kinds came from one, ar at most two, kinds: the bacterium and the blue-green alga.
Now you tell me: where is the role of God in an evolutionistic--and more particularly a materialistic--universe? Because I don't see such a role. Neither does Dawkins. Now it's all very well for you to disavow his views on theology, or maybe to suggest that he ought to stick to things he's expert at. But I don't think you have much ground to disagree with him.--TerryHTalk 20:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I am not "retreating". I have conceded no position. You have provided no evidence that the theory of evolution denies any deities, nor have you demonstrated that the theory of evolution removes all philosophical and moral grounds for objecting to any societal evil. I even deconstructed your initial explanation point by point, and you have completely ignored it. Ignoring the fact that your claims have been addressed does not make my response cease to exist.
I am aware of the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis as you present it. That is not relevant to any conclusions of the theory of evolution. Moreover, your interpretation of the book of Genesis is not supported by any physical evidence.
Your use of the phrase "evolutionistic universe" suggests that you have not only not studied the theory of evolution, but also that you have not even tried to study the theory. Instead, you have adopted your own personal strawman definition of the theory, and you refuse to consider that your understanding of the theory may be in error. I have observed this behaviour from creationists before; they are unwilling to acknowledge that their claims regarding the theory of evolution are based upon a false impression of the theory of evolution, and as such they ignore, without even offering comment, any correction of any mistakes they make in stating the claims or implications of the theory. If you believe that the only "role" for a deity is to specially and individually create each individual species in individual acts, then your understanding of what God is and what a truly powerful God can be is woefully limited, even moreso than the concept of God that Richard Dawkins invents. You should understand, however, that not all theists believe in a God as weak and inadequate as the one that you apparently worship. There are those who worship a God who they believe was able to make the universe form and behave as He wanted it merely by setting in place the physical properties of the universe and arranging matter in a specific configuration such that the galaxies, stars, planets and life would emerge just as He wanted. Such individuals clearly can concieve of a "role" for God in a universe where the process of evolution occurs. That you lack the imagination or intelligence to comprehend such a deity does not mean that there are none who can. Dimensio 23:29, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

(undent) It doesn't matter how many "evolutionists" don't believe in a god. They may have had that belief before they ever heard of the theory. Doesn't matter how many you list, it continues to be fact that the theory says nothing whatsoever about god. It provides a plausible mechanism. Whatever conclusions people may draw from the theory that are beyond its scope are their own. Murray 21:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Vulgarity TerryH? Are you as clueless of the definition of that word as you are of evolution? Please.
In any case, both Dimensio and Murray are quite right (as was I): evolution does not give a rat's behind whether a god or gods exist or don't exist, it is utterly irrelevant to the theory.
Now, what Dawkins writes regarding theology is his own opinion and has no bearing on the science of evolution. As Dimensio says, Dawkins is a piss-poor theologian and his arguments, poor as they are, are his own. In my opinion, both theists and atheists, especially of the rabid variety (Benny Hinn and Richard Dawkins) are intellectual fools: as any deities would exist in the realm of the paranormal, there is no way to either prove nor disprove their existence -- arguing vehemently and vociferously on either side of the equation is a waste of brain cells. Personally, I don't care if deities exist, I'm more concerned with being a good father, good friend, etc. NousEpirrhytos 07:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

How poor

This isn't about the theory of evolution at all. It's about refuting it. This doesn't give both sides of the issue. Sterile 13:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Then you want Origins debate. --Ed Poor 13:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

An article about theory of evolution isn't supposed to talk about the evolution? Weird!Sterile 14:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, you know I respect you, but that doesn't make any sense. The evolution article should explain evolution, not debate it. The current article should be part of Origins debate, and should be rewritten to explain evolution.

After all, how are 58 home-schooled Christian children supposed to counter a theory that they don't understand on any fundamental level. I can't even have a debate with someone if they don't understand the theory. I "understand" creationism. I even find it aesthetically pleasing, and morally useful. It would be nice to give out correct info here. Otherwise, it's still a travesty.--PalMDtalk 15:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Hear, here. I too think that this article is a mirror image the garbage Wikipedia has produced on Intelligent Design. This needs a serious rewrite. Everwill 15:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Removed Because?

Hey Conservative, since you have your talk page locked (how incredidibly like storming off to one's room and locking the door) would you care to explain here why you removed the following?

NOTE: The content of this article is the subject of an appeal to the Conservapedia Panel and should not be assumed to accurately represent Conservapedia's views.

If the notice is factual, what is the big deal? Your move only serves to destroy any impression of "transparency" a read might have. Very bad form for a public forum, smaking of of the click-clack of the jackboots of the Thought Police. NousEpirrhytos 17:17, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

The Director of Conservapedia never said the article was not representative of the website's views. The Director of Conservapedia has added only material against the theory of evolution in the article. The owner or owners of Conservapedia have never stated the article does not represent the views of Conservapedia. The board is to decide the future direction of Conservapedia and has stated nothing about the current article. Conservative 01:06, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Which is what you should have noted when you removed the "caveat" (as Philip called it). NousEpirrhytos 07:49, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

That's Andy's official title, now? You're a sysop here... can I interpret this as an official statement that Andy's view of what represents the site is now the only view that matters? Conservative, you are nowhere near as good a politician as Andy, don't make statements like that. That is not a thing he would like published. The entire reason the "panel" was convened was so that there was an appearance of diffusion of power, which you have lovingly shattered here. Thanks! Myk 09:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Yep, got rid of transparency and the appearance of a diffusion of power in one feel swoop -- that takes skill. NousEpirrhytos 09:27, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
The Director of Conservapedia lavished praise on the material I produced in the Theory of evolution article. I cite: "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] Therefore, the website management has endorsed the theory of evolution article. I also cite: You have been made a sysop so that you can implement your propositions to The Theory of Evolution page. Thanks... PhilipB 11:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)[5] I repeat the panel is too decide the future direction of Conservapedia in regards to some issues. Mr. Schlafly is the person who arbitrates matters at the present time. Conservative 18:19, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
As has been noted elsewhere: Most of the hits came and come because the article got linked from quite a few news sources (and tons of blogs) that mocked Conservapedia. Why else is Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus at rank 27 and Kangaroo at rank 6? They've been linked to a lot. --Sid 3050 18:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Sid, the fact remains Conservapedia management has endorsed my material. Conservative 18:34, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Correct. That's why my issue is also with Andy and not just with you. You forget that the first aim should not be to impress Andy. It should be to create a halfway reliable encyclopedia. Together. Theory of Evolution (and the entire site) was effectively doomed the second you were made a sysop in order to become the practically only editor of this article. By now, your behavior has been adopted by other sysops. And Andy's "I have faith in my sysops, no matter how many abuse reports I get" attitude has had an extreme effect on this site. People left, others got themselves banned. All of them were valuable editors, driven away by a policy geared completely in favor of sysops, even in cases of abuse. --Sid 3050 18:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Sid - that's why the site has falled to achive critial mass - good contributors just decided it's not worth the effort. Last one out turn off the lights --Cgday 18:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT
Hadn't you better rephrase that? Never mind; I will rephrase for you: Let the best contributors win.--TerryHTalk 19:35, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
What sort of bizzare statement is that? whatever happens here - the battle is last, there was a massive spike in april, where people came and saw what sort of site this was - they did not like what they saw, in many respects it's irrelevent what happens to the articles, the site had a chance to hit a critical mass because a combination of a) poor organisation b) no clear guidelines and c) ownership of articles scuppered that. as for "let the best contributors win" - that's an entirely wrong headed outlook for an encyclopedia. --Cgday 19:40, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
What kind of bizarre comment did you think you were making? When you said that "good contributors just decided it's not worth the effort," you just insulted me, and countless other contributors. And you probably didn't even think that far. Typical liberal.
Let me put it straight: the primary dispute between liberals and conservatives is a dispute of worldview--a dispute so strong that it has resulted in a dispute of fact. Simply put, we can't even agree on the sum of two plus two. Therefore, "may the best contributors win" is all we're left with.--TerryHTalk 19:48, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Read the sentence closely. "Good contributors left" is perfectly correct. It makes absolutely no statement about the ones who didn't leave. Just like "Good soldiers died in Iraq" doesn't insult the soldiers who still live. Things would be different if anybody said "ALL good editors left", but nobody here did that. --Sid 3050 20:10, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh, I read the sentences--plural--very carefully indeed--much more carefully than you must have thought I would. "Will the last one out turn off the lights?" I believe the other user said. That clearly means that all of the good contributors have left or are going to leave. Well, I am not going anywhere. So--would you or (s)he care to say that again about turning out the lights?--TerryHTalk 00:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Ah. I wasn't aware you'd be this nitpicky while looking for issues. Why do you take things this literally? --Sid 3050 06:55, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Because, sir, words mean things. This Talk page has now gone to eight archives, and is about to go onto a ninth, because we are at odds on the very meaning of a word.--TerryHTalk 13:12, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
em.. no... it doesn't - it's an english turn of phrase to mean that something has falled - it does not mean that literally someone should turn out the lights as they leave the building. So it doesn't clearly mean anything. --Cgday 05:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
The diagnosis of "failure" presupposes an answer to the question, "failed to do what?" Your goals are clearly different from mine, and I strongly suspect that your goals are different from those of the founders of Conservapedia. Perhaps, then, "failure" by your lights is "success" by ours.--TerryHTalk 13:12, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Sid, the Theory of evolution article is a reliable article and it is far more notated than Wikipedia's article on the same subject. Conservative 19:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
I would hardly call an article that uses dishonest quote mining to make it appear as though biologists do not believe that transitional fossils exist when really they do (note: what the article does can also be called "lying") "relaible". "Dishonest", "mislseading" and "written by a shameless liar", yes, but not "reliable". Dimensio 8:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Notated says it all: "Verb. notate - put into notation, as of music or choreography; 'Nowadays, you can notate an entire ballet; in the old days, the steps had to be memorized'"[6]
WhatIsG0ing0n 13:23, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

and how many of those sources are peer-reviewed and how many are from apologtics? --Cgday 19:10, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Quoting "Kung Pow": "I'm sure on some planet your style is impressive, but your weak link is: this is Earth."
Conservative, the current article barely defines what it attempts to refute. It will make NO sense to somebody who has not already learned tons of stuff about the actual theory of evolution and the associated subjects. Take a look at the complaints on this page and the various archives. The entire article aims directly at attempting to prove that evolution is wrong - your choice of "sources" reflects this AnswersInGenesis, CreationScience, EvolutionIsDead, CreationOnTheWeb, etc...
It might stand as Criticism of evolution, but it completely misses the topic of Theory of evolution.
Cgday: Yes, exactly. Lots of wasted chances during the traffic peak. And it's unlikely that the site will get another one of that degree anytime soon. --Sid 3050 19:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
The article does define and descibe what the theory of evolution is. Conservative 19:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
The article is a mess. It introduces tons of concepts in side sentences and then spends sections and more sections on refuting them. You are arguing semantics while everybody else here points at the big picture. You also didn't reply to any of the other points. Do you honestly think that somebody with little to no knowledge about the subject will know something useful about evolution? --Sid 3050 19:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Sid, I think the main issue is that you don't like the fact that the article is very conservative and is not a pro theory of evolution article like Wikipedia. Conservative 19:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Perhaps, just maybe, Sid (like me, and everyone else) actually wants Conservapedia to be what it is; a conservative encyclopedia, not a evolution-is-satanic propogandapedia. Just a thought. --Hojimachongtalk 20:05, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, your skill at putting my thoughts into concise statements never ceases to amaze me. Thank you. :) --Sid 3050 20:10, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, you can assert you speak for everyone else but I am not convinced. Second, the article on the theory of evolution never once mentions the word "satan". It merely presents theory and offers a very conservative perspective you do not like. Conservative 20:14, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
So now you accuse me of lying, how very professional of you. So yes, it offers a very conservative perspective, yes, I do not like it, and no, it is not encyclopedic (it doesn't even bother to explain the mechanisms of evolution, or how "evos" explain it, or how it works) and only serves to undermine the credibility of CP as a reliable resource. Sysop abuse doesn't help. --Hojimachongtalk 20:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, the article does mention mechanisms the evolutionists assert cause macroevolution. Secondly, our article offers far more citations than Wikipedia's treatment of the subject which often makes statements without citations. Perhaps as a Admin at Wikipedia you should criticize their article for this defect at the relevant discussion page. Conservative 20:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Conservative, the article may make one or two statements on the mechanisms, buried somewhere in the reams of criticism. This can't in good faith be called an encyclopedia entry. And I'm not an admin at Wikipedia, just a normal user. --Hojimachongtalk 21:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
It doesn't matter how many citations an article has. If they're bad citations, they do no credit to the editor or the site. Jrssr5 21:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, regardless of whether or not your an admin at Wikipedia, you can note on the article's discussion page, how poorly sourced their "evolution" article is. Do you plan on criticizing their evolution article at Wikipedia? They are clearly breaking Wikipedia's rules. Conservative 21:41, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Poorly sourced? Last I checked (erm, right now), they have sixty citations from well-known, well-respected, highly important biologists, including Douglas Futuyma, S.J. Gould, Dawkins (eek!), Doolittle, Feduccia, N. Wade, U. Melcher... shall I go on?All we have here is AiG and some other creationist sites. And please, give me one, just one example of bias from the Wikipedia article, and show me how they are breaking their own rules. I'll be happy to refute that for you, or point out the appropriate Wikipedia policy dictating the inclusion of that particular piece you are welcome to pull out. --Hojimachongtalk 21:48, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, you are not looking too hard for unsourced statements in the article entitled "evolution" at Wikipedia are you? Even Wikipedians put more than once "citation needed" in the article. Conservative 21:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
If these unsourced statements are so rampant in Wikipedias "evolution" article, then it shouldn't be so hard for you to pull one out, should it? It's easy to make a blanket statement, but when you go looking for specific examples of bias, you'll be hard-pressed... --Hojimachongtalk 22:25, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, I think you are playing games here. The evolution article at Wikipedia has Wikipedians stating "citation needed" in several places within their "evolution" article.[7] I am not going to copy them here as I am not very familar with GNU legalities. Conservative 22:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Here's the format: "supposedly biased statement goes here (from []). It's pretty funny that you sit here and accuse the article of being biased, while not producing a single sentence of evidence to support your claim. You were the one who first said it's biased, wouldn't you like to defend your statements? --Hojimachongtalk 22:34, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
If memory serves, I never said the Wikipedia article on "evolution" is biased. I said it was poorly sourced. I provided a link to the article so people could see that Wikipedians stated several times "citation needed". [8] Conservative 22:37, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
(reduce indent) The purpose of the cite tag (something Conservapedia could cetainly use) is to request clarification -- however, these tags are frequently used by those opposed to a particular concept in an attempt to try to discredit an article.
BTW, no you never said Satan, but Roger Schafly did just add a link to Definition of evolution, par of which notes, "* A leftist-atheist philosophy. This says that man is no better than an animal; that Earth is insignificant; that progress does not exist; that the history of life is unguided, unplanned, and random and that materialist explanations have replaced all spiritual ones. Various other ideas may also be included, depending on the evolutionist." Not only is the definition rubbish, it dispays a complete ignorance of what evolution really is, and, by bringing in the "atheist" label, clearly misrepresents evolution's stance on the existence of a deity or deities -- evolution takes no stance on the issue at all! That some some "evolutionists" are athests is irrelevant -- some are also Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddists, etc. These religious beliefs are a big "so what?" -- biology is science, religion is not. NousEpirrhytos 07:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Creationists Lie to a Judge - Ooops, What Commandments?

"n7 Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not "teaching" ID but instead is merely "making students aware of it." In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." Judge John E. Jones III, Republican, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Independent School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, 727. (brought to you by AmesGyo! 00:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT))

The answer's simple...

If the Conservamafia continue to refuse to unlock this (or any other) article, the answer's in your own hands. Simply create a new, editable article of your own with a slightly different (or rather, extended) title, and add your own stuff. Save it to your own archives, just in case. Then create links to it in other articles.

If Conservamafia then delete and lock that, just create another one from your archives. It'll only take seconds. Spawn a whole range of them if necessary. The possibilities are endless... --Petrus 05:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Good idea, Petroleum. Spawn as many as you like. Maybe they'll end up taking over the whole site, like the Terminators ScorpionStep on me and get stung 12:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
It has been done more than once. --Horace 05:12, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Not least by Conservamafia themselves, so it's obviously OK... --Petrus 05:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Si, ed i conservamafiosi fanno le parte degli sciocchiolini, no? NousEpirrhytos 07:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Hey, thats not American!!!!--PalMDtalk 08:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
LOL, but then there's no such language as American.  ;) NousEpirrhytos 09:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Ha ha, it's English. ENGLISH! ScorpionStep on me and get stung 12:21, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
This isn't English either: bakaroo! (It's Japanese, but we don't have a program for typing characters) ScorpionStep on me and get stung 12:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Uh, both previous comments were ironical.
As for the remainder of your post: how clever of you. BTW, the transliteration of the Japanese would be "bakaru" geminated letters are found in Japanese transliterations. NousEpirrhytos 18:04, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

This article scores very high on the silliness scale

It is written:

According to creationist scientists community, there is widespread discrimination against creationist scientists.

followed by

This is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.

The bit This is not surprising... is opinion and not encylopedic. What has the fact that 45% of scientists believed there was no God to do with discrimination against creationist scientists? I suspect God has nothing to do with it. A more likely reason for the discrimmination against creationist scientists [sic] is the fact that they are not using science. It shouldn't be too difficult to find a source for that. WhatIsG0ing0n 12:11, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

First, the definition fails to prove the allegation, one that is often made by the creationist community, but that has not been shown to have any validity in various studies (no doubt carried out out by leftist-atheists); additionally, are we to assume that the alleged discrimination is at the hands of the non-creationist true scientists? Second, WhatIsG0ing0n is correct: any criticism of so-called "creation science" is criticism not of the religion but of the fact that same has no basis in science -- one a supernatural, paranormal entity is imposed upon a "theory" (and I use that term very, very loosely) the theory ceases to have any any claim to be science. NousEpirrhytos 13:20, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
They are using science. You like to allege that they don't, so you can win all the arguments. Poor baby. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 13:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh, please do provide more info, Scorpio, on precisely what science they are using and how they are using it. Clearly, yours is a superior intellect, surely you could enlighten the rest of us who are benighted pond scum. NousEpirrhytos 15:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

i don't get it. If only 45% of scientists believe there is no god then 55% believe there is one. wouldn't they be in the majority. may i also point out that according to a study in nature tha actual percentage of atheists is 60. anyway scorpion. before you start calling people "poor babies" i think you should actualy have some facts to back up your claims

Transitional Fossils - not the issue

"The fossil record could be one big gap, and the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelmingly strong. At the same time, if we had only fossils and no other evidence, the fact of evolution would again be overwhelmingly supported. As things stand, we are blessed with both." - Richard Dawkins in The Ancestor's Tale

The theory of evolution does not stand or fall based on the existence of transitional fossils. The genetic evidence to support evolution would still exist were we to have no fossils whatsoever.

It takes a very special set of conditions for a fossil to be created so we should not be surprised if we don't find any transitional fossils (especially if all those we do find are automatically dismissed as hoaxes by creationists).

Indeed, we could have neither genetic nor fossil evidence and evolution would still be the best explanation for the diversity of life because it has the least presupposutions (and hence would be chosen using Occam's Razor). Ataxia 15:40, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

There was an article on genetic evidence for evolution in the Economist a couple days ago. Seems the whole civilized world conducts science based on evolution, these days!!!!-AmesGyo! 15:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually, creationists use genetics also. Many of them assert that they have seen that genetic structures don't support evolution. Of course, they offer no explanation or evidence for this assertion, even when asked, apart from a possible appeal to a vague concept of information theory, which they don't seem to understand apart from "the genome contains information" and "mutations always destroy information" (which itself can be easily refuted). Don't even ask them about ERV discoveries, because many of them won't understand it, and a few will even try to change the subject completely (one creationist with whom I spoke suddenly acted as though I'd brought up Vitamin C deficiency in primates when I asked what he thought about ERV sequences). Dimensio 08:52, 9 April 2007
I'm not even going to TRY to argue with you boneheads. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Referring to those with whom you disagree as "boneheads" is a poor substitute for a rational argument. Your statement suggests, in fact, that you have no rational point of rebuttal. Dimensio 08:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Now, now, even when appropriate, name-calling isn't a good thing. Don't make me report you to Martha! --~ TK MyTalk 13:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
You do that, and I'll report you to Big Bertha! ScorpionStep on me and get stung 15:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
While this is not the right spot, saying 'even when appropriate' in this case is name calling itself. --Mtur 13:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, thanks for that Hall Monitor. --~ TK MyTalk 13:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
C'mon, y'all, the use of obloquy is all Scorpio's got; no need to take away his only weapon. NousEpirrhytos 16:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Obloquy: "Abusively detractive language or utterance; calumny." Frankly, Nous, you won't even listen to reasoned discussion, so I don't know what the difference is. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 08:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I would have listened to reasoned discussion were you capable of participating in one. Ataxia 15:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

First 20 sources from the Article

The Theory of evolution is a materialist explanation of the history of life on earth.[1]

-If you are going to use the “Methodological Materialistic Evolution” definition then you should define the evolution explanation as:
Materialistic Evolution differs from Theistic Evolution in saying that God does not actively interfere with evolution. It is not necessarily atheistic, though; many Materialistic Evolutionists believe that God created evolution, for example. Materialistic evolution may be divided into methodological and philosophical materialism. Methodological materialism limits itself to describing the natural world with natural causes; it says nothing at all about the supernatural, neither affirming nor denying its existence or its role in life.

An article by CBS News begins with the observation that, "Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved."[2]

-If you were going to cite this source perhaps you should also add this from the article:

But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools. Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.

The theory of evolution was published by naturalist Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859.[3]

-If you are going to cite that Charles Darwin wrote the book On the Origin of Species then you perhaps should use as the cite since it holds no bias towards or against that claim.

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines evolution as a "theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." [4] Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the species via the process of natural selection.

-No argument here.

The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection. [5]

-Perhaps you should cite these links. The AIG article is the same that you used for number 3 and holds a very biased point of view. These 2 links are just statements of work showing that Darwin did not first come up with the idea of Natural selection.:

Evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote: "The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." [6]

-Perhaps you should point out the year. AMERICAN SCIENTIST, v. 45, 1957, p.385 This is before the discovery of DNA.

Evolutionists believe that the processes of natural selection and mutation created every species of life that we see on earth today after life first came about on earth. [7]

-How is a book review of Climbing Mount Improbable relevant for this broad statement? Perhaps another cite?

Creationist scientists believe that mutations and natural selection would not cause macroevolution. [8][9][10][11][12] Furthermore, creationist scientists assert that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the evolutionary model. [13][14]

-I will not dispute those cites.

Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms Currently, there are over one hundred million identified and catalogued fossils in the world's museums.[15]

-Are you saying that Porter Kier speaks for all museums? Perhaps you could list a sampling of museums fossils. His statement is a generalization and should not be used as fact.

Darwin himself admitted that his theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth." [16]

- This link takes you to the chapter in his book not a biased site once again.

However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory." [17]


Unbiased link.

However, this is a simple case of quote-mining. Darwin goes on in the next few paragraphs to address the question he has raised (which, by the way, is a common rhetorical practise when presenting a theory). The source may be unbiased, but its usage, and the selection of the quote out of context was most certainly biased. NousEpirrhytos 16:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I agree. The link I used above just gives the text of the book. The link that Conservative used has a biased spin on the text. I just wanted to provide an alternative to the source that could not be spun as biased.--TimS 16:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because "only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...".[18]


Unbiased link.

Same thing here as above paragraph--TimS 16:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Darwin's theory of evolution required that transitional forms exist. As Darwin grew older, however, he became increasingly concerned about this lack of evidence. Darwin wrote, "“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”[19]

-I searched The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin and found no such quote on the page 210 or when doing a search for the text. Perhaps a cite to the actual quote would be better instead of a biased cite that did not check their source.
Of course, it is interesting that the purported quote only comes from pro-creationist web-sites. NousEpirrhytos 16:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I would agree, I do not mind the debate but I mind when false information is presented to support a side--TimS 16:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, debating is fine, in fact it's a good way to learn things, however, as you note, falsification or misrepresntation should play no part in a debate (let me note for the record that I do not find presidential candidate debates to be true debates). NousEpirrhytos 16:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Scientist Dr.Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record: It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.[20]

-The only issue here is that this statement was made over 20 years ago and much has been discovered since. Perhaps an updated quote would serve the issue better.

--TimS 14:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT) Andy is losing his patience about some of us harping on this issue, and I can see his point. If this site is to be "encyclopedic" then this is just one article among thousands. However, given that this article is about the major theory guiding all modern biology, perhaps an ongoing discussion is not such a bad idea. It would be like saying, "Look, I'm tired of talking about abstinence education. It just doesn't work, so let's move on." The statement I made is unsourced, and unhelpful, given the topic is so important. Moving on doesnt help."--PalMDtalk 16:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

"Andy is losing his patience about some of us harping on this issue" em.. isn't the whole point of an wiki type ecyclopedia that discussion does not finish and that people discuss on an ongoing basis changes to the articles? I don't really see how dicussion prohibits work on any other page? --Cgday 16:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I thought that was the point I made, but I may have been a bit unclear/subtle. Sorry.--PalMDtalk 16:47, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Since Conservative would not provide credentials to why he should be the one to edit and revert the majority of this article I said that I would go through all of his sources. Considering that there are places in the article where just a plain unbiased source would do, Conservative had used a source from a biased website. I have also found some of his sources to be misleading or underdeveloped to the paragraph or topic he was citing. I believe this should be brought to Andy’s attention as to why this article needs a complete rewrite.--TimS 16:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Is this a joke?

Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, David Eddy professor of health policy and management at Duke University, told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."[1]

And this has what, precisely, to do with evolution? Last I heard the theory of evolution had no connection with medical treatments or intervention. Although of course if you deny the theory of evolution you might as well stop researching any treatments based on gene therapy.

Next, alchemy was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Roger Bacon, and Gottfried Leibniz.[2][3] Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts, [4][5][6] the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.

Is this the place to point out that alchemy stopped being taken seriously in any scientific sense by the use of the scientific method which showed that there was insufficient evidence to support the claims of alchemists? And instead of using the scientific method to investigate any weaknesses in the theory of evolution and use evidence to refine its scientific basis we are supposed to do what? Say 'OK then God did it' and regard that as some kind of legitimate scientific answer or evidence? Britinme 20:57 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Being a chemist, I must comment on the alchemy quote above. Alchemy was once the best the great minds of past ages could do considering the relatively limited chemical knowledge of the time. Once the combined knowledge advanced enough however, the esoteric elements of alchemy were thrown overboard and the science of chemistry proper emerged to take its place. Alchemy as such, with all its faulty presuppositions and wild expectations, ceased to exist, but chemistry was built on its foundations. If alchemy is anything today, it is an example of how knowledge and science have advanced throughout the ages. And as such, it was not a fraud, not conjecture, not a false theory. Now, the author of the quote above seems to expect that the Theory of Evolution will one day fall flat on its face, never to spoken of again. But all he manages to prove is that the scientific method will take care of any excesses and delusions in scientific theories. Don't forget that the only way to falsify a theory is to test it time and again until it utterly fails against observations. Something that happens very rarely with old and extensive theories. And as it is, the Theory of Evolution stands.Arctic Nation 13:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Student Panel's Decision

After much debate, the Conservapedia Panel has finished reviewing the Theory of Evolution page. We have determined that the article will remain protected indefinitely, to protect it from inevitable vandalism. We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution. Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review. We also realize the article is in need of revisions to areas containing problems with grammar and style and appreciate your help correcting this. The Panel apologizes for the long delay in this decision. Thank you for your patience. Please submit any further issues to the panel at User talk:CPanel, and we will do our best to resolve them.


The Conservapedia Student Panel


So much for the rewrite, and apparently the above does not apply to User:Conservative, as he continues to edit frantically.--PalMDtalk 18:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Why must you restate the obvious? Protected articles by definition require sysop rights to edit. I've asked for help writing origins debate. Why don't you follow me around the wiki and contribute where I contribute? --Ed Poor 18:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
good idea, thanks.--PalMDtalk 18:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Conservative's most recent edits simply added a book and a website for further reading. Such changes are acceptable, as they do not affect the body of the article. His edits will be subject to the Panel's ruling, as will all the SYSOPs. ~ CPanel 18:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
As I read it, Conservative's most recent edit removes a book from the further reading list: Darwin's Origin of Species itself. Not quite the same as adding one. -- Jtl 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the clarification--PalMDtalk 18:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

See also Talk:Basic Evolutionary Theory. Until a few minutes ago, it was an article. Conservative purges more than a bulemic ballerina.--PalMDtalk 19:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I applaud the decision of the Panel. It ensures that the Internet has something to laugh at for a long time: User:Sid 3050/Popularity of Evolution. In the name of many people world-wide, I say THANK YOU :) --Sid 3050 19:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Wait, you don't want the article changed in any major way? The obvious quote-mining? The lies, distortions and misdirections of the "No Transitional Fossils" section? This is ludicrous. You have a page on a scientific topic on which there is a vast consensus, and the majority of the article is unsophisticated creationist nonsense. This isn't about conservatism. This isn't about assuring neutrality. It isn't about making sure the opposing views get heard. You are letting people tell lies, and then protecting the page so that the lies stay put. Why should I go back and add to the other math and science articles here when this sort of thing could happen to them? What if "Conservative" decides that he needs to include a whole section on "NO EVIDENCE FOR COMPLEX NUMBERS?" I am disgusted. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 19:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

That's it. It's time to leave, and just point and laugh. This site has really gone to the dinosaurs - who, by the way, continue to live on Earth :-P -AmesGyo! 19:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

We have no article on complex numbers - they are based on a purely imaginary number, and we dare not let i be multiplied or added to!! ;-) --Ed Poor 21:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Just a quick note to confirm my disgust at this panel's decision. Unfortunately this is pretty much the decision that I was expecting. I always suspected that Aschlafly only suggested this panel because he was confident that they would do exactly what he wanted. How does it feel to be used boys and girls? --Horace 21:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

FOLKS! You do realize you're wasting your time worrying about what a bunch of fundamentalist home-schooled high-schoolers have to say about a subject they neither appreciate nor understand, don't you? I mean, it's actually pretty funny that any of you are taking this decision, or indeed this entire project, at all seriously. Conservapedia indeed! I hate to say it, but the joke is on all of you well-meaning boobs who spent so much time editing and re-editing this page. Why bother? You're dealing with true believers here, and you're making a bunch of 16-year olds (hi Conservative and Scorpion!) feel awfully important with all this attention. Now let's all just go away and leave the zealots to their party--it will get pretty boring for them once we're gone, and they'll have to find some other game to play. ----porkchop 22:14, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Insults apart, I fear there may be something in what you say! :( --Petrus 05:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Porkchop, How you can assert that a internet editor is 16 years old is beyond me. Second, you have no idea regarding the religious persuasion of the students. Are they evangelicals? Are they fundamentalist? Are they Presbyterians? Baptists? Disciples of Christ? But please feel free to go on with your speculation. Conservative 22:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Conservative, the level of maturity you exhibit is more in line with a 12-year-old. I think that the 16-year-old comment was extremely nice, perhaps even a compliment. --Hojimachongtalk 22:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Hoji's got ya there buddy.-AmesGyo! 22:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, keep it up and you'll feel the scorpion's sting. Conservative 23:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
LOL. Scorpion has no sting, only a mouth to yell with. Conservative, you seem to have neither. Hiding under the protection of a cactus. --Hojimachongtalk 23:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh I have a sting all right. All you have, Homichong Wong Fong Dong, is a book of insults which you keep copying to this site. Cut it out. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 11:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Moving ths down here as I do not wish to detract from the simple hilarity of Hoji's edit! Conservative you said:"Second, you have no idea regarding the religious persuasion of the students. Are they evangelicals? Are they fundamentalist? Are they Presbyterians? Baptists? Disciples of Christ?" So, you mean that ALL the people on the panel are Christian? No Aethiests? No Muslims? No Jews? No Agnostics? <<looks shocked>>No PASTAFARIANS!?!?!? How can such a panel possibly deliver a non biased decision? But as has already been pointed out: who actually expected a decision that makes sense?! MatteeNeutra 06:12, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Atheists know nothing. Muslims know nothing. Agnostics know nothing. Pastafarianism is a parody, so I don't even know why they should be on the panel. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 08:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
How can you say atheists, muslims, agnostics, etc know nothing? This really shows your ignorance and bigoted feelings towards anyone who holds a different view/opinion than your own. It's a real shame to see someone who claims to be so educated be so blind to life. Jrssr5 08:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Well Scorpion, you raving love machine, I would try and refute what you said, but in actual fact you sound so ridiculous, I'm just going to leave it there for all to see! MatteeNeutra 12:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

B******! ScorpionStep on me and get stung 11:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Scorpion, I suggest you take about a week's vacation from this site. I understand your frustration, but name-calling (even if you do censor it) is unacceptable. Please take a vacation. Ratso 12:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
A couple points. One, this article reads like a kindergarten (rather than a 12-year-old's) essay: "and then we did this, and then we did that, and then and then and then..." It's disgracefully written - homeschooling these days obviously isn't focusing on writing skills. And two, are the "panel" so dismissive of "God's" intelligence and power that they dismiss any kind of notion that perhaps He designed the universe with evolution in mind? Is it so beyond Him that He could set up the universe so precisely that the exact conditions existed in which the universe could take the shape to allow evolution to cause the emergence of man "in his own image"? Surely "God" is capable of such a feat - I mean, if we can make a watch go tick about once every second then God can control the myriad variables from the subatomic upwards. Airdish 07:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Whether or not he could is not the issue; we go by what the Bible says, and the Bible does not leave room for evolution. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 08:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Your interpretation of the Bible leaves no room for evolution. Be careful with your phrasing, that almost sounded like Pride. Airdish 08:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
You go by what the Bible says, or this website does? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 10:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Scorpion, I know you got banned for a few hours, and I'm sorry to see you back.-AmesGyo! 10:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

(Sniff) Boo hoo! That hurts! LOL I'm sorry to see you on this website, AmesG. I wish you'd move your arse and find some stupid pro-evo site. Go on! Shoo! ScorpionStep on me and get stung 11:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Claiming that the Bible can be "interpreted" in such a was as to allow for evolution is like saying that a "60 km/h" speed limit sign could be "interpreted" to mean "45 billion km/s" speed limit. That's not an "interpretation", that's a misrepresentation. Philip J. Rayment 10:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
No, it is not. One interpretaion could say that the men who wrote the Bible were doing the best they could with the Word of God and that the events that happened in the Bible are important because they impart valuable truths rather than document historical events. Another interpretation of the Bible is that everything contained in it is actual historical fact. There are many interpretations, for if there were not there would be but one church that claimed to follow the teachings of Christ. Airdish 10:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I guess you could. Just like you could claim that the people posting the speed limit sign were doing the best they could with the sign and that it is important because of the truth that it imparts rather than the actual speed. See how silly that sounds? Philip J. Rayment 11:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Philip, since you seem to be a biblical literalist can you answer the question of where the water went from the flood? Now tell me how that was to be interpreted?--TimS 11:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, I will tell you where the water went. But first, you need to understand where it came from. The whole surface of the earth was radically different in the old days from what it is today. All that water in the oceans was underneath the surface--ten miles down, give or take. And then--it started with a hairline crack in that thick crust, and that crack wound all the way around and let all those hot geothermal waters out. That's why the Bible talks about the "fountains of the great deep." The seam of that crack persists today, as the Mid-Atlantic, Southwest Indian, and Pacific Indian Ridge systems.
So--you want to know where the water went? Into the ocean beds where it now rests.
What happened during the Great Flood is that the surface slipped beneath the waters for a year, while the continents were getting shoved around.--TerryHTalk 12:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
So Terry I have to ask, how long does it take a glacier to erode a valley? Why are ice core samples from the artic showing millions of years when if the earth was flooded entirely it would not be linked to any land to retain its position? Why is there no evidence of a flood layer in the earth’s strata? As for the mid-oceanic ridge it is an underwater mountain range, formed by plate tectonics. This has been shown by seismographic activity on one edge of a plate to correspond with activity on the other side of the plate. I must say though I have seen this hypothesis by Walt Brown on a television show in the late 80s, ironically it was debunked
The hydroplate model proposes that the Flood waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a catastrophic rupture of the earth's crust, shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain.
  1. How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth's crust, doesn't float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or Adam's time for that matter.
  2. Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. Noah would have been poached.
  3. Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosion deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen).
--TimS 15:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

An interesting analogy. Are you suggesting that, like speed limits, the claims of the Bible are determined by man, or have you simply not thought your poorly-constructed analogy through?
The problem with your analogy is that speed limit signs are a direct statement of human-defined restrictions on travel speed in a given location. The Bible is a collection of purportedly historical events. The two concepts are not directly analagous, so you cannot compare a non-literal interpretation of a subset of the claims of the Bible with a non-literal interpretation of a speed limit sign. That you make the analogy suggests that you have not considered the logical implications of your claims. Dimensio 17:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
No, I am not suggesting that the claims of the Bible are determined by man. And yes, as I mentioned, the analogy (like all analogies) is not perfect. The point where the analogy is relevant is the one of interpretation. How can you "interpret" six days to mean the billions of years of the secular timescale? That's not an "interpretation", that's an outright rejection. Airdish tried to answer my argument from analogy by proposing that we can change the rules. But that gives it away. There is no need to change the rules if 60 km/h can be interpreted to mean 45 billion km/s. The fact that it need to be changed indicates that it can't be interpreted that way. Philip J. Rayment 23:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I cannot interpret "six days" to equal billions of years, and I have yet to be convinced by apologetics that argues for such. I see Genesis as an attempt to explain the cause of the existence of all that is seen by individuals who have no scientific knowledge or tools at their disposal, and who borrowed a Babylonian myth. I do not see it as corresponding to reality, any more so than the creation story of any other religion. I do not see the creation story of Genesis as representative of any specific historical event. Some have said that it is necessary to Christianity that the story be literally true, as it explains the origin of the sinful nature of humanity, but I do not see an origin story of such required to understand that humanity is inherently sinful.
All of that, however, is irrelevant to the original statement, which suggested that God could have arranged the universe in such a way that evolution should occur. Your response referencing Genesis and making the analogy that you did was a non-sequitur, as the previous individual referenced neither the Book of Genesis nor any of the other books of either the Old or New Testaments. Your inability to comprehend a theist who does not accept the Book of Genesis as divinely inspired suggests limited thinking. Dimensio 11:23, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
"I cannot interpret "six days" to equal billions of years". I'm glad that we agree on that point.
"Your response referencing Genesis and making the analogy that you did was a non-sequitur, as the previous individual referenced neither the Book of Genesis nor any of the other books of either the Old or New Testaments.". The statement that I was replying to did not specifically mention Genesis, but did mention the Bible. It was this statement of Airdish's (08:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)): "Your interpretation of the Bible leaves no room for evolution.".
Philip J. Rayment 11:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Philip, do you keep Kosher? Or do you interpret that as no longer mattering?-AmesGyo! 11:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

(Note: irony ahead) The New Testament superseded the verses of Deuteronomy that apply to eating shellfish, but not the verses that apply to women wearing pants. Dpbsmith 12:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Okay, Philip, I'll do my best to work within your comparison (which I believe is completely false to begin with). The truth would be "slow down so that you can keep control of your vehicle and stop it easily". The speed limit is the rule which you must obey to keep in line with the truth that has been decided on. If we then discover a new method of braking or controlling a car that allows us to increase our speed without reducing safety then we can change the rule - we can interpret the truth, decide on it's meaning and alter our rule dependent on our level of knowledge of the workings of the vehicles under the influence of the speed limit sign. Airdish 11:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
You've got it, buddy! The opposite of a fact is a falsehood. The opposite of a truth is another truth. Unfortunately there are some people who can't tell the difference. --Petrus 12:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I note that only one of the four posts since my last one even tries to address my post; the others seem more interested in throwing up their standards objections to anything biblical they can think of instead of sticking to the subject.
Airdish, like all analogies, my analogy would not be perfect. But then you haven't actually shown what's wrong with it as an analogy. Do you really think that a policeman pulling you over for exceeding the 60 km/h speed limit would (a) accept an excuse that you had your car under control, so therefore you didn't need to concern yourself with what the sign actually said, and (b) accept any excuse for exceeding it by that much? Where I guess the analogy does beak down is that my analogy is talking about a rule that in theory can be changed, whereas the Bible is offering a statement of history, and you can't just decide to change history like you might change a rule.
Philip J. Rayment 12:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
We assume that the speed limit is that maximum speed by which everyone can maintain and still ensure the safety of themselves and others (who will be expecting the other cars on the road to maintain that same speed). If you claim I am "throwing up objections to anything biblical" then please be specific. What exactly about your analogy have I not addressed? Airdish 13:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I said that only one person addressed my post, and that the others were throwing up objections to anything biblical. You were the one that addressed my post, so that comment didn't apply to you. As for the analogy, see what I've just written above in this same edit, in reply to Dimensio, about not needing to change the rule if it can be "interpreted" that way. I'm not arguing whether the Genesis story is correct, but whether it is valid to claim that it can be interpreted to agree with the secular story, when there is such a massive difference between the two. Philip J. Rayment 23:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I hope you address my question, Philip. Do you keep kosher?-AmesGyo! 12:53, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

And what has that to do with this discussion? As far as I can see, nothing. Another time and another place perhaps, but I won't be answering that here and now. Philip J. Rayment 23:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Age of the Earth

Philip, I guess you need to provide the proof contrary to the science that supports the age of the earth. Your analogy is sound however your primary statement implying the age according to creationists (6K years) vs. the age according to geologists and astrophysicists (4.5 billion years) is flawed. My question about the flood was to show that some things in the bible cannot be taken literally and therefore creation should not be taken literally. The science is well grounded while the biblical story does not match what has been observed in nature or in test models whose predictions have been shown true. So once again the burden of proof falls on you to show empirically otherwise.--TimS 13:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't need to provide contrary proof on the age of the Earth for this particular discussion about the validity of "interpreting" the creation account to mean the same as the secular story. Philip J. Rayment 23:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
TimS, you are basing this "proof" of the age of the earth on assumptions. You must, for example, assume that there was the same amount of parent isotope in the rock as there is daughter isotope, that the rate of decay was constant, and that there were no interferences, among other things. Ratso 12:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Ratso, that is true you would have to assume, however that assumption has been verified by experimentation results. I would have to point out that the flood geology article had some great examples of how the great flood did not happen but it also lead into the age of the earth issue. I hope that in your endeavors you will take the time out to research these topics in greater detail before coming to conclusions. Your claim above is understandable for a person who may have skimmed a website about particle decay. Perhaps it should be noted that when using isotope to determine age of minerals and rocks that the sample is collected within the rock, not on its surface. Therefore any environmental interactions would have to occur during the formation of the rock to have any impact on the decay.--TimS 15:21, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to know what experiments verified those results. Ratso 11:18, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
With the metamorphic process of rocks, it is possible to get incorrect dates. If you read you will see how the dating of a metamorphic rock such as gneiss (metamorphic granite) can give incorrect information. For this reason, it is a bad idea to use metamorphic rocks as samples. Any use of metamorphic rocks to try to produce dates is counter productive and misleading. You can similarly have bacteria on cloth or paper deposited much later, and the 'old wood' problem of dating campfires. --Mtur 15:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Very true and why metamorphic rocks are not used for dating.--TimS 15:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Could you please review the methods of Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology by RATE? In this case, it used 27 samples from the Brahma Schist region of the Grand Canyon. --Mtur 15:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
This site is a joke and doing this goes against my better judgement, but I will add my tuppence-worth. Radioactive dating of metamprphic rock will only give a date for the metamorphic event. All information is lost regarding the original date of the rocks formation as there is too much movement of isotopes through the mineral structure. In non-metamorphosed igneous rock, there are clues in the mineralogy and chemistry that a geologist would use to mark isotopic movement in or out of the mineral being dated and would, therefore, be aware of the potential for inaccuracies. All radioactive dating now uses isochron methodology to remove the possibility of error. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up isochrons and discover how they are used in modern geology. Splodge 07:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
The RATE Group have already thought of that. They discuss isochron dates extensively. Isochron dating does not "remove the possibility of error." This is another example of your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.--TerryHTalk 09:58, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh dearie me. The RATE group anomalies are produced by flawed experimental data. Isochron measurement requires that the rock samples are cogenetic (formed at the same time from a common pool of material within which the isotopes and elements are relatively homogenous). This was never done by RATE. For example, RATE geologist Steve Austin has stated (Austin, Steven A., ed., 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe) that the samples he took came from four different lava flows and an extracted phenocryst.
Austin knows he will get the wrong results this way. In Austin, Steven A., 1988. "Grand Canyon lava flows: A survey of isotope dating methods," in Impact #178, he mentions that this kind of false isochron is well known and cites (Faure, Gunter, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons pp 145-147) on the matter.
But truth is not the objective of these creationist groups. They generate propaganda in the form of pseudo-scientific articles that fool the layman into thinking that there is something suspect. To understand what is going on requires an in-depth understanding of the science that most people do not have. Splodge 13:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
You know, you lost any credibility you might have had with me with that last comment slandering the motives of creationists. Philip J. Rayment 20:25, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
What slander (or libel -- slander is spoken)? Creationist organizations admit up-front that their work is done to support a pre-assumed conclusion that they will not, under any circumstances, reevaluate. Dimensio 15:03, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
My dictionary lists three meanings for "slander" as a noun: (1) defamation; calumny. (2) a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report. (3) Law. defamation in a transient form, as speech. So in a non-legal sense, "slander" appears to me to be an appropriate term. With modern technology, there is a blurring of distinctions. Would Internet chat be classified as "transient"? Also, note that this is the "talk" page. We are, albeit in a recorded electronic form, "talking" here.
Anyway, to get to the main point, you have not quoted what creationists say, but put it in your own words, and I disagree that you have represented them correctly. The fact is that they have re-evaluated many of their ideas. Furthermore, you accused them of not having truth as an objective. Your attempt at a defence of your comments fails to even attempt to defend that slander.
Philip J. Rayment 22:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Link to The Origin of Species

Can [this edit], removing the link to Darwin's "The Origin of Species", please be reverted? If not, can the panel at least verify they stand by their claim that "Conservative's most recent edits simply added a book" and hopefully explain how they interpret 'removing' and 'adding' as equivalent? --Jtl 13:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Sine you're working on that section again, Conservative, can you make this change? Remember, that link was in the panel-approved version. --Jtl 15:13, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

This is a joke. The entire theory is based off this book. If this book isn't notable, then none of the other books are. --Hojimachongtalk 21:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

ToE and non-biological sciences

In several articles the theory of evolution has been mentioned with respect to non-biological evolution. Examples include:

  • Stellar evolution (how a star stars out as a cloud of gas, condenses into a main sequence star, uses up its fuel, and explodes or becomes a dwarf star of some sort)
  • Galactic evolution (how galaxies form and combine)
  • Social Darwinism (how societies evolve)
  • Linguistic evolution (how languages change over time - from proto-indo-european to a wide range of languages spoken today)
  • Planetary evolution (how planets condense out of a disk of dust and gas)
  • Sociocultural evolution (another take at how societies and cultures evolve - not Social Darwinism)
  • Technological evolution (how technology builds upon itself and evolves)

(I am sure that many others can be found)

Within this wiki, these words are encumbered with the word 'evolution' which has nothing to do with The Origin of Species beyond they are part of a theory as to how something moves from one thing to another, be it a language or a star.

The key thing that I am attempting to point out that having an opinion on any of the above examples (or numerous others) is not an indication about one's beliefs on biological evolution. Nor does it indicate a person's belief about the creation of the world and if that is in accordance with the Bible.

It is perfectly possible to find someone who does not believe in Social Darwinism, does believe in stellar evolution, believes in biological evolution, and believes in the Hindu creation story. As such, trying to label this person for or against evolution or as a creationist becomes an exercise of interpretations.

As such, I would like to propose that 'evolutionists' be strictly defined as those believes in support of biological evolution. Likewise, Creationists would be strictly defined as those who have documented support of creation as specified in the Bible (not that of other religions). Only then will these terms be useful in attempting to describe biographies. If care is not taken in these categories you then have overlapping descriptions in which the category becomes useless.

In short, not everything that says 'evolution' should be regarded with the same distaste those who oppose biological evolution. Nor is everything that is a theory of evolution working from the theory of biological evolution. --Mtur 16:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm in general agreement with this, but do have a few comments and one question.
  • Are you proposing this for talk pages only, or for articles? If the latter, this would mean that we can't even refer to non-biblical "creationists" as such in articles such as creationism. Technically, they would be considered creationists, and to arbitrarily declare that to not be so is to deny reality.
  • I would rather say that "creationist" and "evolutionist" be used only as you proposed, except where the circumstances dictate otherwise or the context makes it clear. Or to put it another way, it should be a guideline, for which there can be exceptions.
  • It might be prudent to propose alternative descriptions for some of these other views. If, for example, someone believes in stellar evolution but not biological evolution, what would you call them?
Philip J. Rayment 00:05, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
THat's a good question. Ratso 11:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Why is it neccasery to attach labels? Simply a description would suffice. Nematocyte 11:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
OEC? Tsumetai 11:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
There was some debate in another article about if 'creationist' or 'anti-evolutionist' applied to a physicist who said that there is no theory of evolution for molecules. I believe the consensus there currently is that this has no bearing on if a person was anti-evolutionist. My goal is to point out that just because there is a theory of evolution for something, does not mean it is related to biological evolution or Darwinism.
As to defining creationism, I would welcome your input at Category talk:Creationists. It has not made much headway yet. If you want to call Plato a Creationist based on what he wrote in the Symposium, and someone who wants to learn more about Creationism goes and reads that Zeus had Apollo cut four legged and four armed and two head beings into halves which were men and women as a lesson in humility... I'm not really sure that is what people would agree to being a creationist.
Trying to create names for each set of views becomes a difficult endeavor. I have listed seven items up there and a quick calculation suggests that there are 128 possible sets for all the views (assuming each person has a yes/no opinion on each). If you include "don't know" as an option, there are 2187 possible names to be created. Wouldn't it be more reasonable just to say what they believe as a simple 'yes' instead?
And so, I return to the original point - it is ok to call someone an evolutionist if they believe in biological evolution - that is what most people are talking about on this site. However, because a person does not believe that something else evolves does not mean they also do not believe that organisms evolve. Saying "No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules" does not mean the person disbelieved in or had any opinion on biological evolution. Trying to read that from the quote is without basis. --Mtur 15:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Incorrect name; spelling of a name

This is quite a roundabout process to correct such a simple error.

Johnathan Sarfati's name is incorrectly spelled as "Safarti" in this article. This is found where it says “Dr. Safarti continues:”. --River Blue 21:50, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. You got it wrong also, by the way. It's Jonathan, not Johnathan. Philip J. Rayment 00:30, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Removal of link to The Origin of Species

An editor recently removed a link to an online text of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species from Theory of Evolution, with no explanation given in the edit comment. This really seems bizarre to me. Presently, at the place in the article where you'd expect a link to Darwin's text, one finds only a link to an article in Answers in Genesis, which seems to be saying that because (as is well-known) Darwin drew on the work of others, he does not deserve credit for his own contribution. Even if true, this would hardly explain why The Origin of Species is not relevant to a discussion of the theory of evolution. One wouldn't removing a link to the Declaration of Independence from an article on the origins of the United States on the grounds that Jefferson's work had antecedents.

Why shouldn't Theory of Evolution contain a link to the text of Darwin's book? Dpbsmith 21:33, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Apparently, some people (those who removed the link) are scared that people might read this and learn to think outside the box. --Hojimachongtalk 21:35, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I really don't believe that Darwin's work was all that impressive as can be seen by the Theory of evolution article and I believe he did not give sufficient credit to those who had commented on natural selection earlier. [9] That is why I do not believe the Origin of the Species need be included in the recommended books section. The board will ultimately decide this matter of course and they have been made aware of it.Conservative 21:47, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
I don't see how, by any stretch of the imagination, you can say that Darwin's book did not set in motion and have a profound affect on the theory itself. If not for his book, the theory as it exists today would not exist at all. --Hojimachongtalk 21:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
The board will ultimately decide this matter of course and they have been made aware of it -- the board did decide this. The link was in the version the panel OKed. It was removed immediately after the panel blessed it. --Jtl 23:29, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
What about a couple of Dawkins books? The Blind Watchmaker springs to mind. --Horace 21:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Regardless of the claim that Darwin's work is not impressive, the citation should be included, especially considering the proportion of the article devoted to a description of Darwin's development of the theory. Murray 21:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I believe the CP Panel has issued its instructions? Pending that, perhaps this page needs to be locked as well. --~ TK MyTalk 05:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, the Panel has given its decision. And they asked for a "concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution", as well as improvements to grammar and style. Unless all that is done only by sysops, this page needs to remain unprotected to allow that to happen.
I do note, however, that despite the anti-creationist editors crying for such an explanation, it has not been forthcoming.
I also note that despite various anti-creationists claiming that evolution is science and creation is religion, there appears to be what could be described as a religious fervour over this article.
Philip J. Rayment 06:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
If someone had written a hack job of this magnitude about, say, atomic theory, I guarantee you a 'religious fervour' in the response.
As to the explanations of evolution; there are already several floating around in various user spaces, and in page histories; recall that there were multiple attempts to put together a neutral description before the panel's decision was even made. The problem, however, is that any half-way decent explanation of the current state of the art will make several parts of the existing article look very silly indeed. And how do you suppose that tension will be resolved? Tsumetai 07:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I doubt the fervour would be as strong.
Yes, there probably are one or two (I don't know about "several") floating around, but I think they are all "complete" articles. Nobody has bothered to extract the relevant "concise explanation" and propose that for inclusion.
Philip J. Rayment 11:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Agreed, Philip. So, perhaps another way must be found. I am thinking that the students will be completing this, and of course locked for good. All of the above, all of the archives, show that what mankind has been arguing for thousands of years will never be concluded here. --~ TK MyTalk 06:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure who besides User:Conservative makes "the claim" that Darwin's work is not impressive. User:Conservative phrases it as a personal opinion: "I really don't believe that Darwin's work was all that impressive." This sounds more like a statement made for its shock value than one that is being proposed seriously. EIther that or Conservative is allowing his personal opinions of Darwin to override his intellectual honesty.

It was certainly impressive in the sense of influencing many peoples' beliefs.

To a first approximation, a book which is included in

  • the Great Books curriculum of St. John's College[10] (a well-regarded liberal arts college which bases its curriculum entirely on the direct study of original source texts)
  • the Harvard Classics ("Dr. Eliot's Five-Foot Shelf"), Charles W. Eliot's selection of the books which constituted the elements of a liberal education
  • Great Books of the Western World, a similar collection published in the 1950s by the Encyclopædia Britannica organization, under the direction of conservative educator Mortimer Adler

should not be casually dismissed as "not all that impressive."

If the point is to present Darwin in a negative light while being intellectually honest, it might be possible to say, source, and defend the statement that "the ideas of Marx, Darwin, and Freud define the period of Western thought known as modernism." (You wouldn't even need to point out the degree to which Marx and Freud's stars have fallen). Dpbsmith 06:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I have reverted Conservative's removal of the books, because the general consensus errs towards inclusion. The affect that Darwin had on evolution is undeniable; it has been the basis for the entire evolutionary theory for the past 150 years. --Hojimachongtalk 23:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
"General Consensus" ? This is not wikipedia. The panel ruled that the article will not be changed in any major way and recommending pro-evo books is a major departure from the direction of the article. Conservative 23:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
I must disagree with this for three reasons, which I have already explained on my talk page. One, they specifically said that changes outside the body of the article were okay. Two, one of the books was already there when they approved the article as it was. Three, the article (before your recent reversions) was not "recommending" the books. Philip J. Rayment 08:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
And right after they decided that, you removed the link to the Origin of Species. --Jtl 23:57, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Remember that the panel also requested a concise explanation of the theory.-AmesGyo! 23:49, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Remember, the panel said the article was updated and may be sufficient in terms of an explanation. Conservative 23:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Where did they say that, please? Philip J. Rayment 08:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Conservative, if you would bother to read the response that Philip J. Rayment gave you, you would see that the panel actually supported the inclusion of the books. --Hojimachongtalk 23:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Hoji, I appreciate that you attempt to compromise, but Dawkins should stay too. He's a valid source, as valid as any scientist, and at least less biased than "creationontheweb" or "AnswersInGenesis."-AmesGyo! 23:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Calling Dawkins unbiased is laughable. And this was my attempt at a reasonable compromise; the other two books are much more relevant. --Hojimachongtalk 23:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't say he's unbiased; I said he's less biased than the other sources (AiG). But I understand if you need to keep him out, just it's to the detriment of the student.-AmesGyo! 23:55, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Dawkins is most certainly not "less biased" than creationists. Philip J. Rayment 08:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Request for specific change so that an apparent reference doesn't point to a surprising place

Please change the sentence which now reads

The theory of evolution was published by naturalist Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859.[7]

either to (suggestion A):

The theory of evolution was published by naturalist Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859.[8] How much credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed.[9]

or to (suggestion B):

The theory of evolution was published by naturalist Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859.[10][11]

The footnote follow the mention of the book ought to lead to the book itself, not to some surprising and not-closely-related topic.

A reference to an article challenging Darwin's originality should be placed after a sentence about Darwin's originality or lack thereof.

A footnote can also point to a note, illustrating some tangential detail that isn't important enough to interrupt the flow, but in that case the note ought to provide an explanation. Hence suggestion B, if we think the issue of Darwin's originality isn't all that important.-- Dpbsmith

I think that either one would be good. --CPAdmin1 17:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. Dpbsmith 18:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

References tag to allow illustration above, please don't remove

  1. [1]
  8. Darwin, Charles (1859),The Origin of Species, Project Gutenberg online text
  10. Darwin, Charles (1859),The Origin of Species, Project Gutenberg online text
  11. It is often suggested that the theory was original with Darwin, but creationist Russell Grigg says that it draws so heavily on earlier work that it ought to be called Darwin's Illegitimate Brainchild.

That's a sneaky and incredibly dishonest way to footnote an article. Dpbsmith is right, this should be changed immediately. Jrssr5 08:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
This is not the first time. I went through the first 20 footnotes a couple of weeks ago and several of them were the same way. Look in archive 6 or 7.--TimS 09:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Wrong subject?

It appears to me, that this isn't about evolution and instead about the controversy between creationism and evolution. As such, evolution would be the wrong subject as doesn't even attempt to explain evolution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Firato (talk)

Edit War

Hoji, please don't fight over a small thing like a reference. --Ed Poor 00:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

The further gutting of this article, and the disregard for the Panel, and how both represent the modus operandi of a disruptive editor, are worth fighting over. If I were a sysop, that is. It's not that little.-AmesGyo! 00:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT) Nas 20:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)


This article is an embarrassment to a website calling itself an "encyclopedia". The Panel is simply trying to deny that there is evidence against their religion and making this site into another Uncyclopedia. PLEASE add scientific views to the article and make it a balanced and unbiased discussion of the topic. Alternatively, rename the topic to "Why evolution cannot be correct because it does not comply with the literal meaning of the bible". Rant over. --TomT 15:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Please add this userbox to your page if you agree that this article should have a more neutral point of view:

Science This user would like to see changes to the evolution article expanding the scientific viewpoint.
Use: {{User evolutionScience}}

--TomT 17:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Tom, whilst I'm not necessarily defending the article, your criticism is base on your point of view that evolution is correct. If in fact evolution is not correct (and I'm convinced that it's not), then your argument fails. Philip J. Rayment 22:30, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Since you're here, Philip, you should try to explain why the link to The Origin of Species should stay in this article :/. --Hojimachongtalk 22:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I'll just point people to my explanation on my talk page, here. Philip J. Rayment 23:34, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not assuming that evolution is correct, although that is my personal point of view. I am stating that this article does not contain information on the scientific theory that the rest of the article is presenting evidence against. --TomT 14:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
The Panel agreed on that and asked for such an explanation. Conservative mentioned on my talk page that they no longer need that, but I don't think that's correct, so you are welcome to write such an explanation for their consideration if you like. Philip J. Rayment 22:39, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I have to concur. The article as-is is a very poor presentation. After using the loaded term "materialist" to describe the theory of evolution in the first sentence, the article references a CBS poll on acceptance of the theory of evolution. That does not belong in the introductory paragraph of an article about the theory itself. Such a statement would be acceptable only in a "controversy" subsection further down the article, after the theory itself has been explained. The article instead jumps right into an attempt to debunk the theory (invoking typically dishonest creationist quote mining techniques and outright lies). The article is the antithesis of a proper encyclopaedic article. It is poorly written, and takes on obviously biased viewpoint. Claiming that objections to the article are based upon an assumption that the theory of evolution is correct is just a dishonest cop-out; the article is poorly structured and written regardless of the validity of the theory of evolution. Dimensio 14:59, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't intend to defend the article as it stands, but I do object to typically slanderous stereotyping of creationists as dishonest and liars. Pot, meet kettle. Philip J. Rayment 22:39, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Phillip Raymont, I did not say the panel said the current explanation of what the theory of evolution is was sufficient. I merely said that they said it might be sufficient as the explanation had been updated since some members of the panel had looked at the article. Conservative 22:44, 19 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Conservative, thanks for the clarification. That's what I get for relying on my memory. I was also wrong in saying that you said it on my talk page. It was actually on this page. However, I also did ask you where they said that, and you haven't answered that. I also asked you some questions on my talk page which you haven't answered. Perhaps you haven't been back for a look, so haven't realised that they are there, but could you please answer my questions on my talk page? (Look for my message at 08:17, 18 April.) Thanks. Philip J. Rayment 23:00, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Just to butt in here (I don't intend to get involved), but Andy did mention something called "equal weight" a while back, which was interpreted as meaning giving "equal" time to both views. --Hojimachongtalk 22:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, I doubt Andy implied that. Do we have to give equal time to the devil in the God article? Equal time to the KKK in a NAACP article? Equal time to abortionist in the abortion article? Equal time to the flat earthers in the earth article? Conservative 22:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
That was masterful. Conservative just equated evolution to to the devil, the KKK, abortionists, and flat earthers. Myk 22:55, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Darwin stated: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla (Darwin 1887:156). [11] Conservative 22:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Well, evolution, the devil, the KKK, abortionists, and flat earthers are all wrong, so there appears to be at least some validity to the comparison! Philip J. Rayment 23:01, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Just to note, the KKK and Flat Earthism aren't widely accepted, evidentially-supported scientific theories. --Hojimachongtalk 23:02, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

(unindent) But the ToE isn't at all ABOUT the theory of evolution so the comparison would be having the God article talk about how bad the devil is and very little about God Himself. Rob Pommertalk 23:06, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, if the God article were anything like the Evolution article, it would set out to disprove the existence of God, use sources inclined to doubt the existence of God or the morality of believing in God, blame the ills of the world on theism, and make a mockery of theology generally. It would say very little about who believes in God, what is generally believed correct about God, or the positive influence that belief in God may have had upon the world. "God is a supernatural explanation for the existence of the universe. According to a poll, 93% of US scientists do not believe there is a God...."--All Fish Welcome 17:56, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

natural selection vs. genetic drift


You have written:

"Today advocates of evolution no longer adhere to "natural selection" as the definition of evolution, but rather define it simply as any "change over time" in the genetic composition of a population."

According to me this is not true. I looked it up at Wikipedia. They write:

"The relative importance of natural selection and genetic drift in determining the fate of new mutations also depends on the population size and the strength of selection. Natural selection is predominant in large populations, while genetic drift is in small populations. Finally, the time for an allele to become fixed in the population by genetic drift (that is, for all individuals in the population to carry that allele) depends on population size — smaller populations require a shorter time for fixation."

Best regards


Very true Harald, Genetic Drift and Natural Selection work in different ways to evolve organisms, keep in mind that they work in conjunction with each other, (see my edit on the Macroevolution page). Natural Selection reduces or removes genetic material that would not survive in the current environment by the reduction of reproductive fitness. This could be through the death of the organism, thus preventing reproduction, or by slowly reducing the traits the organism has that are counter productive in the environment through sexual selection.
Genetic Drift would be due to interbreeding and other spreading of genetic material. So in this case it has a cumulative affect on the population. Overtime different genetic traits are seen more readily and are increased through a verity of mechanisms.
In short, Natural selection reduces genetic material by the removal or reduction of the organism through environmental changes while genetic drift adds to the genetic material by introducing new material to populations though sexual selection and better genetic fitness within the population.--TimS 11:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

The bit from this article that you (Harald) have quoted is talking about the definition of evolution. It is not denying that natural selection and genetic drift are processes of evolution. You quoted from the Wikipedia article, but you didn't quote Wikipedia's definition:
Biological evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation.
That to me appears to be pretty consistent with the bit you quoted from this article.
Philip J. Rayment 22:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

A genetic drift from generation to generation is ONE of the CAUSES for evolution. But a genectic drift from one generation to the other alone cannot be the reason for the upcoming of new species. Natural selection is an indispensable part of evolution - if we are talking about the origin of species.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harald (talk)