Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 23

From Conservapedia
< Talk:Theory of evolution
This is the current revision of Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 23 as edited by Conservative (Talk | contribs) at 01:53, July 2, 2015. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Evolution not evidentially based and evolution as a social construct

Given that there is no real evidence for evolution, I have decided to put together material for an upcoming Conservapedia article some of which will be incorporated into the evolution article which will partly reveal why there are so many Theories of evolution. The material I have gathered so far and am in the midst of fact checking is here: User:Conservative/EvolutionAsSocialConstruct The article will be given the title: Evolution as a Social Construct. I thought it would be a complementary article for Conservapedia's article: Causes of Atheism. conservative 01:17, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Actually there is real evidence for evolution. You greatly underestimate the scientific method to propose that something without evidence could be considered a scientific theory under those rules.Riddles 23:36, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Riddles, I suggest you read what Karl Popper wrote about the evolutionary paradigm concerning whether or not it is a theory (His subsequent actions were quite revealing as well). conservative 01:54, 1 December 2009 (EST)
Conservative, Popper was a great admirer of both Darwin and Darwinism. He also thought that metaphysics played an important role in enabling the production of testable theories. Whether Darwinism is seen as a method for producing scientific theories (which is what Popper meant by "metaphysical research programme") or a scientific theory itself, seems to be a very fine point: too fine for an introductory article.Toffeeman 17:04, 30 November 2009 (EST)
Toffeeman, when you actually address the issue get back to me, but not before then. conservative 01:56, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Quick Question...

I understand other points of view on evolution, and I've looked at the archive of this talk page, so before I open my mouth, I have a question: This article, as well every other article on this wiki, is supposed to represent THE conservative point of view on evolution? We all must acknowledge that different conservatives may know more or less than others, but their collective opinion is supposed to be presented in this article. Am I correct? Rustyfence 00:47, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Please show us that the evolutionary position is a conservative position. You can start with the early church fathers and Moses.  :) conservative 03:17, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
Well, "THE" evolutionary position ISN'T a conservative position, all the conservatives I know and this page make that pretty clear. You know what, now that I think about it, I think this page is all good and representative of that standard, then. The numerous improvements I would suggest would not be appropriate for this wiki, because most conservatives don't know about them. I think the best thing I can do is support public knowledge of such topics elsewhere. If conservatives know about said suggestions, then said suggestions and conservative commentary would be appropriate. I have nothing to add to this article. Good luck on the article and God bless. Rustyfence 16:54, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

The Farm-fox study

In the article you refer to a 40(?) year experiment in botany that failed, I was just wondering here if anyone has seen the farm-fox study of domestication which seems to directly contradict this, you can find it [Here] I am just posting this because you say you post facts, and it just seems that this article (evolution) is one that is missing many factual arguments. confirmation bias is a dangerous game, and while some people disagree with evolution if you really learn what it is you will see that it has no conflict with religion. It seems right now that most people who refuse to believe in evolution only have a rudimentary understanding of it. The "it's only a theory" seems to be another common strategy and this is invalid as well, theories in the scientific community are not like theories in real life, they are the highest honor bestowed upon a scientific thesis, and to tell you the truth there are fewer cracks in evolution than in newtons laws(a few of newtons laws have already been proven false). Arguments that it seems are being purposely ignored, this is one of the few articles here I have a big problem with so I figured I would offer some actual evidence to see if I can get it changed unlike most people who just come in here and act like a gibbering (deleted) about what they don't like. I would also like to point out that many of the "facts" like the distrust among doctors and the world public distrust of evolution is kinda [directly contradicted by this]. other things like the Irreducible complexity theory are kinda [b.s. as well]. just thought I would present actual information to attempt to get the article changed instead of coming in here like a gibbering moron and complaining.

Dear Sev,

I'd like to comment on the Farm-Fox Experiment you linked to. Foxes and Dogs are closely related, so closely in fact that they may be able to interbreed. This is not surprising once you realize they are in fact two descendants of the single baramin 'dog-wolf-fox' that was taken onto Noah's Ark! The original couple had all the dog-wolf-fox information in his DNA, and this information was subsequently corrupted, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The foxes in the experiment you described show an example of micro-evolution, in which the 'dog' genes were selected among the population. No-one denies this can happen, and it is certainly not a proof for the theory of Evolution. I hope my post helped you understand this issue. Regards, --TSpencer 09:52, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Micro evolution is still evolution, evolution it self only denotes a change in a species over time. if the dog traits were continued to be selected for the domesticated fox could become a entire other species, and unable to reproduce with the native fox population, it would take a couple hundred years to achieve but even the most anti-evolutionary can agree that if you change genes enough eventually you will have an entirely different set of them. using your analogy and since any trait can be selected for and brought to any ridiculous lengths given the time and food, the same process that was used to domesticate the fox, could be used to say select for ear size and strength of the muscles in the ear in terriers, then selecting for light weight and low bone density one could theoretically make a terrier that is capable of flying using its ears. I realize that this is a totally asinine and over the top but it is only to demonstrate the concept, micro evolution is still evolution, no matter how small. macro-evolution is just micro evolution over a frankly ridiculous amount of time. Sorry if this makes no sense kinda in a hurry but would like a opinion on it if you did get its meaning, I'll be back soon and can fix it then if you did not.


"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".[242]"

This isn't irrational, it's actually a valid comment on the scientific method. Science by definition searches for naturalistic explanations, if someone was able to propose a supernatural explanation (even if it were true) it would be outside the domain of Science. Again, this has nothing to do with "true vs. false" ie, "god created life" may be true, but if it can't be verified naturally it isn't science. Cheers Tim111 22:03, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Tim, please give a fairly exhaustive listing of definitions of science with the attending sources. Second, please do elaborate on why a valid definition of science would result in all physical data pointing to conclusion being ignored as I rightfully believe that claims should be adequately supported. conservative 03:19, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
The non-suspension of natural laws is a fundamental pillar of science. Since the god of the bible is apparently unrestrained by natural laws he is supernatural and therefore unsatisfactory as a scientific explanation of natural phenomena. Jamesmackenzie 17:07, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
Jamesmackenzie, please show that the non-suspension of natural laws is a fundamental pillar of science. Argument by mere assertion is rather pointless. And last time I checked, the originator of the scientific method, had a very dim view of atheism. Of course, atheists believe that natural laws have never been suspended in history. Isn't that right? Now if you want to show that Bacon was an atheist or deist by all means do so, but I do not believe you can do that. It seems to me at this point that your alleged pillar has no foundation - especially when one looks at Bacon who originated the scientific method. conservative 22:25, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Allow me, if you would. The scientific method: There are more, but I'm going to presume you get the idea and move along.

The basis of the scientific method is the experiment. You form an idea. [Form hypothesis] You try something, and then try it again, and again [collecting data], until you see a pattern [analyze data]. Then you take that pattern and check it against your hypothesis [confirm or deny hypothesis], and if it doesn't match, you work on a new hypothesis and try again. When you find a working hypothesis, congratulations. You have something worth sharing. [Share results]

The problem is that using this method, you are assuming that today and yesterday and tomorrow are equivalent when you look for patterns. To make that assumption is completely equivalent to assuming no divine intervention for any given event witnessed and used as data. I'll go through a logic chain if you REALLY want it, but can you not see how this is the case already? EDIT: -Jones

Jones, an evolutionist using logic? Thanks for entertaining us with your dry humor. conservative 07:05, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

Article appears to be non-neutral

I'm a conservative in most ways- but I do have a quick question- why does this article take God and Evolution and make them mutually exclusive? Evolution says nothing about God not existing- indeed- I cannot imagine a way that we could form without god's intervention. I support a theory known as guided evolution- where that while species did evolve and change overtime- god oversaw the whole process, guiding it into new directions. Just a thought. God bless! --Rockstone 22:17, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Rockstone, you failed to provide any evidence for your hypothesis of guided evolution. conservative 03:11, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
This ought to be enough evidence, methinks. Cheers, Trustworthiness 03:11, 18 August 2009
That only talks about the beginning of life, evolution is the genetic change in populations over generations via environmental factors and random mutations and in the case of theistic evolution, by a god Riddles 23:40, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Some links need to be updated

Many in the "Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position" section. They currently go to redirect pages. Jinx McHue 21:00, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

A bit misleading

"Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a naturalist who supported the theory of evolution. Lamarck's theory of evolution asserted that evolution occurs because organisms are able to inherit traits acquired by their ancestors which is an idea rejected by the current scientific community."

The comment is deliberately misleading. As also stated in Lamarck's article (on this site), Lamarck proposed that animals acquire such traits through use over generations/lifetimes. The following is a bit more thorough: "Lamarckian inheritance, at least in the sense Lamarck intended, is in conflict with the findings of genetics and has now been largely abandoned" ([1]).

NOTE: The misinformation in the article was posited due to a sentence taken out of place from the source cited in the article: [2]

This is only one of several deliberating misleading comments present throughout; perhaps sites such as "" are not the best choices as cogent sources.

Perhaps, you should also claim that the Conservapedia Pi article is misleading because it doesn't go far enough out to the right of the decimal point as far you wish concerning the value of Pi. In short, there is a difference between precision and being misleading. When you are done trying to create a tempest in a teapot, let me know. conservative 23:20, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

Another misleading aspect of the evolution page is quote mining. The Mark Ridley quote should include the beginning and the end of the quote. "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven." It could also include, "Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." (page 830)

   "So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)
   "These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." (page 832)

a study: Morals decline and evolution, incorporate in article

Incorporate in article, A study: Morals decline and evolution: conservative 01:31, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Correlation does not imply causation. If that were the case then the decline of pirates would be causing global warming Riddles 23:42, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Riddles, please show us a culture where the evolutionary paradigm improve morals or was not deleterious to the morality of a culture. conservative 07:08, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

A request for permission to use this article

Hello, I found this page and the counter examples page whilst searching for material to help our children to get a balanced view of the topic. Here in Norway (and all of Scandinavia) the education system is VERY left-wing and atheist, and there is very little non-evolutionist information in Norwegian. Would it be OK if I translated some of your articles to pass on to the our young? By the time kids here have learned good English many have been indoctrinated in to the evolutionist world-view, so I would like to give them both sides of the arguement when they are still young.

I hope I can help you with other things on your excellent site. Trond Eirik TESvestad 16:22, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

Yes, please do translate and use freely. Thanks for your interest and open-mindedness. I particularly like the Counterexamples to evolution and find it to be a good educational presentation.--Andy Schlafly 16:29, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
Hopefully you will give your young a balanced education and allow them the question both sources for and against evolution. Remind them that they should not make up their mind until they hear everything and that, no offense, even you could be wrong here. Riddles 23:46, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Or you could be wrong. All I've seen from you is not just a severe lack of proving evolution, but your constant talking of it in riddles. Karajou 19:18, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

United States point of view

Dear co-workers. I'm not sure if I understood well, but I think it's a pity this article only gives an American poinst of view. According to the logo of this site this is logical, but I would appreciate it when is was also written in a more general point of view. Now there are a lot of data which only represent the situation in the USA, but maybe we can consider to add data of other countries. E.g. if the article mentions that 40% of the Americans see the Evolution theorue as true, why not also mention that 27% of the Turkish and 50% of the Rumanian does the same? Thanks Zenschaatser 08:53, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

The article mentions the UK as well. If you have data from other countries as well about how Darwinism is losing public support, please feel free to share this information. I do know that the Darwinism is appearing to lose public support in Australia since 1990 and that it has lost a considerable amount of public support in Turkey in recent times as well. conservative 19:01, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Question on Transitional Forms

It seems to me that if the theory of evolution were correct, then nearly every animal would be some kind of transitional form (apart from species that die out). Supposedly, I am a transitional form between my parents and my children. Theoretically, evidence of a lack of transitional forms could, and seems to often be taken to the extreme of requiring every minute change in an organism, or it is dismissed as incomplete. 1000 years from now, if one were to dig up my parents and my children, and conclude they inherited certain genetic variations from evolutionary pressure, someone with the "conservative point of view" would claim there was no transitional form, thus the two organisms were obviously not evidence of evolution. This article seems to lack any questioning of the extremes the idea of transitional forms is taken to by most religious scholars, nor does it show the increasing amount of evidence of actual transitional forms. I fear conservative thought buries itself in a hole when ardently supporting or opposing ideas because they have disagreements with small parts of the bible. The bible was written by men, and as the Bible clearly states, men are not perfect.

I noticed you did not have any actual evidence of evolutionary transitional forms supposedly created by macroevolution. By the way, the word Bible is is supposed to be capitalized (I am sure that this was a mere oversight by a scholar such as yourself). :) conservative 14:16, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Macro evolution is merely a label for species evolving into other species (which is basically "micro" evolution given enough time) Like the above poster stated, all creatures are transitional forms and the evidence is the actual creatures itself. If you were to look at a high definition digital picture of a rainbow, looking at a pixel and the one right next to it you wouldn't be able to notice the difference easily at all. However it is clear that as you go on a noticeable change begins to occur. This is evolution and "macro evolution" is when those creatures go from being red to noticeably orange.
Always happy to educate people on evolution Riddles 23:53, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Riddles, I believe you are mistaken and if you check the Conservapedia evolution article you will find that creation scientists believe in speciation. I don't believe speciation could be considered large scale changes. conservative 10:27, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Interesting article

Though someone might appreciate this: Multiverse theory—unknown science or illogical raison d’être? When someone is well adapted to its purpose, and able to adapt, it is easy to presume that is how it can to be.

BTW, the Bible speaks of "kinds", and Creationists believe in microevolution within such.Daniel1212 22:53, 18 November 2009 (EST)

Intellectuals Reference

Claiming Aristotle & Archimedes as evidence against Evolution is pretty silly considering they lived many, many years before Darwin. That's like saying gravity is unverifiable because Plato never wrote about it. I'm not attacking the whole article. Just that one point is a terrible argument.

Evolutionism was around before Darwin. Next time you comment on an article, you might want to read it first. conservative 18:05, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Inclusion of Gallup Poll of "Scientists" Opinnions


This is a well written article, with some really good links and references provided. After doing some research, I wanted permission to include a reference to another poll in the opening paragraphs.

Just below the paragraph containing the well referenced mentions of polls on American citizen's acceptance of evolution, and the opinions of medical doctors, I would like to include a reference to the 1997 Gallup poll on "scientists" acceptance of evolution.

The results show that while a near majority of the public are creationist, only 5% of scientists are. 40% of scientists believe in "God-Guided" Evolution, and 55% accept an entirely naturalistic theory of evolution.

There is a breakdown of the study here: (Also, I assume it could be accessed from Gallup itself, though I can't work out how. Perhaps this information would be stored in a public library?)

Since this site is all about presenting the facts, and this article already makes significant use of polls to demonstrate those facts, I feel this is an appropriate addition to this article.

Thanks for your time, and I hope you'll include my suggestion! I put alot of reasearch into it.

Lex LRose 22:04, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Lex, the study you cited is already in the article. conservative 18:04, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Hitler and Evolution

I myself have read Mein Kampf, and I can assure you that Hitler did not believe in evolution. Hitler believed in divine creation and was quite religious. Example: Mein Kampf, Vol. 2, Ch. 10.

It is terribly biased to say Hitler killed people because he was an atheist when he himself claims to be a theist. I suggest the Hitler section be removed, or be heavily revamped. Thanks for your time.

LRose's Response

Hi, I don't know who wrote the above post, but this is my response!

Actually, there is evidence in Mein Kampf that Hitler, like most leaders of the time (even those professing Christian faith), did subscribe to the theory of evolution. He invoked a simplistic understanding of the theory to justify his hatred of the Jews. In Mein Kampf, Hitler uses Evolution to try and argue that the Jews were a different species, and thus the German people shouldn’t mate with them:

“If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.“ Chapter XI Race & People

“Unconsciously his instinct will submit to the knowledge that the preservation of the species, even at the cost of the individual life, is a primal necessity and he will protest against the fantasies of pacifist ranters, who in reality are nothing better than cowardly egoists, even though camouflaged, who contradict the laws of human development. For it is a necessity of human evolution that the individual should be imbued with the spirit of sacrifice in favor of the common weal, and that he should not be influenced by the morbid notions of those knaves who pretend to know better than Nature and who have the impudence to criticize her decrees.“ Chapter XI Race & People

(Sorry for not including page references, I was using this online translation of Mein Kampf:

Now, I don’t speak German, so I couldn’t read the original. It is possible the word here translated as “evolution” comes from a different German word, which does not have the same scientific meaning.

However, even so, it’s clear that Hitler is using arguments of natural superiority to justify his racism.

But He also used arguments from faith, referring to God, Creation, and suggesting the Jews are somehow the work of the Devil.

“Of course, one doesn't discuss such a question with the Jews, because they are the modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of God's image in His creation.“ Chapter XI War Propaganda

Here, he argues that the Germans were the ones created in the image of God, and breeding with the Jews will corrupt them:

“for all the Jewish daughters of the department store proprietors are looked upon as eligible mates to co-operate in propagating His Lordship's stock.” Chapter X Why The Second Reich Collapsed

Here he talks of Jesus, and argues that Jesus was anti-semetic:

And the Founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of His estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews;

Clearly, Hitler had a horribly, offensive, perverted understanding of the Gospel!!! It's revolting to even read it!!

But the point is, he used Christianity to justify his actions. Thus, the Evolutionists can make the exact same arguments against us, as we make against them.

So, anytime we say that the Holocaust was a “social effect of Evolution” they’re just going to say that it was a “social effect of Christianity”.

My Conclusion:

It’s clear from Mein Kampf that Hitler was nothing more than a nut job opportunist. He claimed to believe in anything that supported his own crazy racism.

I would also argue that we should remove the section on Hitlet’s belief’s in evolution. Because I would hate to go to Wikipedia, or some liberal site, and see them claiming that Hitler was a Christian, and it was his belief in Christianity that lead to the Holocaust.

I believe in honest debate. And to me, it’s dishonest to say that Hitler was an Evolutionist. He was no more and Evolutionist, than he was a Christian.

- Lex LRose 21:56, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Do you also deny that Josef Mengele was an evolutionist?--Andy Schlafly 22:17, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Does it matter if he was an atheist? This post is bout Hitler, not that guy. Use him if you want, and if he was an evolutionary atheist, but he is not the same person as Hitler. Your argument is invalid. -Jones
Jones, were Hitler and Josef Mengele both Nazis and did they both believe in Nazi evolutionary racist ideology? If you evidence to the contrary Conservapedia would be most indebted to you if you shared it. I was curious whether or not you were very knowledgeable about this subject matter and I also wanted to know if your logic was unimpeachable. Of course, if you were merely a liberal deceitfully and illogically spouting off of about matters you know very little about, it will soon become apparent. :) conservative 18:13, 3 January 2010 (EST)


ERV's alone put evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.

Endogenous Retroviruses: Life-Cycle and Ancestral Implications

Endogenous Retroviruses: The Three Layers of ERV Evidence for Common Ancestry

Are you aware of any arguments against ERV's by creation scientists? If so, what are they? "The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes to examine him." - King Solomon. conservative 01:01, 30 December 2009 (EST)
What is a creation scientist? Hectoruribe 01:28, 30 December 2009 (EST)
Hectoruribe, have you ever heard of search engines? They are really great things that enable you to answer very simple questions yourself. conservative 16:57, 17 April 2010 (EDT)
In fact, just search Conservapedia. We have an article on creation science that explains it quite well. SamuelC 16:59, 17 April 2010 (EDT)

evolution and debate

evolution and debate: Research the facts surrounding the debate and cite it in the article. conservative 04:08, 1 January 2010 (EST)

climategate and darwin doubting

Climategate and darwin doubting: Incorporate in the article perhaps. conservative 04:12, 1 January 2010 (EST)


I'd just like to suggest that the definition of evolution from Merriam-Webster be changed to " a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory" I think that this would be more accurate, and could reduce the possibilty of accusations of "picking and choosing" --LucyJ 16:52, 22 February 2010 (EST)

Thanks, I put a .... after the Webster citation to be more precise/accurate. I thought the "also" addition didn't really add that much plus it would be less favorable in terms of the sentence's flow. The detractors of the evolutionary paradigm often assert that the evolutionary paradigm is "just a theory" or merely a hypothesis. Regardless, Webster does not consider the evolutionary paradigm to be a scientific law. conservative 19:14, 8 March 2010 (EST)


re: Lamarckism

Has anyone followed what is going on within the evolutionary community regarding this material: Why Everything You Have Been Told About Evolution is Wrongconservative 18:34, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

Terribly biased?

Why does the entire article talk about evolution as if it is untrue when it is just valid as cell theory plate tectonic theory? Bradology 10:17, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Bradology, please let us know when you intend to stop engaging in Bulverism and start producing valid evidence for the evolutionary paradigm. conservative 22:52, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Regarding the cross burning

David Duke is a creationist. The KKK platform is that the "laws of our creator" should be used. While you can certainly argue convincingly that they are not following the bible closely I do not think you can argue that a political party that is fighting to remove Darwin from biology books is following an evolutionary ideology. --EmersonWhitecp 16:42, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

Please feel free to provide convincing evidence that adequately addresses the footnoted material I provided. I have no desire to engage in dueling monologues. conservative 18:28, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

Bias in Article

Bias in general is considered to be anything that influences one's behavior. Having a picture of Hitler at the very beginning of the article is clearly a sample of bias in this sense. Hitler is one of the most hated individuals to have ever lived, and understandably so. Showing an image of him at the beginning of the article gives any reader a predisposition to what they are about to read, as their emotional response will already have begun. As stated in earlier discussions, Hitler cannot simply be labeled an evolutionist. To associate him with evolution at the beginning of the article gives any reader a different view on what they might believe otherwise. Removing this picture as well as his quote, or at least placing it later in the article would resolve this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:NewThought (talk)

To deny Hitler was an evolutionist is to deny the reason he murdered over 6 million people. --Jpatt 19:22, 28 April 2010 (EDT)
Not the only reason, mind you, but the most important and influential reason nonetheless. [[User:DavidBG]] 13:45, 30 April 2010 (EDT)
User NewThought, if you don't want web pages to have an effect on your behavior or beliefs, I suggest you close your eyes after clicking on a link and also put your fingers in your ears just in case there is audio. Secondly, you have to better than merely state your positions if you want there to be changes, you have to make a good case for any changes.


There should be a link to Lysenkoism when the article mentions that pseudo-science. Sunda62 16:13, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

There already is. DouglasA 16:42, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

I would like to edit the quote of Dawnin in a letter to Gray [2]. It is wrongly quoted and is a fragmented sentence. The whole sentence is "It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

Please elaborate on why you allege that it is wrongly quoted. By the way, are you an atheist? conservative 01:54, 7 July 2010 (EDT)
Conservative, whether this user is atheist or not has nothing to do with the question. He's calling you out for quote-mining Darwin.
Oh, and user who left no signature—I wouldn't expect this article to be unlocked ever. --transResident Transfanform! 13:03, 8 July 2010 (EDT)
No real evidence was given for the quote mining allegation which I thought was quite unreasonable. I have found that atheists and evolutionists often engage in bluffing as far as their allegations and when you call their bluff no evidence is given by them for their allegations. Please read this article: Resident Transfan, are you an atheist? If you are an atheists, here is my question for you: Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? conservative 09:22, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

Why liberals cannot point out factual errors

This article is almost entirely constructed of quotes. The only thing that the article says for the most part is that Person A said "B" and person C said "D" and the rest is made up of broad generalizations that aren't directly reliant on facts. A challenge could be raised that Person A knows nothing about subject B or that source D is biased in such a way as to compromise reliability but those wouldn't be direct challenges to the factual accuracy of the article. --AbbieM 18:31, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

Could you please do us a favor and give us a close percentage of content that is quotes and break it down by quotes from evolutionists and quotes from creation scientists. Also, how many of the footnoted sources did you read? Lastly, can you definitively show that the quotes were factually incorrect in terms of what they asserted (because I can see you did not do that)? By the way Abbie, are you an atheist? If you are an atheist, here is my question for you: Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? conservative 19:52, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
It should be 'an atheist', not 'an atheists'. I appreciate the copy-and-paste message, however, and will be posting an essay on this in the near future.JacobP 15:27, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
Alright, I've gone through the article and looked at quotes, dividing them into three categories. There are quotes from an Evolutionary point of view, quotes from a Creationist point of view, and quotes that are neutral - a news corporation reporting statistics, for example, would fall under this category. I determined the following percentages by the total number of words.
Here's what I found: Approximately 45% of the article is comprised of quotes. The article itself contains just under 14,000 words, and of those just over 6,000 are quotes. 2400 words are from Evolution supporters, 3150 words are from Creationists, and 650 are from neutral sources (approximately). This means that approximately 17% of the article is comprised of quotes from Evolutionists, 23% from Creationists, and nearly 5% from neutral sources. That means 39% of the actual quotes are from Evolutionists, 51% from Creationists, and about 10% from neutral sources. This was all done by the number of words, not characters. Frankly, I find this percentage to be drastically high. For one thing, should Evolution not be better represented in its own article than Creationism? That is to say, should intellectually honest writers include more quotes from Creationists than Evolutionists in an Evolution article? Furthermore, the Evolution quotes that are included are, practically without exception, cherry-picked and taken out of context. Even in the sources from which they derive, they are rarely given appropriate context. This is a degree of laziness that should only be associated with liberals. We conservatives ought to be more up-to-point.
Also, this entire article reeks of liberal wordiness. Does the article truly need to be this long? Perhaps a single, shorter page should be present to define Evolution, then we could have one page for those who support evolution, and another page for quotes/articles/criticisms of Evolution. That seems the best way to chop this article down to size.JacobP 16:46, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
Jacob, are you an atheist? If you are an atheist, here is my question for you: Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? Secondly, please put your quote claim statistics in a Excel or Open Office spreadsheet and post it somewhere for verification purposes. Then, please provide proof and evidence concerning each quote you allege to be in error. Lastly, evolutionism is so flagrantly in error that the article is concise. If we were to put the myriad of ways that evolutionism is errant, illogical, wicked and foolish; it would take many sets of CDs to do it justice. We just did our small part to offer something more concise. conservative 02:46, 4 August 2010 (EDT)
So, JacobP, the article is completely and totally wrong, and that is based solely on the number of words in the article? Golly gee...maybe the Bible is wrong because there's too many books in it; maybe the Declaration of Independence is wrong because Jefferson didn't format it properly; maybe the Constitution is wrong because a spell-check wasn't done on it; maybe Huckleberry Finn is wrong because Twain didn't check with the local school board first. Or maybe, JacobP, it is your logic that is wrong. Karajou 09:45, 4 August 2010 (EDT)
I was told that my "JacobP" username was too similar to another users', so this is "JacobP" under a new username, "JacobPope14", the number being chosen at random. Now, to answer your question, I am not an atheist nor, if I were an atheist, would I claim to have 'proof' of atheism. As a Christian, I do not claim to have proof of Christianity either. My beliefs are not based on rational thought, but on faith, as is the intention of religion.
However, regarding the verification of my study, where would you like me to post this information? Can you not merely read through the article, highlight all material that is a quotation, and compare the number of words to verify what the user above was stating? The article is very heavily comprised of quoted material. As a tabloid, perhaps, this would be appropriate, but I think more time ought to be dedicated to rewriting this article with factual information regarding the criticisms of Atheistic Evolutionary Thought, or AET, as I call it. While I do not doubt the credentials of the many people quoted, I highly doubt that any of them share completely identical views on the subject matter, so it may not be appropriate to compose an article that is very near to being more quotes than information itself.
Also, regarding Karajou, I never made a claim that the article was factually errant. I merely stated that it was wordy, taking up a large amount of space to convey a very small amount of actual information. My reference to 'number of words' was an admission to the fact that when I took a comparison of the article - breaking it down into quotes from Evolutionists, Creationists, and neutral sources - I used 'words' as opposed to 'number of quotes' or perhaps 'letters' when I ran the numbers. I find it rather odd that you would so readily attack another Conservative for what I can only guess is an assumption that I have liberal ideas, which I assure you is not the case. I merely want this article to be as factually accurate, concise, and accessible as possible to readers. Are those not admirable goals? JacobPope14 22:39, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
Jacob, I am sorry to hear that your beliefs do not have any basis in rational thought. Are you sure you are not an atheist? The apostles certainly appealed to being eyewitnesses and the Bible in Romans rightly declares that the creation testifies to the existence of God (Rom 1:20). Lastly, as far as your alleged study, there are plenty of free places to post material on the internet.(blogspot, etc. ). conservative 04:56, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

Why is user conservative the only person allowed to edit this article?

I assume a few other admins are also allowed to but this article is pretty much completely written by conservative. That doesn't seem fair at all. Isn't the whole point of a wiki to allow lots of other people to pitch in on it? How do we know who this conservative person is, and how do we know they have the credentials to write an entire article on evolution accurately? It seems completely ridiculous to me that you guys block out everyone except for this one person on the subject of evolution. GeorgeCS 19:45, 29 July (CST)

And you are...? Karajou 21:49, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
Someone who reads this from time to time. But my point still stands. How is it fair to let only one person contribute to this article? Considering how much of this article focuses on creationists being silenced and censored in much of the media, you would think that this place, of all places, would welcome the input of others. GeorgeCS 20:36, 29 July (CST)
If the input is concerned with a theory, then I would welcome it; but if the input pushes evolution as "fact" then we won't allow it. We've had several members who tried forcing that viewpoint on us, forcing the "Bible-is-a-fairy-tale" opinion, forcing their own religious beliefs on this site. Didn't work. Karajou 22:50, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
I'm not saying you should allow the "Bible-is-a-fairy-tale" opinion at all. What I'm concerned about is that even if someone wants to add their own creationist/ID material to this article, they can't. The very most I'm guessing they could do is add it to the talk page and let conservative approve it. I don't mean to say anything bad about conservative but why should we leave those decisions SOLELY up to him/her for this one article? If you only let one person write an article on the entire subject of evolution it's bound to have some pretty major flaws. I'm sorry but I just think it's ridiculous how restricted this article is. GeorgeCS 11:18, 30 July (CST)
A tiny percentage of articles on this site are locked (and later unlocked) due to vandalism. No locking is permanent, and any editor can earn administrative privileges through merit, which gives that editor the power to edit any page. Also, as you suggest, suggested edits to a locked page can always be posted on the talk page. So there are several ways that any editor can contribute to any page here.--Andy Schlafly 12:31, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
Karajou, thanks for the laugh. :) conservative 02:26, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

Has any one here even read any of Charles Darwin's books? Or do you just google, cut and paste? Tbunton 08:26, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

Yes, I have Darwin's Origin of Species and Decent of Man in my house, part of Britannica's Great Books of the Western World, published in 1991, etc etc. And if you look at many college essays or websites devoted to the support of evolution, you will find evidence of people who "just google, cut and paste." Like those above, you're playing the "evo-is-fact" game without bothering to even creak open your mind just for a little bit to see that what we present are the real facts of the matter. You learn more if you open your mind. Karajou 10:24, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
Late in Charles Darwin's life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the result of design.[1] In a letter to Asa Gray, Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."[2]conservative 05:15, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

Why do we have three statistics about medical doctors in the opening section?

Medical doctors are not taught anything about evolution in school, nor are they required to know anything about it to practice. They are not experts in the field any more than computer scientists or waitresses. The three different statistics about medical doctors in the article just make it look bad, sort of... desperate. Maybe some statistics about biologists would be good instead? At least some kind of scientist.

Are you claiming that medical science is not a science? And are you claiming that medical science does not utilize biology? If so, why? Lastly, you have not shown that macroevolution has existed or does exist. conservative 01:23, 31 August 2010 (EDT)
Evolutionists often claim that the applied science of medicine depends on evolution because it is derived from biology. Therefore, the explicit beliefs of medical doctors is certainly relevant.--NateSmall 15:35, 31 August 2010 (EDT)

Poe's Law Talk Page

When I clicked on the Talk page for Poe's Law, I was redirected to the page on Evolution. Why is that?

Also, in regards to the Poe's Law page itself, why is it filled with material regarding Creationism, even though Poe's Law is not about Creationism? --JohnLee 17:19, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

JohnLee, please provide evidence and further explanation concerning your contentions about Poe's Law and creationism. conservative 07:40, 16 October 2010 (EDT)

genome and the evolutionary paradigm

Excellent research re: genome and the evolutionary paradigm: conservative 07:41, 16 October 2010 (EDT)

Suggested addition

I would like to add some further points from Dr Behe's later book the Edge of Evolution to the section "Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position", specifically regarding how Dr Behe empirically proved that even if we accepted the huge assumptions made by evolutionists, their very own theory cannot account for the diversity of life we currently see. I guess this article is locked as it was a target for atheist trolls, so if it cannot be unlocked perhaps an administrator could add some more info regarding evolutionists lack of any answers to Dr Behe's findings? PhilipM 17:27, 18 November 2010 (EST)

Write up some material and post it here. We can stick it in the article. conservative 23:29, 1 December 2010 (EST)

A quote out of context

Reference 262, quoting Eugenie Scott, is out of context and does not reflect the message of the general article. AnaC 20:54, 30 December 2010 (EST)

You have to prove your argument much better than that if you want to persuade anyone.--Andy Schlafly 22:15, 30 December 2010 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly, you beat me to it! AnaC, my comment was going to be similar to the above comment, if you wonder why I post no reply but indicate so on your talk page. Tyler Zoran Talk 22:17, 30 December 2010 (EST)

After reading the entire article, I came to the conclusion that the article points out several different reasons extraneous to the actual ideas being presented that would suggest a tilt in favor of the creationist discussion

Scott states:

""What usually happens in these debates?  Usually they take place at
the invitation of the other side, and usually they take place in a
religious setting or minimally under religious sponsorship.
That's the first problem.  The audience that is most anxious to
come, and that will be recruited the most heavily, is the one that
supports the creationist.  In the comparatively rare situation
where the debate is held on a college campus, the supporters of
good science and evolution are invariably in the minority in the
audience, whereas the creationist supporters seem to exercize every
effort to turn out their crowd."

The author also talks about debate format as a possible cause:

"The goal of a debate (I assume) is to
teach the audience something about evolution and the nature of
science.  This is possible in a debate format, but it is difficult
to do well, because it is not easy to do quickly.
How long does it take to straighten out your audience on this
matter?  The creationist has made a simple declarative sentence,
and you have to deal with not an easily-grasped factual error, but
a logical error and a methodological error, which will take you far
longer to explain.  As I was writing this, a community college
teacher called to tell me she had trouble convincing her students
they were made out of smaller parts!  Now maybe not all audiences
are at such a primitive level that they don't even accept cell
theory, but given the fact that your opponent just has to say, "It
didn't happen" (i.e., "there are no transitional forms",
"radiometric dating doesn't work," etc.) means you have a bunch
more talking to do from the get-go."
I have no objection, by the way, to appearing on radio and TV with
creationists, and have done so many times.  In this format, it is
possible to have some sort of point-counterpoint which is (though
it seems odd to say it) not possible in a formal debate format.  On
the radio, I have been able to stop Gish, et al, and say, "Wait a
minute, if X is so, then wouldn't you expect Y?" or something
similar, and show that their "model" is faulty.  But in a debate,
the evolutionist has to shut up while the creationist gallups
along, spewing out nonsense with every paragraph.

And finally, the author suggests a method for dealing with this format flaw:

With this format, the audience is given digestable bits of
information and is not overwhelmed by a barrage of impossible-to-
answer nonsense.  The evolutionist at least has a fighting chance
to teach something about science and evolution.

Of course, whenever the ICR has been presented this option, they
have refused to debate.

It seems to me that way that the quote was used, it was meant to support the view that evolutionists do not want to debate out of the perceived inadequacy of their own arguments, but the author states that it is because of the structural flaws of the debate itself. The author states in the essay that the debater and his supporters think he did a good job, so in the end both parties think they did well, only that, according to the author, the creationist is perceived to have won because he has a lot more support from the audience.

Seen in this context, it would be more useful to use a different quote to support the point of view, since the author is not sincere in his expression that creationists win the arguments. AnaC 22:51, 30 December 2010 (EST)

But if we recruited heavily, without financial incentives and the like that are normally presented at scientific conferences (no need to hide it, I've seen the same actions taken at financial conferences) and with simply word of mouth and such, I highly doubt we'd have any tangible turn out or visible support if our beliefs were without merit. That's basic psychology and really just common sense, wouldn't you agree? While evolutionists and other such members of the "scientific community" need financial incentives, the promise of glory upon publication in like-minded journals, etc, we don't have this receptive atmosphere. Rather, we have only the weight of our arguments to persuade people. Perhaps this and not the "heavy recruitment" (which the author you mention, interestingly enough, does not detail in any way) is the reason for our support? Did that possibility occur to you? Tyler Zoran Talk 23:11, 30 December 2010 (EST)
I do not understand what you are trying to say. I am simply quoting the author, and that is what he claimed--I have no knowledge of whether his claims are true nor the implications they may have if they were (or were not), nor do I know the motivations of the people who do go to the debates. But in any case, if true, the numbers would skew the result, regardless of the method of recruitment.AnaC 23:28, 30 December 2010 (EST)
My apologies if I wasn't entirely clear. My reasoning is this: the simple fact that, from personal experience, audiences that share are beliefs have no additional incentive, outside of hearing them validated, to come to such a debate, while evolutionists and other followers of Scott most likely do have additional incentives, whether they be financial, extra credit in classes, etc. The fact that in spite of this difference, our support vastly outnumbers all other groups combined at such debate, in essence makes the level of recruitment irrelevant. Also, keep in mind that Eugenie Scott is one of our loudest and most vociferous critics. I trust that you're aware of her "participation" in the problems in Dover, where an issue that simply did not concern her suddenly became her business? Interestingly enough, she immediately published a book using her newfound publicity. Do my previous comments about entering a debate for financial incentive seem more clear with that example? Tyler Zoran Talk 23:38, 30 December 2010 (EST)
I do not know anything about the author, nor what she has chosen to do with her life. You stated that "The fact that in spite of this difference, our support vastly outnumbers all other groups combined at such debate, in essence makes the level of recruitment irrelevant.", which I do not understand. I do believe that moral conviction is a much stronger motivator than any financial gain. From my experience, spiritual motivation is one of the strongest motivators that exists. However, I do not understand how this pertains to the fact that the author did not mean to "confess" that creationists win debates, since she does not believe that they were playing fair. The article does not address this, and gives the impression that this is what the author truly believes.AnaC 23:53, 30 December 2010 (EST)
I don't have time at the moment to respond to this immediately as I'm on my way out the door, but if you have any pressing questions, you can email me (, it's also on my user page) and I'll address them ASAP in the morning. Otherwise, I'll try to respond here tomorrow. Thanks! Tyler Zoran Talk 00:00, 31 December 2010 (EST)
In the meantime, though, research Eugenie Scott a bit more if you can. You'll find it very interesting, especially when you realize the perspective that influences everything she does. Tyler Zoran Talk 00:01, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Experiments on Evolution the article states: The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.[11][12]

However this has indeed been observed in nature and experiments demonstrating evolution have been performed in a laboratory, such as Richard Lenski's bacterial studies. Lenski has made all his strains available and it would only be appropriate to repeat the experiments and find flaws in them before dismissing them outright.

You can't be serious. If that research paper had been submitted to me by a college student, then I probably would have returned it ungraded for reasons explained long ago (and still available) on this website. (Also, please sign your postings using the signature button at the top of the edit space.)--Andy Schlafly 11:45, 12 January 2011 (EST)
There are too many creationists in the audience! A classic case of a whiny evolutionist. Were you personally trained to "defend" evolutionism by this fellow?conservative 17:18, 12 January 2011 (EST)

Fossil Record

The fossil record is not needed to prove the theory of evolution it stands on its own without the fossil record, in fact several animals such as soft bodied animals such as flatworms will not fossilize and leave fossil records, yet we know they exist and have existed in the past.

Many people simply do not understand what fossils tell us or what we can use them for. However to say they disprove the Theory of evolution is simply incorrect. After all even Gravity is just a theory

Separation of Pro/Anti Evolution. My concern is that rather than detailing what constitutes Evolution and then later the criticisms of the theory, the form of the entire piece is about vaguely describing an evolutionary component and immediately refuting it as utter garbage and leaving it at that. Is it really so difficult to present one side without trashing it as soon as humanly possible. Also, Evolution being a key component in the development of racism is ludicrous. The Spanish Caste system was in existence long before the theory of evolution was introduced. I thought Conservapedia was about providing a place for truth, but what I see here is a place for people who only want the kind of truth that serves to reinforce their viewpoint. I fully support providing evidence which challenges the theory and yet I suppose giving Evolution fair representation is just a sign that I've been corrupted by liberal bias.

Perhaps there is another way for you to contribute on this subject, but apart from this article. Try articles on natural selection, genetics, various plants and animals, geology, and so on, in which you can explain what main stream science says about them, as well as providing evidence refuting it. Karajou 15:31, 10 February 2011 (EST)
Evolutionist excusitis always happens when evidence is asked for. Please get a real worldview like biblical Christianity which has plenty of evidence to support it and not one you always have to make excuses for. As far as the history of racism in Europe, was racism solely the result of the Spanish Caste System or were there events contributing after? It seems to me as though you are offering a rather simplistic and inadequate commentary here. I would suggest reading material on Nazism and then contributing to that article. By the way, are you an atheist? If so, please provide proof and evidence that atheism is correct. Generally speaking, atheists such as as Richard Dawkins, are rather weak when it comes to historiography as can be seen HERE. conservative 16:39, 10 February 2011 (EST)


Evolution is most certainly a fact. --TheSensei 21:51, 22 February 2011 (EST)

This is what's called an argument by assertion. --AlaskanEconomy 21:53, 22 February 2011 (EST)
A "fact" ... just like the "fact" of global warming? Sorry, declaring something a fact does not make it so.--Andy Schlafly 22:04, 22 February 2011 (EST)

"Through natural processes alone" vs. "Darwinism"

In the article's third paragraph, I noticed an incorrect assertion based on the results of a poll. The article states that "60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone." Just because someone believes that man did not evolve 100% naturally (evolution), doesn't mean that they believe evolution was 100% supernatural. It is possible that they could believe in both Darwinism and intelligent design. JimAB 21:40, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

Darwinism is taught and believed without any "supernatural" intervention. Also, Darwinism directly conflicts with basic Christian principles, such as Jesus redeeming the original sin of Adam.--Andy Schlafly 00:56, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
As Mr. Schlafly said, most believers in Darwinism don't believe in intelligent design; most believers in Darwinism are atheists. Also, doesn't mean they believe evolution was 100% supernatural implies that they all believe in evolution in the first place. Do you deny that there are medical doctors that don't believe in evolution at all? DMorris 09:39, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

Poor health practices of some notable evolutionists

I think its unfortunate that despite the generally good quality of the rest of the article, the concluding section reads like it was written by a grade school student. The entire world (with the exclusion of the middle east) consumes alcohol in some form or another, simply drinking beer in a pub is not a sign of poor health. In addition, up to 50% of the U.S. can be considered overweight or obese, since the apparent prevalence of atheism (not self-described, but defined as without belief in a god or life spirit) in the U.S. is on the order of 10%, there are far more obese and overweight theists than atheists. This section as it stands right now reads like an indictment of PZMyers and should be moved to the PZMyers page. In any case, attacking the validity of the theory based on the health of the proponent is a clear ad hominem and should at the very least be revised, since it has no place in an otherwise serious and even-handed article on the theory of evolution. DenisTR 22:25, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

DenisTR, please see: Atheism and alcoholism and Secular Europe and alcoholism and Atheism and obesity and Secular Europe and obesity. Conservative 21:50, 1 July 2015 (EDT)
DenisTR, thank you for indicating that the vast bulk of the article was fair-minded. Secondly, nowhere does the article indicate that because PZ Myers has not done his best to act in accordance with the best information that medical science has made widely available, therefore evolution is false. Lastly, I am guessing you are not a big fan of the introductory picture for Conservapedia's atheism article. conservative 23:42, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789) was an early advocate of atheism in Europe.
DenisTR, thanks for your input. I just added the following material to the Conservapedia evolution article: "In August 2009, PZ Myers led a group of over 300 atheist and agnostic students on a tour of the Creation Museum.[3] During the visit, Myers had noticeably greater difficulty than others climbing on and off a dinosaur model due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.VIDEO" conservative 10:24, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
DenisTR, by the way, the above material concerning PZ Myers and the Creation Museum has now also been added to the Atheism, Atheism and obesity and the Atheism and Mental and Physical Health article. Once again, thank you for your input. conservative 14:17, 18 April 2011 (EDT)