Talk:Evolution/Archive 15

This archive covers April 1-15, 2006.

Some resolution of this issue perhaps?
I have created a general purpose template to be used to remind people that the purpose of talk pages is to improve the article. Here is the template:

You just need to type to use it.

Now if there are no objections I shall start using this template when I feel it is appropriate. I didn't think it sensible to make a template particularly for the purpose of this article's talk page as I think that would diminish rather than enhance its usefullness. Also other talk pages may well benefit from such a template.

I will also encourage others to step in with the use of this template when it looks like we're getting off topic. I personally would not advocate the removal of offending discussions as this may well prove counterproductive.

I may later create an alternative page such as I suggested above (together with links to it from this page). As such a page would be entirely voluntary I wouldn't expect that anyone would object to that. I guess also that this list of previously discussed issues might be a good idea. However, I'm not up for implementing that myself. Barnaby dawson 20:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work, it will surely be useful. --Ignignot 15:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh but remember to use the subst: thingie. --Ignignot 15:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Nnp 11:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality based on factualness of evolution
Look, I don't see what's so hard about this! People keep saying "take this discussion to talk.origins" or "this page is not for debating the validity of evolution". Like I said in bold print, that's not what I'm trying to do! I just want the page to be neutral, that's all. I have to convince users of the fact that evolution is not proven so that the article will say this. But no, Evolution is proven! Evolution has been observed! Scorpionman 18:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Scorpionman, your objections are baseless in my opinion. The article is about as NPOV as an article about a widely accepted scientific topic can be. Nowhere does the article say "evolution is proven". It distinguishes between observation (fact) and explanation (theory). It is very explicit about what elements of evolution have been observed. Personally, I think the article is a good one, and if anything it goes too far to accommodate the objections to evolutionary theory. If you have specific suggestions on how to change or improve the article, or object to specific errors you think it makes, let's hear them. (Note also that "evolution" can mean different things, and I suspect you are objecting to something that is one small component of evolution, probably the concept of "macroevolution".) MrDarwin 19:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Evolution has been observed, thus this article is neutral. What is your scientific proof that it has not been observed? WAS 4.250 18:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think this is the case, read this article . It doesn't rant, is simply lists and discusses facts. Scorpionman 17:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Answers in genesis commands absolutely no respect amongst the scientific community, Heck, even most ID proponents are embarrassed by their antics. They repeat tired and disproven arguements which are riddled with fallacies and innaccuracies as well as being ridiculously POV, their statement of faith states that no matter what evidence is found they will never accept evolution. You do yourself a disservice by linking yourself to them. Jefffire 17:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Lest we forget - the April 1997 issue of Discover magazine had a pretty good April Fool's joke about some Neandertal musical instruments that had supposedly been discovered in Germany. It was an unlikely collection, featuring bagpipes, a tuba, a triangle and a 'xylobone', along with a cave painting of marching musicians. In September 2000 the Institute for Creation Research fell for it and featured Marvin Lubenow presenting this evidence in one of their radio programs. I pointed that out on [talk origins] about a month later, and the ICR quickly apologized and retracted the claim. However, no erroneous argument ever completely disappears from creationist literature. I later found the April Fool article cited again in an article by Brad Harrub on the Answers in Genesis website (the citation has now been silently removed). Harrub also thinks that the Java Man skullcap belongs to a gibbon - even though AIG has admitted that this is a discredited argument that creationists shouldn't use any longer (that claim has now been quietly removed too). Harrub's article was also published in AIG's 'peer-reviewed scientific journal', the Technical Journal, which goes to show what a joke creationist peer review is." - Quote from Jim Foley on April 1, 2006 --68.107.9.240 04:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Creationists are all uneducated bigots. They know nothing about anything. They are porridge brains. Ken Ham is a stupid idiot with leaches in his brain. I hate them all. Evolution has been proven a billion times and creationism has absolutely no evidence. The person who came up with it must have been insane. The Bible is nothing but an eloborate hoax written by a group of left-wing conspirators. Why don't you just say it, Jeffire? Scorpionman 16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. If we evolved from pond scum, then our brains must be very faulty and our senses deceptive. How are you to know that the "observations" made by evolutionists are not just deceptions by the senses? And if we evolved from pond scum then there's no reason to exist and therefore no reason to study this topic because it will not profit anyone. And it seems that you haven't even read anything from Answers in Genesis, you just listen to the rants of people like John Stear who are misinformed about it. Maybe you should have read the article I linked to here rather than just dismissing it as a bunch of stupid bigotry. Scorpionman 16:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't carry on like this. You may be mistaken about evolution but there are plenty of other articles you can contribute to usefully without baiting for a ban. Jefffire 16:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You have crossed the line here Scorpionman. This is the sort of stuff that gets you banned for awhile. --Ignignot 16:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not mistaken about evolution, and I didn't invent those insults. If you didn't say that then let's hear you say something useful and courteous about Answers in Genesis. And that's what evolutionists think about creation. They think that their theory has been proved a billion times and that creation has absolutely no or useless evidence, and they attack anybody who disagrees with their view (see this site ) Tell me if No Answers in Genesis doesn't fulfill all of the above descriptions! Scorpionman 15:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you ask, the most useful thing that can be said about both Answers in Genesis and No Answers in Genesis is that they both come under Reliable sources and should be treated with caution. Neither comes up to the standard required for Reliable sources. The first link you gave relied on unsubstantiated pronouncements by Michael Behe, and you should read that article carefully and try to understand why his statements are not accepted by the scientific community. Your disregard of Wikipedia policies and guidelines makes you appear to be a troll or vandal. ...dave souza, talk 08:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)You are mistaken about evolution. 2) If the above was a quote, source please. KimvdLinde 15:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * (1. I know what evolution is, so I'm not mistaken about it. (2. No quotes, except quoting myself. Scorpionman 18:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, for someone who thinks he knows something about evolution, you certainly don't show it. And if the quotes above (Creationists are all uneducated bigots. They know nothing about anything. They are porridge brains. Ken Ham is a stupid idiot with leaches in his brain. I hate them all. Evolution has been proven a billion times and creationism has absolutely no evidence. The person who came up with it must have been insane. The Bible is nothing but an eloborate hoax written by a group of left-wing conspirators.) are yours, I will report you for WP:CIVIL and get you banned. KimvdLinde 19:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They're not exactly mine, they're insults which I "invented". Isn't that what you guys think about creationists, though? Scorpionman 03:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No,... I don't think the Bible was written by "left"-wing conspirators.--146.244.138.156 22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So I suppose you think it was written by "right"-wing conspirators? Scorpionman
 * Threats of legal action is considered a personal attack, KimvdLinde. Scorpionman 03:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. KimvdLinde 03:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous, Scorpionman. Stop making things up. Legal threats are not considered personal attacks. Nor has anyone made a legal threat. Your credibility is dropping fast. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 03:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay. Never mind. I don't suppose an apology to the attackee would help at all? Oh, but Knowledge Seeker, while no one may have made a legal threat, they are considered personal attacks under certain circumstances. Scorpionman 11:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Scorpionman I am not going to argue with you, but instead I suggest that you read Talk:Evolution/Archive_001 which has extensive discussion on this topic. --Ignignot 18:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It takes 2 to tango, remember. This page is not for debating the validity of evolution. --Ignignot 19:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * -1 Redundant Cyde Weys 17:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Scorpionman has raised an important point here: if he wants to "convince users of the fact that evolution is not proven", or if I want to convince anyone of anything, our opinions are irrelevant: we have to comply fully with No original research and cite reliable sources. As this is an article about science, the requirements for peer reviewed publication must be met, particularly for any novel theory. The policies of Verifiability and Neutral point of view must be met. This may be another point to make at the head of this page. ...dave souza, talk 22:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a list of forms of debate I have seen many times on this page. #77 is

PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY

(1) [Christian asks "stumper" question.] (2) [Atheist answers question.] (3) [A lapse of time] (4) [Christian repeats question.] (5) [Atheist repeats answer.] (6) [A lapse of time] (7) [Christian repeats question.] (8) [Atheist repeats answer.] (9) [A lapse of time] (10) Atheist, you never answered my question. (11) Therefore, God exists. WAS 4.250 19:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to this characterization, especially the claimed dichotomy betwen "Christian" and "Atheist" JoshuaZ 19:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As a satire of this ongoing debate it's probably a little too accurate for comforts sake. Jefffire 20:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the point is it is satire... I donnu, I found the argument & the link provided really amusing. And JoshuaZ, good po


 * Regardless of the discussion above, I feel that the neutrality of this article should be disputed. There's some discussion on critics of evolutionism, but they're mainly disregarded in the same sentence. There's obviously a large debate going on here, and regardless of ones beliefs, I feel that any remarks about critics should not be simply dismissed as 'made by people with poor understanding of science', but rather just neutrally observed.--82.92.64.247 14:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no scientific debate on the factualness of evolution. Jefffire 14:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is not a large debate going on here. There is a small sect of fanatics and vandals who are filibustering nonsense. It is a [fact] that Evolution is an observed process.--130.191.17.38 19:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Creationists are trying to appropriate and twist our NPOV policy in order to spred their religious beliefs. NPOV does not mean that all views must be presented, only all relevant and appropriate views. Look, some people think the moon is made of green cheeses. Currently, the moon article does not have a section on the view that some have concerning green cheese. Should we stick an NPOV violation tag on the moon article? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't be daft, it's yellow cheese. Haven't you watched A Grand Day Out ? .. :) ..dave souza, talk 18:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the 'Flat Earth theory'? gunslotsofguns 16:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My fav is the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. Which BTW get one sentence in the Moon landings article. Sophia   Gilraen   of Dorthonion  16:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone seen this site?
http://wikigadugi.org/wiki/Evolution

Almost, but not quite the same...


 * That's pretty messy, but is it a problem or something? Homestarmy 13:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is at it again. WAS 4.250 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a Wikipedia mirror -- it took its content from an earlier version of this article, but didn't import the impages or the templates. Nothing much to look at. It seems to be satisfying the requirements of the GFDL. --Fastfission 15:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait, didn't this guy work for Car Talk? Vern Merkey, of Merkey Research? --FOo 03:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Religion and Philosopy - "unguided"
"...Pasado's concern, while valid, does not apply in context because the section deals with rel/phi..." is essentially a cop-out. If the quotes around unguided are meant to indicate so-called then nix the quotes and use the adjective. Otherwise it reads as if evolution is inherently unguided, which is simply not the case. The assumption that everyone will understand the meaning of "unguided" just because it's in the "rel/phi" section is spurious (as we have seen). While the use of "unguided" in quotes on the ID page worked in the context it was used, it does not work here. In other words, address the issue rather than offering wak excuses why it is aceptable. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 01:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Jim62sch, firstly, please remain calm, this is hardly an issue to get all worked up about. Secondly, could you please explain your concern with the use of "unguided"? I'm not following your reasoning as to why it "does not work here". And, ummm, someone slap me with a wet snoek if I'm wrong, but surely evolution is unguided. That's the whole point. No? (ps. for those who do not follow the history like hawks, Jim62sch is quoting from my edit summary when I reverted Pasado's edit). Mi kk er (...) 01:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was being calm...you should see when I'm mad. ;)  You guys figured it out anyway.  The key is that "unguided" is used by creationists to say that evolution is "baaaaadddd".  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  02:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "You're all mad, I'm the only sane one here" - Major Dennis Blodnok. ...dave souza, talk 11:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, bit of a misunderstanding I see... It seems we both mistook each other for creationists. Quite amusing really. :) Mi kk er (...) 03:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is funny, especially in light of the fact that the closest either of us may come to some form of creationism is creating new wiki articles. (Wait, does that make us intelligent designers? ;P &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, just intelligent critters. AvB &divide; talk  13:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I object to being called intelligent. --Ignignot 14:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what the understanding here is that there are many people who wish to believe in both evolution and God, specifically, a god that they believe "set evolution in motion". Therefore, some could argue that it is not necessarily unguided. However, I think considering the "god set it in motion" part isn't actually part of the theory at all, I would think there are grounds to argue that "unguided" would fit. It's possible that I could just degenerate into an argument from silence however, so i'd prefer to keep this short for now heh. Homestarmy 01:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It could be guided or unguided, like whether or not their is a deity, evolution doesn't care one way or another. To say that it is specifically unguided is therefore incorrect and misleading. JoshuaZ 02:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if there is no evidence it is guided (and there isn't any as far as I know), surely reasonable assumptions of onus together with Occam's Razor would force one to conclude it is unguided? Or at a minimum assume for the time being that guidedness has not been shown? From that perspective, it seems reasonable to say in a scientific article about evolution that it is unguided. (Of course, it is still logically possible that it is guided, the point is it would work even when unguided). Mi kk er (...) 02:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But the theory of evolution doesn't say anything about whether or not it is guided. You are bringing in principles such as Occam's razor from outside the theory. At best you could say that "The theory of evolution is consistent with unguided etc."JoshuaZ 02:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair enough. As an atheist, the main attraction for me of evolutionary theory is its ability to explain the appearance of design without positing a designer, so perhaps I'm being biased. On my understanding, science deals only with what can be tested empirically, so this question is probably outside the scope of science. On my reading of the sentence though, it suggested some religious people are uncomfortable with evolution precisely because it can work without guidance. (which is true). Anyway, Dave souza's edit seems to be a step in the right direction. Mi kk er (...) 02:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Evolutionary theory is not atheistic. Adding any notions that are undermines the article and gives the creationists a valid cause for action. Pasado 05:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure about that one, though (as we've just discussed) this isn't the place to argue about it. Mi kk er (...) 05:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh, it's guided by natural selection. Having tried out "arose through natural processes without divine guidance", changed it to "without supernatural intervention" and added clarification, YMMV. ...02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC) sig fell off dave souza, talk 02:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well yes, it better be! My point (and I think the point of the sentence before it suddenly became controversial) was that evolution is (or "can be") unguided by an "higher" intelligence. It is the blind watchmaker and whatnot. Mi kk er (...) 02:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I've spent too much time on the ID page ;) Anyway, thanks for getting the (minor/major/creation v evolution) issue resolved.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  02:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * All concerned happy with the edits Dave and I have made? Mi kk er (...) 03:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Re-added literal, as the conflict vanishes if religious texts are allegorical: much of the fuss is over a few words about "created kinds". Also TE believers probably outnumber creationists. To quote the Archbish of Canterbury, "creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories." ...dave souza, talk 03:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, I deleted it for mainly stylistic reasons ("literal reading of teleological notions...") looked a bit weird to me. I've now figured out what you meant. Mi kk er (...) 04:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You guys have done a wonderful job. It is much better. But This sentence: The idea that all diversity in life arose through natural processes without supernatural intervention goes against a literal reading of teleological notions present in most religious origin stories, though many religious people are able to reconcile the science with their faith or see no real conflict. seems to me to leave out the fact that a lot of people feel evolution removes some specialness or other emotional quality that is not directly dependant on reading anything, literal or not. Maybe the sentence could be broken into two sentences as a first step in figuring out what to do about teleological notions that are part of people's basic "tell me a story that makes me feel good" approach to deciding what to say they believe. WAS 4.250 04:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

People often choose a metanarrative based on emotions (see Logical fallacy. WAS 4.250 04:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the Notions clause because it did not add clarity; it caused confusion, at least in me. I'm not sure we need to address the fact that evolutionary theory does not tell a 'feel good' story. To the extent needed, it is the job of religion and spirituality to provide meaning to life, not science.  Science cannot claim to answer all the important questions. Pasado 05:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but given that this is a common objection to evolution(and arguably the underlying cause of almost all rejection of evolution), it should probably be included in some form. JoshuaZ 05:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Tada... Note distinction between Teleology and Teleological argument. ...dave souza, talk 11:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. WAS, does this addresses your 'feel good' story concern? Pasado 15:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it fully and completely addresses the concerns I had. Thanks. Wonderful job. WAS 4.250 16:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the current version captures the breadth of this objection at all. It was not just people who believe in "theistic evolution" who did not like the "unguided" or "purposeless" aspect of Darwinian evolution, it was even a number of people today called Darwinists (like Thomas Henry Huxley). The current version is far too rigid in asserting who can and cannot make room for these sorts of beliefs in their own metaphysical beliefs, as well. There are teleological models of evolution which are not creationist, as well (i.e. orthogenesis). --Fastfission 20:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure exactly what you're refering to, but it most certainly isn't my point. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The orthogenetic hypothesis died under the weight of the evidence for modern synthesis many years ago. Perhaps the entire 'Social and religious controversies' section should be removed and made into a separate article about the relationship between religion and evolution.  We can then focus on the biological science article at hand. Pasado 20:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The sentence was explicitly historical in nature, though I think the "unguidedness" still disturbs people (hence all of that empty talk about "tornadoes in junk heaps" and things like that). And there are already sub-articles for this section. If you'd like to focus on the biological science part, please feel free to, and you can leave the part on modern and historical religious/social controversies to other people. I admit I'm a bit frustrated because you seem to be unable to read a sentence in context. --Fastfission 23:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The paragraph in question is currently limited to "natural processes" versus the "supernatural". Natural processes can be believed to be caused by or causing things related to the teleological or related to orthogenesis. That could be a seperate paragraph, but Pasado seems to think this subsection is too long as is. WAS 4.250 21:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Pasado is wrong, and I think the emphasis on natural v. supernatural stresses the point quite a bit from what it used to be and what it ought to be. The question of natural/supernatural is covered just fine in my opinion with the original two sentences of the paragraph (which are still there); the discussion of guided/unguided was somehow turned into natural/supernatural and now is just redundant. I think the original point has been lost, and I don't think Pasado understands what it was to begin with. There was nothing at all wrong with the original version, as far as I can tell. --Fastfission 23:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? None of this appears to have much to do with what we were talking about. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can make your point without setting up a false dilemma (Theistic evolution = supernatural guidance, Evolutionary theory = no supernatural guidance), please do. To apply those labels to evolutionary theory is incorrect and misleading. Pasado 03:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Divine guidance
This discussion was getting a bit long, so a subdivision. Thanks, Fastfission, for pointing out that this paragraph was getting repetitive and losing the point. I've gone over the whole paragraph and tried to put the issues raised in a more coherent way, making it clear that it's creationists who call it "unguided evolution". I consiered pointing out that theistic evolution includes concepts like the realm of God differing from the realm of science, or God using the process of evolution to achieve His purpose, but thought it best to keep things concise. ...dave souza, talk 10:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good, Dave. Thanks. Pasado 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition of theistic evolution
This article says:
 * Adherents of theistic evolution, for example, believe that all the standard religious teachings about God and the universe are compatible with the modern science of evolution.

While Theistic evolution says:
 * it's the general opinion that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the human understanding about biological evolution. WAS 4.250 16:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't theistic evolution be a position rather than "the general opinion"? Wouldn't an adherent believe evolution and God/creation are compatible for him rather than for "all the standard religious teachings"? (which also POVedly relegates all literalist positions to "nonstandard".) And I have no opinion about "the modern science of evolution" versus "some or all of the human understanding about biological evolution". WAS 4.250 17:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummm... I literally copied and pasted the sentence from the Theistic evolution article and changed it on the fly to fit the context of the evolution article. I changed "classical" to "standard" because they seem broadly synonymous in context (also, "classical" is repeated in the para below), and "modern science of evolution" seemed to make more sense than the original sentence. And, to answer WAS's second concern, I guess it depends. I'm sure some people think it is compatible "for them" whilst others may think it is "objectively true that" it is compatible. I'm not certain, but the former relativistic position seems less common among religious people. If you can find a different way to say "standard" (mainstream? common? run of the mill?), I don't have a problem changing. Mi kk er (...) 17:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's their position so I changed 'all the standard' to 'their'. Having to click on Theistic evolution to find out who 'they' are concerns me.  Should we not just pull the list from that article and put it in here? Pasado 19:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Liosts are for shopping trips. ;)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we can let the main article on theistic evolution explain it fully, but maybe we can reword the sentence slightly to be less ambiguous. --Ignignot 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reworded it as "Many religious people are able to reconcile the science of evolution with their faith or see no real conflict: this position has been called theistic evolution." in the context of a revised paragraph. Hope this suits. ..dave souza, talk 15:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Berton
With the lucid Dave souza's comments, this article is passing of frankly sectarian to the not sectarian, however it is still non neutral. Berton 13:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems a paragon of neutrality to me. How would you improve it, Berton? - FlyingOrca 13:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that this rule should be accomplished literally: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. " Berton 13:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is about a scientific theory. Religious beliefs are detailed in their own articles. Jefffire 13:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Let's deal with that. We need an unbiased source that describes a significant point of view not currently in the article that deals with the subject matter of the article more thann it deals with the subject matter of another article. In other words, NPOV, verifyability, relevance and balance. Creationists simply don't have an alternative scientific theory for the details covered in this article. What scientific experimentation has any creationist done anywhere anytime to better explain the evolution of H5N1? There are billions of dollars being spent to uncover any and all ways of delaying a pandemic until research can find a solution. Where is the Creationist funding proposal? This article is about an area of science. Creationists are not talking about science, even though some pretend they are and others think they are. Perhaps you confuse this article with the Origin belief article. WAS 4.250 13:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * WAS 4.250, see the example on Britannica Online: Evolution entry - "theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations."

NPOV would be if it presented other point of view as creationism, verifiability is not here applicable, or they would not be theories. Relevance, is obvious. And balances it is still more obvious than there is this presentation. Some sources from Britannica:"Two excellent collections of papers on the evolution-versus-religion dialogue are Robert John Russell, William R. Stoeger, and Francisco J. Ayala (eds.), Evolutionary and Molecular Biology: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action (1998), with contributions from scientists and religious scholars from diverse Christian denominations and including the 1996 statement of John Paul II on the subject; and James B. Miller (ed.), An Evolving Dialogue: Theological and Scientific Perspectives on Evolution (1998, reissued 2001), an extensive collection that includes in its final part papers by the proponents of the theory of intelligent design. Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (1999, reissued 2002), is a thoughtful but forceful critique of evolutionary materialism as well as of creationism and intelligent design. John A. Moore, From Genesis to Genetics: The Case of Evolution and Creationism (2002), is a very readable discussion of the subject. More advanced discussions are Eugenie C. Scott, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction (2004); Robert T. Pennock, Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism (1999); and Massimo Pigliucci, Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science (2002). The classic presentation of the argument from intelligent design is William Paley, Natural Theology (1802); a modern presentation is Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996, reissued 2003). See others in List of books on non-evolutionary explanations for the diversity of life." Berton 14:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for a serious answer. Unfortunately this article is not about what you think it is about. Please read that sentence again. In your mind this is true: verifiability is not here applicable, or they would not be theories. This demonstrates what you believe this article to be about. It is not about what you believe it to be about. WAS 4.250 15:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I just checked out the Christianity article as an example to see how challenges to its central beliefs and principles are dealt with in another article on a controversial topic, and oddly enough, unless I missed them in a quick skim of the article, they are not addressed at all. (In fact, one of the first statements is that Christianity is a "monotheistic" religion; Christians claim it is so, but many non-Christians do not exactly view it as such.) Christianity is challenged by Judaism and Islam and numerous other religious systems, not to mention by atheism, yet none of these "alternative" viewpoints or their challenges of Christianity are presented there. Perhaps some of us should go over there to rectify the situation and provide some balance? (Just kidding, I don't think that all articles must automatically address any and all challenges to their ideas, but it does seem like there is a bit of a double standard here.) MrDarwin 18:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. Bad example. Christianity is an example of an article where the comment verifiability is not here applicable, or they would not be theories can be understood in a sensible way (even tho verifyability is still applicable in terms of verifying who said what). Evolution is an article about a part of science where "theory" does not refer to "an idea, not a fact" but instead refers to "an assemblage of related facts organized in a way that makes verifyable predictions". WAS 4.250 19:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

'This article is about the scientific theory of evolution. There is no legitimate scientific controversy over the validity of the theory of evolution (and indeed, there hasn't been for decades). That is why there is very little mention of creationist viewpoints and the like in this article.' Think we should add that statement to the top of the page near the talk.origins deflector? This does seem to come up often enough to make it useful. --Cyde Weys 21:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Put it in a message box. FeloniousMonk 03:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it is a good idea. Just one thing: evolution isn't a theory. Natural selection is. (Boy do I feel like a gramophone). Mi kk er (...) 19:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Creationism's criticisms of evolution are sufficiently covered at their respective articles. The 'Social and religious controversies' section here gives than sufficient coverage to the minority views. FeloniousMonk 03:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Berton, please read WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV carefully. Cyde, the message box idea sounds helpful, and could usefully include these links and a reminder that Reliable sources such as AiG do not meet the requirements of Reliable sources. ...dave souza, talk 08:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

New Scientist this week - First fossil of fish that crawled onto land discovered
Some of you will have seen this already but for anyone else who's interested here's the link. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia Talk  TCF  17:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Its called a Tiktaalik, here's a link to a BBC article which will cover much of the same stuff. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm Orangutan 17:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool story! To quote Grace Slick "re Tiktaalik"
 * You call it rain
 * But the human name
 * Doesn`t mean shit to a tree
 * :)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, one gap has now split in two gaps.... Every time we find something, the number of gaps increases..... :LOL KimvdLinde 02:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's rather remeniscent of Zeno's Paradox. ColdSalad 11:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you guys read the article? It said that this Tiktaalik is actually a fish! The scientists who found it aren't even completely satisfied, and are even planning to look for a better one! Still think it's a missing link? Scorpionman 02:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry this is a bit late and inserted here, but it's important. So what if it's a fish?  It is SUPPOSED TO BE.  There aren't "between" groups.  There's no such grouping as half-fish.  It gets classified one way or another.  It's supposed to be a fish and that's actually one of the STRENGTHS of Tiktaalik.  It's a fish with tetrapod features, showing that fish DID become tetrapods. 20:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Keio


 * It is half fish and half tetrapod. It is a fishapod. Half way between the two. WAS 4.250 04:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, yes, Tiktaalik is actually a fish. That's why the article, and this thread, are both called "First fossil of fish that crawled onto land discovered". What on earth did you expect it to be, if not a fish? o_O; A giraffe? -Silence 02:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, see Scorpion that's how science works. Scientists aren't ever satisfied and they are always questioning and looking for more. Isn't science fun? JoshuaZ 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still trying to figure out what he means by "not completely satisfied" ColdSalad 03:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, you see, this isn't the REAL missing link!  Actually, I'm a bit disappointed that he's not claiming there's now TWO missing links where before there was but one ;-) ...dave souza, talk 08:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A nicely written section on Tiktaalik was over the top for this article, and crying out to be split into a separate article. Now that this has been done, someone was over-enthusiastic in deleting all mention of Tiktaalik, so I've reintroduced the link while making it clear that it's not about the dinosaur / bird transition. ...dave souza, talk 09:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for being that over-zealous someone. :) Throughout my time here on Wikipedia it seems to more often than not be the case that news articles are filled with hyperbole regarding the importance and impact of certain new scientific findings. I certainly don't disagree with mentioning Tiktaalik, but words spent on it in this article should be kept to a minimum. &mdash;Gabbe 23:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

On Vandalism
If you are going to Vandalize, could you at least do it grammatically correctly? That includes spelling names and "plagurize" right. I removed the offending sentence. ColdSalad 05:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you hate America? ;) thx1138 10:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does it matter? You're not going to change anyone's POV about something, especially if you act like an imbecile and vandalize the article. Come back and argue with these folks about the validity of evolution when you have supportable evidence. Look, they're right - creationism is unscientific because it isn't falsifiable. It really is amazing that when one comes to understand this, how illuminated the entire creation/evolution controversy becomes. If you think that there is something about evolution that is anti-American, then I suggest you look at the age that you are living in. Everything nowadays is rationally interpreted. Not saying that's a good thing, that's just the way it is, and if you want to get anything accomplished in your favor, then Wikipedia IS NOT the place to do it. This is a place of rationality, not subjectivity. So take your bigotry and put it to better use elsewhere. Salva 14:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Zooooooooooooooooom *splat* ;-) - FlyingOrca 15:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I always wondered what sound a flyingorca made ;-) --Ignignot 15:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Pardon me, Salva, but I thought you were a creationist, indicated by the barnstar you gave me. Scorpionman 12:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * One can be a creationist and still recognize that is falls outside science and that there is no evidence against evolution. That's what we've been trying to explain to you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do we have to get into this again? I was asking Salva a question. Scorpionman 01:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. Thx, I almost laughed my head off when I heard your comment "Why do you hate America?"! I have no idea what you're talking about and it's so hilarious! Scorpionman 01:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Personal conversations in which outside participation is not desired are probably better held on user talk pages rather than on article talk pages. — Knowledge Seeker দ


 * I believe "Why do you hate America?" is a reference to The Colbert Report. --Cyde Weys 14:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I know this isn't the right place but can someone explain that joke to a non-american like myself?


 * The Colbert Report is a parody of right-wing American news commentators, especially Bill Reily. Colbert frequently has left-wing guests on his show and routinely asks them or claims he will ask them why they hate America. This is a parody of certain commentators tendencies to equate any disagreements with them to deep-rooted hatred of America. JoshuaZ 01:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Who cares........
 * This guy

Layout
As you may have noticed, I've made some major edits to the article recently, copyediting the top few sections and fiddling with the section layout. I'm now wondering what you think about this potential layout:


 * History of evolutionary thought (to give a historical context to the modern understanding of evolution)
 * Science of evolution (to clearly define evolution and explain its current study)
 * Modern synthesis (to delve into explaining modern evolutionary theory)
 * Evidence of evolution (now that the process and theory of evolution have been thoroughly defined and explained, the evidence is provided and explained)
 * Misconceptions about modern evolutionary biology (addressing popular (mis)understandings of evolution)
 * Social and religious controversies (and a wrap-up on the general social and cultural perspectives on evolution)

The only thing that's troubling me is where "Ancestry of organisms/History of life" fits into the overall layout and flow of this article. It doesn't seem to fit into any larger section; it was previously categorized under "Evidence", but clearly doesn't belong there, as it's providing details regarding the progression of evolution itself throughout the history of the world, not just providing evidence for evolution. Any ideas? -Silence 17:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I would put them in a different order, but any order that seems resonable (and yours seems reasonable) is ok by me. Second, "Ancestry of organisms/History of life" deserves the same status as the six you named above. Evolution over billions of years has shaped everything we value. Seven is not too many. WAS 4.250 17:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you would put them in a different order, I'd love to hear it. The order I presented above is just a suggestion. And, if "Ancestry of organisms/History of life" deserves a top-level section, (1) what should that section be called, and (2) between which two sections should it go? That's what I found tricky; if it could fit under "Modern synthesis", that would probably be best organizationally, but obviously we can't do that if that section goes beyond describing modern evolutionary synthesis. -Silence 18:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I only know what I like. I like definitions first; then simple stuff and story-like structure (time sequence, cause and effect sequence, you know - linear stuff); then the interdependent complex-interaction technical stuff last. WAS 4.250 19:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambig notice at top of page
Also, an unrelated question: the dab notice claims that "This article is about the scientific theory of evolution in biology", but isn't this actually the article about the scientific process of biology, just like biological reproduction is about a process, not a theory? The page for the "theory of evolution in biology" is surely modern evolutionary synthesis. Have I misunderstood what this page is about? -Silence 19:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It was recently changed. I changed it back pending resolution here on the talk page. WAS 4.250 22:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)