Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Article level

2007-06-01T20:40:43Z

CPanel: New page: Articles should be written as much as possible to be understandable at a high school (ages 14 to 18) level, in order to insure they will be accessible and educational to students. If more...

Articles should be written as much as possible to be understandable at a high school (ages 14 to 18) level, in order to insure they will be accessible and educational to students. If more complex information is necessary, as in advanced math entries, then it should be explained as simply as possible in the introduction, and a full explanation should follow in the body of the article.

[[Category:Conservapedia Guidelines]]

User talk:CPanel

2007-06-01T20:39:25Z

CPanel:

[[User_talk:CPanel/Archive1|Archive 1]]

This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have here.

:Thank you for creating the student panel and letting us newcomers join your homeschool project. It's an honor to be here, and if there's anything I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Your very welcome! Your work to help with this project has been amazing. We greatly appreciate all your contributions. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Regarding a concise defintion of the theory of evolution ==

I am glad to hear that the panel came to a decision on this matter. I have a question though and '''it is probably based on the panel seeing a prior version of the article and not the current article. '''

'''Here is what a panel spokesperson wrote:'''

"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." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_evolution]

'''Here is what the article states now and I only give certain key portions:'''

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....

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." <ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution</ref>.....

Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote: "The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." <ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html</ref> Evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of life|life first came about on earth]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref> Creationist scientists believe that mutations and natural selection would not cause [[macroevolution]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp</ref>

'''MY SUMMATION STATEMENT TO THE PANEL:'''

I think the above current version gives a concise and adequate explanation of the theory of evolution and Aschlafly concurrs. I am hoping that the panel agrees and that they based their statement above based on a prior version they read.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==References==
<references/>

:The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The above is actually non-sensical. No scientist equates natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is ''one'' of the processes that drives evolution, hence the need for a well written summary of the scientific aspect of the article. I cannot really participate in the Creationist part, as I am no expert, and it needs to be well written by one of the many experts here. Please feel free to refer to [[Talk:Basic Evolutionary Theory]]. Thanks for your time.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Conservative has once again taken it upon himself to delete an entire article comprising hours of work. I have corrected my link above, as he has moved it to the talk page, however the talk page is no longer connected to an article.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Restore of edit ==

After the decision was made, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=96126&oldid=96125 this edit] removed one of the referenced works. The Origin of Species is the text that started this all. It would be remiss to not include a link to the book for people who want verify references and quotations. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: A response to this would be appreciated by many of us. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution decision ==

Can we take from this a general principle; that before criticizing something, we should always first explain what that thing is? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I 2nd this motion. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== TOE ==

Why don't you semiprotect the article, so that newly registered or unregistered users are unable to edit (as they are usually the ones behind vandalism) but registered users can? It's really not the best decision to only limit it to the sysops '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 08:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Scorpion on this point. There are a lot of editors here who wish to help improve the article. It is nice to see a decision finally made and hope that it does heaps of good for the site. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Age of the earth ===
Panelists: if you're still watching the Talk:Theory of evolution page, then you might have run across the following dialogue:
<blockquote>
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. [[User:Splodge|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]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 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. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 13:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>

Ladies and gentlemen, you need have no doubt that Steven A. Austin and his colleagues thought of every issue that Mr. Splodge mentioned--and furthermore, Mr. Splodge is probably passing on misinformation from Talk.Origins. If you want some detailed explanations, then may I suggest this article:

"[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=%28Talk.Origins%29_Isochron_date_of_young_Grand_Canyon_lava_is_excessively_old&oldid=41870 (Talk.Origins) Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old]." ''CreationWiki, The encyclopedia of creation science''. September 7, 2006, 00:26 UTC. Retrieved April 14, 2007.

Mind you, I don't suggest that Mr. Splodge is originating a fabrication. I merely suggest that he thinks he has a club with which to deal the ''coup de grâce'' to the young-earth position, when in fact he has a bruised reed. I submit this to you so that you may take it under advisement in deciding the direction of the article [[Theory of evolution]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

If the RATE group have considered the issues I have raised, I assume you will be able to produce documentaion as to the fact? I do believe Conservapedia has a policy regarding unsubstantiated claims. Note that mine come directly from the publications of RATE group members.
And if it helps any, Mr Splodge did earn a degree in Geology from Edinburgh University some 25 years ago. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Macroevolution article - request a ruling ==

I am writing to you regarding the current [[Macroevolution]] article. I find the current article unacceptable and given your stated position on the [[Theory of evolution]] article I would like you to rule on this subject.

Currently the article has these statements:

"Paleontology, developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the empirical evidence for the known patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution."

Next the article has a section entitled:

"Methods of Macroevolution"

This of course assumes that macroevolution occurred.

If you could rule on this matter it would be appreciated. In the meantime, I am going to revert back to the non Pro-evolutionary theory version. I would appreciate it if the article critical of macroevolution were kept and the article kept protected. We don't need to be double minded on the macroevolution and theory of evolution issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Conservative, you have taken the above out of context. The very first line stated that macroevolution was a hypothesized process, in other words an idea not a fact. The next line was what you posted above. It seems that you misunderstood the context of the paragraph. The second line about the three fields would not be in opposition to any stance on conservapedia due to the first line stating that macroevolution is an idea not a fact. To not say that the three fields did not provide information would be a lie, where did the idea come from? I do not see how the methods of macroevolution could be a problem considering the number of pages on the site that use methods. There is no double mindedness between macroevolution and ToE on this cite because the macroevolution makes no claims of its stance on rather it is fact or fiction it is just a description of what scientists would consider macroevolution. My statements were cited, from university sources not from freelance websites, and no claims were made as to if macroevolution was fact or fiction, this was due to a chat with Ed Poor about keeping the edits open and placing ideology into the page, let the reader decide. If this page was to be a problem then perhaps those students that planned to take the SAT should look else where for as it stands the previous edit, before I added information, would not have given enough information to make the article a use (hence the reason for the VSA flag at the top of the page, that conservative moved after he reverted my edits).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: It is a skeleton of information with only links to outside sources. The author takes no position on the merits. It is, altogether, neutral. What could possibly be wrong with it? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Referring conflicts to the panel is supposed to be a last resort. What efforts have you made to resolve your issues with the editors in question?

:I urge the panel to reject outright any case presented to them before every other avenue has been exhausted. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I back Tsumetai on this. There has not been adequate (if any) attempt to resolve the issue first. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::I concur with Philip and Tsumetai. Along with missing the point of both "encyclopedia" and "wiki", the user has refused to engage in any other dispute resolution avenue. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

We need a ruling or something about this. Conservative keeps reverting the edits and has locked the page many times. He has yet to talk with anyone about the direction of the page and basicly has hijacked it from both users and sysops. Are we to assume that the page is to be locked until further notice to allow for edits/reverts only by Conservative? Could someone please give some direction so that I know if I am wasting my time by editing pages to have them hijacked?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[Adult stem cell]]" ==

I believe there is a bias inherent in this article that has been undefended. It currently strikes an un-encyclopedic tone which I have tried to remedy to no avail. CPanel, please inspect [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adult_stem_cells&diff=107840&oldid=107836 this comparison] to tell us which version is more encyclopedic, and more neutral.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[homosexuality]]" ==

I am also submitting the article on [[homosexuality]] for review by the panel. The allegations are threefold. First, it is utterly offensive, sending the message that homosexuals are individuals on the "outside" of a society that condemns them, when it is not the case. This offensive characteristic of the article is doubly damaging, as bigotry is evil for its own sake, and for the harm it causes anyone who may ''be'' homosexual, upon hearing the outrageous claims of the article. Second, the citations on the article are poorly sourced, explained, and blown out of proportion to deliberately exaggerate the medical "harms" of homosexuality. I suggest that the Panel engage in a full review of the cited sources, in comparison with other sources with which I will provide them. Third, the article is not "family friendly." It encourages a small-minded view of the world that leads to bigotry, hatred based on immutable characteristics, and on a simpler note, the diseases it describes, etc., are objectively not something that someone would want children to view, which I understand is the main goal of this site. I have tried to address these problems on the article since day one of my involvement here; rather than get caught up in another edit war, which is unproductive, this is a more responsible track.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I say it should be deleted for violating commandment 3. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== What happened to my request? ==

1. What happened to my request that you explain your bizarre decision in relation to the Theory of evolution page?

2. Could you explain your bizarre decision in relation to theTheory of evolution page? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOP/Adminstrator Hojimachong is making big pro-evolutionist changes in the article now ==
'''''Statistics are inherently liberal''''' --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

Admistrator Hojimachong is now making big pro-evolutionist changes in the changes in the [[Theory of evolution]] article as can be seen by this edit: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=109823&oldid=109791 The panel clearly said they did not want the direction of the article changed. Hojimachong seems to think the panel's decision is irrelevant and that Hojimachong is the one to decide. I do not think this is the way things should be done. I do think something needs to be done about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:For the love of a higher power, they aren't "pro-evo", they're statistical facts. Statistics (i.e. "scientists agree that the ToE is valid") aren't evil. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Please take your alleged evolutionists "facts" to Wikipedia where they have a much lower threshhold in terms of what is considered a fact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::: LOL! Conservative, take a math class. Learn the definition of "statistic". It's an ''indisuputable fact'' that the godless, liberal, atheist scientific community has a virtually unanimous consensus about this evil, godless theory called "evolution". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::The irony is almost too much to bear. It must really irk you that no one is actually reading your, uh, diatribe, but that thousands read the one on wikipedia. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 22:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The evolutionist have cried wolf over and over and over again. I saw your "citing much evidence to support the theory" and immediately reverted without bothering to even look at your "religioustolerance" and pbs citations. Read the [[Theory of evolution]] article which the panel approved and doesn't want to see changed in terms of its direction. Stop trying to be king of Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::"KING of Conservapedia?" You arrogant, ignorant... well, perhaps we're crying "wolf" because we are actually trying to build a ''conserevative'' encyclopedia. You are trying to build a widely censored grab-bag of half-truths. Note that I actually want to discuss this with you. Yes, consider that first sentence a personal attack. I'm through with people who don't actually want to build an encyclopedia. You are a hypocrite, a liar, and the reason that Conservapedia did not succeed like it could. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Thank you for showing the panel that you are a beacon of reasonableness. I am sure they are very impressed now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::::::You're hardly a bastion of reasonableness, mr. Lock my talk page for two weeks. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::That was purely a accidental mistake on my part. If memory serves I was being pestered by AmesG and I merely forget to unlock it after I locked it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::::::::::Do I have to separate you two?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I haven't looked at the article so have no opinion on the relevance or otherwise of the statistics that Hojimachong added, but it is not correct to paint statistics as neutral facts, because it is ''possible'' to introduce bias by the selection of statistics to include. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:OK, fair enough. The article already has enough statistics which refute evolution. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Panel submissions ==

I was under the impression that submitting a case to the panel was supposed to be a last resort for major conflicts only. If this is still the case, I suggest setting some rules to prevent abuse; after all, you are all students and you have better things to do with your time than adjudicate every petty squabble which comes up. To that end, I submit the following:

No user should submit an article to the panel for review without first:

*clearly stating their objections on the talk page of the relevant article
*inviting discussion of these objections
*inviting comments from any editors involved in the dispute, on their personal talk pages

If the discussion does not lead to a conclusion, the user should then:

*propose at least one possible solution to the conflict ('everybody do it my way' does not count)
*request the opinion of at least one '''neutral''' sysop

I don't think this is particularly radical; it's just good editorial practice in a group environment. If users can learn to solve their disputes through discussion, the project as a whole can only benefit.

I would also suggest that any user who attempts to bypass any reasonable dispute resolution process, and instead chooses to waste the panel's time by getting you to fight their battles for them, should be censured, up to and including permanent blocking if necessary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting [[CP:RFA]] and [[CP:RFB]] for official ratification ==

I hereby submit the pages linked to by the above redirects for transformation into official Conservapedia policies, where the result of the vote is binding. The current state of the RfA process simply takes potential applicants to an enitity, whether it be Sharon, Philip, Andy, or the Panel, which can decide, regardless of the community's desire, whether an individual becomes a sysop. I respectfully ask that you consider my request. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 06:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

----

==References tag to allow references to be used above; please do not remove.==
<references/>

== HELLO? HELLO? ==

Is there anybody in there? I posted two questions above and have received no response. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 20:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
:So did I. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 18:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== I further solved the issue of the definition of the evolutionary theory ==

I realize that the "defining of what evolution is" is a issue the panel is discussiong.

Here is a revision of the article that was recently made:

"Today advocates of evolution no longer adhere to "natural selection" as the definition of evolution, but rather define it simply as "change over time" in the gene pool of a population over time through such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution]"

I think now that what the theory of evolution is has now been adequately explained. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:Glad you think that, but it's still not a good definition. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Thank you indeed ==

It is a great day for me. Thank you for this privilege.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Request: Define the audience, and comment on articles written at too high/low a level ==
I'd like the panel to come up with some statement of the age level we should be keeping in mind as the audience for Conservapedia, and I'd like the panel (and only the panel) to indicate... in some gentle way... articles that are written at too high or too low a level.

I'm thinking high-school-plus-or-minus two years (i.e. junior high school through college sophomore). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:25, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for the idea. The panel is working on it now. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::Please don't define it in terms that only an American would understand. We don't have "junior high schools" here, and I think "college" has a different meaning. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Apologies. I was thinking of "high school" as the range User:Fox delineated below. A college sophomore would be twenty. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:::In England, that would encompass ages 12 through 17 or thereabouts. [[User:Fox|Fox]] 04:55, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thoughts: '''World Book''' as one possible model
:I've sometimes used the phrase "like ''World Book'', not like the ''Britannica.''" On checking, I see that ''World Book Encyclopedia'' seems to avoid any direct statement of an age range, but does emphasize its direct connection to "students" and to school curricula.
:It says in fact that it is "Straightforward and understandable to students of all ages and levels"[http://www.worldbook.com/wb/About?difference] (which, literally, would include college students, graduate students and medical students) but says at [http://www.worldbook.com/wb/About?history History of World Book]
:However, it says its content is guided by research on how students use World Book, and "Last year, World Book received about 50,000 data cards from students in grades 3-12" suggesting that they are thinking of "students" aged 8 to 17.
:They say elsewhere, in [http://www.worldbook.com/wb/About?history History of World Book], that
::The first edition of The World Book Encyclopedia, issued in 1917, set a new direction for encyclopedia publishing. "As a rule," wrote Editor in Chief Michael Vincent O'Shea in the preface to that first edition, “encyclopedias are apt to be quite formal and technical. A faithful effort has been made in The World Book Encyclopedia to avoid this common defect.”
::The 1930’s saw the formation of an Editorial Advisory Board composed of distinguished educators. The Board launched an analysis of typical school curriculums, which provided the editors with data on the subjects being studied in all grades from kindergarten to high school. Today, World Book editors continue to develop content that meets curriculum needs.
:[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thoughts: What to '''do''' if an article is too detailed/technical
:I would think that it would be a mistake remove valid material just because it is too detailed, too technical, or written for too advanced an audience. It is also hard to ''adjust'' material down to a very different age group.
:I'm thinking that perhaps an article that is too advanced might be ''moved'' from [[XYZ]] to [[XYZ (advanced)]], and [[XYZ]] be started with a template requesting a more elementary article, and of course a "see also" section linking to [[XYZ (advanced)]].
:Or something like that. Don't delete anything, but make it clear that Conservapedia has a requirement for an (essentially new) elementary article on the same topic. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::Just a thought, not a suggestion per se: I seem to recall seeing a comment from Ed Poor - I will try to find the exact quote asap - which stuck in my mind as a sensible observation. It was along the lines of, "A reader shouldn't have to go away and consult another textbook in order to be able to understand an article." [[User:Fox|Fox]] 06:13, 29 May 2007 (EDT) Added: To clarify, it was at [[Talk:Gene expression]] and the associated edit summaries in the history. [[User:Fox|Fox]] 06:31, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Advanced and simplified articles would be one way to go. Another would be to have a simplified summary at the start of a more-advanced article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you everyone for your great ideas. We have agreed upon a statement of the appropriate age level and it is posted [[Conservapedia:Article level|here]]. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 16:39, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

User talk:CPanel

2007-05-29T00:03:54Z

CPanel:

User talk:CPanel

2007-04-09T22:41:24Z

CPanel:

This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have here.

:Thank you for creating the student panel and letting us newcomers join your homeschool project. It's an honor to be here, and if there's anything I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Your very welcome! Your work to help with this project has been amazing. We greatly appreciate all your contributions. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Regarding a concise defintion of the theory of evolution ==

I am glad to hear that the panel came to a decision on this matter. I have a question though and '''it is probably based on the panel seeing a prior version of the article and not the current article. '''

'''Here is what a panel spokesperson wrote:'''

"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." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_evolution]

'''Here is what the article states now and I only give certain key portions:'''

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....

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." <ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution</ref>.....

Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote: "The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." <ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html</ref> Evolutionists believe that the processes of natural selection and mutation created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of life|life first came about on earth]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref> Creationist scientists believe that mutations and natural selection would not cause [[macroevolution]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp</ref>

'''MY SUMMATION STATEMENT TO THE PANEL:'''

I think the above current version gives a concise and adequate explanation of the theory of evolution and Aschlafly concurrs. I am hoping that the panel agrees and that they based their statement above based on a prior version they read.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==References==
<references/>

:The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The above is actually non-sensical. No scientist equates natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is ''one'' of the processes that drives evolution, hence the need for a well written summary of the scientific aspect of the article. I cannot really participate in the Creationist part, as I am no expert, and it needs to be well written by one of the many experts here. Please feel free to refer to [[Basic Evolutionary Theory]]. Thanks for your time.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:CPanel

2007-04-09T22:41:07Z

CPanel:

This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have here.

:Thank you for creating the student panel and letting us newcomers join your homeschool project. It's an honor to be here, and if there's anything I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Your very welcome! Your work to help with this project has been amazing. We greatly appreciate all your contributions. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Regarding a concise defintion of the theory of evolution ==

I am glad to hear that the panel came to a decision on this matter. I have a question though and '''it is probably based on the panel seeing a prior version of the article and not the current article. '''

'''Here is what a panel spokesperson wrote:'''

"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." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_evolution]

'''Here is what the article states now and I only give certain key portions:'''

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....

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." <ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution</ref>.....

Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote: "The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." <ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html</ref> Evolutionists believe that the processes of natural selection and mutation created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of life|life first came about on earth]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref> Creationist scientists believe that mutations and natural selection would not cause [[macroevolution]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp</ref>

'''MY SUMMATION STATEMENT TO THE PANEL:'''

I think the above current version gives a concise and adequate explanation of the theory of evolution and Aschlafly concurrs. I am hoping that the panel agrees and that they based their statement above based on a prior version they read.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==References==
<references/>

:The article has been improve significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The above is actually non-sensical. No scientist equates natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is ''one'' of the processes that drives evolution, hence the need for a well written summary of the scientific aspect of the article. I cannot really participate in the Creationist part, as I am no expert, and it needs to be well written by one of the many experts here. Please feel free to refer to [[Basic Evolutionary Theory]]. Thanks for your time.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:CPanel

2007-04-09T22:23:51Z

CPanel:

User talk:CPanel

2007-04-09T22:19:27Z

CPanel: New page: This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have here.

This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have here.

User:CPanel

2007-04-09T22:18:48Z

CPanel: New page: This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have on our talk page and we will work to resolve them.

This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have on our [[User talk:CPanel|talk page]] and we will work to resolve them.