Talk:Evolution

Set 2 of Archives

Set 1 of Archives

Question evolution! campaign axman cometh

Question evolution! campaign

An advocate of the Question evolution! campaign wrote:

"We have some great news to report! A person who loves the Question evolution! campaign has made the commitment to intensely promote the campaign. Hundreds of hours are going to be added to promote the campaign in the short term. He is going to relentlessly swing his Question evolution! axe at the rotten tree of evolutionism and nothing is going to distract him.

We already know that the evolutionists are impotent against the 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer so the widespread distribution of these questions is going to be very demoralizing to evolution supporters. Questioning, critical reasoning and open inquiry are toxic to evolutionary belief so we are very much looking forward to the widespread dissemination of the Question evolution! campaign."[1]

See: Responses to the Question evolution! campaign Conservative 08:19, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

expansion to point

The article states: "Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists."

However, this isn't particularly accurate.

In the scientific community, around 70% of scientists are Theists; around 95% of scientists in general support evolution. If 100% of Atheists support evolution, then 92% of Theistic scientists support evolution... This isn't a minority by far.

In fact, given, as obviously at it is, that Christianity is the largest religion, Christianity is proportionately the largest support of evolution.

The Catholic Church, in fact, strongly advocates evolution as the real way in which species originated, Pope Benedict XVI saying "According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."

Did the majority of scientists prove evolution to be a valid and undeniable fact? If so, then all of our articles have to be changed to reflect it. If it's not a fact, then this website will show it. Karajou 12:25, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Valuables, the article says "most prominent and vocal advocates" of evolution and gives footnotes. Did you read the footnotes? If not, why not? You certainly didn't cite the information the footnotes contained nor are you adequately addressing the most "vocal and prominent advocates" issue and seem to be trying to obscure this issue. Why aren't you addressing the information given in the footnotes? There must be a reason. What is it? Are you intentionally employing the fallacy of exclusion? Also, how vocal was that Pope on this issue? Was that Pope always pushing evolutionism? Next, atheists have a reputation for being quarrelsome, socially challenged men. Are you an atheist? I ask because I have noticed that atheists often employ the fallacy of exclusion. I also ask because it seems you are being needlessly quarrelsome given what the sentence actually says and the supporting information cited via the footnotes. Also, if you are an atheist, do you have have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? The biblical Christianity certainly has an abundant amount of evidence supporting it. Anyways, we all know that evolutionism is a false ideology and there is no evidence supporting it. It is just window dressing for wanting to rebel against biblical authority. Plus, the Question evolution! campaign is going to make it very difficult to propagate evolutionism. Conservative 14:06, 8 November 2011 (EST)

One other point, the evolutionary paradigm taught in high schools and universities and promoted by evolutionary scientists is purely naturalistic. However, the Catholic church's evolutionary paradigm is theistic evolution. Conservative 01:19, 9 November 2011 (EST)

Transitional Forms

There are thousands of transitional forms. Just look in a Natural History museum. Yes, there are a few missing links that have not yet been found, like the transition of dinosaurs to birds (archaepteryx could be, but more research is needed) but for most transitions, there are plenty. There are transitional forms that have been found that show the transformation of a hippo/bovine-like animal to whales and dolphins. This article should change to reflect this. - User:Samsonnn

You forgot the fact that these so-called "transitionals" are transitional because someone said so. Saying so is one thing, proving so is quite another, and until someone sees it actually take place (read "film at eleven") then we're not going to take the word of a scientist saying it's a fact that animal A evolved into animal B because he stuck what he called a transitional between the two. Conservapedia is not going to call evolution a fact. Karajou 10:10, 9 November 2011 (EST)

Samsonn, there are not thousands of transitional forms as can be seen HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE. As for your comment, "more research is needed", you might want to read this essay. Conservative 11:10, 9 November 2011 (EST)

@Conservative: A creationist blog does not have more validity than papers written by actual scientists. Read the scientific papers, look in the museums! To deny the existence of transitional forms is the same as saying that almost every biologist in the world is conspiring against creationism.

@Karajou: What about all of the fossils which are shown to be a certain age by radioactive dating of the surrounding rocks? Evolution by natural seletion usually takes too long to be seen within a few human generations, so biologists have to rely on fossil records etc. but there are a few instances where it can and hass been observed. Often, this is due to a species being isolated on an island and differentiating significantly from the mainland type within a human lifetime. Artificial selection is a similar mechanism to natural selection, but happens on much shorter timescales. That is why cows produce so much milk, and horses can pull heavy carts, and how sheep produce fine wool. Farmers choose the characteristics that give optimal products and breed them; over time, the species changes to become better at what it is being bred for. Natural selection follows the same principle, except the purpose is survival and the watchmaker is blind. Here is a very interesting video which shows unconscious artificial selection in action; it has given very interesting results; a human face on a crab shell!: Here --Samsonnn 09:08, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Samsonn, you are being illogical and did not address the information I cited HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE. You are employing the fallacy of exclusion because your evolutionism is merely window dressing for wishing to rebel against God and to ignore the Evidence for Christianity. Second, the grassroots Question evolution! campaign will aggressively reach people such as yourselves before they have been indoctrinated into evolutionary propaganda. The evidence for biblical creation/creation science and against evolution is superior, but it has never been promoted on a wide scale through a grassroots campaign to young people and other individuals. Conservative 10:08, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Samsonn, by the way, I have noticed that many atheists employ the fallacy of exclusion. Are you an atheist? Do you have proof and evidence that atheism is true? Conservative 10:11, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I am not an atheist. I am a moderate Christian, and consider the bible allegorical, but that is irrelevant. I do not let my religious views get in the way of my science. Evolution is in the field of biology, so biologists are the best people to get knowledge from in this area, not creationists (many of whom don't even seem to even understand evolution, perhaps because attempts have been made to censor it from our schooling)--Samsonnn 12:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)