Changes

==Some Items to Consider==

==Some Items to Consider==

I believe it is important to point out a few misunderstandings of this article in relation to scientific thought.  First off, subjective statements are not scientific.  The term beautiful is subjective and can not be quantified.  As such number one is not something that pure science can validate, “Beautiful by what standard?”  Number two has been shown it be false as well.  During the Dover trial M. Behe was shown a stack of research dealing specifically with the evolution of the immune system.  I know personally that in most college level evolution classes immunology is not a common topic, however in graduate level immunology classes the evolution of the immune systems of different species is covered quite extensively.  Number 6 is also another area that has been studied substantially.  Simmons, R. & Scheepers, L. (1996). Winning By A Neck: Sexual Selection In The Evolution Of Giraffe. The American Naturalist, 148, 772-786. is an excellent paper explaining how sexual selection played the most plausible role in the evolution of the giraffe’s neck.  Number 7 is one of those on going arguments; many transitional fossils have been shown however there are transitions between transitions.  The best explanation for this is that soft tissue is very rare to find in a fossil and changes from evolution occur at the biochemical level.  So it is a matter of morphology which leaves gaps.  Number 8 was shown to be false, either last year or the year before, with the finding of Dilong paradoxus.  This fossil showed feather precursors and featherlike projectiles with a scaled skin.  Number 9 needs a citation, I know of no biologists that make a claim that Pterosaurs did not fly.  Number 10, most thoughts on this issue is that wings were selected through sexual pressures and gained functionality at a later state.  Number 11 has been recently debunked as well, there has been an established cascade leading to the formation of flagellum.  Number 12 was shown to be false on this talk page already.  Number 13 is misleading due to the limited understanding of symbiosis.  Symbiosis is caused through mutual beneficial partnership.  The species involved could survive on their own but over time were able to survive better through the partnership and eventually became dependent on each other.  Number 13 does not address this.  Number 15 runs into the issue of the soft tissue that was listed above.  Another point to make is that there are cases where unicellular organisms do work together to survive, but do not have systems.  I am not sure if this would qualify since the difference between unicellular and multicellular organisms is based on the development of specialized function of the cells.  Number 16 is misleading.  The prostate would only be eliminated through natural selection if it did not influence reproduction, considering the purpose of the prostate this is false.  Number 17 is also false.  There are many cases of animals using tools to achieve an effect, as well as self-sacrifice for the betterment of their young.  Case for the tools would be primates and some marine mammals using rocks and other shaped objects to crack and open objects that they would not normally be accessible to them.  Self-sacrifice happens in all kinds of environments from birds to mammals protecting their young to the point of sacrificing themselves.  I would say that this mindset that is unique in humans is not a single mutation as much as a buildup of mutations and experiences thus allowing for some to be able to self-sacrifice while others do not.  I am unsure how to proceed on fixing these issues in the article so a little advice might help.  (Unsure being if I must present a well documented research case disproving the claim or show through logic why it is false then be able to do the deletion)  Moreover, I am fine with having some items in this but please let those items be scientific examples.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I believe it is important to point out a few misunderstandings of this article in relation to scientific thought.  First off, subjective statements are not scientific.  The term beautiful is subjective and can not be quantified.  As such number one is not something that pure science can validate, “Beautiful by what standard?”  Number two has been shown it be false as well.  During the Dover trial M. Behe was shown a stack of research dealing specifically with the evolution of the immune system.  I know personally that in most college level evolution classes immunology is not a common topic, however in graduate level immunology classes the evolution of the immune systems of different species is covered quite extensively.  Number 6 is also another area that has been studied substantially.  Simmons, R. & Scheepers, L. (1996). Winning By A Neck: Sexual Selection In The Evolution Of Giraffe. The American Naturalist, 148, 772-786. is an excellent paper explaining how sexual selection played the most plausible role in the evolution of the giraffe’s neck.  Number 7 is one of those on going arguments; many transitional fossils have been shown however there are transitions between transitions.  The best explanation for this is that soft tissue is very rare to find in a fossil and changes from evolution occur at the biochemical level.  So it is a matter of morphology which leaves gaps.  Number 8 was shown to be false, either last year or the year before, with the finding of Dilong paradoxus.  This fossil showed feather precursors and featherlike projectiles with a scaled skin.  Number 9 needs a citation, I know of no biologists that make a claim that Pterosaurs did not fly.  Number 10, most thoughts on this issue is that wings were selected through sexual pressures and gained functionality at a later state.  Number 11 has been recently debunked as well, there has been an established cascade leading to the formation of flagellum.  Number 12 was shown to be false on this talk page already.  Number 13 is misleading due to the limited understanding of symbiosis.  Symbiosis is caused through mutual beneficial partnership.  The species involved could survive on their own but over time were able to survive better through the partnership and eventually became dependent on each other.  Number 13 does not address this.  Number 15 runs into the issue of the soft tissue that was listed above.  Another point to make is that there are cases where unicellular organisms do work together to survive, but do not have systems.  I am not sure if this would qualify since the difference between unicellular and multicellular organisms is based on the development of specialized function of the cells.  Number 16 is misleading.  The prostate would only be eliminated through natural selection if it did not influence reproduction, considering the purpose of the prostate this is false.  Number 17 is also false.  There are many cases of animals using tools to achieve an effect, as well as self-sacrifice for the betterment of their young.  Case for the tools would be primates and some marine mammals using rocks and other shaped objects to crack and open objects that they would not normally be accessible to them.  Self-sacrifice happens in all kinds of environments from birds to mammals protecting their young to the point of sacrificing themselves.  I would say that this mindset that is unique in humans is not a single mutation as much as a buildup of mutations and experiences thus allowing for some to be able to self-sacrifice while others do not.  I am unsure how to proceed on fixing these issues in the article so a little advice might help.  (Unsure being if I must present a well documented research case disproving the claim or show through logic why it is false then be able to do the deletion)  Moreover, I am fine with having some items in this but please let those items be scientific examples.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)