Talk:Evolution/Archive 18

Uhh... ok...
Why isn't there a criticism section? Creationism has one, why not evolution too? It seems this article was created by evolutionists to show that evolution is true, and not just give facts! Wikipedia needs to start being neutral! And this article is not neutral at ALL. Actually, all of Wikipedia isn't neutral! Wikipedia should be neutral. This says: "This happened", but it SHOULD, to be neutral, say: "According to evolution, this happened" or something of the sort. I think we need to start a criticism section at the evolution article too! I can see every other theory of how the universe started has one, why souldnt the evolution article have one too?

But my main complaint is no criticism section. And there is a lot of criticism for evo., too... so don't say there isn't


 * The "Intelligent Design vs. Evolution" debate has become a political issue, so don't expect the most popular side to admit that there is a controversy in science. They will always tell you that the controversy exists outside of science in order to score points. --DavidPesta 13:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It always becomes complicated once scientific theory meets the political landscape. In the end, the political battle does not address the scientific merit of a theory, but rather if it fits within the laws of the country.  In the case of ID, their impact on politics was tested in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, where the judge found that "intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature."  Now notice that this did not address the supposed contreversy in evolution.  The trial rather addressed if ID was religion.  But the idea of there being a contraversy in evolution science was brought up in the trial, but it was deemed slander, as no supporting material was given.  Of course, a law of a country has absolutly no effect on scientific validity, so if you have scientific evidence that shows that the core ideas of evolution are under debate in the scientific community, I'd like to see it, as ID, with its considerable research capaciy, could not dig it up and present at the trial.--Roland Deschain 14:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See the section titled Evolution. There is no scientific controversy surrounding evolution, I'm afraid, so there would be little point in including a section on such criticism. Our Evolution also deals with this issue. -- Ec5618 16:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

NCartmell 17:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is HUGE scientific controversy regarding macro-evolution, "I'm afraid". See the website www.Reasons.org, which also has quite a few websites linked.  I don't know what rock you lived under, but evolution has been disputed since it was first postulated, and solid scientific research has bolstered that opposition...not to mention the many failures of evolution-scientists in creating life, making the correct proteins, etc.


 * Similar discussions seems to pop up frequently. For this specific case: Reasons.org is not a scientific site, but a religious one. Therefore the many linked sites may represent a biased overview (hence scientically not acceptable). The failure of scientists to create life can also be posed as evidence in favour of evolution (given a huge amount of time (typically several hunds of millions of years) and space (a while planet) life may evolve). Intelligent designers (evolution scientists) cannot do this! That the theory has been disputed does not matter. So where the Copernican / Galilei world view (world is not center of universe). And religions (including Christianity by e.g. the Romans) have also been disputed since their first postulation. Staying withing the boundaries of (relevant) sciences; evolution is not disputed. Arnoutf 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no scientific controversy regarding evolution. While there may be a social/religious controversy about it, there is absolutely no scientific controversy. That's why it's entirely appropriate that the article mentions these social/religious controversies whilst omitting the pseudo-scientific "arguments" against evolution. There is no "solid scientific research" bolstering the opinion that evolution does not exist, no matter how solid its critics believe it to be. Lastly, there is no such thing as "macroevolution" - what creationists call macroevolution is simply looking at a large tract of evolutionary history and the resulting larger-scale developments as opposed to the small, incremental developments that produced it in the mistaken belief that the two are somehow seperate. This article is fine as it is and getting better with each contribution. JF Mephisto 15:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You may not choose to believe that evolution has no scientific controversy, but there is some out there. Like, how it goes against the second law of thermodynamics and stuff


 * But it doesn't. Those're just creationist talking points which have been widely debunked.  Guettarda 18:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, what about the "and stuff"? You haven't debunked that. Graft 18:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's true. Like Joan Roughgarden on homosexuality.  Now there's a controversy I'd love to see the creationists teach ;)  Guettarda 20:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone who thinks that the Second Law of Thermodynamics somehow makes evolution impossible either doesn't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics or evolution, and most likely both. Besides, evolution is an absolute, observable fact - if a scientific law somehow contradicted it, the law would be incorrectly formulated. It's like saying that there could be a theoretical concept that makes it impossible for the earth to orbit the sun. (Not that evolution does contradict the Second Law).JF Mephisto 20:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved User:P bodemeister's questions about evolution to User talk:P bodemeister. Someone please go there and see if you can answer his questions


 * Ec5618, I understand your concerns but the fact is it's useless arguing with evolutionist Wikipedians. They're bullheaded and won't hear any argument except their own. You should hear some of the responses I've gotten by posting the same complaint. You see, the users on here are absolutely convinced that evolution is an "absolute, observable fact" and get extremely irritated when someone suggests otherwise. I've wasted hours and hours arguing with these fools and frankly I don't want to anymore. So I would get off this article and not pay any more attention to what these marshmallow-heads are writing. Scorpionman 19:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice to see you back, Scorpionman. Please remember WP:AGF.  And I think you replied to the wrong person; Ec5618 specifically wrote, There is no scientific controversy surrounding evolution.  bikeable (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the other guy didn't sign his comment. Okay, I change my comment to "Whoever you are, I understand your concerns..." As for Ec5618, you are one of the most bullheaded people I've ever met, saying there's no controversies regarding evolution. The fact that there are scientists (Yes, scientists) who disagree with it make it controversial. Saying that it's not is like saying there's no controversy regarding sugar's effect on the body. Scorpionman 03:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Euhm I am a scientist (yes a scientist) but I would not dare to take any of my own criticisms seriously with regard to physics, mechanical engineering, history of arts etc. etc. The bottom line is that only a scientist who is specialised in the topic should be taken seriously. Arnoutf 10:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright Scorpionman, firstly, please abide by WP:NPA. Secondly, you said that 'evolutionists' "won't hear any argument except their own". In the interests of fairness then, please give your argument. If your argument is that some scientists disagree with evolution (or find it lacking), then please read Arnoutf's comment above. If it isn't, then I'd like to hear your arguments. -- Ec5618 10:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Scorpionman has yet to bring up a halfway decent criticism of evolution. Yes there are scientists opposed to the theory, but 99.9 percent of scientists in the relvant field accept it and as of yet there hasn't been a peer reviewed article that has shown there to be any such flaws.  The ID nonsense has been debunked for some time and the fact you hurl insults at us because you cannot back up your claims is disappointing.  There is no scientific controversy in evolution.  The science is as solid as it gets, with Macro and micro evolution having an amazing plethora of evidence behind them.  The only scientists against evolution are religious ones hwo use the bible above science and who redefine words in order to attack strawman.  Look at answersingenesis.com for the most ridiculous redefining of terms in order to attack strawmen you might ever see. Keio]  July 23 Note: This comment was actually left by [[User:68.105.170.181.


 * People don't seem to grasp the fact that the theory of evolution is, just that, a theory; no matter how intelligent it might be. There are many unexplained areas of the evolutionist theory and much room for speculation. Many people today accept evolution becuase they think "all the smart people do, the scientists." Really, some in favor of evolution seem to be turning even more dogmatic than most creationists.--Salty Morton 22:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, no, not really. Evolution is an observation, and thus, in common speech, a fact.  The observation isn't always obvious without the use of tools, the accuracy of which you can question.  But that doesn't make evolution any less of a fact than the existence of cells or the fact that Saturn is a planet.  Anti-evolutionists question stratigraphy and dating techniques, they question gene trees, etc., and use this to question evolution.  They could just as well question the science behind the electron microscope and use that to declare that the existence of cellular organelles is nothing more than an artefact of EM.  While there are missing observations, the facts of evolution are pretty clear cut.  On the other hand, there are theories of how evolution works.  And yes, the idea that natural selection brings about evolutionary change is "just a theory".  But evolution per se is an observation, not a theory.  Guettarda 22:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In the same way that gravitation is an observation, and Newton's theory is just a theory: a theory in crisis at that, with unexplained areas! Only those dashed dogmatists reject Intelligent Falling. ..dave souza, talk 23:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I simply mean to say that people seem to put an aspect of blind faith into Evolutionism, as it were. As if to criticize it at all would be blasphemous, or that there would be no point at all in doing so. Many today believe in evolution in the same baseless way many believe in creationism; they do so because their teachers tell them that the smart people do - and many other reasons, as with everything. If there is genuine, sourced, scientifically sound criticism of the Theory, let it be noted in the article. If there is not, then there is no point in this entire discussion. --Salty Morton 02:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Some people may take evolution on blind faith. However there is ample supporting argument and evidence if they wish to investigate further. They can certainly find plenty of supporting evidence.
 * If there is genuine, sourced, scientifically sound criticism of the Theory, let it be noted in the article. If there is not, then there is no point in this entire discussion. Indeed. --Michael Johnson 02:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no scientific research that contradicts the basic core points about of evolution which this article describes. Finer points of evolution theory are still being research and, as with any current scientific field, hotly debated; but each of the contradicting viewpoints in those debates still fit within the core idea of evolution.  I strongly disagree that Many today believe in evolution in the same baseless way many believe in creationism.  Those who blindly believe in evolution are just as ignorant and conceited as those who dogmatically believe in creationism.  The big difference for me is that creationist consistantly rely on half-truths, deceptions, double speak, ignorance of the subject matter, etc etc.  Scientists do not have that advantage of deception.  Everything a scientists claims has already been published in paper form and cannot be changed.  His/her lies are easy to pick up and even easier to show.  I believe in evolution not because my teacher told me to, but because I cannot come up with a better theory that explains all the facts that science has uncovered.--Roland Deschain 02:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It has been criticized, since its proposal, and the subsequent criticisms have allowed us scientists to better shape the theory of evolution as a coherent model that both explains and predicts the behavior and structure of physical systems in the natural world. This is why it has been elevated to the status of theory, and not a mere hypothesis - and this Wiki article reflects this quite well.  The problem with adding a huge swath of criticism in this Wiki article here is that such a section must include the information not already addressed by the theory of evolution as it stands, it must provide alternative physical explanations for biological systems, and it must also make predictions which can be tested.  To date, all of these have been addressed by evolution, and there is no current theory, including intelligent design which is internally consistent *and* consistent with physics and chemistry, that supplants evolution.  Therefore such a section should not, by Wiki's standards, be granted a portion of this article.  The quality of the article stands upon the merits of the topic.  Why is there no alternative outcry in the gravitation or electromagnetism articles?  Both of those have the same standards and status as this article does and should.  Astrobayes 02:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole point is not about whether the criticism actually exists or not. The original poster of this topic was talking about achieving an NPOV and, apparently thinking in black and white, he reasoned that if the creationist article has a criticism section, that this should to. He also stated that the article should not contain wording such as "This did happen this way" (though, he seemed to be thinking as if the theory were on trial here).

On those grounds, ask yourself: "Is there no criticism listed in the article because none exists or because its listing is unwanted?" Its about having an NPOV. It uses wording in several places that state a view in a manner as if to say "this is the one and only truth". It might be, and to most of you it is. Would you consider it NPOV to say it like that? I would say its a matter of opinion, but baseless viewpoints shouldn't cause the article to become filled with wording that attempts to bring "politically correctness".--Salty Morton 03:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no scientific critisism of evolution, and as you said yourself If there is not, then there is no point in this entire discussion.. There is a controversy within the religious community, between those who accept evolution, and those who prefer the creationist story. The latter certainly attempt to attack evolution, however that is not scientific critisism. This is covered in the article, and in other articles such as Creation-evolution controversy. --Michael Johnson 03:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. What I want to particularly point out is not to let the article be influenced by religious, political, or social views in any way, but on scientific fact alone. Keep making sure that it isn't influenced by those other things. Either by yourselves or others. --Salty Morton 03:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on a 2001 Gallup poll where 45% of Americans reject macro-evolution, there is reason, IMO, to make a more significant note of the extreme controversy over this issue. Many of you on the opposing side will propably mentally respond to the previous statement by noting that the beliefs of the public are irrelevant, as you believe that there is no controversy in the scientific community. I believe that anyone who disagrees with evolutionary theory will be labelled by you (those who believe in evolutionary theory, collectively) as someone biased, basing their beliefs on religion. I believe you therefore would not give them the title of scientist, regardless of their claim to it. Therefore, in your mind, there is absolutely no controversy in the scientific community regarding evolution, as anyone who doesn't believe in evolution cannot be a scientist. Correct me if my assumptions are wrong regarding the proponents of evolutionary theory, but don't bore me with the obvious response that non-evolutionists don't have any good arguments, as your belief that they don't have good arguments is logically biased. Also, when you pro-evolutionists say that evolution is observable, I am uncertain as to what you mean. Surely you don't mean that anyone has observed one kind of animal changing into another kind before there eyes. Assuming evolutionary theory and its time-scale is correct, it should be impossible for anyone to observe a change like that. If you do mean that, prove it. If you don't mean that, explain what you do mean. I am new to Wikipedia discussion, so if I'm breaking any rules here in my methods, please correct me. Mister Magotchi 11:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Therefore, in your mind, there is absolutely no controversy in the scientific community regarding evolution, as anyone who doesn't believe in evolution cannot be a scientist. "
 * That's not the thought process at all. The fact is that in the biological literature, there are no papers or studies that cast doubt on the theory of evolution. It's not a matter of bias, it's a matter of research.


 * "Also, when you pro-evolutionists say that evolution is observable, I am uncertain as to what you mean. Surely you don't mean that anyone has observed one kind of animal changing into another kind before there eyes.  Assuming evolutionary theory and its time-scale is correct, it should be impossible for anyone to observe a change like that. "
 * It certainly is possible, because many organisms have life cycles of just a few hours, so evolution in populations of those organisms can be studied over the course of decades instead of millions of years as required for longer-lived organisms. But direct observation isn't the only way science is done, otherwise we couldn't do geology either. The fossil record provides most of the evidence of different species, genera, etc. evolving from common ancestors.


 * Popular opinion is irrelevant to science, because science works by repeatable, published research. When Galileo published his observations of planetary motion popular opinion overwhelmingly disagreed with him, but he was still right. Popular opinion about evolution in the United States is noted in the article under "social and religious contraversies", with links to other Wikipedia articles about this conflict. thx1138 11:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody who has any solid knowledge of the methods of science and who ever read a creationist book and looked up what the sources quoted there really say, would call the author a scientist. Creationist books are full of misrepresentations and very basic errors of fact. That is the reason they are not regarded as scientists, not their position. This is not a belief of mine, it's knowledge, because that's what I did. Bias is irrelevant - I can tell if a quote suddenly seems to say something completely different from what it said before being ripped out of context, and I can compare creationist descriptions of evolution with scientists' descriptions of evolution and recognize the former as strawmen. Also, your "one kind of animal changing into another" is an extremely stupid misrepresentation of evolution. --Hob Gadling 11:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly this is an article about Evolution, a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth. There is an article about the creation-evolution controversy, and there are a number of articles about the various creationist theories. Why clog an already extensive, long technical article with a debate that has been covered elsewhere?


 * People are not given the title "scientist", they earn it through persuing a course of study, then producing a body of original research, by which they add to the sum of human knowedge. A scientist who publishes evidence that goes against commonly accepted views is of course met with skeptisism, but a Nobel Prize awaits the first to publish evidence that disproves evolution. Trouble is no-one has.


 * No-one here has to prove anything. All we have to do, in this case, is explain the most recent scientific theory, and reference it. In any case we don't need to directly observe something to be able to infer that it exists from other evidence. No-one was able to observe that the earth was a sphere until space flight in the 1960's, however ancient Greeks (and maybe even Egyptians) were able to determine that from their observation of other planitary bodies. And I bet a Gallop poll of ancient Greeks would have found that 45% of them thought the earth was flat. --Michael Johnson 12:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, evolution itself isn't observable. The age of the planet, the DNA similairities between humans and apes - these things do not prove evolution. What is observable is "mutation", which is considered "microevolution" by many in the scientific field. However, this is deemed Microevolution on the basis that it will one day become "Macroevolution". There is no physical proof that this has happend or that it ever will. 70 years have passed and breeding has yet to prove that Macroevolution (and therefore, Microevolution) exists; if anything, it shows that Mutation makes things weakers. --Salty Morton 15:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * False. Salty Morton, your post contains several factual errors and serves no purpose. Please refrain from stating falsehooods as facts. If you have questions, ask them. But don't state these things as fact. For the record, we have already discussed, debunked, and dismissed such claims. The chemical processes that cause what you call microevolution are the same processes that cause macroevolution. They have been modeled. Even if it were true that no 'macroevolution' has ever been observed, we could safely deduce that 'microevolution' if given enough time, would yield 'macroevolution'.
 * On top of that, consider that millions of experiments have been done in this field, and tangentially related fields, each of which could have yielded results incompatible with evolution, have yielded results in line with evolutionary theory. Excavation has brought missing-links to light that fit in with what evolution has predicted. -- Ec5618 15:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would disagree that evolution of some sort has been observed in microorganisms. For the creationists out there, how many kinds of bacteria are there? They have far more diversity than the animals and plants combined. David D. (Talk) 15:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Answer me this question Salty Morton. The fact that chimps and humans have the highest DNA similarity between any other two organisms fits perfectly with the predictions of the theory of evolution. Now, it's true that this fact alone does not alone hold up the thoery of evolution (there are 150 years of study across all scientific fields that do that). But my question is this: what hypothesis do you offer that explains the fact that chimps and humans share such great DNA similarities. That's how science is done. Hypothesis are proposed and the better survives. Propose a better to explain this finding.--Roland Deschain 15:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly is false? I state that there is no physical proof of Macroevolution. There isn't. Microevolution is merely a theory based on the idea that Macroevolution exists. In reality, Microevolution is just Mutation with the theoretical expectation of Macroevolution. What you call "missing links" only account for the existence of species and extinction. It isn't highly publicized due to politics, but extensive breeding has never yielded a decent result. If it has, please feel free to source your claim.


 * Roland, I am not here to debate for a theory. I'm not exactly sure what the similarities mean. If I gave any examples of what people who believe in ID or Creationism think, you would consider that unscientific because it is remotely based on the non-Material. Scientific Theory is really based around Evolution; one could not argue for the viewpoints of ID or Creationism using it, because Scientific Theory is fundamentally based around rejecting Creationism and ID.--Salty Morton 15:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, but there is physical proof of macroevolution. Have you bothered looking this up? Our article on macroevolution states that macroevolution is the process of evolution that leads to speciation. The article on speciation lists, among other things, a link to talkorigins.org, which lists a number of observed instances of speciation. As you may not be aware, several species of fruit fly have been created in labs. These species are unable to procreate with eachother, making them different 'kinds'. -- Ec5618 15:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "What exactly is false? I state that there is no physical proof of Macroevolution." Well done, you've correctly identified one falsehood.
 * "In reality, Microevolution is just Mutation with the theoretical expectation of Macroevolution." This is, at best, a half-truth. Evolution is the scientific theory that explains how mutations can change life over time.  So of course it involves mutation.
 * "What you call "missing links" only account for the existence of species and extinction. It isn't highly publicized due to politics, but extensive breeding has never yielded a decent result. If it has, please feel free to source your claim." I don't understand the claim you're making here, but you seem to be saying that breeding does not lead to positive results.  If that is, indeed, what you're saying, you should look into the history of dogs (just as a random example).  [If you really understood evolution, I'd point out that breeding and evolution are related concepts but have a few important distinctions, and that these distinctions would certainly lead to less favorable traits than unfettered evolution.]
 * "Roland, I am not here to debate for a theory. I'm not exactly sure what the similarities mean. If I gave any examples of what people who believe in ID or Creationism think, you would consider that unscientific because it is remotely based on the non-Material." Uh oh, your language is betraying your bias again.  Before you engage in this conversation, you should try to understand the actual theory of evolution, not the straw man version you've been fed so that you'll believe that anything else has any scientific merit.  By "Material", you mean "observable" (or maybe "verifiable"), and, yes, something does have to be observable (and verifiable) before it can be considered scientific.  Since evolution is both (despite your claims to the contrary, which I notice you offer no proof of), it is scientific.
 * "Scientific Theory is really based around Evolution; one could not argue for the viewpoints of ID or Creationism using it, because Scientific Theory is fundamentally based around rejecting Creationism and ID." This sentence makes no sense, because you're misusing several words. A more accurate way to express what you're trying to say is "Evolution is the only theory which has stood up to rigorous scientific testing; nobody has ever offered a definition of Creationism or Intelligent Design which was scientific, which is to say none of are verifiable independent of the Holy Book of choice of the given creationist.  Since science is fundamentally based around rejecting non-scientific theories, no scientist has ever put forth any serious contention that Creationism or Intelligent Design is responsible for the origins of life."
 * ThatGuamGuy 17:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)sean

Fruit flies subheader
I like this picture so much, I'm going to show it again today. It nicely illustrates a breeding experiment where two separate "species" were created in the lab (click on the figure for a more comprehensive description, reference, etc.) :



--Plumbago 16:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you actually seen a picture of these fruit fly before? Some are so hideously deformed from one another; but in a matter body shape, they are still fruit flies. I'm not perticularly versed on mutated fruit fly mating, but it seems as if it has something to do with the deformation in the fruit fly. Perhaps I should research more into the fruit flies.--Salty Morton 16:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about. Have you read the research paper.  You are either completly clueless about the nature of the experiments and its results or are outright trying to mislead the people.  Read the research and then comment.--Roland Deschain 16:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's my pre-reading the research paper speculation based on observation. Although it was pointless it was not intended to misslead anyone. Here's to being clueless! --Salty Morton 16:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What's that got to do with it? If the two "strains" of flies stop breeding with one another for morphological reasons (which, note, don't stop them breeding with themselves), why's that significant?  The experiment's artificial, yes, but it demonstrates what you're after pretty well.  Sounds like you're trying to excuse this example with a dubious argument about "deformation".  I suspect that no amount of evidence will convince you that macroevolution and speciation occur naturally (which, to be honest, we should have seen coming given that you raised macroevolution as distinct from microevolution in the first place).  Oh well.  --Plumbago 16:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if the fruit flies were unable to breed at all that would indicate that they weren't really a new species, as much as they are deformed fruit flies. Though, if they are able to breed among their own and not with the other, this would indicate that they are a new species. Of course, if deformities did exist it could possibly cause, in some way, a detraction between the flies that might stop them from wanting to mate, but not making them unable to procreate. One could also argue that perhaps it was the human interference alone that would have caused the new species. This does not carry weight. Is this the only physical scenario of Species Evolution? Has this situation occurred in a creature other than the fruit fly?

Edit: Anyway, like I said before. Isn't it still just a fruit fly? I was incorrectly saying "species" when "kind" or "genus" was the intended arguement; in informal language, species and genus are often used to refer to the same things, which admittedly had me confused. The genetic mutations so far only remain within the genus of animal that is expiremented on.


 * Perhaps we should devide this discussion into sub catigories. It has greatly devearged from the main topic. Now we are talking about "is evolution observable?" which also seems to have sprouted its own subtopics. --Salty Morton 17:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Salty Morton, this is exactly my point. Please don't make statements about what you feel is scientific fact, without doing some checking. You may not agree that evolution is supported by the fossil record, genetic evidence, and countless millions of independent experiments, but please make an effort to make sure you don't make false claims. Some of the claims made to creation science proponents have been debunked to such an extent that major creation science proponents have stopped using them (see this page from Answers in Genesis for example), yet somehow those misconceptions live on in (quite frankly) ignorant statements made by people such as yourself. Do yourself and your cause a favour, please. -- Ec5618 17:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not have a "cause". I'm not here to promote creationism, neither am I a creationist. I just don't believe that there is ample evidence suggesting Evolution. Many of the claims supporting Evolution have also been used by others to suggest ID or Creation. Creationism is, in my opinion, nothing more than a political agenda based on ignorance. I want to shed some doubt upon Evolution, and I would on Creationism as well if I could stand religious debates. I just feel that there is no consistent evidence to form beyond reasonable doubt an agreement about something concerning the origin of life; it is fine to have opinion, but to hold anything as fact that is only observed in part, or, controversially, not observed at all, is foolish. --Salty Morton 17:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You do not understand how science works. If you have problems with the scientific method, go to that topic and complain.  If not, the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory and, more than that, it is the most powerfull theory in all of biology.  This statement is backed up with many sources throughout the article.  If you want to change that, you will have to provide contradicting sources.  If you just want to discuss your feelings on evolution, do it somewhere else.--Roland Deschain 20:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm discussing my intentions. Just because I said that I "feel" that the theory does not have proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that such feeling was ascertained by the tingles of goose bumps. You seem to imply that anyone who does not agree with the theory of evolution speaks without logic at all. I naturally do not disagree with it being a valid theory under the scientific method. I disagree with its accuracy; but I do not think that there is currently enough evidence to disavow it, just as much as there isn't enough to fully prove it. Indeed, it may be one of the only, or the only, means to explaining the origin of life; but I would not think it the only avenue. In a few years, new evidence might come around that points to something that is completely unheard of today.--Salty Morton 20:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm implying exactly the opposite. If you disagree with evolution, provide evidence for why you think so.  This site is not meant for discussion based on ones feelings.  You must have verifiable sources.  See WP:V, No original research, and Citing sources.--Roland Deschain 20:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

And everybody is forgetting about the best proof that large scale evolution (macroevolution is an arcade term clung to by creationists): the fossil evidence shows quite clearly that organisms have undergone large but gradual changes: best exemplified by the hoarse evolution skeleton and the evolution from amphibians to reptiles. Now the challange is not to see weather or not large scale evolution happened, but rather what the molecular mechanism is.--Roland Deschain 16:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Pardon me, the fossil record shows no such thing. You think that just because you find a couple of fossils that you think show a major transition means that macroevolution is true? The Tiktaalik is just a fish, and the Archaeopteryx is just a bird with teeth and claws. Now will you please stop talking nonsense?! 67.150.219.8 15:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Tiktaalik. Did you know that this 'just a fish' had a neck? No fish in existence today has a neck. And see Archaeopteryx. No bird in existence today has teeth. Can you imaging how people might conclude that these are missing links? How can you know they are not? -- Ec5618 15:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, the arguement by 67.150.219.8 is clearly a Straw man.--Roland Deschain 16:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * They are not missing links because, basically, they are each an normal animal. Sure, birds today don't have teeth. So what? Maybe a few birds back then had teeth! Good grief. And about this neck...For all of these so called "transitional" features, it was basically a fish. Do you think it could get out of the water and walk about on land? Let me ask you, how do you suppose it would have survived a gill-to-lung transition? It wouldn't have. It wouldn't have been able to breathe in either air or water and the species would have died. How can you explain that? You can't. 66.52.222.96 21:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Every single point you made is an Argument from ignorance. Every single point you made of missing evidence is actually void because such evidence has been FOUND.--Roland Deschain 21:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Several species of animal can hold their breaths for extended periods of time. So an animal with gills could travel onto land. In fact, such animals exist today. This would have been a great advantage to the animal, as it would have been one of the first animals to come onto land, which means it was pretty much safe from any predators.
 * Please, you cannot keep insisting that no transitional forms exist. This is an animal that is basically half fish, half mammal. If you had to describe it, you could do so by describing is a fish with mammal traits, or as a mammal with fish traits. This is a perfect transitional form.
 * Oh, and just so we're clear, I hope you realise that this specific animal wouldn't have had to survive some sort of gruesome transformation from having gills to having lungs. This change would happen gradually over millions of years, as the gills (which as you know are very effective at oxygenising blood while wet) became better suited to keeping the animal alive while it was out in the open air. -- Ec5618 21:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What are we talking about here, the Creature from the Black Lagoon?!
 * Did you read the replies. Your Creature from the Black Lagoon is right BEHIND you, ready to eat away your angel wings (gotta reply to one senseless post a day).--Roland Deschain 05:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh my. I'm so scared. What replies are you talking about?! 66.52.217.19 16:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay first, evolution is a theory, which means that it is a way of explaining facts or phenomena. By it is unproven, so it is certainly not the only possibility when considering how we and all other living things got here; but by definition it is widely accepted, probably backed up by large amounts of evidence, and generally can be used to make predictions.  A number of the posters here are talking about proof of evolution.  As far as I know, there is proof that evolution can work, and a large amount of evidence that evolution has occured, but no proof showing indisputably that evolution has occured.  If anyone here knows of indisputable proof that evolution has occured (not merely strong evidence), post it, but be sure to post it with at least one verifiable source to back it up. 18:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)BlueScreenD
 * "...there is proof that evolution can work, and a large amount of evidence that evolution has occured, but no proof showing indisputably that evolution has occured."
 * Science cannot give indisputable proof. Science must allow for the fact that a second from now evidence can come up that will totally shatter any theory, be it as widely supported as gravity or evolution.  Read up on how science works before making these types of comments.  Only creationists can claim that they have the ultimate truth that will last unchanged for all eternity.  In short, as of this moment all scientific evidence supports the core idea of the theory of evolution, but tomorrow evidence may come up that puts requires a changing of the theory.  If you can find scientific research that invalidates evolution, please be free to post it.  As to evidence for evolution, the article does a nice job of showing the general large scientific findings that validate the theory of evolution.--Roland Deschain 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: Don't use the "evolution is a theory phrase. It's an ageold creationist term that shows that person's ignorance of the scientific method.--Roland Deschain 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Creationists are perhaps the wisest people in that area of the scientific method. Stop giving me that dumb expression and stop waving me off (which you are undoubtedly doing). It's true. Science was advanced far more by Young Earth creationists than by evolutionists. Before that ol' theory came along, virtually every scientist was a creationist. Why they turned into evolutionists is beyond me, but it's all part of an attempt to remove God from our schools and laboratories. It's part of relativism, which would allow us to do whatever we wish because "there is no absolute morality". And should you say "not all evolutionists are atheists", only true evolutionists are atheists. You can't mix evolution with the Bible because it doesn't work. The Bible doesn't allow for evolution. 67.150.212.43 17:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please take your preaching somewhere else. I wave you off because you are the stereotype of a creationist: one that does not understand the theory of evolution and rejects is out of ignorance.  I'm a Christian like you, but I still see no problem in the validity of the theory of evolution-Roland Deschain 18:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article, not the merits or demerits of evolution itself. Please take this elsewhere unless you have specific suggestions for improving the article. Make sure your suggestions are in accordance with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV when you do please. --Davril2020 18:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Distinctions between theory and fact section
Is there a reason for an entire section for this topic in an evolution article? I understand that a common misconception is that evolution is only a theory, but the way this article goes into the topic is overkill.
 * The Creation-evolution controversy already has a much better explanation of the subject matter and is a far more appropriate topic for such discussion.
 * The whole section (excluding the last paragraph) is not even about the theory of evolution or the facts about evolution, but rather a nice summery that would fit much better in topics such as Theory and Science
 * The entire paragraph is misplaced. It should be in the Misconceptions section (where it originally was) as it is a misconception used by layman against evolution.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we should just delete the entire section (the last paragraph can be put somewhere close to the intro). The subject is prevalent enough to be addressed in this topic. But I defiantly want this section reduced to two or three sentences with links to the relevant topics and moved to the misconception section. I'm planning to do this myself but I'll just throw it out here and see if there's too much resistance for me to even start worrying about it. But I definitely want some counterarguments as to why keep it as it is and where it is before I back down. --Roland Deschain 01:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your logic is impeccable. The problems is the politics of the situation. "It is only a theory" is the first and most common abuse thrown at Evolution by creationists, and it is easily accepted by the layman. To give an example, I was listening to a girl attending an Islamic school being interviewed on the radio. When asked how she handled studies of things like evolution, her answer was "My textbook says evolution is only a theory, while Islam is a fact. So I believe in Islam". So I think this question does need to be addressed up front. --Michael Johnson 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've finished changing this section to my satisfaction. Basically, I've removed all the hand-feeding sentences. I still really don't like the Truth/Fact section, but I can't see how to improve it without rewriting it and with this page, a rewrite will require a lot of effort and arguing. (Ideally, this section should simply state: evolution is observable fact and theory of evolution explains why these facts are observed. For more info go to Theory vs. Fact.  --Roland Deschain 03:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

TFA includes a Dodgy Sentence
"For instance, monotremes and most marsupials are found only in Australia, showing that their common ancestor with placental mammals lived before the submerging of the ancient land bridge between Australia and Asia."

This sentence is incorrect on several levels.

First, there never has been a land bridge between Australia and Asia. The Wiki Page for the Prehistory_of_Australia describes the existence of the Sahul landmass which combined modern Australia and New Guinea, but never any part of Asia. The error is not minor, as it was the observation of the Wallace Line by Alfred_Russel_Wallace which was instrumental to the development of his thinking about evolution.
 * The Plate tectonics article states that Australia was fused with India 50 to 55 million years ago. That's also what I remember from my geography class (God, were they boring)


 * True enough, and the earliest fossil evidence for monotremes is about 110 million years so expect some  monotreme fossils to show up in India. But for the purposes of the exercise (which is explaining the evidence for evolution we observe in the geographic distribution of branches of the tree of life) the relevant land bridge is the Australia / New Guinea one.


 * You are confusing me. You said "there never has been a land bridge between Australia and Asia." and I showed that statement to be false.  You never mentioned land bridges between Australia and New Guinea and how that affects the evolutionary tree observed.  I think your objection is a little bit too specific for such a general article.  You'd be much better of going to a more specific topic.  However, if you insist on changing this article, please provide some scientific papers to back up the statements.  I am quite familiar with this topic and something about your comments doesn't add up to me.--Roland Deschain 22:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Steady up, chap. I'm struggling with this wiki-medium. So forgive my blunders (plonking the post in the wrong place, etc). And I'm a long way from being an expert in this field, which is why I don't really feel comfortable changing the article myself. I don't believe there's anything particularly cutting edge about what I'm saying. All I'm doing is pointing to some inconsistencies between Wiki pages, and trying to make a suggestion for how they might be resolved, while at the same time strengthening TFA.


 * The section in which the 'offending' sentence appears is describing evidence for evolution. The geographic distribution of monotremes--and specifically the 4 species of echidna--is really good evidence. There are species of echidna found in New Guinea, and other species found in Australia. There are no monotremes found anywhere else in the world. This suggests that there was an earlier, common ancestor, and that the submerging of the Australia / New Guinea land bridge prevented genetic recombination (which would mitigate against speciation) while allowing independent local adaption subject to local genetic drift.


 * I mentioned the Wallace Line because it's a useful example of the opposite phenomenon: small geographic distances associated with large biological distances. The geology of the Wallace line explains the biology. On side of the Wallace Line you have the Australian Plate, on the other the Eurasian Plate. And India is on it's own tectonic plate, which is moving north into the Eurasian plate. You have to go a long way back, in geological time, to find common ancestors for species either side of that line.


 * Further, we have no evidence at all (to my knowledge) for monotremes in India (or anywhere in Asia), so the existence (or non-existance) of a land bridge provides no evidence either way.

Second, the Monotremes page describes the current thought regarding the evolution of this order. Rather than being "[marsupial] common ancestor with placental mammals", monotremes are now thought to be an early branching, rather than a transitional form.
 * No beef there. Change the article, just make sure to provide some reference.--Roland Deschain 22:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest the following revision? It's a bit more precise. (Over-precise?)

"Other evidence used to demonstrate evolutionary lineages includes the geographical distribution of species. For instance, there are two distinct branches of the monotreme echidna, one found in Australia and other in New Guinea, showing that their common ancestor lived before the submerging of the ancient land bridge connecting Sahul."