Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Template:User Atheist

2008-04-10T00:08:37Z

Merriweather: If the user was an atheist he/she would hardly want their userbox linked to that idiotic article.

<div style="float: left; border:solid {{{1|#FF0000}}} 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: {{{2|#FFBBBB}}};"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: {{{1|#fffeff}}}; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|20}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | '''{{{3|[[Image:Atheist-symbol.png‎|50px]]}}}'''
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | {{{4|This user is an atheist.<includeonly>[[Category:Atheist Conservapedians|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>}}}
|}</div>

Talk:Transitional form

2008-03-14T13:27:00Z

Merriweather: /* Article plan */

== Recent quote ==

Oooh, can we get a quote from a scientist from some point within the last ten years? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:50, 23 January 2008 (EST)
: Why? That would seem to be a rather abitrary cut-off point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::Cutoff point would mean eliminating everything from before then, not simply adding something made since then... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::: Not it wouldn't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::: What? Yes it would. That's the definition of a cutoff point. You ignore everything past the cutoff point. I'm not suggesting we ignore everything before ten years ago, I'm just asking for a recent source so this article seems current. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:29, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Yes, a "cutoff point" means that you ignore everything past the cutoff point, but in context that means ignoring everything older than ten years ''when looking for a quote to add''. It doesn't mean deleting every quote in the article older than ten years, because that's not what you were suggesting. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:20, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: Well, what would you consider a less arbitrary cutoff point? Nine? Eight? Seven? Six? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Seriously, having a more recent quote in the article can't be a bad thing. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: I wouldn't specify a cutoff point. If you have an appropriate quote from more recently, feel free to add it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:34, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: So you're suggesting you'd be perfectly fine adding quotes from any time period? I don't have any; I'm not arguing for the non-existance of transitional forms. If "Many scientists have admitted the lack of transitional fossils.", it shouldn't be terribly difficult to find something from this century, should it? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:36, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: If the quotes are relevant, when they date from should not be an issue (but the date of them could affect their relevance). But "many" is a relative term (in fact I would consider changing that in the article), and I'd say that only a few (relatively speaking, although I think it could easily be a dozen or so) have admitted as much. Note the quote from Gould about it being a "trade secret", i.e. it was not something that was widely known. Also, since creationary views have been gaining ground, many of these scientists have been much more guarded in what they admit to, so given that this century is only seven years old, then no, I don't agree that it wouldn't be difficult to find something from this century. That's not to say it's impossible, of course, but it may not be easy. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:15, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: I don't really think they've been gaining ground, but eh, if you say so/claim there's a conspiracy against non-scientific beliefs being passed off as science, that's your right. As for the quotes, I'm just saying that a more recent one would make the article more up to date, and not like outdated ramblings.
:::::::::: Oh, and this century is eight years old. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:46, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: 45 years ago there were almost no creationist organisations, and now there are quite a few. 40 years ago we didn't have science magazines publishing articles about what was wrong with creationism. 30 years ago the anti-creationist group NSCE hadn't started. Creationism is definitely gaining ground. I've said umpteen times that I don't claim there to be a conspiracy (a group of people plotting to suppress something they know to be true), but it is a standard anti-creationist tactic to accuse creationists of claiming that. And how are the existing quotes "outdated" and "ramblings"? Or is that just a throwaway line when you've got no actual criticism?
::::::::::: The century began on 1st January 2001, which is seven years, 25 days ago.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:22, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: I said they look like outdated ramblings, not nessecarily that they are outdated. You're accusing scientists of hiding information because it would be helpful to your cause-- That ''is'' accusing them of conspiracy. But I know you're just going to dismiss that with "Standard darwinist tactic, ha ha!" so I ask you this: If Creatinionism has been "gaining ground" as you so claim, surely the number of scientists speaking out against it '''must''' be going up? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:39, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: Okay, so I guess I should have asked how the existing quotes ''look'' "outdated", and "rambling".
::::::::::::: No, it's still not conspiracy. I defined conspiracy as "a group of people plotting to suppress something they know to be true". I'm making no accusations of any sort of ''group'', i.e. ''organisation'' of individuals, plotting, i.e. planning this together. And when I said "suppress something they know to be true", I was talking about them suppressing creation knowing it to be true. They don't believe creation to be true, so their suppression of it is not fitting that definition.
::::::::::::: I would say that the number of scientists speaking against it ''is'' going up, although I would qualify that with several points:
::::::::::::: * Scientists tend to not like getting involved in this sort of thing, thinking that it gives creation some legitimacy. So they tend to leave it to non-scientists to comment on (including the mass media and the science magazines).
::::::::::::: * They have reduced their involvement in live public debates, ostensibly because it gives creation publicity and legitimacy, but likely because they tend to lose the debates.
::::::::::::: * They consider Intelligent Design to be a form of creationism, and their efforts in recent times have been more directed to that, with not so much effort directed against creationism itself.
::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:47, 27 January 2008 (EST)

The quotes look outdated because they're all at least a decade old-- Things easily could've changed in a decade. If memory serves, there are many lists of transitional specimens, and I can dig them up if you wish once I return home from the LAN party I'm at.

Ah, so it's conviently not a conspiracy, just... Every scientist hates magic.

For the record: Science is not decided by who can plead the most. Watch a Creation video, and you'll see what I mean.

ID '''is''' Creationism. I again reference Of Pandas And People, bearing the historic words "cdesign proponentsists." 16:58, 28 January 2008 (EST)

*The Of Pandas and People issue is virtually meaningless. That one book does not define the entirety of ID. There are plenty of ID proponents who are not religious at all. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:46, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:Yes, one book does not define it, particularly given that the book concerned came out pretty early in the ID movement, and was co-authored (from memory) by one of the ID people who ''is'' a creationist.
: As for the chances of things changing in the last decade, I wouldn't pin too much hope on that. In 1859 Darwin wrote,
{{QuoteBox|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 the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection fo the geological record.}}
: But 120 years later, David Raup wrote,
{{QuoteBox|Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information...}}
: Then we have the other quotes (such as in the article) from around the same time from various scientists, supporting the severe lack of transitional forms. So why would it suddenly reverse direction and there start to be a swag of transitional forms?
: What's "convenient" about it not being a conspiracy? Your language betrays your bias. But your analogy with magic is not bad, actually. Scientists sometimes speak out against astrology, fortune telling, communicating with the dead, etc. But nobody ever claims "conspiracy" with these; it's just that most scientists are of one mind on those issues, so they all tend to reinforce each other on them. The same with creation. I don't agree, of course, that creation is in the same basket as astrology etc, but in the minds of the scientists opposing creation, that's pretty much what they think. So no reason to suppose a conspiracy. Yet anti-creationists keep accusing creationists of claiming that, ''even though creationists don't claim that'', in order to denigrate them, and when creationists call them on it, rather than admit their error, they try and divert attention or excuse themselves with comments such as "how convenient".
: I've seen lists of transitional fossils (and one is referenced in the article). But with none of the examples provided can, in the words of Colin Patterson (in the article), with none can one make a watertight argument. Just because they are ''claimed'' to be transitional does not make them so, and none really stand scrutiny.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::Bugger, thought I responded to this yesterday. It's convenient because if it's not a conspiracy, you don't look like a nutter for trying to play the persecution card.

::And I must ask, how do you prove that they aren't transitional? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:49, 29 January 2008 (EST)
::: If it really was a conspiracy, then I wouldn't look like a nutter for claiming persecution. So how does it not being a conspiracy change that?
::: Perhaps the question should be, how do you prove that they ''are'' transitional? If creature 1 has features A, B, C, D, E, and F, and creature 2 has features A, B, C, G, H, and J, then we find a creature with features A, B, C, D, H, and J, does that mean that it's transitional between 1 and 2. Or just a creature with a different mix of features? Evolutionists presume that creature 1 ''must have'' evolved into creature 2, so anything with a combination of the two creatures' features is seen as evidence of an intermediate/transitional form. That explanation is an over-simplification, but that's at least part of how it works. That was the basis for claiming that Archaeopteryx was transitional: it had some features in common with both reptiles and birds. But even staunch evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould described it as a "curious matrix", that is, a creature that had some features in common with reptiles and birds, but not on the way from one to the other.
::: So how ''do'' you prove that something is transitional? I don't think you can, ultimately, but a big step in the right direction would be to find not just ''a'' creature intermediate between two others, but a whole chain showing a gradual transition. My example above listed six "features", but any real creature is going to have hundreds if not thousands. If you have two creatures that differ by 200 features, and you found 200 other creatures that could be placed in a sequence where each one had one feature different to the previous, you'd be well on the way to demonstrating transitional forms. I'm not, of course, suggesting that you would need to have ''every one'' of those 200, but a large proportion of them would be needed. As it is, all you have these days is one or at best a handful.
::: Furthermore, given that creationists argue for variation within a created 'kind', this would need to be for two distinctly different creatures (i.e. of different created kinds); a smooth transition of intermediates between one type of shark and another type of shark doesn't count.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:46, 29 January 2008 (EST)

::::Logically, if a creature with features ABC and a creature with features ADE are found, and a creature with features ACD is found between them (vertically or horizontally) the natural conclusion is that ACD is some sort of midway. Haha... "kinds"... right, how scientific.

::::You're claiming it's not a conspiracy, were you to claim there's a conspiracy, you'd be A: Wrong and B: Nutty.

::::Indeed, it would be a tricky business to find the entire series-- after all, fossilisation is the exception, not the rule. This isn't helped by the fact that previous ideas of evolutionary chains are constantly discarded, nearly every time a new fossil is unearthed.

::::Also, this century started 1/1/2000.

::::FINAL POINT: If we can't get a quote from this century, can we at least have some sort of counterbalance quote? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)
::::: If a creature with features ACD is found ''horizontally'' between creatures with features ABC and ADE, surely, according to evolutionary thinking, they lived at the same time? And therefore would not be intermediate?
::::: If a creature with features ACD is found ''vertically'' between creatures with features ABC and ADE, then (a) it still doesn't prove that it is transitional, and (b) it assumes the evolutionary view, as the creationary view would (depending on the layers concerned) probably be that all three were buried within the same year (of the Flood). And what's so unscientific about "kinds"? Answer please, and not one that's self-serving.
::::: "''You're claiming it's not a conspiracy, were you to claim there's a conspiracy, you'd be A: Wrong and B: Nutty.''": Yes, but your comment was not about whether or not I was ''claiming'' it, but whether or not it ''was a conspiracy'' ("...because if it's not a conspiracy...").
::::: "''Indeed, it would be a tricky business to find the entire series...''": Would it really? Given the number of fossils that have been found, I'd say that you should have found at least a few fairly-complete series. Gould thought so too, which is why he came up with Punctuated Equilibrium—to argue that you don't find the smooth series because evolution happened suddenly in short bursts. The point is, he came up with this because the ''expected smooth series'' was not found. So your argument that it would be tricky is really just a ''post-hoc'' argument to explain the uncomfortable facts. Secondly, it being difficult to find the required evidence is no excuse for claiming something for which the evidence has not been found.
::::: "''...the fact that previous ideas of evolutionary chains are constantly discarded, nearly every time a new fossil is unearthed''": Which to me says that the whole idea is so tenuous it has no right claiming that the alternative view (creation) has been disproved by the evidence.
::::: If the 21st century started at the beginning of 2000, then the first century must have started at the beginning of the year nought, but we number the years from ''one'', not ''nought''. So the first year ''ended'' at the end of year 1, the second year at the end of year 2, the tenth year at the end of the year 10, the hundredth year—the 1st century—at the ''end'' of the year 100, the first millennium at the ''end'' of the year 1000, and the second millennium (and the 20th century) at the ''end'' of the year 2000.
::::: What's unbalanced about the article as it stands?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Not nessecarily same time, but a similar time. Remember, these take a while to form. Sufficient for small changes.
::::::Kinds is not a scientific designation of any sort.
::::::Dude. Do you know what oil is? Do you realize how much more of that there is than fossils? Out of all the creatures that have ever lived, we've recovered very little in the manner of fossils.
::::::Tenuous? No, not really, but the exact order is uncertain. Such is the way of science; things change when new evidence is uncovered. I could give a condescending explanation of how that's different from religion, but I'll spare you that.
::::::There's a nice bit on this on Wikipedia, d'you mind if I quote it at you in my next edit?
::::::Gee... could it be the fact that every single quote is from one side? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:41, 31 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: "''Remember, these take a while to form.''": Yeah? a given layer takes, what?, a few million years to form whilst slowly burying a specimen and it's evolved descendant?
::::::: "''Kinds is not a scientific designation of any sort.''": How about [[baraminology|baramin]] then? That's the scientific word for "kind".
::::::: "''...we've recovered very little in the manner of fossils.''": I totally agree that we've only found a small proportion of all the creatures that lived, but there's still been enough to expect some smooth transitions. You didn't address the evidence I offered from Gould.
::::::: "''Tenuous? No, not really, but the exact order is uncertain.''": Now it's "the exact order". Before it was "evolutionary chains are constantly discarded". Your explanations seem about as flexible as evolution itself.
::::::: "''I could give a condescending explanation of how that's different from religion, but I'll spare you that.''": I don't think you did (spare me). Besides, I already know the explanation: "Science is good because the scientists can't be certain they know what they are talking about. Religion is bad because they know what they are talking about". Well, that's not how you would spin it, but that's not far from what it would amount to.
::::::: You can quote Wikipedia here if you wish.
::::::: "''...could it be the fact that every single quote is from one side?''": Golly! You're right! They're all evolutionists! Do you want me to find a quote from a creationist too?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Uh, what?
::::::::Teach the controversy! Bats are birds!
::::::::Are you familiar with the term "statistical improbablity"?
::::::::What, about it being a "trade secret"? Yeah, that doesn't sound nutty.
::::::::Oh boy, let's pick apart every single word I say! Perhaps I mistyped when I said discarded-- Rearranged fits better.
::::::::No, science is good because it's constantly being updated in response to new evidence. Religion, however, is not.
::::::::"Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be "caught in the act" as it were. Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species. However, progressing research and discovery are managing to fill in gaps." -Wikipedia.
::::::::No, mein freund, that's not what I meant. Not one saying that there are, indeed, transitional fossils.
::::::::Here, have a list of them: [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html List from Talk Origins] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:26, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Much of your post is nonsensical throw-away lines. Such as "Uh what"? Huh? What yourself? Explain yourself if you want to make an argument.
::::::::: In your next line I think you are making reference to an old and discredited [[furphy]], to which the answer is [[classification system|here]].
::::::::: Regarding statistical improbability, again, throwing around a few terms does not an argument make. And if your "nutty" reference was supposed to be an answer to my reference to Gould, first, it's evolutionist Gould that you are calling "nutty", and second, I wasn't referring to that, but to my argument from Gould in my prior post.
::::::::: Evolutionists like to make out that it's just the details that they are still uncertain about, yet what they actually disagree on and keep changing are some fairly fundamental points (such as whether it happened slowly and gradually or in sudden spurts). Your previous comment, whether you use 'discarded' or 'rearranged' suggests the major changes in the idea, whereas your later comment about the "exact order" suggests that only the detail is in question. I was contrasting those two aspects.
::::::::: The creationary model is also constantly being upgraded in response to new evidence. The basic premises, such as creation itself is not, but then the basic premises of evolutionists, such as naturalism and evolution itself are not either. Typical of sceptics, you are merely trying to make a self-serving distinction where none exists and in doing so are being inconsistent.
::::::::: The Wikipedia quote is nothing more than post-hoc explanation for the lack of the evidence that evolutionists should expect, as I pointed out from Gould. Furthermore, it is trying to have a bob each way, in both claiming that the fossil record does ("Although transitional fossil elucidate...") and will ("progressing research and discover are managing to fill in gaps.") show evolution whilst also explaining why it doesn't.
::::::::: And how is it unbalanced to only say that there are no transitional fossils ''if that is so''? You are claiming that it is unbalanced because it doesn't acknowledge your views. But if your views are wrong, then it's not unbalanced to not acknowledge them. The article already has a reference to the link you provide, but the link fails to make its case. To take the first example I looked at, [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#eleph elephants], it starts off with "''Minchenella'' or a similar condylarth (late Paleocene) -- Known only from lower jaws. Has a distinctive broadened shelf on the third molar. The most plausible ancestor of the embrithopods & anthracobunids." This is nothing more than evolutionary story-telling. There's not enough of the fossil to really tell, and the best she can say is that it's "the most plausible ancestor". So apart from it not being hard evidence contradicting Gould and Patterson, it's circular reasoning because it's starting with the assumption that there must be something that evolved into an elephant and that this is the most likely candidate. Not all her arguments are exactly like that of course, but from what I've seen there is nothing of real substance there. The existence of an article full of bluff and fluff trying to make the case does not mean that the case is actually made and that the paleontologists quoted in the article had no clue what they were talking about.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: ""''Remember, these take a while to form.''": Yeah? a given layer takes, what?, a few million years to form whilst slowly burying a specimen and it's evolved descendant?" That's what my "uh, what?" was directed to. I have no freaking clue what you were attempting to say there.
:::::::::: "first, it's evolutionist Gould that you are calling "nutty"," Oh no, I will now withdraw my opinion upon finding out that I dared to call an "evolutionist" nutty.
:::::::::: It does; You simply choose to ignore every transitional form, prefering instead to cry and weep that we haven't found every fossil yet.
:::::::::: It wouldn't be, if that was true. That's not circular, it's a correctly terminating idea. "If it evolved, and this fossil looks like it's reasonably simliar, this creature probably evolved from that."
:::::::::: As a sidenote, I love how you write off every attempt to connect things as "storytelling" and seem to be scared by the idea that the evolutionary paths of each creature are not fully understood yet. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:22, 3 February 2008 (EST)
(unindent)"''That's what my "uh, what?" was directed to.''": That's better; explaining what it is that you don't understand.

You indicated that a creature would be intermediate if it was found ''in the same layer'' (which is the only reasonable conclusion to draw from "if a creature with features ABC and a creature with features ADE are found, and a creature with features ACD is found between them (vertically or '''horizontally''')" (my emphasis)), so I questioned how this would make it intermediate ("If a creature with features ACD is found horizontally between creatures with features ABC and ADE, surely, according to evolutionary thinking, they lived at the same time? And therefore would not be intermediate?"). You replied with "Not nessecarily same time, but a similar time. Remember, these take a while to form. Sufficient for small changes.". I assumed that "these" refers to the rock layers. The reasonable conclusion to draw from this was that a given rock layer—containing creatures at two different stages of evolutionary development in the same line—took so long to form that the creature had enough time to evolve into something different (ABC to ACD, for example). So I replied, "Yeah? a given layer takes, what?, a few million years to form whilst slowly burying a specimen and it's evolved descendant?", to which you replied "Uh, what?". Do you understand now?

"''Oh no, I will now withdraw my opinion upon finding out that I dared to call an "evolutionist" nutty.''": How about just withdrawing that comment from the discussion that you are having ''with me''? In the context of this discussion, it reads as though I'm nutty or creationists are nutty or the article is nutty. I guess that you can think that Gould was nutty if you like, but keep in mind that you are calling "nutty" something said by a widely-respected scientist about his own field of study. I'm not saying that you have to agree with him (I don't on quite a few issues), but calling someone's idea "nutty" is hardly an argument.

"''It does; ''": What does? Could you please include mentions in your replies as to which points you are replying to? Much of the time I can figure it out, but I shouldn't have to solve a puzzle to do this, and sometimes it is very unclear.

"''You simply choose to ignore every transitional form, prefering instead to cry and weep that we haven't found every fossil yet.''": What transitional forms? Your criticism of me presumes that they exist, a presumption that I've rejected. I don't ignore ''claims'' of transitional forms; I ''reject'' such claims as unsubstantiated. You, in return, use emotive language about my motives rather than actually address the points and provide evidence.

"''That's not circular, it's a correctly terminating idea. "If it evolved, and this fossil looks like it's reasonably simliar, this creature probably evolved from that." ''": No, that's not circular reasoning. But it's circular reasoning to take it to the next step: "And this therefore shows that there ''are'' transitional fossils (and therefore that evolution is true)", which is (a) the point of the list of transitional forms, and (b) your point in citing it.

"''I love how you write off every attempt to connect things as "storytelling"''": I call it like it is! If I pick up a bunch of sticks and arrange them in order according to (say) size, then try and tell a story that one evolved into the other, all I'm doing is storytelling. And that's what evolutionary "connecting things" is; it's telling a story about how things supposedly came about; events that have not actually been observed happening.

"''...seem to be scared by the idea that the evolutionary paths of each creature are not fully understood yet.''": How can I be scared of something that I don't believe happened?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:Ah, thanks. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, then.
:Withdrawing the comment serves no purpose.
:Yeah, I should add references... To be honest, I'm not sure what exactly I was referring to either. I'm sorry.
:"I ''reject'' such claims as unsubstantiated." And here's the problem. You lay down a blanket statement rejecting all claims of transitional fossils as unsubstantiated. If I'm interpreting that correctly, there is no point in continuing this discussion.
:So any list of transitional fossils is mere circular reasoning?
:No, what you're doing is horribly misunderstanding how trees grow. You could easily argue that every theory is "Storytelling", by that logic.
:You don't believe that the evolutionary paths of each creature are not fully understood yet happened? Uhh... mate, that doesn't make a lick of sense. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:55, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::''How can I be scared of something that I don't believe happened?''
::Aren't atheists often [[Atheism#Denials_That_Atheists_Exist|thought]] to be, deep down, afraid of God? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:58, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::: I only reject claims of transitional fossils as unsubstantiated because that's what they have been so far. I should add that in this case I'm not meaning that no substantiation is provided, but that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I'm not claiming that such claims are inherently unsubstantiatable; in theory, assuming that evolution is true, such claims ''could be'' substantiated. But so far they haven't been.
::: "''So any list of transitional fossils is mere circular reasoning?''": No, I made the claim of circular reasoning about the particular example I picked out of the list. There was no evidence that the particular example was intermediate, beyond the presumption that there ''must be'' an intermediate and this was the most likely candidate. Rather than start with the presumption that something evolved, you should start with the ''question'', "Did it evolve?", then see if there is evidence supporting that.
::: "''No, what you're doing is horribly misunderstanding how trees grow.''": I could say exactly the same thing about your understanding of how life came to be.
::: "''...that doesn't make a lick of sense''": I wondered if I wasn't clear. I don't believe that there are/were such things as evolutionary paths, so why would it concern me that they are not yet fully understood.
::: Feebasfactor, the claim is that deep down, atheists don't ''really'', fully, believe that there is no God. At least in some cases. See also [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5560/ here]. I didn't actually look at your link to the atheism article, and I'm not necessarily defending how it might be worded. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:41, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::::Ah, that makes a bit more sense. Nice to see you'll at least entertain the notion of transitional fossils.
::::Answering the question and then reworking it as new evidence comes about, I presume?
::::They're two entirely different things, trees and life in general. For example, I do not proclaim to know the origin of life-- And that is not what this is about-- but I do proclaim to know the basics of tree growth.
::::Ah. Possibly because fear of the unknown is common in humans of all creeds, races, etc.? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:45, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::: Regarding the stick analogy, I made a small error in wording it as a comparison to the ''origin'' of life. I meant the origin of individual types of living things, that is, evolution. You do claim to know that evolution brought about the different types of living things, don't you? So I could say, just as you did for the sticks, that your have a "horrible misunderstanding" of it.
::::: "''...fear of the unknown is common in humans of all creeds, races, etc.? ''": It's not an unknown: I know it didn't happen that way. So "fear of the unknown" doesn't apply.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:15, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Except what I claim to know is consistent with the current understanding of evolutionary theory. What you say is not.
::::::I'm sure you do, Philip. I'm sure you do. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:18, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: Yes, what you claim to know is consistent with evolution. But the fossil record part of evolution is little more than arranging unrelated fossils in a sequence and telling a story connecting them, just as I did with the sticks. The stick story is absurd because you know better. The evolution story is not absurd because... er, because.... er, because you ''don't'' know better. But they amount to the same thing, in principle. Evolution is a ''story'' to explain the evidence. Creationists have the same evidence, but tell a ''different'' story to explain it. So it really comes down to which ''story'' is the more believable. I don't dismiss the evidence, but I happily dismiss the ''story'' that evolutionists tell about that evidence. And the evidence and the story are two different things, yet I've ''often'' seen evolutionists quote the story as though it is the evidence. In which cases I will dismiss it as "storytelling". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

== Picture ==

Would it be useful to add a picture such as this: http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/3803/horseevolutionbl3.png --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:15, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:Useful in what way? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::Useful to explain the concept of a transitional form. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:55, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== Article plan ==

I suggest that before we edit any further we sit down and discuss a plan for the article.

I maintain that your quotations should follow descriptions of transitional forms because that is what the article is supposed to be explaining. What are your thoughts? --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 01:13, 3 March 2008 (EST)
: My last edit was one that I had started before you posted this, so I completed it rather than having it hang in limbo. I'll have a look at what you've changed further and come back here to comment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:24, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: Okay, I've now looked, and here are my comments:
:* The "Claims of a lack of transitional forms" again has an objectionable introduction. The quotes are not "selective" if that is the true state of things, so the use of the word "selective" is unsubstantiated. Also, it seems odd to introduce a section quoting evolutionists by saying that ''creationists'' believe it! Yes, creationists do believe it, but so did the quoted evolutionists!
:* I might go along with your preferred order of the two sections we've both swapped, but putting the claims first might give the false impression that the claims have some validity.
:* The claims of transitional forms appear to be little more than storytelling, with almost nothing of substance there.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::1. The quotes are selective. In a sense, of course, all quotes are selective but your quotes give a false impression. I don’t (yet) know about Patterson but, as you are no doubt well aware, Gould never suggested that transitional forms didn’t exist. In the first quote he was making a point in support of his punctuated equilibrium theory (see Creationwiki’s entry on transitional forms). The same can be said of Raup. He never rejected transitional forms. Aren’t you trying to show that there were/are no transitional forms? Can’t you find someone to quote who actually believes that? Having said that, I am happy to rework the sentence. It seems to me, however, that the introduction must acknowledge that the predominant view amongst evolutionary scientists is that transitional forms do exist. Otherwise the quotes will inevitably mislead.

::2. Of course the claims have validity. I understand that you don’t accept them but the bulk of the relevant scientific community do accept them. You are in the minority. And yes, I know that this is not a vote, but unless you have actually serious qualifications in the area (and I don’t count theological qualifications) then surely we must rely on the experts.

::3. Your use of the term “storytelling” is quaint. I do not see it as being in any way helpful. I imagine that you didn’t even realise the irony attaching to a creationist talking about evolutionary theory as storytelling.

::4. I suggest that, given our obvious dislike for the other’s views, we proceed methodically. I have looked at a number of “controversial” pages on the site and I see that many are full of one-sided rhetoric and devoid of serious scientific information. I hope that we can make a sensible compromise here. I am certainly happy to attempt to be as even handed and as fair as possible.

::5. I note the suggestion above in relation to a picture. Would you be amenable to that? --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 15:55, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: "''...your quotes give a false impression.''": How so?
::: "''Gould never suggested that transitional forms didn’t exist...''": His words were "extreme rarity", not "non-existence", so I'd go along with that. But then that's what the quote says, so I don't see the problem.
::: "''In the first quote he was making a point in support of his punctuated equilibrium theory (see Creationwiki’s entry on transitional forms).''": Yes, because PE supposedly explains ''the lack of transitional forms''.
::: "''[Raup] never rejected transitional forms.''": I didn't say that he did. Evolutionists believe that they ''must'' exist, and even people like Gould and Raup likely believe(d) that ''some'' exist. But the general impression given the public is that there are lots of them, whereas experts such as Gould et. al. admit that the supposed abundance of transitional forms is a myth. Patterson probably put it best: he said that there are none "for which one could make a watertight argument". Not that there are absolutely none at all, but that there may be some, but not that one could be certain about. That is, despite there being no conclusive evidence of transitional fossils, they cling to thoughts that do exist.
::: "''Aren’t you trying to show that there were/are no transitional forms?''": I'm trying to show that there is no convincing evidence of transitional forms, and therefore no reason to believe that they exist. This is different to proving that they don't exist (which is impossible anyway). The point is that if even ''those that believe that they should exist'' (Gould, Patterson, Raup, Darwin) admit that the evidence is severely lacking (Gould, Patterson, Raup) or not conclusive (Patterson) and that it is less than predicted by the theory (Raup cf. Darwin), then the ''reasonable'' conclusion is that the creationary explanation (which predicts their non-existence) is the better explanation than the evolutionary one which predicts that they should exist in great numbers (Darwin). Gould's PE theory is a variation on the evolutionary explanation that tries to explain why the evidence expected by evolution is lacking, and is therefore really based on a lack of evidence than on evidence.
::: To clarify a point, though, that may be causing confusion, the creation view predicts that there will be no transitional forms between the [[baraminology|created kinds]], not that there won't be transitional forms ''within'' created kinds. For example, there won't be transitional forms between amphibians and birds, but there would be between sheep and goats (or the common ancestor of sheep and goats), because sheep and goats are of the same created kind.
::: "''It seems to me, however, that the introduction must acknowledge that the predominant view amongst evolutionary scientists is that transitional forms do exist.''": I'm happy for the article to say that that's what they ''believe'', but it should also point out that ''evidence'' for that belief is severely lacking.

::: "''Of course the claims have validity.''": Of course?
::: "''...the bulk of the relevant scientific community do accept them.''": That might depend on what you mean by "relevant".
::: "''...surely we must rely on the experts.''": Perhaps that's why we have quotes from experts?

::: "''Your use of the term “storytelling” is quaint. I do not see it as being in any way helpful. I imagine that you didn’t even realise the irony attaching to a creationist talking about evolutionary theory as storytelling.''": Quaint? Not helpful? On the contrary, I think it's a pretty accurate, and therefore helpful, description. Irony? Ironic that a creationist who bases his views on observation (by the author of the Bible) and evidence (fossils, etc.) calls a view that is not based on observation "storytelling"? How is that "ironic"?

::: "''I see that many are full of one-sided rhetoric and devoid of serious scientific information.''": The site is still young, which is an excuse that Wikipedia doesn't have, despite it having the same problem.
::: "''I am certainly happy to attempt to be as even handed and as fair as possible.''": I don't know how "possible" it is for you to be even handed and fair, but I welcome the desire.

::: Regarding the picture, I don't know if that one is available (or copyrighted), but I've no objection as long as it's not presented as being correct.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Lacking any further discussion here and having now read the ''New Scientist'' article quoted herein, I've altered the "fishbian" example to show that the claim is not supported by the evidence, and to remove the other claims. I've also added a section about the problem of identification. This is, as much as anything, the problem with the examples that I removed. They amount to identifying fossils that have ''some characteristics'' in common with two other groups, but the claims gloss over the differences and in no way are the examples unambiguously transitional. The pinniped one, for example, identified a pinniped which had some features not found in other pinnipeds, as one might expect if evolution was true. But the claim that it was intermediate between pinnipeds and bears was a huge leap. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:41, 8 March 2008 (EST)

: I apologise for my recent absence. I'm back now and I see that whilst I was away you have done your best to push your own agenda in the article. Very disappointing. I was hoping to co-operate on an article that was even-handed and represented both views clearly and without misleading readers. You appear to be able to talk the talk (on the talk page) but you are incapable of walking the walk (in the article). --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:30, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I believe that the "agenda" that I've "pushed" is accuracy. Yes, it doesn't favourably represent the pro-evolution view that there are transitional fossils, but that's because there ''are'' no transitional fossils. The New Scientist article, in making such weak claims as those but calling them the "best documented" just served to show how little evidence there is for transitional forms.
:: I accept that the pro-evolutionary view is not treated very favourably in the article. But unlike Wikipedia, we strive for ''accuracy'', not ''neutrality''. Is there anything in the article that is ''inaccurate''?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: I have no doubt that you ''believe'' in your agenda. Just as I do in mine. My agenda, however, has the significant advantage of being accepted by the vast majority of scientists working in the field. Yours is a fringe view inspired by your faith, not science. In my view your claim to accuracy is laughable. However, I understand that your view is sincerely held and, as a result, I am happy to incorporate it into an even-handed article. It is not helpful for you to assert that that "we strive for ''accuracy'', not ''neutrality''" in circumstances where you have constructed an article that, as far as I can discern is almost entirely devoid of accuracy. I suggest that the article be divided into sections that set out first of all the evolutionary view of transitional forms (to be written by me) followed by the creationist criticisms (to be written by you). The reason that I suggest that particular order is that the concept is an evolutionary concept and the article ought to accurately explain what a transitional form is before stating why creationists say they don't exist. I would appreciate your assistance in uploading a picture or two to illustrate the article. How does that sound? --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 09:27, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Transitional form

2008-03-14T00:34:52Z

Merriweather: /* Article plan */

Talk:Transitional form

2008-03-14T00:30:59Z

Merriweather: /* Article plan */

== Recent quote ==

Oooh, can we get a quote from a scientist from some point within the last ten years? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:50, 23 January 2008 (EST)
: Why? That would seem to be a rather abitrary cut-off point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::Cutoff point would mean eliminating everything from before then, not simply adding something made since then... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::: Not it wouldn't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::: What? Yes it would. That's the definition of a cutoff point. You ignore everything past the cutoff point. I'm not suggesting we ignore everything before ten years ago, I'm just asking for a recent source so this article seems current. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:29, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Yes, a "cutoff point" means that you ignore everything past the cutoff point, but in context that means ignoring everything older than ten years ''when looking for a quote to add''. It doesn't mean deleting every quote in the article older than ten years, because that's not what you were suggesting. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:20, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: Well, what would you consider a less arbitrary cutoff point? Nine? Eight? Seven? Six? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Seriously, having a more recent quote in the article can't be a bad thing. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: I wouldn't specify a cutoff point. If you have an appropriate quote from more recently, feel free to add it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:34, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: So you're suggesting you'd be perfectly fine adding quotes from any time period? I don't have any; I'm not arguing for the non-existance of transitional forms. If "Many scientists have admitted the lack of transitional fossils.", it shouldn't be terribly difficult to find something from this century, should it? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:36, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: If the quotes are relevant, when they date from should not be an issue (but the date of them could affect their relevance). But "many" is a relative term (in fact I would consider changing that in the article), and I'd say that only a few (relatively speaking, although I think it could easily be a dozen or so) have admitted as much. Note the quote from Gould about it being a "trade secret", i.e. it was not something that was widely known. Also, since creationary views have been gaining ground, many of these scientists have been much more guarded in what they admit to, so given that this century is only seven years old, then no, I don't agree that it wouldn't be difficult to find something from this century. That's not to say it's impossible, of course, but it may not be easy. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:15, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: I don't really think they've been gaining ground, but eh, if you say so/claim there's a conspiracy against non-scientific beliefs being passed off as science, that's your right. As for the quotes, I'm just saying that a more recent one would make the article more up to date, and not like outdated ramblings.
:::::::::: Oh, and this century is eight years old. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:46, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: 45 years ago there were almost no creationist organisations, and now there are quite a few. 40 years ago we didn't have science magazines publishing articles about what was wrong with creationism. 30 years ago the anti-creationist group NSCE hadn't started. Creationism is definitely gaining ground. I've said umpteen times that I don't claim there to be a conspiracy (a group of people plotting to suppress something they know to be true), but it is a standard anti-creationist tactic to accuse creationists of claiming that. And how are the existing quotes "outdated" and "ramblings"? Or is that just a throwaway line when you've got no actual criticism?
::::::::::: The century began on 1st January 2001, which is seven years, 25 days ago.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:22, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: I said they look like outdated ramblings, not nessecarily that they are outdated. You're accusing scientists of hiding information because it would be helpful to your cause-- That ''is'' accusing them of conspiracy. But I know you're just going to dismiss that with "Standard darwinist tactic, ha ha!" so I ask you this: If Creatinionism has been "gaining ground" as you so claim, surely the number of scientists speaking out against it '''must''' be going up? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:39, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: Okay, so I guess I should have asked how the existing quotes ''look'' "outdated", and "rambling".
::::::::::::: No, it's still not conspiracy. I defined conspiracy as "a group of people plotting to suppress something they know to be true". I'm making no accusations of any sort of ''group'', i.e. ''organisation'' of individuals, plotting, i.e. planning this together. And when I said "suppress something they know to be true", I was talking about them suppressing creation knowing it to be true. They don't believe creation to be true, so their suppression of it is not fitting that definition.
::::::::::::: I would say that the number of scientists speaking against it ''is'' going up, although I would qualify that with several points:
::::::::::::: * Scientists tend to not like getting involved in this sort of thing, thinking that it gives creation some legitimacy. So they tend to leave it to non-scientists to comment on (including the mass media and the science magazines).
::::::::::::: * They have reduced their involvement in live public debates, ostensibly because it gives creation publicity and legitimacy, but likely because they tend to lose the debates.
::::::::::::: * They consider Intelligent Design to be a form of creationism, and their efforts in recent times have been more directed to that, with not so much effort directed against creationism itself.
::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:47, 27 January 2008 (EST)

The quotes look outdated because they're all at least a decade old-- Things easily could've changed in a decade. If memory serves, there are many lists of transitional specimens, and I can dig them up if you wish once I return home from the LAN party I'm at.

Ah, so it's conviently not a conspiracy, just... Every scientist hates magic.

For the record: Science is not decided by who can plead the most. Watch a Creation video, and you'll see what I mean.

ID '''is''' Creationism. I again reference Of Pandas And People, bearing the historic words "cdesign proponentsists." 16:58, 28 January 2008 (EST)

*The Of Pandas and People issue is virtually meaningless. That one book does not define the entirety of ID. There are plenty of ID proponents who are not religious at all. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:46, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:Yes, one book does not define it, particularly given that the book concerned came out pretty early in the ID movement, and was co-authored (from memory) by one of the ID people who ''is'' a creationist.
: As for the chances of things changing in the last decade, I wouldn't pin too much hope on that. In 1859 Darwin wrote,
{{QuoteBox|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 the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection fo the geological record.}}
: But 120 years later, David Raup wrote,
{{QuoteBox|Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information...}}
: Then we have the other quotes (such as in the article) from around the same time from various scientists, supporting the severe lack of transitional forms. So why would it suddenly reverse direction and there start to be a swag of transitional forms?
: What's "convenient" about it not being a conspiracy? Your language betrays your bias. But your analogy with magic is not bad, actually. Scientists sometimes speak out against astrology, fortune telling, communicating with the dead, etc. But nobody ever claims "conspiracy" with these; it's just that most scientists are of one mind on those issues, so they all tend to reinforce each other on them. The same with creation. I don't agree, of course, that creation is in the same basket as astrology etc, but in the minds of the scientists opposing creation, that's pretty much what they think. So no reason to suppose a conspiracy. Yet anti-creationists keep accusing creationists of claiming that, ''even though creationists don't claim that'', in order to denigrate them, and when creationists call them on it, rather than admit their error, they try and divert attention or excuse themselves with comments such as "how convenient".
: I've seen lists of transitional fossils (and one is referenced in the article). But with none of the examples provided can, in the words of Colin Patterson (in the article), with none can one make a watertight argument. Just because they are ''claimed'' to be transitional does not make them so, and none really stand scrutiny.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::Bugger, thought I responded to this yesterday. It's convenient because if it's not a conspiracy, you don't look like a nutter for trying to play the persecution card.

::And I must ask, how do you prove that they aren't transitional? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:49, 29 January 2008 (EST)
::: If it really was a conspiracy, then I wouldn't look like a nutter for claiming persecution. So how does it not being a conspiracy change that?
::: Perhaps the question should be, how do you prove that they ''are'' transitional? If creature 1 has features A, B, C, D, E, and F, and creature 2 has features A, B, C, G, H, and J, then we find a creature with features A, B, C, D, H, and J, does that mean that it's transitional between 1 and 2. Or just a creature with a different mix of features? Evolutionists presume that creature 1 ''must have'' evolved into creature 2, so anything with a combination of the two creatures' features is seen as evidence of an intermediate/transitional form. That explanation is an over-simplification, but that's at least part of how it works. That was the basis for claiming that Archaeopteryx was transitional: it had some features in common with both reptiles and birds. But even staunch evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould described it as a "curious matrix", that is, a creature that had some features in common with reptiles and birds, but not on the way from one to the other.
::: So how ''do'' you prove that something is transitional? I don't think you can, ultimately, but a big step in the right direction would be to find not just ''a'' creature intermediate between two others, but a whole chain showing a gradual transition. My example above listed six "features", but any real creature is going to have hundreds if not thousands. If you have two creatures that differ by 200 features, and you found 200 other creatures that could be placed in a sequence where each one had one feature different to the previous, you'd be well on the way to demonstrating transitional forms. I'm not, of course, suggesting that you would need to have ''every one'' of those 200, but a large proportion of them would be needed. As it is, all you have these days is one or at best a handful.
::: Furthermore, given that creationists argue for variation within a created 'kind', this would need to be for two distinctly different creatures (i.e. of different created kinds); a smooth transition of intermediates between one type of shark and another type of shark doesn't count.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:46, 29 January 2008 (EST)

::::Logically, if a creature with features ABC and a creature with features ADE are found, and a creature with features ACD is found between them (vertically or horizontally) the natural conclusion is that ACD is some sort of midway. Haha... "kinds"... right, how scientific.

::::You're claiming it's not a conspiracy, were you to claim there's a conspiracy, you'd be A: Wrong and B: Nutty.

::::Indeed, it would be a tricky business to find the entire series-- after all, fossilisation is the exception, not the rule. This isn't helped by the fact that previous ideas of evolutionary chains are constantly discarded, nearly every time a new fossil is unearthed.

::::Also, this century started 1/1/2000.

::::FINAL POINT: If we can't get a quote from this century, can we at least have some sort of counterbalance quote? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)
::::: If a creature with features ACD is found ''horizontally'' between creatures with features ABC and ADE, surely, according to evolutionary thinking, they lived at the same time? And therefore would not be intermediate?
::::: If a creature with features ACD is found ''vertically'' between creatures with features ABC and ADE, then (a) it still doesn't prove that it is transitional, and (b) it assumes the evolutionary view, as the creationary view would (depending on the layers concerned) probably be that all three were buried within the same year (of the Flood). And what's so unscientific about "kinds"? Answer please, and not one that's self-serving.
::::: "''You're claiming it's not a conspiracy, were you to claim there's a conspiracy, you'd be A: Wrong and B: Nutty.''": Yes, but your comment was not about whether or not I was ''claiming'' it, but whether or not it ''was a conspiracy'' ("...because if it's not a conspiracy...").
::::: "''Indeed, it would be a tricky business to find the entire series...''": Would it really? Given the number of fossils that have been found, I'd say that you should have found at least a few fairly-complete series. Gould thought so too, which is why he came up with Punctuated Equilibrium—to argue that you don't find the smooth series because evolution happened suddenly in short bursts. The point is, he came up with this because the ''expected smooth series'' was not found. So your argument that it would be tricky is really just a ''post-hoc'' argument to explain the uncomfortable facts. Secondly, it being difficult to find the required evidence is no excuse for claiming something for which the evidence has not been found.
::::: "''...the fact that previous ideas of evolutionary chains are constantly discarded, nearly every time a new fossil is unearthed''": Which to me says that the whole idea is so tenuous it has no right claiming that the alternative view (creation) has been disproved by the evidence.
::::: If the 21st century started at the beginning of 2000, then the first century must have started at the beginning of the year nought, but we number the years from ''one'', not ''nought''. So the first year ''ended'' at the end of year 1, the second year at the end of year 2, the tenth year at the end of the year 10, the hundredth year—the 1st century—at the ''end'' of the year 100, the first millennium at the ''end'' of the year 1000, and the second millennium (and the 20th century) at the ''end'' of the year 2000.
::::: What's unbalanced about the article as it stands?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Not nessecarily same time, but a similar time. Remember, these take a while to form. Sufficient for small changes.
::::::Kinds is not a scientific designation of any sort.
::::::Dude. Do you know what oil is? Do you realize how much more of that there is than fossils? Out of all the creatures that have ever lived, we've recovered very little in the manner of fossils.
::::::Tenuous? No, not really, but the exact order is uncertain. Such is the way of science; things change when new evidence is uncovered. I could give a condescending explanation of how that's different from religion, but I'll spare you that.
::::::There's a nice bit on this on Wikipedia, d'you mind if I quote it at you in my next edit?
::::::Gee... could it be the fact that every single quote is from one side? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:41, 31 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: "''Remember, these take a while to form.''": Yeah? a given layer takes, what?, a few million years to form whilst slowly burying a specimen and it's evolved descendant?
::::::: "''Kinds is not a scientific designation of any sort.''": How about [[baraminology|baramin]] then? That's the scientific word for "kind".
::::::: "''...we've recovered very little in the manner of fossils.''": I totally agree that we've only found a small proportion of all the creatures that lived, but there's still been enough to expect some smooth transitions. You didn't address the evidence I offered from Gould.
::::::: "''Tenuous? No, not really, but the exact order is uncertain.''": Now it's "the exact order". Before it was "evolutionary chains are constantly discarded". Your explanations seem about as flexible as evolution itself.
::::::: "''I could give a condescending explanation of how that's different from religion, but I'll spare you that.''": I don't think you did (spare me). Besides, I already know the explanation: "Science is good because the scientists can't be certain they know what they are talking about. Religion is bad because they know what they are talking about". Well, that's not how you would spin it, but that's not far from what it would amount to.
::::::: You can quote Wikipedia here if you wish.
::::::: "''...could it be the fact that every single quote is from one side?''": Golly! You're right! They're all evolutionists! Do you want me to find a quote from a creationist too?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Uh, what?
::::::::Teach the controversy! Bats are birds!
::::::::Are you familiar with the term "statistical improbablity"?
::::::::What, about it being a "trade secret"? Yeah, that doesn't sound nutty.
::::::::Oh boy, let's pick apart every single word I say! Perhaps I mistyped when I said discarded-- Rearranged fits better.
::::::::No, science is good because it's constantly being updated in response to new evidence. Religion, however, is not.
::::::::"Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be "caught in the act" as it were. Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species. However, progressing research and discovery are managing to fill in gaps." -Wikipedia.
::::::::No, mein freund, that's not what I meant. Not one saying that there are, indeed, transitional fossils.
::::::::Here, have a list of them: [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html List from Talk Origins] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:26, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Much of your post is nonsensical throw-away lines. Such as "Uh what"? Huh? What yourself? Explain yourself if you want to make an argument.
::::::::: In your next line I think you are making reference to an old and discredited [[furphy]], to which the answer is [[classification system|here]].
::::::::: Regarding statistical improbability, again, throwing around a few terms does not an argument make. And if your "nutty" reference was supposed to be an answer to my reference to Gould, first, it's evolutionist Gould that you are calling "nutty", and second, I wasn't referring to that, but to my argument from Gould in my prior post.
::::::::: Evolutionists like to make out that it's just the details that they are still uncertain about, yet what they actually disagree on and keep changing are some fairly fundamental points (such as whether it happened slowly and gradually or in sudden spurts). Your previous comment, whether you use 'discarded' or 'rearranged' suggests the major changes in the idea, whereas your later comment about the "exact order" suggests that only the detail is in question. I was contrasting those two aspects.
::::::::: The creationary model is also constantly being upgraded in response to new evidence. The basic premises, such as creation itself is not, but then the basic premises of evolutionists, such as naturalism and evolution itself are not either. Typical of sceptics, you are merely trying to make a self-serving distinction where none exists and in doing so are being inconsistent.
::::::::: The Wikipedia quote is nothing more than post-hoc explanation for the lack of the evidence that evolutionists should expect, as I pointed out from Gould. Furthermore, it is trying to have a bob each way, in both claiming that the fossil record does ("Although transitional fossil elucidate...") and will ("progressing research and discover are managing to fill in gaps.") show evolution whilst also explaining why it doesn't.
::::::::: And how is it unbalanced to only say that there are no transitional fossils ''if that is so''? You are claiming that it is unbalanced because it doesn't acknowledge your views. But if your views are wrong, then it's not unbalanced to not acknowledge them. The article already has a reference to the link you provide, but the link fails to make its case. To take the first example I looked at, [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#eleph elephants], it starts off with "''Minchenella'' or a similar condylarth (late Paleocene) -- Known only from lower jaws. Has a distinctive broadened shelf on the third molar. The most plausible ancestor of the embrithopods & anthracobunids." This is nothing more than evolutionary story-telling. There's not enough of the fossil to really tell, and the best she can say is that it's "the most plausible ancestor". So apart from it not being hard evidence contradicting Gould and Patterson, it's circular reasoning because it's starting with the assumption that there must be something that evolved into an elephant and that this is the most likely candidate. Not all her arguments are exactly like that of course, but from what I've seen there is nothing of real substance there. The existence of an article full of bluff and fluff trying to make the case does not mean that the case is actually made and that the paleontologists quoted in the article had no clue what they were talking about.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: ""''Remember, these take a while to form.''": Yeah? a given layer takes, what?, a few million years to form whilst slowly burying a specimen and it's evolved descendant?" That's what my "uh, what?" was directed to. I have no freaking clue what you were attempting to say there.
:::::::::: "first, it's evolutionist Gould that you are calling "nutty"," Oh no, I will now withdraw my opinion upon finding out that I dared to call an "evolutionist" nutty.
:::::::::: It does; You simply choose to ignore every transitional form, prefering instead to cry and weep that we haven't found every fossil yet.
:::::::::: It wouldn't be, if that was true. That's not circular, it's a correctly terminating idea. "If it evolved, and this fossil looks like it's reasonably simliar, this creature probably evolved from that."
:::::::::: As a sidenote, I love how you write off every attempt to connect things as "storytelling" and seem to be scared by the idea that the evolutionary paths of each creature are not fully understood yet. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:22, 3 February 2008 (EST)
(unindent)"''That's what my "uh, what?" was directed to.''": That's better; explaining what it is that you don't understand.

You indicated that a creature would be intermediate if it was found ''in the same layer'' (which is the only reasonable conclusion to draw from "if a creature with features ABC and a creature with features ADE are found, and a creature with features ACD is found between them (vertically or '''horizontally''')" (my emphasis)), so I questioned how this would make it intermediate ("If a creature with features ACD is found horizontally between creatures with features ABC and ADE, surely, according to evolutionary thinking, they lived at the same time? And therefore would not be intermediate?"). You replied with "Not nessecarily same time, but a similar time. Remember, these take a while to form. Sufficient for small changes.". I assumed that "these" refers to the rock layers. The reasonable conclusion to draw from this was that a given rock layer—containing creatures at two different stages of evolutionary development in the same line—took so long to form that the creature had enough time to evolve into something different (ABC to ACD, for example). So I replied, "Yeah? a given layer takes, what?, a few million years to form whilst slowly burying a specimen and it's evolved descendant?", to which you replied "Uh, what?". Do you understand now?

"''Oh no, I will now withdraw my opinion upon finding out that I dared to call an "evolutionist" nutty.''": How about just withdrawing that comment from the discussion that you are having ''with me''? In the context of this discussion, it reads as though I'm nutty or creationists are nutty or the article is nutty. I guess that you can think that Gould was nutty if you like, but keep in mind that you are calling "nutty" something said by a widely-respected scientist about his own field of study. I'm not saying that you have to agree with him (I don't on quite a few issues), but calling someone's idea "nutty" is hardly an argument.

"''It does; ''": What does? Could you please include mentions in your replies as to which points you are replying to? Much of the time I can figure it out, but I shouldn't have to solve a puzzle to do this, and sometimes it is very unclear.

"''You simply choose to ignore every transitional form, prefering instead to cry and weep that we haven't found every fossil yet.''": What transitional forms? Your criticism of me presumes that they exist, a presumption that I've rejected. I don't ignore ''claims'' of transitional forms; I ''reject'' such claims as unsubstantiated. You, in return, use emotive language about my motives rather than actually address the points and provide evidence.

"''That's not circular, it's a correctly terminating idea. "If it evolved, and this fossil looks like it's reasonably simliar, this creature probably evolved from that." ''": No, that's not circular reasoning. But it's circular reasoning to take it to the next step: "And this therefore shows that there ''are'' transitional fossils (and therefore that evolution is true)", which is (a) the point of the list of transitional forms, and (b) your point in citing it.

"''I love how you write off every attempt to connect things as "storytelling"''": I call it like it is! If I pick up a bunch of sticks and arrange them in order according to (say) size, then try and tell a story that one evolved into the other, all I'm doing is storytelling. And that's what evolutionary "connecting things" is; it's telling a story about how things supposedly came about; events that have not actually been observed happening.

"''...seem to be scared by the idea that the evolutionary paths of each creature are not fully understood yet.''": How can I be scared of something that I don't believe happened?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:Ah, thanks. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, then.
:Withdrawing the comment serves no purpose.
:Yeah, I should add references... To be honest, I'm not sure what exactly I was referring to either. I'm sorry.
:"I ''reject'' such claims as unsubstantiated." And here's the problem. You lay down a blanket statement rejecting all claims of transitional fossils as unsubstantiated. If I'm interpreting that correctly, there is no point in continuing this discussion.
:So any list of transitional fossils is mere circular reasoning?
:No, what you're doing is horribly misunderstanding how trees grow. You could easily argue that every theory is "Storytelling", by that logic.
:You don't believe that the evolutionary paths of each creature are not fully understood yet happened? Uhh... mate, that doesn't make a lick of sense. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:55, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::''How can I be scared of something that I don't believe happened?''
::Aren't atheists often [[Atheism#Denials_That_Atheists_Exist|thought]] to be, deep down, afraid of God? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:58, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::: I only reject claims of transitional fossils as unsubstantiated because that's what they have been so far. I should add that in this case I'm not meaning that no substantiation is provided, but that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I'm not claiming that such claims are inherently unsubstantiatable; in theory, assuming that evolution is true, such claims ''could be'' substantiated. But so far they haven't been.
::: "''So any list of transitional fossils is mere circular reasoning?''": No, I made the claim of circular reasoning about the particular example I picked out of the list. There was no evidence that the particular example was intermediate, beyond the presumption that there ''must be'' an intermediate and this was the most likely candidate. Rather than start with the presumption that something evolved, you should start with the ''question'', "Did it evolve?", then see if there is evidence supporting that.
::: "''No, what you're doing is horribly misunderstanding how trees grow.''": I could say exactly the same thing about your understanding of how life came to be.
::: "''...that doesn't make a lick of sense''": I wondered if I wasn't clear. I don't believe that there are/were such things as evolutionary paths, so why would it concern me that they are not yet fully understood.
::: Feebasfactor, the claim is that deep down, atheists don't ''really'', fully, believe that there is no God. At least in some cases. See also [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5560/ here]. I didn't actually look at your link to the atheism article, and I'm not necessarily defending how it might be worded. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:41, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::::Ah, that makes a bit more sense. Nice to see you'll at least entertain the notion of transitional fossils.
::::Answering the question and then reworking it as new evidence comes about, I presume?
::::They're two entirely different things, trees and life in general. For example, I do not proclaim to know the origin of life-- And that is not what this is about-- but I do proclaim to know the basics of tree growth.
::::Ah. Possibly because fear of the unknown is common in humans of all creeds, races, etc.? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:45, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::: Regarding the stick analogy, I made a small error in wording it as a comparison to the ''origin'' of life. I meant the origin of individual types of living things, that is, evolution. You do claim to know that evolution brought about the different types of living things, don't you? So I could say, just as you did for the sticks, that your have a "horrible misunderstanding" of it.
::::: "''...fear of the unknown is common in humans of all creeds, races, etc.? ''": It's not an unknown: I know it didn't happen that way. So "fear of the unknown" doesn't apply.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:15, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Except what I claim to know is consistent with the current understanding of evolutionary theory. What you say is not.
::::::I'm sure you do, Philip. I'm sure you do. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:18, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: Yes, what you claim to know is consistent with evolution. But the fossil record part of evolution is little more than arranging unrelated fossils in a sequence and telling a story connecting them, just as I did with the sticks. The stick story is absurd because you know better. The evolution story is not absurd because... er, because.... er, because you ''don't'' know better. But they amount to the same thing, in principle. Evolution is a ''story'' to explain the evidence. Creationists have the same evidence, but tell a ''different'' story to explain it. So it really comes down to which ''story'' is the more believable. I don't dismiss the evidence, but I happily dismiss the ''story'' that evolutionists tell about that evidence. And the evidence and the story are two different things, yet I've ''often'' seen evolutionists quote the story as though it is the evidence. In which cases I will dismiss it as "storytelling". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

== Picture ==

Would it be useful to add a picture such as this: http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/3803/horseevolutionbl3.png --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:15, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:Useful in what way? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::Useful to explain the concept of a transitional form. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:55, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== Article plan ==

I suggest that before we edit any further we sit down and discuss a plan for the article.

I maintain that your quotations should follow descriptions of transitional forms because that is what the article is supposed to be explaining. What are your thoughts? --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 01:13, 3 March 2008 (EST)
: My last edit was one that I had started before you posted this, so I completed it rather than having it hang in limbo. I'll have a look at what you've changed further and come back here to comment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:24, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: Okay, I've now looked, and here are my comments:
:* The "Claims of a lack of transitional forms" again has an objectionable introduction. The quotes are not "selective" if that is the true state of things, so the use of the word "selective" is unsubstantiated. Also, it seems odd to introduce a section quoting evolutionists by saying that ''creationists'' believe it! Yes, creationists do believe it, but so did the quoted evolutionists!
:* I might go along with your preferred order of the two sections we've both swapped, but putting the claims first might give the false impression that the claims have some validity.
:* The claims of transitional forms appear to be little more than storytelling, with almost nothing of substance there.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::1. The quotes are selective. In a sense, of course, all quotes are selective but your quotes give a false impression. I don’t (yet) know about Patterson but, as you are no doubt well aware, Gould never suggested that transitional forms didn’t exist. In the first quote he was making a point in support of his punctuated equilibrium theory (see Creationwiki’s entry on transitional forms). The same can be said of Raup. He never rejected transitional forms. Aren’t you trying to show that there were/are no transitional forms? Can’t you find someone to quote who actually believes that? Having said that, I am happy to rework the sentence. It seems to me, however, that the introduction must acknowledge that the predominant view amongst evolutionary scientists is that transitional forms do exist. Otherwise the quotes will inevitably mislead.

::2. Of course the claims have validity. I understand that you don’t accept them but the bulk of the relevant scientific community do accept them. You are in the minority. And yes, I know that this is not a vote, but unless you have actually serious qualifications in the area (and I don’t count theological qualifications) then surely we must rely on the experts.

::3. Your use of the term “storytelling” is quaint. I do not see it as being in any way helpful. I imagine that you didn’t even realise the irony attaching to a creationist talking about evolutionary theory as storytelling.

::4. I suggest that, given our obvious dislike for the other’s views, we proceed methodically. I have looked at a number of “controversial” pages on the site and I see that many are full of one-sided rhetoric and devoid of serious scientific information. I hope that we can make a sensible compromise here. I am certainly happy to attempt to be as even handed and as fair as possible.

::5. I note the suggestion above in relation to a picture. Would you be amenable to that? --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 15:55, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: "''...your quotes give a false impression.''": How so?
::: "''Gould never suggested that transitional forms didn’t exist...''": His words were "extreme rarity", not "non-existence", so I'd go along with that. But then that's what the quote says, so I don't see the problem.
::: "''In the first quote he was making a point in support of his punctuated equilibrium theory (see Creationwiki’s entry on transitional forms).''": Yes, because PE supposedly explains ''the lack of transitional forms''.
::: "''[Raup] never rejected transitional forms.''": I didn't say that he did. Evolutionists believe that they ''must'' exist, and even people like Gould and Raup likely believe(d) that ''some'' exist. But the general impression given the public is that there are lots of them, whereas experts such as Gould et. al. admit that the supposed abundance of transitional forms is a myth. Patterson probably put it best: he said that there are none "for which one could make a watertight argument". Not that there are absolutely none at all, but that there may be some, but not that one could be certain about. That is, despite there being no conclusive evidence of transitional fossils, they cling to thoughts that do exist.
::: "''Aren’t you trying to show that there were/are no transitional forms?''": I'm trying to show that there is no convincing evidence of transitional forms, and therefore no reason to believe that they exist. This is different to proving that they don't exist (which is impossible anyway). The point is that if even ''those that believe that they should exist'' (Gould, Patterson, Raup, Darwin) admit that the evidence is severely lacking (Gould, Patterson, Raup) or not conclusive (Patterson) and that it is less than predicted by the theory (Raup cf. Darwin), then the ''reasonable'' conclusion is that the creationary explanation (which predicts their non-existence) is the better explanation than the evolutionary one which predicts that they should exist in great numbers (Darwin). Gould's PE theory is a variation on the evolutionary explanation that tries to explain why the evidence expected by evolution is lacking, and is therefore really based on a lack of evidence than on evidence.
::: To clarify a point, though, that may be causing confusion, the creation view predicts that there will be no transitional forms between the [[baraminology|created kinds]], not that there won't be transitional forms ''within'' created kinds. For example, there won't be transitional forms between amphibians and birds, but there would be between sheep and goats (or the common ancestor of sheep and goats), because sheep and goats are of the same created kind.
::: "''It seems to me, however, that the introduction must acknowledge that the predominant view amongst evolutionary scientists is that transitional forms do exist.''": I'm happy for the article to say that that's what they ''believe'', but it should also point out that ''evidence'' for that belief is severely lacking.

::: "''Of course the claims have validity.''": Of course?
::: "''...the bulk of the relevant scientific community do accept them.''": That might depend on what you mean by "relevant".
::: "''...surely we must rely on the experts.''": Perhaps that's why we have quotes from experts?

::: "''Your use of the term “storytelling” is quaint. I do not see it as being in any way helpful. I imagine that you didn’t even realise the irony attaching to a creationist talking about evolutionary theory as storytelling.''": Quaint? Not helpful? On the contrary, I think it's a pretty accurate, and therefore helpful, description. Irony? Ironic that a creationist who bases his views on observation (by the author of the Bible) and evidence (fossils, etc.) calls a view that is not based on observation "storytelling"? How is that "ironic"?

::: "''I see that many are full of one-sided rhetoric and devoid of serious scientific information.''": The site is still young, which is an excuse that Wikipedia doesn't have, despite it having the same problem.
::: "''I am certainly happy to attempt to be as even handed and as fair as possible.''": I don't know how "possible" it is for you to be even handed and fair, but I welcome the desire.

::: Regarding the picture, I don't know if that one is available (or copyrighted), but I've no objection as long as it's not presented as being correct.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Lacking any further discussion here and having now read the ''New Scientist'' article quoted herein, I've altered the "fishbian" example to show that the claim is not supported by the evidence, and to remove the other claims. I've also added a section about the problem of identification. This is, as much as anything, the problem with the examples that I removed. They amount to identifying fossils that have ''some characteristics'' in common with two other groups, but the claims gloss over the differences and in no way are the examples unambiguously transitional. The pinniped one, for example, identified a pinniped which had some features not found in other pinnipeds, as one might expect if evolution was true. But the claim that it was intermediate between pinnipeds and bears was a huge leap. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:41, 8 March 2008 (EST)

: I apologise for my recent absence. I'm back now and I see that whilst I wa away you have done your best to push your own agenda in the article. Very disappointing. I was hoping to co-operate on an article that was even-handed and represented both views clearly and without misleading readers. You appear to be able to talk the talk (on the talk page) but you are incapable of walking the walk (in the article). --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:30, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-03-14T00:13:54Z

Merriweather: /* Marx, Himmler, Oscar Wilde... */

==Private Tutoring==

Does private tutoring really count as homeschooling? I don't see why it should. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 17:01, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

==Homschoolers at harvard.==
I read it some were, but it is true that 10% of students in a classroom at Harvard were homseschooled. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:38, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:For a claim like that, I doubt "I read it somewhere" works; finding a citation shouldn't be hard if it's true, though. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::I will try to find it.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:42, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Great! Find a citation *first*, then feel free to add it to the article. Since only about 2% of kids are homeschooled, it would be astounding to find 10% at Harvard. Also note that 10% in a particular classroom is not the same as 10% of the Harvard student body. If your statement is true, then it deserves much more prominence in the article. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:45, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Alright I found the information, but I was wrong. 10% of the Students accepted are homeschooled.:) so am I.... not going to Harvard though. so if you still want the link i can get it, or if not, no problem. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:53, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::First, make sure it's 10% of accepted students are homeschooled, not 10% of homeschooled applicants are accepted. Then go ahead and add it, just make sure you quote it properly (very important for statistics) and include the citation, including the title, etc. so it will show up nicely in the references section. Thanks for adding to this article!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
Who are you by the way mom? I mean you sound like you have been here longer than I have, and thats a long time.ok here is the link: [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/03/21/schoolhouse_rocked/ homeschoolers at Harvard] --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:59, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
: I'm a homeschooling mom, of course! <smile>. Will, the statistic was what I suspected. It said that homeschoolers have an acceptance rate of 10%, which is the same as the general acceptance rate at Harvard. On the one hand, it doesn't show homeschoolers doing any better than anyone else, but on the other hand, it does show they can do *as well as* anyone else. Why don't you do a bit more research and write a paragraph about homeschoolers getting into college? The one in the article is a good model - I bet you can find a few other sources too, and come up with something quite worthwhile! Now I'm off to do my housework, but will check back to see what you've come up with! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:04, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

That Boston Globe article is excellent, it's a real "find." I'm going to follow Hsmom's lead and let Will N. draft something rather than do something with it myself.

I can't figure out exactly what the sentence means: "At Harvard, the acceptance rate of the general applicant pool is about 10 percent, which mirrors the success of home-schoolers." I read it the same way Hsmom does, but it's not perfectly clear.

However, it says specifically that the acceptance rate of homeschoolers at ''Williams College'' (a famous, excellent, old, small liberal arts college) is 20 percent. And [http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-11-02-collegerates_x.htm this article] says that William's general acceptance rate is 19.2%. In other words, a homeschoolers are exactly as successful in gaining admission to Williams as anyone else.

The key point to be made, which should be supported with well-chosen quotations from the Globe article, is that homeschoolers are just as successful at being admitted to major colleges as others, and that these days college admissions offices are familiar with homeschooling and have no problem with it. I like the line: "We read home-schoolers' applications just like any other application. They don't get any special consideration, but they're not discriminated against, either. Their applications are interesting, and they've certainly done independent work their whole lives."

If homeschoolers are about as successful at getting accepted as the general population, and if homeschoolers currently amount to something like 2% of all students, then ''presumably'' the percentage of Harvard students who were homeschooled would be 2%. 2% of 6700 = about 130 in all. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:01, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

----

I would dispute saying Patton was a Christian as he believed in reincarnation (show me where this is in line with scripture)
Brigham Young was a Mormon, not a christian.

:Mormons consider themselves to be Christians.

:The official name of their church is ''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints'' ("LDS Church" for short).

:See material I've just moved to [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Mormons' relationship to Christianity]].

:One dictionary definition of "Christian" is "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." It seems to me that Mormons meet that definition.

:Who ought to make the judgement, among all the denominations that regard themselves as Christian, which are "really Christian?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:10, 18 January 2007 (EST)

:P. S. The question of what Mormons believe is sure to receive a lot of discussion in a year or so, since Mitt Romney, a Mormon, is running for President. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:14, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Are you a Mormon? Not to be prejudiced against you if you are but just wondering.
Will N.

*No, I'm not a Mormon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:37, 18 January 2007 (EST)

:I probably should explain more. I did react to the phrase "a Mormon not a Christian." What went through my mind, and what I knew ''off the top of my head'' was: "Whoa! That's not right. Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, and the church is even called Church of ''Jesus Christ'' of the Latter-day Saints." I also got just a little bit of steam up, because there '''is''' some discrimination against Mormons—assuming Mitt Romney runs I think we'll have plenty of chance to see this soon—and saying that Mormons aren't Christians sounds a little like an attack.

:So, after I wrote what I knew off the top of my head, from my experience with Wikipedia and with college, etc. I've found that if you want to convince other people, instead of just telling them what you think, it helps if you can show them ''why'' you think that. So I decided to do a bit of very quick research. I figured that Mormons probably get asked this question a lot and that the official LDS church website would probably have something to say about it.

:First I found the passage I put in quotation marks above, the one that begins "Jesus Christ is the Son of God." I probably should have stopped there, but when I saw that they actually have a "Frequently Asked Questions" page with answers to the questions "Are you Christians" and "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Christian church?" I couldn't resist putting that in, too. I probably put in too much. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:45, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Ben Franklin was a Deist --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:58, 18 January 2007 (EST)

:Yes, that's right... no time to look further but I'm pretty sure Franklin did not believe in the divinity of Jesus and did not belong to an organized Christian church. Guess the whole list needs checking? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:45, 19 January 2007 (EST)

==Homeschooled or not?==

I made a minor edit to the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart entry today reflecting the fact that he was homeschooled. This was almost immediateley changed back by dpbsmith, with the explanation that "he wasn't homeschooled as we know the term today"

Now, this is all well and good, except that in the article for omeschooling, his name is on the list of famous people who were homeschooled, with an internal link to theMozart article!

So which is it? Was he homeschooled or not? And please, this is isn't an attempt to start a big discussion of the meaning of homeschooling etc. I'm just asking for some consistency between articles here. Either a person was homeschooled, in which case their entries should be amended to reflect that fact, or they should be removed from the list of "Famous people who were homeschooled."

I'll wait a bit to see what the consensus is, but if their names are still on that list in a few days, I'm going to fix those articles to reflect that fact.
--[[User:TrueReaganConservative|TrueReaganConservative]] 13:40, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds—Emerson.

:The thing is that ''this'' article is sort of a hash. I haven't wanted to take this sorry article entire, shatter it to bits and remould it nearer to my heart's desire because I think it's here as a sort of inspiration to the students who use the site. It looks to me like one of those "X pride" lists where X is any group that is a little out of the mainstream and wants to encourage its members that it's OK.

:The quickest way to fix ''this'' article would be retitle the actual list something like "High-achieving Christians who were educated at home."

:This isn't really a factual article about homeschooling, it's a point-of-view piece that says that being educated at home not only does not put you at a disadvantage vis-a-vis public or private schools, it can be an advantage. ''This is very arguably true'' and the list is evidence in support of it.

:What the list is ''not'' is a list of people who have undergone "Christian homeschooling."

:Homeschooling is a sort of movement, mostly in the U. S. I think, that began more or less in the 1970s. Around that time there was a noticable drop in public confidence in the public schools. Maybe I remember it had something to do with John Holt? ''How Children Fail?''

:"Homeschooling" to me does not mean simply being educated at home. It means that parents have ''actively opted out'' of an ''existing system of compulsory public schooling,'' and educate their children at home in order to assert direct personal supervision of the content and values that their children are being taught.

:Calling Mozart (say) "homeschooled" is like calling Thomas Jefferson "a Republican" or William Gladstone "a Liberal" or asserting "Jimmy Carter and Joseph Stalin were both Georgians." Technically true, but confusing at best. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:08, 27 February 2007 (EST)

::I'll defer to the consensus view, but I don't see why Mozart should be eliminated. He was homeschooled in a Christian manner. What's the big deal about observing that fact? I don't think there has to have been compulsory education in his day to make this observation meaningful. At a minimum, Mozart is an example of someone who learned at home and excelled afterwards. Probably his home education has something to do with his work. This is information worth preserving, and let readers debate as they wish. As Fox News says, "We report. You decide."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:35, 27 February 2007 (EST)

==George Bernard Shaw==
'''George Bernard Shaw'''... hmmm... I don't think he would have cared for being labelled as a Christian. You can make out a case that he did accept some of the moral teachings of Jesus ''as Shaw, personally'' interpreted them. But in his will, he wrote:

:My religious convictions and scientific views cannot at present be more specifically defined than as those of a believer in creative revolution. I desire that no public monument or work of art or inscription or sermon or ritual service commemorating me shall suggest that I accepted the tenets peculiar to any established church or denomination nor take the form of a cross or any other instrument of torture or symbol of blood sacrifice.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,813999,00.html]

If he was a Christian, he was an awfully complicated and unusual Christian. He certainly did not belong to any organized denomination. He wrote that there was “not a single established religion in the world in which an intelligent or educated man could believe."

He did write that "Christianity might be a good thing if anyone ever tried it." And he wrote that "Christianity as a specific doctrine was slain with Jesus, suddenly and utterly." That is, he did not think any organized Christian religions actually practiced the teachings of Jesus.

He wrote a lot about Christianity in his Preface to ''Androcles and the Lion.'' I'm not going to try to summarize it, partly because I haven't read it through in a long time, but also because Shaw's ideas are so very original and unorthodox that they are really hard to pigeonhole.

He dealt with religious themes in his plays ''Saint Joan,'' ''Major Barbara,'' and ''Androcles and the Lion,'' and in their prefaces, but if you can tell "which side" he's on after reading those plays, you're better than I am.

He also dealt with evolution, in the play ''Back to Methuselah'' and the Preface to it—in a way which will not please either evolutionists or creationists. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:10, 20 January 2007 (EST)

I question the inclusion of '''Mark Twain,''' similarly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:32, 20 January 2007 (EST)

== Recent additions ==

Harpie Snark recently added John Walker Lindh, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, Charles Fletcher Lummis, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Christopher Paolini to the list. I deleted them when reverting some vandalism.

I'm restoring Charles Fletcher Lummis and Christopher Paolini on his say-so.

Franklin D. Roosevelt attended Groton, an elite private prep school.

John Walker Lindh is a Taliban member and Adam Yahiye Gadahn is an Al-Qaeda member. I don't think they should go onto the list without a pretty good source citation, on the grounds that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," or, in this case, surprising claims require good evidence. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:Christopher Paolini is the author of the Inheritance Trilogy (Eragon, Eldest, and a third book yet unreleased). I know he was home schooled, but have never seen anything about his beliefs. I asked to judge by his writing, I would tend to think he is not a Christian based on some elements of his books such as the atheism of the elves. So if anyone has a source for this, please post it. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 19:45, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Raw results:

::There's a source for his being home-schooled, anyway: [http://www.bookbrowse.com/biographies/index.cfm?author_number=934 A profile of Christopher Paolini], "He was home-schooled by his parents, Kenneth Paolini and Talita Hodgkinson, through an accredited correspondence course at American School, Chicago, Illinois from which he graduated with his high school diploma at 15 years of age." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:16, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Gadahn apparently was home-schooled: [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/27/CALIF.TMP 'Average American boy' accused as terrorist], Adam was the oldest of four children, all of whom were home-schooled.

::A lot of Google hits on Lindh being home-schooled, but it's all blogs... Some stuff about in Google Books about Lindh "beginning life as a Christian" but turning to Islam "in high school."

:[http://knowledgehouse.info/famous.html This page] credits Lummis as begin home-schooled but does not itself cite its sources... No clear whether or not this is supposed to be a list of home-schooled ''Christians...'' FDR listed, Groton not explained... She also lists Paolini... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:27, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Sources: Adam Yahiye Gadahn: [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian New Yorker] John Walker Lindh: [http://www.blessedcause.org/BlessedCause%20Exclusives%20II/ReelingFromLiesofHM.htm blessedcause.org] Franklin D. Roosevelt: [http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/roosevelt-franklin.htm National Park Service] [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 14:30, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:Good. Thanks. I appreciate it. I'm removing the Wikipedia references because Wikipedia itself does not consider Wikipedia articles reliable sources that can be cited in other articles.

:FDR: I'm adding a note to the FDR entry, because it seems to me to be a borderline case; I don't think private tutors and Groton would be everyone's idea of what is meant by "Christian homeschooling."

:Lindh: I don't really know what to make of the [http://www.blessedcause.org/BlessedCause%20Exclusives%20II/ReelingFromLiesofHM.htm blessedcause.org BlessedCause] reference, both because I don't understand what the site is about... but in any case, I do ''not'' see where it identifies Lindh as being ''Christian'' homeschooled. In fact if I understand the article it says there's a dispute about where he went to school, and says that according to Houghton Mifflin, he went to a public middle school in Marin County—an assertion which the site attacks. The Wikipedia article says he was homeschooled starting at age 12, but does not say he was ''Christian'' homeschooled. Wikipedia's own source for that item (wrongly formatted in the article) is a web page entitled [http://www.rickross.com/reference/islamic/islamic56.htm The Making of John Walker Lindh]. I read it as saying that he was in and out of public schools, and I do not see anything to suggest that his homeschooling resembles what is meant by "Christian homeschooling."

:Gadahn: The source you cite says, pretty clearly I think, "Adam also joined several Christian homeschool support groups. (At the time, nearly all such groups in the region were Christian," so I don't see any question that ''he'' was "Christian homeschooled." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:13, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:Actually, there's a problem of definition here... this article has never defined exactly what the criterion is for inclusion in the list. Gadahn would be a good example of someone who clearly did undergo "Christian homeschooling," and certainly was "homeschooled," but surely was not "a Christian" and therefore not a "homeschooled Christian." I think this could use some discussion. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:36, 26 February 2007 (EST)

::That strikes me as what will be viewed by our critics as pretty obvious nitpicking and cherrypicking of sources. Reading the sources I provided, it's clear that all three had Christian upbringings and were homeschooled, despite their subsequent failings. As for Adam Gadahn, "''The Gadahns homeschooled Adam''" and "''Adam also joined several Christian homeschool support groups''" are clear and explicit. There's no ambiguity there; Adam Gadahn was Christian homeschooled. And the source, The New Yorker, is as good as they get. [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian] If we'd rather not have in the list those who were homeschooled but may be viewed as casting it in a poor light, then let's just come out and say that and not pretend that sources say something other than they do or rely on turns of semantics to contrive justifications for an incomplete list. If our ideas are indeed that strong and compelling, then they can easily withstand being scrutinized in full light of all facts, and to act otherwise by ignoring or dismissing unfavorable facts only undermines our position and claims and invites greater scrutiny. Better to just put all the cards on the table, deal with them and let the chips fall where they may. As I've said before on my talk page, either CP is going to have an accurate and complete article on homeschooling or it's going to have to censor information from it's articles which may be considered unfavorable to its stated orientation, it can't always have both. This is as good an article as any to choose which it's going be, right here, right now. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 13:07, 27 February 2007 (EST)

: I agree that it is hard given this evidence not to list Gadahn. The others are less persuasive. We need to resolve whether this is a list of Christians who were homeschooled, people who were Christian homeschooled, people who are Christian who happen to have been homeschooled, or Christians who were Christian homseschooled (I think that covers the 4 obvious possibilities). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:30, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:: I commented on Harpie's talk page but now realize that the debate is here. I'll only respond here now about this issue.

:: As anyone familiar with homeschool support groups knows, simply hanging around a loosely affiliated group does not make one a "Christian homeschooler" any more than living in a neighborhood makes one a member of the majority religion. The description of Gadahn is clear that he attended Christian homeschooling groups out of necessity, not by choice. This does not make him a Christian homeschooler any more than attending Georgetown Univ. made Bill Clinton a Catholic college student. As to Lindh, there is nothing Christian about his homeschooling or his own religion, so that's not even close.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:44, 27 February 2007 (EST)

::: Notice that if we can agree to let the title of the actual list be "High-achieving Christians who were educated at home," that includes Mozart and excludes Lindh and Gadahn. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:07, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::Frankly the only thing necessary for a run-of-the-mill homeschooler to be a Christian homeschooler is intent on the part of the parents to provide a proper Christian education and action by them to keep them out of school and deliver a superior quality education at home themselves. Reading the New Yorker article it seems clear that this was the intent of the Gadahn's for young <s>Azzam</s> Adam, no matter how terribly they failed: [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian] Now arguing that Adam Gadahn was not Christian homeschooled because he didn't chose to but rather was compelled to is a red herring; many Christian homeschooled children would prefer to be playing ''Left Behind: Eternal Forces'' rather than studying math, so by that standard not many Christian homeschooled children would qualify as being Christian homeschooled. Meaning this rationale again opens us up to the lefty criticism that we exclude unfavorable facts from our articles, in other words, engaging in partisan, ideologically-motivated censorship. So if Aschlafly as the owner of this site really wants to exclude Gadahn as he seems to, we'd better set to work coming up with a reasonable-appearing justification for doing so that has at least a veneer of scholary fairness; regardless of what our motivations are, I'd think we'd want to avoid appearing to be censoring unfavorable facts in order to further our agenda. Thoughts? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 19:58, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::: Harpie, there's no "censorship" or "exclu[sion]" here. The New Yorker article simply does not support the claim that Gadahn was a Christian homeschooler. The article says that, out of necessity, Gadahn was forced to associate with homeschool "support groups" for some of his teenage years. That association not necessarily even education. Every indication is that Gadahn was not Christian then, and is not now either.

:::: Also, I might add, nearly 99% of Christian homeschoolers start early. It seems to me that both Gadahn and Lindh were latecomers to homeschooling long after their personalities and attitudes had formed. Often the latecomers are just passing through and are not influenced much by homeschooling. Contrast that with Mozart.

:::: I think Dpbsmith has proposed an ideal solution. Certainly he captures the intent of the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::::Kind of like a book about "Famous Irish That Don't Drink". This ''is'' a brilliant solution! Now I understand how to handle situations like this. Since we don't engage in censorship or exclusion, we just need to find the right way to frame the issue that by necessity keeps any unfavorable facts out. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 12:25, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I love your sarcastic enthusiasm-- it '''''really''''' strengthens your points more than talking straight could ever hope to. Even so, Ashlafly has a good point; Dpbsmith accurately capptured the intent of the list.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, they say a little bit of honey makes the medicine go down better. Look, I've been in conservative political PR now for nearly 20 years and know a little something about crafting credible, effective messages, and we'd be a lot more credible and better off in the long term were we to follow the rationale I provided above. Our goal should not be to just get out the message, but to get out a credible and compelling one, and this subject and article is just one of many that will face this same issue. If we go around trumpeting our own version of reality while ignoring the one that is shared by all we run the risk of being caricatures of our own cause and ultimately all too easily dismissed by those we hope to convince. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 13:34, 1 March 2007 (EST)

==Expand this article==
I'm not the person to do it. I know nothing about homeschooling, sent both of my kids to public schools (and state universities), hope I've got stuff sorta-kinda right, hope I haven't stepped on any toes, but, this should be an article where there's ''lots'' of expertise available. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:12, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Let me be more emphatic. There could be a '''lot''' more factual material about homeschooling here. Resources. Books. Tips on dealing with the authorities and how to jump through the legal hoops (I assume there are still some to jump through). There's an obvious opportunity here for people to add encyclopedic material that is informed by their personal experience and expertise. Say someone wants to homeschool in New Jersey or whereever. What office do you go to? What forms do you fill out? etc. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:39, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't think this is a good place to try to compile info about state homeschooling laws. There are other places that specialize in that. On the other hand, I agree that the article needs some serious work. Some thoughts:

Parents take a more active role in the education of their children when they homeschool. I'm uncomfortable with this general statement - while in some (many) cases it is true, there are lots of active parents with kids in public or private school (especially small church schools, I'm guessing), and there are homeschooling parents who simply hire a tutor (or several) and let them have at it.

The primary reason for homeschooling is to give the child a better education. A close second in reasons, however, is to avoid the culture of public school and its many adverse effects of hostility to Christianity and parental control, political bias, boredom, confusion, depression, etc.
In fact, different families have different reasons for homeschooling, usually more than one. Religion may (or may not) be a factor; so might the quality of education. But there are other reasons - a child who is not being well-served by the public schools, a child who has a special talent or interest they wish to focus on, a family who wants to travel with dad on business, a family who lives in a very rural area far from schools (or who is sailing around the world, etc.), and so on. Various surveys have been done trying to rank the reasons, but I think we'd be better off with a list of possible reasons rather than trying to rank them. Homeschoolers are notoriously hard to count or survey.

In the United States, opting out of public schools is not new. When Thomas Edison's public school teacher said he was "addled," Edison's mother took him out of public school and taught him at home. But because of compulsory education laws—the first was passed in Massachusetts in 1852, and by 1918 every state had them—schooling at home was a violation of truancy laws, and was rare until the 1970s. 
On the other hand, *lots* of kids were educated at home in earlier centuries, and certain cultures (Native American?) may not have had "schools" at all back then. Also, the 1852 date sounds too late to me, though I could be wrong - can we get a cite there?

:I just added one. There seemed to be one there already. Another, which reads well but not quite sure of the source, is [http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/compulso.html Compulsory Education]. Apparently Horace Mann—whose name is instantly familiar to me as an "educator," but of whom I know little more—was active in getting them to do it. Massachusetts had ''public'' schools much earlier, but apparently they were not compulsory. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Also - is there a reason for listing Christian homeschoolers? Why not just list people who were educated at home (in one form or another), and then give a brief explaination of their situation - e.g. Sandra Day OConnor, educated at home when she was young as the ranch she lived on was very remote, or whatever.

A lot of thoughts - hope they are helpful. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Prominent homeschooled Christians? ==

By your own definition, you have to "opt out" of formal education to be considered "homeschooled." Thus, I'm curious what system DaVinci, Washington, et al, opted out of.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's why, some time ago, I changed the title of the '''list''' to "High-achieving Christians who were educated at home." Homeschooling as we know it in the United States essentially began in the 1970s. This very interesting article on [http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/SAI/homeschool/index.html Homeschoolers: Estimating Numbers and Growth] suggests that there were about a million homeschoolers circa 1998. However, in the "late 1970s and early 1980s" it says "about 10,000 to 15,000" children received their education at home. At a very rough guess, today's U. S. adult population probably includes less than 100,000 people over 21, probably less than 25,000 people over 30, and practically none over 40. Not a large population, and not enough time to become spectacularly high achievers... yet. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:34, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I changed the definition part to remove the "opt out" wording - it is somewhat an attempt to address your concern above, and also an attempt to put the emphasis on what homeschoolers *do* (learn outside of school), than what they *don't do* (go to school). Not perfect, but a step in the right direction, I think. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:35, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. I think that this kind of simplistic list can be a bit meaningless. Better would be a list of people with unconventional educations or minimal formal education with a brief explanation of their circumstances. For example, you could say something like "Benjamin Franklin - had one year of formal schooling, apprenticed with his brother as a printer." (Or whatever - not sure of the details on Franklin, but you get the idea.) I also think that whether the person was Christian could be handled similarly in the brief note, rather than in the heading. In addition, I don't think *anyone* should be on the list unless there is a *citation* to a source explaining their education. See my addition of Andrew Wyeth as an example. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:The nature of the list just boggles my mind. It ignores the point raised by AmesG (which I still read into it despite the "educated at home" part) that "homeschooling" needs a formal alternative to have a meaningful definition. Also, why only Christians? I'm still boggled... [[User:Human|Human]] 22:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Drawbacks ==

I'm moving this here for discussion. As it stands, it seems to me to be pure, unsupported personal opinion:
:Homeschooling is not without its drawbacks. Studies have noted that children who are schooled at home tend to enter the collegiate and working words less socialized than their public and private schooled counterparts. [http://justenough.wordpress.com/2006/10/25/homeschoolers-are-indeed-weird/] This lack of legitimate socialization can produce difficulties in homsechooled childred engaging in meaningful relationships with individuals outside of their family. Additionally, while the public school playground can be seen as a barbaric atmosphere to most kids who are schooled at home, it is important to note that these exigent circumstances can produce valuable conflict prevention skills that pay dividends in all facets of life.

No doubt there are drawbacks to homeschooling. The claim that "children who are schooled at home tend to enter the collegiate and working words less socialized than their public and private schooled counterparts" is, however, referenced only to a blog entry by someone identified only as "Tammy," no other identification or credentials—''and it does not support the statement.'' The title of the entry is "Homeschoolers are indeed weird," but she does ''not'' say homeschoolers are less socialized—that's apparently [[User:Huey gunna getcha]]'s ''interpretation.'' She means "weird" in a good way: tolerant of different opinions and not afraid to express individuality.

The sentence about the "public school playground" providing "valuable conflict prevention skills" is plausible but unsupported. (By the way: are parochial school playgrounds, or non-school playgrounds very different?)

A friend once remarked that he was astonished whenever anyone made reference to "the happy sounds of children at play." "Haven't they actually paid attention when they pass a playground?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:Good catch! I had read that article earlier today and put removing that section on my "to do" list - you beat me to it! FWIW, when looking at homeschoolers and socialization, it's also important to consider that some children are not odd because they are homeschooled, rather, they are homeschooled because they are odd. Homeschooling can be an understanding "safe haven" for those odd kids for whom school may be "barbaric" indeed. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:48, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

i was almost kicked off my baseball team cause i was homeschooled and i was playing for the middle school. i was fortunate to be kept on. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 20:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

http://learninfreedom.org/socialization.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/zysk1.html
http://www.hslda.org/research/ray2003/HomeschoolingGrowsUp.pdf
A few of the thousands of references on Homeschooling and Socialization. As an educator and homeschool parent I have searched for years to find data that supports the claim that homeschoolers are lacking in good social skills. Having met hundreds of HS kids from all ages, I never found one that wasn't able in a wide variety of social situations. Indeed ''all'' of the HS teens I met were a delight to talk with and had no problems talking with adults on a wide range of topics, unlike thier Public or Private or Parochial schooled peers who always seem so sullen and distant around adults they don't know - and even those they do. After searching the academic journals and every other source I could look at, I found a lot of research on HS and Socialization and none that found widespread negative effects. While someone may find a kid here and there as an anecdote to say HS is isolating and promotes poor social development, I could probably come up with dozens of Public, private and parochial school kids to show the alleged deliterious effects of those types of schooling on the social skills of kids. Third Day May 8

==Snipping George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain==
I'm removing

*[[George Bernard Shaw]]
*[[Mark Twain]]

Both men had complex opinions that varied during the course of their lives, but calling them "Christian" is a stretch. My reasons for excluding Shaw are given above. As for Mark Twain, he did write a sympathetic book about Joan of Arc. However, his writings are replete with sarcastic and dismissive remarks about organized religion. He refused to let "Letters from the Earth" be published until after his death. In Mark Twain's Letters, we read:

:From a gentleman in Buffalo Clemens one day received a letter inclosing an incompleted list of the world's "One Hundred Greatest Men," men who had exerted "the largest visible influence on the life and activities of the race." The writer asked that Mark Twain examine the list and suggest names, adding "would you include Jesus, as the founder of Christianity, in the list?" To the list of statesmen Clemens added the name of Thomas Paine; to the list of inventors, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. The question he answered in detail.

Twain's answer was that if the compiler of the list added Jesus, he should also add Satan: "From A.D. 350 to A.D. 1850 these gentlemen exercised a vaster influence over a fifth part of the human race than was exercised over that fraction of the race by all other influences combined. Ninety-nine hundredths of this influence proceeded from Satan, the remaining fraction of it from Jesus."

Twain has been labelled "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist." Gary Sloan suggests ([http://www.writerscramp.ca/archives/mark_twain.htm Mark Twain's Covert War with his Maker]) that he believed in a ''malignant'' God, and says "Viewing Satan as a heroic rebel against the real Archfiend, Twain came to identify with the fallen cherub and often used him as a mouthpiece." Perhaps his views were so complex that he was all of these things and a Christian at the same time, but he was certainly not a Christian as the term is ordinarily meant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:But if they were homeschooled, shouldn't they be in the "other" section of the list? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Sure. That section didn't exist when I removed them; it was a single list of Christians. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Doing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Cleaning up the list - putting uncited people on the talk page==
The list of homeschooled people for whom there are no citations has been here for too long, IMHO. I am moving these people here, to the discussion page. I hope this is OK with all of you. As each person's education is researched and cited, we can add them back to the list, preferably with a brief sentence explaining who they are and what form their education took (as we have now already for several people). As discussed above, I think it will be easier to describe the religious beliefs of each person individually (if needed in this context), rather than try to decide if they are generically Christian or not. Please jump in and research one of these people so we can build up this article. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

: I left in Adam Yahiye Gadahn, John Walker Lindh, George Bernard Shaw, and Mark Twain, because their entries had *something* other than their names, and because they were discussed quite a bit here; however these can/should be improved by adding a brief description of who they are/were, adding a brief description of their education, and/or adding citations, preferably ones that describe their education. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::Cleaned up the George Bernard Shaw entry.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:41, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::If it were up to me I'd make this list contemporary (20th century, maybe 19th too) personalities. As it was pointed out earlier, as the homeschooling term is used today, the majority of these wouldn't count. Also, way back in the day, practically everyone was homeschooled. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Do we really need this comprehensive a list? Isn't it enough to point out a few folks who were homeschooled? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:28, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Folks, I saw that list from a source and have reinserted. I took out the ridiculous Lindh reference and other liberal bias. For example, the entry did not even say that most homeschooling today is done to preserve the Christian faith! Frankly, this entry looked like something one would see on Wikipedia. We're not trying to be like Wikipedia here. Thanks and I'll try to find citations for the names I reinserted. Help is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I saw that list from "a source," too, but it was just that: a list. Some homeschooling-related site. It did not say where the list came from nor did it give any sources at all. I think the list may be just bouncing around the Internet. What was ''your'' source? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::''For example, the entry did not even say that most homeschooling today is done to preserve the Christian faith!'' I'm not sure I agree with this. It is not supported by the citation given for that paragraph. In fact, religion was *third* in the list of reasons for homeschooling provided in the citation, with only 29.8% citing it as their most important reason. If you are going to assert this, it would be best to add an additional citation that backs it up. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:14, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0053.html According to the US Census, 33% cited Religion as a motivation for HS. My citation is older than the one used in this article. Mine says 33% cite religion (not Christianity, but Religion) and the more recent survey cited by ASchafly says 29% cite Religion. Homeschoolin is becoming more and more popular and common and the fastest growing group of HSers are not citeing religion as thier motivation. This is a very interesting development. May 8 [Third Day]

:: OK, fine, I'll look for citations and add them. But I've personally taught over 120 homeschoolers, and I'd say religion is the motivation for 100 or so of them. The other reasons given, such as avoidance of drugs in school, are not even factors for the vast majority of homeschoolers.

:: Also, I will find more citations for the 61 people under the "arguably homeschooled" list and move them to the higher list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:55, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm guessing that your classes are taught from an Evangelical Christian perspective, which would make it less likely that non-Christians would sign up for them. You may also know other Christian homeschoolers from church and other social activities. In addition, Christian homeschooling groups often ask members to sign a statement of faith, effectively excluding those who aren't Christian - if one of these groups is your main contact with the homeschooling community, you will get a very skewed impression of the homeschooling population. So it makes sense that the majority of homeschoolers you know are Christian and that they homeschool "to protect the Christian faith of their children and to preserve their family values." For many Evangelical Christian homeschoolers, this is a good thing - they want to raise their children in a community of people who share their beliefs and values. But there have always been homeschoolers who are doing it for reasons of educational philosophy (wanting more of a child-led approach, or stronger academics than their local public school, or logistics (like if the family travels frequently due to Dad's job), or issues with their particular child (like Aspberger's syndrome), etc.), and this category is growing as homeschooling becomes more mainstream. (Growing Without Schooling, a secular homeschooling magazine, started publication in 1977.) In addition, some of those who homeschool for religious reasons are not Christian - they may be homeschooling to protect the Jewish faith of their children, for example. Certainly personal experience is a useful data point, and surveying homeschoolers can be quite difficult. Perhaps you can find some research to support your claim. Let's just be careful when we extrapolate based on our own experiences. We need to set a good example for our students.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:12, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: Your comment has some truth but lacks a sense of proportion. Parents who homeschool to keep their kids off drugs are about 1/1000th as many as parents who homeschool for Christian purposes. Your comments and edits to the entry seem to avoid recognizing the obvious: the bulk of homeschoolers are doing it for Christian reasons. There is a whole college devoted to this market (Patrick Henry College). How many colleges are there for atheistic homeschoolers? Our entries need to reflect reality, and reality includes proportions. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I completely agree that keeping kids off of drugs does not, in my experience, drive a lot of parents to homeschool. (On the other hand, I do not live in the inner city - my experience might be different than families in whose neighborhoods drugs are a more serious presence.) I would still disagree, though, that the bulk of homeschoolers are doing it for Christian reasons. I know many Evangelical Christian homeschoolers who are homeschooling to preserve their children's Christian faith. However, I also know many homeschoolers of other faiths, and many who are Christian or Catholic but for whom faith is not among their reasons for homeschooling. I wrote the "reasons" paragraph based on the study I cited. I believe someone above cited another study, which also found that it was not the case that a majority of homeschoolers did so for religious reasons. I am willing to believe that my personal observations and these two studies are not representative of the homeschooling population, if we can find something to back that up. These are certianly not the only studies out there, and I think it would be good if we can find some other references to compare to them. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:40, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Arguably Homeschooled ==

How do you define homeschooled? Had some education at home? A formal school education was available but did not attend? Dropped out of school at age something? Without such a definition, many of the names on the list are frankly, silly and/or wishful thinking. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

An example of this - Mark Twain is listed on the list. From the biography of Mark Twain[http://www.marktwainhouse.org/theman/bio.shtml] it reads:
<blockquote>In 1847, when Sam was 11, his father died. Shortly thereafter he left school, having completed the fifth grade, to work as a printer's apprentice for a local newspaper. His job was to arrange the type for each of the newspaper's stories, allowing Sam to read the news of the world while completing his work.</blockquote>
In 1847, a 5th grade education was quite sufficient for day to day life and working as an apprentice for a local newspaper was a reasonable continuation of his education. It is not homeschooling. It would probably be more useful to first put the person on the talk page and figure out if they were homeschooled and then added to the main page rather than put on the main page without refrence and then removed when they don't fit the definition (whatever that may be). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:24, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]. I have found several times in the past that someone on a list of this kind was not actually educated at home. I think, if we are going for a high level of accuracy that befits an encyclopedia, we should do the research ourselves first, using the talk page to discuss. Then we should add the person to the list, and be sure to explain how each person was educated. I don't think we need to have a strict definition of homeschooling; rather, we should describe each person's experience. The result will be a list with an interesting variety of approaches to education.

I've added Mark Twain's famous quote, which is proof enough.

More generally, these lists abound on the internet. I've added a cite. No one really disputes that most or all of these people, and others too, were homeschooled. We can continue to fill in cites, but there is no need to censor this info in the meantime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." I don't think this is proof that he was homeschooled, only that he sees the difference between schooling and education, and realizes that education can come from places other than school. I'd like to know more about his education before adding him to the list. (But your sandbox, etc, so I'll leave him there.)

::I agree that lists such as these abound - but here, a higher standard exists. It is not censorship to be sure something is accurate before adding it to the article proper, and the information is available to all on the talk page while the research is being done. Students who want to use these people as examples in their work should know enough about the individual's education to be sure it is indeed an example of what they are writing about. Brief descriptions of the person's education, along with a cite or two about it, will be very useful to our readers. A list without this information, not so much. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::"Sam was always a good-hearted boy," his mother once remarked, "but he was a very wild and mischievous one, and, do what we would, we could never make him go to school. This used to trouble his father and me dreadfully, and we were convinced that he would never amount to as much in the world as his brothers, because he was not near so steady and sober-minded as they were." At school, he "excelled only in spelling"; outside of school he was the prototype of his own Huckleberry Finn, mischievous and prankish, playing truant whenever the opportunity afforded. "Often his father would start him off to school," his mother once said, "and in a little while would follow him to ascertain his whereabouts. There was a large stump on the way to the schoolhouse, and Sam would take his position behind that, and as his father went past would gradually circle around it in such a way as to keep out of sight. Finally, his father and the teacher both said it was of no use to try to teach Sam anything, because he was determined not to learn. But I never gave up. He was always a great boy for history, and could never get tired of that kind of reading; but he hadn't any use for schoolhouses and text books." <ref>The Project Gutenberg EBook of Mark Twain, by Archibald Henderson
[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/8/7/6873/6873.txt]</ref> I'm not sure that I would consider this to be homeschooling, especially as his truancy was against his parents' wishes, though he certainly had an autodidact's view of education. I have added a fuller discription of his education to the article, so that readers can decide for themselves. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm breaking my self-imposed examtime exile to ask this question. Isn't it kind of facetious to say that most of those people were homeschooled, when no formal schooling existed? It's sort of like making a big fuss out of someone from the 1600s being a creationist - of course he was, there was no alternative! Or, like saying, "Jesus didn't believe in global warming." Well... of course not. The controversy didn't exist back then. It creates an idea of conscious choice and rejection of an idea, when there was no such thing. Example: Joan of Arc? There were no formal schools in France at the time. Put another way, could you name someone from before 1700 who was ''not'' homeschooled until college? Just seems a little facetious to me. K, back to the books.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 00:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: The point is not to say that someone succeeded by rejecting public school, but that someone succeeded from homeschooling. The latter observation is true and meaningful regardless of whether public schools existed. We don't care as much '''why''' someone was homeschooled as whether it was effective.

:: Sure, I can think of people who lived before 1700 but were not homeschooled: the illiterate, of whom there were many.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:11, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Sure, that's true. But the point that others are making is that the tone of the article suggests that you're suggesting that they rejected public schools, or were part of the homeschooling "movement." Would you mind if I clarified it, to better express your point, or would you like to? Perhaps something like, "Even before public schools were active, homeschooling produced many successful people worldwide. Here are some examples"? -'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 01:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::A previous version had such a statement - I think something like that should be included. I would also argue that the statement "a disproportionate number of achievers have benefited from being homeschooled" has not been cited or proved, and I'm not sure it's accurate or (from a historical perspective), even meaningful. (See the Harvard discussion above, though of course college admittance is not a great measure of success in life - but that's a whole 'nother conversation.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: The problem with your approach is that most of the people on the list did reject formal or public school, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think that's true for many of the historical figures. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the list, if it actually describes the education each person had, shows that there are a wide variety of approaches to education which can be successful. This can be very useful in an age where educational standardization is being pushed - having all kids learn the same material in the same grade, etc. It's also nice for homeschooled kids to see that they are not so much an oddity as part of a long line of people who did a significant amount of learning outside of school. There's a reason you often see lists of successful minorities - it is very helpful to members of the minority group to havfe these role models, even if their lives aren't exactly parallel. I agree that it's problematic to call it "homeschooling" before, say, the last 50-100 years, but "educated at home", or "educated outside of formal schools" usually fits. At the same time, I think a long list of names without individualized information about their education is not particularly useful, and quite frankly lowers the standard of research and accuracy here. Again, we are setting an example for the students, homeschooled and not, who we expect will use this information in their work. If we expect them to present work that is well-researched and cited from credible sources which are themselves clearly well-researched, shouldn't we be doing the same?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

#In place of the list ''in the article'', how about tagging each person's biography page with [[:Category:Homeschooled]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
#Anyone educated before 1850 was probably not given "[[compulsory education]]" in the Mann or Dewey sense. In ''[[Little Women]]'' Mrs. March kept Amy home and had Jo teach her. Nothing unusual about that. We need an article on [[Primary education]] or [[History of education]] that gets into that. What proportion of children were educated, and how well? When and where? The one-room schoolroom, or a huge mega-school divided into grades by age? How about [[Educational reform]]s or "fads" like [[Whole language]] and its attack on [[phonics]], the [[New math]] and its ineffective ways of teaching [[arithmetic]]? (I'm tutoring some of my friends' kids, and it's a nightmare trying to counter the knuckleheaded strategies they mandate for doing "[[word problem]]s". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:41, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: It's enlightening to have the list in one easy-to-access place. It's striking. You might add your Little Women point also.
::: Arguably, the category would be easier to access than an article and would be dynamically updated as new biographies were added. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: As I said last night, the point is not that these individuals rejected public school (though many did), the point is that they achieved based on homeschooling. Why they homeschooled is a separate, and less important, issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I like the idea of a "homeschooled" category. However, I also like the list we are beginning to create here, assuming that we are careful to include a brief description of each person's education. It's very informative and inspiring to see the wide variety of ways these people were educated.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Christopher Paolini ==
[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], could you explain why you deleted Christopher Paolini from the list? He is a modern homeschooler, a best-selling author of a YA book series, and was clearly homeschooled. The list entry (copied below), was detailed and cited. Isn't this the kind of thing we want in the list? I haven't read his books -- perhaps there is an issue with their content I am unaware of? I'm not trying to challenge this decision, I just want to understand it. (Or perhaps it was a mistake?) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:27, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::* [[Christopher Paolini]] (1983-), the author of the Inheritance Trilogy (Eragon, Eldest, and a third book yet unreleased). He was home-schooled by his parents, through an accredited correspondence course from the American School in Chicago, Illinois, from which he graduated with his high school diploma at 15 years of age. <ref>Book Browse Author Biography: Christopher Paolini[http://www.bookbrowse.com/biographies/index.cfm?author_number=934]</ref>

:::Originally, it was a list of "High-achieving Christians who were educated at home" (well, actually it was "homeschooled Christians" but I proposed the title change to bypass issues about the meaning of the word "homeschooled.") This was the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&oldid=10078 original list]. Paolini was added later, and there was some issue about whether he was Christian. I don't know whether that's why Aschlafly didn't include him, or whether Aschlafly just wanted to go back to a list whose sincerity he trusts... some people had fun from time to time adding names of individuals educated at home who are better described as "notorious" than as "high-achieving." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The list could have come from [http://www.home4schoolgear.com/famoushomeschooler.html here] or [http://www.christianhomeschoolers.com/hs_famous_homeschoolers.html here] or [http://www.homeschoolacademy.com/famoushomeschoolers.htm here] or [http://www.itwillpass.com/facts_famous_homeschoolers.shtml here]. There's probably one source for all of them but none of them credit it, much less give references for the individuals named being educated at home.

::::I've seen many of these lists over the years, almost none with explanations.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 17:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Of the few I fact-checked, some had problems. All of these Web lists, for example, list Franklin D. Roosevelt without comment, but Groton is not ''my'' idea of being educated at home. Conservapedia's article is currently adequately clear about Roosevelt's education. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:03, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Yes - exactly. That's why I keep going on and on about how important it is to give a brief description of each person's education - it shows the Conservapedia reader/user what form the person's education took (leaving the *reader* to decide if it counts as "homeschooling" for the reader's purposes), and in researching the brief description, we are also validating the list. I think it's just way more useful if it has been annotated in this way.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 17:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Reference 6==
I don't understand reference 6 in the article. What does it refer to? [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 11:25, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think it's supposed to say "''ibid.''" I think there is a wiki markup that can be used to refer to a previously cited link, which is useful in case someone puts another footnote in between the 1st and 2nd cites, screwing up the "''ibid''" concept. But I forget how to do it. [[User:Human|Human]] 11:59, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: "id" is short for "ibid". It's supposed to refer to the preceding reference, though it possible another reference was inserted between the two.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:11, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Use the "name" feature of the ref tag. Format the first reference like this, with the actual reference text:
*<nowiki><ref name=cp>[http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia], main page</ref></nowiki>
Format subsequent references like this:
*<nowiki><ref name=cp/></nowiki>

Repeated instances of the same reference name show up in the text with the same number. In the references section itself, the entry will contain links back to all the places in the text where the named reference appeared.

Example:

'''Markup:'''

<nowiki>
Some examples of wikis include Conservapedia<ref name=cp>[http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia], main page</ref>, the FoxPro wiki<ref>[http://fox.wikis.com FoxPro wiki], main page</ref>, and the CaptainWiki sailing wiki<ref>[http://captainwiki.com/ CaptainWiki], Cruising guides and sailing blogs</ref>.

Conservapedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia with an emphasis on the conservative point of view.<ref name=cp/>
</nowiki>

'''Result:'''

Some examples of wikis include Conservapedia<ref name=cp>[http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia], main page</ref>, the FoxPro wiki<ref>[http://fox.wikis.com FoxPro wiki], main page</ref>, and the CaptainWiki sailing wiki<ref>[http://captainwiki.com/ CaptainWiki], Cruising guides and sailing blogs</ref>.

Conservapedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia with an emphasis on the conservative point of view.<ref name=cp/>

==Disproportionate?==
There have been two introductory sentences to our list of prominent homeschoolers:
*''Throughout history, a disproportionate{{fact}} number of achievers have benefited from being homeschooled. Here is a growing list of some of them:''
*''Throughout history, some high-profile people have been educated at home, though it should be noted that prior to the 19th century most children worldwide were educated within their family. Here is a list of some of them:''
:I think the first sentence is problematic because it makes a claim that is not supported by any kind of citation (''disproportionate''). I also think it would be hard to prove such a claim, because people's education was so varied before the twentieth century. For example, I don't mind including Mark Twain in our list of people educated outside of formal schooling, because I think he is an interesting case of someone who didn't have much of a traditional school-based education, yet went on to become a writer whose works are still in print a century later. However, I think many people of his time had only a 5th grade education, so if we were going to seriously look at the numbers, I don't think we could count him as "homeschooled". Can we work together here to come up with a sentence we can all agree on? Here's my first attempt (below) - please feel free to use it as a starting point for creating something better. Let's work on this here on the talk page until we reach consensus. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:47, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
*''Throughout history, some prominent people have received some or all of their education outside of formal schooling. (Note that prior to the 19th century, many children were educated at home.) Here is a growing list of people whose educational backgrounds were quite different than today's norm.''

==Spelling of Homeschooling==
[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] - Can I get some advice - I think you're probably the best person to ask. The Williams article uses "''home-schoolers''", which is largely rejected by the homeschooling community (at least in my experience). Should it get a (sic), especially since the article here uses ''homeschoolers''? (This whole spelling thing is a pet peeve of many homeschoolers.) Oh, and nice job on the college paragraph - and a double super nice job on the Mothers Day article! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:49, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks!

:Re the "spelling thing:" it's an issue I was unaware of. What's disliked about the hyphen? For what it's worth, the American Heritage Dictionary says:
::'''homeschool'''
::VARIANT FORMS: or home-school
::VERB: Inflected forms: home·schooled, home·school·ing, home·schools
::TRANSITIVE VERB: to instruct (a pupil, for example) in an educational program outside of established schools, especially in the home.
::INTRANSITIVE VERB: To provide educational instruction in a homeschool.
::NOUN: A school operated outside established educational institutions, especially in a home.
::OTHER FORMS: homeschooler
::[http://www.bartleby.com/61/30/H0253050.html]

:Their giving "home-school" as a "variant" would justify a ''[sic]'', so let's do that. Unfortunately there's another question: is a homeschooler a ''teacher,'' as their definition suggests, and, if so, what is the right word for a homeschooled ''pupil?''
:Anyway, sure, for now let's just put in the [sic] without explanation... until someone feels like writing a section on terminology and usage. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:37, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::''What's disliked about the hyphen?'' OK - not sure if I can write this well enough to make sense, but here goes. It's kind of like breastfeeding vs. breast feeding. It's the difference between a noun modified by an adjective, vs. a noun with a separate meaning. That is, breastfeeding is more than just feeding at the breast, more than just a different kind of feeding - it also provides antibodies to protect against disease, it has beneficial effects on mom's body, etc. Thus it deserves a noun all to itself. Same with homeschooling. It's more/different than just schooling that happens at home. Homeschooling includes opportunities and approaches to education that are dramatically different than what you'd find in school. Homeschooling is also often integrated into family life, so much so that it is often impossible to differentiate between the two. For example, reading a book for pleasure - for school kids, this is a "home" activity that has nothing to do with school. For homeschoolers, it is both school and not-school, wrapped up in each other (though of course both sets of kids obviously learn from reading on their own). In fact, homeschoolers talk about people doing "school at home", which generally describes trying to re-create the school model in the home without taking advantage of any of the benefits unique to homeschooling. It is not generally used in a positive context. "Home schooling" or "home-schooling" is often seen in articles written *about* homeschoolers by someone else - many spell checkers will flag "homeschooling", and many journalists will insist that their style guidelines don't allow "homeschooling". Nonetheless, almost everything written *by* homeschoolers uses the one-word form. It's one of those "call members of a minority what they want to be called" issues. (BTW - not trying to make a value judgment here - though I enjoy homeschooling, and it's been good for my kids, I think different kinds of schooling are appropriate for different kids & families - there is no "one best way" to educate children, IMHO.)
::As to who is the homeschooler, I would use "she is homeschooled" or "she is homeschooling" or "she is a homeschooler" to refer to the student; "she is homeschooling" or "she is a homeschooling mom" or "she homeschools her kids" to refer to the mom. "She is a homeschooler" referring to the mom is less common, I think because mom can't homeschool without the kids, but I would hesitate to call it incorrect - I would prefer "she is homeschooling" or "she homeschools". "They are homeschoolers", referring to the family, is appropriate. I guess when you're referring to the students and teacher(s) collectively it's right to call them all homeschoolers, but not so much the teacher by herself. (Excuse the sexist language here!)
::Note that in some states there is language that comes from the laws in that state. In some states, homeschoolers must be enrolled in some kind of "umbrella school" which provides oversight - technically, these are private school students. In Britain, homeschoolers are "educated otherwise" (if I remember right), from a phrase in their law. In Pennsylvania law there is no such thing as homeschooling - children are "home educated" or "privately tutored" or "enrolled in a public cyber-charter school" - this last one is very controversial, as most independent homeschoolers insist that students in schools run by the government are not homeschoolers, even if they do school at home. (Got that?! Public cyber-charter schools are essentially publicly-funded internet-based correspondence schools.) The idea here is that we must be careful not to confuse, especially in the mind of the general public and the legislature, traditional self-funded homeschooling and publicly-funded school-at-home. The concern is that such confusion could lead to more governmental oversight - if government money is being spent, then accountability (and control, and standardization) soon follows, and with accountability homeschoolers tend to be forced into doing things in a very school-at-home way, which many of us feel takes away the most effective parts of homeschooling. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Got it. Well articulated. The points about publicly-funded officially-supervised schooling at home is interesting. I think these topics ought to be touched on in the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:36, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Notice something ==

Notice that all the famous people home schooled are very old or even dead? Hard to imagine Stephen Hawking being home schooled.

:Homeschooling as a modern phenomenon has only been around for a short time. As most people who become famous for Great Things do so later in life, it will be a while before the results of this Grand Experiment emerge. In addition, many Christian homeschoolers aspire to paths that don't typically result in fame, such as missionary work, etc. Still, point taken - we should add some modern folks.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:39, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Realizing that homeschooling is primarily an alternative to public schools. Most homeschooling parents homeschool their children because for whatever reason they are dissatisfied with the public schools. I think that it harms the credability of this website to smack the label of homeschooling on anyone who predates public schools as we now think of them; ''most'' people back then would fit the loose standard for "homeschooled" on this page. For example, Jesus is listed as "arguably homeschooled". There is really can be no evidence for this and even if ther was his education would probably not fit our idea of homeschooling today--[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 16:49, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

==Daniel Webster - Homeschooled? Or not so much?==

I'm not convinced that Daniel Webster can be described as "homeschooled", even though he got some college-prep tutoring. Here's what I've found about his education, combined with what [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] has written. FWIW, the Dartmouth site is the most extensive, with lots of useful quotes from primary sources; the Notable Names site ''("updated as weather permits")'' seems the least scholarly, but I'm not finding much contradiction. There is a heck of a lot of schooling here, at a level way beyond most people of his time. I welcome everyone's thoughts.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:::*[[Daniel Webster]] (1782-1852), prominent U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, recognized as one of the greatest orators in history. As the author of the first American dictionary, he is considered the father of the English language in America. Born in Salisbury, N.H., he attended district schools<ref>Biographical Directory of the United States Congress: Daniel Webster[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=W000238]</ref> as a young lad.<ref>Daniel Webster And the War on the Second Bank of the United States, By Paul J. Rastatter[http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2004_winter_spring/webster.htm]</ref> He attended [[Phillips-Exeter Academy]] for about nine months in 1794. <ref>Notable Names Database Weblog: Daniel Webster[http://www.nndb.com/people/445/000024373/]</ref> Webster was then tutored by the Rev. Samuel Wood to prepare him to pass the rigorous oral exam required for entrance to Dartmouth.<ref>Dartmouth: Daniel Webster: Class of 1801:
Scholarly Pursuits[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/1801/scholar.html]</ref> In August of 1797<ref>Dartmouth: Daniel Webster: Class of 1801: The Road to Dartmouth[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/1801/scholar.html]</ref>, at the age of 16,<ref>Daniel Webster And the War on the Second Bank of the United States, By Paul J. Rastatter[http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2004_winter_spring/webster.htm]</ref> he enrolled in Dartmouth College, from which he graduated in 1801. <ref>Dartmouth: Daniel Webster: Class of 1801[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/exhibit.html]</ref>

: Why doesn't this prove that Daniel Webster was homeschooled for high school? In addition, the passing reference about attending "district school" before that would not have amounted to much in the 1700s, particularly in New Hampshire. Those schools were not full-time school like today, and he would likely have learned the basics at home. The other links to Webster don't even mention the "district schools."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::I've been a bit confused about when he was at Exeter - looking into it further, according to a biography he wrote in 1829, he entered in May, 1796 and he left in Jan 1797.<ref>OLD STURBRIDGE VILLAGE - Online Resource Library: Daniel Webster, Autobiography, 1829[https://www.osv.org/learning/DocumentViewer.php?Action=View&DocID=1077]</ref> He was with Rev. Woods for no more than 7 months - he started in Feb 1797 and by Aug 1797 he had entered Dartmouth. As to the district schools, it sounds like his family went to great lengths to have him attend them. From the same source: ''My father seemed to have no higher object in the world, than to educate his children, to the full extent of his very limited ability. No means were within his reach, generally speaking but the small town schools. These were kept by teachers, sufficiently indifferent, in the several neighborhoods of the township, each a small part of the year. To these I was sent, with the other children. When the school was in our neighborhood, it was easy to attend; when it removed to a more distant district* I followed it, still living at home…When it removed still further, my father sometimes boarded me out*, in a neighboring family, so that I could still be in the school.'' I don't think we can ignore this, even if he, like many "youngest kids", learned to read from his mother or siblings at home. I can see your point, but I think it's a stretch to include him. Let's hear what other folks think.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:27, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

: The Phillips-Exeter dates look wrong. People don't start high school in May at age 17. Nor would it make sense for Rev. Woods to tutor Webster for only a few months. There is at least a three year gap there to prepare for college, as one would expect, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::He would have been about 14 (1796 minus 1782), which jives with a couple of other sources which mention his age but not the year. The 1794 date comes from the Notable Names Database Weblog article, which doesn't look particularly scholarly and includes no citations. We could work it out more accurately if we looked up his birthday. [Why don't I do that! He was born January 18, 1782, which would make him 14 in May of 1796 when he entered Exeter (according to the autobiography quote), and 15 (give or take a few days) when he left. He would have started with Rev. Wood at 15, and been almost 16 (well, 15 1/2) by the time he began Dartmouth in Aug 1797.] I agree that May sounds like an odd time to start school, but I believe the British system, on which Phillips-Exeter may have been modeled, has different terms (semesters) than we are used to. 14 is the right age for high school today, and I do believe Dartmouth as to the dates he was there. Perhaps we can find more information to verify or refute the Exeter dates. Don't forget that Rev. Woods had planned to have Webster for longer: ''Mr. Wood put me upon Virgil and Tully; and I conceived a pleasure in the study of them, especially the latter, which rendered application no longer a task... In the spring I began the Greek grammar, and at midsummer Mr. Wood said to me: "I expected to keep you till next year, but I am tired of you, and I shall put you into college next month.'' <ref>Dartmouth: Daniel Webster: Class of 1801:
Scholarly Pursuits[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/1801/scholar.html]</ref> He also said that he was ''miserably prepared, both in Latin and Greek'', which is not surprising if he only studied for a few months! (Same source)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:48, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, here we go. Phillips Exeter themselves put the date as May 14, 1796, age 14. <ref>Phillips Exeter Academy: Academy Chronology[http://www.exeter.edu/libraries/4513_4622.aspx]</ref>--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==The Wright Brothers - Homeschooled? Or not?==
The article says:
:::*[[The Wright Brothers|Orville and Wilbur Wright]], inventors of the airplane. They did attend some school, but also learned at home from their father, who was a conservative minister, and their mother, who was the top mathematician in her college class.<ref>http://www.first-to-fly.com/History/Just%20the%20Facts/family.htm</ref> Neither Wright Brother earned a high school diploma, let alone college, and Orville Wright left high school after his junior year.<ref>http://www.first-to-fly.com/History/Just%20the%20Facts/trivia.htm</ref>
:Looking at the sources given, I saw that both brothers went to school, that Wilbur earned a high school diploma (but never picked up his certificate), and Orville left after 11th grade. While their parents taught them some interesting things (as do all good parents), I didn't see anything that implied that this was ever in lieu of going to school. While I'd love to claim these two as "one of us" (homeschoolers, that is), the sources given don't seem to give me any grounds to do so. Am I missing something? I'd like us to have a strong, well-researched list of people with interesting educational backgrounds. I welcome everyone's thoughts. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:22, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
==Update==
I have cleaned up the two lists of homeschoolers based on the discussions above. I have removed the Wright Brothers and Daniel Webster - if further research and discussion in the sections above shows them to be homeschoolers, we can add them back in. I have also moved two people from the first list to the second, because they didn't have any explanation of their education or any references. Because of our experience with the Wrights and Webster, we must view anyone on a "Famous Homeschooler" list we find on the internet with skepticism - they ''may'' have been homeschooled, but we should be careful to document their actual education before adding them to the first list. It would probably to be a good idea to change the paragraph introducing the second list to make it clear that these people have not been researched or verified as homeschoolers. By the way, thanks to everyone who has contributed to this article - I think it is shaping up nicely!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:23, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Joan of Arc ==
I've been researching Joan of Arc's education, and I'm not sure it qualifies as homeschooling, at least as we think of homeschooling today. She was taught religion and domestic skills by her mother, as are most girls, then and now. She could not read or write, and I found nothing about her going to school or being taught any academic skills. So while (like most children of her time) she did not go to school, and while I have great respect for traditional women's skills and the way they have been passed from mother to daughter for centuries (regardless of whether the daughters also went to school or not), I don't think I would consider this to be "homeschooling" - it is, IMHO, "mothering" or "raising your daughter" - the kinds of things that most mothers do for their daughters. Below are a few quotes. Thoughts? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:07, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:''As a child she was taught domestic skills as well as her religion by her mother. Joan would later say, "As for spinning and sewing, I fear no woman in Rouen." And again, "It was my mother alone who taught me the 'Our Father' and 'Hail Mary' and the 'Creed;' and from none other was I taught my faith."''<ref>A Short Biography of Saint Joan of Arc[http://www.stjoan-center.com/#bio]</ref>

:''She never learned to read or write but was skilled in sewing and spinning...''<ref>New Advent - Catholic Encyclopedia - St. Joan of Arc[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm]</ref>

:''"It was from my mother that I learned the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, and the Credo", and "to sew linen fabrics and to spin wool, and when it comes to spinning and sewing I fear no woman..."''<ref>Biography of Joan of Arc[http://joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_biography.html]</ref>

That is homeschooling. There is no requirement that homeschooling include a particular curriculum. Joan of Arc should be included. It is not true that most mothers teach religion, the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, the Credo and skills to their public-schooled children. I'll revert the deletion of her name, even using your cites above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

::''It is not true that most mothers teach religion, the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, the Credo and skills to their public-schooled children.'' I'm not sure what you mean here - do you mean that most mothers don't teach religion at all? Or that most mothers of public-schooled children don't? I'm talking here of religious families. If those mothers (and of course fathers) don't teach their children religion, who does? I think that, in a devout home, most kids learn the Lord's Prayer etc. (or whatever prayers are appropriate for their religion) from their mother or their father - hearing their parents say them daily, during mealtime and bedtime prayers, etc. They also hear it from other family members and in church. It's woven into the fabric of their family life. I think that's even more the case in Joan of Arc's time. In a devout home, children learn these things even before they are of school age. In addition, girls throughout history learned spinning and sewing because that was their job in the family - the same way children today learn to load the dishwasher or to mow the lawn. Is it homeschooling? I can see both sides of it, and if you feel strongly that Joan of Arc should be included, then that's OK with me. But in terms of our list of famous homeschoolers, I don't think it makes sense to individually list all those people from earlier times who learned religion and basic life skills (and maybe even a trade) from their parents and never even had the opportunity to go to school. Perhaps it would be best to address it by writing a paragraph explaining that learning by your parents' side was the norm for the vast majority of people in those days - going to school was only for the elite. We could rename our list "Prominent people of the Modern Era who were educated at home" - well, "of the modern era" isn't great, but I'm sure we could think of something better - "Of the last 350 years" perhaps. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:29, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Joan of Arc was homeschooled. This isn't complex. No, most parents of public-schooled children do NOT teach their children the things that Joan of Arc learned at home. Were most children who went on to achievement homeschooled at the time of Joan of Arc? I don't know, but that fact does not affect whether Joan of Arc was homeschooled. She was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, by this logic you could include every human being prior to about 1700, and even most humans after 1700. In Joan of Arc's time, there were no public primary schools, therefore nearly everyone was educated by their parents. [[User:NonXtianConservative|NonXtianConservative]] 14:42, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, that doesn't follow. Not everyone who failed to attend a [[public school]] was homeschooled. Ever heard of [[Plato's Academy]]? That was a few years before 1700.

:: The point of this entry is not to criticize [[public schools]] anyway. But if you want to insert a ''supported'' statement that [[public schools]] did not exist before 1700, please go ahead and do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:45, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Plato's academy was the equivalent of secondary and post secondary education, not primary education. Children learned to read and write from their parents, and so it follows that if their parents couldn't read or write, then the children almost certainly wouldn't be able to either.

:::Even into Joan of Arc's time, formal education was the province of the noble classes and what little group schooling existed was conducted by the church, not the state. Since most people were not members of a noble family, they would not have been educated in a group setting, but instead instructed by their parents. It wasn't until the advent of state sponsored public schooling that formal education became more widespread.

:::I realize that your goal is to present homeschooling as superior to public schooling, and you think that by presenting these towering giants of history as homeschooled that it helps your case, but the truth is that what you call homeschooling was the de facto method of learning for the vast majority of humanity the world over, and the handful of great individuals that arose from it are a measure of statistics, not of the superiority of the home-school. Certainly, if you're the child of a Bill Gates or a Richard Feynman you might get more at the foot of your parent than in an average public school, but if you're the son of Joe Ditchdigger or Jane Grocery Bagger then you're likely better off in a public school. A parent who is not well educated themselves is unlikely to be able to instruct their children to become better educated than they are. [[User:NonXtianConservative|NonXtianConservative]] 15:56, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

== George Washington Carver ==
Yet again, when researching someone on the "Arguably Homeschooled" list, I've come up with little support for the argument. George Washington Carver, born a slave, didn't go to school until age 10, but I'm not sure I would call his education before this "homeschooling". More accurately, his education was delayed until he could attend school. The lack of schooling is '''not''' the same thing as homeschooling. What do you all think? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:26, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:''Carver was born a slave near Diamond, Missouri, during the American Civil War (1861-1865). Around age ten he left the farm where he was born and traveled through the Midwest doing odd jobs to support his education. Carver studied constantly and attended schools wherever possible, finally graduating from high school in Minneapolis, Kansas, in 1885. That same year he passed the entrance examination at Highland College in northeastern Kansas. But when school officials learned he was black, he was prevented from attending. In 1891 Carver was admitted to the Iowa State College of Agricultural and Mechanical Arts (now Iowa State University) in Ames. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in 1894, becoming the first black to graduate from the college. After graduation, Carver was appointed to the faculty as an assistant botanist. While teaching, he pursued his master’s degree, studying fungus diseases and classification of plants. In 1896 he received his master’s degree. That year, at the invitation of American educator Booker T. Washington, Carver became the director of agricultural research at Tuskegee Institute, where he remained for the rest of his life.''<ref>MSN Encarta Encyclopedia - George Washington Carver article[http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574196/Carver_George_Washington.html]</ref>
:''He began his formal education at the age of twelve, which required him to leave the home of his adopted parents. Schools segregated by race at that time with no school available for black students near Carver's home. He moved to Newton County in southwest Missouri, where he worked as a farm hand and studied in a one-room schoolhouse. He went on to attend Minneapolis High School in Kansas. College entrance was a struggle, again because of racial barriers. At the age of thirty, Carver gained acceptance to Simpson College in Indianola, Iowa, where he was the first black student. Carver had to study piano and art and the college did not offer science classes. Intent on a science career, he later transferred to Iowa Agricultural College (now Iowa State University) in 1891, where he gained a Bachelor of Science degree in 1894 and a Master of Science degree in bacterial botany and agriculture in 1897.'' <ref>George Washington Carver, By Mary Bellis[http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa041897.htm]</ref>

==Leonardo da Vinci==
Here is another from the Arguably Homeschooled list for whom I've been able to find little evidence of homeschooling. Perhaps further searching will turn up more. Until then, I suggest we take da Vinci off the list. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:00, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:''In Vinci Leonardo went to school. Vasari told that teachers of Leonardo da Vinci were despaired about all the questions and doubts of Leonardo. Leonardo learned at school to write, to read and to calculate. Also he was taught in geometry and Latin. Later Leonardo tried to improve his knowledge in Latin, because he thought that he didn't learn enough at school in Latin. Perhaps this is the reason why Leonardo did his notes in Italian. Leonardo lived in Vinci until 1466. With the age of 14 Leonardo moved to Florence where he began an apprenticeship in the workshop of Verrocchio.''<ref>Leonardo da Vinci[http://www.kausal.com/leonardo/childhood.html]</ref>

==Our "Arguably Homeschooled" list is proving to be very inaccurate.==
While I understand the logic of having the list in the article, I am finding so many people on the list to have educational backgrounds that I would not consider to be homeschooling that I think we need to reconsider. I suggest we move the list back to the talk page - the level of error is just too high to consider this list credible. Once researched, people who are shown to actually have been educated at home can be put on the "Prominent people who were educated at home" list, along with an explanation of their education and citations showing the facts. Thoughts? Opinions? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:00, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:Indeed. Some very basic fact checking shows that a number of the people on the list were clearly not homeschooled. Both were added by Mr Schlafly. Andy, are you just pulling these names from your nether regions, or did you bother to check if what you were posting was actually accurate? I notice you've removed some of my additions, who were certainly homeschooled since they lived in countries without formal education systems. Why was this done, Andy? Because they weren't Christian? I thought Non Christian Conservatives were welcome here... that's what your front page says. [[User:NonXtianConservative|NonXtianConservative]] 22:11, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

==Famous Dropouts vs. Famous Homeschoolers==
This reference <ref> Education Reform.net - List of Successful Dropouts [http://www.education-reform.net/dropouts.htm]</ref>, currently in the Arguably Homeschooled section, is a list of dropouts, not a list of homeschoolers. While some overlap is possible, and a few people on the list are indeed arguably homeschooled, most are not. I do not think we should be equating dropouts with homeschoolers. I think we should keep the reference here on the talk page, to get ideas for adding to the list of Prominent People who were Educated at Home. I think it may be a good idea to remove it from the Arguably Homeschooled section. Thoughts? Input?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:40, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

==Henri Poincaré==
I am a bit confused about Poincare's education. While I have found several references stating that his mother tutored him, it's unclear whether this was just during his illness with diphtheria. It's unclear when he was ill, or how long he was ill. He entered school at age 8 and stayed there 11 years, going on to higher education after that. Most of the references I found seem to rely on (or copy) the entry from the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is not clear. Personally, I'm not comfortable calling him "homeschooled" without further clarification of his education. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:47, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:''Henri was "... ambidextrous and was nearsighted; during his childhood he had poor muscular coordination and was seriously ill for a time with diphtheria. He received special instruction from his gifted mother and excelled in written composition while still in elementary school." In 1862 [when he would have been about 8] Henri entered the Lycée in Nancy (now renamed the Lycée Henri Poincaré in his honour). He spent eleven years at the Lycée and during this time he proved to be one of the top students in every topic he studied. Henri was described by his mathematics teacher as a "monster of mathematics" and he won first prizes in the concours général, a competition between the top pupils from all the Lycées across France. Poincaré entered the École Polytechnique in 1873, graduating in 1875. He was well ahead of all the other students in mathematics but, perhaps not surprisingly given his poor coordination, performed no better than average in physical exercise and in art. Music was another of his interests but, although he enjoyed listening to it, his attempts to learn the piano while he was at the École Polytechnique were not successful. Poincaré read widely, beginning with popular science writings and progressing to more advanced texts. His memory was remarkable and he retained much from all the texts he read but not in the manner of learning by rote, rather by linking the ideas he was assimilating particularly in a visual way. His ability to visualise what he heard proved particularly useful when he attended lectures since his eyesight was so poor that he could not see the symbols properly that his lecturers were writing on the blackboard. After graduating from the École Polytechnique, Poincaré continued his studies at the École des Mines.''<ref>Jules Henri Poincaré[http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Poincare.html]</ref>

:: It is completely clear that he was homeschooled at least until age 8. The date of entry in the Lycee high school seems too early, and it seems unlikely he spent 11 years in high school. Regardless, he was homeschooled in learning the fundamentals of reading and math, and likely learned far more from his "gifted" mother.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

== Citation needed ==
''Throughout history, a remarkably high percentage of accomplished people were homeschooled...''
[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], much as I, as a homeschooling mom, would love to believe this, we simply cannot state it in the article without backing it up with a citation. Everything we post here must be true and verifiable. We must always cite and give credit to our sources. We must be careful not to post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry like this. These are Conservapedia's rules, not mine, and they are good ones. Let's show our students that we are serious about the rules by leading by example - we must stick to the rules if we expect others to do so. Thus, we need a credible citation for this statement. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:59, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

: That sentence introduces the paragraph and list of examples that support it, with citations. 4 out of the top 4 modern mathematicians were homeschooled. That's 100% of the smartest group of achievers. The person considered the greatest president (Abraham Lincoln) was homeschooled. That's 100% of the top. The greatest female military leader was homeschooled. That's 100%. It's not just one citation that backs up the sentence, it is many citations and examples.

: Hsmom, your repeated objections, like your objection above to the undisputed fact that Joan of Arc was homeschooled, are getting tiresome. Add some content to the entry rather than object to the facts, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

== Joan of Arc ==

Is it really accurate to say that Joan of arc was "homeschooled" in the sense of the word that this article is about. Not a lot of kids - and even fewer girls - of the lower classes got much schooling of ANY type during the Middle Ages. Most, if not all of children's education, what precious little of it there was for French peasants, would have been at home. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 17:40, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

: OK, so Joan of Arc and many others were homeschooled in her class and time period. That doesn't detract from the point: Joan of Arc was homeschooled and then became one of the greatest military leaders of all time.

: Your criticism has been raised by others in the past, all of whom view this entry as tit-for-tat, homeschooling versus alternatives. But that's not what this entry is about. This entry simply proves that homeschooling has been extraordinarily successful in its own right, regardless of alternatives. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Fair Inclusion ==

I've been trying to add William Bonney (Billy the Kid) and John Wesley Hardin, two famous American outlaws, and they keep getting deleted. I don't understand why. Both are certainly prominent, and both are homeschooled at least to the same extent as inclusions like Lincoln, Twain, and Joan of Arc. Obviously they don't paint a rosy picture of homeschooling, but doesn't blocking their entry present only one side of the argument (the pro-homeschooling side)?

: Provide some evidence for your claims, as required by our [[rules]]. Homeschooled means schooled at home, not running away from home. Obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

::Don't be a jerk, dude. This site lists "prominent" home-schooled individuals, not all of them. Also, this is not your site. Why do you think it should play by your rules?

:: Many of the people on this list were not obviously schooled at home. Twain is a clear example. Lincoln read at home but was not "schooled" by anyone, and people like the Roosevelts and Shaw studied with professional tutors, clearly not an analogy for the parent-lead homeschooling of today. Bonney's school experience is essentially a direct parallel of Twain's, and Hardin was taught by his father, just like Mozart. If your complaint is truly a source issue, I'm happy to go dig up a biography or two, but short of that I can see no reason for not including these two. For most of history people didn't have anything like modern access to public schools, which means that for most of history bad people got their education in pretty much the same way as people like Joan of Arc. Just trying to be fair here.

::: So you're saying that Lincoln schooled himself at home??? Could be ... but that's still homeschooled. Private tutors is also homeschooling, as many of us homeschoolers can attest. You seem to be saying that Hardin and Mozart were taught by their fathers. That's not homeschooling? Of course it is.

::: I'm open to unbiased improvements to the article. I don't know the details of Twain, for example. I do know that 5 out of the top 5 mathematicians post-Napoleon were homeschooled, and there are few if any errors on this list. If you can make unbiased improvements by adding information, please do. If you can't believe the list, then perhaps you want to open your mind a bit first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:37, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Reason for rollback ==

Don't insert {{fact}} when the statement is supported the sentences that follow it. When in doubt, use this page to express your opinion rather than senseless inclusion of multiple {{fact}}--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:48, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

:Well, since you mention it, I was wondering why you removed the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> from the statement saying Ansel Adams is the best photographer of the twentieth century. It's certainly a very bold and opinionated statement (maybe someone is more a fan of [[Alfred Stieglitz]]) and I figured it needed backing up.--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 00:22, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:: The next sentence supports the statement. Open your mind a bit, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, perhaps we can reach a compromise. Instead of adding a {{fact}}, why don't we just add the word 'arguably' to the sentence. That way, we're both happy. Eh?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 00:39, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: My friend, open your mind instead. The quote proves that Ansel Adams was homeschooled. All that is needed is a cite for the quote. The list of the others is also extremely well supported. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:47, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh ho, it seems we have found the root of our contention. You see, I'm not saying that Ansel Adams wasn't homeschooling. I don't doubt that he was. I'm just saying that the statement that he was the 20th century's 'finest artist' is not a fact (in the same way that "Bananas are the tastiest fruit" is not a fact), and should be changed to show it's opinion. It's semantics, I know, but that's how I roll, with mild [[OCD]].--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 00:55, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Oh how petty. Your own quote is wrong ("finest artist") and yet you're going to quibble about Conservapedia's statement here???? Everyone knows that Ansel Adams was the "the finest photographer of the 20th century." Nitpick something else, please. Or improve some entries here first and then return with more experience. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:13, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Alright, whatever. Anyway, I found the site the actual quote is from. I think I cited it right, but, you know, I'm inexperienced about the matter.--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 01:18, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Thanks much. I apologize for overreacting a bit. Let's improve this fascinating entry further. In Christ, [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:36, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

== What's with the [sic]? ==
Referring to the quote from the Williams College admissions officer... Is the [sic] there because of the possibly-incorrect dash in home-schoolers? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:45, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

== C.S. Lewis ==

Assuming that homeschooling refers to the primary method of schooling that a child received, Lewis' homeschooling was only through age 10. Under those circumstances, would it be more appropriate to remove him from this list? Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:17, 13 December 2007 (EST)

: Being homeschooled through age 10 is significant, as that teaches the reading, math and thinking skills used the rest of one's life. The education Lewis received from his homeschooling was probably almost equivalent to a high school education today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Related article request ==

Please create the following ancillary articles and incorporate some of the following within the main article:

*[[Homeschooling Resources]]
*[[Christian Homeschooling]]
*[[Homeschooling Materials]]
*[[Online Homeschooling]]
*[[Homeschooling Programs]]
*[[Homeschooling Information]]
*[[Homeschooling Help]]
*[[Homeschooling Supplies]]
*[[Homeschooling Curriculums]]
*[[Classical Homeschooling]]
*[[Homeschooling Software]]
*[[Homeschooling and Math]]
*[[School Violence]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:34, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Leonardo da Vinci homeschooled? ==

Could somebody explain how Leonardo da Vinci was homeschooled? Here is his current entry in the list of "Prominent people who were educated at home":
{{cquote|Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519), Italian artist, inventor, and all-around "Renaissance man". Leonardo went to school in Vinci, where he learned to write, to read and to calculate, and was taught geometry and Latin. At 14, Leonardo moved to Florence where he began an apprenticeship in the workshop of Verrocchio.}}
Right now, this entry sticks out, so I'd be happy if somebody could clarify... --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 10:48, 31 December 2007 (EST)

== Churchill ==

Debate whether Churchill was homeschooled here. Numerous internet discussions say he was, see, e.g., [http://forums.families.com/social-development-vs-homeschooling,t160]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 29 February 2008 (EST)
: Andy, your own reference contradicts what you are saying. The person in that discussion who claimed that Churchill was homeschooled ''later withdrew the claim'' and apologised for misunderstanding his source. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:: OK, well, that's a first for that observation. Thanks for pointing that out. But my cited source is just one of many, and it seems obvious that Churchill would have taught to read at home if he first attended school at age 7. Also, there are still unexplained gaps in the description of his formal schooling, with much to suggest he left an intolerable school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Churchill attended Brunswick House Preparatory School 1884-88; before that he had had attended the school run by a flagellant and sadist and described in 'My Early Life', and afterwards he was sent to Harrow. On Brunswick House: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FnM9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=winston+churchill+preparatory+school&source=web&ots=FAKUcUFmFa&sig=FdVrP1JpErKuYWm1uKmyLug3G5w&hl=en

[[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:06, 29 February 2008 (EST)

: Your analysis lacks dates and ages, and seems obsessed with branding someone a "sadist". If the school was so sadistic then that only reinforces the likelihood of the claim that Churchill was not always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:13, 29 February 2008 (EST)

My comment states clearly that he attended Brunswick House 1884-1888, and that he was born in 1874 is common knowledge, even to those of us suffering under the burden of having attended schools. The sadistic school, as I stated clearly, was attended before Brunswick House. It was a boarding school, so attendance was not optional. Do try and keep up. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:16, 29 February 2008 (EST)

The following comes from the entry on Churchill in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. I trust it answers any remaining questions you might have, and meets your threshold of sadistic behaviour. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:24, 29 February 2008 (EST)

''At eight he was sent to a boarding-school at Ascot where the headmaster took a pleasure in flogging the boys until their bottoms ran with blood. Winston performed well in some subjects but his reports often referred to his unruly behaviour. According to one authority, he was birched for stealing sugar from the pantry and retaliated by kicking the headmaster's straw hat to pieces (Churchill and Gilbert, 1.53). When he fell ill his parents transferred him to a school at Brighton where he was much happier but came bottom of the class for conduct.''

: This provides no detail on Churchill's schooling between ages 8 and 14, or prior to age 8. It reads like an entry in a gossip magazine as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:39, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:According to the biography at [http://712educators.about.com/cs/biographies/p/churchill.htm Educators.About.com] he attended private school from age 7. The article on his education from the [http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=630 Winston Churchill center] states that his first school was St. George’s (which he mistakenly calls St. James’s in his autobiography) and where he was beaten. Following that he attended a school at Hove, near Brighton before entering Harrow at age 14. [[User:Spencer|Spencer]] 12:17, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:: The Winston Churchill center does not say that the schooling was contiguous, and the claim that he was beaten suggests it may not have been. Moreover, if he was already 7 when he started, then he had probably been homeschooled to learn how to read. There are many claims on the internet, with limited details, that Churchill was homeschooled during some of these periods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:22, 29 February 2008 (EST)

''This provides no detail on Churchill's schooling between ages 8 and 14, or prior to age 8.''
The links that I have given between them show that from age 8 to 10 Churchill was at the school in Ascot; from 10 to 14 at Brunswick House in Hove (Brighton), and thereafter at Harrow. I am sorry that you did not like the quote. The ODNB is probably the most respected biographical dictionary in the English-speaking world - though clearly not as good as the internet - and the author of the entry on Churchill, Paul Addison, was Director of the Centre for Second World War Studies at the University of Edinburgh 1996-2005 and was also a Visiting Fellow of All Souls 1990-91.

''Moreover, if he was already 7 when he started, then he had probably been homeschooled to learn how to read''

Almost certainly, as biographies mention the benign neglect of Winston by his parents, he was given some instruction by a nurse or governess, as was common in upper class families until recent decades. I would add that I was able to read (to an extent) on starting school aged five. Can I claim to be a homeschoolee?

I will end by repeating: Churchill was not homeschooled in any rational sense of that term. To persist in stating that he was is damaging to the quality and reputation of Conservapedia, and makes a nonsense of any claims to encyclopaedic standards. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 15:50, 29 February 2008 (EST)
::The reference for Churchill's homeschooling amounts to the claim that he was privately taught by two women in Hove. As his family did not live there at that time he cannot have been homeschooled. [[User:GordonB|GordonB]] 17:43, 29 February 2008 (EST)
:::It was a school, albeit a less rigorous one than the Ascot establishment. And the CP entry on Churchill correctly says that he was privately schooled from the age of eight. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 17:44, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Are you complaining about the entry? It correctly describes the sisters' instruction as a less formal school setting. It was very different from the [[British]] prep schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:51, 29 February 2008 (EST)
:::::I appreciate that you are trying to reach a solution on this; and I have seen the Brighton/Hove school described as a 'dame school', different in approach to the Ascot prep school. But a bit of 'pre-schooling' by a nurse or governess does not equate to home-schooling as the majority of c'pedians would (in my possibly inaccurate opinion) use the term. I was 'pre-schooled' in such a way by my parents: I could read and write a bit by the time I started school. But there is no way that I would ever describe myself as home-schooled, not for ideological reasons but because I simply don't see that as home schooling; and nor do I about Churchill. His formative educational years were spent at schools. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 17:57, 29 February 2008 (EST)
::::::No matter how informal the setting, if he wasn't being educated at home, or even in the vicinity, then there's no way he could be described as home-schooled. [[User:GordonB|GordonB]] 18:01, 29 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: [[Liberals]] are so literal, while criticizing others for being too literal (as in the [[Bible]]). "Homeschooling" is not limited literally to being schooled at home. Read our entry, please, and try to understand something that is slightly abstract.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Marx, Himmler, Oscar Wilde... ==

I would love to see a good, non-ideological reason as to why these names were eliminated from the list. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is a non-ideological reason necessary? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: Because if they were only deleted for ideological reasons that is an admission that the article is intentionally misleading. --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Transitional form

2008-03-03T20:55:46Z

Merriweather: /* Article plan */

Talk:Transitional form

2008-03-03T06:14:30Z

Merriweather: /* Article plan */

Talk:Transitional form

2008-03-03T06:13:45Z

Merriweather: Article plan

== Recent quote ==

Oooh, can we get a quote from a scientist from some point within the last ten years? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:50, 23 January 2008 (EST)
: Why? That would seem to be a rather abitrary cut-off point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::Cutoff point would mean eliminating everything from before then, not simply adding something made since then... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::: Not it wouldn't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::: What? Yes it would. That's the definition of a cutoff point. You ignore everything past the cutoff point. I'm not suggesting we ignore everything before ten years ago, I'm just asking for a recent source so this article seems current. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:29, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Yes, a "cutoff point" means that you ignore everything past the cutoff point, but in context that means ignoring everything older than ten years ''when looking for a quote to add''. It doesn't mean deleting every quote in the article older than ten years, because that's not what you were suggesting. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:20, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: Well, what would you consider a less arbitrary cutoff point? Nine? Eight? Seven? Six? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Seriously, having a more recent quote in the article can't be a bad thing. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: I wouldn't specify a cutoff point. If you have an appropriate quote from more recently, feel free to add it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:34, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: So you're suggesting you'd be perfectly fine adding quotes from any time period? I don't have any; I'm not arguing for the non-existance of transitional forms. If "Many scientists have admitted the lack of transitional fossils.", it shouldn't be terribly difficult to find something from this century, should it? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:36, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: If the quotes are relevant, when they date from should not be an issue (but the date of them could affect their relevance). But "many" is a relative term (in fact I would consider changing that in the article), and I'd say that only a few (relatively speaking, although I think it could easily be a dozen or so) have admitted as much. Note the quote from Gould about it being a "trade secret", i.e. it was not something that was widely known. Also, since creationary views have been gaining ground, many of these scientists have been much more guarded in what they admit to, so given that this century is only seven years old, then no, I don't agree that it wouldn't be difficult to find something from this century. That's not to say it's impossible, of course, but it may not be easy. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:15, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: I don't really think they've been gaining ground, but eh, if you say so/claim there's a conspiracy against non-scientific beliefs being passed off as science, that's your right. As for the quotes, I'm just saying that a more recent one would make the article more up to date, and not like outdated ramblings.
:::::::::: Oh, and this century is eight years old. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:46, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: 45 years ago there were almost no creationist organisations, and now there are quite a few. 40 years ago we didn't have science magazines publishing articles about what was wrong with creationism. 30 years ago the anti-creationist group NSCE hadn't started. Creationism is definitely gaining ground. I've said umpteen times that I don't claim there to be a conspiracy (a group of people plotting to suppress something they know to be true), but it is a standard anti-creationist tactic to accuse creationists of claiming that. And how are the existing quotes "outdated" and "ramblings"? Or is that just a throwaway line when you've got no actual criticism?
::::::::::: The century began on 1st January 2001, which is seven years, 25 days ago.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:22, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: I said they look like outdated ramblings, not nessecarily that they are outdated. You're accusing scientists of hiding information because it would be helpful to your cause-- That ''is'' accusing them of conspiracy. But I know you're just going to dismiss that with "Standard darwinist tactic, ha ha!" so I ask you this: If Creatinionism has been "gaining ground" as you so claim, surely the number of scientists speaking out against it '''must''' be going up? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:39, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: Okay, so I guess I should have asked how the existing quotes ''look'' "outdated", and "rambling".
::::::::::::: No, it's still not conspiracy. I defined conspiracy as "a group of people plotting to suppress something they know to be true". I'm making no accusations of any sort of ''group'', i.e. ''organisation'' of individuals, plotting, i.e. planning this together. And when I said "suppress something they know to be true", I was talking about them suppressing creation knowing it to be true. They don't believe creation to be true, so their suppression of it is not fitting that definition.
::::::::::::: I would say that the number of scientists speaking against it ''is'' going up, although I would qualify that with several points:
::::::::::::: * Scientists tend to not like getting involved in this sort of thing, thinking that it gives creation some legitimacy. So they tend to leave it to non-scientists to comment on (including the mass media and the science magazines).
::::::::::::: * They have reduced their involvement in live public debates, ostensibly because it gives creation publicity and legitimacy, but likely because they tend to lose the debates.
::::::::::::: * They consider Intelligent Design to be a form of creationism, and their efforts in recent times have been more directed to that, with not so much effort directed against creationism itself.
::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:47, 27 January 2008 (EST)

The quotes look outdated because they're all at least a decade old-- Things easily could've changed in a decade. If memory serves, there are many lists of transitional specimens, and I can dig them up if you wish once I return home from the LAN party I'm at.

Ah, so it's conviently not a conspiracy, just... Every scientist hates magic.

For the record: Science is not decided by who can plead the most. Watch a Creation video, and you'll see what I mean.

ID '''is''' Creationism. I again reference Of Pandas And People, bearing the historic words "cdesign proponentsists." 16:58, 28 January 2008 (EST)

*The Of Pandas and People issue is virtually meaningless. That one book does not define the entirety of ID. There are plenty of ID proponents who are not religious at all. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:46, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:Yes, one book does not define it, particularly given that the book concerned came out pretty early in the ID movement, and was co-authored (from memory) by one of the ID people who ''is'' a creationist.
: As for the chances of things changing in the last decade, I wouldn't pin too much hope on that. In 1859 Darwin wrote,
{{QuoteBox|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 the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection fo the geological record.}}
: But 120 years later, David Raup wrote,
{{QuoteBox|Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information...}}
: Then we have the other quotes (such as in the article) from around the same time from various scientists, supporting the severe lack of transitional forms. So why would it suddenly reverse direction and there start to be a swag of transitional forms?
: What's "convenient" about it not being a conspiracy? Your language betrays your bias. But your analogy with magic is not bad, actually. Scientists sometimes speak out against astrology, fortune telling, communicating with the dead, etc. But nobody ever claims "conspiracy" with these; it's just that most scientists are of one mind on those issues, so they all tend to reinforce each other on them. The same with creation. I don't agree, of course, that creation is in the same basket as astrology etc, but in the minds of the scientists opposing creation, that's pretty much what they think. So no reason to suppose a conspiracy. Yet anti-creationists keep accusing creationists of claiming that, ''even though creationists don't claim that'', in order to denigrate them, and when creationists call them on it, rather than admit their error, they try and divert attention or excuse themselves with comments such as "how convenient".
: I've seen lists of transitional fossils (and one is referenced in the article). But with none of the examples provided can, in the words of Colin Patterson (in the article), with none can one make a watertight argument. Just because they are ''claimed'' to be transitional does not make them so, and none really stand scrutiny.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::Bugger, thought I responded to this yesterday. It's convenient because if it's not a conspiracy, you don't look like a nutter for trying to play the persecution card.

::And I must ask, how do you prove that they aren't transitional? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:49, 29 January 2008 (EST)
::: If it really was a conspiracy, then I wouldn't look like a nutter for claiming persecution. So how does it not being a conspiracy change that?
::: Perhaps the question should be, how do you prove that they ''are'' transitional? If creature 1 has features A, B, C, D, E, and F, and creature 2 has features A, B, C, G, H, and J, then we find a creature with features A, B, C, D, H, and J, does that mean that it's transitional between 1 and 2. Or just a creature with a different mix of features? Evolutionists presume that creature 1 ''must have'' evolved into creature 2, so anything with a combination of the two creatures' features is seen as evidence of an intermediate/transitional form. That explanation is an over-simplification, but that's at least part of how it works. That was the basis for claiming that Archaeopteryx was transitional: it had some features in common with both reptiles and birds. But even staunch evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould described it as a "curious matrix", that is, a creature that had some features in common with reptiles and birds, but not on the way from one to the other.
::: So how ''do'' you prove that something is transitional? I don't think you can, ultimately, but a big step in the right direction would be to find not just ''a'' creature intermediate between two others, but a whole chain showing a gradual transition. My example above listed six "features", but any real creature is going to have hundreds if not thousands. If you have two creatures that differ by 200 features, and you found 200 other creatures that could be placed in a sequence where each one had one feature different to the previous, you'd be well on the way to demonstrating transitional forms. I'm not, of course, suggesting that you would need to have ''every one'' of those 200, but a large proportion of them would be needed. As it is, all you have these days is one or at best a handful.
::: Furthermore, given that creationists argue for variation within a created 'kind', this would need to be for two distinctly different creatures (i.e. of different created kinds); a smooth transition of intermediates between one type of shark and another type of shark doesn't count.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:46, 29 January 2008 (EST)

::::Logically, if a creature with features ABC and a creature with features ADE are found, and a creature with features ACD is found between them (vertically or horizontally) the natural conclusion is that ACD is some sort of midway. Haha... "kinds"... right, how scientific.

::::You're claiming it's not a conspiracy, were you to claim there's a conspiracy, you'd be A: Wrong and B: Nutty.

::::Indeed, it would be a tricky business to find the entire series-- after all, fossilisation is the exception, not the rule. This isn't helped by the fact that previous ideas of evolutionary chains are constantly discarded, nearly every time a new fossil is unearthed.

::::Also, this century started 1/1/2000.

::::FINAL POINT: If we can't get a quote from this century, can we at least have some sort of counterbalance quote? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)
::::: If a creature with features ACD is found ''horizontally'' between creatures with features ABC and ADE, surely, according to evolutionary thinking, they lived at the same time? And therefore would not be intermediate?
::::: If a creature with features ACD is found ''vertically'' between creatures with features ABC and ADE, then (a) it still doesn't prove that it is transitional, and (b) it assumes the evolutionary view, as the creationary view would (depending on the layers concerned) probably be that all three were buried within the same year (of the Flood). And what's so unscientific about "kinds"? Answer please, and not one that's self-serving.
::::: "''You're claiming it's not a conspiracy, were you to claim there's a conspiracy, you'd be A: Wrong and B: Nutty.''": Yes, but your comment was not about whether or not I was ''claiming'' it, but whether or not it ''was a conspiracy'' ("...because if it's not a conspiracy...").
::::: "''Indeed, it would be a tricky business to find the entire series...''": Would it really? Given the number of fossils that have been found, I'd say that you should have found at least a few fairly-complete series. Gould thought so too, which is why he came up with Punctuated Equilibrium—to argue that you don't find the smooth series because evolution happened suddenly in short bursts. The point is, he came up with this because the ''expected smooth series'' was not found. So your argument that it would be tricky is really just a ''post-hoc'' argument to explain the uncomfortable facts. Secondly, it being difficult to find the required evidence is no excuse for claiming something for which the evidence has not been found.
::::: "''...the fact that previous ideas of evolutionary chains are constantly discarded, nearly every time a new fossil is unearthed''": Which to me says that the whole idea is so tenuous it has no right claiming that the alternative view (creation) has been disproved by the evidence.
::::: If the 21st century started at the beginning of 2000, then the first century must have started at the beginning of the year nought, but we number the years from ''one'', not ''nought''. So the first year ''ended'' at the end of year 1, the second year at the end of year 2, the tenth year at the end of the year 10, the hundredth year—the 1st century—at the ''end'' of the year 100, the first millennium at the ''end'' of the year 1000, and the second millennium (and the 20th century) at the ''end'' of the year 2000.
::::: What's unbalanced about the article as it stands?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Not nessecarily same time, but a similar time. Remember, these take a while to form. Sufficient for small changes.
::::::Kinds is not a scientific designation of any sort.
::::::Dude. Do you know what oil is? Do you realize how much more of that there is than fossils? Out of all the creatures that have ever lived, we've recovered very little in the manner of fossils.
::::::Tenuous? No, not really, but the exact order is uncertain. Such is the way of science; things change when new evidence is uncovered. I could give a condescending explanation of how that's different from religion, but I'll spare you that.
::::::There's a nice bit on this on Wikipedia, d'you mind if I quote it at you in my next edit?
::::::Gee... could it be the fact that every single quote is from one side? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:41, 31 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: "''Remember, these take a while to form.''": Yeah? a given layer takes, what?, a few million years to form whilst slowly burying a specimen and it's evolved descendant?
::::::: "''Kinds is not a scientific designation of any sort.''": How about [[baraminology|baramin]] then? That's the scientific word for "kind".
::::::: "''...we've recovered very little in the manner of fossils.''": I totally agree that we've only found a small proportion of all the creatures that lived, but there's still been enough to expect some smooth transitions. You didn't address the evidence I offered from Gould.
::::::: "''Tenuous? No, not really, but the exact order is uncertain.''": Now it's "the exact order". Before it was "evolutionary chains are constantly discarded". Your explanations seem about as flexible as evolution itself.
::::::: "''I could give a condescending explanation of how that's different from religion, but I'll spare you that.''": I don't think you did (spare me). Besides, I already know the explanation: "Science is good because the scientists can't be certain they know what they are talking about. Religion is bad because they know what they are talking about". Well, that's not how you would spin it, but that's not far from what it would amount to.
::::::: You can quote Wikipedia here if you wish.
::::::: "''...could it be the fact that every single quote is from one side?''": Golly! You're right! They're all evolutionists! Do you want me to find a quote from a creationist too?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Uh, what?
::::::::Teach the controversy! Bats are birds!
::::::::Are you familiar with the term "statistical improbablity"?
::::::::What, about it being a "trade secret"? Yeah, that doesn't sound nutty.
::::::::Oh boy, let's pick apart every single word I say! Perhaps I mistyped when I said discarded-- Rearranged fits better.
::::::::No, science is good because it's constantly being updated in response to new evidence. Religion, however, is not.
::::::::"Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be "caught in the act" as it were. Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species. However, progressing research and discovery are managing to fill in gaps." -Wikipedia.
::::::::No, mein freund, that's not what I meant. Not one saying that there are, indeed, transitional fossils.
::::::::Here, have a list of them: [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html List from Talk Origins] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:26, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Much of your post is nonsensical throw-away lines. Such as "Uh what"? Huh? What yourself? Explain yourself if you want to make an argument.
::::::::: In your next line I think you are making reference to an old and discredited [[furphy]], to which the answer is [[classification system|here]].
::::::::: Regarding statistical improbability, again, throwing around a few terms does not an argument make. And if your "nutty" reference was supposed to be an answer to my reference to Gould, first, it's evolutionist Gould that you are calling "nutty", and second, I wasn't referring to that, but to my argument from Gould in my prior post.
::::::::: Evolutionists like to make out that it's just the details that they are still uncertain about, yet what they actually disagree on and keep changing are some fairly fundamental points (such as whether it happened slowly and gradually or in sudden spurts). Your previous comment, whether you use 'discarded' or 'rearranged' suggests the major changes in the idea, whereas your later comment about the "exact order" suggests that only the detail is in question. I was contrasting those two aspects.
::::::::: The creationary model is also constantly being upgraded in response to new evidence. The basic premises, such as creation itself is not, but then the basic premises of evolutionists, such as naturalism and evolution itself are not either. Typical of sceptics, you are merely trying to make a self-serving distinction where none exists and in doing so are being inconsistent.
::::::::: The Wikipedia quote is nothing more than post-hoc explanation for the lack of the evidence that evolutionists should expect, as I pointed out from Gould. Furthermore, it is trying to have a bob each way, in both claiming that the fossil record does ("Although transitional fossil elucidate...") and will ("progressing research and discover are managing to fill in gaps.") show evolution whilst also explaining why it doesn't.
::::::::: And how is it unbalanced to only say that there are no transitional fossils ''if that is so''? You are claiming that it is unbalanced because it doesn't acknowledge your views. But if your views are wrong, then it's not unbalanced to not acknowledge them. The article already has a reference to the link you provide, but the link fails to make its case. To take the first example I looked at, [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#eleph elephants], it starts off with "''Minchenella'' or a similar condylarth (late Paleocene) -- Known only from lower jaws. Has a distinctive broadened shelf on the third molar. The most plausible ancestor of the embrithopods & anthracobunids." This is nothing more than evolutionary story-telling. There's not enough of the fossil to really tell, and the best she can say is that it's "the most plausible ancestor". So apart from it not being hard evidence contradicting Gould and Patterson, it's circular reasoning because it's starting with the assumption that there must be something that evolved into an elephant and that this is the most likely candidate. Not all her arguments are exactly like that of course, but from what I've seen there is nothing of real substance there. The existence of an article full of bluff and fluff trying to make the case does not mean that the case is actually made and that the paleontologists quoted in the article had no clue what they were talking about.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: ""''Remember, these take a while to form.''": Yeah? a given layer takes, what?, a few million years to form whilst slowly burying a specimen and it's evolved descendant?" That's what my "uh, what?" was directed to. I have no freaking clue what you were attempting to say there.
:::::::::: "first, it's evolutionist Gould that you are calling "nutty"," Oh no, I will now withdraw my opinion upon finding out that I dared to call an "evolutionist" nutty.
:::::::::: It does; You simply choose to ignore every transitional form, prefering instead to cry and weep that we haven't found every fossil yet.
:::::::::: It wouldn't be, if that was true. That's not circular, it's a correctly terminating idea. "If it evolved, and this fossil looks like it's reasonably simliar, this creature probably evolved from that."
:::::::::: As a sidenote, I love how you write off every attempt to connect things as "storytelling" and seem to be scared by the idea that the evolutionary paths of each creature are not fully understood yet. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:22, 3 February 2008 (EST)
(unindent)"''That's what my "uh, what?" was directed to.''": That's better; explaining what it is that you don't understand.

You indicated that a creature would be intermediate if it was found ''in the same layer'' (which is the only reasonable conclusion to draw from "if a creature with features ABC and a creature with features ADE are found, and a creature with features ACD is found between them (vertically or '''horizontally''')" (my emphasis)), so I questioned how this would make it intermediate ("If a creature with features ACD is found horizontally between creatures with features ABC and ADE, surely, according to evolutionary thinking, they lived at the same time? And therefore would not be intermediate?"). You replied with "Not nessecarily same time, but a similar time. Remember, these take a while to form. Sufficient for small changes.". I assumed that "these" refers to the rock layers. The reasonable conclusion to draw from this was that a given rock layer—containing creatures at two different stages of evolutionary development in the same line—took so long to form that the creature had enough time to evolve into something different (ABC to ACD, for example). So I replied, "Yeah? a given layer takes, what?, a few million years to form whilst slowly burying a specimen and it's evolved descendant?", to which you replied "Uh, what?". Do you understand now?

"''Oh no, I will now withdraw my opinion upon finding out that I dared to call an "evolutionist" nutty.''": How about just withdrawing that comment from the discussion that you are having ''with me''? In the context of this discussion, it reads as though I'm nutty or creationists are nutty or the article is nutty. I guess that you can think that Gould was nutty if you like, but keep in mind that you are calling "nutty" something said by a widely-respected scientist about his own field of study. I'm not saying that you have to agree with him (I don't on quite a few issues), but calling someone's idea "nutty" is hardly an argument.

"''It does; ''": What does? Could you please include mentions in your replies as to which points you are replying to? Much of the time I can figure it out, but I shouldn't have to solve a puzzle to do this, and sometimes it is very unclear.

"''You simply choose to ignore every transitional form, prefering instead to cry and weep that we haven't found every fossil yet.''": What transitional forms? Your criticism of me presumes that they exist, a presumption that I've rejected. I don't ignore ''claims'' of transitional forms; I ''reject'' such claims as unsubstantiated. You, in return, use emotive language about my motives rather than actually address the points and provide evidence.

"''That's not circular, it's a correctly terminating idea. "If it evolved, and this fossil looks like it's reasonably simliar, this creature probably evolved from that." ''": No, that's not circular reasoning. But it's circular reasoning to take it to the next step: "And this therefore shows that there ''are'' transitional fossils (and therefore that evolution is true)", which is (a) the point of the list of transitional forms, and (b) your point in citing it.

"''I love how you write off every attempt to connect things as "storytelling"''": I call it like it is! If I pick up a bunch of sticks and arrange them in order according to (say) size, then try and tell a story that one evolved into the other, all I'm doing is storytelling. And that's what evolutionary "connecting things" is; it's telling a story about how things supposedly came about; events that have not actually been observed happening.

"''...seem to be scared by the idea that the evolutionary paths of each creature are not fully understood yet.''": How can I be scared of something that I don't believe happened?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:Ah, thanks. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, then.
:Withdrawing the comment serves no purpose.
:Yeah, I should add references... To be honest, I'm not sure what exactly I was referring to either. I'm sorry.
:"I ''reject'' such claims as unsubstantiated." And here's the problem. You lay down a blanket statement rejecting all claims of transitional fossils as unsubstantiated. If I'm interpreting that correctly, there is no point in continuing this discussion.
:So any list of transitional fossils is mere circular reasoning?
:No, what you're doing is horribly misunderstanding how trees grow. You could easily argue that every theory is "Storytelling", by that logic.
:You don't believe that the evolutionary paths of each creature are not fully understood yet happened? Uhh... mate, that doesn't make a lick of sense. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:55, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::''How can I be scared of something that I don't believe happened?''
::Aren't atheists often [[Atheism#Denials_That_Atheists_Exist|thought]] to be, deep down, afraid of God? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:58, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::: I only reject claims of transitional fossils as unsubstantiated because that's what they have been so far. I should add that in this case I'm not meaning that no substantiation is provided, but that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I'm not claiming that such claims are inherently unsubstantiatable; in theory, assuming that evolution is true, such claims ''could be'' substantiated. But so far they haven't been.
::: "''So any list of transitional fossils is mere circular reasoning?''": No, I made the claim of circular reasoning about the particular example I picked out of the list. There was no evidence that the particular example was intermediate, beyond the presumption that there ''must be'' an intermediate and this was the most likely candidate. Rather than start with the presumption that something evolved, you should start with the ''question'', "Did it evolve?", then see if there is evidence supporting that.
::: "''No, what you're doing is horribly misunderstanding how trees grow.''": I could say exactly the same thing about your understanding of how life came to be.
::: "''...that doesn't make a lick of sense''": I wondered if I wasn't clear. I don't believe that there are/were such things as evolutionary paths, so why would it concern me that they are not yet fully understood.
::: Feebasfactor, the claim is that deep down, atheists don't ''really'', fully, believe that there is no God. At least in some cases. See also [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5560/ here]. I didn't actually look at your link to the atheism article, and I'm not necessarily defending how it might be worded. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:41, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::::Ah, that makes a bit more sense. Nice to see you'll at least entertain the notion of transitional fossils.
::::Answering the question and then reworking it as new evidence comes about, I presume?
::::They're two entirely different things, trees and life in general. For example, I do not proclaim to know the origin of life-- And that is not what this is about-- but I do proclaim to know the basics of tree growth.
::::Ah. Possibly because fear of the unknown is common in humans of all creeds, races, etc.? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:45, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::: Regarding the stick analogy, I made a small error in wording it as a comparison to the ''origin'' of life. I meant the origin of individual types of living things, that is, evolution. You do claim to know that evolution brought about the different types of living things, don't you? So I could say, just as you did for the sticks, that your have a "horrible misunderstanding" of it.
::::: "''...fear of the unknown is common in humans of all creeds, races, etc.? ''": It's not an unknown: I know it didn't happen that way. So "fear of the unknown" doesn't apply.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:15, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Except what I claim to know is consistent with the current understanding of evolutionary theory. What you say is not.
::::::I'm sure you do, Philip. I'm sure you do. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:18, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: Yes, what you claim to know is consistent with evolution. But the fossil record part of evolution is little more than arranging unrelated fossils in a sequence and telling a story connecting them, just as I did with the sticks. The stick story is absurd because you know better. The evolution story is not absurd because... er, because.... er, because you ''don't'' know better. But they amount to the same thing, in principle. Evolution is a ''story'' to explain the evidence. Creationists have the same evidence, but tell a ''different'' story to explain it. So it really comes down to which ''story'' is the more believable. I don't dismiss the evidence, but I happily dismiss the ''story'' that evolutionists tell about that evidence. And the evidence and the story are two different things, yet I've ''often'' seen evolutionists quote the story as though it is the evidence. In which cases I will dismiss it as "storytelling". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

== Picture ==

Would it be useful to add a picture such as this: http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/3803/horseevolutionbl3.png --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:15, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:Useful in what way? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::Useful to explain the concept of a transitional form. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:55, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== Article plan ==

I suggest that before we edit any further we sit down and discuss a plan for the article.

I maintain that you quotations should follow descriptions of transitional forms because that is what the article is supposed to be explaining. What are your thoughts? --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 01:13, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Transitional form

2008-03-03T05:51:34Z

Merriweather: Let's not.

{{merge from|transitional fossil}}
A '''transitional form''' is a [[fossil]] or living [[organism]] that is intermediate between two other organism in an evolutionary sequence.
A transitional form that has not yet been found is colloquially called a '[[missing link]]'.

[[Creationist]]s claim that transitional forms between different kinds of creatures are systematically absent.
Other scientists typically reject this claim. One such attempted rebuttal is that by [[Kathleen Hunt]] who created a Transitional Vertebrate Fossil FAQ.<ref>Hunt, Kathleen, [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ] (Talk.Origins)</ref>

== Claims of transitional forms ==

In ''The Origin of Species'' [[Charles Darwin]] wrote that the fossil record (as it was known then) was lacking in transitional forms. He predicted, however, that transitional forms would be found. In accordance with that prediction, since the publication of ''The Origin of Species'' many transitional forms, both fossil and living, have been identified.

The following are some examples of known transitional forms<ref>The examples are taken from New Scientist magazine of 1 March 2008, ''What Missing Link?'' by Donald Prothero, professor of geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles and lecturer in geobiology at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.</ref>.

=== Fishbians ===

The so-called “fishbian” sequence of fossils shows the steps by which fish crawled out of the water and onto the land during the [[Devonian]] period. Fossils exist that span the entire transitionfrom the distinctly fish-like ''Eusthenopteron'' to the four-legged amphibian ''Hynerpeton''. The fossil record of the fish-to-amphibian transition is now among the best documented of all.

=== Rhinos ===

The fossil record of rhinoceroses is extensive. Starting with dog-sized creatures, such as the early [[Eocene]] ''Hyrachyus'', that are barely distinguishable from early tapirs and horses, fossil rhinos gradually diversified into a wide variety of forms. Some of these forms became gigantic, culminating in the huge indricotheres, which were about 7 metres tall at the shoulder and weighed 20 tonnes. None of the early rhinos had horns. The living rhino family began in the middle [[Eocene]] with primitive creatures such as ''Teletaceras'' which looked much like the earlier “running rhino” type excepting for the development of a chisel-like upper tusk and pointed lower tusk.

=== Pinnipeds ===

The pinnipeds are seals, sea lions and walruses and are descended from primitive bears. A recently discovered fossil has provided a beautiful transitional form between the two groups<ref> The early [[Miocene]] fossil ''Enaliarctos''. See ''Science'' vol. 244, page 60.</ref>. Although superficially like a seal the fossil lacked most of the specialisations that modern pinnipeds require for their aquatic lifestyle. In addition, its “flippers” had long toes and claws, halfway between bear paw and pinniped flipper. There was subsequently a great “radiation” of seals and sea lions in the middle and late [[Miocene]], all of which appear in the fossil record.

=== Other examples ===

There are many other examples of transitional forms including: velvet worms, lancelets, synapsids, ceratopsians, giraffes, ichthyosaurs and manatees.

== Claims of a lack of transitional forms ==

Creationists claim that there is a lack of transitional forms. They use the following selective quotes in support of their claim:

The late paleontologist [[Stephen Jay Gould]] said in 1977:
{{QuoteBox|The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.<ref>Gould, S.J., Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86 (5):14, 1977 (quoted in Sarfati, Jonathan [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry].)</ref>}}

In 1979, the senior palaeontologist at the [[British Museum of Natural History]], [[Colin Patterson]], agreed with Gould, when asked why he didn't have any illustrations of transitional forms in his book:
{{QuoteBox|I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. ... Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.<ref>Sunderland, Lewis, ''Darwin's Enigma'', 1988, pp. 88-90 (Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1918 Those fossils are a problem], ''Creation'' 14(4):44–45, September 1992).</ref>}}

In 1984 Gould wrote the following:
{{QuoteBox|The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.<ref>Quoted in Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3832 Refuting Evolution], chapter 3.</ref>}}

However, in 1994, he wrote,
{{QuoteBox|The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are sparse, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons—geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium, and transition within small populations of limited geographic extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy.<ref>Gould, Steven Jay, [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_leviathan.html Hooking Leviathan by Its Past] ''Natural History'' 103 (May 1994): 8-15.</ref>}}

==See also==

*[[Missing link]]
*[[Transitional fossil]]
*[[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium]]

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Origins Debate]]

Transitional form

2008-03-03T04:58:58Z

Merriweather:

{{merge from|transitional fossil}}
A '''transitional form''' is a [[fossil]] or living [[organism]] that is intermediate between two other organism in an evolutionary sequence.
A transitional form that has not yet been found is colloquially called a '[[missing link]]'.

[[Creationist]]s claim that transitional forms between different kinds of creatures are systematically absent.
Most scientists typically reject this claim. One such rebuttal is that by [[Kathleen Hunt]] who created a Transitional Vertebrate Fossil FAQ.<ref>Hunt, Kathleen, [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html] (Talk.Origins)</ref>

== The existence of transitional forms ==

In ''The Origin of Species'' [[Charles Darwin]] wrote that the fossil record (as it was known then) was lacking in transitional forms. He predicted, however, that transitional forms would be found. In accordance with that prediction, since the publication of ''The Origin of Species'' many transitional forms, both fossil and living, have been identified.

The following are some examples of known transitional forms<ref>The examples are taken from New Scientist magazine of 1 March 2008, ''What Missing Link?'' by Donald Prothero, professor of geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles and lecturer in geobiology at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.</ref>.

=== Fishbians ===

The so-called “fishbian” sequence of fossils shows the steps by which fish crawled out of the water and onto the land during the [[Devonian]] period. Fossils exist that span the entire transitionfrom the distinctly fish-like ''Eusthenopteron'' to the four-legged amphibian ''Hynerpeton''. The fossil record of the fish-to-amphibian transition is now among the best documented of all.

=== Rhinos ===

The fossil record of rhinoceroses is extensive. Starting with dog-sized creatures, such as the early [[Eocene]] ''Hyrachyus'', that are barely distinguishable from early tapirs and horses, fossil rhinos gradually diversified into a wide variety of forms. Some of these forms became gigantic, culminating in the huge indricotheres, which were about 7 metres tall at the shoulder and weighed 20 tonnes. None of the early rhinos had horns. The living rhino family began in the middle [[Eocene]] with primitive creatures such as ''Teletaceras'' which looked much like the earlier “running rhino” type excepting for the development of a chisel-like upper tusk and pointed lower tusk.

=== Pinnipeds ===

The pinnipeds are seals, sea lions and walruses and are descended from primitive bears. A recently discovered fossil has provided a beautiful transitional form between the two groups<ref> The early [[Miocene]] fossil ''Enaliarctos''. See ''Science'' vol. 244, page 60.</ref>. Although superficially like a seal the fossil lacked most of the specialisations that modern pinnipeds require for their aquatic lifestyle. In addition, its “flippers” had long toes and claws, halfway between bear paw and pinniped flipper. There was subsequently a great “radiation” of seals and sea lions in the middle and late [[Miocene]], all of which appear in the fossil record.

=== Other examples ===

There are many other examples of transitional forms including: velvet worms, lancelets, synapsids, ceratopsians, giraffes, ichthyosaurs and manatees.

== Creationist claims of a lack of transitional forms ==

Whilst there is general agreement among evolutionary scientists that many transitional forms exist, by selectively quoting, some creationists seek to demonstrate that evolutionary scientists admit to a lack of transitional forms. The following quotations have been employed to that end by creationists:

The late paleontologist [[Stephen Jay Gould]] said in 1977:
{{QuoteBox|The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.<ref>Gould, S.J., Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86 (5):14, 1977 (quoted in Sarfati, Jonathan [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry].)</ref>}}

In 1979, the senior palaeontologist at the [[British Museum of Natural History]], [[Colin Patterson]], agreed with Gould, when asked why he didn't have any illustrations of transitional forms in his book:
{{QuoteBox|I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. ... Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.<ref>Sunderland, Lewis, ''Darwin's Enigma'', 1988, pp. 88-90 (Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1918 Those fossils are a problem], ''Creation'' 14(4):44–45, September 1992).</ref>}}

In 1984 Gould wrote the following:
{{QuoteBox|The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.<ref>Quoted in Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3832 Refuting Evolution], chapter 3.</ref>}}

However, in 1994, he wrote,
{{QuoteBox|The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are sparse, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons—geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium, and transition within small populations of limited geographic extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy.<ref>Gould, Steven Jay, [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_leviathan.html Hooking Leviathan by Its Past] ''Natural History'' 103 (May 1994): 8-15.</ref>}}

==See also==

*[[Missing link]]
*[[Transitional fossil]]
*[[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium]]

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Origins Debate]]

Transitional form

2008-03-03T04:55:43Z

Merriweather: Replace defunct link. Add content.

{{merge from|transitional fossil}}
A '''transitional form''' is a [[fossil]] or living [[organism]] that is intermediate between two other organism in an evolutionary sequence.
A transitional form that has not yet been found is colloquially called a '[[missing link]]'.

[[Creationist]]s claim that transitional forms between different kinds of creatures are systematically absent.
Most scientists typically reject this claim. One such rebuttal is that by [[Kathleen Hunt]] who created a Transitional Vertebrate Fossil FAQ.<ref>Hunt, Kathleen, [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html] (Talk.Origins)</ref>

== The existence of transitional forms ==

In ‘’The Origin of Species’’ [[Charles Darwin]] wrote that the fossil record (as it was known then) was lacking in transitional forms. He predicted, however, that transitional forms would be found. In accordance with that prediction, since the publication of ‘’The Origin of Species’’ many transitional forms, both fossil and living, have been identified.

The following are some examples of known transitional forms<ref>The examples are taken from New Scientist magazine of 1 March 2008, ''What Missing Link?'' by Donald Prothero, professor of geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles and lecturer in geobiology at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.</ref>.

=== Fishbians ===

The so-called “fishbian” sequence of fossils shows the steps by which fish crawled out of the water and onto the land during the [[Devonian]] period. Fossils exist that span the entire transitionfrom the distinctly fish-like ''Eusthenopteron'' to the four-legged amphibian ''Hynerpeton''. The fossil record of the fish-to-amphibian transition is now among the best documented of all.

=== Rhinos ===

The fossil record of rhinoceroses is extensive. Starting with dog-sized creatures, such as the early [[Eocene]] ''Hyrachyus'', that are barely distinguishable from early tapirs and horses, fossil rhinos gradually diversified into a wide variety of forms. Some of these forms became gigantic, culminating in the huge indricotheres, which were about 7 metres tall at the shoulder and weighed 20 tonnes. None of the early rhinos had horns. The living rhino family began in the middle [[Eocene]] with primitive creatures such as ''Teletaceras'' which looked much like the earlier “running rhino” type excepting for the development of a chisel-like upper tusk and pointed lower tusk.

=== Pinnipeds ===

The pinnipeds are seals, sea lions and walruses and are descended from primitive bears. A recently discovered fossil has provided a beautiful transitional form between the two groups<ref> The early [[Miocene]] fossil ''Enaliarctos''. See ''Science'' vol. 244, page 60.</ref>. Although superficially like a seal the fossil lacked most of the specialisations that modern pinnipeds require for their aquatic lifestyle. In addition, its “flippers” had long toes and claws, halfway between bear paw and pinniped flipper. There was subsequently a great “radiation” of seals and sea lions in the middle and late [[Miocene]], all of which appear in the fossil record.

=== Other examples ===

There are many other examples of transitional forms including: velvet worms, lancelets, synapsids, ceratopsians, giraffes, ichthyosaurs and manatees.

== Creationist claims of a lack of transitional forms ==

Whilst there is general agreement among evolutionary scientists that many transitional forms exist, by selectively quoting, some creationists seek to demonstrate that evolutionary scientists admit to a lack of transitional forms. The following quotations have been employed to that end by creationists:

The late paleontologist [[Stephen Jay Gould]] said in 1977:
{{QuoteBox|The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.<ref>Gould, S.J., Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86 (5):14, 1977 (quoted in Sarfati, Jonathan [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry].)</ref>}}

In 1979, the senior palaeontologist at the [[British Museum of Natural History]], [[Colin Patterson]], agreed with Gould, when asked why he didn't have any illustrations of transitional forms in his book:
{{QuoteBox|I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. ... Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.<ref>Sunderland, Lewis, ''Darwin's Enigma'', 1988, pp. 88-90 (Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1918 Those fossils are a problem], ''Creation'' 14(4):44–45, September 1992).</ref>}}

In 1984 Gould wrote the following:
{{QuoteBox|The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.<ref>Quoted in Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3832 Refuting Evolution], chapter 3.</ref>}}

However, in 1994, he wrote,
{{QuoteBox|The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are sparse, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons—geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium, and transition within small populations of limited geographic extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy.<ref>Gould, Steven Jay, [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_leviathan.html Hooking Leviathan by Its Past] ''Natural History'' 103 (May 1994): 8-15.</ref>}}

==See also==

*[[Missing link]]
*[[Transitional fossil]]
*[[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium]]

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Origins Debate]]

Deliberate ignorance

2008-02-25T02:20:20Z

Merriweather:

'''Deliberate ignorance''' is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions. Examples include:

* [[Democrats]] refusing to acknowledge [[Barack Obama]]'s appeal to unpatriotic donors and supporters
* [[materialists]] refuse to address the impossibility of material explanation for [[migration]] and [[homing]]
* [[evolutionists]] refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the [[whale]]<ref>This is disputed by evolutionists at a blog worth reviewing further for plausibility at [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/two_tales_of_whale_evolution.php].</ref>
* [[liberals]] refuse to address how [[socialism]] destroys productivity
* [[abortionists]] refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have [[abortions]]
* Advocates of the [[global warming theory]] refuse to consider any scientific evidence which shows that natural causes have always had a greater effect on terrestrial air temperature than human activity.
(add more)

Common expressions of [[deliberate ignorance]] include:

* I'm not aware of that! (without admitting a failure to look)
* I've never seen that in the [[New York Times]]!
* That's not what it said in the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]]!
* I've never heard my [[public school]] teacher say that!
* Let's talk about something else!
* I'm not interested in that!

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:philosophy]]
[[Category:liberals]]