Difference between revisions of "Talk:Endosymbiotic hypothesis"

Latest revision as of 03:39, June 30, 2011

Falsifiability

I take issue with the claim that the endosymbiotic hypothesis is not falsifiable. Off the top of my head, it strongly predicts that a) we should find similarities between mitochondria and chloroplasts and their hypothesized "relatives" in the bacterial kingdoms, and b) that such organelles should have two layers of plasma membrane rather than one. Finding evidence against either of these would falsify the theory. TaKess 17:47, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

I essentially performed a massive surgery on this page. The original was good, but I felt that it needed an academic face-lift. I'm also a little more knowledgeable on this subject than the first author, though they did do a superb job for someone that (I'm assuming) lacked advanced training in biology. I can safely say that MOST university professors would be comfortable with their students using this article as a quick reference. Professor 01:57, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

Professor, I did some additional surgery too plus a graft. conservative 02:23, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, your surgery included the complete deletion of some parts, for example the "evidence" paragraph. I am sure that you had your reasons, but I believe that it is better for Conservapedia that when the complete deletion of some parts is required, a full, detailed reason should always be provided in the talk page, lest we are accused of censorship. Self-respecting conservatives do not engage in that kind of thing, and we must lead by example. So, what was the reason for the deletion of entire sections from the article? Were they poorly sourced? Were they demonstrably untrue? Do you have reason to believe it was parody? Again, I am not criticizing, but I think it will ultimately benefit Conservapedia if there is some transparence and openness behind the decisions of admins.

By the way, how is your new satire article coming along? You mentioned you were working on something, and I am looking forward to it :)

Respectfully,

--Leo-from-UK 07:37, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

Evobabble is not science. Conservapedia doesn't want the adherents of the religion of atheism to put in their atheist origins myth which is evolution. Conservapedia is not a big fan of astrology and evolution. conservative 12:58, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

I was entirely accurate in the article. The evidence that was burned (Godwin's law, anyone?) represents a wealth of scientific knowledge that has been accumulated over a century. I agree that symbiotic theory is a key argument used by evolution proponents, but I don't think that warrants the blatant disregard of scientific fact. Whether we agree with the theory or not, surely we can respect the massive amount of time and research that has been devoted to better understanding ourselves and other organisms. Professor 13:07, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

I am not buying your "wealth". Please read: Evolution and Atheism. Are you an atheist? Do you have proof and evidence that atheism is true? conservative 13:47, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, I know perfectly well why you deleted that material, I am not asking you to explain it to me; all that I am asking for is that, in the spirit of openness, you acknowledge the complete deletion of a section in the log and in the talk page, clearly providing the reason for why it is deleted. It is very easy to be accused of censorship, and we do not want to provide any ammo to those who criticize us. And... you didn't reply for what concerns your next satire article :) --Leo-from-UK 14:29, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

I am not arguing against religion; personal faith has had, in many instances, a demonstrably positive effect on society. Where would we be without the Catholic Church's support of the Renaissance? What would be the state of modern physics without the contributions of religious scientists such as Newton? Indeed, I support the study of religion for the positive impacts it has had. One cannot properly enjoy English literature (perhaps ALL literature) without being intimately familiar with the Bible. What I do not support, however, is the blatant distortion of scientific fact. Whether we profess to be "atheist" or "creationist", all of us share a common goal: the revelation of the truth. I contend that science is the path to that truth. It is the gateway to that enlightenment. It is the road to that common understanding. If science leads us to embrace a Divine Creator, then so be it. However, if science leads us to doubt the existence of the Creator, then I must whole-heartedly accept that as well. No matter what our personal beliefs may be, we all share a common devotion to educating the next generation. I feel that censoring what is considered to be a large body of scientific evidence disingenuous to that goal. With all due respect, Professor 14:37, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, atheism is on the decline in the world because of its irrelevance. Please see: Atheism and Evolution. Liberalism is under duress too via austerity budgets. Unlike evolutionists/atheists/liberals, I try to have relevant material. Not voodoo "science". conservative 14:43, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

Again, I am not concerned with atheism, liberalism, conservatism, or any other "-ism". My only issue is the truth. I understand that you disagree with the facts (or perhaps my presentation), but how you can relegate a century's-worth of work to "voodoo" science is beyond me. What exactly makes this "voodoo" science? Is it my not providing you with original data? I think not, as I doubt you can present the ORIGINAL ten commandments. Not the "voodoo", copied version found in a book that was printed in the 50s. The REAL tablets. Is it that the theory cannot be adequately tested? Again, doubtful; there is no conceivable way (in my narrow-minded, scientific view) of testing God's existence. What, then, can it be? What makes certain evidence "true science", while other facts are labeled "voodoo, pseudoscience"? I can think of only one explanation: "voodoo" science is any piece of evidence not in accordance with your world view. Humbly waiting your reply, Professor 15:19, 28 June 2011 (EDT).

See Christian apologetics. When you have finished the reading the material and the resources it offers, let me know and then I will ask you: "What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true?" conservative 23:38, 29 June 2011 (EDT)