Last modified on 14 April 2007, at 20:56

User talk:CPanel

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AmesG (Talk | contribs) at 20:56, 14 April 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Return to "CPanel" page.

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." [1]


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." [1].....


Evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote: "The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." [2] 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. [3] Creationist scientists believe that mutations and natural selection would not cause macroevolution. [4][5][6][7][8]


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

References

  1. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution
  2. http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html
  3. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp
  4. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp
  5. http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp
  6. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp
  7. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831
  8. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp


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)

A response to this would be appreciated by many of us. --Jtl 17:19, 14 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)

TOE

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)

Age of the earth

Panelists: if you're still watching the Talk:Theory of evolution page, then you might have run across the following dialogue:

This site is a joke and doing this goes against my better judgement, but I will add my tuppence-worth. Radioactive dating of metamprphic rock will only give a date for the metamorphic event. All information is lost regarding the original date of the rocks formation as there is too much movement of isotopes through the mineral structure. In non-metamorphosed igneous rock, there are clues in the mineralogy and chemistry that a geologist would use to mark isotopic movement in or out of the mineral being dated and would, therefore, be aware of the potential for inaccuracies. All radioactive dating now uses isochron methodology to remove the possibility of error. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up isochrons and discover how they are used in modern geology. Splodge 07:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The RATE Group have already thought of that. They discuss isochron dates extensively. Isochron dating does not "remove the possibility of error." This is another example of your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.--TerryHTalk 09:58, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh dearie me. The RATE group anomalies are produced by flawed experimental data. Isochron measurement requires that the rock samples are cogenetic (formed at the same time from a common pool of material within which the isotopes and elements are relatively homogenous). This was never done by RATE. For example, RATE geologist Steve Austin has stated (Austin, Steven A., ed., 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe) that the samples he took came from four different lava flows and an extracted phenocryst.
Austin knows he will get the wrong results this way. In Austin, Steven A., 1988. "Grand Canyon lava flows: A survey of isotope dating methods," in Impact #178, he mentions that this kind of false isochron is well known and cites (Faure, Gunter, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons pp 145-147) on the matter.
But truth is not the objective of these creationist groups. They generate propaganda in the form of pseudo-scientific articles that fool the layman into thinking that there is something suspect. To understand what is going on requires an in-depth understanding of the science that most people do not have. Splodge 13:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Ladies and gentlemen, you need have no doubt that Steven A. Austin and his colleagues thought of every issue that Mr. Splodge mentioned--and furthermore, Mr. Splodge is probably passing on misinformation from Talk.Origins. If you want some detailed explanations, then may I suggest this article:

"(Talk.Origins) Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old." CreationWiki, The encyclopedia of creation science. September 7, 2006, 00:26 UTC. Retrieved April 14, 2007.

Mind you, I don't suggest that Mr. Splodge is originating a fabrication. I merely suggest that he thinks he has a club with which to deal the coup de grâce to the young-earth position, when in fact he has a bruised reed. I submit this to you so that you may take it under advisement in deciding the direction of the article Theory of evolution.--TerryHTalk 19:19, 14 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)
Referring conflicts to the panel is supposed to be a last resort. What efforts have you made to resolve your issues with the editors in question?
I urge the panel to reject outright any case presented to them before every other avenue has been exhausted. Tsumetai 17:31, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
I back Tsumetai on this. There has not been adequate (if any) attempt to resolve the issue first. Philip J. Rayment 20:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Submitting "Adult Stem Cells"

I believe there is a bias inherent in this article that has been undefended. It currently strikes an un-encyclopedic tone which I have tried to remedy to no avail. CPanel, please inspect this comparison to tell us which version is more encyclopedic, and more neutral.-AmesGyo! 22:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)