Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:WOVcenter

2007-03-26T17:37:03Z

WOVcenter:

I'm a youth counselor at the Word of Victory Outreach Center in Ankeny, IA. My students and I all sign-in using this login.

3/26: The WOVcenter login is official dead. Conservapedia has become more and more rabid and delusional (see the evolution, dinosaurs, liberal bias, etc. pages), and has become a pit of ridiculous hyper-christian myths/lies. It's incredible just how far into la-la land the sysops here are. If the rest of America is like this, our country is doomed. Evangelicals: get a life, try to remember how to be happy, and stop ruining the country for the rest of us. I can understand why you'd be involved in a church, seeing as most places in middle america are absolute cultural vacuums, but for the love of God, pick a form of religion that isn't so hateful and Nazi-ish. Conservatives continue to be dragged kicking and screaming [by liberals] into the 21st century, so get with the program, forget this incredibly stupid page, and try to unlearn the retardation that's been burned into your collective intellect. Good luck battling that liberal foe called "All forms of art, learning, news, and thought."

Oh yeah, I'm not a youth counselor, and there never were any kids signing on here.

Talk:Scientific theory

2007-03-21T02:50:18Z

WOVcenter:

"Why are scientists pushy about their theories (opinions)."
So hilariously bad, that it must be vandalism. Oh, and you forgot a question mark.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 03:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Yes, vandalism, or some sort of joke. "Everyone had a thermometer that measured differently, which is why we have two temperature scales; fahrenheit and celcius." Ha ha. Please revert. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Theory v hunch ==
This article is still in bad shape. It is not true that there is any big difference between scientific and non-scientific usage of the word "theory". Scientists use the word to describe a hunch as much as non-scientists do. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

That's not necessarily true. Scientific "hunches" are known as hypotheses, and most hypotheses are disproved. Theories have corroborating evidence to suggest that they are accurate. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 13:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: No, you are not correct. If you were, then give me some citation backing you up. Show me some scientific paper that says, "That hypothesis might be good enough to be called a theory according to the layman's use of the word, it has not been proved accurate enough to be called a scientific theory." It doesn't happen. There are theories like String Theory that have not been confirmed at all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:02, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Actually [[RSclafly]] the statement preceding yours is correct. Your demand regarding a scientific paper makes no sense; why would a scientist writing for an audience of other scientists ever make the statement you require? Next, the National Academy of Sciences, which has reasonable jurisdiction over basic scientific terminology, defines a theory as, "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." In other words, not a "hunch." String Theory moreover doesn't really apply, since many physicists such as Carlo Rovelli and Philip Anderson contest the validity of calling String Theory a theory at all. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Theory v Scientific Theory==

The [[Theory]] page seems to overlap with [[Scientific theory]] at least in intent, but the former takes a very different position on what the word "theory" means. In fact, it takes a position that makes other uses of the word here problematic. I made a note about that on [[Talk:Theory]]. Perhaps Theory could just redirect to this one? And it would be nice to see something here about how personal bias can lead to the word "theory" being attached to something that isn't really a theory at all (not falsifiable, for example, or having many inconsistencies that are overlooked because they contradict personal bias). Just because the word "theory" gets attached to something in common usage doesn't make it a theory. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 14:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Scrap the other page. It just adds to the confusion. Make it redirect here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Scientific theory

2007-03-21T00:10:21Z

WOVcenter:

"Why are scientists pushy about their theories (opinions)."
So hilariously bad, that it must be vandalism. Oh, and you forgot a question mark.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 03:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Yes, vandalism, or some sort of joke. "Everyone had a thermometer that measured differently, which is why we have two temperature scales; fahrenheit and celcius." Ha ha. Please revert. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Theory v hunch ==
This article is still in bad shape. It is not true that there is any big difference between scientific and non-scientific usage of the word "theory". Scientists use the word to describe a hunch as much as non-scientists do. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

That's not necessarily true. Scientific "hunches" are known as hypotheses, and most hypotheses are disproved. Theories have corroborating evidence to suggest that they are accurate. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 13:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: No, you are not correct. If you were, then give me some citation backing you up. Show me some scientific paper that says, "That hypothesis might be good enough to be called a theory according to the layman's use of the word, it has not been proved accurate enough to be called a scientific theory." It doesn't happen. There are theories like String Theory that have not been confirmed at all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:02, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Actually [[RSclafly]] the the statement preceding yours is correct. Your demand regarding a scientific paper makes no sense; why would a scientist writing for an audience of other scientists ever make the statement you require? Next, the National Academy of Sciences, which has reasonable jurisdiction over basic scientific terminology, defines a theory as, "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." In other words, not a "hunch." String Theory moreover doesn't really apply, since many physicists such as Carlo Rovelli and Philip Anderson contest the validity of calling String Theory a theory at all. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Theory v Scientific Theory==

The [[Theory]] page seems to overlap with [[Scientific theory]] at least in intent, but the former takes a very different position on what the word "theory" means. In fact, it takes a position that makes other uses of the word here problematic. I made a note about that on [[Talk:Theory]]. Perhaps Theory could just redirect to this one? And it would be nice to see something here about how personal bias can lead to the word "theory" being attached to something that isn't really a theory at all (not falsifiable, for example, or having many inconsistencies that are overlooked because they contradict personal bias). Just because the word "theory" gets attached to something in common usage doesn't make it a theory. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 14:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Scrap the other page. It just adds to the confusion. Make it redirect here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 3

2007-03-15T17:47:39Z

WOVcenter: /* Fundamental Issue */

==Fundamental Issue==

There seems to be a complete dearth of information on evolution itself here on the page. Almost the entire article focuses on refuting evolution's claims. The article should probably be entitled "Criticisms of Evolution", rather than purporting to be an entry that gives affirmative (i.e. talking about what evolution is, rather than what it is NOT) information about evolution. Wikipedia provides numerous entries on all the varying forms of belief pertaining to the beginning of the world, and the ways which different biological forms came about. They have pages on the different sorts of creationism, evolution, the criticisms of each, timelines, history, schools of thought, and every other aspect of belief on the subject, each with their own entries. This page, on the other hand, reads like a vitriolic, reactionary response to something that we Christians are insecure about. Why not give evolution its own page, focusing on its proponents beliefs, give the criticisms of each their own respective pages, and write the creationist article in such a way that focuses on what the creationists actually do affirmatively believe. It seems to me that the issues need to be skillfully separated, being sure to not step on each theory's feet. Let's also remember that providing evidence that evolution is false adds nothing to the argument FOR the various forms of creationism. Essentially: Let's separate the articles, and not be too crass in our critcisms of each theory. Violent, muddled responses wihin articles show nothing but pathetic insecurity. Just my 2cents. Not trying to get banned, just trying to evoke a civilized discussion.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 17:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I made every attempt to keep the tone of the article encyclopedic and vitriole free. Where is the rancor in the article? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::There ''is'' a lack of balance here, though. Surely you'll admit that? Right now, your article (Yes, ''your'' article. If my count is correct, you contributed 248 of 329 edits as of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&oldid=36224 this edit]. That's more than 75%. The next most contributing member is PhilipB with 11 edits.) has the sole aim of proving that evolution is wrong. Moving it to a more fitting name (like WOVcenter suggested) would at least solve the problem of balance in a trivial way, even though it would not solve the open points people raised on the Talk pages. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I will certainly admit the article is very conservative in content. I don't think that is all inappropriate given that the article is in a online encyclopedia called Conservapedia and that conservatives have been at the forefront of opposition to the evolutionary position since at least the time of Darwin. Secondly, as far as your edit percentage I think you should take into account that conservapedian Aschlafly did create the "Macroevolutionary Position and Implausible Explanations" material first and I merely revised his material to make it more cautionary in tone but at the same time gave more examples. So in at least one case, I have made the article more gentle on the evolutionary position. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:59, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::At edit counts of your dimension, those... five or ten or so edits reduce your percentage by less than half a percent or so. My point still stands. As does the point about this article being named incorrectly. I know this project is about "conservative values", but... oh, forget it. Total waste of my time trying to argue for balance. This thing will never be more than a permanently locked "Why evolution is wrong" essay. You're right. Stay the course. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I believe that you have confused "conservative" with "anti-science luddite". The two are not synonyms. Being a conservative does not necessitate rejecting the theory of evolution solely for religious reasons backed by faulty logic and outright falsehoods. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 19:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
WTF?!? This article isnt about evolution at all! it is just a criticism of evolution. You guys are embarrassing yourselves. [[User:Jirt|Jirt]] 19:50, 14 March 2007

I just now noticed that there's a page called 'Evolution', and another page called 'Theory of Evolution'. The 'Evolution' page addresses my earlier concern, and does in fact focus affirmatively on the theory of evolution (albeit in a comparatively cursory manner), and the 'Theory of Evolution' page addresses the Creationist concerns with the Theory of Evolution. I don't understand the naming. The difference between 'Evolution' and 'Theory of Evolution' is negligible at best. Do a google definition search (define:word), and essentially the same Darwin-related definitions are brought up. Granted, 'Evolution' is the broader term of the two (lots of non-biological things evolve too), but both Conservapedia articles speak to essentially the same, Darwin-focused things. Shouldn't the 'Evolution' article be named 'Theory of Evolution', and the current 'Theory of Evolution' page be entitled 'Criticisms of the Theory of Evolution'? My original argument still hasn't been addressed, too. The 'Theory of Evolution' page still presents virtually no affirmative information on Evolution, and mostly focuses on non-Evolutionary subjects (i.e. Creationism). Thoughts? --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 20:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Good plan.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::Also, this "Theory" article just keeps getting '''worse''', which you would think would stop at a certain point, but no, it just keeps going and going. Can some other admin, not [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], look at this drivel?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:If you check the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_2 second archived Talk page] you will see that I made a number of suggestions for improving the article by adding more content in the same vein as the information already present. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 20:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Why is that this article does not discuss fundamentals of the Theory of the Evolution? Namely mutations of the DNA? As I understand this theory, without explaining science behind evolution, it is very easy to misrepresent facts. --[[User:Aramis|Aramis]] 23:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Arismus, thank you for your input. For the sake of brevity, I covered that material here: Creationists assert that evolutionary biology is speculative and goes against much of the present evidence in biology that points to creationism. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html][http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genetics.asp][http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::Creationists are free to assert whatever they like, howevere that does not change the fact that their assertions are in direct contradiction to reality, nor does it change the fact that the "Theory of Evolution" page here is rife with logical errors, factual errors and quotes that have dishonestly been presented out of context. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 08:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::With all due respect, almost all evidence in biology points to evolution. I can accept that other areas of evolution are shaky (fossil records, etc.) but biology is one that I cannot. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Colin, please review the section in the article titled: "Little Consensus Regarding an Evolutionary Process" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::Conservative, picking quotes out of context is not how science is done. Take a read of Futuyama's text book on evolution, and you will see it is not built up of quotes, but rather hard science. I've already said from first-hand experience that Simon Morris's quote has been presented in a deliberately deceptive way to distort his opinion, and I'm very sure that most of the others have as well. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, the 'Evolution' page is now gone, and now redirects to the vehemently anti-Evolution 'Theory of Evolution' page. This isn't an article with information about Evolution, but rather a page about Creationism, and how it relates to Evolution. Shouldn't this be renamed 'Criticisms of the Theory of Evolution'. Is a Conservapedia sysop going to respond to my substantive concerns? Thanks. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Is no sysop going to respond? This is a critical issue, no? I'm just looking for ways to fix this article, and feel I've been fairly civil so far. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 04:02, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::WOVcenter, I appreciate your civility (AmesG was not very civil in his post above) and appreciate you wanting to improve the article. However, I don't believe that Conservapedia is going to make any substantial change in direction in regards to being against the evolutionary position. Here is what [[User:Aschlafly]] (who has authority over the Admins) has said about the Theory of Evolution article: "By the way, Theory of Evolution ranks number 3 in our most-visited pages, after the Main Page and Bias in Wikipedia. Well done!--Aschlafly 00:17, 27 February 2007 (EST)"[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::Conservative, thanks for responding. I don't at all want Conservapedia to change its stance on its response to Evolution; it's pretty clear that your beliefs are strong. I'm merely trying to make the point that encyclopedia titles should match their content. Sorry if I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but I feel this is incredibly important, and I'd like to have a cogent response to this particular point. If you have an entry called "Theory of Evolution", the article should speak to what that "Theory of Evolution" ''is'', rather than what it ''is not''. I have no doubt that all the anti-Evolution positions mentioned in the current article are positions that you hold dear. The fact still remains, though, that all these points are on the subject of ''controversy surrounding'' Evolution, rather than Evolution itself. All the books mentioned in your 'further readings' section quite correctly identify themselves as such. They're titled "Refuting Evolution", "Darwin on Trial", the "Creation-Evolution Controversy", etc. All of the titles of these books identify themselves as presenting arguments against Evolution, as part of the controversy surrounding Evolution; perhaps the article should do the same. This separation is something that Wikipedia does often, and rightfully, I feel. For example, say I'm a strong proponent of looser gun/ccw laws. There's no disagreement that there are varying disputes on the subject of gun control. So, where do I look for information on this on wikipedia? There's a page called 'Gun Politics'. My side's beliefs aren't found on the 'Gun', or 'Pistol/Handgun' page itself, and rightfully so. Okay, I'm not conflating gun control and evolution, but, the way these controversial issues should play out on an encyclopedia is important. My position on the structuring of this article is in no way trying to refute the claims made in the article. I'm merely saying, on a base writing-style level, that the article's title should more closely relate to the actual content. This is an article about the Evolution Controversy, as all your sources indicate, and as your content clearly illustrates. Labeling them as anything other than this just isn't correct. The article isn't about what Evolution is, it's about what it is ''not''. If these basic tenets of encyclopedia article writing aren't followed, at worst, this page may never come-off as anything more than angry hatespeech, and at best this page will come off as being poorly written. Please keep the articles intellectually honest. Thank you. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::WOV, I have to leave very soon but given your desire for sincere and respectful discussion I would briefly say the article is not about "Evolution". The article is about the "Theory of Evolution". I think there is a difference. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::Well, okay. I agree with that. That's true in the broadest sense. The article does, in fact, pertain to The Theory of Evolution. But more acutely, what this article focuses on (rather than what it broadly pertains to) is the controversy surrounding evolution. Your sources rightfully identify this distinction; I just thought you might want your article to as well. Thanks. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 13:47, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

There is nothing inherently 'conservative' about denying evolution. Charles Lyell was politically and religiously conservative, but he nonetheless accepted evolution based on scientific merit despite his personal distaste for the idea. Many, many professional scientists whose beliefs might also be described as conservative have also supported, even promoted evolution. Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the 20th century's greatest evolutionary biologists, is one example. Why is there the assumption that the term conservative is synonymous with 'christian'? Can't Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. be politically or socially conservative? Does this project exclude those people? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], you need to step aside here and allow people who are much more qualified than you are to take over. Your basic lack of scientific and historical understanding is shocking--or are you just more comfortable believing that every one of the dozens of posts attacking your miserable lack of knowledge of this subject is written by a liberal who is out to get you? --[[User:porkchop|porkchop]] 10:17, 15 March 2007
::Porkchop, conservatives have a long tradition of denying the validity of the theory of evolution. When you read the press who are the ones who deny the theory of evolution? The conservatives. What did most of the early church fathers and traditional Judaism teach? Young earth creationism (YEC) as I documented in the YEC article. I am also betting that traditional Islam upholds YEC. Therefore YEC is truly a conservative view. Lastly, I see no reason to dignify the more acerbic criticism portions of your post with a lengthy response. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::That most of those who object to evolution are conservative doesn't imply that most conservatives object to evolution. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm conservative and I don't object to evolution. As I've mention before I find YEC to be anti-Christian on theological grounds, and non-conservative as I believe conservatives should maintain a strict scientific viewpoint. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Technical question, article length ==

Conservapedia Scorpionman says the talk page was too long and I noticed it took about 2 seconds to scoll down the talk page. This talk page caused Scorpionman's browser to have problems.

Also, I noticed that the "Evolution" article at Wikipedia takes about 2 seconds to scroll down.

Here is my question. I was thinking of creating one more section but I don't want the article to become too big so people have internet browser problems. When is an article too big from a technical point of view. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

{{QuoteBox|Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, '''concise''', and without gossip or foul language.}}
:I think that answers your question. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I have no complaints from the Conservapedia staff that the article is not concise. The article is currently about half the size of the Wikipedia article on the same subject. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::Well, gee, I wonder why the Conservapedia staff didn't complain... *rolls eyes* And I don't have an issue with article length in general. Maybe you should talk to Scorpionman about why his browser can't even handle a few kb of text...
::::Sid, perhaps you should go to Wikipedia and complain that their article which is far longer than ours is not concise. Given the intensity of support for the evolutionary position at the liberal site Wikipedia [http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia], I don't think you will get too far! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::Do you even ''think'' before, while, or after you write a reply? '''Conciseness is a Conservapedia rule.''' Why should I go to WIKIPEDIA and complain that they break CONSERVAPEDIA's rules? UGH. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::And even more, don't you think it's a wee bit hypocritical to go "Wikipedia is bad because they don't listen to us!" while at the same time blocking out everybody who disagrees with your view? Critical articles are "protected" against "liberal vandalism" with no unlocking being in sight, and the points raised on Talk pages are simply ignored. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::And don't you think it's a bit bold to compare your "Evolution is wrong wrong wrong!" essay with Wikipedia's article about evolution? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Evolution is a theory and to present it as fact would be to misconstrue scientific opinion. This article takes a fair and balanced approach.
:::::That should be: a Fair And Balanced™ approach [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 19:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Ah yes. The old "It's a theory. As such, there are no signs indicating that it may be true. So ''theory'' is just another word for ''wrong''!" routine. Why am I not surprised? And it must be a funny universe in which "fair and balanced" is true even when the entire article just goes on and on about one side while misrepresenting or ignoring the other side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Your article is not what a reasonable individual -- conservative or not -- would consider to be "fair and balanced". Your article references numerous falsehoods and appeals primarily to out of context quote snippets, a creationist practice known as "quote mining", wherein you quote only a small portion of a person's statement to make it appear that they agree with your position or statement, when in reality the context of their statement taken with other statements made at the same time shows that they in fact do not agree with your position. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 20:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This "quote mining" was used to pretend that Stephen Jay Gould actually believes there are no transitional fossils! Here is a brief excerpt of what he really said (for the complete quotation go to "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes"): "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

::Gould wrote: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, '''we view our data as so bad that we NEVER see the very process we profess to study.''' [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=5&itemid=2080] In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; '''transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt'''." [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/punct.asp] (emphasis added)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::: This was followed immedeately by "Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no, and I invoke two recently supported cases of discontinuous change in my defense.", then ""If we must accept many cases of discontinuous transition in macroevolution, does Darwinism collapse to survive only as a theory of minor adaptive change within species? . . ." and then ""But all theories of discontinuous change are not anti-Darwinian, as Huxley pointed out nearly 120 years ago. Suppose that a discontinuous change in adult form arises from a small genetic alteration. Problems of discordance with other members of the species do not arise, and the large, favorable variant can spread through a population in Darwinian fashion. Suppose also that this large change does not produce a perfected form all at once, but rather serves as a "key" adaptation to shift its possessor toward a new mode of life. Continued success in this new mode may require a large set of collateral alterations, morphological and behavioral; these may arise by a more traditional, gradual route once the key adaptation forces a profound shift in selective pressures." You are again presenting only a small segment of a quote and distorting the idea that the original author was attempting to convey. You cannot falsify the theory of evolution by selectively quoting words of biologists and ignoring others. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 08:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Concise does not necessarily imply short in length. Concise just means free of extraneous information. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::Merriam-Webster says "''marked by brevity of expression or statement; free from all elaboration and superfluous detail''", Encarta says "''short and clearly written or stated: using as few words as possible to give the necessary information, or compressed in order to be brief''", and Dictionary.com says "''expressing or covering much in few words; brief in form but comprehensive in scope; succinct; terse''".
::So the definition implies "short in length" AND "clear in statement". These two things are connected and have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. You couldn't cover the entire Bible in just two paragraphs without omitting critical information, but doing a sentence-by-sentence analysis of it would not be concise, either. Similarily, you probably can't cover all aspects of evolution with 30kb (rough size of this article last time I checked), but this entire article can be summed up as "Evolution is the theory of how life changes over time. Creationists say that it's wrong, and you should believe them." I don't see how adding even more sections is going to say any more than that. It just goes on and on until the reader says "Okay! Fine! I believe that evolution is a lie!".
::The current article touches evolution, macroevolution, transitional forms, fossil record, design theory, and how the Bible has been right where science had initially been wrong. The only problem is that all of these complex fields are just brushed briefly without really giving context or explanations. Some sections only consist of a few lines of text and several paragraphs of quotes. If it's clear to you, then you have been in the Creationism/Evolution debate long enough not to need this article anyway.
::Likewise, this reply was not concise. A concise reply would have been: "The word ''concise'' implies shortness and clarity. This article fails to fulfill either aspect." --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== What's biased in this article? ==

:''For a [[creationist]] treatment of evolution, please see go to the[[Theory of evolution]] page.''

Biological evolution, first formally proposed as a theory by [[Charles Darwin]], is the structure by which organisms change over time, in small spurts, or in massive shifts.<ref>Carroll, Sean B (2005)., Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom, W. W. Norton & Company</ref> Both rest on firm scientific backing, demonstrating that all life on [[Earth]] comes from a common ancestor.<ref>Richard Dawkins, "the Blind Watchmaker."</ref>

The mechanism for evolution is [[natural selection]], which is to say that organisms adapt to new circumstances, by means of spontaneous genetic mutations found in the generation after a change is encountered, or they die. This is not to say that mutations only occur during environmental change; rather, they are always occuring, but only matter when an external pressure favors one species with a certain mutation. Certain large-scale environmental pressures can force an abrupt dying-off of species that are unfit for the circumstances, leaving only those who can withstand a changed situation. The remaining species then attempt to find their own niches in a new food chain. The most successful species at finding their own niches have more children than the less successful, and continuing evolution then favors a development of traits favored to that niche.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770</ref> This process is without termination. Humanity itself is still evolving.<ref>"Still Evolving: Human Genes Tell New Story," New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07evolve.html?ex=1174017600&en=5ecaa22626de424b&ei=5070</ref>

Evolution is highly controversial in the [[United States]]. A near-majority of Americans do not believe, or at least seriously question, evolution, based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, the two are not mutually exclusive, regardless of those perpetuating conflicts to the contrary. In fact, many people are deeply religious, and believe, for instance, that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. - From user AmesG

:Pretty much all Catholics, and most European Christians believe that, for starters. Creationism is pretty much unique to the USA and parts of the Third World. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 02:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationism appears to be spreading in Australia (compare the two footnotes)[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/1980.html][http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/27/1098667839167.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::Poor Australia. I didn't realize that times were so hard there.--11:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Current Talk Topics==

Current talk topics are discussed here. Once topics are resolved please add them to the Archives above with most recent topics in the archive of the highest number.

== Spent time proofreading ==

I received a short note regarding grammatical errors in this article. I was a writing tutor at a university so I did some proofreading and found some grammatical errors in the article. I also made some minor stylistic changes to sentences that I had composed. If anyone has any further input regarding this matter your comments would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Let a scientist get a crack at it? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::A scientist may introduce too much undesired fact. This article is clearly designed to be a showcase of typical creationist reasoning: devoid of actual fact, rich in quote mining and dishonesty. Clearly the author of this article wishes to give the impression that all conservatives are backwards champions of stupidity, and that conservatism means using lies to support a purely religious movement to destroy observed reality. I cannot fathom the reason for this, except to speculate that the Theory of Evolution page was actually written by a liberal who seeks to make liberalism look reasonable by comparison. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 09:03, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Dimensio, your vague allegations and attempts at mind reading are not exactly impressive. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::Nonetheless, you could let a scientist have a shot. Or are you afraid?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::It must be said conservative's understanding of biology does not appear to streach beyond quoting random biolgists. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Not all conservatives, some conservatives are, dare I say it... Atheist. [[User:ToryBoy|ToryBoy]]
::::::I think he meant the user Conservative, versus all conservatives. But worse than not understanding biology, Conservative is not even willing to learn, which is just plain sad.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Attempts to focus on me and my mental state are rather futile, given that I cited an abundance of creationist scientists and non-creationist scientists. I have noticed a lot of unsubstantive criticism on this talk page although I have certainly taken advantage of constructive criticism that has been offered at this website in regards to this article. Please try to focus the criticism on the article and not on me. It certainly would be taking the high road. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I've made it quite clear that the entire tactic of simply quoting little soundbites from various scientists in an attempt to distort the scientific posistion is not the proper way to write an article. You could read a few of the mainstream texts on the issue (I gave Futuyama's as a good example) before passing yourself off as an expert. Since you are currently the only person editting the article, focusing on you appears a valid topic. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative - the most obvious criticism of the article, to my mind at least, is that the various sections consist primarily of quotes. I think it would be greatly improved by synthesizing findings and allowing the reader to judge, rather than listing judgments that others have already made.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Nematocyte, why is it that evolutionist have a strong penchant for claiming things are random. I chose the scientists I cited. They were not "random". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::I'm guessing you picked them from premade lists of quote mines compiled by creationists. Am I close? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Nematocyte, again I think you need to focus on the article and not me. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::::That's a "correct", then? Since your are the only person editting the article I think it's highly important to discuss your credentials on the matter. Perhaps editting should be done by a person who's actually read the titles you're quoting from? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Murray, a substantial portion of the article is non quotes. However, quotes are an effective means to powerfully convey with precision what an expert has to offer. Aschlafly used a number of quotes for his portions of the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

''OR'', we could accurately and concisely convey the scientific consensus position on the matter by reviewing the mainstream authoratative text books and scientific reviews. Just mabey. Crazy thought, really. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the article in regards to the scientific consensus and the evolutionary view. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:39, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::::I'm an actual scientist. I deal with this subject on a day to day basis. Every day I meet and talk to other biologists, and read the literature on the subject. You only need to open the latest issue of ''Nature'', ''Science'', ''Cell'' or any other mainstream journal to see the consensus position. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::And a substantial portion of it is quotes. Again, from my perspective the article would be much improved with more original content. This is particularly glaring in the section on experimental data, which contains no actual discussion of the experimental data, merely a secondhand quote.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I think we're probably about to hear Conservative claim that [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] is a biased, God-hating atheist evolutionist, whose well-reasoned statements are nonetheless not due any deference.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Please keep your focus on the article. The talk page is intended for talk about the article and not about me. Notice the heading: [[Talk:Theory of evolution]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Seeing as how you remain the only editor of the article I would like you explain why that isn't an important topic. Moreover I would like to directly ask, what are your qualifications regarding the understanding of the theory of evolution? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Is this a joke?==

I just read through this article and I think I laughed. I can't tell if this entire article was written as a huge joke or not. Is this a serious article?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html Logical Fallacy: Appeal to ridicule][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::It's not a joke. This is what User:Conservative seriously believes the mainstream scientific position on evolution is. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Again, see the two sections of the article focusing on the Scientific Consensus issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::Conservative, it's also a fallacy to, when your reasoning is attacked, fall back on your reasoning as proof of itself. That's circular logic. Your statement of the "current position" is full of errors, that Nematocyte would gladly correct.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The entire article is an appeal to ridicule. I'm not enitrely sure how someone can be so single minded and blunt? At least liberals allow for all PoV to be considered. This article has whiffs of Stalin-esque censorship about it.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I don't think anyone has been put in a death camp or shot for criticizing this article. Please no theatrics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::How many months was it you tried to block JoshuaZ for? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::That does not answer the point that there is definitely censorship of many PoV from this article. Articles are locked, by Sysop's, to stop vandalism. Sysop's should not then continue to edit the page. That is plain abuse of privilege. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::The owner of Conservapedia does not seem to mind that I continue to make additions to the article in order to adequetely cover the conservative view. 12:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::::That's logic, is it? As I've said before I do not regard YEC as synonymous with conservatism, but rather as a form of paganism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::(Wow, my colon key has never been used so much) How about covering the liberal PoV, the evolutionist PoV, the actual scientific PoV or many others besides? This site claims to be minimising bias, not creating it.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I want to ask a serious question that I hope you take a long time to think about. Let's assume, ''arguendo'', that evolution is fact, and "Genesis" is not meant to be read literally, but as an allegory. It's no longer "six twenty-four hour days," but "six ages." How does that change your religion? It certainly makes life more complex, and makes faith more complex. But does that weaken your faith, or strengthen your faith by showing you the the ability of God to hide deeper truths in plain view? Suppose man did evolve from lesser forms of life. God did not create Adam and Eve as they were. Does that end God's role in man's life? Isn't God still responsible (in your view) for ''making us human'', giving us souls, raising us above our base anatomy as provided by nature? Isn't God still great because of that?

The irreducible minimum is this: do you think religion should change over time? Should a set of beliefs change with the believers, or should it ossify a culture, insulating it from all other outside change, and holding all values constant, for all time? Should we return to Job's treatment of pain and suffering, and if we're ever sick, should we just take it, as Job did, or should we try to cure ourselves with modern medicines? Isn't it possible that God sent us medicine through Louis Pasteur, or whoever you choose, as an aid to us?

And finally, is science actually destroying God, or just revealing more of His true nature? And does he suffer from that? Think long and hard before you answer.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:21, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, nicely written. Have you ever read Bradbury's "Christus Apollo?" It speaks just to this: fulfilling God's Will by questing and striving to learn.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 3

2007-03-15T17:26:37Z

WOVcenter: /* Fundamental Issue */

==Fundamental Issue==

There seems to be a complete dearth of information on evolution itself here on the page. Almost the entire article focuses on refuting evolution's claims. The article should probably be entitled "Criticisms of Evolution", rather than purporting to be an entry that gives affirmative (i.e. talking about what evolution is, rather than what it is NOT) information about evolution. Wikipedia provides numerous entries on all the varying forms of belief pertaining to the beginning of the world, and the ways which different biological forms came about. They have pages on the different sorts of creationism, evolution, the criticisms of each, timelines, history, schools of thought, and every other aspect of belief on the subject, each with their own entries. This page, on the other hand, reads like a vitriolic, reactionary response to something that we Christians are insecure about. Why not give evolution its own page, focusing on its proponents beliefs, give the criticisms of each their own respective pages, and write the creationist article in such a way that focuses on what the creationists actually do affirmatively believe. It seems to me that the issues need to be skillfully separated, being sure to not step on each theory's feet. Let's also remember that providing evidence that evolution is false adds nothing to the argument FOR the various forms of creationism. Essentially: Let's separate the articles, and not be too crass in our critcisms of each theory. Violent, muddled responses wihin articles show nothing but pathetic insecurity. Just my 2cents. Not trying to get banned, just trying to evoke a civilized discussion.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 17:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I made every attempt to keep the tone of the article encyclopedic and vitriole free. Where is the rancor in the article? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::There ''is'' a lack of balance here, though. Surely you'll admit that? Right now, your article (Yes, ''your'' article. If my count is correct, you contributed 248 of 329 edits as of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&oldid=36224 this edit]. That's more than 75%. The next most contributing member is PhilipB with 11 edits.) has the sole aim of proving that evolution is wrong. Moving it to a more fitting name (like WOVcenter suggested) would at least solve the problem of balance in a trivial way, even though it would not solve the open points people raised on the Talk pages. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I will certainly admit the article is very conservative in content. I don't think that is all inappropriate given that the article is in a online encyclopedia called Conservapedia and that conservatives have been at the forefront of opposition to the evolutionary position since at least the time of Darwin. Secondly, as far as your edit percentage I think you should take into account that conservapedian Aschlafly did create the "Macroevolutionary Position and Implausible Explanations" material first and I merely revised his material to make it more cautionary in tone but at the same time gave more examples. So in at least one case, I have made the article more gentle on the evolutionary position. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:59, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::At edit counts of your dimension, those... five or ten or so edits reduce your percentage by less than half a percent or so. My point still stands. As does the point about this article being named incorrectly. I know this project is about "conservative values", but... oh, forget it. Total waste of my time trying to argue for balance. This thing will never be more than a permanently locked "Why evolution is wrong" essay. You're right. Stay the course. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I believe that you have confused "conservative" with "anti-science luddite". The two are not synonyms. Being a conservative does not necessitate rejecting the theory of evolution solely for religious reasons backed by faulty logic and outright falsehoods. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 19:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
WTF?!? This article isnt about evolution at all! it is just a criticism of evolution. You guys are embarrassing yourselves. [[User:Jirt|Jirt]] 19:50, 14 March 2007

I just now noticed that there's a page called 'Evolution', and another page called 'Theory of Evolution'. The 'Evolution' page addresses my earlier concern, and does in fact focus affirmatively on the theory of evolution (albeit in a comparatively cursory manner), and the 'Theory of Evolution' page addresses the Creationist concerns with the Theory of Evolution. I don't understand the naming. The difference between 'Evolution' and 'Theory of Evolution' is negligible at best. Do a google definition search (define:word), and essentially the same Darwin-related definitions are brought up. Granted, 'Evolution' is the broader term of the two (lots of non-biological things evolve too), but both Conservapedia articles speak to essentially the same, Darwin-focused things. Shouldn't the 'Evolution' article be named 'Theory of Evolution', and the current 'Theory of Evolution' page be entitled 'Criticisms of the Theory of Evolution'? My original argument still hasn't been addressed, too. The 'Theory of Evolution' page still presents virtually no affirmative information on Evolution, and mostly focuses on non-Evolutionary subjects (i.e. Creationism). Thoughts? --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 20:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Good plan.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::Also, this "Theory" article just keeps getting '''worse''', which you would think would stop at a certain point, but no, it just keeps going and going. Can some other admin, not [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], look at this drivel?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:If you check the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_2 second archived Talk page] you will see that I made a number of suggestions for improving the article by adding more content in the same vein as the information already present. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 20:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Why is that this article does not discuss fundamentals of the Theory of the Evolution? Namely mutations of the DNA? As I understand this theory, without explaining science behind evolution, it is very easy to misrepresent facts. --[[User:Aramis|Aramis]] 23:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Arismus, thank you for your input. For the sake of brevity, I covered that material here: Creationists assert that evolutionary biology is speculative and goes against much of the present evidence in biology that points to creationism. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html][http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genetics.asp][http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::Creationists are free to assert whatever they like, howevere that does not change the fact that their assertions are in direct contradiction to reality, nor does it change the fact that the "Theory of Evolution" page here is rife with logical errors, factual errors and quotes that have dishonestly been presented out of context. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 08:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::With all due respect, almost all evidence in biology points to evolution. I can accept that other areas of evolution are shaky (fossil records, etc.) but biology is one that I cannot. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Colin, please review the section in the article titled: "Little Consensus Regarding an Evolutionary Process" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::Conservative, picking quotes out of context is not how science is done. Take a read of Futuyama's text book on evolution, and you will see it is not built up of quotes, but rather hard science. I've already said from first-hand experience that Simon Morris's quote has been presented in a deliberately deceptive way to distort his opinion, and I'm very sure that most of the others have as well. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, the 'Evolution' page is now gone, and now redirects to the vehemently anti-Evolution 'Theory of Evolution' page. This isn't an article with information about Evolution, but rather a page about Creationism, and how it relates to Evolution. Shouldn't this be renamed 'Criticisms of the Theory of Evolution'. Is a Conservapedia sysop going to respond to my substantive concerns? Thanks. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Is no sysop going to respond? This is a critical issue, no? I'm just looking for ways to fix this article, and feel I've been fairly civil so far. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 04:02, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::WOVcenter, I appreciate your civility (AmesG was not very civil in his post above) and appreciate you wanting to improve the article. However, I don't believe that Conservapedia is going to make any substantial change in direction in regards to being against the evolutionary position. Here is what [[User:Aschlafly]] (who has authority over the Admins) has said about the Theory of Evolution article: "By the way, Theory of Evolution ranks number 3 in our most-visited pages, after the Main Page and Bias in Wikipedia. Well done!--Aschlafly 00:17, 27 February 2007 (EST)"[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::Conservative, thanks for responding. I don't at all want Conservapedia to change its stance on its response to Evolution; it's pretty clear that your beliefs are strong. I'm merely trying to make the point that encyclopedia titles should match their content. Sorry if I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but I feel this is incredibly important, and I'd like to have a cogent response to this particular point. If you have an entry called "Theory of Evolution", the article should speak to what that "Theory of Evolution" ''is'', rather than what it ''is not''. I have no doubt that all the anti-Evolution positions mentioned in the current article are positions that you hold dear. The fact still remains, though, that all these points are on the subject of ''controversy surrounding'' Evolution, rather than Evolution itself. All the books mentioned in your 'further readings' section quite correctly identify themselves as such. They're titled "Refuting Evolution", "Darwin on Trial", the "Creation-Evolution Controversy", etc. All of the titles of these books identify themselves as presenting arguments against Evolution, as part of the controversy surrounding Evolution; perhaps the article should do the same. This separation is something that Wikipedia does often, and rightfully, I feel. For example, say I'm a strong proponent of looser gun/ccw laws. There's no disagreement that there are varying disputes on the subject of gun control. So, where do I look for information on this on wikipedia? There's a page called 'Gun Politics'. My side's beliefs aren't found on the 'Gun', or 'Pistol/Handgun' page itself, and rightfully so. Okay, I'm not conflating gun control and evolution, but, the way these controversial issues should play out on an encyclopedia is important. My position on the structuring of this article is in no way trying to refute the claims made in the article. I'm merely saying, on a base writing-style level, that the article's title should more closely relate to the actual content. This is an article about the Evolution Controversy, as all your sources indicate, and as your content clearly illustrates. Labeling them as anything other than this just isn't correct. The article isn't about what Evolution is, it's about what it is ''not''. If these basic tenets of encyclopedia article writing aren't followed, at worst, this page may never come-off as anything more than angry hatespeech, and at best this page will come off as being poorly written. Please keep the articles intellectually honest. Thank you. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

There is nothing inherently 'conservative' about denying evolution. Charles Lyell was politically and religiously conservative, but he nonetheless accepted evolution based on scientific merit despite his personal distaste for the idea. Many, many professional scientists whose beliefs might also be described as conservative have also supported, even promoted evolution. Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the 20th century's greatest evolutionary biologists, is one example. Why is there the assumption that the term conservative is synonymous with 'christian'? Can't Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. be politically or socially conservative? Does this project exclude those people? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], you need to step aside here and allow people who are much more qualified than you are to take over. Your basic lack of scientific and historical understanding is shocking--or are you just more comfortable believing that every one of the dozens of posts attacking your miserable lack of knowledge of this subject is written by a liberal who is out to get you? --[[User:porkchop|porkchop]] 10:17, 15 March 2007
::Porkchop, conservatives have a long tradition of denying the validity of the theory of evolution. When you read the press who are the ones who deny the theory of evolution? The conservatives. What did most of the early church fathers and traditional Judaism teach? Young earth creationism (YEC) as I documented in the YEC article. I am also betting that traditional Islam upholds YEC. Therefore YEC is truly a conservative view. Lastly, I see no reason to dignify the more acerbic criticism portions of your post with a lengthy response. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::That most of those who object to evolution are conservative doesn't imply that most conservatives object to evolution. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm conservative and I don't object to evolution. As I've mention before I find YEC to be anti-Christian on theological grounds, and non-conservative as I believe conservatives should maintain a strict scientific viewpoint. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Technical question, article length ==

Conservapedia Scorpionman says the talk page was too long and I noticed it took about 2 seconds to scoll down the talk page. This talk page caused Scorpionman's browser to have problems.

Also, I noticed that the "Evolution" article at Wikipedia takes about 2 seconds to scroll down.

Here is my question. I was thinking of creating one more section but I don't want the article to become too big so people have internet browser problems. When is an article too big from a technical point of view. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

{{QuoteBox|Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, '''concise''', and without gossip or foul language.}}
:I think that answers your question. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I have no complaints from the Conservapedia staff that the article is not concise. The article is currently about half the size of the Wikipedia article on the same subject. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::Well, gee, I wonder why the Conservapedia staff didn't complain... *rolls eyes* And I don't have an issue with article length in general. Maybe you should talk to Scorpionman about why his browser can't even handle a few kb of text...
::::Sid, perhaps you should go to Wikipedia and complain that their article which is far longer than ours is not concise. Given the intensity of support for the evolutionary position at the liberal site Wikipedia [http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia], I don't think you will get too far! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::Do you even ''think'' before, while, or after you write a reply? '''Conciseness is a Conservapedia rule.''' Why should I go to WIKIPEDIA and complain that they break CONSERVAPEDIA's rules? UGH. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::And even more, don't you think it's a wee bit hypocritical to go "Wikipedia is bad because they don't listen to us!" while at the same time blocking out everybody who disagrees with your view? Critical articles are "protected" against "liberal vandalism" with no unlocking being in sight, and the points raised on Talk pages are simply ignored. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::And don't you think it's a bit bold to compare your "Evolution is wrong wrong wrong!" essay with Wikipedia's article about evolution? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Evolution is a theory and to present it as fact would be to misconstrue scientific opinion. This article takes a fair and balanced approach.
:::::That should be: a Fair And Balanced™ approach [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 19:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Ah yes. The old "It's a theory. As such, there are no signs indicating that it may be true. So ''theory'' is just another word for ''wrong''!" routine. Why am I not surprised? And it must be a funny universe in which "fair and balanced" is true even when the entire article just goes on and on about one side while misrepresenting or ignoring the other side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Your article is not what a reasonable individual -- conservative or not -- would consider to be "fair and balanced". Your article references numerous falsehoods and appeals primarily to out of context quote snippets, a creationist practice known as "quote mining", wherein you quote only a small portion of a person's statement to make it appear that they agree with your position or statement, when in reality the context of their statement taken with other statements made at the same time shows that they in fact do not agree with your position. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 20:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This "quote mining" was used to pretend that Stephen Jay Gould actually believes there are no transitional fossils! Here is a brief excerpt of what he really said (for the complete quotation go to "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes"): "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

::Gould wrote: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, '''we view our data as so bad that we NEVER see the very process we profess to study.''' [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=5&itemid=2080] In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; '''transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt'''." [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/punct.asp] (emphasis added)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::: This was followed immedeately by "Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no, and I invoke two recently supported cases of discontinuous change in my defense.", then ""If we must accept many cases of discontinuous transition in macroevolution, does Darwinism collapse to survive only as a theory of minor adaptive change within species? . . ." and then ""But all theories of discontinuous change are not anti-Darwinian, as Huxley pointed out nearly 120 years ago. Suppose that a discontinuous change in adult form arises from a small genetic alteration. Problems of discordance with other members of the species do not arise, and the large, favorable variant can spread through a population in Darwinian fashion. Suppose also that this large change does not produce a perfected form all at once, but rather serves as a "key" adaptation to shift its possessor toward a new mode of life. Continued success in this new mode may require a large set of collateral alterations, morphological and behavioral; these may arise by a more traditional, gradual route once the key adaptation forces a profound shift in selective pressures." You are again presenting only a small segment of a quote and distorting the idea that the original author was attempting to convey. You cannot falsify the theory of evolution by selectively quoting words of biologists and ignoring others. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 08:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Concise does not necessarily imply short in length. Concise just means free of extraneous information. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::Merriam-Webster says "''marked by brevity of expression or statement; free from all elaboration and superfluous detail''", Encarta says "''short and clearly written or stated: using as few words as possible to give the necessary information, or compressed in order to be brief''", and Dictionary.com says "''expressing or covering much in few words; brief in form but comprehensive in scope; succinct; terse''".
::So the definition implies "short in length" AND "clear in statement". These two things are connected and have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. You couldn't cover the entire Bible in just two paragraphs without omitting critical information, but doing a sentence-by-sentence analysis of it would not be concise, either. Similarily, you probably can't cover all aspects of evolution with 30kb (rough size of this article last time I checked), but this entire article can be summed up as "Evolution is the theory of how life changes over time. Creationists say that it's wrong, and you should believe them." I don't see how adding even more sections is going to say any more than that. It just goes on and on until the reader says "Okay! Fine! I believe that evolution is a lie!".
::The current article touches evolution, macroevolution, transitional forms, fossil record, design theory, and how the Bible has been right where science had initially been wrong. The only problem is that all of these complex fields are just brushed briefly without really giving context or explanations. Some sections only consist of a few lines of text and several paragraphs of quotes. If it's clear to you, then you have been in the Creationism/Evolution debate long enough not to need this article anyway.
::Likewise, this reply was not concise. A concise reply would have been: "The word ''concise'' implies shortness and clarity. This article fails to fulfill either aspect." --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== What's biased in this article? ==

:''For a [[creationist]] treatment of evolution, please see go to the[[Theory of evolution]] page.''

Biological evolution, first formally proposed as a theory by [[Charles Darwin]], is the structure by which organisms change over time, in small spurts, or in massive shifts.<ref>Carroll, Sean B (2005)., Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom, W. W. Norton & Company</ref> Both rest on firm scientific backing, demonstrating that all life on [[Earth]] comes from a common ancestor.<ref>Richard Dawkins, "the Blind Watchmaker."</ref>

The mechanism for evolution is [[natural selection]], which is to say that organisms adapt to new circumstances, by means of spontaneous genetic mutations found in the generation after a change is encountered, or they die. This is not to say that mutations only occur during environmental change; rather, they are always occuring, but only matter when an external pressure favors one species with a certain mutation. Certain large-scale environmental pressures can force an abrupt dying-off of species that are unfit for the circumstances, leaving only those who can withstand a changed situation. The remaining species then attempt to find their own niches in a new food chain. The most successful species at finding their own niches have more children than the less successful, and continuing evolution then favors a development of traits favored to that niche.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770</ref> This process is without termination. Humanity itself is still evolving.<ref>"Still Evolving: Human Genes Tell New Story," New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07evolve.html?ex=1174017600&en=5ecaa22626de424b&ei=5070</ref>

Evolution is highly controversial in the [[United States]]. A near-majority of Americans do not believe, or at least seriously question, evolution, based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, the two are not mutually exclusive, regardless of those perpetuating conflicts to the contrary. In fact, many people are deeply religious, and believe, for instance, that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. - From user AmesG

:Pretty much all Catholics, and most European Christians believe that, for starters. Creationism is pretty much unique to the USA and parts of the Third World. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 02:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationism appears to be spreading in Australia (compare the two footnotes)[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/1980.html][http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/27/1098667839167.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::Poor Australia. I didn't realize that times were so hard there.--11:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Current Talk Topics==

Current talk topics are discussed here. Once topics are resolved please add them to the Archives above with most recent topics in the archive of the highest number.

== Spent time proofreading ==

I received a short note regarding grammatical errors in this article. I was a writing tutor at a university so I did some proofreading and found some grammatical errors in the article. I also made some minor stylistic changes to sentences that I had composed. If anyone has any further input regarding this matter your comments would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Let a scientist get a crack at it? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::A scientist may introduce too much undesired fact. This article is clearly designed to be a showcase of typical creationist reasoning: devoid of actual fact, rich in quote mining and dishonesty. Clearly the author of this article wishes to give the impression that all conservatives are backwards champions of stupidity, and that conservatism means using lies to support a purely religious movement to destroy observed reality. I cannot fathom the reason for this, except to speculate that the Theory of Evolution page was actually written by a liberal who seeks to make liberalism look reasonable by comparison. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 09:03, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Dimensio, your vague allegations and attempts at mind reading are not exactly impressive. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::Nonetheless, you could let a scientist have a shot. Or are you afraid?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::It must be said conservative's understanding of biology does not appear to streach beyond quoting random biolgists. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Not all conservatives, some conservatives are, dare I say it... Atheist. [[User:ToryBoy|ToryBoy]]
::::::I think he meant the user Conservative, versus all conservatives. But worse than not understanding biology, Conservative is not even willing to learn, which is just plain sad.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Attempts to focus on me and my mental state are rather futile, given that I cited an abundance of creationist scientists and non-creationist scientists. I have noticed a lot of unsubstantive criticism on this talk page although I have certainly taken advantage of constructive criticism that has been offered at this website in regards to this article. Please try to focus the criticism on the article and not on me. It certainly would be taking the high road. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I've made it quite clear that the entire tactic of simply quoting little soundbites from various scientists in an attempt to distort the scientific posistion is not the proper way to write an article. You could read a few of the mainstream texts on the issue (I gave Futuyama's as a good example) before passing yourself off as an expert. Since you are currently the only person editting the article, focusing on you appears a valid topic. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative - the most obvious criticism of the article, to my mind at least, is that the various sections consist primarily of quotes. I think it would be greatly improved by synthesizing findings and allowing the reader to judge, rather than listing judgments that others have already made.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Nematocyte, why is it that evolutionist have a strong penchant for claiming things are random. I chose the scientists I cited. They were not "random". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::I'm guessing you picked them from premade lists of quote mines compiled by creationists. Am I close? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Nematocyte, again I think you need to focus on the article and not me. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::::That's a "correct", then? Since your are the only person editting the article I think it's highly important to discuss your credentials on the matter. Perhaps editting should be done by a person who's actually read the titles you're quoting from? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Murray, a substantial portion of the article is non quotes. However, quotes are an effective means to powerfully convey with precision what an expert has to offer. Aschlafly used a number of quotes for his portions of the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

''OR'', we could accurately and concisely convey the scientific consensus position on the matter by reviewing the mainstream authoratative text books and scientific reviews. Just mabey. Crazy thought, really. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the article in regards to the scientific consensus and the evolutionary view. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:39, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::::I'm an actual scientist. I deal with this subject on a day to day basis. Every day I meet and talk to other biologists, and read the literature on the subject. You only need to open the latest issue of ''Nature'', ''Science'', ''Cell'' or any other mainstream journal to see the consensus position. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::And a substantial portion of it is quotes. Again, from my perspective the article would be much improved with more original content. This is particularly glaring in the section on experimental data, which contains no actual discussion of the experimental data, merely a secondhand quote.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I think we're probably about to hear Conservative claim that [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] is a biased, God-hating atheist evolutionist, whose well-reasoned statements are nonetheless not due any deference.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Please keep your focus on the article. The talk page is intended for talk about the article and not about me. Notice the heading: [[Talk:Theory of evolution]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Seeing as how you remain the only editor of the article I would like you explain why that isn't an important topic. Moreover I would like to directly ask, what are your qualifications regarding the understanding of the theory of evolution? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Is this a joke?==

I just read through this article and I think I laughed. I can't tell if this entire article was written as a huge joke or not. Is this a serious article?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html Logical Fallacy: Appeal to ridicule][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::It's not a joke. This is what User:Conservative seriously believes the mainstream scientific position on evolution is. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Again, see the two sections of the article focusing on the Scientific Consensus issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::Conservative, it's also a fallacy to, when your reasoning is attacked, fall back on your reasoning as proof of itself. That's circular logic. Your statement of the "current position" is full of errors, that Nematocyte would gladly correct.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The entire article is an appeal to ridicule. I'm not enitrely sure how someone can be so single minded and blunt? At least liberals allow for all PoV to be considered. This article has whiffs of Stalin-esque censorship about it.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I don't think anyone has been put in a death camp or shot for criticizing this article. Please no theatrics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::How many months was it you tried to block JoshuaZ for? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::That does not answer the point that there is definitely censorship of many PoV from this article. Articles are locked, by Sysop's, to stop vandalism. Sysop's should not then continue to edit the page. That is plain abuse of privilege. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::The owner of Conservapedia does not seem to mind that I continue to make additions to the article in order to adequetely cover the conservative view. 12:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::::That's logic, is it? As I've said before I do not regard YEC as synonymous with conservatism, but rather as a form of paganism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::(Wow, my colon key has never been used so much) How about covering the liberal PoV, the evolutionist PoV, the actual scientific PoV or many others besides? This site claims to be minimising bias, not creating it.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I want to ask a serious question that I hope you take a long time to think about. Let's assume, ''arguendo'', that evolution is fact, and "Genesis" is not meant to be read literally, but as an allegory. It's no longer "six twenty-four hour days," but "six ages." How does that change your religion? It certainly makes life more complex, and makes faith more complex. But does that weaken your faith, or strengthen your faith by showing you the the ability of God to hide deeper truths in plain view? Suppose man did evolve from lesser forms of life. God did not create Adam and Eve as they were. Does that end God's role in man's life? Isn't God still responsible (in your view) for ''making us human'', giving us souls, raising us above our base anatomy as provided by nature? Isn't God still great because of that?

The irreducible minimum is this: do you think religion should change over time? Should a set of beliefs change with the believers, or should it ossify a culture, insulating it from all other outside change, and holding all values constant, for all time? Should we return to Job's treatment of pain and suffering, and if we're ever sick, should we just take it, as Job did, or should we try to cure ourselves with modern medicines? Isn't it possible that God sent us medicine through Louis Pasteur, or whoever you choose, as an aid to us?

And finally, is science actually destroying God, or just revealing more of His true nature? And does he suffer from that? Think long and hard before you answer.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:21, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, nicely written. Have you ever read Bradbury's "Christus Apollo?" It speaks just to this: fulfilling God's Will by questing and striving to learn.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 3

2007-03-15T17:25:43Z

WOVcenter: /* Fundamental Issue */

==Fundamental Issue==

There seems to be a complete dearth of information on evolution itself here on the page. Almost the entire article focuses on refuting evolution's claims. The article should probably be entitled "Criticisms of Evolution", rather than purporting to be an entry that gives affirmative (i.e. talking about what evolution is, rather than what it is NOT) information about evolution. Wikipedia provides numerous entries on all the varying forms of belief pertaining to the beginning of the world, and the ways which different biological forms came about. They have pages on the different sorts of creationism, evolution, the criticisms of each, timelines, history, schools of thought, and every other aspect of belief on the subject, each with their own entries. This page, on the other hand, reads like a vitriolic, reactionary response to something that we Christians are insecure about. Why not give evolution its own page, focusing on its proponents beliefs, give the criticisms of each their own respective pages, and write the creationist article in such a way that focuses on what the creationists actually do affirmatively believe. It seems to me that the issues need to be skillfully separated, being sure to not step on each theory's feet. Let's also remember that providing evidence that evolution is false adds nothing to the argument FOR the various forms of creationism. Essentially: Let's separate the articles, and not be too crass in our critcisms of each theory. Violent, muddled responses wihin articles show nothing but pathetic insecurity. Just my 2cents. Not trying to get banned, just trying to evoke a civilized discussion.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 17:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I made every attempt to keep the tone of the article encyclopedic and vitriole free. Where is the rancor in the article? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::There ''is'' a lack of balance here, though. Surely you'll admit that? Right now, your article (Yes, ''your'' article. If my count is correct, you contributed 248 of 329 edits as of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&oldid=36224 this edit]. That's more than 75%. The next most contributing member is PhilipB with 11 edits.) has the sole aim of proving that evolution is wrong. Moving it to a more fitting name (like WOVcenter suggested) would at least solve the problem of balance in a trivial way, even though it would not solve the open points people raised on the Talk pages. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I will certainly admit the article is very conservative in content. I don't think that is all inappropriate given that the article is in a online encyclopedia called Conservapedia and that conservatives have been at the forefront of opposition to the evolutionary position since at least the time of Darwin. Secondly, as far as your edit percentage I think you should take into account that conservapedian Aschlafly did create the "Macroevolutionary Position and Implausible Explanations" material first and I merely revised his material to make it more cautionary in tone but at the same time gave more examples. So in at least one case, I have made the article more gentle on the evolutionary position. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:59, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::At edit counts of your dimension, those... five or ten or so edits reduce your percentage by less than half a percent or so. My point still stands. As does the point about this article being named incorrectly. I know this project is about "conservative values", but... oh, forget it. Total waste of my time trying to argue for balance. This thing will never be more than a permanently locked "Why evolution is wrong" essay. You're right. Stay the course. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I believe that you have confused "conservative" with "anti-science luddite". The two are not synonyms. Being a conservative does not necessitate rejecting the theory of evolution solely for religious reasons backed by faulty logic and outright falsehoods. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 19:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
WTF?!? This article isnt about evolution at all! it is just a criticism of evolution. You guys are embarrassing yourselves. [[User:Jirt|Jirt]] 19:50, 14 March 2007

I just now noticed that there's a page called 'Evolution', and another page called 'Theory of Evolution'. The 'Evolution' page addresses my earlier concern, and does in fact focus affirmatively on the theory of evolution (albeit in a comparatively cursory manner), and the 'Theory of Evolution' page addresses the Creationist concerns with the Theory of Evolution. I don't understand the naming. The difference between 'Evolution' and 'Theory of Evolution' is negligible at best. Do a google definition search (define:word), and essentially the same Darwin-related definitions are brought up. Granted, 'Evolution' is the broader term of the two (lots of non-biological things evolve too), but both Conservapedia articles speak to essentially the same, Darwin-focused things. Shouldn't the 'Evolution' article be named 'Theory of Evolution', and the current 'Theory of Evolution' page be entitled 'Criticisms of the Theory of Evolution'? My original argument still hasn't been addressed, too. The 'Theory of Evolution' page still presents virtually no affirmative information on Evolution, and mostly focuses on non-Evolutionary subjects (i.e. Creationism). Thoughts? --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 20:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Good plan.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::Also, this "Theory" article just keeps getting '''worse''', which you would think would stop at a certain point, but no, it just keeps going and going. Can some other admin, not [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], look at this drivel?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:If you check the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_2 second archived Talk page] you will see that I made a number of suggestions for improving the article by adding more content in the same vein as the information already present. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 20:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Why is that this article does not discuss fundamentals of the Theory of the Evolution? Namely mutations of the DNA? As I understand this theory, without explaining science behind evolution, it is very easy to misrepresent facts. --[[User:Aramis|Aramis]] 23:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Arismus, thank you for your input. For the sake of brevity, I covered that material here: Creationists assert that evolutionary biology is speculative and goes against much of the present evidence in biology that points to creationism. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html][http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genetics.asp][http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::Creationists are free to assert whatever they like, howevere that does not change the fact that their assertions are in direct contradiction to reality, nor does it change the fact that the "Theory of Evolution" page here is rife with logical errors, factual errors and quotes that have dishonestly been presented out of context. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 08:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::With all due respect, almost all evidence in biology points to evolution. I can accept that other areas of evolution are shaky (fossil records, etc.) but biology is one that I cannot. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Colin, please review the section in the article titled: "Little Consensus Regarding an Evolutionary Process" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::Conservative, picking quotes out of context is not how science is done. Take a read of Futuyama's text book on evolution, and you will see it is not built up of quotes, but rather hard science. I've already said from first-hand experience that Simon Morris's quote has been presented in a deliberately deceptive way to distort his opinion, and I'm very sure that most of the others have as well. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, the 'Evolution' page is now gone, and now redirects to the vehemently anti-Evolution 'Theory of Evolution' page. This isn't an article with information about Evolution, but rather a page about Creationism, and how it relates to Evolution. Shouldn't this be renamed 'Criticisms of the Theory of Evolution'. Is a Conservapedia sysop going to respond to my substantive concerns? Thanks. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Is no sysop going to respond? This is a critical issue, no? I'm just looking for ways to fix this article, and feel I've been fairly civil so far. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 04:02, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::WOVcenter, I appreciate your civility (AmesG was not very civil in his post above) and appreciate you wanting to improve the article. However, I don't believe that Conservapedia is going to make any substantial change in direction in regards to being against the evolutionary position. Here is what [[User:Aschlafly]] (who has authority over the Admins) has said about the Theory of Evolution article: "By the way, Theory of Evolution ranks number 3 in our most-visited pages, after the Main Page and Bias in Wikipedia. Well done!--Aschlafly 00:17, 27 February 2007 (EST)"[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::Conservative, thanks for responding. I don't at all want Conservapedia to change its stance on Evolution; it's pretty clear that your beliefs are strong. I'm merely trying to make the point that encyclopedia titles should match their content. Sorry if I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but I feel this is incredibly important, and I'd like to have a cogent response to this particular point. If you have an entry called "Theory of Evolution", the article should speak to what that "Theory of Evolution" ''is'', rather than what it ''is not''. I have no doubt that all the anti-Evolution positions mentioned in the current article are positions that you hold dear. The fact still remains, though, that all these points are on the subject of ''controversy surrounding'' Evolution, rather than Evolution itself. All the books mentioned in your 'further readings' section quite correctly identify themselves as such. They're titled "Refuting Evolution", "Darwin on Trial", the "Creation-Evolution Controversy", etc. All of the titles of these books identify themselves as presenting arguments against Evolution, as part of the controversy surrounding Evolution; perhaps the article should do the same. This separation is something that Wikipedia does often, and rightfully, I feel. For example, say I'm a strong proponent of looser gun/ccw laws. There's no disagreement that there are varying disputes on the subject of gun control. So, where do I look for information on this on wikipedia? There's a page called 'Gun Politics'. My side's beliefs aren't found on the 'Gun', or 'Pistol/Handgun' page itself, and rightfully so. Okay, I'm not conflating gun control and evolution, but, the way these controversial issues should play out on an encyclopedia is important. My position on the structuring of this article is in no way trying to refute the claims made in the article. I'm merely saying, on a base writing-style level, that the article's title should more closely relate to the actual content. This is an article about the Evolution Controversy, as all your sources indicate, and as your content clearly illustrates. Labeling them as anything other than this just isn't correct. The article isn't about what Evolution is, it's about what it is ''not''. If these basic tenets of encyclopedia article writing aren't followed, at worst, this page may never come-off as anything more than angry hatespeech, and at best this page will come off as being poorly written. Please keep the articles intellectually honest. Thank you. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

There is nothing inherently 'conservative' about denying evolution. Charles Lyell was politically and religiously conservative, but he nonetheless accepted evolution based on scientific merit despite his personal distaste for the idea. Many, many professional scientists whose beliefs might also be described as conservative have also supported, even promoted evolution. Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the 20th century's greatest evolutionary biologists, is one example. Why is there the assumption that the term conservative is synonymous with 'christian'? Can't Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. be politically or socially conservative? Does this project exclude those people? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], you need to step aside here and allow people who are much more qualified than you are to take over. Your basic lack of scientific and historical understanding is shocking--or are you just more comfortable believing that every one of the dozens of posts attacking your miserable lack of knowledge of this subject is written by a liberal who is out to get you? --[[User:porkchop|porkchop]] 10:17, 15 March 2007
::Porkchop, conservatives have a long tradition of denying the validity of the theory of evolution. When you read the press who are the ones who deny the theory of evolution? The conservatives. What did most of the early church fathers and traditional Judaism teach? Young earth creationism (YEC) as I documented in the YEC article. I am also betting that traditional Islam upholds YEC. Therefore YEC is truly a conservative view. Lastly, I see no reason to dignify the more acerbic criticism portions of your post with a lengthy response. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::That most of those who object to evolution are conservative doesn't imply that most conservatives object to evolution. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm conservative and I don't object to evolution. As I've mention before I find YEC to be anti-Christian on theological grounds, and non-conservative as I believe conservatives should maintain a strict scientific viewpoint. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Technical question, article length ==

Conservapedia Scorpionman says the talk page was too long and I noticed it took about 2 seconds to scoll down the talk page. This talk page caused Scorpionman's browser to have problems.

Also, I noticed that the "Evolution" article at Wikipedia takes about 2 seconds to scroll down.

Here is my question. I was thinking of creating one more section but I don't want the article to become too big so people have internet browser problems. When is an article too big from a technical point of view. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

{{QuoteBox|Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, '''concise''', and without gossip or foul language.}}
:I think that answers your question. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I have no complaints from the Conservapedia staff that the article is not concise. The article is currently about half the size of the Wikipedia article on the same subject. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::Well, gee, I wonder why the Conservapedia staff didn't complain... *rolls eyes* And I don't have an issue with article length in general. Maybe you should talk to Scorpionman about why his browser can't even handle a few kb of text...
::::Sid, perhaps you should go to Wikipedia and complain that their article which is far longer than ours is not concise. Given the intensity of support for the evolutionary position at the liberal site Wikipedia [http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia], I don't think you will get too far! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::Do you even ''think'' before, while, or after you write a reply? '''Conciseness is a Conservapedia rule.''' Why should I go to WIKIPEDIA and complain that they break CONSERVAPEDIA's rules? UGH. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::And even more, don't you think it's a wee bit hypocritical to go "Wikipedia is bad because they don't listen to us!" while at the same time blocking out everybody who disagrees with your view? Critical articles are "protected" against "liberal vandalism" with no unlocking being in sight, and the points raised on Talk pages are simply ignored. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::And don't you think it's a bit bold to compare your "Evolution is wrong wrong wrong!" essay with Wikipedia's article about evolution? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Evolution is a theory and to present it as fact would be to misconstrue scientific opinion. This article takes a fair and balanced approach.
:::::That should be: a Fair And Balanced™ approach [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 19:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Ah yes. The old "It's a theory. As such, there are no signs indicating that it may be true. So ''theory'' is just another word for ''wrong''!" routine. Why am I not surprised? And it must be a funny universe in which "fair and balanced" is true even when the entire article just goes on and on about one side while misrepresenting or ignoring the other side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Your article is not what a reasonable individual -- conservative or not -- would consider to be "fair and balanced". Your article references numerous falsehoods and appeals primarily to out of context quote snippets, a creationist practice known as "quote mining", wherein you quote only a small portion of a person's statement to make it appear that they agree with your position or statement, when in reality the context of their statement taken with other statements made at the same time shows that they in fact do not agree with your position. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 20:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This "quote mining" was used to pretend that Stephen Jay Gould actually believes there are no transitional fossils! Here is a brief excerpt of what he really said (for the complete quotation go to "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes"): "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

::Gould wrote: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, '''we view our data as so bad that we NEVER see the very process we profess to study.''' [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=5&itemid=2080] In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; '''transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt'''." [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/punct.asp] (emphasis added)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::: This was followed immedeately by "Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no, and I invoke two recently supported cases of discontinuous change in my defense.", then ""If we must accept many cases of discontinuous transition in macroevolution, does Darwinism collapse to survive only as a theory of minor adaptive change within species? . . ." and then ""But all theories of discontinuous change are not anti-Darwinian, as Huxley pointed out nearly 120 years ago. Suppose that a discontinuous change in adult form arises from a small genetic alteration. Problems of discordance with other members of the species do not arise, and the large, favorable variant can spread through a population in Darwinian fashion. Suppose also that this large change does not produce a perfected form all at once, but rather serves as a "key" adaptation to shift its possessor toward a new mode of life. Continued success in this new mode may require a large set of collateral alterations, morphological and behavioral; these may arise by a more traditional, gradual route once the key adaptation forces a profound shift in selective pressures." You are again presenting only a small segment of a quote and distorting the idea that the original author was attempting to convey. You cannot falsify the theory of evolution by selectively quoting words of biologists and ignoring others. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 08:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Concise does not necessarily imply short in length. Concise just means free of extraneous information. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::Merriam-Webster says "''marked by brevity of expression or statement; free from all elaboration and superfluous detail''", Encarta says "''short and clearly written or stated: using as few words as possible to give the necessary information, or compressed in order to be brief''", and Dictionary.com says "''expressing or covering much in few words; brief in form but comprehensive in scope; succinct; terse''".
::So the definition implies "short in length" AND "clear in statement". These two things are connected and have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. You couldn't cover the entire Bible in just two paragraphs without omitting critical information, but doing a sentence-by-sentence analysis of it would not be concise, either. Similarily, you probably can't cover all aspects of evolution with 30kb (rough size of this article last time I checked), but this entire article can be summed up as "Evolution is the theory of how life changes over time. Creationists say that it's wrong, and you should believe them." I don't see how adding even more sections is going to say any more than that. It just goes on and on until the reader says "Okay! Fine! I believe that evolution is a lie!".
::The current article touches evolution, macroevolution, transitional forms, fossil record, design theory, and how the Bible has been right where science had initially been wrong. The only problem is that all of these complex fields are just brushed briefly without really giving context or explanations. Some sections only consist of a few lines of text and several paragraphs of quotes. If it's clear to you, then you have been in the Creationism/Evolution debate long enough not to need this article anyway.
::Likewise, this reply was not concise. A concise reply would have been: "The word ''concise'' implies shortness and clarity. This article fails to fulfill either aspect." --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== What's biased in this article? ==

:''For a [[creationist]] treatment of evolution, please see go to the[[Theory of evolution]] page.''

Biological evolution, first formally proposed as a theory by [[Charles Darwin]], is the structure by which organisms change over time, in small spurts, or in massive shifts.<ref>Carroll, Sean B (2005)., Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom, W. W. Norton & Company</ref> Both rest on firm scientific backing, demonstrating that all life on [[Earth]] comes from a common ancestor.<ref>Richard Dawkins, "the Blind Watchmaker."</ref>

The mechanism for evolution is [[natural selection]], which is to say that organisms adapt to new circumstances, by means of spontaneous genetic mutations found in the generation after a change is encountered, or they die. This is not to say that mutations only occur during environmental change; rather, they are always occuring, but only matter when an external pressure favors one species with a certain mutation. Certain large-scale environmental pressures can force an abrupt dying-off of species that are unfit for the circumstances, leaving only those who can withstand a changed situation. The remaining species then attempt to find their own niches in a new food chain. The most successful species at finding their own niches have more children than the less successful, and continuing evolution then favors a development of traits favored to that niche.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770</ref> This process is without termination. Humanity itself is still evolving.<ref>"Still Evolving: Human Genes Tell New Story," New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07evolve.html?ex=1174017600&en=5ecaa22626de424b&ei=5070</ref>

Evolution is highly controversial in the [[United States]]. A near-majority of Americans do not believe, or at least seriously question, evolution, based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, the two are not mutually exclusive, regardless of those perpetuating conflicts to the contrary. In fact, many people are deeply religious, and believe, for instance, that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. - From user AmesG

:Pretty much all Catholics, and most European Christians believe that, for starters. Creationism is pretty much unique to the USA and parts of the Third World. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 02:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationism appears to be spreading in Australia (compare the two footnotes)[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/1980.html][http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/27/1098667839167.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::Poor Australia. I didn't realize that times were so hard there.--11:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Current Talk Topics==

Current talk topics are discussed here. Once topics are resolved please add them to the Archives above with most recent topics in the archive of the highest number.

== Spent time proofreading ==

I received a short note regarding grammatical errors in this article. I was a writing tutor at a university so I did some proofreading and found some grammatical errors in the article. I also made some minor stylistic changes to sentences that I had composed. If anyone has any further input regarding this matter your comments would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Let a scientist get a crack at it? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::A scientist may introduce too much undesired fact. This article is clearly designed to be a showcase of typical creationist reasoning: devoid of actual fact, rich in quote mining and dishonesty. Clearly the author of this article wishes to give the impression that all conservatives are backwards champions of stupidity, and that conservatism means using lies to support a purely religious movement to destroy observed reality. I cannot fathom the reason for this, except to speculate that the Theory of Evolution page was actually written by a liberal who seeks to make liberalism look reasonable by comparison. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 09:03, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Dimensio, your vague allegations and attempts at mind reading are not exactly impressive. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::Nonetheless, you could let a scientist have a shot. Or are you afraid?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::It must be said conservative's understanding of biology does not appear to streach beyond quoting random biolgists. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Not all conservatives, some conservatives are, dare I say it... Atheist. [[User:ToryBoy|ToryBoy]]
::::::I think he meant the user Conservative, versus all conservatives. But worse than not understanding biology, Conservative is not even willing to learn, which is just plain sad.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Attempts to focus on me and my mental state are rather futile, given that I cited an abundance of creationist scientists and non-creationist scientists. I have noticed a lot of unsubstantive criticism on this talk page although I have certainly taken advantage of constructive criticism that has been offered at this website in regards to this article. Please try to focus the criticism on the article and not on me. It certainly would be taking the high road. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I've made it quite clear that the entire tactic of simply quoting little soundbites from various scientists in an attempt to distort the scientific posistion is not the proper way to write an article. You could read a few of the mainstream texts on the issue (I gave Futuyama's as a good example) before passing yourself off as an expert. Since you are currently the only person editting the article, focusing on you appears a valid topic. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative - the most obvious criticism of the article, to my mind at least, is that the various sections consist primarily of quotes. I think it would be greatly improved by synthesizing findings and allowing the reader to judge, rather than listing judgments that others have already made.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Nematocyte, why is it that evolutionist have a strong penchant for claiming things are random. I chose the scientists I cited. They were not "random". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::I'm guessing you picked them from premade lists of quote mines compiled by creationists. Am I close? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Nematocyte, again I think you need to focus on the article and not me. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::::That's a "correct", then? Since your are the only person editting the article I think it's highly important to discuss your credentials on the matter. Perhaps editting should be done by a person who's actually read the titles you're quoting from? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Murray, a substantial portion of the article is non quotes. However, quotes are an effective means to powerfully convey with precision what an expert has to offer. Aschlafly used a number of quotes for his portions of the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

''OR'', we could accurately and concisely convey the scientific consensus position on the matter by reviewing the mainstream authoratative text books and scientific reviews. Just mabey. Crazy thought, really. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the article in regards to the scientific consensus and the evolutionary view. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:39, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::::I'm an actual scientist. I deal with this subject on a day to day basis. Every day I meet and talk to other biologists, and read the literature on the subject. You only need to open the latest issue of ''Nature'', ''Science'', ''Cell'' or any other mainstream journal to see the consensus position. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::And a substantial portion of it is quotes. Again, from my perspective the article would be much improved with more original content. This is particularly glaring in the section on experimental data, which contains no actual discussion of the experimental data, merely a secondhand quote.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I think we're probably about to hear Conservative claim that [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] is a biased, God-hating atheist evolutionist, whose well-reasoned statements are nonetheless not due any deference.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Please keep your focus on the article. The talk page is intended for talk about the article and not about me. Notice the heading: [[Talk:Theory of evolution]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Seeing as how you remain the only editor of the article I would like you explain why that isn't an important topic. Moreover I would like to directly ask, what are your qualifications regarding the understanding of the theory of evolution? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Is this a joke?==

I just read through this article and I think I laughed. I can't tell if this entire article was written as a huge joke or not. Is this a serious article?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html Logical Fallacy: Appeal to ridicule][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::It's not a joke. This is what User:Conservative seriously believes the mainstream scientific position on evolution is. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Again, see the two sections of the article focusing on the Scientific Consensus issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::Conservative, it's also a fallacy to, when your reasoning is attacked, fall back on your reasoning as proof of itself. That's circular logic. Your statement of the "current position" is full of errors, that Nematocyte would gladly correct.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The entire article is an appeal to ridicule. I'm not enitrely sure how someone can be so single minded and blunt? At least liberals allow for all PoV to be considered. This article has whiffs of Stalin-esque censorship about it.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I don't think anyone has been put in a death camp or shot for criticizing this article. Please no theatrics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::How many months was it you tried to block JoshuaZ for? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::That does not answer the point that there is definitely censorship of many PoV from this article. Articles are locked, by Sysop's, to stop vandalism. Sysop's should not then continue to edit the page. That is plain abuse of privilege. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::The owner of Conservapedia does not seem to mind that I continue to make additions to the article in order to adequetely cover the conservative view. 12:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::::That's logic, is it? As I've said before I do not regard YEC as synonymous with conservatism, but rather as a form of paganism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::(Wow, my colon key has never been used so much) How about covering the liberal PoV, the evolutionist PoV, the actual scientific PoV or many others besides? This site claims to be minimising bias, not creating it.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I want to ask a serious question that I hope you take a long time to think about. Let's assume, ''arguendo'', that evolution is fact, and "Genesis" is not meant to be read literally, but as an allegory. It's no longer "six twenty-four hour days," but "six ages." How does that change your religion? It certainly makes life more complex, and makes faith more complex. But does that weaken your faith, or strengthen your faith by showing you the the ability of God to hide deeper truths in plain view? Suppose man did evolve from lesser forms of life. God did not create Adam and Eve as they were. Does that end God's role in man's life? Isn't God still responsible (in your view) for ''making us human'', giving us souls, raising us above our base anatomy as provided by nature? Isn't God still great because of that?

The irreducible minimum is this: do you think religion should change over time? Should a set of beliefs change with the believers, or should it ossify a culture, insulating it from all other outside change, and holding all values constant, for all time? Should we return to Job's treatment of pain and suffering, and if we're ever sick, should we just take it, as Job did, or should we try to cure ourselves with modern medicines? Isn't it possible that God sent us medicine through Louis Pasteur, or whoever you choose, as an aid to us?

And finally, is science actually destroying God, or just revealing more of His true nature? And does he suffer from that? Think long and hard before you answer.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:21, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, nicely written. Have you ever read Bradbury's "Christus Apollo?" It speaks just to this: fulfilling God's Will by questing and striving to learn.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Laissez faire

2007-03-15T08:14:40Z

WOVcenter:

Why is this in the past tense entirely? There are still plenty of laissez-fair politicians/economists out there, e.g. every libertarian on the planet.

--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 12:40, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I think the Bible verse is completely irrelevant and does not help in making this a concise article, but I'll wait for discussion before removing it. Any thoughts? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 02:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:yes, the bible verse makes absolutely no sense in this context. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 04:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Barbara Bush

2007-03-15T08:13:05Z

WOVcenter:

Barbara Bush is George H.W. Bush's wife, not W's wife. Perhaps there should also be mention of the fact that W has a daughter named Barbara. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 04:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?

2007-03-14T20:12:12Z

WOVcenter:

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Free trade stimulates the economy. A better economy increases demand for a wider variety of goods. In order to meet demand, people will labor to produce more goods. The result of this labor is an increase of wealth; Labor + raw materials = more valuble product.
[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

From a global perspective, free trade certainly increases the overall amount of wealth in the economy. By eliminating barriers to trade, governments encourage members of the economy to specialize in doing whatever they do best and then trading to fulfill their wants and needs. When trade is efficient, a firm can focus its production capability entirely on the area in which it has a comparative advantage. Thus, opportunity costs are minimized and each firm is as productive as possible. Production will be greater, and production costs will be lower than they were without free trade. However, it is crucial to realize that this analysis is from a global rather than national point of view. Free trade certainly does redistribute wealth, and it is quite possible that free trade will benefit the economy as a whole, but harm a specific nation by redistributing wealth away from that nation. Free trade can put industrialized nations such as the United States at a disadvantage relative to less developed nations. Businesses in the United States are heavily restricted by health, labor, and environmental regulations. This often makes production in less developed nations less expensive than production in the US. While free trade is optimal from a worldwide perspective, it may be very dismal from our point of view. EWJ

Mr. Schlafly's arguments carry great weight from a global perspective. The People's Republic of China is a prime example both of Mr. Schlafly's defense costs argument, and of EWJ's argument about the effects of varying levels of regulation in different countries. However, within a stable society wherein all commercial entities are bound by the same regulations, free trade is increases the wealth of all financially competent members of society. In fact, free trade increases wealth by redistributing it to parties who can make more effective use of it. As an example, let us begin with the production of crude oil. The employees of a crude oil company can only utilize an infintesimal portion of thier total productions for thier personal needs. Thus they sell it to a power plant for standard currency, thereby creating wealth for themselves. The workers at the power plant only need a tiny portion of the power they produce, so they sell the power to individual homes and businesses. Each of these homes or businesses uses the power to create wealth either in the form of personal enjoyment or industrial production. All parties involved in this series of transactions end up wealthier than they begin. Obstacles to free trade would only hinder this creation of wealth. Chris J.

: '''REPLY:''' Chris makes an excellent case for trade and [[division of labor]]. By increasing efficient use of labor, overall wealth does seem to be promoted perhaps simply by reducing inefficiencies.

: But the increase in overall wealth is not shared equally, particularly when the example shifts to trade between nations. In fact, the benefits of trade may be virtually enjoyed entirely by one nation. If that nation is an enemy, it will use that increased wealth against the other nation that is enriching it. Should Carthage have enriched Rome at the time when Rome was determined to destroy Carthage? Would it have made sense for the Allies to enrich Japan or Germany in the late 1930s? I don't think so.

: Note also that most of the increase in overall wealth is due to a more efficient [[division of labor]]. When we are considering increasing free trade between countries have hundreds of millions of workers apiece, there seems to be little to be gained by dividing labor further. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 21 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply about the above Reply''' Is it always the case that two countries benefit highly unevenly with regards to mutual trade? Refrigerators provide a case in point. A Chinese company, Haier, makes refrigerators and many similar products and wanted to sell them in the United States. However a mixture of tariffs and the expense of shipping bulky things like refrigerators compelled Haier to build a factory in South Carolina. The current arrangement is for Haier to make the parts in China, ship them to South Carolina, and have American workers build the final products, which tends to be the most complex and hence highest-paying set of jobs. By using the division of labor that Chris mentioned Chinese workers turn out huge numbers of parts and American workers turn out huge numbers of cheap refrigerators. Since so many units are being built many American workers are employed in the better paying jobs, and American consumers get cheaper refrigerators. Simultaneously some very poor workers in China get to make a living. The automobile industry shows similar characteristics, with many American automakers importing the parts that go into American-built cars.
When it comes to enriching a country's enemies, obviously an odious regime like Nazi Germany shouldn't be supported. At the same time two countries might be kept from fighting each other if they trade a great deal, and increasing trade might make China an increasingly capitalist country, which is all to the good. It just seems to me that everyone getting richer and less likely to fight each other is better than people being poorer and more likely to fight. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 02:51, 9 March 2007 (EST)WOVcenter

I think when you notice economies in communist nations where they don't have free trade, you have a higher poverty rate. Communism tries to control prices and control the market, as opposed to free trade when the invisible hand is moved by supply and demand and not some government. However; I would say, that it also depends on the tax rate and interest rate on how wealth is increased. During the JFK years, the wealthy had a 87% tax rate, and wealth had not increased much even if the market was free in the USA. If the government has high taxes on the wealthy, the wealthy are less likely to invest it or spend it, which distributes wealth to the middle-class and poor in the form of jobs, dividends, and buying from small companies so they can employ more people. It is the banks that increase the wealth, because they give out loans and keep 10% of the money deposited in their vaults, which creates the wealth. If the wealthy aren't able to put their wealth into banks, because they are highly taxed, then wealth does not increase. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 23:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

All voluntary transactions create value. It's not a zero sum game. In many cases that value can be converted to wealth through the productive use of the assets being traded. For example, let's say that I agree to sell you my old lawn mower for $20. The fact that I am willing to sell it for $20 means it is worth less than $20 to me (or else why would I sell it at that price>). That you are willing to buy it means it is worth more than $20 to you (or else why part with your $20?). Perhaps you'd have been willing to pay $30, or $40. For productive assets, the value you ascribe to it will be at least equal to the present value of the cash flows that asset will generate. Free trade allows assets to more easily make their way to the highest valued use because it removes barriers that might otherwise have prevented the transfer. By funneling assets to their highest values use creates more wealth (obviously) than funneling them less highly values uses.
--[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 19:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''no...'''===

Free trade is mostly the redistribution of forms of wealth from buyer to seller. The sellers, for example, receive the primary benefit of compensation for their capital and labor. The buyer must perceive a benefit also to induce him to enter into the transaction. But that relative benefit can be, and often is, very small. A one-cent reduction in price brought by increased "free trade" can be the total amount of the benefit to the buyer.

What the seller does with his large benefit can end up cost that buyer more than one cent. The restribution of wealth through free trade to an enemy of the United States can result in the money being spent on missiles directed at the United States, which then has to spend money (perhaps more than one cent per buyer) in defending against those missiles.

Bottom line: Free trade primary redistributes wealth rather than creating it.

Mr. Schlafly

Free trade is wage arbitrage. Free trade is Bill Gates saying raise the H-1b level to 300,000 further depressing American salaries.
So far free trade has resulted in continuous trade deficits. A continuous trade deficit is money that ceases to circulate in the USA.

I am a Pat Buchanan Conservative so have your counter-arguments make economic sense.

Properly designed/regulated open trade would create wealth more efficiently and for more people than a system of pro-business free trade that allows companies to exploit poverty stricken workers, prevent organization of labor, and ignore environmental standards by moving to third world nations. Bad practices lead to collapse of established working economies and a worsening of conditions for locals and the movement of jobs to this new country leads to lowered wages and employment in their nation of origination and prices don't actually fall because the company wants to increase their profit margin. Basically, costs don't fall. Labor costs fall and management costs rise. Although this is not necessarily the result of free trade, free trade could possibly act to redistribute wealth from the laborers to the owners of capital and not to actually create more wealth. [[User:Thorn969|Thorn969]] 01:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, here are some economically sensical arguments for Thorn. First, competition forces firms to lower product prices when factor costs such as labor fall, so free trade does rapidly decrease prices. Happy Meal toys would be rather more expensive if produced in the United States. You ignore that many skilled positions in advanced economies lack sufficient workers, which prompts entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates to call for more skilled immigrants to fill labor shortages. And obviously some people do lose out in the long run, but that can be answered either with graduated taxes/unemployment relief or recourse to personal savings. Finally the trade deficit argument fails on two counts. First, if any country is a net exporter at least one other country must be a net importer. Also a basic accounting reality is the following equation; Exports-Imports=Savings-Investment. Essentially if Americans and foreign individuals or firms want to invest more in America than Americans want to save the result will be a trade deficit. Since investment is a good thing a trade deficit isn't the end of the world, although the current American one is abnormally large due to excessive federal deficit spending. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 16:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Lewis "Scooter" Libby

2007-03-14T04:16:56Z

WOVcenter:

I believe his full name is Irving Lewis "Scooter" Libby. But then I'm not a citable source. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]] 14:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:He's nearly universally referred to as Lewis "Scooter" Libby. I'll move the page there. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 14:05, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, this is true, I wasn't faulting you just pointing it out.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]] 14:08, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I know. And yes, I checked, and his full name is Irving Lewis Libby :D. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 14:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Opinionated paragraphs ==
I favor deleting the last 3 paragraphs as opinionated, misleading, and repetitive. They start with "Libby is the highest-ranking White House official to be convicted of a felony since the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-1980s." Huh? I didn't think that anyone was convicted in Iran-Contra. North and Poindexter won on appeal. Then there is some out-of-place criticism of the Wash. Post, and a useless comment about legal experts being not surprised. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==format==

The format of this article is bizarre and incomprehensible. It sounds like something that was copied from elsewhere. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Texas

2007-03-14T03:49:50Z

WOVcenter:

Isn't Alaska bigger?--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 23:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Sunnis

2007-03-13T07:39:48Z

WOVcenter:

Religious groups shouldn't be evaluated based on perceptions of their stance vis-a-vis the US. Iran and Hezbollah are no more arbiters of global Shiite opinion than Syria and al-Qaeda are of Sunni opinion. There are plenty of people of almost every conceivable religious conviction who like or dislike the United States or "the West." --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 23:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, Conservapedia is written from a pro-Christian and pro-American standpoint, so there will definitely be some opinion based on the American viewpoint of things. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

That's reasonable, but classifying Shia as opposed to Sunni Muslims as unusually anti-American seems silly. As stated above, al-Qaeda is an extremist Sunni organization. The most anti-American insurgents in Iraq are usually Sunni. Obviously saying that the Iranian government is anti-American would be reasonable, since anti-Americanism is a basis of Iranian policy. There are lots of Shia who aren't Iranian though, or who despise the Islamic Republic. The subtelty seems important. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 03:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Battle of Hastings

2007-03-13T07:30:50Z

WOVcenter:

How, pray tell, did William the Conqueror disguise himself? That makes no sense given that he led the army of the Duchy of Normandy during the Conquest. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:54, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Feel free to edit the article if you think it's wrong[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[UserTalk:Cracker|talk]] 02:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sources will be added for this soon, it mostly can be found in basic European history textbooks though. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Battle of Hastings

2007-03-13T07:29:51Z

WOVcenter:

[[Image:Battle_of_Hastings.gif|thumb|450px|Map of the Battle of Hastings]]
The Battle of Hastings was fought in AD 1066 between [[William the Conquerer]], Duke of Normandy and [[Harold Godwinson]], Earl of Wessex. The issue of succession to the English throne provided the basis for the battle, with King Edward the Confessor dying without heirs. Both William and Harold claimed the English throne, the eventual result being the invasion of England by William to assert his claim. The battle ended with victory for the Normans due largely to the poor discipline of the Anglo-Saxon militia that formed a large part of Harold's army. The Anglo-Saxon army had also been weakened due to fighting with a Norwegian invasion led by Harald Hardrada before encountering the Norman army, as well as the difficult march from the northern England (where the Norwegians attacked) to the south of England (site of the Norman landings). The battle led to the founding of a French speaking dynasty and aristocracy in England. The numbering of English monarchs begins with the Conquest brought about by the Battle of Hastings. The battle is portrayed in the famous "Bayeoux Tapestry."

Talk:Jihad

2007-03-13T05:25:15Z

WOVcenter:

Isn't this an Arabic term, used by Muslims? 'Islamic' isn't a language. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:The language is Arabic, but the idea is uniquely Islamic. It's like, "The Trinity" is an [[English]] term, but it is a [[Christian]] term in that it almost always refers to the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Correct, but Arabic is mentioned nowhere in the article. I merely think it should be mentioned as at least being in Arabic. I just think it's more precise. Without it, it seems to conflate arabic and islam, two things which are not synonyms.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Jihad

2007-03-13T05:25:05Z

WOVcenter:

Talk:New Orleans

2007-03-13T05:13:48Z

WOVcenter:

"which caused some people to drown"? You've got to be kidding me. Why not list the number (thousands), first of all, and also mention the fact that Katrina merely destroyed a major US city. Shouldn't Katrina have its own entry anyhow? --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Civil Unions

2007-03-13T05:11:54Z

WOVcenter:

vandalism. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Jihad

2007-03-13T05:10:30Z

WOVcenter:

Isn't this an Arabic term, used by Muslims? 'Islamic' isn't a language. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Jihad

2007-03-13T05:10:08Z

WOVcenter:

Isn't this an Arabic term, used by Muslims? 'Islamic' isn't a language. [www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp source]--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Jihad

2007-03-13T05:09:16Z

WOVcenter:

Isn't this an Arabic term, used by Muslims? 'Islamic' isn't a language. [www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp] --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Sunnis

2007-03-13T03:00:55Z

WOVcenter:

Talk:Parthia

2007-03-13T02:04:14Z

WOVcenter:

Since Jesus was born in the land of Israel and was executed by order of a Roman governor, how could the Parthians have controlled Palestine/Israel? At the very least the article should note that there were times during the existence of the Parthian Empire when they didn't control some territories, and preferably dates for specific regions. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 22:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Free French

2007-03-12T22:07:13Z

WOVcenter:

The French didn't have any troops or presence in Iraq, although Britain did. As a result de Gaulle could not have fought Vichy supporters there. The author probably means Lebanon instead. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:07, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Free French

2007-03-12T22:07:06Z

WOVcenter:

The French didn't have any troops or presence in Iraq, although Britain did. As a result de Gaulle could not have fought Vichy supporters there. The author probably means Lebanon instead.

Talk:Standard temperature and pressure

2007-03-12T21:58:39Z

WOVcenter:

Is STP not 273.15 degrees C?--[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

No. STP is 0 Celsius at sea-level on Earth, or 273.15 Kelvins at 1 atmosphere of pressure. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 17:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Uzbekistan

2007-03-12T21:57:28Z

WOVcenter:

Karimov's first name should be spelled "Islam." Also, Central Asian states once part of the Soviet Union often aren't part of the Middle East. Calling Karimov a "bad guy" should at least be cited with evidence and as an opinion probably should be dropped. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 17:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:WOVcenter

2007-03-12T21:37:24Z

WOVcenter:

Force

2007-03-12T21:35:08Z

WOVcenter: inserted the appropriate asterix

A push or pull that changes the motion of an object.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000</ref>. The force is related to the [[acceleration]] of the object by [[Newton's Second Law]], which states that F = m*a, that is, force equals mass times acceleration.<ref>Marcelo Alonso and Edward J. Finn, ''Fundamental University Physics'', Addison-Wesley.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:The History of the Peloponnesian War

2007-03-12T06:48:44Z

WOVcenter:

The ranking of The History of the Peloponnesian War as one of the "three best" is an opinion and should not appear in a presumably objective article. Also, Thucydides studied the history of the war, while Sun-Tzu and von Clausewitz studied war as an abstract phenomenon, so they really talk about different things. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 02:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Absolute zero

2007-03-12T06:37:14Z

WOVcenter:

Why was the paragraph regarding how Absolute Zero cannot be attained removed? I believe this is a valid point in the face of the overwhelming positive media coverage of this highly theoretical concept. [[User:ATB|ATB]] 17:53, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:The alternative would have been a {{fact}} tag after pretty much each sentence. I would have done so, but pretty much each sentence had only opinions and/or otherwise unencyclopedic bits. It should also be noted that the paragraph was NOT about how it cannot be attained, but rather about how the possibly biased scientific community potentially made up stuff to cover up their lack of tangible proof of its existence. In your universe, these may be equal sentences, but I didn't think so. If you want to write about how the laws of thermodynamics or something show that it cannot be reached (but that you can get very close), be my guest and maybe dig out a source or two since that's non-trivial research. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::As I understand it, it's the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that limits the ability of substances to be at absolute zero. You cannot simultaneously know the position and velocity of a particle precisely. Since temperature is molectular motion, and absolute zero is a state of "no molectular motion at all," if you knew the position of a particle and that its temperature was absolute zero, you could in theory violate the Uncertainty Principle under certain circumstances. Since I'm not a physicist, though, I'll leave it to others to write the clarification in the article. --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 23:28, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually the uncertainty principle doesn't need to be invoked. Since the Cosmic Background Radiation has an observed temperature of around 3 Kelvins any object in the currently observable universe would be at least that warm since it would be bathed in microwave radiation. Because the universe is filled with some degree of energy everywhere absolute zero is impossible. Even the best cooling system would heat a cooled object via electro-magnetic radiation to a point above 0 Kelvin. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 02:37, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Shah

2007-03-12T06:06:44Z

WOVcenter:

Just reading a history book about Iran/Persia indicates that the shah may have claimed absolute power, but certainly lacked anything approaching total authority. The importance of that difference should be readily apparent. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 02:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Battle of Hastings

2007-03-12T05:54:56Z

WOVcenter:

Talk:Spartan Soldiers

2007-03-12T05:52:21Z

WOVcenter:

It would be impolite of me to mention that the Spartans accepted homosexual relationships among men as natural and expected, right? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:56, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It may also be impolite to note that the army at Thermopylae was composed of Thebans and Thespians as well as Spartans, and that they all died, with the result that the Persians burned Athens to the ground. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:John Scopes

2007-03-12T05:49:53Z

WOVcenter:

This article needs to be rewritten, probably from scratch. Bryan and FDR were very different people with very different policies, and Bryan's presidential campaign was a disaster. Also the writing seems strangely informal, as becomes apparent in the first sentence. Again, a general re-write appears in order. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Medina

2007-03-12T05:47:28Z

WOVcenter:

The author of the article was probably thinking about the Medici family in Florence. Medina is the town which Mohammed fled after being expelled from Mecca (an event known as the hijra). It is also a Hebrew word meaning "Country" or "State" and a German-style boardgame, among other things. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Medina

2007-03-12T05:47:12Z

WOVcenter:

The author of the article was probably thinking about the Medici family in Florence. Medina is the town which Mohammed fled after being expelled from Mecca (an event known as the hijra). It is also a Hebrew word meaning "Country" or "State" and a German boardgame, among other things. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Homosexual Agenda

2007-03-12T04:59:08Z

WOVcenter:

Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Afrika Korps

2007-03-12T01:54:28Z

WOVcenter:

== Sorry to interupt the backslapping ==

El Alamein?

--[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:19, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Don't get the joke here. Is this a joke? What does this mean?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:19, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:No joke. I just thought that the article, as it currently stands, gives the impression that the Afrika Korps totally defeated the British and that it is solely down to the Americans that the Afrika Korps were eventually defeated. That is, of course, incorrect. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:24, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::OK, let's fix it ASAP.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::: I looked at it and don't see anything that is obviously "incorrect". Didn't the Germans beat the British in North Africa in WWII, until the Americans arrived?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::::Not really. The Afrika Korps were defeated at the second battle of El Alamein shortly before Operation Torch. Furthermore, Operation Torch did include some British troops (and even some Free French). --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:49, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::::: I'm skeptical. This seems like a battle characterized by the British as a big victory to boost public morale. In fact, a quick look confirms that Allied losses were nearly twice the German losses. Rommel did retreat, however, so I guess that is what makes it a victory. Surely he could have retaliated successfully later had Patton not arrived.

::::: Feel free to add and describe the battle, though, as it is informative. I'll get this started and you can change as you like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 3 March 2007 (EST)

These guys were amazing only deafted by the British Eigth Army. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:29, 4 March 2007 (EST)

A good source for this article would be John Bierman and Colin Smiths book ''The Battle of Alamein'', which details how the Afrika Korps were stopped at the First Battle of El Alamein and then defeated at the Second Battle of El Alamein. British casualties were high because the second battle involved the Eighth Army attacking the Afrika Korps with the result that many British Imperial soldiers marched into World War I type machine-gun fire. The British did win, however. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 21:54, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Operation Torch ==

Actually I don't think it is strictly accurate to say that Operation Torch defeated the Afrika Korps for two reasons: (1) I think Torch had finished by that time; and (2) The Afrika Korps were caught between the Americans and the British. I will look it up and return later. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Jean Jacques Rousseau

2007-03-12T01:44:49Z

WOVcenter:

The last sentence in the first paragraph is obviously an opinion, and should either be deleted or moved into a debate page. Rousseau's ''Social Contract'' didn't require direct democracy, and even declared such a government impossible over large territories. Rousseau also did not believe in equality of the sexes, believing men to be superior to women. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 21:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Jean Jacques Rousseau

2007-03-12T01:43:11Z

WOVcenter:

The last sentence in the first paragraph is obviously an opinion, and should either be deleted or moved into a debate page. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 21:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Balance of power

2007-03-12T01:40:47Z

WOVcenter:

Why only after Napoleon? Some historians (Paul Kennedy comes to mind) think that the balance of power came into effect well before Napoleon. And why should balance of power only apply to Europe?--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 21:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Mount Everest

2007-03-11T22:11:01Z

WOVcenter:

The added descriptor of "huge" is unnecessary, and the random aside about Mars is totally irrelevant. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:11, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Civil service system

2007-03-11T08:10:38Z

WOVcenter:

Almost all countries, including the United States, have civil service systems, not just China. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 04:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Cruisers

2007-03-11T08:08:46Z

WOVcenter:

Can't the defintion contained in this entry be used for any ocean-going ship? --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 04:08, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Mormon

2007-03-11T08:03:16Z

WOVcenter:

The polygamy entry is wrong, the Church of Latter Day Saints has banned polygamy for over a century. Only small splinter groups maintain that practice. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 04:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Constitutional monarchy

2007-03-11T07:59:57Z

WOVcenter:

Plato believed in aristocracy (The Republic), Hobbes liked absolutism (Leviathan)and Locke was open to republicanism (Second Treatise on Government), so a citation of some sort for these philosophers as proponents of constitutional monarchy is necessary.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 03:58, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Constitutional monarchy

2007-03-11T07:58:32Z

WOVcenter:

Hobbes liked absolutism and Locke was open to republicanism, so a citation of some sort for these philosophers as proponents of constitutional monarchy is necessary.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 03:58, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Shah

2007-03-11T05:00:04Z

WOVcenter:

Shah is a Persian title for a monarch. The shah had absolute power.

Talk:Janissary

2007-03-11T04:58:47Z

WOVcenter:

This post seems to have contradicted the devshirme entry on the origins of the janissaries. Also, the etymology is wrong, the Turkish root comes from "yeni ceri."--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 23:58, 10 March 2007 (EST)