This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have here.
- Thank you for creating the student panel and letting us newcomers join your homeschool project. It's an honor to be here, and if there's anything I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. --Ed Poor 18:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
- Your very welcome! Your work to help with this project has been amazing. We greatly appreciate all your contributions. ~ CPanel 18:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Regarding a concise defintion of the theory of evolution
I am glad to hear that the panel came to a decision on this matter. I have a question though and it is probably based on the panel seeing a prior version of the article and not the current article.
Here is what a panel spokesperson wrote:
"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution." 
Here is what the article states now and I only give certain key portions:
Today advocates of evolution no longer adhere to "natural selection" as the definition of evolution, but rather define it simply as any "change over time" in the genetic composition of a population....
Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines evolution as 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." .....
Evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote: "The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution."  Evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after life first came about on earth.  Creationist scientists believe that mutations and natural selection would not cause macroevolution. 
MY SUMMATION STATEMENT TO THE PANEL:
I think the above current version gives a concise and adequate explanation of the theory of evolution and Aschlafly concurrs. I am hoping that the panel agrees and that they based their statement above based on a prior version they read.
Conservative 18:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
- The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ CPanel 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
- The above is actually non-sensical. No scientist equates natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is one of the processes that drives evolution, hence the need for a well written summary of the scientific aspect of the article. I cannot really participate in the Creationist part, as I am no expert, and it needs to be well written by one of the many experts here. Please feel free to refer to Talk:Basic Evolutionary Theory. Thanks for your time.--PalMDtalk 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, Conservative has once again taken it upon himself to delete an entire article comprising hours of work. I have corrected my link above, as he has moved it to the talk page, however the talk page is no longer connected to an article.--PalMDtalk 18:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Restore of edit
After the decision was made, this edit removed one of the referenced works. The Origin of Species is the text that started this all. It would be remiss to not include a link to the book for people who want verify references and quotations. --Mtur 19:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
The evolution decision
Can we take from this a general principle; that before criticizing something, we should always first explain what that thing is? Tsumetai 04:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
- I 2nd this motion. Jrssr5 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Why don't you semiprotect the article, so that newly registered or unregistered users are unable to edit (as they are usually the ones behind vandalism) but registered users can? It's really not the best decision to only limit it to the sysops ScorpionStep on me and get stung 08:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
- I agree with Scorpion on this point. There are a lot of editors here who wish to help improve the article. It is nice to see a decision finally made and hope that it does heaps of good for the site. Jrssr5 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Macroevolution article - request a ruling
I am writing to you regarding the current Macroevolution article. I find the current article unacceptable and given your stated position on the Theory of evolution article I would like you to rule on this subject.
Currently the article has these statements:
"Paleontology, developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the empirical evidence for the known patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution."
Next the article has a section entitled:
"Methods of Macroevolution"
This of course assumes that macroevolution occurred.
If you could rule on this matter it would be appreciated. In the meantime, I am going to revert back to the non Pro-evolutionary theory version. I would appreciate it if the article critical of macroevolution were kept and the article kept protected. We don't need to be double minded on the macroevolution and theory of evolution issue. Conservative 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
- It is a skeleton of information with only links to outside sources. The author takes no position on the merits. It is, altogether, neutral. What could possibly be wrong with it? -AmesGyo! 17:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)