Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 14

Student Panel's Decision

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

Sincerely,
The Conservapedia Student Panel --User:CPanel

The Panel regarding a concise definition of the theory of evolution:

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

Set 1 of Archives

Blocked?

You call Wikipedia biased, and yet block any article that has a chance to be tampered with. You're almost as bad as New York Time, but would never insult you enough to put you at the same level. Why do we point out that Isaac Newton and Aristotle never thought of evolution? They also didn't think of several things, but that doesn't disprove anything. It is yet another embarrassing point that demeans our credibility.--Jaden13 17:45, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

I have to agree, Jaden13, I do find it almost sickening that this article refers to completely unrelated scholars in a hope to demean the theory of evolution. There is no documented fact that Aristotle didn't believe in evolution, so why is that implied to successfully in this article.--Metatron 19:49, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Darwin an atheist?

Interestingly, Darwin says in that extract that he considered himself a theist at the time he wrote Origin of Species. Indeed, he explicitly cites God as creator in Origin. And even in the quote provided, well after the publication of Origin, Darwin did not profess atheism, but only agnosticism. How then can we say that Darwin's theory of evolution (as articulated in Origin) was intended to provide a godless / antisupernaturalist theory of natural history, when he was a theist at the time he devised it? Ungtss 18:51, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Ungtss, I suggest you read the Charles Darwin article again. Here are two portions: "Scholars refer to the private notebook in which Darwin stated he was a materialist as the "M" notebook of 1838.[9] Ernst Mayr wrote that "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a 'materialist' (more or less = atheist)". [10]" Also, "In 1831 he graduated from Christ's College at Cambridge with a BA degree in the classics and theology. On December 27 of the same year he departed on the HMS Beagle for a five year voyage of exploration. The Beagle returned to English shores on October 2 1836. In 1837, Darwin drew his now famous depiction of common ancestry in the form of a branching tree [1]." Therefore two things can be said based on the material cited. It is unclear if Darwin was a theist or atheist at the time he believed in common descent. Second, it appears as if Darwin lied to people regarding his atheism. I think you are being naive here and taking Darwin at his word in that extract (rather than being skeptical) since it appears as if Darwin lied about his atheism to people. Conservative 19:57, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

1) If you will concede that it is unclear whether he was a theist or an atheist at the time he wrote Origin, then we need go no further, because the issue is resolved. How can we say that evolution was an inherently "naturalistic/godless" natural history if we're not sure whether Darwin was an atheist at the time he articulated it?

2) Even if Darwin did intend evolution as a defense of materialism, why are we justified in calling evolution itself inherently naturalistic, when far more evolutionists are theists than are atheists? Surely evolution is far more than Darwin's opinion when he wrote it. It's been about 150 years! Why not say "The Theory of Evolution is the idea that all life on earth is related, and that all diversity in life is wholly the result of genetic variation and natural selection. It can either be naturalistic (denying that God guided the process), or theistic (asserting that God guided the process)." Ungtss 20:38, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Ungtss, we know Darwin started lost his faith sometimes between 1836-39. The Darwin branching tree diagram came in 1837. I think it would be foolhardy to go by Darwin's public pronouncements since he lied publically about his apparent atheism. But the point is irrelevant anyways. We have a methodological naturalism and/or atheism theory of evolution article and a theistic evolution article. They are two different concepts. And I can't see creating a third article, stating well Darwin might have been an atheist or theist so here is a we don't know what Darwin was article. I think we need to stay current and now there are "methodological naturalism"/atheism proponents (that is how it is taught at most universities/colleges/high schools) and theistic evolution proponents of the evolutionary concept. Anyways, given my past interactions with you, I don't believe I am going to attempt to have further dialogue with you on this point.Conservative 21:02, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

But Darwin could have believed that God created evolution. So far as I know Darwin offers no explanation for the origin of the mechanism itself. Since we all agree that microevolution happens, we know that God must have created that, so someone who believed that God created that could also believe God created evolution operating on a somewhat larger scale. Pandeism 12:27, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

You're still evading the points at issue.

1) Although the talk-page says this article is to be edited only by the Student Panel, it is only being edited by you;

2) This article does not describe evolution -- it skips right to rebutting it. And that's not what encyclopedia articles should do;

3) This article does not even effectively rebut evolution, because it gets caught up in superficial non-sequiturs and ad hominems that only damage our credibility;

4) I'm not proposing a new article. I'm proposing that this article describe the theory of evolution as it is, neither inherently theistic nor inherently atheistic, that this article only describe the theory itself, something this article does not do.

5) Dialogue is something we've never had, because you never address my points. I'd like to begin dialoguing with you, if you're interested. Ungtss 22:14, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Ungtss, I took the panel's decision, "will not be changed in any major way" to mean that they liked my 100% anti-evolutionary article I largely created and did not want the direction of the article to be changed in any major way. Namely, they did not want ANY pro-evolutionary propaganda in the article. So I added a few sections and expanded some sections. I would add that the article's web traffic increased while I made the improvements. I would also add that while I am very pleased with the panel in general (they did like my article), I was a little disappointed that when people were communicating with them they were not getting responses although I can understand the panel deciding not to respond to much that was directed at them. However, people have busy lives so I can merely say I was a little disappointed. Secondly, how can you "describe evolution" when macroevolution does not take place? Next, the panel must have liked my adequacy of defining what the theory is because they said it has been improved significantly on that point and never posted subsequently. Next, you waste everyone's time by making unsubstantiated charges about the article (non-sequiturs and ad hominems). Lastly, the article never states the theory of evolution is atheistic but merely says it uses methodological naturalism. And given that the article was not at all theistic evolution orientated when the panel made their decision and given that Andy wanted the article to say that the theory of evolution was purely a materialist theory but compromised with methodological naturalism and citing that since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position have been atheists (sentence changed to methodological naturalism), I don't think your agenda here has much of a chance. I also believe that giving a conservative view in regards to methodological naturalism is helpful (article links to methodological naturalism). Conservative 23:12, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

In that case, you should not call the Article 'Theory of Evolution', but something more fitting. Perhaps 'Arguments Against Darwinian Evolution'. Then you can create a page that explains what Darwinian Evolution is. PsychoDolly 10:57, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Pro-evolution article? You do realize that you are trading in realivist teritory son. Keep an eye out-you may start denying objective reality any day now.

Describing evolution 101:

• not all living things are the same.
• living things resemble their parents
• not all the young of every birth survive
• there are differences between creatures that affect their odds of survival and reproduction
• Those with differences that increase their odds of survial and reproduction will proliferate, while those with the opposite will go extinct

It is a little more complicated for speciazation and ecology, but those premises are the bases.

-Sam

Sam, could you please sign your posts by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the signature button above the editing box? Thanks. And I hope you don't mind that I formatted your post into a bulleted list.

The reason I reject that as an adequate description of evolution is because every single one of those points is also consistent with creation.

Philip J. Rayment 21:19, 28 November 2007 (EST)

As a proponent of evolution, I'm not entirely sure what Sam was intending to prove with his terse statements. It's a relatively flimsy argument if you ask me. The only thing I can conclude is that said inidividual is quite unfamiliar with the science, or scientific theory. I don't mean to offend anyone with my statements, afterall I could be wrong. Maybe he's a famous Ph.D in the area, but I doubt it. Wisdom89 23:31, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Hello Conservative,

"...I don't think your agenda here has much of a chance."

I'm not sure that you understand Ungtss' agenda. Here are a couple of quotes which might illustrate it better:

"You don't have to misrepresent evolution to debunk it. Fully explain it and it debunks itself."

"You have to describe evolution before you debunk it."

And, from a discussion elsewhere:

"Evolution is so ridiculous on its own terms..."

My agenda, for reference, is clearly explained by the following quote:

"[Y]ou assume that I am an evolutionist. This is not the case... I want readers to walk away from the article with an improved understanding of the theory of evolution, and I want the criticisms of the theory to be better presented, and at a more opportune time, than is currently the case."

In summary, Ungtss' and my agenda is to provide a better explanation of the theory of evolution in a purportedly encyclopaedic article, and to see criticism presented in a more structured fashion. You seem to have misinterpreted our desire to improve the article as a desire to include "pro-evolutionary propaganda". This is not the case, and I would be pleased if I could disabuse you of this misconception. :)

"[H]ow can you "describe evolution" when macroevolution does not take place?"

The same way you would describe Latter-Day Saint theology (assuming one is not LDS), or the plot of Hamlet. The clarity of the article is compromised by every descriptive statement being followed by criticism, instead of criticism being provided once the user actually understands the "theology" in question. If I were writing an encyclopaedia article about "Friends," I'd wait until after I had delivered the main premises of the show to explain contradictions or holes in the plot. (E.g. how on earth do they afford those apartments?)—Jordan 13:46, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

Well said, Jordan. I only wish there was a wiki around that embodied your philosophy. FYI, there's been an ongoing debate over what approach will be taken with respect to articles like this. There was a recent arbitration on the atheism page in which the conflict revolved around virtually identical problems. Mr. Shafly (who owns this wiki) has yet to make a determination on the arbitrator's recommendations in that case. When he does, we'll all know what direction he wants his wiki to take -- whether he wants articles to take an "us vs. them hit 'em with everything you got 'cause they're evil" approach, or a "describe accurately and let the facts speak for themselves because the facts support conservative beliefs in the end" approach. Ungtss 23:14, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

Ungtss, you want us to present various views and make no indications on what is true or false and to supposedly take a neutral position. I don't see the point of a encyclopedia that has an article on the earth and spends a lot of time on the flat earth view and the round earth position and takes the same approach in the rest of the article in regards to whether there are really astronauts (giving the pros and con positions) and then spends a lot of time on conspiracy government view versus whether the government is not largely conspiratorial. Such a methodology is taking a postmodern approach and is not fitting for a real encyclopedia. There is such a thing as objective truth and postmodernism is a liberal ideology and not befitting Conservapedia (we are not Neutralpedia! )Conservative 23:45, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

It's also not meant to me Retardopedia. The student panel said "However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution" yet there is no description of what modern evolutionary is, and repeatedly confuses the scientific fact of evolution with neo-darwinian theory that explains it. It's hardly postmodern to include a description of the most influential intellectual movement in the history of biology even if you think it isn't true (are there articles on Britanica or wikipedia on Lamarkism? saltationism? Orthogenesis? - all theories of evolution that have been superceeded but are important parts of the intelectual geneology of evolutonary thinking...). It would certianly be better than a long quote mine interspersed with extrapolations and missconceptions that noone is allowled to fix...--Igor nz 00:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

conservative, i addressed your allegations against me on my user page because this is not the appropriate forum for that. Your analogy to an article about the earth fails because it is a false analogy. If the article were about flat earthism then i would hope we'd describe the pov before bunking it. Same here. The panel acknowledged the absence of a meaningful, concise, accurate definition of the toe. I proposed one. You ignored it. Nothing new. Ungtss 11:24, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Criticizing evolutionary theory on the basis of it having been misused to justify Communism, Nazism, etc., is largely irrelevant and perhaps dishonest. The fact that a theory has been misused for some dubious purpose is not in itself grounds for criticism of said theory. If I might be permitted to strike a little too close to home, Christian theology has used to justify slavery and racism of various kinds, something that I'm sure would not sit too well with a lot of Christians.Alloco1 17:19, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Nothing in the theory of evolution explicitly forbids placing a racist or totalitarian construction on it. Indeed, the very thrust of evolutionary theory is that superior species--or races--shall inevitably triumph over their inferior rivals. I can hear the Wagnerian strains even now as I write this--not to mention Horstwesselleid.--TerryH^Talk 22:48, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Obviously nothing will convince you; your mind is already made up, but here goes: Note again what I said about how Christian theology has been misused to justify slavery and racism.Alloco1 23:36, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Who was the key figure in fighting racism in the United States? An evolutionist or was it the Reverend Martin Luther King? Second, here is what the African American author Thomas Sowell wrote: "The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called "the religious right" and its organization was created by conservative businessmen."[1] I challenge you to show me that the evolutionary community were the key players in ending slavery and not the "religious right". By the way, you might wish to do a study on the gentleman William Wilberforce. Conservative 17:28, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

I thought about the speeches I heard from MLK and it seems to me as if he could be a evolutionist and so I checked into it and found he was an evolutionist. [2] However, I stand by the Sowell comment. Conservative 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

You have still missed the point Conservative, Wilberforce and other abolitionists where inspired by their religious thinking but equally the Southern Baptist Convention saw a justification for slavery in the Bible. As Alloco1 has said criticising a scientific theory for the way some people have extended it beyond it's actual purpose (to explain elements of the natural world) into societal or even moral/ethical theories is kind of irrelevant. Christianity can still be true even if some racists used it to justify slavery and evolutionary theory can still be right even if evil people used to justify their evil deeds. It's also a bit rich to imagine that the 'evolutionary community' could have done much to end slavery, the emancipation proclamation was made 4 years after Darwin published the origin and the abolitionist movements (in the UK in particular) go back much longer than that. --Igor nz 22:24, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually the civil rights community was heavily made up by communists and secularists. They were of two minds A) make the US look bad for its racism or B) continue the fight against injustice where ever it springs up. King only used the churchs and religious language because they worked. However SNEC was definately secular and MLK's inner circle included commies. Oh and ironically enough Stalin and Hitler didn't believe in Darwinian evolution. Hitler believed the German's were descended from giants and Stalin was a Lammarkian. Social Darwinism is what you are attacking. I fail to see how it is any different then the divine right of Kings when it comes to opprssing the poor. Except the fact that it has been shown to be false. The only Western country that didn't give in to the Eugenics movement was Britain, due interestingly enough to a Libertarian member of the house of commons. Also note gravity was used to design more efficient ways of shooting artillary and killing people. -Sam

Precise definition of evolution

Conservative, the panel, way back when declared "However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution" then said they report back on what they thought of the current article in this regard. Since they haven't reported back do you not think it is about time the actual modern theory of evolutionary biology, the so called modern synthesis was at least briefly introduced on this page? --Igor nz 22:37, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Is the role of an encyclopedia to refute subjects or to explain them? This article seems to be long list of reasons why Evolution (which i think is flawed) is wrong? Are encyclopedias meant to do that? Wikipedia seems to have just a clear concise explanation of what the theory is and does not purport to whether or not it is wrong or right. Does this not reduce our creditability as this article seems to be just a baseless attack on a heavily debated subject? If the folks at wikipedia are wrong, wouldn't it be best to just let the people who come across the information decide for themselves as opposed to trying to influence how they think? --User:DjWizard

"Wikipedia seems to have just a clear concise explanation of what the theory is and does not purport to whether or not it is wrong or right" -- No trolling please. Wikipedia treats it as a fact the same way they would talking about gravity. Questions against evolution are never discussed unless you go to side articles and even then I didn't see any of the specific issues that are brought up in our article. You can read what wiki has to offer at any number of sites, but our article brings up the objections that would be much harder to find. Learn together 02:43, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is not a theory

The gradual evolution of species is not a Theory (scientific or otherwise). It is an observable fact. The theory that is commonly called the theory of evolution is the Theory that explains the observed facts of evolution, that is, Natural Selection, or more properly The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. This article fails to show this. This needs to be corrected—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shniken (talk)

And what facts have you or anyone else observed? Has anyone conclusively shown that one species came from another?--TerryH^Talk 10:34, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Even cursory research could tell you that speciation or transition has occurred http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Wisdom89 11:54, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Here is probably the best rebuttal to the above: A Critique of "29 Evidences of Macroevolution," part 5.--TerryH^Talk 12:17, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Wisdom, the theory of evolution article clearly states that creation scientists believe in speciation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conservative (talk)

And User:Wisdom89, not to give the impression that I don't believe in speciation, even within the meaning of the references you cited: First, your argument assumes that the experiments had enough control over conditions that no stray pollen grains got into someone's planting plot without him knowing about it, for example. And second, creation science recognizes a larger group of organisms--the kind (within the meaning of Genesis 1 )--within which speciation can take place all the time, but between which speciation does not occur. Wolves (from which dogs derive--did you know that the familiar "man's best friend" is actually a subspecies of the gray wolf Canis lupus?) and "big cats" (lions, tigers, leopards, and so on) are two different kinds. You don't get big cats from wolves, nor wolves from big cats.

In order to go from speciation to common ancestry, you have to show that life is all one kind. Can't do that, can you? Plants are plants, and animals are animals--and within those two "kingdoms" are many different kinds.

By the way: this also might explain, at least to those interested in the truth of the matter, how Noah could carry "two of every kind of living thing" on his ark. He didn't necessarily have to carry two of every species; just two of every kind. (And even so, the ark was at least 450 feet long, if not 600.)--TerryH^Talk 09:28, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

"In order to go from speciation to common ancestry, you have to show that life is all one kind." I can do this. Euglena is a fast moving protist that has chloroplasts. Is this not both plant and animal? As for the division between single cell and multicellular organisms, dictyostelid slime molds have both single cell and multicellular adult forms that they can switch between. Shiritai 00:04, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, I remember: certain organizms rate placement in the Protist Kingdom because they can move. You can show that certain living things have characteristics that belong to both plants and animals. But that's not to say that anything else definitely derived from them.

All this to say that the chief dispute involving evolution does not involve science at all, but history. We have a Historical Record that says that each kind of living thing was created out of nothing. Charles Darwin proposed an alternate history. Observations actually favor the former over the latter.--TerryH^Talk 10:07, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Next up why the Grand Canyon was made by God, because even though we can see the erosion we can't see the entire canyon forming... what they have already done that! Okay here's a better example-you never get to witness your own birth and you never get to watch and record someone grow to be your age (people can't catch up if you have a head start). Notice however we accept the fact we were born. You are only using extreme scepticism on something you don't agree with. In conservapedia we call that bias. -Sam

We accept the fact of when we were born because we have trustworthy eye-witnesses to it who have verbally told us or put it in writing for us (birth certificates). Just like we have the eye-witness testimony of the Bible as to what happened in history. I'd rather believe the trustworthy eye-witness testimony than the stories involving naturalism-based assumptions of scientists who didn't witness it. Philip J. Rayment 21:26, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Interesting Poll

"Many adults in the United States believe human life has a divine origin, according to a poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates released by Newsweek."[3]--Tash 23:43, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Evidence for Evolution

Evidence like homologous and analogous structures and adaptive evolution does indicate that evolution may have occured. I'm not trying to undermine the whole article here, but it seems a little one-sided. Is there any way we could include some information on good evidence for evolution?

I don't believe you demonstrated that the homology argument demonstrates that the evolutionary position may be true. Conservative 20:07, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

The Great Intellectuals?

The sentence "The great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version." should be removed. Listing people who did not come up with a theory in no way contributes to an article. I can list thousands of intellectuals who didn't come up with any single theory that you would care to name. This undeniable fact says nothing at all about the theory itself. Gadflie 19:29, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

I completely agree. This needs to be edited. The aforementioned men also did not propose the theory of relativity, the concept of electromagnetism, quantam mechanics, radioacivity, internal combustion, the list goes on and on. Does this notion discredit these other discoveries? No! Science advances. It never stays the same. Probus1

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Dr. Sarfati's quote in the introduction should be removed, since it refers to the general theory of evolution (GTE), rather than the theory of evolution. The GTE is a combination of the theory of evolution and the hypothesis of chemical evolution (which deals with abiogenesis). Shiritai 23:26, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Are you not making a distinction without a difference?--TerryH^Talk 10:08, 5 November 2007 (EST)

There's a difference. Dr. Sarfati's GTE goes "from particles to people." The theory of evolution just goes from single-celled life to people. Edit: Since evolution isn't defined here, I can see how what I said previously is confusing. Shiritai 08:26, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I can't accept that. What you are now calling "the theory of evolution" is almost tautological. As such it is a clever ruse to make the word evolution acceptable. This is typical liberal incrementalism, applied to scientific (or to be more precise, historical) discourse rather than to public-policy debate. Get people to accept something called "evolution," and the General Theory of Evolution cannot be far behind.

This project exists to thwart that campaign.--TerryH^Talk 09:30, 7 November 2007 (EST)

See Definitions of evolution. It's not as clear-cut as you think. Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 7 November 2007 (EST) (P.S. That was a reply to Shiritai; written as TerryH was doing his; I got an edit conflict.) Philip J. Rayment 09:34, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Ok, I'll try to clear things up. I'm a bio major, and I never saw anything called the "General Theory of Evolution" before I read Dr. Sarfati's writings. No textbook I've read, and no professor I've had has connected the theory of evolution with abiogenesis. These things are seperate. Abiogenesis does not depend on the theory of evolution, and the theory of evolution does not depend on abiogenesis. Also, evolution is a scientific theory, while abiogenesis does not have a scientific theory, only a bunch of hypotheses, and is still a subject of scientific controversy. Attaching abiogenesis to the theory of evolution would be like attaching the discovery of the Ark of the Covenant to intelligent design. Also, Definitions of evolution is of limited use, since it's not definitions of the theory of evolution. Shiritai 17:23, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I don't understand your last comment; Definitions of evolution is discussing definitions of (the theory of) evolution. And it shows that people other than creationists have at times included abiogenesis in "evolution", even though it seems that these days most evolutionists want to distance the idea from abiogenesis.

Of course, I would say about evolution what you say about abiogenesis: "[evolution] does not have a scientific theory, only a bunch of hypotheses, and is still a subject of scientific controversy"

Furthermore, evolution is an attempt to explain how life developed naturalistically. Abiogenesis is an attempt to explain how life began naturalistically. If you are going to believe in naturalistic evolution, you have to believe in (some version of) abiogenesis.

Philip J. Rayment 20:42, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I wouldn't rely on semantics in this case. If we're going to start touting credentials - I have a masters in biology and the general consensus among evolutionists is that abiogenesis and evolution are not mutually exclusive. One does not depend on the other to exist. Abiogenesis seeks to understand how inorganic chemicals may have produced naturalistic life in the primordial stew. Evolution already presupposes that life had begun. I'm afraid that Shiritai is absolutely correct. The field of evolutionary science looks at the changes life has undergone over billions of years. Whether you choose to beleive Darwin's mechanism to explain that or not is up to you. This argument demonstrates the inescapable misconceptions some people have about the science. Evolution is not abiogenesis, it is not how the universe began, it doesn't say man evolved from modern day monkeys etc, evolution is not linear from bacteria to man..etc..all that junk. Wisdom89 22:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Despite my comments above, I do accept that there is a distinction between abiogenesis and evolution; I just think that evolutionists try and make too much of this distinction, and tend to choose definitions that suit the circumstances, rather than be clear and consistent.

But this is all getting away from the original complaint, that Sarfati's comments shouldn't be there because he is talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. Not so, in my opinion. Sarfati quotes evolutionist Kerkut's definition of GTE (which includes abiogenesis) to argue not for abiogenesis being part of evolution, but to argue that evolution is more than just "change over time", i.e. it includes the whole evolutionary family tree. As such, the quote is quite appropriate.

Philip J. Rayment 00:58, 8 November 2007 (EST)

"... talking about abiogenesis, not evolution." I never said that. I said he was talking about abiogenesis and evolution, and calling them the same thing. Why are you so set on using Kerkut's "General Theory of Evolution" which 1. isn't a scientific theory 2. isn't the theory of evolution and 3. isn't used by the scientific community? Shiritai 08:33, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Okay, it appears that I've misunderstood you, but I think you've misunderstood Sarfati and others. You seem to be of the impression that there are clearly-defined theories each with distinct names. I do not believe that this is the case.

Evolution generally just goes by the name "evolution", but sometimes "Darwinian evolution", "neo-Darwinian evolution", "biological evolution", etc. I suggest that "General Theory of Evolution" is simply another term for evolution in general, not a specific version of the theory.

This is what Sarfati is commenting on, that evolutionists switch definitions. He is quoting Kerkut's definition (and using Kerkut's term) to show that evolutionists do not always define "evolution" as merely "change over time".

I also wonder what your definition of "scientific community" is that you can exclude definitions used by members of the scientific community.

Philip J. Rayment 07:17, 10 November 2007 (EST)

I am of the impression that there is "one" clearly defined scientific theory of evolution. That's how scientific theories work, and I would suggest you read up on them, as it would make this conversation much smoother. For the definitions, Darwinian evolution refers to what is set out in Darwin's books, and is only used in a historical context. Neo-Darwinian evolution refers to evolutionary thought based on Darwin's books, which would be all evolutionary thought, so the name is terribly redundant. Evolution is the name of a process, one that are used in many areas other than the biological sciences. For example, evolutionary algorithms are used in computing to create robust AI and programs. Evolution is also used to model the changes of social memes, among other things. The process of selection, recombination, and mutation has created useful, hearty offspring in many disciplines. Evolution works.

Now, the Theory of Evolution states that the process of selection, recombination, and mutation led to the diversity of life. What Kerkut said doesn't matter; one man calling something a theory does not make it a scientific theory. There is no "bait-and-switch" going on with the Theory of Evolution, unless you believe doctors "bait-and-switch" because some doctors say health is determined by the flow of qi, and the rest say it's physiological. You can find some member of any group saying anything if you look hard enough; what matters is the consensus of the group. Shiritai 16:31, 12 November 2007 (EST)

(unindent) I don't follow your comment "that's how scientific theories work", as there are often competing theories.

I noticed that you didn't actually define what 'evolution' is. As pointed out before, the Definitions of evolution article demonstrates that there is no consensus on exactly how to define it (that article lists more than just Kerkut's definition).

The "bait-and-switch" is rife, with evolutionists defining evolution as "change in gene frequency" or similar, demonstrating variation within populations (such as the peppered moth), then implying or claiming that the whole "family tree" of evolution has thereby been proved. Variations in gene frequency do NOT result in new genetic information, which is absolutely required for the evolutionary family tree. Evolution—if that means the creation of new genetic information—does NOT work. It is not only not observed, but is contrary to both biological observations and information theory.

My understanding, by the way, of "neo-Darwinian evolution" is that it refers to Darwinian evolution modified to account for genetics, which were all but unknown when Darwin published his ideas. Then of course there is punctuated equilibrium, a competing idea to (neo-)Darwinian evolution (although some try to combine the two).

Philip J. Rayment 21:06, 12 November 2007 (EST)

You're confusing "bait-and-switch" with inductive reasoning. Anyways, everyone agrees that the theory of evolution includes speciation, so I don't know how a "bait-and-switch" would even work with that. However, calling something "the theory of evolution" and then including abiogenesis is definately bait and switch. Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that punctuated equilibrium competes with the theory of evolution. Both punctuated equilibrium and gradualism describe the tempo of evolution, and both assume that evolution takes place. Gene mutations can result in new genetic information, and although it's a slow process, it has had several billion years to work. It is not contrary to conventional information theory, and is hardly contrary to biological observations. However, there are valid questions about the specifics of evolution, but when those questions are answered, the theory will be updated to reflect that. What would you replace the theory of evolution with, anyways? ID? Sure, it fits that data, but it explains nothing and has no predictive power. It's like saying the moon is made of a special kind of green cheese that has physical properties identical to various rocks and minerals. Not only is ID not right, it's not even wrong. Shiritai 23:00, 12 November 2007 (EST)

I described the "bait-and-switch" tactic; your straw-man argument of what I said is not what I said.

Evolution has been and can be defined as including abiogenesis, just as it can include stellar evolution, etc. Biological/Darwinian evolution is all part of the larger picture where everything, including the universe, evolved.

I didn't say that punctuated equilibrium competes with evolution. I said that it competes with (neo-)Darwinian evolution. But you are right that they both assume that evolution takes place—they certainly don't prove it.

Gene mutations cannot result in new genetic information. Or can you supply examples where nobody else—including Richard Dawkins—has been able to? If evolution is true, then there has to have been billions of instances of mutations creating new genetic information, so you should have not trouble listing ten for me.

That it has had billions of years to work is part of the evolutionary, sorry, atheistic origins myth. There's little good evidence of the billions of years, and plenty of opposing evidence.

Information theory says that information cannot arise by chance, and must arise from an intelligence, so it is contrary to information theory.

Biological observations are that mutations destroy information, if they are not neutral. Why don't you irradiate yourself? Because you know that it's harmful!

I'd "replace" evolution with special creation, which explains as much as evolution and has at least as much predictive power.

Philip J. Rayment 05:59, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Since you think there's a global conspiracy of scientists, there's not really anything I can do to help you. Edit: Taking Genesis literally is really silly. I mean, it practically screams parable. Could you imagine God explaining DNA to a bunch of nomads? Also, how the heck would creationism account for human-specific diseases? P.S. Let me know when you find water in outer space. Supposedly, it should be made of the stuff.Shiritai 22:42, 13 November 2007 (EST)

I made no such claim of a global conspiracy. Perhaps you are making up accusations to avoid providing evidence, such as information-gaining mutations. You claimed they existed, I asked for examples, and you have instead resorted to accusations and ridicule.

Genesis doesn't "practically scream parable". The language is that of history, and history is the way it has always been understood from the time it was written until secular mythology started challenging it. If it "practically screamed parable", it would long have been understood that way.

You are judging it according to your evolutionary ideas and intellectual snobbery. There's no reason for nomads to be any less intelligent than you, and God created Adam without flaw, so he would have been far more intelligent than you (and me), who have 6,000 years of accumulated defects.

Philip J. Rayment 03:37, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Philip, homologous recombination during gametogenesis, mutations that do not produce deleterious effects, gene duplication events, and molecular transposition (movable DNA elements) are all processes by which new genetic information maybe created - either through expansion of the genome, the generation of a new allele, or the creation of divergent or homologous proteins. This is why higher organisms may exhibit numerous isoforms of a protein with related function that evolved from a single gene. Wisdom89 16:19, 14 November 2007 (EST)

What you've done is given me the evolutionary story, but no examples to show that the story is correct. Philip J. Rayment 21:01, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Philip, you claim that, for the past hundred years or so, biologists, paleontologists, and geologists have been covering up the "truth" of creationism. If that doesn't count as a conspiracy, then I apologize for misrepresenting you. As for information theory, are you refering to Dembski's work? If so, you should be aware that he's never bothered publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. Also, it wouldn't matter how smart the nomads were; what matters is their foundation of knowledge. Finally, what about human-specific communicable diseases?Shiritai 19:36, 14 November 2007 (EST)

A conspiracy is where people agree, usually secretly, to do something that they know to be wrong. I'm not claiming that scientists in general (or even just ones in the disciplines you mentioned) have come together and agreed to suppress something that they know to be true.

Rather, evolution has become the "ruling paradigm", with the result that opposing views are marginalised and suppressed, but not as part of any scheming or secret agreement.

Has Dembski never "bothered", or have his attempts been blocked? Nevertheless, I was referring more to the research of Dr. Werner Gitt.

If the nomads were as intelligent as you or me, they would be quite capable of understanding DNA, although it might take a little longer to fill in background information that you and I already know.

What about human-specific communicable diseases?

Philip J. Rayment 21:01, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Cutting, more concise version needed

Conservative, the extra paragraphs I omitted are located at User:Jallen/extratoe. If anyone takes note of the notice at the top of the talk page, it clearly states that the CP Panel wants this article to be more concise. If you want to reinsert the information into the rest of the article, go ahead, but the introduction was just too long the way it was. Jallen 10:26, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I have also changed the article so that the copy of the "social effects of the TOE" remain a link to another article in see also. Jallen 10:38, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Jallen, I put a lot of hardwork into this article and as a result it is highly ranked by the search engines (for example, yahoo ranks it #5). The search engines rank for relevance and this article is highly relevant to the subject at hand. I also spoke to a creation scientist and he wrote the following to me recently: "Also you are doing excellent work with Conservapedia. I have heard many good things from numerous persons." I would also point out that you removed Andy's material which he has insisted is relevant to the article and should be kept. I realize that you may not be a creationist but please do not gut this article as the creation perspective is certainly a position of staunch conservatives and goes back to at least ancient Judaism and the early church fathers. Conservative 20:30, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Andy, thanks for your recent feedback regarding the article. For example, as a result of your input regarding the first 5 sentences of the article I rearranged the article so those 5 first sentences are now at the beginning.Conservative 21:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Ok, so you've put a lot of hard work and time into this article, but this is the nature of a wiki for another user to change your work. The article in its current state is stale, dull and needs improvement. The introduction in particular is what I'm targeting. Would a potential reader of Conservapedia rather read a near 1000-word introduction (which most of the content would be better featured later in the article) or a concise 300-word introduction? I'd like to think the latter.

1. Well done with the search engine work. We now rank quite high for about 20/19,000 articles that you've promoted (and the majority of these have been exclusively edited by you). This is another debate, but how have these high-ranking articles really affected new and legitimate sign ups to Conservapedia?
2. I also spoke to a creation scientist and he wrote the following to me recently: "Also you are doing excellent work with Conservapedia. I have heard many good things from numerous persons." - What are you insinuating? That others are not allowed to edit your work, especially on the theory of evolution? Perhaps hearsay, or something.
3. I would also point out that you removed Andy's material which he has insisted is relevant to the article and should be kept. - I didn't particularly remove it permanently, as stated on this talk page, at least half of the introduction should be integrated into the rest of the article, rather than bunching up the introduction with unnecessary information. So now the first 5 sentences are what Andy has explicitly stated should be included in the introduction, what about the rest that is not needed in the introduction. I have also noted that many of your edits to the article are simply rearranging sections. Perhaps you may like to rearrange the latter half of the introduction into the rest of the article.
4. I realize that you may not be a creationist but please do not gut this article as the creation perspective is certainly a position of staunch conservatives and goes back to at least ancient Judaism and the early church fathers. - Well that idea really has nothing to do with the subject at hand. This is a wiki environment. I can change/modify your versions and vice-versa. I did not remove the excess information to insert any perceived creationist/evolutionist bias, just to make the introduction of the article more concise, as stated above.
5. Social effects of the theory of evolution - What is the advantage of copying the articles into both Social effects of the theory of evolution and also this article? The heading of this section directs you to the article which is exactly the same? I just do not see the point of including this section, I would rather place it in see also, or something similar.

Jallen 01:05, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Jallen, people cannot sign up for conservapedia unless they first now it exists and the liberal media is probably about done telling people that conservapedia exists at least for a while. Also, Wikipedia gets a huge share of its web traffic via the search engines. Jallen, I strongly suspect you are a evolutionist and I think that is the reason you want to gut the article. Nevertheless I think it is fair to say that Andy and the panel want staunch conservatives to come to Conservapedia via a high ranked search engine article against the theory of evolution. Lastly, I don't think it is fair for you to make accusations like this without demonstrating them: "We now rank quite high for about 20/19,000 articles that you've promoted (and the majority of these have been exclusively edited by you)." In short, I would suggest looking the the search engine rankings for the homosexuality and theory of evolution articles. I will briefly tell you that yahoo ranks the theory of evolution article #5 and Google ranks it #16 out of 91,000,000 plus articles and MSN ranks the theory of evolution article #8 as can be seen here http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=theory+of+evolution&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8 and here: http://www.google.com/search?q=theory+of+evolution&hl=en&start=10&sa=N and here: http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=theory+of+evolution&FORM=MSNH

Conservative 18:47, 8 November 2007 (EST)

"Jallen, I strongly suspect you are a evolutionist and I think that is the reason you want to gut the article.". And I think you are wrong. Not about her being an evolutionist perhaps, but about her motives and intentions. But regardless of what I think, the point is that you are concluding things (a person's motives and intentions) that you have insufficient evidence to conclude.

"...I don't think it is fair for you to make accusations like this ...". I don't believe that she was making an accusation. I believe that she was paying you a compliment, acknowledging what you have achieved.

Philip J. Rayment 20:30, 8 November 2007 (EST)

No, she is a gravitist! She doesn't believe in "divine falling". -Sam

PJR, I really don't want to get into conflict with Jallen or be mean or accusatory towards her. She did pay me an act of kindness on my talk page. However, the fraction 20/19,000 is quite low regarding articles that I have written that rank high for the search engines and I know it is not reflective of reality. I do think you have to take a look at the math involved in her fraction. I do think that most people can learn how to write articles that are high ranked by the search engines and I would like to teach people who are interested. I did learn from a man who is an expert at getting high rankings. However, for popular search engine categories, I do think that it is a lot of hard work to get articles than rank high for popular categories but worth the investment. So I don't want to see conservative articles that are ranked high for the search engines gutted merely because people don't like them. And again, I do have no wish to be accusatory towards Jallen however she has not supported her contentions. She claims material is unnecessary and needs to be removed but she does not demonstrate it. Therefore, she leaves me no choice to believe that it is for purely ideological grounds that she removes the material in question. In short, she wishes to offer the choice of removing web traffic to Conservapedia without offering any compelling justification.

Conservative 21:09, 8 November 2007 (EST)

PJR, I do try to listen to people who are evolutionists and creationists alike in regards to the article. With that being said, I did take Andy's advice via email in regards to sharpening up the article in the beginning of the article to make it more critical of the theory of evolution article and I believe I did it in a reasonable way. I do think it is important to have very relevant information either for or against a position early on in a article that focuses on a philosophy/theory/ideology/etc. Also, upon further reflection I did take Jallen's advice and shortened up the introduction and put the material in other more appropriate places in the article that fit better. Lastly, it may surprise people but I do agree with Wikipedians that the issue of the social effects of the theory of evolution should be mentioned as they do discuss this matter in their evolution article. However, given that this is a conservative encyclopedia it should be no surprise that I consider their analysis flawed and not reflective of reality. Conservative 23:20, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Conservative, can you please stop pointing your "you're an evolutionist, so don't edit my article" finger. You have absolutely no right or reason to call me an evolutionist on the basis of that I removed some of ideas in your article. As I have stated before, I did not remove/archive any information to create any bias of either viewpoint. "Nevertheless I think it is fair to say that Andy and the panel want staunch conservatives to come to Conservapedia via a high ranked search engine article against the theory of evolution" - I think that Andy and the panel want staunch conservatives to come to Conservapedia in any way possible, as long as they are willing to contribute positively, not exclusively through one article. The figures you've stated actually support my statement. You've only displayed three articles with a high ranking. I don't necessarily have a problem with the information you've presented, it's just how you have presented the information.

• "So I don't want to see conservative articles that are ranked high for the search engines gutted merely because people don't like them". - That's not what I'm doing.
• "And again, I do have no wish to be accusatory towards Jallen however she has not supported her contentions". - Yes, I have above, to make the article more concise.

I also do not think we need a separate article on the social effects of the theory of evolution when it is already featured within this article. Perhaps we may consider cutting this article into sections, storyboarding almost, like the American Civil War series. A student or reader of Conservapedia is certainly not going to read this 10,000-word essay in one sitting.

Jallen 02:52, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Jallen, I have not contributed to conservapedia exclusively through one article and that is another unfair accusation you made. Please go here and you will see you are throwing out another unfair accusation: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative Secondly, I gave the search engine results for one article using three separate search engines. You saying I gave the search engine results for 3 of my articles tells me you are not reading my talk page comments with any care which I see as discourtesy as I am reading yours. Thirdly, the social effects of the theory of evolution article is an important and relevant section of the theory of evolution article and Google ranks that separate article #3 as can be seen here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=social+effects+of+the+theory+of+evolution It definitely helps the article. So evidently, people do have an interest in that material and it is likely boosting the conservapedia theory of evolution article. I also noticed the traffic increased to the article after that material was put in. So you cutting that out of the article didn't help. Next, deleting the separate article "Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution" would not help conservapedia as the article is ranked #3 by Google and Wikipedia realizes it is an important subject and has an article on it too. Lastly, the introduction has been shortened as per your useful suggestion but Andy wanted some material that provided evidence that the evolutionary position is false in the introduction and I do agree with him there. Conservative 03:31, 9 November 2007 (EST)

micro v macro

This 'distinction' is one that CMI has cautioned against in their 'don't use' article [4] and they make a valid point. Creationists believe in natural selection, so why not call it what it is, rather than the more confusing micro-? Logophilos 23:01, 12 November 2007 (EST)

*Theories* of evolution

The article should mention, in its first paragraph, that there are multiple theories of evolution, but that in normal use, "theory of evolution" usually means Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection. As it stands, the article does not make this clear until much later. --Andy 09:50, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Are the Bible and Evolution compatible?

Adam and Eve recieved hide skins to cover their "shame" or nakedness. An animal was killed so they could not be embarasssed. If billions of years came before the fall of man, so was death. And death before the fall of man keeps Evolution and the Bible away from each other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Desmond (talk)

How is this relevant to anything? Wisdom89 19:11, 24 November 2007 (EST)

It's relevant to the question in the heading, but why the question was raised, then immediately answered, I don't know. Philip J. Rayment 09:08, 25 November 2007 (EST)

First paragraph

The CBS report in the opening paragraph is by now three years old. Yes, at the bottom of the page it says the date is July 14, 2007, but, when you click on the link it says quite clearly that the report was printed on Nov. 22, 2004. Below this it clearly says: (This poll was conducted November 18-21, 2004.) Could someone with access to editing this page replace it with a recent poll? The most recent poll on evolution I could find is one conducted by the Gallup Organization on May 14, 2007 which you can see here. (I know there is no category in the poll on God-guided evolution, but this is the best I could find at the moment.) JK899 16:34, 4 December 2007 (EST)

I've changed the date in the footnote of the article. Philip J. Rayment 08:12, 5 December 2007 (EST)

You'll find that religious tolerance is generally not a website that is viewed as being forthright in their presentation of information. It may be better to find the information from Gallup directly since religious tolerance has a tendency to leave things out. Learn together 15:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Error in judgement

Yes, many great scientists didnt discover evolution, most likely because it was no where near their area of expertese!!! Your arguement is like saying that Babe Ruth never won the NBA!!!--Athiest101 16:01, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Scientific Community Consensus

There seems to be a few errors of judgment in here. For example it says how bloodletting was once thought to be able to help sick people. However it is because of science that it is known to be unhealthy now. Lead was once thought to be harmless but now it is well known to be harmful, unless you do not trust the medical community enough to believe them when they say something is poisonous? Anyway, the point that I am trying to make is that while scientific consensus may not always be right, it is not always wrong. Of course I'm not really sure what this section has to do with evolution to begin with And with the animals that the bible was right on? What about where the bible states that serpents eat dust? Just because scientists were wrong doesn't make everything they say wrong, the same should go for the bible as well. The fact is science makes an effort to find out if they are wrong and will revise things accordingly. -Rainedaye 22:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

The point of it is to show that the Bible is always right, whereas science is not. Of course science is right a lot of the time, but it would be silly to use science to argue that the Bible is wrong when science itself is sometimes wrong. The Bible is not wrong about snakes eating dust, as is explained here. Philip J. Rayment 05:06, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Which version of the Bible do you read?RyanMiller 15:21, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Usually, but not exclusively, the NIV. Philip J. Rayment 02:54, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Philip, not to stir up controversy, but exactly what is the point of any article or person attempting to show/say that the Bible is always correct? That's a lot of hubris there if you ask me. Yes, science has been wrong, but that's the definition of science and scientific theory - it needs to be falsifiable and testable with the ability to generate new hypotheses. Things obviously change as we learn. Anyway, perhaps you could clarify your comment for me.... Wisdom89 20:09, 8 December 2007 (EST)

I didn't put that bit in the article, so in one sense I can't say why it's there, and neither can I say that I would have included it. But I guess the point is that so many people believe that science has proved the Bible wrong that it's good to point out that science is not infallible, whereas nobody yet has proved the Bible wrong, despite many attempts to do so. So why use a fallible source to pass judgement on another source which has demonstrated its reliability? Which one is more believable?

By the way, to the readers from another website which doesn't deserve the publicity by being named, note that I did not say that "science is useless". But then you can't expect anything approaching accuracy and fairness from that site. Philip J. Rayment 02:54, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Rainedaye, I believe you showed a lack of due diligence in regards to your snakes/eat/dust comment. You really should be more careful in regards to your presumptiousness in regards to the Bible and its alleged lack of scientific accuracy. If you had gone to footnote 191 and done your due diligence you would see that snakes do eat dust (see: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1298/ ). Conservative 18:36, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Glaring Errors

This article is a travesty to the conservative American cause. It is replete with glaring omissions, lies, quotes mines, etc. Among them:

- An incomplete definition of evolution

- Almost a complete absence of the mechanisms of evolution

- The assumption that a theory’s validity should be subject to the popular view of the scientifically ignorant public

And these three observations are all applicable to the first few paragraphs. I could go on and on about the many errors but I'll just highlight one example in paragraph four. Mark Ridley is quoted as asserting "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." The reference given for this quote is: Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831.

Funny enough, when I checked the reference I found the entire quote in context, all you had to do was read what Ridley said on the pages immediately prior and following: "Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media. In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven. So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy. These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 830 - 832.

Needless to say, you are, at a minimum, misrepresenting what Ridley is claiming. Checking the archives I noticed that this error was pointed out months ago and has gone uncorrected, so it seems this is more than just a case of simple misrepresentation. This is the type of reasoning I'd expect from a lunatic fringe blog, not an encyclopedia.--Jimmy 12:46, 16 December 2007 (EST)

You may or may not see a reply to your contestion anytime soon. The overwhelming majority of this article was written by one editor, but he's often busy with one project or another. If you don't hear back and you'd like to follow this up, I can direct you to his talk page here. Feebasfactor 13:04, 16 December 2007 (EST)

There's things about the article that I'd like to see changed too, so I won't comment on most of Jimmy's points, but as far as the quote from Mark Ridley is concerned, he hasn't explained how it is out of context. "Out of context" means that some of the context that changes the meaning of the quote has been omitted. How does anything that Ridley said in your extended quote of him change the fact that he said that the fossil record is not used as evidence in support of evolution? Philip J. Rayment 15:06, 16 December 2007 (EST)

How does Conservative take Ridley's comments out of context? For many reasons that should be obvious.

1. Conservative quotes Ridley as saying, "The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is counter evidence to the evolutionary position", and then quotes Ridley saying the fossil record doesn't favor evolution. Yet what Conservative quoted said nothing about counter evidence to evolution, Ridley is silent on that part of Conservative's assertion.

2. Conservative said the article would provide further discussion about his two points, yet this does not happen. All he provides is three partial quotes and a link to more quote mines.

3. Ridley's comment when taken in its entirety is not supporting the point Conservative is trying to make. Ridley starts by saying the creationists, amongst others, are getting it wrong and there are many other arguments that can be used for evolution.

4. Ridley is stressing several points about the fossil record. Creationists are wrong, evolutionists aren't using the fossil record to favor evolution over creation, evolution is not unproven, yet none of these points seem to be credible in the eyes of Conservative.

To sum up, Conservative is only addressing one of the points Ridley is trying to make and then he is misrepresenting what Ridley is trying to say. Ridley is saying evolutionists aren't using the fossil record to prove their theory. Yet Conservative thinks otherwise and he is asserting that because the fossil record does not support evolution, this somehow means this is evidence against evolution, even though Ridley says otherwise.--Jimmy 16:03, 16 December 2007 (EST)

1. You are incorrect to claim that the article quotes Ridley saying "The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is counter evidence to the evolutionary position". That is not part of the Ridley quote. The article says that the fossil record (a) does not support evolution and (b) is counter to the evolutionary position. It is true that the Ridley quote only supports one of these two points, but that does not mean that Ridley is being quoted out of context, and the article does not claim that the Ridly quote supports both of those points.

2. I haven't checked the rest of the article to see if you are correct on this point, but this has nothing to do with whether or not the Ridley quote is out of context.

3. Ridley's quote taken in its entirety is not supporting all the claims in the article, but it is not intended to. The fact that it only supports one claim does not mean that it is taken out of context.

4. Yes, Ridley says makes several other points, but they don't change the meaning of the point that he is being quoted on.

In summary, you have failed to demonstrate your original contention that the quote was taken out of context.

Philip J. Rayment 20:31, 16 December 2007 (EST)

I see the error I made in point 1. I should have said Conservative claims "The fossil record..." But my point still stands, Ridley starts by saying creationists are getting it wrong and then says evolutionists do not say fossil evidence supports evolution. Yet Conservative is saying evolutionists are doing just that. If he had quoted Ridley correctly, there is no way he would have used this quote mine in the first place.--Jimmy 23:15, 16 December 2007 (EST)

I thought this issue was clear from the italicized full quote you provided above - after giving it a thorough once over I have to concur with Jimmy. The quotation is being used disingenuously. Wisdom89 00:00, 17 December 2007 (EST)

No, the issue is not clear at all, and Jimmy's complaint was that it was "out of context", not that it was "disingenuous". He has not demonstrated that it was out of context.

"...Ridley starts by saying creationists are getting it wrong...: Creationists are getting "what" wrong? Presumably something that he's already referred to before the section that you've quoted. And presumably not what he then goes on to talk about. In other words, that does not show that the quote is taken out of context.

"[Ridley]...says evolutionists do not say fossil evidence supports evolution": True, he is saying essentially that, although I'd point out that the context indicates that he is talking about evolutionary scientists, not the average man in the street who believes evolution to be true. As an aside, this is why this point is pertinent, because the average man in the street will point to the fossil record as the main evidence for evolution.

"...Conservative is saying evolutionists are doing just that.": No, he doesn't say that evolutionary scientists are using the fossil record as evidence of evolution. There is an implication that the fossil record supposedly supports the idea of evolution, but this implication does not specify that evolutionary scientists use it as evidence, and can just as easily be read as referring to the average man in the street who believes that the fossil record supports evolution.

"If he had quoted Ridley correctly...": He DID quote Ridley correctly. Your accusation was not that he quoted Ridley incorrectly, but out of context, yet you have still failed to show how the meaning of the article's quote is changed by the fuller quote.

Philip J. Rayment 01:00, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Tell ya what Phil, why not try to convince Conservative to use this quote from Ridley? "Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media. In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven." There is no question in my mind that he won't because creationists tend to be in the habit of using quote mines and selective quotations to get their point across. That's why Stephen J. Gould made the following comment; "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through 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." --Jimmy 20:27, 17 December 2007 (EST)

"Tell ya what Phil, why not try to convince Conservative to use this quote from Ridley?": So you're giving up your claim that Ridley was quoted out of context? Tell ya what, Jim, how about admitting your mistake if you want to be taken seriously?

What would be the purpose in providing the fuller quote? The first problem is that it is out of context. That is, the word "it" in "Someone is getting it wrong" looks like it is referring to something that he's being talking about earlier (as I have already pointed out). So without that context, the quote is somewhat pointless. The second problem is that it appears to be just expressing an opinion that is in line with his views. To put it another way, if an evolutionist says "I believe that the evidence supports evolution", that's hardly noteworthy, because that's what you'd expect him to say. If, on the other hand, an evolutionist says "I believe that the evidence does not support evolution", then that is noteworthy and worth quoting, because it's not what you'd expect him to say. My point is that there needs to be a good reason for quoting someone, and you haven't given a good reason for the fuller quote from Ridley, and I don't see a good reason.

"..creationists tend to be in the habit of using quote mines and selective quotations to get their point across.: And anti-creationists tend to be in the habit of throwing out sweeping accusations like this without the evidence to back it up. I've personally checked quite a few claims of supposed quoting out of context by creationists, and most turn out to be incorrect, trivial, or otherwise unsubstantiated. You have provided such an example yourself, by claiming that Ridley was quoted out of context, and that claim was incorrect. So why should I take any notice of your unsubstantiated sweeping claim?

As far as Gould's comment is concerned, see here. Gould's comment can be explained in two ways: (A) that creationists are guilty as charged, or (B) that he didn't like the accusations from fellow evolutionists that he was providing ammunition to the creationists, so was trying to pass the blame on to creationists. Note that he didn't substantiate his charge against creationists; he merely asserted it, and as far as I know nobody has shown how creationists quoting Gould are doing so out of context. So I opt for (B). See also point 5 here.

Philip J. Rayment 21:09, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Providing the the full quote from Ridley would be taking him "out of context"? You've got to be kidding! Just imagine the fun people could have by simply using fancy editing to prove their point. This evolution article is full of it, open your eyes! If you can't see how Ridley's comment is being misused, it would be pure folly for me to try and convince you that Gould is being mis-quoted by creationists. I looked at your references, just another example of creationists mis-quoting and quote mining. Take a look at the Talk Origins Quote Mine project, it is interesting[5]. Continuing this conversation will get us nowhere, I've made my point and the readers of our comments will make up their own minds.--Jimmy 21:52, 17 December 2007 (EST)

This is little more that argument by assertion and argument by outrage—neither of which are valid forms of argument. I can't see how Ridley's quote is being misused because you have totally failed to explain how the meaning of it is changed by its context. You haven't even tried to do that! So don't go accusing me of being close-minded when you have not even tried to substantiate your claim with an appropriate explanation.

"I looked at your references, just another example of creationists mis-quoting and quote mining.": On the contrary, your reply was yet another sweeping claim with no evidence to back it up. Yes, people can make up their own minds, but I'd suggest that they will see that you have done nothing to back up that sweeping claim and dismiss your comments as pointless.

I have looked at the Talk.Origins quote mining project before. It's one of the sources I had in mind when I wrote above that I've checked out such claims and found them wanting. See, for example, this article on CreationWiki, that, from memory, I wrote.

Philip J. Rayment 22:47, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Errors in Disproving Evolution

Well, the sheer number of things I could say about this page are extensive, but I'll restrict myself to one passage - the part about scientists being 'wrong' about animal behaviour and the Bible being right. Why this section is on this page is a total mystery. It seems to be attempting to disprove the theory of evolution by disproving...well...science, basically. However, the main point is that upon reading the sources for these claims, the evidence is not as clear-cut as this section makes out. Let's take the lions first. Firstly, the source claims that 'Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw', and goes onto say that this is contradicted by the Bible which states that, 'The lion...strangled prey for his lionesses'. Well, firstly, how did the lion strangle the prey? My guess would be, maybe, biting it in the throat or neck - one of the two ways given by this source that naturalists claimed the lion killed it's prey. Secondly, even this source agrees the Bible got it wrong - it is the LIONESSES that do most of the hunting, not the lions.

Let's move onto the snakes. The source says that zoologists and scientists have claimed that snakes are deaf, or almost totally deaf. It then provides a passage from the Bible which seems to claim that snakes can hear. It then provides third-hand evidence in the form of a newspaper article quoting a Dr. David I Macht who was told by 'a number of Hindu physicians' that snakes respond to musical tones. Hardly conclusive. It then goes onto provide what seems to be a wealth of evidence DISproving that snakes can hear - instead they sense vibrations through the ground they are on. It then goes onto providing evidence that suggests snakes MAY be able to hear certain limited frequencies of sound. Not that snakes DEFINITELY hear.

Then let's address ants. Firstly, this source tells of a passage in the Bible where the diligence of ants storing up provisions is an example to be emulated. This source then goes onto to quote another source that 'It is well known that the ancient Greeks and Romans believed that the ant stored up food'. This, presumably, also included the ancient Greek and Roman thinkers and philosophers, what we would, perhaps, call 'scientists' now. He then provides another source which explains it all in full detail - 'The ancient writers lived around the Mediterranean where harvesting ants are common. Probably they considered all ants as harvesters. Many centuries later, the beginning of modern science blossomed forth in more northern temperate countries, where harvesters are unknown. And so it was that these northern scientists by the eighteenth century began first to question, then to refute, the existence of any such creatures. The pendulum of scientific thought had swung in the opposite direction, despite the fierce opposition met in defying the word of the Bible. In the nineteenth century, as ants were studied more carefully and in additional parts of the world, it was gradually learned that some ants, although not all, are harvesters. Thus was removed the tarnish that in some scientific circles had dulled the veracity of Solomon.' The earlier thinking that ants were not harvesters was not proven wrong, per se, but merely proven incomplete - all of the ants in temperate ares were not harvesters. Some of those further south, nearer the Mediterranean, were.Zmidponk 11:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Harvester Ants are a species native to Arizona. Maybe a better term should be used to aviod confusion. Maybe 'agricultural' ants? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PsychoDolly (talk)

I'm not going to address most of your post, because most of it refers to matters that I don't know a lot about, but regarding your first comment about why the section is there, see the Scientific Community Consensus section above. Philip J. Rayment 06:23, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Well, even the claim that 'it is there to prove that science is sometimes wrong and the Bible is always right' does not make sense - one of the sources used for this claim even actually agrees that certain behaviour by lions seems inconsistent with the Bible's claims. Zmidponk 10:16, 19 December 2007 (EST)

What does the ToE have to do with atheism?

Last time I checked the theory of evolution was a scientific theory, not a metaphysical view of the world, therefor it has nothing to say on the existence of any gods whatsoever. By conflating the Theory of Evolution with atheism the authors of this article are being intellectually dishonest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2112 (talk)

That evolution is a scientific theory is one of the claims of its supporters, but is questioned by creationists. Whether it is considered scientific or not, it is based on the assumption of naturalism, i.e. that there is no God. At least two prominent evolutionists have said that it was Darwin's intention to explain things without God. And others have said that evolution supports their atheism. Philip J. Rayment 06:00, 19 December 2007 (EST)

That's not the point. The point of the poster was to highlight the fact that it's 100% possible to believe in a created world and an intelligent designer, AND evolution. In fact since evolution has evidence and a created world has no evidence the evolution theory is more valid than the created world theory.

Darwin was a Christian, who did not feel comfortable with his theory as it did seem to him to remove the power of God, but it actually makes God even more impressive. What's more powerful, to click your fingers and the universe to be created, or to click your fingers and the big bang occurs, creating the evolution of the universe and all organisms within it? Darwinian Evolution is NOT evidence against the existance of God, nor is it in any way related except to unintelligent fundamentalists who believe that a book written slowly over thousands of years by humans with political aims, is the direct word of an invisible man who lives in the sky. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PsychoDolly (talk)

I don't agree that that was the point of the poster, and I'd suggest that you don't know for sure either, unless you are he under a different name. But even though you are correct that it is possible to believe in both evolution and a Creator (although not the God of the Bible), I didn't actually say that it wasn't possible, did I? I was basically making a case that the two are closely intertwined; I didn't say that they were totally inseparable.

That there is no evidence for a created world is nothing more than anti-creationist nonsense. In fact, as creationists have said before, both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is the interpretation put on that evidence.

Darwin was raised in a Christian society and was nominally Christian to start with, but became an agnostic or atheist. I cannot agree that evolution makes God more impressive, but that's a non-issue really. The point is that evolution is contrary to both the biblical record and to the nature of God as described in the Bible. So it's not just a question of whether God could have used evolution, but whether he did use evolution. The biblical record says that he did not, so belief in evolution requires (if one is being consistent) a disbelief in what the Bible teaches about creation. That is, the two are not compatible.

And your contempt for what you term "fundamentalists" and for the Bible is blatant. When you resort to abusive ad hominem arguments to make your point, you have no point.

Philip J. Rayment 20:59, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Anyone who cannot see that an English book is not the word of a non-physical meta being just because it says so, does not live up to the levels of intelligence I expect from people who accept to be taken seriously. You can believe ungrounded 'facts' if you like, but I've never met an intelligent religious person who thinks that the world was literally created in six days as is, and that all the evidence of historical and modern natural selection and evolution was planted by God to fool us scientifically minded folk who investigate our universe. So to all intelligent, non-fundamental theists can and should accept evolution if they consider the evidence in favour of it. If they don't then coming up with something other than "but this doesnt sound like what was written down thousands of years ago when we didnt understand the universe like we do today".

The point is, that the article is saying "Atheists believe in evolution, therfore it is wrong." But that's absolutely not the point, atheism (the existance or non existance of God has absolutely nothing to do with whether evolution exists.User1601 10:18, 28 December 2007 (EST)

"...an English book ...": An English translation of a book written mostly in Hebrew and Greek. Not that that changes anything, but that's the point: Your mention of it being English is irrelevant, and suggests that you don't really know what you are talking about.

"Anyone who cannot see that an English book is not the word of a non-physical meta being just because it says so does not live up to the levels of intelligence I expect from people who accept to be taken seriously": We don't believe it to be the Word of God "just because it says so". Anyone who thinks that's the only reason we consider it God's word shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.

"I've never met an intelligent religious person who thinks that the world was literally created in six days as is...": Neither have I. We don't believe that it was created in six days "as is". We believe that it was created perfect (without fault) in six days, but that because man rejected God, it has deteriorated since. Furthermore, God later destroyed the world with a flood. So the world that you see today is not the world that God created in six days. If your point was the "six days" rather than the "as is", then, hello, I'm Philip. Pleased to meet you. There, you've just met an intelligent person (I like to think so anyway) who does believe that.

"...all the evidence of historical and modern natural selection and evolution was planted by God to fool us scientifically minded folk who investigate our universe.": Oh, so much wrong with that one sentence!

• Creationists believe in natural selection! It was described by a creationist before Darwin popularised it. But natural selection is not evolution.
• We don't believe that God "planted" evidence to fool us. We accept the evidence (fossils, rock layers, etc.), but have a different story to explain them.
• Creationists are scientifically-minded. That's why many creationists are scientists!
• Science is based on creationism. See Natural science. Science was started by people who believed that God created a world that was able to be investigated.

"'If they don't then coming up with something other than "but this doesnt sound like what was written down thousands of years ago when we didnt understand the universe like we do today".": That doesn't sound like a complete sentence. But more to the point, that's not the rationale for creationism, and that presumes what it's trying to argue. That is, it presumes that God doesn't exist or didn't create as explained in the Bible, and that the Bible was therefore written by primitive men who didn't know what really happened. Conversely, if the Bible is true, then it had the all-knowing God Who created the world as its ultimate author, and He understands the universe and knows what happened! An argument that assumes its own conclusion is a circular argument.

What your post has shown is that you have no idea of the issue that you are discussing. If you want to be taken seriously on a subject, make the effort to find out about it before ranting off about how wrong it is and its supporters are.

Philip J. Rayment 16:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)

As Richard Dawkins said evolution allows people to be intellectually fulfilled atheists. Without evolution atheism fails. SkipJohnson 15:41, 20 December 2007 (EST)

One way of phrasing it, perhaps, is that evolution is a necessary condition for atheism but not a sufficient one. That is, atheism requires a naturalistic explanation of origins, but evolution (even if it's correct) does not preclude the existence of God. Or, alternatively, atheism requires evolution, but evolution does not require atheism.--Recorder 16:16, 20 December 2007 (EST)

True, except as I've just added above, evolution is inconsistent with the biblical record and with the God of the Bible. That is, I'm only agreeing that evolution can be consistent with a god of one's own invention. Another point is that many atheists use evolution as an argument against God. Philip J. Rayment 21:04, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Agreed, at least in part. In my comment above, I meant to refer to God in a more general sense, not the God as presented in the literal Biblical record in particular--sort of a "natural knowledge of God" vs. "revealed (biblical) knowledge of God" distinction. I'd add that I think that the "evolution occurred, ergo no divine being can exist" argument is pretty weak, and I speculate that more than a few atheists would agree. I'd say (although I could be wrong) that atheists would view evolution as an "enabler" of their (non)belief system rather than a basis for it, which might be what the Dawkins quote that SkipJohnson mentioned refers to.--Recorder 12:15, 21 December 2007 (EST)

That's very true. Just as "no missing link has been found therfore hominids did not evolve from primates but were placed on Earth by God" is a nonsense argument. If God created the world, God created evolution. I see no reason to suppose that the Bible need be 100% literally correct for God to exist. God and the bible are again, totally unrelated. All you know of God is what other people have told you, why are you to suppose they are correct?

The question of the nature of God is one that cannot be answered, so instead in our investigation of the world we look at evidence and conduct experiments to determine the nature of things. Should they prove a few popes wrong, I dont see how that is an attack on God. 'God' is not the same thing as 'religious doctrine' User1601 10:18, 28 December 2007 (EST)

"Just as "no missing link has been found therfore hominids did not evolve from primates but were placed on Earth by God" is a nonsense argument": Which may be why creationists don't use it. But a legitimate argument is, "no missing link has been found therefore it's reasonable to conclude that hominids did not evolve from primates but were placed on Earth by God". That is, a lack of evidence for evolution doesn't prove creation, but it does tend to support the idea.

"If God created the world, God created evolution.": That presumes that evolution exists, which is really the point in contention, isn't it. A circular argument again.

"I see no reason to suppose that the Bible need be 100% literally correct for God to exist.": Most Christians don't consider the Bible to be 100% literally correct. They recognise the existence of analogy, parables, metaphor, etc. But creationists and non-creationist experts do consider the creation account to have been written as literal history.

"God and the bible are again, totally unrelated.": That's your unsupported opinion, not an argument. I believe that there's good reason to believe otherwise.

"All you know of God is what other people have told you, why are you to suppose they are correct?": That opinion relies on your previous unsupported opinion. Most of what I know of God is what the Bible tells me.

"The question of the nature of God is one that cannot be answered...": How do you know it cannot be answered?

"...we look at evidence and conduct experiments to determine the nature of things": As do creationists, who, unlike you, don't a priori rule God out as part of the explanation.

Philip J. Rayment 16:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Man you have to get edits to talk in quick before being banned for 'Not using your real name'. Odd how it's not required when you sign up. User1601 is PsychoDolly User1601 10:18, 28 December 2007 (EST)

The registration page says (my emphasis):

Offensive user names will result in that user name being blocked and perhaps the IP address being blocked. Frivolous user names, names of prominent living persons, and user names consisting of, for example, all capital letters or all the same character, may also result in that user name being blocked. User names based on your real name or initials are preferred.

Philip J. Rayment 16:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Quote Mines

This article is of extremely poor quality. Over half of it consists of quote mines. The author took quotes from well respected scientists and quoted them in a way that makes it look as if those scientists were doubting the theory of evolution. If the author would actually go to the original source and find the quotes for himself or herself, instead of relying on creationist sources, they would quickly find out that the intention of the scientist is far from what the quote mine suggests. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2112 (talk)

Please specify which quotes make the scientists look like they doubt evolution. I ask because (a) we can't correct it if we don't know which ones you are talking about, and (b) I've heard this claim made incorrectly before, so I doubt that it's true. I will add, though, that I'd agree that the intention of the scientist is not to question evolution, but that doesn't mean that you can't quote them saying something that contradicts evolution. Philip J. Rayment 06:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I agree with the OP. I was reading it trying to find something actually about the Theory of Evolution, but could not. The entire article is very quote heavy (approx 50% is pure quotes). If you submitted this in any form of achedemic examination it would achieve a failing grade.

While it may well be that the theory of evolution is not complete; and indeed creating the very FIRST life has not been possible to replicate; to not explain what it is and instead simply quote out of context many people (some names such as Matt Ridley are even incorrect) and to then lock the article so it cannot be edited... It really makes me think this website is worth nothing when it comes to reliability of information and balenced reporting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PsychoDolly (talk)

I'm not defending the article overall, and have said before that it's not the way I'd like it, but you repeat the accusation of the quotes being out of context yet despite all the discussion on this above, still don't actually show how any are out of context. So I think that your accusations (well, that one anyway) are "worth nothing". Philip J. Rayment 21:08, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I honestly don't know of half of the quotes used on the article. Those that I have heard of were not intended to be taken to the extreme they have been. For example; Darwin's statement that he could not imagine how the eye could evolve - yes he could not imagine it, nor can I. It does not mean we think that defeats our argument.

You use evidence of a bacterial flagellum, which the article claims cannot be reduced - well yes it can. The proteins that are in the plasma membrane are the same as those found in active pumps, meaning that a flagellum is not evidence of something existing that cannot have evolved.

While trying to post comments to this talk page I've been banned twice, so forgive me if I don't care what you think of my opinions. Nobody can change the page as it is locked, and the people writing it had an obviously biased viewpoint. I'm not in the slightest bit convinced you are interested in the truth. User1601 10:25, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Umm, what statement from Darwin about the eye? I just did a search on "eye" in the article, and could find no such statement. Perhaps you mean the statement by Mayr? Okay, you're right: It doesn't mean that Mayr rejects evolution. But that's the point: Here's an evolutionist admitting that not only is there no evidence for something, it's barely even possible to imagine how it could happen!

That the plasma membrane has the same proteins does not negate the argument. That's like trying to refute an argument that the motor of a train could not have come about by evolution by pointing out that the nuts in the motor are also found in the body of the train.

As for bias, you wouldn't be biased on this, would you?

Philip J. Rayment 01:07, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Examples of Transitional forms

In your section on transitional forms you should include some positive evidence for the theory of evolution, instead of blatant quote mines. There are plenty of transitional fossils in the record, such as tiktaalik, the 'fishibian', and archeopteryx. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2112 (talk)

"Plenty"? Then why is it that the same handful of questionable ones keep getting cited? From memory, Gould rejected the Archaeopteryx as transitional, and tiktaalik is far from convincing[6]. Philip J. Rayment 06:17, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Since we were talking about Gould earlier, you may want to know that he considered archaeopteryx a transitional, or in his own words, '… is as pretty an intermediate as paleontology could ever hope to find - a complex mélange of reptilian and avian features.' P144 - 145 of Bully for Brontosaurus, copy write 1991. My question is this. Since you consider Gould to be an authority on whether or not a specimen is transitional, will you heed the suggestion of the previous commenter and recommend archaeopteryx as an excellent example of a transitional form and include it in this article?

Why did you link to a Jonathan Sarfati article concerning Tiktaalik roseae? Why not the original peer-reviewed article in Nature? --Jimmy 14:00, 20 December 2007 (EST)

There appears to be a distinction between intermediate and transitional. We were talking about transitional fossils; Gould referred to Archaeopteryx as intermediate. In order to show that one creature has evolved into a quite different creature (such as a reptile into a bird), you need more than just a third creature that has aspects of both. Reptiles lay eggs, mammals have fur, and the platypus both lays eggs and has fur. Does that make it transitional, or just a creature with features in common with both? (I hope the answer is obvious.) What you need is a whole series of transitions that demonstrate a smooth process. Gould's point, apparently, was that there is no such thing. Archaeopteryx was the nearest one could get to an intermediate form, but failed to show this smooth transition. The quote that I was referring to from Gould is, "Smooth intermediates … are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)." So whilst he may not have been rejecting it as intermediate between reptiles and birds, it is not an example of a transitional form.

The Sarfati article provides the reference for the Nature article, so you got both for the price of one! Secondly, the Nature article is only available for members or for a fee. Thirdly (though in no particular order), I'm sure that the Nature article would not have highlighted the problems with considering the fossil to be intermediate.

Philip J. Rayment 21:37, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I can tell you are grasping at straws here. An intermediate fossil is for the most part synonymous with transitional, please read up on the difference before casually discarding Gould's assertion. Where did you get your quote mine about Gould anyway? This is just one of the things that aggravated him when he made his famous quote about creationists and stupidity. His theory of punctuated equilibrium was the explanation for why there are no "smooth intermediates … even in thought experiments." Do yourself a favor and try to get the quotes of biologists from primary sources, not creationists; it's less embarrassing that way.

As far as the tiktaalik roseae article is concerned, should I believe an article that has gone through a rigorous peer-review or a short blurb written by someone operating on the fringes of science? I wonder why Sarfati didn't submit his rebuttal to Nature; it would be nice if creationists participated in the scientific process instead of merely critiquing others.--Jimmy 23:18, 20 December 2007 (EST)

If you had asked politely instead of with such insult and arrogance, I would have provided the source, but you can find it for yourself now.

I agree that "for the most part" an intermediate fossil is synonymous with a transitional one, but Gould seems to be making something of a distinction, and I was trying to accommodate what he was saying, not "discard" it, as you seem to be doing by arrogantly referring to it as a "quote mine", despite me doing nothing different to you, i.e. quoting Gould.

Was Gould really aggravated by Creationists misquoting him, or by the fact that other evolutionists were criticising him for providing ammunition to the creationists? I believe the latter to be the case, if for no other reason than I've never seen an explanation from him of just how he was misquoted. Rather, there was just the bald assertion.

Sure, I totally agree that 'His theory of punctuated equilibrium was the explanation for why there are no "smooth intermediates … even in thought experiments."'. But you seem to miss the point. Punctuated equilibrium was the explanation for an observation, yet you seem to think that creationists shouldn't quote him on that observation.

I'm not the embarrassed in the slightest by getting quotes from creationists, when I know that those creationists are careful to check from the primary sources that the quote is accurate. Your slur against creationists is offensive and I ask that you apologise for it.

I also ask that you apologise for the slur that creationists operate "on the fringes of science". That is arrogant evolutionary elitism. Why didn't Sarfati submit his rebuttal to Nature? Apart from the fact that he wrote it for a different audience, he knows better than I do that secular journals like Nature don't publish views supporting creation, simply because it supports creation. Yes, it would be nice if such journals allowed creationists to participate in the scientific process instead of being excluded from it. Can I count on you to argue for that as strongly as you've argued in your post here? Please forgive me for jumping to the conclusion that your answer will be 'no'.

Philip J. Rayment 02:57, 21 December 2007 (EST)

If you have some evidence that a significant number of scientists accused Gould of providing ammunition for creationists, then please provide it. Until then, Gould's words stand as they are plainly written. I am insisting that creationists are misusing Gould's comments about punctuated equilibria because Gould made the accusation himself and he was tired of it, it's that simple.

I'll try again, if you want to know how creationists are misquoting Gould, try reading what he wrote, don't read the articles of creationists that claim they have the inside scoop on what Gould or scientists like him actually said.

I didn't intend to slur anyone. Facts are facts. There are still creationists like Duane Gish that insist Gould's theory meant a bird hatched from a reptile egg.[7] I find it hard to believe that some creationists actually think Gould supported that drivel, yet you don't have to look far to find it.

It is a fact that creationists are at the fringes of science because the vast majority of biologists, anthropologists, etc are evolutionists. The creationist biologists don't even try to get their papers published in journals, they just try to force their views by using public opinion, the legislature and the courts. If you think I'm wrong, then show me a paper sent to a journal from the likes of Sarfati.

What did Darwin do when he published his book? He had to convince his peers that his theory had merit. I don't ever recall reading about him complaining to his city council or gripping about the mean ol' men that didn't like his theory. If we could actually look a creationist paper that was rejected by a science journal, then we could see why it was rejected. I don't know of any paper, do you? I would love to see creationists work within the science community; then maybe we wouldn't see the constant harping that goes on.

Thank-you for referring to evolutionists as elitists. These scientists have worked very hard over the past few centuries and evolution has withstood everything that has been thrown at it. These educated men and women are truly the elite, I thank you again.--Jimmy 14:19, 21 December 2007 (EST)

"If you have some evidence that a significant number of scientists accused Gould of providing ammunition for creationists, then please provide it.": How about Gould's own words?

But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate about theory that has brought new life to evolutionary biology. It provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion. Perhaps we should lie low and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment—a kind of old-time religion on our part.

Do want to know where that came from? From the reference that you provided! Here's another (also from Gould):

Our theory became the public symbol and stalking horse for all debate within evolutionary theory. Moreover, since popular impression now falsely linked the supposed ‘trouble’ within evolutionary theory to the rise of creationism, some intemperate colleagues began to blame Eldredge and me for the growing strength of creationism.

Thus, we stood falsely accused by some colleagues both for dishonestly exaggerating our theory to proclaim the death of Darwin (presumably for our own cynical quest for fame), and for unwittingly fostering the scourge of creationism as well,[8]

"I'll try again, if you want to know how creationists are misquoting Gould, try reading what he wrote, don't read the articles of creationists that claim they have the inside scoop on what Gould or scientists like him actually said.": Then I'll try again too (because you've added nothing new): I'll keep using creationist sources when I know that those creationists are careful to check from the primary sources that the quote is accurate. Furthermore, I'm doing no different than you seem to be doing. Your claims that creationists are misquoting seem to not be taken from the creationists' quotes, but from anti-creationist accusations about them. How about you go to the original creationist sources?

"I didn't intend to slur anyone. Facts are facts.". Of course facts are facts. But rhetoric and opinion are not facts, and much of what you wrote was opinion. And opinion that puts someone down is a slur.

"There are still creationists like Duane Gish that insist Gould's theory meant a bird hatched from a reptile egg.": Still? I thought that you were claiming "facts"! Your reference doesn't say when Gish said that, but your reference dates to 1981! So Gish said that, at a minimum, more than a quarter of a century ago! And you've misrepresented Gish anyway. According to your source, Gish actually said that this is what Gould apparently believed. Furthermore, he had reason for doing so.

In this regard Gould spoke favourably of the ideas of Richard Goldschmidt, a German palaeontologist from the mid-1900s who ... proposed a ‘hopeful monster’ theory, where the major body plans were seen as arising suddenly, by some sort of macromutation. This was popularly portrayed as being like a bird emerging out of a reptile egg—a ‘hopeful monster’ theory.

Undoubtedly some creationists have misconstrued Gould’s work, conflating Gould’s writings on speciation and macroevolution, and then characterizing PE as a ‘hopeful monster’ theory. But some evolutionists have ‘misunderstood’ Gould too. Maybe this is not surprising, since Gould’s article had the term in its title,["The return of hopeful monsters"] and he said:

‘I do, however, predict that during the next decade Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology.’

[9]

"It is a fact that creationists are at the fringes of science because the vast majority of biologists, anthropologists, etc are evolutionists.": That creationists have a different view of origins doesn't mean that they are 'on the fringes of science'. Many creationary scientists do normal (empirical) science, often for secular institutions. There's nothing fringe about their science, it's just that they have different views on origins.

"The creationist biologists don't even try to get their papers published in journals,...": They often don't because they know from experience that it would be a waste of time. But it's simply not true that they've never tried.

"...they just try to force their views by using public opinion, the legislature and the courts.": Ha! It's the evolutionists who censor creationist views from classrooms. It's evolutionists who scream if the media promotes creationists views. It's evolutionists who censor creationist views from science journals. Yet you've got the gall to say that it's the creationists who are trying to force their views on people! The attempts to use legislature (which, by the way, the leading creationist organisations do not support), have for the most part been attempts to stop the censorship by evolutionists, and most of the court cases have been by evolutionists trying to overturn the legislation to maintain that censorship!

"If you think I'm wrong, then show me a paper sent to a journal from the likes of Sarfati.": Do you mean:

• a paper showing that a creationists can do publishable science? Try this one by Sarfati.
• a paper published in a secular journal that puts views opposed to evolution? There's this famous one.
• a paper submitted to a secular journal but rejected because it was from a creationist? Try this one.

"If we could actually look a creationist paper that was rejected by a science journal, then we could see why it was rejected. I don't know of any paper, do you?" If it was rejected, there's a good chance that I can't show it to you. Nevertheless, see the third bullet above, which was rejected by (at least) two secular journals.

"Thank-you for referring to evolutionists as elitists. ... These educated men and women are truly the elite, I thank you again": Whilst that's a clever play on words, I'm sure that you know as well as I do that that's not what it means.

"...evolution has withstood everything that has been thrown at it.": Bald, unsubstantiated, assertion, and of course a view that I strongly disagree with.

Philip J. Rayment 23:41, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Evolutionist = Atheist?

Don't you think its intellectually dishonest to claim that defenders of evolution are atheists, for two reasons, # 1, most scientists are religious theists, and # 2 - quoteing sources that are anti-evolution is probably not accurrate. Also, how can religious theists have it both ways, suggesting that Charles Darwin recanted on his death bed but then suggesting he is an atheist. I for one love our lord and savior jesus and think jesus would be sad to see that us good christians are lieing on this page. -soliderforjesus

The most outspoken promoters of evolution are, like Richard Dawkins, atheists. It is a fact. Sure, some people can be found who say they both believe in evolution and are Christian, just as one can find Americans who burn the American flag. But the exceptions do not prove the rule, and there's no doubting that evolution is pushed and promoted by atheists more than by churches.--Aschlafly 23:39, 27 December 2007 (EST)

No I don't think that it's honest to do so if it is presented as an absolute rather than a generalisation. But you didn't quote the sentence, and I don't feel like looking for it from that description, so I can't comment more.

But your comment that "quoteing sources that are anti-evolution is probably not accurrate" appears to be bigoted nonsense, if I understand you correctly. Perhaps you can elaborate and/or justify?

That Darwin recanted on his death bed is an urban myth, and rejected by the leading creationist organisations. So no contradiction there.

Philip J. Rayment 02:40, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure you're correct there. 'Most outspoken atheists believe in evolution' would probably be better. I'd imagine most atheists believe in evolution as the 'God did it' answer can't apply to them. I know a lot of theists believe in evolution, but have never heard of an atheist who did not. While all atheists may be evolutionists, not all evolutionists are atheists. I think a distinction needs to be made there. User1601 10:29, 28 December 2007 (EST)

As I said, the specific sentence wasn't quoted, so without what's likely to be a fair bit of searching, I can't comment further. Point me to the specific sentence and I will probably change it if I think it's misleading. Philip J. Rayment 01:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Philip, I think what he/she meant by "quoteing sources that are anti-evolution is probably not accurrate" was that the article garners most of its content from creationists attempting to debunk the evidence. I don't feel it was made in bad faith. Wisdom89 09:18, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Well, it was vague enough that you might be correct, but that's why I asked the poster to elaborate. But I'm still not sure that justifies it. It's still basically saying that those who interpret the evidence to mean something other than evolution are not accurate, does it not? Philip J. Rayment 10:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Just to provide you with some numbers: According to Miller et al [10], 78% of all Americans agree with the statement Over periods of millions of years, some species of plants and animals adjust and survive while other species die and become extinct, while 62% agree with Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life.. This means that at least 40% believe both, like it or not. Order 19:48, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I don't have access to that article, and perhaps it's not so bad in context, but as you've quoted it there, that first question is poorly worded. Apart from the "millions of years" bit (which is not what is being discussed), I (a young-Earth creationist, for those that don't know) could agree with that first question. So it may well not be an accurate figure of evolutionists.

Regardless, I think Andy's point was not so much about the average man in the street and what he passively "believes", but the promoters of evolution.

Philip J. Rayment 01:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)

I can't tell you what the numbers for science communicators are. If you or Andy has some, and a reference to them, I would be interested to know them, too. To access the paper Public Acceptance of Evolution by Miller, Scott, and Okamoto, you or your institution will need to have an subscription. I can tell you that if you google for Miller, Scott and Okamoto and the title "Public Acceptance of Evolution", you'll find easily a copy that is freely downloadable. The figures and questionnaire are given in the document with the supporting material. The respondents had to tell for a few statements if they were "true", "not sure" or "false". Given the statement Over periods of millions of years, some species of plants and animals adjust and survive while other species die and become extinct., 78% said "true", 16% "not sure", and 6% "false". Given the statement Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life., 62% said "true", 2% "not sure", and 36% "false". There were other statements too. As said, this are the numbers for the general public, and I don't know the numbers for science communicators, but it'd be grateful if someone could provide them. Order 09:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)