User talk:Ed Poor/6

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
600px-Ed Poor barnstar.svg.png

Transcription and translation

Thanks Ed, both transcription and translation will be parts of the gene expression page.--TimS 12:08, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Types of Evolution

Ed could you revert what you did to the page. There are three different types, divergent evolution is one of the types not all of them. Continue to read the article before anymore edits and you will have your answers, if not let me know before wiping the page and redirecting it.--TimS 12:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I thought you were at lunch. I'm looking for proof that divergent evolution occurs. Got any? --Ed Poor 12:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes, there are several examples and research papers on it. I said I would be linking them in on the talk page. The bigger issue though is the removal of the other two types. Divergent evolution is one type the other two are in the article as well, with examples and citations. Ed, I know you did not go over the page enough to make the determination of wiping it. Please revert it and read it through before deleting it.--TimS 12:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
I was on my way to lunch when I checked the change logs and saw what happened.--TimS 12:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I went through the whole article and deleted everything after the first unsourced, unproven claim. Are you stating a doctrine, or is this science? --Ed Poor 12:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed, this is science and not dogma. So you did not read the remainder of the article. The types of evolution are the three different types that are taught and accepted by the scientific community and are found on every standardized test used for the GRE in biology. If you would just revert it I will provide the research for the Divergent evolution as I did for the Convergent Evolution and Parallel Evolution in the article. I must say this really bothers me that you would do such a drastic change on a page without even discussing it with me about fleshing it out. --TimS 12:32, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, I believe that assertions should be supported by facts and evidence or should be withdrawn. How about you? --Ed Poor 12:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
I agree but when you reverted the page without discussion, when it was noted on the talk page that it is still incomplete with the examples, you ignored the statements. Not to mention you lacked addressing the remainder of the page.--TimS 12:50, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Here are the research papers

I would point out the last paper about asexual reproduction and the evidence of how two differing species came about from bdelloid rotifers through asexual reproduction.--TimS 14:35, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I do not wish to revert the article without your permission but I believe I have just provided you with the information as to why the article is valid and should remain unchanged with the divergent evolution section. If you are not satisfied with this I can provide other research. The other two sections, Convergent Evolution and Parallel Evolution should also be listed either in the types of evolution page or their own separate pages. For what it is worth the page is about the description of the different types of evolution found in the biological sciences. The listings contained examples of what Biologists describe as different types of evolution. For it to be a statement of fact then I would have to say the article presented the description of what biologists agree are the different types, no assumption of fact however by asking for evidence/proof I feel obligated to add actual research publications to the remainder of the article to show the evidence, this would in fact make the article biased in the favor of evolution. If it remained as a description of the terminology then this would not be a problem. --TimS 14:35, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't think Ed should have deleted most of the article nor renamed it, although I do agree that it was the evolutionary POV presented as truth, which is one of the criticisms that I was going to make of it. (For example, the very first sentence—"Biological evolution over time can follow several different patterns"—is simply not true if evolution is not true, and is something that is disputed by other scientists, so should be presented as a (popular but not unanimous) POV.) Evolutionists love to claim that their dogma is science, so I reject your claim that the contrary is the case.

Notwithstanding that criticism, it appeared at a quick glance to be a good description of those different types of presumed evolution, just needing some qualification that they are theories, not observations (for the most part) and some counter points to show the problems with the theory.

If Ed has no objection, I will restore both the content and the article name.

Philip J. Rayment 23:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I've seen no objection, so I'll move it all back. Sorry about any later edits that will be lost (but they'll still be in the history). Philip J. Rayment 10:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Tim, my question was not about (1) whether the article was valid or (2) what Biologists describe but rather (3) what proof there is that divergent evolution occurs.
If we cannot supply our readers with proof of scientifically established beliefs, then we are merely restating dogma. Perhaps you'd like to recast your article in the that form, if it concerns matters of unproven conjecture. In that case, make it as long as you like. --Ed Poor 07:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Ed, what other articles are on this site that presents themselves as truth with no evidence, or lesser evidence than used in my article and supporting amendments? Perhaps we should look at the fundamental logic of your statement about dogma. The Jesus article, what evidence outside of the bible is there of Jesus? So what separates Jesus from Christian Dogma? Now, applying that same logic to the types of evolution, there are multiple sources for evolution information and research (not to mention the list from above) provided by the types of evolution article. I note your statement "of scientifically established beliefs" but when I present the research and you still deign that I presented proof it makes me call into question the matter of proof provided for the existence of the biblical Jesus, with that said perhaps you might wish to explain why you would require more for one article vs. another? (Keep in mind that the scientific articles that are cited with research tend to have more up to date evidence and evaluation)--TimS 09:36, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Philip for the critique. I have no problem with using the "Supposed or theorized" style on the article however I must point out that observations are observations. The types are neither new theories nor are they new science, new discoveries in science support them but do not change them. They are descriptions of further differentiation of the high level classifications of mechanisms used in defining speciation within the theory of evolution. I can make the adjustments and feel free to edit with opposing view points.--TimS 09:43, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Speciation has been observed; creationists agree on that. But Convergent and Parallel evolution have not been observed occurring. We can see that creatures in different supposed evolutionary lineages have similarities that convergent and parallel evolution is designed to explain, but those explanations presume that goo-to-you evolution itself is true, and have not been observed actually happening. I have restored the article as I said I would, and I will give you a chance to alter it to a more neutral explanation before I touch it again. I can't say what others will do, though. Philip J. Rayment 11:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
If I understand you correctly, you are confirming my evaluation and are conceding that you have no proof for divergent evolution. You consider it just as much of a conjecture or "dogma" as Jesus, right?
No, I do not concede. I provided the proof. I just made the statement based off your view point of the situation. Not that I agreed with it at all. Did you read any of the articles I provided?--TimS 10:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
So as a matter of editorial policy I'd like you to present your viewpoint as biological dogma or as a conjecture being offered by the researchers whose recent paper you cited. Of course, if you ever do come into possession of any information which proves the theory, we'd like to see that, but until then it's merely someone's view point. Fair enough? --Ed Poor 09:49, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Ed, if you wish to go this route then perhaps there should be clarification on all of the Christian based articles to clarify what denominational dogma is presented. This is why it is ridiculous. There will always be opposition in the scientific community about topics, which is one of the many checks and balances in the discipline. That is why the majority opinion is necessarily the stance that science takes on topics. Now it is noteworthy to show that if the evidence and research show differing accounts then science has no opposition to changing their view of a topic and making necessary adjustments to remain as valid as possible. Knowing this fundamental part of how the scientific community works helps to clarify the stances and positions of what is presented. So if we were to apply this as dogma then all science based articles will have to carry the dogma label as well. Just to note, this is not my view point about the types of evolution, this was and is the description on the observations made by zoologists and botanists who study developmental biology. I am a molecular biologist, so my understanding is limited to the molecular mechanisms behind their statements.--TimS 10:22, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I guess the reason this has bothered me so much, as I believe you to be a reasonable person and try to be as objective as you can, is how you proceeded to edit the page. You performed an action that I would have seen appropriate for nonsysop user to handle a vandal’s implementation of an offensive article. (Redirect and cut the content from the article) Being that you are a sysop you had the ability to delete the article if it truly was offensive to the site. The action seemed to me to be one of passive suppression due to A. the nature of the content based on your world view, B. The removal of most of the information of the article, C. The replacement with information of an opposing view and D. That you did right after I commented that I was heading for lunch ~ to which you responded by acknowledging that I was suppose to be at lunch when I first commented about the edit. I really dislike saying this but Conservative did the same thing to the macroevolution article where I added the differentiation of the mechanisms associated with macroevolution. I have worked on many of the scientific articles and would like to believe that my contribution has been cooperative in the past, even though some is against my background as a molecular scientist, and productive to the understanding of the students using this site as a source of information. If you truly feel that this is the way to handle the topics you fundamentally disagree with then perhaps this should be addressed. (I personally find several of the articles offensive but I fundamentally feel that everyone has a right to their opinion and try to keep my hands away from editing those areas where I have neither experience nor expertise in, to do so would just be the spreading of Dogma and POV.)--TimS 10:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Scientific Articles

Ed, I think your feedback on the complex language found in scientific research publications is true and I would like to help clarify some of those papers as well, bring to a layman's level. The only issue is how to do so within the scope of the Wiki? Should we have additional links to internal clarifications of each paper? Or should we require clarification of the publication from the author who cited the paper for their article? Personally I would go for option 2 since it would require less page making. You are correct that we should not assume a basic understanding of the topic would be enough to allow incite into the hard research papers and gain anything from them.--TimS 14:55, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I also responded to your posts on my talk page and would like to discuss more about how to handle the sciences within sciences.--TimS 14:55, 2 May 2007 (EDT)


Actually, I believe the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. i.e. adding 1+1 and expecting 3. :-P Jrssr5 12:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's the full quote I was trying to remember. Email me for a reduction on your block. --Ed Poor 10:14, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Black Pudding

...which you deleted yesterday, has been re-created, by User:Revelation21:5, another user with a name following the pattern of an oddly chosen Bible verse with no spacing between the Book name and chapter number. In this case, the verse is "Then He who sat on the throne said, 'Behold, I make all things new.'" About half of his edits are on British/Scottish topics.

Meanwhile, a User:Erasmus, whose first contribution was today at 11:19, i.e. half an hour before you blocked John11:35, has begun editing and creating pages, mostly on British/Scottish topics. The ones I've looked at, like our other recent British/Scottish edits, are reasonably-OK-looking, short, unsourced, personal essays mostly on cultural topics like Pub, Shandy, Mushy peas, etc. I haven't noticed any inaccuracies in a couple of facts I've checked; for example, his note on the origin of Rudyard Kipling's name checks out.

I'm not, repeat not suggesting you do anything about this but I wanted to call it to your attention. I'm not going to bother mentioning any further examples of users-with-oddly-chosen-Bible-verse-names-with-no-spacing-between-book-and-chapter-contributing-informal-unsourced-content-on-British-and-Scottish-subjects... should any arise. Dpbsmith 13:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

- That's a rather selective quotation of Revelation 21:5. According to my bible, it reads "And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. which makes Revelation21:5's choice of user name a lot more understandable. Swordofdestiny 09:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Quick Favor, Ed

I was wondering if you could take a look at user: Liberalmedia. I know he was infinitely banned, but he also happens to be my brother-in-law and I thought I would ask you to consider unblocking him. He's a real good kid, a little contrary at times (who isn't at 17?) and a budding economist. Anyway, I think it really hurt his feelings that he was banned so quickly after making a number of very positive edits. If you look at his work with defining liberal and conservative you can see, he's interested in classical philosophy and politics. Anyway, while not a "true conservative" his input could still be valuable. He didn't ask me to do this, I just felt bad for the guy. I will talk to him about his editing and developing a better "wiki voice" before he could come back. Anyway, I know you to be a fair-minded person, so I will just say please and leave it at that. Thank you, Ed. Flippin 14:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Not so fast. He'd have to take back this crack before anything else:
He doesn't care what the study says. He would rather make up what the study says to further his agenda on this site. [1]
Seventeen years is not too early to learn how to express disagreement without being disagreeable. We have standards of civility here, possibly a little higher than at Wikipedia, but in any case more strictly enforced.
As Prince Charles famously said, "Be polite. It gets you what you want." --Ed Poor 10:03, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
By that token you should accede to Flippin's politely put and well argued request. It would be a graceful act. Swordofdestiny 10:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

No, I'll talk to him first and see if I can get him to apologize. I know that study was giving everybody a bit of angst that day and he made a flippant remark. It was rude, I agree, so I'll see if I can get him to apologize. If it's any consolation, he does the same thing to me in fantasy football--the problem is, he's smart enough to always back up his bravado. ;) Anyway, thanks, Ed. I'll see if I can get in touch with him. Flippin 10:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

If he learns some manners, it will be good for him. --Ed Poor 10:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Swordofdestiny (talk • contribs • count) using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. That's nice, I must say. I was trying to resolve a dispute. Swordofdestiny 10:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Ed, I must say I think that could have been handled better :(. Nematocyte 10:18, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
He does possess manners, he has the same difficulty that my English 101 students had in that he doesn't always realize how he comes across to people in his writing. When I first met him and the rest of my future in-laws he said to me "So, you're the rebound?" A good family story, and a everybody laughed. That's all I'm saying here. I would venture that many people have said worse without an infinite ban. However, I just thought I would ask you because I know with your experience on Wikipedia you'll appreciate the fact that some people take longer than others to develop a proper appreciation of wikietiquete, however it is spelled. I'm not going to get into a thing with other users here, it doesn't really concern them. Flippin 10:37, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
See irony and sarcasm for comparison. --CatchWater 10:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Me, a sockpuppet? Now what on earth makes you think that? A sockpuppet bent on causing trouble, would not have chosen such an obvious name unless it was an example of post irony - or even post-post-irony.--CatchWater 10:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
This user got banned for infinity based on this? I might be bit too touchy on this subject as i have lately seen some bans that have made me question the integrity of some sysops. Im sure you had more proof of him being and sockpuppet than this. Timppeli 10:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT) Ah, sorry... Actually read his name wrong, thoght he was an older user, but never the less ;) Timppeli 10:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
...or even [post-post-post-irony]]. You know, there has got to be something wrong here. I have no idea why the original was banned without warning, and AFAIK, a sockpuppet of a banned user can be allowed back in. There was never any discussion, and never any warning to the original ban. I am reminded of the Stanford Experiment; where arbitrarily researchers divided up members of the public into jailers and prisoners, and the experiment had to be stopped within days because the jailers were degrading prisoners. I have spent a long time here watching people like IceWedge vandalise the place, and I though "What exactly is the point of that?" Now I know, it serves no purpose except in some small measure ir makes one feel as though one's got some dignity.

(unindent) The difference here is that no one is being locked up and no one on the staff is pretending to get hurt. Would you like to write an article about Stanley Milgram's experiment or about the jailer/prisoner thing you started to mention? --Ed Poor 11:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Hi Ed, if you get bored perhaps you could ask Philip J. Rayment to start an article on Secular Science. Its a term he uses a lot in his contributions. It would be a great addition to Conservapedia. The liberal bias of WIkipedia precludes such an article there. When we have one Aschlafly can use it as another example of bias in wikipedia. Sorry no time, got to go. I'm Taking my grandaughter to pony class. Auld Nick 07:03, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Dear Ed,
I want to just say that I apologize for making a comment that Andy thought was rude. I didnt mean it to be, I just vented my frustration in a bad way. If I am allowed to come back to conservapedia, I promise I will be more professional in the future.
Stephen, aka Liberalmedia

(by way of Flippin) Flippin 16:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

(Audio) Feedback

I hope you don't mind my edits to Feedback and Audio feedback. I just noticed that the latter was a dead end and that the former is a redirect, so I decided to be bold and do some edits. :) --Chokaza 16:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Why's Andy

protecting all those images? Just curious. Is that something we need to do when we upload them? Flippin 12:57, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Your comments

Ed, I noticed the comments you left on User_talk:AKjeldsen/Transparency. I thought long and hard about them, and eventually came up with an answer. I doubt you're going to like it, but it's there if you're interested. Regards, --AKjeldsen 15:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)


Ed, would you mind unlocking my user page when you get a chance? thanks! Jrssr5 08:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Colin beat me to it. Welcome back onboard. --Ed Poor 19:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)


Ya i googled it. Lol. Is there a problem? --Will N. 09:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

My request is that you tell us where you got it from. Would you please paste the link onto the image page? --Ed Poor 09:26, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Will do mate let me get it. --Will N. 09:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
here is one link: F-15 Eagle and another if you want to use the page again cause there are more aircraft: more aircraft!

Hello, your thoughts on Smithsonian Controversy entry


Hello. What are your thoughts on the Smithsonian Controversy entry? The addition you made was correct. I reworded it and made it fit the pseudo-harvard referencing scheme. The sentence preceeding your entry was added by another person elsewhere in an attempt at compromise to get the event accurately recorded. Ultimately, it was rejected. I hope conservapedia appreciates it. (It had really made the liberals angry that the two main sources for the article were the Washington Post and National Public Radio.) HeartOfGold 22:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Thinking of joining a church?)

Do you have permission to use that cartoon? Is that perhaps a breach of copyright? I couldn't find anything in the Commandments or Guidelines. Perhaps you could clarify the situation. Auld Nick 06:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Fan mail: Those magic words, "You're right..."

Re: Talk:Homophobia

I'd been thinking of adding something to my "thoughts on discussions" like this:

Take a few moments right now. Open an editing window, and type the words "You're right." If they seem difficult, practice them a few times until they come quickly and easily. Sooner or later there will come a time you need them, and it's best to be ready when it happens. WIth practice, you will find that when they are appropriate, using them can be almost painless, and does not diminish anyone's respect for you.

However, I can't do it now because it will sound like I'm tweaking you. Darn it! Now I need to wait until I'm wrong so that I can use them myself, so it will be a "do as I do" instead of a "do as I say." Unfortunately the last time I was wrong was on October 6th, 1999, and I don't expect to be wrong again for several years, so I guess it will be a while.

Seriously: Thanks. Dpbsmith 08:25, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed, what you have to realize is (and this is all supported by the cites now in the article), the therapeutic community is backing off use of the term. And the legislators have failed to adopt it also. So new terms are now being invented to take this one's place. So called "current usage", is out of date. RobS 23:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I see no evidence that the "therapeutic community" ever referred to political or religious opposition to homosexuality as "homophobia".
The whole point of the article is the abuse of the term. A second article, Opposition to homosexuality, should be written explaining reasons and methods of societal and personal reactions to homosexuality. --Ed Poor 23:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
The whole point of the article should be the term, its history, meaning(s), use(s) and abuses. Perfectly fine to document the abuses. Fine to say it's mostly abused if it is and if that can be shown. Dpbsmith 09:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Added a comment on the "Smithsonian peer review controversy" talk page

Ed...please respond there. I understand your thinking on google, but perhaps we could have a discussion there about other consequence to reusing the misnomer. It is a real delemia. HoG 23:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

LOL, I wasn't objecting....I think you had a good point regarding google. I was just wondering how to handle it, or if there were a compromise. HoG 23:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, I moved Smithsonian peer review controversy to Smithsonian-Sternberg affair. Let's hope we can write informatively about it.
I seem to recall other cases of government officials or busybodies threatening to ruin someone's career over publishing undesirable results. Never Cry Wolf is a book about a Canadian biologist who was too poor and too stubborn to be daunted. But that sort of dogged attachment to reality is few and far between in the scientific world. --Ed Poor 23:48, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Okay. I'm going to bed now. You can move it wherever you think it is best. Please leave a message on my talk page if you decide to move it though. HoG 00:01, 8 May 2007 (EDT)


I went to save my discussion on merging of the bisexuality page you suggested and found it had been deleted by cpwebmaster. I recreated it as I think that you wanted an open discussion about it. Jrssr5 16:34, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Comment on Dicta

I’m moving the discussion here, so it doesn’t clutter up the dicta.

I’m not surprised that your orders have been backed up, in fact, had I seen any evidence that they were not being backed up, I wouldn’t have posted about them on my page. That I posed about them was not intended as a criticism (though I am of the opinion that the user who first alerted me to these comments was not fond of them). As I’ve said before I’m interested in recording what the rules are and how they are being enforced because I don’t think the rules page comes anywhere close to representing what the real rules here are (and I think that is bad, it leads to confusion, arguments, hurt feelings, and an air of hostility). --Reginod 18:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Biochemistry / Molecular Biology pages

Hey Ed, if you would like, place a list of the biochem/molecular bio articles you would like edited on my talk page. I can work through them tomorrow while I am at the lab (could use something to do while waiting on gels to run). I had thought about adding to the molecular bio pages anyway. I have to head to bed now, got to take the son to daycare at 6am tomorrow.--TimS 22:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)


Ed, could you please create an article Buzzword so that those of us who are less knowledgeable than yourself can learn what buzzwords are. Thanks Auld Nick 03:53, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Saloon or church

OK, but:

  And this I know: whether the one True Light
  Kindle to Love, or Wrath-consume me quite,
      One Flash of It within the Tavern caught
  Better than in the Temple lost outright.

Edward FitzGerald, The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám

Dpbsmith 13:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)


is a vandal and responsible for fisting Flippin 16:29, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

  • blocked. --Ed Poor 16:31, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Flippin 16:47, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Poor editing

My user page is my castle. I thank you for you proposed quote but it would have been better if you had proffered it via my discussion page as it is not yet one of my favorite quotes. There is no obvious indication that you edited my page so you are mis-representing me. If I wasn't such a nice guy I would recommend blocking ;} Ian St John 16:45, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Forgiven. Ian St John 17:41, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Race, racism

You moved 'race' to racing, but racism and possibly other pages still link to race -> racing. Greetings, Leopeo 08:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Well done. Leopeo 08:59, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I've been doing this for about 6 years now. My first wiki edit was in 2001 at Ward's Wiki. --Ed Poor 09:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)