Difference between revisions of "Talk:Evolution"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(97 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
 
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
 
|}
 
|}
 +
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
 +
== Strong indicators that 2014 will be a bad year for  Darwinism and atheism ==
  
 +
Indicators that 2014 will be a bad year for Darwinism and atheism: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/12/surefire-signs-that-2014-will-be-worst.html Surefire signs that 2014 will be the WORST year in the history of Darwinism and atheism] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:12, 18 December 2013 (EST)
  
 +
==[[Robert Skildelsky]]==
 +
[[User:Conservative]]]: You used a source on these major Portal pages: [[Charles Darwin]], [[The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection]], [[John Maynard Keynes]] and [[Evolution]] ([https://www.jordantimes.com/opinion/robert-skidelsky/costly-return-geopolitics The costly return of geopolitics], Jun 27, 2023). His latest, [https://youtu.be/ALnyAWz5l8I Lord Robert Skidelsky: Pax-Americana is Over], seems to directly contradict your [[Essay: The United States will be the leading power in the world for the foreseeable future]], who declares it has ended. To avoid the confusion you have created on the part of our readers between your ideas and Skildelsky, why don't you properly qualify the source by creating the [[Robert Skildelsky]] article? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 13:23, April 20, 2025 (EDT)
  
−
__TOC__
+
== Alfred Russel Wallace - Co-discoverer of natural selection ==
  
−
== Your failure to accept evolution ==
+
Hello, I cannot edit this page, but is there a way to add "Alfred Russel Wallace who was the co-discoverer of natural selection, eventually came to see that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution." citation: Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. "The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose" It summarizes his view of natural history, evolution, natural selection, and their intersection with design. His work shows that nature and design are not mutually exclusive.
−
 
+
:I removed the protection from the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:00, August 25, 2025 (EDT)
−
Over 98% of scientists and a higher figure for biologists accept evolution. These are well-trained people who have a high level of scientific knowledge and know what they're talking about. Unlike your faith-based, unscientific nonsense creation "theory", evolution has abundant evidence and there is NOT ONE peer-reviewed creationist scientific journal. Hmm... I wonder why? Could it be that the scientific community knows more than a bunch of idiots who keep denying Darwin when there is abundant evidence everywhere? 
 
−
 
 
−
== Doctors poll results ==
 
−
 
 
−
I don't think this poll is appropriate to include. How many doctors have to study evolutionary biology? They don't, it's not relevant to their medical knowledge to have an advanced understanding of evolution.
 
−
 
 
−
For what it's worth you might as well say x% of engineers/policemen/politicians accept evolution. These people are all laymen in evolution, they will have the same level of understanding as people on the street. Why not include a poll taken from people who really have to understand evolution for their work, such as geneticists/archaeologists/biologists/etc? That would be far more applicable, don't you agree?
 
−
 
 
−
I suggest the poll is either removed as it asks people who are unsuitable to answer the question, or we use a new poll that includes suitable people. I would be more than happy to provide more suitable polls for you to use in your article if you wish :-). --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 10:33, 29 February 2012 (EST)
 
−
:Hi again. As no-one has raised an objection I'm assuming that it's ok to go ahead and make this change? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 10:33, 29 February 2012 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== Houston, we have anti-evolutionism campaign lift off ==
 
−
 
 
−
News item: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/our-question-evolution-campaign.html Houston, we have anti-evolution campaign lift off]
 
−
[[File:Rocket.jpg|200px|right]]
 
−
{{clear}}
 
−
 
 
−
:Why is Conservative allowed to link to his own personal website? This isn't the place for his spam, and its not like the site has any new or interesting information about it. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 15:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== Factual error ==
 
−
 
 
−
Evolution itself has been confirmed as fact.  The mechanism of evolution is what's still theory.  Someone might want to fix this.[[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 14:56, 18 December 2011 (EST)
 
−
:I disagree, evolution has never been confirmed as fact. I suggest having a look at [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:39, 18 December 2011 (EST)
 
−
::No, I'm quite serious, evolution itself (the concept that species change gradually over millions of years) has been proven as fact.  The only thing that's a theory now is the mechanism of evolution.  Just Google "Evolution in the Galapagos" and you can see for yourself.  Also, most of the articles I've visited on Conservapedia are rife with inaccuracies, so I'm afraid an outside source is required if you want me to take your counter-claim seriously. [[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 12:57, 19 December 2011 (EST)
 
−
:::I agree with FactCheck that referencing a Conservapeida page would be almost as bad as referencing a Wikipedia page, and that obviously I don't think anyone denies micro-evolution; it has been proven. However, I don't think saying, "Someone might want to fix this" is very constructive at all. Why don't you fix it? I don't believe that fact that FactCheck really wants to make sure "Conservapedia stays Trustworthy," in fact, I would speculate that Factcheck isn't a conservative at all. Most likely an atheist. Of course, this entire topic needs massive revision. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
 
−
::::He can't fix it because one of the sysops has protected this page and refuses to unprotect it. Mainly to prevent the massive revision it badly needs. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 10:36, 21 December 2011 (EST)
 
−
:::::Oh--Sorry. Hmmmmm. He must be worried of vandalism or something. Maybe we can post here exactly what changes we would make were we able to, and then people with the authority can decide what to keep and what to throw out. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
 
−
:::::::The agnostic [[Carl Sagan]], who said he obtained his greatest scientific insights smoking marijuana, claimed evolution is a fact. :)  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:36, 22 December 2011 (EST)
 
−
Yuck. What a hack. I hate pot-smokers almost as much as I hate agnostics (and I really hate agnostics--what a cop-out). Carl Sagan was certainly wrong--evolution could never be proven, but I think FactCheck47 was referring to what is called microevolution. That is the phenomenon observed with the Galapagos Finches. It will be important for us to distinguish upon this point because a lot of what liberals try to do is prove microevolution (which is fairly easy) and then conclude that all life must come from evolution (ridiculous). But if we get into an argument over whether or not microevolution exists we will lose. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 12:26, 22 December 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== Evolution as a theory or hypothesis ==
 
−
[[File:ScientificMethodflowchart.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Evolution is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.]]
 
−
As you can see from Karajou's image, the word "theory" indicates that evolution has been backed up by experimental evidence. However, this is not the case. I propose removing references to evolution as a theory and replacing with references to it as a "hypothesis", which is what it fits under. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
 
−
:Hi, I don't believe in evolution, but it's not fair to say it hasn't been tested. It certainly hasn't been proven, and we should focus on that. And I would say it is falsifiable, for example if fossils didn't exist, they would be hard pressed (of course evolutionists would probably try to argue it anyways no matter what the actual evidence says). Anyways, the most famous such test would be the 'Chromosome fusion hypothesis,' which is an axillary hypothesis to they theory of evolution, which predicts chromosome fusion in one of the human chromosomes; it was confirmed in 2004. The paper is easy to find, albeit technical. Here's the youtube link by one of the authors of the paper:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 11:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
 
−
::NickP, excellent point. That is addressed here: http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Unqualified_to_be_a_scientific_theory  Second, theory has a number of definitions.  Third, a lot of people are finding the article by doing search engine searches vis a vis "theory of evolution" and since there is more than one definition of theory, I think it is better to leave it the way it is. However, in a few minutes, I will create article space for you to address this issue and then I can link to the article within the [[evolution]] page. Give me a few minutes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
 
−
:::Here are some articles that could be created: [[Evolution as hypothesis]],[[Evolution is a religion]], [[Evolution disproved]], [[Disproving evolution]], [[Evolution and Karl Popper]], [[Evolution is a lie]] and [[Evolution is a deception]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 21 December 2011 (EST)
 
−
::::Those are good ideas for articles that can be linked to from here. I'll try to help where I can, but I can't say biology is my strength, so I'm not sure how useful I'll be. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:33, 21 December 2011 (EST)
 
−
:::::No big deal.  I have a lot of irons on the fire now anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:40, 21 December 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
Perhaps I did not study this article closely enough, but in it I saw nothing pertaining to the Hardy Weinberg Principle.  Because the Hardy Weinberg Principle is essential to understanding why such a good number of evolutionists believe what they do, I would urge for it to be included in this article.  --X. Dulks
 
−
:Well, I'm not sure because the article isn't about how evolution works or why people might believe it. If you want, you could create a [[Mechanisms of Evolution]] page or something like that. I guess you could even create a [[Why some people might believe in Evolution]] page, as long as you were super careful to follow the Conservapedia guidelines. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 18:30, 28 January 2012 (EST)
 
−
::A well done [[Mechanisms of microevolution]] article would be an excellent article and be much more encyclopedic/less speculative.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:46, 28 January 2012 (EST)
 
−
:::Yes good point. The article should be [[Mechanisms of microevolution]].  The "microevolution" v "Evolution" is indeed important. Actually, there is already a [[Natural selection]] article, and I believe an inclusion of the Hardy Weinberg Principle there would be good as well if not entirely sufficient in itself. I don't know if X. Dulks wants to take that on.  [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 13:44, 30 January 2012 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism  ==
 
−
[[File:Eagle and fish.jpg|thumbnail|right|400px|A supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] writes: "Feeble goal setting is fitting for passive and apathetic evolutionists, but not for Bible believing Christians. In 2012, our group desires to soar like eagles and make evolutionary dogma our prey."[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html]
 
−
<br />
 
−
<br />
 
−
<small>(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/linda-schaible/6063077714/ Flickr], Title: Lock&Dam14-Bald Eagle & Fish, Flicker username: LAShibes, see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])</small>]]
 
−
[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism]
 

Latest revision as of 14:00, August 25, 2025

Set 2 of Archives
Set 1 of Archives







Strong indicators that 2014 will be a bad year for Darwinism and atheism

Indicators that 2014 will be a bad year for Darwinism and atheism: Surefire signs that 2014 will be the WORST year in the history of Darwinism and atheism Conservative 06:12, 18 December 2013 (EST)

Robert Skildelsky

User:Conservative]: You used a source on these major Portal pages: Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, John Maynard Keynes and Evolution (The costly return of geopolitics, Jun 27, 2023). His latest, Lord Robert Skidelsky: Pax-Americana is Over, seems to directly contradict your Essay: The United States will be the leading power in the world for the foreseeable future, who declares it has ended. To avoid the confusion you have created on the part of our readers between your ideas and Skildelsky, why don't you properly qualify the source by creating the Robert Skildelsky article? RobSZelensky Must Go! 13:23, April 20, 2025 (EDT)

Alfred Russel Wallace - Co-discoverer of natural selection

Hello, I cannot edit this page, but is there a way to add "Alfred Russel Wallace who was the co-discoverer of natural selection, eventually came to see that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution." citation: Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. "The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose" It summarizes his view of natural history, evolution, natural selection, and their intersection with design. His work shows that nature and design are not mutually exclusive.

I removed the protection from the page. Conservative (talk) 10:00, August 25, 2025 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution&oldid=2154377"