Talk:Evolution

Set 2 of Archives

Set 1 of Archives

Evolution as a theory or hypothesis

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. 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 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. 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 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. NickP 20:33, 21 December 2011 (EST)

No big deal. I have a lot of irons on the fire now anyways. 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. 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.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. Scottma 13:44, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism

Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism