Talk:Essay:Evolution is an unproved theory

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gulik3 (Talk | contribs) at 20:30, 21 May 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

This article was just a pile of falsehoods before the last two edits. I've added references to put paid to the arguments presented (common descent is not 'asummed' by scientists) and deleted the bit about unguided/guided evolution which doesn't relate to the topic on this page (add it to the appropriate page if you think conservapedia really needs it) --Igor nz 20:38, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

If you would like to improve it try to adopt a more nuteral tone. I realize that there is not a particularly nuteral tone at the moment, but please if you are going to change try to lessen the bias instead of just changing the direction thereof. --Ben Talk 20:49, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

No, the earlier article contains statemetents that are false (breaking the 1st commandment). This article is referenced and based on reality. If people want to edit it they can but surely a well referenced article dealing with these claims is better than one which is simply wrong --Igor nz 21:31, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
You must be new here, or you'd know that Reality has an obviously Liberal bias, which is why nobody here relies on it. --Gulik3 21:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

This article would probably be better off in the essay section of Conservapedia. --Sulgran 21:33, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

The title would certainly fit better with it being an essay, but perhaps something can be salvaged from it. Igor nz's bit about AiG's view is valid, but apart from that I'm not sure that his version is much better than the original. I'll try to remember to come back and have a go at it myself sometime. I've already written some stuff (not in article space) about evolution not being falsifiable, which may be able to go in here. Philip J. Rayment 23:37, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Spelling and Grammar - Signs of Quality Home-Schooling

Ummmmm...should that not read "Evolution is an UNPROVEN theory?" Sevenstring 00:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Mischaracterization of source

I removed the a statement ("and in fact Popper himself asserted that evolution was a falsifiable hypothesis") and its source (Popper, K (1978). "Natural selection and the emergence of mind". Dialectica (32).) because it is apparantly an inaccurate representation of the source. Specifically, according to this site, Popper stated: "The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established." Also, in 1980, Popper hedged in his letter to New Scientist. The assertion that Popper deemed "evolution a falsifiable hypopthesis" is not backed up by Popper's 1980 works, as well as respected authors like Numbers. HeartOfGoldtalk 01:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't really care to much now the inane link from the front page of the evolution page is gone but Popper (1978) does say that particular parts of evolutionary theory are falsifiable (which is whats at question, not whether neo-darwinism completely explains evolution which your quote is about). To my mind the interesting bit is evolution is such a broad theory that finding an individual observation that would bring it all down is hard (in fact the sorts of observations that would are going against things that are just taken as facts; some organisms have more offspring that others, there is some mode of inheritence of traits from parent to offspring...). Instead lots of little hypotheses can be proposed and tested for different parts of the theory. We couldn't deal with those sorts of ideas here without introducing Lakatos' and Kuhne's philosophies of science and that becomes a very big task. --Igor nz 20:13, 21 May 2007 (EDT)