4,336
edits
Changes
Conservapedia talk:Evolution two (view source)
Revision as of 16:29, February 23, 2009
, 16:29, February 23, 2009edit old user's sig - there are 31 pages linking to non-existant "request for admin thanks to that
Tell me what you think of the style and content so far and we can go from there.
Tell me what you think of the style and content so far and we can go from there.
I think that the structure you propose is pretty good. I foresee potential difficulties in the criticism sections as you and I work out which view gets the last word on any given point. But I am sure with some good will we can see it through to a successful result. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] <sup>[[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]]</sup> 20:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
I think that the structure you propose is pretty good. I foresee potential difficulties in the criticism sections as you and I work out which view gets the last word on any given point. But I am sure with some good will we can see it through to a successful result. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] <sup>Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop</sup> 20:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a start, but sometimes the first intro paragraph on many articles can get weighty, with too much stuff added, too much of a mix tossed in, when it should be a simple statement introducing the subject to the reader. Since I feel that the article will probably fall under the new title "evolution vs. creation", we'd want some simple sentences at the immediate onset that state what evolution is, followed by what creation is, followed by a third which states something to the effect that both are at odds with one another. Because we each have our own beliefs in the subject, there's the temptation to add in the personal "I hate evolution!" or "Creation sucks!" lines...which is what we're going to have to learn to avoid. We'll experiment a few times with the into, just to see how it turns out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:28, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a start, but sometimes the first intro paragraph on many articles can get weighty, with too much stuff added, too much of a mix tossed in, when it should be a simple statement introducing the subject to the reader. Since I feel that the article will probably fall under the new title "evolution vs. creation", we'd want some simple sentences at the immediate onset that state what evolution is, followed by what creation is, followed by a third which states something to the effect that both are at odds with one another. Because we each have our own beliefs in the subject, there's the temptation to add in the personal "I hate evolution!" or "Creation sucks!" lines...which is what we're going to have to learn to avoid. We'll experiment a few times with the into, just to see how it turns out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:28, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
On the history section you added, how about dividing it in two, with a "concept of evolution" as proposed by Lamarck, and those people who did something similar before, and "Darwin's theory" which is what Darwin did...and both can go into detail. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:34, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
On the history section you added, how about dividing it in two, with a "concept of evolution" as proposed by Lamarck, and those people who did something similar before, and "Darwin's theory" which is what Darwin did...and both can go into detail. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:34, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'll have a go at rearranging the introduction more in line with your suggestion. I am not sure though that it is accurate to suggest that evolution was postulated by Darwin. I think, for example, that Lamarck believed in a form of evolution. I believe that Darwin's chief contribution was proposing natural selection as a driving force. Also, it occurs to me that we should not leave out the OECs in the introduction. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] <sup>Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop</sup> 19:25, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::We'll go at what looks and reads best for the intro. It could read ''evolution is a theory which began over a millenia ago, but gained ground during the 19th century as postulated by naturalists Charles Darwin, Alfred E. Newman, etc...'' As you can see, it could work from there as it provides a good, yet basic, structure. However, the inclusion of Newman is just a name pulled from a hat to fill that sentence; I don't think we'd be too happy to include the Mad Magazine mascot anywhere here! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
==Illustrations==
==Illustrations==
==References==
==References==
On this particular reference, ''Philosophie zoologique ou exposition des considérations relatives à l'histoire naturelle des animaux (1809)'', can you provide an English title, author (obviously Lamarck), and last publication status, similar to the book listed below? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
On this particular reference, ''Philosophie zoologique ou exposition des considérations relatives à l'histoire naturelle des animaux (1809)'', can you provide an English title, author (obviously Lamarck), and last publication status, similar to the book listed below? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:Never mind...I found it, as well as an online-translation that could be used as a reference link [http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim/lamarck_contents.html] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:30, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
"Zoologic science, or, Exposition on considerations regarding the natural history of animals." Takes into account meaning of "philosophie" at the time.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)