Talk:Evolution/Archive 25

For consideration /
Original: The theory of natural selection was first set out in a joint presentation in 1858 of a pair of papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. If those traits are heritable, they are passed to the organisms' offspring, with the result that beneficial heritable traits become more common in the next generation.[2][4][5] Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.[6]

Maybe: The theory of natural selection was originally presented in 1858 in (separate) a pair of papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. The theory was later popularized in Darwin’s 1859 book, The Origin of Species. The process of Natural Selection increases the probability (chance) that organisms with favorable traits will survive and thus reproduce more offspring than their competitors with less desirable traits. If the favorable traits are heritable, they (are) may be passed to the offspring; thus, the trait becomes more common in the next generation. In time, this passive process results in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.

The strike throughs are optional proposals for the words enclosed in. Wasn't sure which would better serve since the change might be more than cosmetic. I'm not entirely sure I understand the intent of the last sentences so I left it intact. Up for consideration by the masses ... --Random Replicator 20:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How about:
 * The Theory of Natural Selection was originally presented in 1858 in two papers published together, one by Charles Darwin and one by Alfred Russell Wallace. The theory was later popularized in Darwin’s 1859 book, The Origin of Species. The process of natural selection is a mechanism that increases the chance that organisms with favorable characteristics will survive. The surviving organisms produce more offspring than their competitors with less desirable traits. If the favorable traits are heritable, they are passed to the offspring. Therefore, the favorable traits become more common in the next generation. In time, this passive process results in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.


 * I wonder about using the word "trait" 3 or 4 times. Can we vary this word at all or is it necessary to always use trait? Trait is more common in evolutionary biology of course, but is not really a common word if this text will be in an introductory paragraph. Just wondering...--Filll 20:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to ask WHY you think these are good substitutions:
 * Seperate instead of "pair of"; that's just silly. "Pair of" is clearer and is quite correct, and the papers were presented in a joint presentation.
 * Probability is a better word than chance because it is a probabilisitic process; the power of statistics is what drives the process.
 * May be passed on is correct; not all mutations are passed on. Titanium Dragon 21:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am guessing (just a guess however) that
 * separate instead of "pair of" is an attempt to make the situation clearer. I guess the implication of "pair of" might be that the two papers might have been joint authorship papers
 * Alright, fair enough. Titanium Dragon 21:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * chance might be easier for laypeople to understand
 * Probability is more accurate, though, and probability isn't that complicated of a word. Titanium Dragon 21:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not hard a hard word for you and me. But who is the intended audience?--Filll 22:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Also:
 * I would substitute the word "might" for the word "may" in the mutation sentence.--Filll 21:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really see any significant difference between might and may, honestly. Is there a reason to prefer one over the other which I'm missing? Titanium Dragon 21:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason to use "might" instead of "may" is that it is better English. In everyday usage, people use both words, as well as "can" or "could" to express possibility. In some versions of English and formal English, "may" is reserved for permission and "can" is reserved for ability. If you want to take a look at the various nuances and different versions, take a look at and   to start with, which I will point out do not agree with each other completely. Also take a look at or. I would probably choose "can", meaning "being able" as my first choice. Might to me suggests more stochasticity, or possibility, but maybe that is the sense that is needed here. May to me can be used to express both of these, but to me it still smacks more of permission. Could has more of a subjunctive feel and seems more complicated, although I am a bit uncertain. Sometimes if you publish in one place or another there will be a style manual that will dictate one usage over another. That is why professional editors exist. There is no hard and fast rule in many of these circumstances, and the rules change with time anyway. --Filll 22:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A bit of space to regroup my thoughts

Ok ... I'm not sure if that is a thumbs up or thumbs down but lets try again ... shall we?

One is the original ... one has been changed ... Do you know which is which? .... no cheating ... now which is the better A or B?

A. The theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the Linnean Society of London in 1858 in separate papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. The theory was later popularized in Darwin’s 1859 book, The Origin of Species. The process of natural selection is a mechanism that increases the chance that organisms with favorable characteristics will survive. Those that survive produce more offspring than their competitors with less desirable traits. If the favorable traits are heritable, they are passed to the offspring. Therefore, the favorable traits become more common in the next generation. In time, this passive process results in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.

vs.

B. The theory of natural selection was first set out in a joint presentation in 1858 of a pair of papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. If those traits are heritable, they are passed to the organisms' offspring, with the result that beneficial heritable traits become more common in the next generation. Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.

vs.

C. The theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the Linnean Society of London in 1858 in separate papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. The theory was later popularized in Darwin’s 1859 book, The Origin of Species. The mechanisms of natural selection increase the chances that organisms with favorable characteristics will survive. Those that survive produce more offspring than their competitors with less desirable traits. Therefore, the favorable traits become more common in the next generation. In time, this passive process results in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.

Should you see anything in the text of either choice, that is just plain "silly' by all means suggest an edit. --Random Replicator 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Plus: This issue may need even future clarifications: ie...  rework the first sentence for clarity ...

"Although Wallace had not requested that his essay be published, Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker decided to present the essay, together with excerpts from a paper that Darwin had written in 1844." Each had his own paper... yes? no? --Random Replicator 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I like A better, but disagree with some of the wording. Particularly, the sentence "If the favorable traits are heritable, they are passed to the offspring." It feels awkward. It seems like it'd be better to eliminate the sentence entirely, and just add "heritable" between "favorable" and "traits" in the next paragraph. Titanium Dragon 23:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember this was originally the opening of the article, so probably has more explanations than are now necessary. That said, though, should we just spin this article off? Adam Cuerden talk 00:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I like A a bit better. I might still change it a bit in small ways however. Where is this text supposed to be placed?--Filll 00:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Filll Fourth Paragraph Introduction. Option B should be verbatium cut and paste of the original.--Random Replicator 02:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * hehehehe  "A" is the new and improved version ... I tricked you didn't I.  Just kidding. You guys are way too intense.

Is the line about "heritable" essential for content. It reads better without it. Are we trying to avoid the pitfalls of Lamarckism and aquired characteristics. See Option C above and voice your opinions, Not to be biased but I like it without the line as Titanium suggest. A bigger question, will anyone be willing to make the actual change in the evolution bible, I've not the courage.--Random Replicator 02:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I like C best. I am not wild about using the word heritable in an introductory section. I also think you get rid of the word process which is probably better and makes a cleaner text.--Filll 03:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, a pedantic point: the 1859 title is On the Origin of Species. Bits of each are useful, so here's my suggestion: ... dave souza, talk 20:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

D. An outline of the theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the Linnean Society of London in 1858 in separate papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Detailed support for the theory was then set out in Darwin’s 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, which eventually convinced the scientific community that evolution occurs. Natural selection is the process in which individual organisms best adapted to their circumstances are more likely to survive and successfully reproduce. If the adaptations are passed on to the offspring, the favorable traits become more common in succeeding generations. In time, this passive process can result in cumulative adaptations to meet different environmental conditions, to the extent that a new species is formed resulting in a new species.


 * Slightly wordier. Not sure about the phrase "to the extent that". Can this be said simpler? Still, I like it. It is not easy work but I am learning a lot anyway, even if no one else is.--Filll 22:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, tried an alternative. .. dave souza, talk 23:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC) The bit "which eventually convinced the scientific community that evolution occurs" could be left out: it's arguable that evolution was already popularised by Vestiges of Creation, the importance of The Origin was that it convinced the scientists of evolution, though not of natural selection. Of course it also widened the popularity of evolution. .. dave souza, talk 23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Here's a shorter mark II version dave souza, talk 23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC) :

D2. An outline of the theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the Linnean Society of London in 1858 in separate papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Detailed support for the theory was then set out in Darwin’s 1859 book, On the Origin of Species. Natural selection is the process in which individual organisms best adapted to their circumstances are more likely to survive and successfully reproduce. If the adaptations are passed on to the offspring, the favorable traits become more common in succeeding generations. In time, cumulative adaptations can result in a new species being formed.

It looks good to me, but I am no expert. You should have a few experts in the area check it out.--Filll 23:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is better than what is in there now. Someone put it in a see if it flies! I'm curious if it will invoke  an instant revert.--Random Replicator 01:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. I retained the references because I think they are needed in the rest of the paper, plus I just like references in general. We will see if it meets with a firestorm of disapproval.--Filll 01:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Evolution section cut?
I think we should cut the history of evolution section, including the Modern Synthesis subsection, or at least trim it to one or two paragraphs. What purpose does such a very long section serve? Adam Cuerden talk 00:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should cut it but reference the history article and give a brief synopsis of the main points. This has come up before and most editors thought it remiss not to mention the subject. I think it is too long for this article since it has a spin off. GetAgrippa 01:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. Still, one or two paragraphs ought to be sufficient. Darwin. Mendel, synthesis. That's all we really need. Adam Cuerden talk 01:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The history of evolutionary thought is fascinating and deserves a very full article of its own. I would even favor expanding the current history of evolutionary thought article, as long as it had a nice accessible introduction of course. All we need here is the briefest of summaries and a pointer to the other article. Many people want to shove everything into the main article, and everything into the introduction. I think that is not helpful, and results in an unreadable inaccessible mess. There is nothing wrong with farming out other specialty topic areas to other articles. If someone is interested in that particular subject, they can go to that specific article. If not, they can avoid it. For example, in the Saint-Pierre and Miquelon article, we wrote basically three or four histories; a one sentence introductory statement, a very brief set of 7 highlight statements, a historical summary consisting of 7 short paragraphs covering prehistory and 500 years of European habitation, and a more extended multiple section history. The one sentence statement, 7 highlight statements and historical summary were retained in the main article, and these with the extended history were sent to their own article, History of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. Readers with different needs can choose which versions they want to utilize, giving them control over how they want to access the information, how much information they want and how they want it packaged. And that is what makes an information delivery venue, like a well-written Wikipedia article, a good one. That is why having short sentences and clear words, not requiring excessive use of links, breaking the text into reasonable paragraphs and short sections with good titles to break it up, and so on, is so important; the reader can control their information assimilation experience.--Filll 03:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This already has its own article, history of evolutionary thought, which is badly in need of rewriting if anybody's interested. I did a small amount of cleanup on the lead (though it needs more), but the text is badly organized and hard to follow. (As a side comment, I'm not at all a fan of the 'highlights' section from Saint-Pierre and Miquelon; if you need such a thing for the evolution articles, consider a separate timeline.) Opabinia regalis 03:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does have a separate article. I hope the material we cut from this one is all in the separate history of evolutionary thought article. It probably needs work. I at least thought about it for a minute or two and still might take it on, although I am no expert. On the issue of highlights and timelines, what exactly would you prefer? A graphic display of a timeline ? or ? --Filll 03:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, any information removed from here that isn't already in the other article should be merged. On the timeline, something akin to timeline of evolution for the actual events in evolutionary thought (also see computing timeline for a graphical example, though IMO it's ugly and hard to read). I'm not really suggesting this as a project; I just hate reading the same information twice in the same article. So if there was a use for something like this, it should be separate - which also makes for easier searching. Opabinia regalis 03:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Disjointed
Having many editors is wonderful but sometimes it produces splashes instead of flow. It seems it needs to be better organized and introduce next subject for flow. Cooperation should be in Mechanisms of Evolution section. Variation section should introduce Heredity, Recombination, Mutation, and Gene flow- HGT and hybridization. Then each section goes into detail. The Mechanisms of Evolution section then address what nature does with the variation. Then side issues like history and social stuff at bottom. It would be nice to have examples of speciation with pics of something plant, fish, or insect and demonstrate microevolution (Fill brought how naive people are of examples of speciation we can actually see). Macroevolution should address uniformity at molecular level, evodevo correlates, and something like horse evolution illustration or something. Horse is great example because it demonstrate that evolution is not linear but a web and how environment influenced changes. Perhaps talk about sickle cell and malaria and environmental change that precipitated the success of this trait. GetAgrippa 15:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * These are all good ideas. As an outsider, I was going to wait until Adam had trimmed down some of the extra sections and changed their order a bit. When it had settled down a bit, then I was going to revisit the problem of the lead section of the article as a whole, and possibly for each subsection, as Adam had suggested. I would still argue that we might want to consider having only a VERY short section objections/misunderstandings, and put most of this material in a sister article. I think that making this article as trim and svelte as possible, containing mostly science, is a very reasonable approach, given its length and bulk.--Filll 15:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

After the creationist talk just archived I think we need verbal and visual of speciation so that point will be neutralized. GetAgrippa 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I disappear for a week and the article gets a whole new face lift, go figure. Luckily, I see the intro has been reverted to reflect the old version (even the phrase "theory of evolution" is used in the right context).  I do agree with GetAgrippa that the large changes in the article have made it somewhat confusing and some ideas hard to follow.  I'll have to read it in more detail to suggest any concrete solutions.  Basically, such a large re-organization in a long standing article is not the best way to go ahead, as it makes it impossible to follow ideas without a detailed rewrite of each rearranged section.--Roland Deschain 22:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The point about evidence is covered at length, but doesn't include the experimental evidence / observation of speciation as far as I can, though it's hinted at under Study of evolution. It would be good to conclude the lead with one or two sentences outlining the point. .. dave souza, talk 23:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The strength of the Wikipedia concept is the ability to modify, adapt, improve ... I'm actually amazed at the degree of changes that have transpired; especially in the introduction section. I was begining to think the article had taken on biblical porportions, and any changes would be analogous to rewriting Genesis. I'm not sure that the introduction constructed here was so much a matter of luck, but a function of the input and skills of several contributors. If anyone thinks that a particular version represents perfection, is their not a way to "lock it" as a shrine for academic excellence? --Random Replicator 02:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Darwin's theory versus scientific theories, laws, etc.
Darwin's theory is not the only so-called scientific theory to not meet the following criteria, but I think this point needs to be addressed.

1. A scientific theory does have to be consistent with observable facts. Evolution is consistent with observable facts.

2. A scientific theory does have to have a conceivable experiment that would *prove* it wrong. For example, Ohm's law states that V=I*R, where V is voltage, I is current, and R is resistance. This is a scientific theory that is not only consistent with observable facts, but has an experiment that would prove that it were wrong. For example, if you measure 20 volts DC across a 1 ohm resistor that that has 1 Amp of DC current running through it, this would prove that Ohms Law is wrong. Another example is the kinetic energy of a 1-2 kG object in motion at speeds well below the speed of light. One hypothesis might be that the kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v^2. Another hypothesis might be that the kinetic energy is m*v. Both hypotheses are scientific, in the sense that each has a conceivable experiment that would prove either one of them wrong. And, of course, one of them is actually correct, which is why it is part of Newton’s laws (or theories, if you prefer). It is interesting to note that at times in history the other hypothesis was deemed correct by the majority of scientists. Of course, scientific truth does not submit to the will of the majority of scientists.

Does any such experiment exist for the theory of evolution, specifically, with regard to the origin of new species? That is, an experiment that if it failed would prove evolution to be wrong? And if such an experiment does not exist (an experiment that would prove it were wrong if it were), is the Darwinian theory on the origin of species really just a tautologous pseudo-scientific story? Or do Darwin supporters (those who claim that new species evolve from old via evolution) claim that the existence of an experiment that would show a scientific theory to be false is all well and good for the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, and so-on, but such an experiment is not required of scientific theories from the softer sciences--

This is a valid discussion, and I request that you not stifle the discussion. From a logical and scientific perspective, the article has problems, one of which is the failure to identify what it would take to prove the theory of evolutionary speciation incorrect.

170.215.45.95 01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
 * I answered you before. It is in the archives. Take a look.--Filll 01:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I didn't get a chance to look before it was moved. I wonder why it wasn't kept.  This seems like a fair question, in my opinion.  In any event, are you saying that at no time was a species once thought to have followed another was later discoverd to have actually preceeded it? 170.215.45.95 01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is basically a null hypothesis. It is an idealized model to no evolution. This has been applied to SNP's.GetAgrippa 02:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I can look up Hardy-Weinberg easy enough, but what is SNP? Sorry for the stupid question.  170.215.45.95 02:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms. They are part of what make us all different and believed to be the genetic basis of many diseases. Scientist are scrutinizing the human genome looking for SNP's related to disease. Hardy-Weinberg is used by evolutionist and geneticist to test the independence of alleles within loci (it is used in forensic science also). GetAgrippa 03:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Why distinquish biology as a softer science. I would argue just the opposite. Does a theory have to be consistent with observable facts? In physics, I would argue that relativity or quantum-string theory often defies logic or at least observable is relative to the observer. A theory has to be tested by methods that are observable, but may seem paradoxical to observed facts. Like cooperation in a competitive world. Any logic used against evolution is basically against all science, medicine, agriculture, genetic, neuroethology, immunology, physiology, metabolism, disease,etc. They are all linked by a common origin, so I can study chick or zebra fish development and it is applicable in many ways to human. Exploring the dog genome is useful in understanding human disease. Humans have taken advantage of evolution principal to domesticate animals and plants by artificial selection-biodesign. I can isolate some genes from a bacteria and use them to correct a gene defect in a human. It is capricious to pick on evolution without any thought to the repercussions of that statement. Creationist should dismiss modern medicine, agriculture, and any benefits from basic research with the arguments they hold. I like others hold evolution scientist responsible for failing to communicate the ideas of evolution that are beneficial and have no bearing on any faith. GetAgrippa 15:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Personally I think the hard/soft science distinction is specious (and GetAgrippa has provided some fine reasons why) and while many people make it, I have never seen the distinction made as a serious claim in either the sociology or history of science, discussions among scientists, or epistemologists.  Theoretical versus experimental versus applied, clinical versus experimental, these are examples of useful distinctions (not that they necessarily are relevant here).  My guess, admittedly just that, is that the main proponents of the hard/soft science distinction are university undergraduates who are either snobs or lazy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with GetAgrippa in this. In fact, when I answered this before (now in the archives), I pointed out that biology is normally included in the hard sciences with physics and chemistry. Soft sciences are things like economics and sociology and anthropology. Biology is a far harder science than psychology. Not that these "soft sciences" are all garbage, but they are at an earlier stage of development since their subject matter is a little less amenable to our investigations. And theories in physics that are unsupported or weakly supported by the data are looked at with a fair amount of suspicion. Our standards however for evaluating a science should not be whether it is classified as a soft science or a hard science, or how much mathematics is used in the science or in how long the science has been around. We should evaluate a theory in science on one basis: "What is its predictive power?" Now on this score, evolution ranks admirably. It is so powerfully predictive that it is of phenomenal applicability. The main problem I see is that evolution scientists have done a very poor job of explaining their field. An inordinately bad job in fact. Leaving the door open to creationist nonsense.--Filll 15:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

speciation
"Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones." The article describes evolution as natural or artificle selection leading sometimes leading to the creation of a new species. Is this strictly correct? Seems a bit misleading. I thought evolution and evolutionary origin of species was the same thing.

In any event, the quote "Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones" should have a reference, if possible, to a new species being created in the lab.


 * Why the lab, better examples of speciation in nature. Evolution is not synonymous with speciation. Evolution can lead to speciation, but evolution occurs without it. Speciation is a by product of evolution. Plenty of examples of speciation in plants, insects, birds, and mammals in nature. GetAgrippa 18:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, speciation is inferred from evolutionary effects within a species. 170.215.45.95 20:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Vacous Poet
 * The stickleback fish has become a supermodel of evolution studies. Here is a good review by Elizabeth Pennisi:Science 18 June 2004:Vol. 304. no. 5678, p. 1736 Changing a Fish's Bony Armor in the Wink of a Gene. More recent articles determine that shifts in ectodysplasin alleles correlate with speciation within decades time frame. There is also a good Science paper on genomic change and speciation in Siberian warblers as I recollect, and a large number of plant examples. The review article has some dramatic images demonstrating the changes in spines and lateral plates with speciation in marine and freshwater fish populations. I always thought the images of lateral plate loss was dramatic evidence of evolution.

Here is a recent plant paper from Science:Science 29 August 2003: Vol. 301. no. 5637, pp. 1211 - 1216 Major Ecological Transitions in Wild Sunflowers Facilitated by Hybridization Loren H. Rieseberg,1* Olivier Raymond,2 David M. Rosenthal,3 Zhao Lai,1 Kevin Livingstone,1 Takuya Nakazato,1 Jennifer L. Durphy,1 Andrea E. Schwarzbach,4 Lisa A. Donovan,3 Christian Lexer1. Here is a Science bird paper that is interesting:Science 21 January 2005:Vol. 307. no. 5708, pp. 414 - 416 Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species Darren E. Irwin,1* Staffan Bensch,2 Jessica H. Irwin,1 Trevor D. Price3. Here is another Science review paper by Pennisi. Science 10 March 2006:Vol. 311. no. 5766, pp. 1372 - 137.Speciation Standing in Place.Elizabeth Pennisi. Here is heritable phenotypic plasticity and evolution in birds Science 14 October 2005:Vol. 310. no. 5746, pp. 304 - 306. Selection on Heritable Phenotypic Plasticity in a Wild Bird Population Daniel H. Nussey,1,2* Erik Postma,1 Phillip Gienapp,1 Marcel E. Visser1 These are just some Science article the tip of a very large iceberg.GetAgrippa 19:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks GetAgrippa, but are any of these published on the internet, or do I need to join some biological society to read these? VacuousPoet 20:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
 * All college and most public libraries probably have a Science magazine subscription. GetAgrippa 18:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution can create new species, but it doesn't have to. For instance, take the peppered moth, a classic example. They became darker, then lighter again in response to their environment. No speciation, but evolution. The changes in beak size/body size amongst some finches in the galapagos is another example. Titanium Dragon 20:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Evolutionary" effects are observable within a species, if by evolutionary you mean adaptations or mutations over a period of generations due to natural or artificial selection. I really can't tell if you don't catch that I understand and concur on this point or if you're trying to obfuscate.  The question is speciation.  It also seems that you are technically defining evolution to be natural or artificial selection with or without speciation.  But the way I understood it, evolution was short for the evolutionary origin of species, which is inferred from natural and artificial selection within a species.  My understanding may be wrong, as so many of the responses seem to suggest, but this makes things much more clear.  I doubt very much that so-called creationists dispute natural and artificial selection resulting in mutations within a species (e.g., adaptations over generations of goats is described in Genesis itself).  But if they do, and they are basing it on the Bible, simply refer them to Genesis 30:37-41.  It appears that the Darwinists are being less than intellectually honest when they seem to fail to recognize that the skepticism is not with natural or artificial selection, but speciation.  It is the speciation that is less than perfect scientific theory.  With some justification, I hear people argue that speciation is just a story, logically equivalent to the creation account on the origin of species.  Of course, referencing a repeatable experiment that demonstrates speciation in an artificial environment would do a great deal to silence this criticism.  VacuousPoet 20:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * It is a common mistake to confuse evolution with speciation (evolution is not synonymous with speciation it is a by product of evolution). Evolution occurs and can lead to speciation. The point of defining speciation is somewhat valid as scientist do argue over defining species, however Mayr's definition is the generally accepted definition (hybridization is problematic to Mayr's definition). Speciation doesn't have to be a perfect story but it is a useful tool for humans to measure evolution through time by fossils and by molecular analysis. The fact is some organisms have been mislabeled by anatomical characterization when analyzed on the molecular level. None of this detracts from evolution. The only valid argument you may find ground is to argue that evolution theory cannot totally and with certainty predict evolution. You can argue the significance of natural selection or genetic drift as mechanistic in evolution. That argument accepts evolution, natural selection, and genetic drift as verifiable fact, but the significance can be questioned as is this purely the mechanism. Evolution theory is predictive but random events can alter the predictive course. In any case, the whole point of research is to resolve, refine, and increase the predictive power of evolution theory. I am sure in another ten  years new mechanisms will be resolved, new fossil finds, and more genomes will sequenced to give a more clear and focused picture of evolution fact and theory. I think we may be in for some surprises which makes it all so much more interesting. It reminds me of the marine annelid "living fossil" genome recently sequenced. Many expected to find a very primitive genome a reflection of a primitive organism. However, what was revealed was a complex genome with many human-like genomic elements. I remember in the seventies turtles were misclassified and by comparative anatomy standards were considered evolutionarily dead ended (because of skull features). It just keeps getting better-molecular biology has revolutionized evolution studies. Better questions are to ask: Why do reproducing organisms organize into discrete cluster within a population, and since the gene number does not correlate with organism complexity-Where does complexity arise?  GetAgrippa 04:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientific theory, existence of experiment that could prove theory incorrect
Please see Falsifiability before adding to this section.

Darwin's theory is not the only so-called scientific theory to not meet the following criteria, but I think this point needs to be addressed.

1. A scientific theory does have to be consistent with observable facts. Evolution is consistent with observable facts. 2. A scientific theory does have to have a conceivable experiment that would *prove* it wrong. For example, Ohm's law states that V=I*R, where V is voltage, I is current, and R is resistance. This is a scientific theory that is not only consistent with observable facts, but has an experiment that would prove that it were wrong. For example, if you measure 20 volts across a 1 ohm resistor that that has 1 Amp of current running through it, this would prove that Ohms Law is wrong. Another example is the kinetic energy of an object in motion at speeds well below the speed of light. One theory might be that the kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v^2. Another hypothesis might be that the kinetic energy is m*v. Both hypotheses are scientific, in the sense that each has a conceivable experiment that would prove either one of them wrong. And, of course, one of them is actually correct, which is why it is part of Newton’s laws (or theories, if you prefer).

Does any such experiment exist for the theory of evolution, specifically, with regard to the origin of new species? That is, an experiment that if it failed would prove evolution to be wrong? And if such an experiment does not exist (an experiment that would prove it were wrong if it were), is the Darwinian theory on the origin of species really just a tautologous pseudo-scientific story? Or do [supporters of Darwin's theory on the origin of species] claim that the existence of an experiment that would show a scientific theory to be false is all well in good for the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, and so-on, but such an experiment is not required of scientific theories from the softer sciences? VacuousPoet 06:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * It is preferable for all scientific theories to be "falsifiable" for them to be taken seriously. There are theories in physics which we do not know how to test yet, or can test only very indirectly, and they are not taken nearly as seriously. In the case of creationism, it is true by fiat, so there is no test. No matter what evidence is presented, there is always an escape valve like "God made the earth appear old when it really isnt to test man's faith" or "The Devil makes the earth appear old when it really isnt to tempt men away from God" or "The fossils were put there by the Devil for wicked purposes to support evolution" or "God is just testing our faith with the 3 degree background radiation and the red shifts" and on and on and on. You can never pin down creationism because at its root is a core belief that the facts will be bent to accommodate no matter what. The same is not true of a theory in science. What we call The Theory of Evolution has been through numerous changes over the years to accommodate the data better, just as the Theory of Gravity has. In science, the theory changes to fit the data. In creationism, the data are explained away to fit the hypothesis (not calling it a theory because it is so poorly supported by the data).--Filll 20:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But the theory of Gravity has a conceivable experiment that would proove the theory of gravity (or law, if you prefer) incorrect. Drop an object in a vacuum, near the earth's surface, in the absence of EM fields, and watch it float.  VacuousPoet 06:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * A famous example of a test for evolution is, show me a fossil of a rabbit that is 100s of millions of years old. If that is true, it is all over. Biology is a hard science like physics and chemistry. A soft science is something like anthropology or sociology.--Filll 20:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But weren't species once thought to have descended from a presumed predecessor later found to precede it? If so, I am not sure finding old rabbit bones will work--it would only re-arrange the trees drawn in biology books.  VacuousPoet 06:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * But the old theory of evolution would be replaced by another theory. This is how science works. As opposed to other fields.--Filll 20:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Consequently, your rabbit example would not falsify the theory, it would only modify the theory. VacuousPoet 20:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * I will also point out that your examples of "Ohm's law" and "Kinetic Energy" are not that reasonable. That expression for Kinetic Energy is only approximately true with bodies of a certain size at low velocity etc. That expression for Ohm's law is only approximately true for certain materials for certain ranges of the relevant variables.--Filll 20:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But they are both falsifiable. 20V is not approximately 1V.  The approximations you describe are negligible unless near the boundaries of quantum mechanics, general theory of relativity, and/or Maxwell's equations.   VacuousPoet 06:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * I'll add some more to Filll's commentary. There are any number of "experiments" that can be done to test the theory of Evolution.  First, we can model evolution through organisms, such as bacteria or drosophila, that can pass through many generations in a matter of days.  We can observe by experimentation the changes in DNA through mutation, genetic drift, and other biochemical activities.  We can observe evolution through a bacteria gaining resistance to antibiotics.  Breeding of dogs, cattle, corn, and any other domesticated organism represents evolution on a slightly longer time scale, but one that is observable and testable.  And, from a retrospective data gathering, we can collect fossils that represent organisms changing over a huge number of years.  None of these things can be done with creationism, because underlying the belief set in the Creation myth requires a belief that some god had something to do with it.  That's not science.OrangeMarlin 18:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Artificial and natural selection within a species is not in dispute, at least not by me, or even by so-called creationists, in my opinion, if they have read Genesis 30:37-43 or bred dogs, cattle, etc.. VacuousPoet vacuous poet


 * Also, is there a repeatable experiment in which speciation can be reproduced in the lab? Is the number of generations quantified or at least bounded, as it would be if the theory of the evolutionary origin of species were a hard science?  VacuousPoet 06:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * Yeah, with fruit flies. There was a speciation experiment where they made two different strains of fruit flies incapable of breeding by seperating them and probably irradiating them in order to induce mutation, then keeping them seperate for a large number of generations. Of course, this isn't assured, nor should it be; it takes a long period of time for speciation to occur as it is a probabilistic event.


 * Of course, there's a much simpler experiment: just sit around and watch organisms for ten million years. Feeling impatient? Look at the fossil record - or DNA. In fact, speciation can be proven via DNA analysis; look at the current rate of mutation, look at the genes, check how many mutations have occured, and you'll know the time since the speciation event as the last time their genes mixed was when speciation occured. Even if we had no fossil record at all, from this alone we could demonstrate long-term speciation, and it has the advantage of being easily replicable by anyone who can analyze DNA. Titanium Dragon 20:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sit around and wait? The point is what is the experiment, that if it failed, would prove that the evolutionary origin of species was an incorrect thoery. Not that the experiment would fail. In your exmaple, if I waited for 10 million years, and did not observe the creation of a single new species, it would not *prove* evolution wrong. To a Darwinist, it would prove that no mutations sufficient to create a new species occured in this 10 million year window. Consequently, your suggestion to wait does not meet the standard. Regarding the fossil record, the theory of the evolutionary origin of species is a good story, a model, but I don't think it is a good scientific theory, because no experiment exists that could disprove it, at least none has been provided so far.VacuousPoet 23:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet.
 * You missed it; read the post again. I proposed two much faster experimental methods - look at the fossil record, and look at DNA. The fossil record should, if evolution is real, show simpler forms preceding more advanced forms, and it does. It isn't complete, mind you, but it shows that evolution occurs. The modern synthesis is much more readily observed. Look at DNA. If evolution is real, more closely related species should have genes which are more closely related than more distant species. This is a very simple experiment, and only requires a single piece of expensive equipment - a gene sequencer. Better still, you can actually do this for free as the complete DNA of many organisms are available online. Compare their genomes and see how much they differ; mammals should all be more closely related to each other than to any reptile. Simple experiment, eh? Titanium Dragon 07:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Where was it done? A link to a description of a repeatable (and repeated) experiment would certainly bolster the argument made in the article.  I am not a biologist, but I have never heard on any PBS documentary where they quantified or bounded the number of generations it would take in a specified artificial lab environment to create a new species.  I have heard informal claims at work that it has been done with fruit flies or something, but this person told me that what they got after the experiment was done were different fruit flies.  I am not sure this rises to the level of a new species, and, of course, it calls into question what exactly is a species.  It is noteworthy, if I understand the fruit fly speciation claims correctly, that the evolved fruit flies could not viably mate with the predecessors, it is a step.  Regarding "observed speciation" in the wild, this has been inferred, no?  In any event, clearly, a dog is a different species than a deer.  But is a whale a different species from a dolphin, especially since I read in the news that fertile hybrids were created?  Now, if you turned fruit flies into flying spiders, that would be very convincing.  Otherwise, it appears to be classification games.  But if you can quantify, and others are unable to repeat the experiment, that would be a hard science, a falsifiable theory, and, consequently, a "more valid" scientific theory.  VacuousPoet  18:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * I don't get my scientific information from PBS, the Discovery Channel, or the Christian Channel. You should thank your mythical god that I don't practice medicine from things I watch on ER (although a fairly accurate show). Let's discuss some of the statements you make. First, speciation takes some amount of time, which varies depending on any number of factors. And because species form a range, it may take some effort to determine what is a species and what is not. You state that a whale and dolphin may form a hybrid (I'd like to see that reference). That is not what defines a species. You need to read species, because it describes the fairly complex definition of what makes a species, and hybridization does not necessarily make two organisms a species (or, on the other hand, mean that they aren't one species). A wolf and a dog are separate species, but they may hybridize. You also assume that science needs to be done in a beaker and test tube. Not necessarily. Science can be done retrospectively--without delving into fossils and paleontology, but retrospective studies are the foundation of much of medical science. Evolution has been proven time and time again in both the test tube and in retrospective analysis. It's a fact, and that's that. In the hundreds of thousands of articles written about evolution in verifiable, well-documented, and peer-reviewed journals, there has been not one single study that has disproved Evolution. If you want to believe in your pseudoscience, that's your right, but most intelligent, reasoned and thoughtful individuals do not. And if you think that disproves the existence of your god, well, that makes me quite secure in my understanding of the world. OrangeMarlin 20:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * WHY DOES THE ABOVE POST by OrangeMarlin not get deleted? It deserved to get deleted because 1. It twists a comment on PBS.  2.  It calls God mythical (how is that relevant, and why should he be allowed to take random pot shots at what some people believe in a section on the falsifiablity of the evolutionary origin of species)?  The only thing I can think that warrants keeping is the request for a reference on a fertile hybrid between a whale and a dolphin, even though he neglected to put the word fertile in his question.  (Hey, orangemarlin, google is your friend.  Read the first return at |'whale dolphin hybrid'.  Not only was there a hybrid between two species (not so uncommon), but it is claimed that the hybrid was fertile (first time I ever heard of such a thing).  If true, this shows a problem with at least some definitions of species.  But this is a red herring to the original intent of this discussion, except to the extent that a fertile hybrid has, if anything, only slightly modified the "theory" of evolutionary origin of species. VacuousPoet  20:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet.


 * Because nothing I write deserves deletion. 1.  You mentioned finding your science on PBS.  I'm saying that that's not where one should get their science information.  2.  God is mythical.  The basis of your belief in Creationism is based on believing in this mythical god.  I don't, so I get to follow science and fact-based inquiry.  It's an age-old problem.  If you have a faith that makes you go against Evolution, that is your choice, I'll neither censor nor delete your belief, because I am not a censoring Nazi.  I will, however, laugh at you.  But it will be a private laugh behind my computer screen, and you'll never know.  3.  You cannot read, because I did NOT dispute the existence of the hybrid.  I just merely stated that it is NOT an example of what constitutes a species.  I then pointed you to the species article on here which has a very good list of what constitutes two different species.  In fact, a fertile hybrid is rarely used as a definition--mainly because man can cause two different species to interbreed when that would never happen in nature.  If you're going to rant about me, I don't care.  But if you're going to rant and not be factual, I'm going to have to go back on you.  Therefore, with all due respect, if you're going to use the definition of species as logical parameter in disputing evolution, whether you're using PBS documentaries or a whale/dolphin hybridization, then you've gone in the wrong direction. OrangeMarlin 21:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Prove I am a creationist, or recant. You're attempting to avoid the valid criticism by lumping the person who brings it up with a group that you believe would discredit the criticism. 70.59.125.17 06:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * What about mules? and hinnys? They are hybrids, and not always infertile. And this is common knowledge. Of course, you can then claim "but they are not too different species". But that depends on your definition of species.--Filll 20:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I never knew mules were sometimes fertile. The point was regarding the definition of a species, though. The gernalization I have heard numerous times (for the general public) was that species can create hybrids, but the hybrids are never fertile.). Even so, I do not claim that this definition is now, or ever was, considered to be the scientific definition.  I'll do some looking into your claim of fertile mules.  And now, please, follow up on my rabbit question.  VacuousPoet ] 20:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
 * Well you should know that, if you are a scientist as you claim. The average farm kid knows that. That is common knowledge. I have no idea about what more you want to know about rabbits.--13:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Show that speciation does not occur, that mutations do not occur, that inheritance is not particularite in nature, ect. All of these experiments have been done, and we know that speciation does occur, mutations do occur, inheritance is particularite in nature, ect. Basically, run a test disproving the sections of the modern synthesis. Of course, you won't, save as you won't disprove gravity. Evolution is actually pretty obvious, honestly; its not subtle, and really its kind of surprising people didn't come up with it earlier than they did. Of course, without Mendel's experiments, it would have been harder to support, but those aren't exactly hard to do, even if they are extremely time consuming. Titanium Dragon 09:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you show that speciation does not occur? I need to test your theory.  Provide an experiment.  E.g., take dogs, put them in a new specified envirionment, and within N generations you will have a new species, say, dogs that have antlers.  Define N, define the envirionment, provide the dogs.  Substitute whatever creatures you deem necessary for dogs, and whatever non-trivial physical characteristic you want for antlers.  I will attempt to repeat your experiment.  But as it is, there is nothing to falsify (or repeat, if the theory is sound) as it is.  A story that fits the facts, that is the "theory" of the origin of species.  And again, nobody is arguing that traits are not inherited; that populations adapt.  What I am questioning is the story that new species evolve from old due to natural or artificial selection.  Questioning is a valid scientific exercise.  VacuousPoet 18:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * This is a ridiculous example, since no human can live long enough to perform the test you specified. However, if we understood exactly what environment encouraged antlers, it could in principle be done. This is a ludicrous objection. I could come up with all sorts of experiments with black holes but we cannot perform them. So they are not helpful. And there is a difference between the questioning scientists do and what you do. Because you have one specific answer in mind and you will just harass people until you get the answer you want. --Filll 13:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Vacuous Poet. The answer to your question is (in a sense) very simple. It is a proven fact that organisms change over generations. You acknowledge this. Your only remaining problem is that you want to know when to call it a new "species" - and you are not alone in finding this a difficulty. The concept of a "species" is in fact somewhat arbitrary, a matter of trying to draw a line (maybe largely for human convenience) where none really exists in such a hard-and-fast way - as demonstrated by the constant redefining of species boundaries in lumping and splitting by taxonomists. It's actually a problem of definition - of how far apart two organisms need to be to be considered separate species - not a problem with the theory (and fact) of evolution. Snalwibma 19:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "you are not alone in finding this a difficulty." I know. I don't see mention of this in the evolution is a fact and anybody who disagrees with it is a six fingered poison drinking fundementalist Christian discussion, though. (No offense to Christians; this is, roughly, how some of the defenders of this POV article are portraying you, before I removed the name calling). Evolution needs to be seperated into two components, in my humble opinion. 1. Evolution within a species leading to changes in the population over generations. This is repeatable, verifiable, scientific, and even described in Genesis. 2. Evolutionary origin of species. This is a story, a stretch, based on an imprecise definition, inferred from the fossile record, and not falsifiable in the "is it a good scientific theory" sense. There is valid controversy on this second component, and I don't see it mentioned in the article. (I can barely get anybody to recognize the problem in this section.)   170.215.45.95 23:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * Please don't delete other users' responses to you. (If you think they are in bad faith, best wait until somebody else cleans them up, so as to avoid looking like you're sulking.) Speciation through evolution is perfectly falsifiable: it would be falsified if no changes were observed between one generation and the next, or we did not find the expected similarities between the genomes of supposedly related species, or if no common ancestors between different species were found. All these things have been found. There is no controversy among scientists that speciation occurs through evolutionary processes, and there is no real distinction between the two 'components' you mention. It gets interesting when you consider that there is no strict definition of a species, but that doesn't refute any of this. Again, as other users have said, I don't think you actually care about the facts. Please stop wasting your time. Robin Johnson (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This must be about Karl Popper and his ideas? Falsifiying hypotheses and what not. GetAgrippa 23:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, see Falsifiable.  VacuousPoet 00:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
 * This entire discussion is entirely pointless as soon as you consider Astronomy. Speciation is much like star evolution.  It takes too long for humans to be truly able to manipulate the variables, as 170.215.45.95 seems to demand.  Must one not be able manipulate the variables of an experiment in a theory to make it scientific.  Absolutely not.  The whole field of astronomy cannot manipulate a single of its variables, yet it is a hard science.--Roland Deschain 01:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Popper was making a statement of logic. Falsifiable is not false but just an alternative from what I gather. Interestingly, I could only find six publications by Popper in Pubmed. I've also noted a number of living scientist in various fields have articles. What qualifies having an article as some seem like advertisement as there are so many other notable names in the field? Popper must have books out or something more than six papers. GetAgrippa 02:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As a single purpose account who is obviously not here to imporve the article, but to disrupt this page in a manner much like KdBuffalo (and an IP from NY) User:170.215.45.95 has been blocked. pschemp | talk 03:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Brainless Vacuous Poet. You have no right to delete posts. I went in here and I saw that you've deleted numerous posts just because you didn't like them. I ought to revert them all, but I don't have the time. You delete anything I've written again, and I'll propose that you be blocked from here. Once again you have NO right to do that under any condition. If you don't like the tone, and we're convinced, I'll change it. Typical censoring Christian apologist.OrangeMarlin 16:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please delete the post by OrangeMarlin. First, he calls me brainless.  Second, he says I have no right to delete posts.  Third, he incorrectly asserts that I deleted posts just because I did not like them.  When, in fact, I deleted posts, like OrangeMarlin's, which just name call, obfuscate, etc.  Third, he calls me a censoring Christian apologist when he is the one who proposed that I be blocked.  Is Darwinism a religion?  Seriously, I think it is to some.  VacuousPoet 20:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * You deserve derision for censoring. OK, I'll delete the Brainless part.  See, I'll censor my own posts, if I so choose.  Second, no you do not have a right to delete posts.  Please see WP:TPG.  It says clearly to NOT edit other people's comments.  Let's assume, since you have an method of obfuscating what others have written, that editing includes deleting.  Also, see WP:SIG regarding the signing of  your posts.  Switching IP addresses is easy.  Being able to follow rules (and you were banned for not following rules) is more difficult.  You state how we have treated  you poorly, yet none of us has deleted, modified or in any way edited your rantings.  Third, you are a censoring Christian apologist.  And Evolution is not a religion.  It is a scientific fact.OrangeMarlin 21:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi all. I'm a little confused.  Where exactly has Vacuous Poet argued for creationism or even Christianity--or said s/he is either?  The one mention of a biblical section was in reference to saying it did not conflict with the idea of adaptation.  I think the original question seemed posed in good faith, and does not merit any of the attacks that have been launched at the one asking it.  You all are smart enough, and have enough facts on your side, to be able to address this issue without resorting to ad hominem attacks.  In my opinion, the response to this user--in terms of the eagerness to assume that they were a troll/creationist/here to disrupt in the absence of evidence to the contrary--did not follow the policy of  Assuming good faith.  The only possible evidence I saw of bad faith was the deletion of some posts, which could be explained if Vacuous Poet was a new user and didn't understand the protocol for dealing with what were, in all honestly, fairly nasty remarks that added nothing to the discussion (as a new user, I once deleted an early comment from my Talk page, before I learned that was considered "hostile").--Margareta 18:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the unregistered user has been given answers to the questions and is now being purposefully obtuse. I agree some of the responses have been overboard, but the crux of the issue remains; 170.215.45.95 has been given the answers to his questions and has been unwilling to listen to any of them. JPotter 18:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been given answers, but not to my questions. If that is obtuse, I don't know what is.  I have read and considered every answer.  Which answer to do you think is best?  Me, the rabbit answer, but I did seek further clarification on the point (and received none.)  VacuousPoet 20:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Pet
 * He deleted, edited and changed so much of this discussion, that I am no longer able to point out some of his comments. Just because he does not call himself a Creationist, does not mean that, in fact, he is one by the tone of his commentary.  I get tired of these Christians coming here and starting the same discussion over and over again.  I guess I would be more patient, but his ilk lacks an open mind, so being dismissive and a bit disgusted is about all I can put forth.  I just hope that someone comes here, reads all of this, and maybe, just maybe, leaves knowing that Evolution is a fact, is proven, and is beyond discussion.  That works for me.OrangeMarlin 19:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing that is not so evident from what is here are the exchanges that were deleted, and the material that was archived already over the last few days. With creationists, it sometimes starts out simple, and then when they refuse to do anything but be obstructionist for days on end, people lose patience. That is my interpretation.--Filll 18:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I tried to go back through the history and see what was deleted, but I certainly could have missed something. So obviously my impressions are probablyu based on incomplete information about what happened here.  As someone who has both taught college freshmen, and who is married to someone with no training in any kind of science, I know that sometimes it can be hard to tell when someone is being "purposefully obtuse" or just needs more explanation.  Some of the questions asked here remind me of questions I have to deal with in my own home, and frankly I was hoping I could get some good ideas here for answers.  I didn't--frankly it won't help things very much to accuse my husband (or students) of being brainless (or of breeding with dogs).  Vacuous Poet appeared to be asking what evidence--if it existed--could prove that evolutionary theory was wrong.  The other users (apparently) immediately assumed that s/he was saying it is wrong, and started providing examples of experiments that support the theory--which is not what s/he was asking for. The only person to directly address the question was Filll, with the example of the 200 million-year-old rabbit fossil.  To which Vacuous Poet then asked, basically, if such a fossil was found (and survived many years of relentless scrutiny by many different scientists), would it really disprove evolution, or could the theory be adjusted to accomodate the new information, as it has been when other earlier-than-expected fossils have been found? (Also--my question--would it disprove all of evolutionary theory, or just common descent?)  Vacuous Poet was, it seems to me, correct in pointing out that none of the experiments listed as evidence for evolution would actually disprove evolution if they failed.  They would just fail to provide support for the theory.  It seems like what many of you are trying to say is that in fact falsifiability is not required for a valid theory, or at least that not all scientists agree that it is required--which would render Vacuous Poet's question moot.  Is this what people were trying to say?  It's a bit hazy amid all the mud-slinging.--Margareta 19:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Margareta makes a good point. So let's answer the question.  Finding a rabbit in Precambrian rocks would (if definitive) really put a major hole in Evolution.  I don't think that Evolution could answer that question, because we would find a fairly complex mammal in a time when there were only single celled organisms floating in a primordial soup.  When other strange fossils were found, the "theory" of Evolution was not changed, it was merely the family tree.  The fact that organisms change over time and that timeline is measured in billions of years is not debatable.  Whether whales evolved from a hippopotamus-like creature or evolved from some other creature may be subject to debate, but the fact that whales evolved from a land-based mammal is not.  The reason that here really is no way to disprove Evolution is because it probably could not be disproved, but the rabbit in Precambrian rock would probably do it for me--not only common descent but the whole evolutionary process would be gone..  And you are misusing the word "theory", which is the foundation to most of this battle here.  Theory in the scientific sense is fact.  Gravity, for example, is a fact.  If I saw an apple floating when it "fell" from a tree, I guess at that point in time, I'd not believe in gravity, although I'd have to consider alternatives (that the apple was in fact fake, and filled with helium).  In the end, every argument about evolution relies on observation and science.  If you believe in Creationism, you fundamentally believe in a paranormal being that put everything where it is today--and I don't believe in myths and the paranormal, so it doesn't work for me.  In the end, I really don't care if anyone believes in Creationism.  People have believed in myths for thousands of years, and if it gives them psychological comfort, then I guess that is all right.  I draw the line when these Christian's foist their dogma on public education and the such--I believe that does a disservice to education and to the technological knowledge of the students.  OrangeMarlin 22:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Punching a hole is not falsifying. Besides, finding a rabbit in precambrian rocks would put a major hole in creationism, too.  But the question is on falsifiablity.  As you noted, simply finding things before they were supposed to be found according to the preceeding beliefs merely causes Darwinists to rearrange trees. Also, Margareta reiterated a point I made. 70.59.125.17 06:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * Thanks OrangeMarlin, that was one of the first useful things I've read in this thread.--Margareta 22:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I have to agree with some of the points raised by Margareta. As I'm not here answering questions from creationists/others about evolution (lacking enough knowledge in the field) it might be an unfair stance of me to take, but I feel it's worrisome if mere ignorance has to be met in such a hostile matter. You're probably all sick and tired of constant questioning and arguing from creationists, but isn't it better to avoid answering at all if it can't be done in a less-than-hostile matter? What about policies and guidelines such as WP:NPA? Delta Tango • Talk 19:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well let's look at the evidence. Many times the creationists here have had their questions deleted immediately, as you suggest. They complain bitterly. There are links to other websites above in big red lettering above to send them to more appropriate places. Most of them are not interested. There are copious archives, with a guide to past conversations, which tend to be repeated over and over. Most of them are not interested. We wanted to have an FAQ as well. We have not posted it yet unfortunately. The same questions get asked over and over and over. And the person asking the question usually does not want to learn. All they want to do is pick fights, and try to "convert" the godless evil editors here.--Filll 20:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Where was falsifiability discussed with relationship to the evolutionary origin of species? Please, do not waste your time responding, getting frustrated, and what not, just post a link that I should have seen. 199.62.0.252 20:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * Define what is a species first. Define what is falsifiability first.--Filll 20:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I might be incorrect, I suspect that several different names that we encountered here with similar questions over the past week are just one person. Part of the difficulty with the concept of falsifiability is some confusion and disagreement about what it really means. To me, falsifiability means that one can test the current explanation of the data and cause the explanation to be replaced with another explanation. These explanations are of course called "theories" in science. If it is a small change, then only some details of the theory are changed or refined. If a big change is required, the scientist who is able to force the change (like Michelson and Morley testing the ether theories, for example) will have accomplished something very substantial, and it is something that scientists try very hard to do. So the new evidence that forces the theory to change to accomodate it is exactly what is meant by falsifiability. It demonstrates that the scientific system is working as it is supposed to. Creationism or other religious type beliefs is different. First, the supporters do not try to find replacement versions, the way scientists try to replace the dominant evolution theory. The explanation does not change, has never changed, and cannot change by definition. What does change, however, are the convoluted explanations dredged up to protect the explanation from attack: "God made the earth appear old to test our faith", "The speed of light is variable", and so on. All kinds of ancillary explanations are created to protect the main explanation at all costs. A creationism supporter who did not do this would be rejected as a blasphemer. A scientist who was able to scientifically demonstrate evidence that was not in accord with the NeoDarwinist theory would be heralded as a genius. A scientist who attempted to bend over backwards to protect a dominant theory in the face of all evidence to the contrary would soon be marginalized. This has happened in the past, because the most important thing in science is NOT the explanation, but the FIT between the predictions of the theory and the data. The most important thing in creationism/religion is the explanation and NOT the fit between the explanations and the data. In creationism, new theories will be produced to avoid ever changing the explanation: and on and on and on. And does anyone actually believe that creationists are at all interested in changing the main explanation, or rejecting biblical inerrancy?--Filll 19:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * radioactive dating methods are inaccurate
 * plate tectonics is fatally flawed
 * the devil created contrary evidence to trick humans
 * scientists have a conspiracy to hide the truth
 * the earth's field used to flip very rapidly
 * trees used to have more than one tree ring per year
 * the extra water required for the flood was removed magically from the terrestrial system
 * microevolution is of course true but macroevolution is not
 * all the fossils are evidence of giants that walked the earth as in the bible
 * fossils are all hoaxes


 * Regarding block my account. Easy enough to get around (assuming it is true, and I do not think it is true).  Regarding my single purpose account.  Not true, I have contributed to other articles on wikipedia.  With regard to me being a Creationist.  False.  Regarding to my not being interested in this article.  Self-evident that I am.  Regarding my deleting of posts.  I did not delete posts that I disagreed with.  I left many posts that I disagreed with.  I deleted posts that seemed to violate an honeset intellectual discussion.  Regarding my being brainless.  False.  I am in fact a scientist (though unpublished in a journal).  I admit that I am not a relevant scientist, though.  Regarding the hostility.  Some of you are clearly fanatics, self-appointed gaurdians, who obfuscate and ignore a perfectly valid question.  Regarding others who have defended the question, thanks.  VacuousPoet 20:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * So you're so wonderful and perfect that you know what posts to delete. Thanks for being the perfect Creationist Nazi and proving all of our points.  Anyone can self-proclaim being a scientist, but I'll take a basic definition--a Ph.D. from a research university, published in a peer-reviewed journal, and being somewhat intelligent.  We're only fanatical in the defense of the truth.  As I have said before, truth, liberty and free thinking are lost one step at a time.  We fight for truths. OrangeMarlin 20:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

THIS SECTION HAS BEEN HIGHJACKED. I tried to keep responses on topic, because too many of the responses were resorting to ad hominems, ignoring the point of the section, attempting to bait me as though I were a fundementalist christian on a mission to suppress science, etc. Please please stick to the subject of the thread!!!! If I am not allowed to removed posts which clearly have nothing to do with the subject of the section, but are instead intended to harrass, intimidate, obfuscate, and otherwise take cheap shots, would somebody else please do so? Thanks. 199.62.0.252 20:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * Vacuous poet, people have answered your question many times before and after you asked it - yes, evolution is scientificaly falsifiable. You have ignored them. I won't speak for everyone, but I can only conclude that this is because you are a fundamentalist christian on a mission to suppress science. You are the one trying to bait and harass the people who work on Wikipedia (and you are doing a good job of it too, at least in my case.) This is why your account was blocked, and if you do not change your behaviour it will probably be blocked again. Cheers. Robin Johnson (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Vacuous, I am sure I have answered your questions before when you had a different name or IP address. I and others have answered over and over. However, my past experiences with creationists lead me to suspect
 * you are a creationist yourself
 * you have no interest in learning or really debating
 * you are only interested in proselityzing and annoying others.--Filll 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not proselytized. I have not cut and paste from "creationist websites."  I have not engaged in conversation with you before last week.  Keep on obfuscating. Keep on with your ad hominems.  I am not a creationist or a fundamentalist Christian.  For the sake of a perfectly valid discussion, please ban fill and the others who are not contributing to this conversation. VacuousPoet 02:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * Please relax. You are the one who is not here to improve the page, as near as I can tell. What on earth is your real issue here?--Filll 03:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Escape Valve
Fill, you wrote No matter what evidence is presented, there is always an escape valve like "God made the earth appear old when it really isnt to test man's faith" or "The Devil makes the earth appear old when it really isnt to tempt men away from God I did some reading, and if creationists are saying such things, it may be a case of them not understanding their own Bible.  At least, differences of opinion exist within the community that interprets the Bible literally.  For example, one popular commentator, E.W. Bullinger[], cites 2Pet3:6 regarding the "World that was," and interpret that to mean the time from which fossils come.  To quote:  'Creation in eternity past, to which all Fossils and "Remains" belong.'  This isn't a young Earth theory, or a God or the devil played a practical joke theory.  It might be an escape valve, but it slightly more complex than the ones you attributed. If you're going to speak for creationists, you might employ some of your research skills to help ensure that you speak accurately. 65.73.44.65 18:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Define your terms Vacuous poet

 * Vacuous Poet, rather than speak around and around in circles, please define the following in your own words (don't cut and paste from a creationist website):
 * science
 * scientist
 * falsifiability
 * Darwinism
 * scientific proof
 * scientific fact
 * evolution
 * religion
 * scientific truth
 * scientific theory
 * theory

Thanks.--Filll 20:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me why you think I am a creationist? Please give me just one single example where I "cut and paste from a creationist website." This thread should be deleted. If fill is unable to provide a single example of me cutting and pasting from a creationist website, I think that is all we need to know about his credibility. Please show me where, except for the post on the rabbit, my question has been addressed. And even with the rabbit rebuttal, I had a follow-up question which was valid, but sadly, ignored. That was, in my view, the most promising example of a falsifiable counter-argument (your rabbit example). But you failed to respond to my follow up question. I am not going in circles. I am just not chasing after red herrings (e.g., some have provided exaxmples of experiments that support the theory of the evolutionary origin of species, but the question was regarding the conceivable experiment that, if failed, would disprove the theory.)  Good try at your ad hominem, though. And regarding your philosophically deep questions, you know as well as I do that they are complicated, and have driven some men insaine. Ultimately, the answers depend upon premises. I did already articulate, I think, falsifiability with regard to scientific theories, and even admitted, initially, that the theory of evolutionary origin of species is not the only so-called theory to not meet the criteria. VacuousPoet 20:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * I do not care if you are a creationist or not. Just do not cut and paste from a creationist website because I do not think they are at all reliable, in my opinion and experience. I did not see a succinct definition from you of falsifiability, so humor me with a definition. Just tell me what you are talking about or else the conversation is pointless. --Filll 20:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with you when you write: "...I do not think they [creationist websites] are at all reliable..."  But you implied that I do cut and paste from them.  Are you retracting that now? VacuousPoet  21:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
 * I do not retract a thing. I just am asking you to not cut and paste from unrealiable sources such as creationist websites. Period.--Filll 21:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I will give you my provisional working definitions, just in my own words off the top of my head: Now, how about your definitions?--Filll 21:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * science A process using the scientific method, involving collecting data and producing theories to explain the data. The supernatural is not part of science by definition.
 * scientist A person involved in doing science using the scientific method.
 * falsifiability a requirement that some have for good scientific theory, where the theory must be capable of being proved false
 * Darwinism an obsolete term for a theory that has been replaced by NeoDarwinism, but intended to explain evolution data
 * scientific proof It does not exist. Proof only exists in mathematics
 * scientific fact most often a piece of data, but sometimes a theory that is well supported by data
 * evolution a process of change of genetics in a population, but also a shorthand for the NeoDarwinist theory. The word "evolution" has other meanings outside of biology of course.
 * religion Religions include the supernatural, which science does not
 * scientific truth things accepted as true in science are only provisionally true, and can be replaced with "better truths", either data or theories.
 * scientific theory an explanation for data, either experimental results or observations
 * theory in common usage, a guess, or even an unrealistic opinion. In science, an explanation for data. A good theory will make predictions that match the data well. A poor one will not.
 * I also believe that the word "fact" has different meanings in common usage and in scientific usage. Facts for scientists are either well established theories or data. Facts in common usage are reality, or truth, or proven statements, or potentially provable statements.--Filll 21:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Your definitions are good enough. I'll cut and paste yours, or you can just pretend that I did. Proof exists in logic and philosophy, too, unless you consider both to be branches of mathematics. And regarding scientific truth, I think there is a whole spectrum. It seems to me that the theory of the evolutionary species is not on par with the law (or theory) of gravity, though. I am surprised that you do not require a scientist to hold a Ph.D. and be published in a suitable peer reviewed journal, though. 199.62.0.252 21:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * As I said, provisional definitions. Of course, logic could be included as a place where proof exists. I think there are scientists without PhDs, although scientists with PhDs are in general far more reliable than those without in my observation. And scientists that follow the scientific method are far more likely to get their material published in peer reviewed journals than those who do not.--Filll 21:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think he was being a bit passive aggressive regarding my definition of a scientist. There are too many self-proclaimed "ologists" in this world, and he admits to essentially that.  I am a doctor (though I do not play one on TV), I have a medical degree, a medical license, a DEA license, an internship, a residency in cardiology, a fellowship in interventional cardiology, an MS in biochemistry, an MBA, and I am a season ticket holder to the LA Kings.  I probably could rant more on the state of the NHL, but I don't claim to be a hockey player.  I am NOT a scientist in the form of Filll, but my master's work was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and a lot of my cardiology studies have been published.  That makes me a scientist.  Evolution is NOT a theory in the sense you are using Poet.  Evolution is a fact, and I've read those peer-reviewed journal about Evolution from people who are a lot smarter than I, and they know it's a fact.  If you want to go read those articles, and really study them, perform whatever experimentation that you can conceive, then publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, then come back here and say that evolution is not on par with gravity, I'll be willing to listen.  But  your proclamation that it is not is beyond my understanding.  In my opinion, there is no difference between gravity and evolution in the spectrum of truth or science.  They are equivalent.OrangeMarlin 22:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "That makes me a scientist. Evolution is NOT a theory in the sense you are using Poet." I do not say you are not a scientist.  Like fill, I think that a scientist is somebody who uses the scientific method to learn more about the natural world.  Congratulations on your achievments, by the way.  I am distinguishing between two levels of theories.  Theries that are falsifiable, and those that are not.  It seems to me that the evolutionary theory of the origin of species is a theory that is not falsifiable, and this is not a good thing.  VacuousPoet 03:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * I beg to differ. I have seen no evidence whatsoever of you acting like a scientist, using the scientific method, or even know what science is or what a scientist is. None. And the Theory of Evolution is definitely falsifiable, and it has had to be modified repeatedly because of that. Contrary to what we all know you are frantically defending but do not have the honesty to admit here. So we have literally millions of scientists that have professional credentials that accept the basics of Darwin's theory. Well over 99.9% of professional biologists as reasonable. Well over 99.84% of the 480,000 earth scientists and biologists surveyed that accept the theory as reasonable. So are these people all working for Satan? Are they all evil? Is it all a grand conspiracy? Do all these people with PhDs publishing in peer-reviewed journals not know what science is? Have they been tricked and only you, great scientific genius that you are, with no degrees, no publications and no knowledge that is apparent, have figured it out? Please. Give it a rest.--Filll 13:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons with gravity
So how is the theory of evolution not on a par with the theory of evolution? In what aspect?--Filll 21:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Falsifiability of the theory of the Evolutionary origins of species. Evolution as it has been defined in the article, and ignoring the quantum step to the evolutionary origin of species, is on par with the law of gravity.


 * But throw in speciation, and I think one is on much more solid scientific ground than the other. One has been verified by professional and amateur scientists the world over.  The same one meets the falsifiability criteria for scientific theories.  The law of gravity does not say explicitly or implicitly that it is left as an exercise to the reader to make an object fall in the lab for the first time (or one of the first times) ever, and it does not have a loose or fluid definition of gravitational attraction (compare:  species).  But creating a new species in the lab using natural or artificial selection has only been done in the lab once or a few times, it is claimed, and the new species was still a fruit fly, in the example I have been made familiar with, and this is after 150 years.  By way of comparison, Newton's laws were able to generate repeatable experiments almost immediately.


 * So to equate evolution with the law of gravity is to ignore speciation. To equate evolutionary origins of species to the law of gravity is to compare one or a few experiments to countless repeatable experiments. VacuousPoet  21:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * I beg to differ. Speciation has been observed in the field and in the laboratory and also in the fossil record. So the speciation falsifiability hurdle has been met (although I understand speciation is not an integral part of the NeoDarwinist theory, depending on which scientist one talks to). Now lets compare with falsifiability in gravity: Masses should always attract by gravity. If I drop something, the object should fall in a gravity field. This in fact is not true. Gravity has been observed to repel as well. So that theory of gravity has been falsified. And there is more to come I am sure. And there is definitely a fluid definition of gravity. Many times gravity has had to change:
 * Aristotle: things are pulled to the earth, and bigger things fall faster
 * Galileo: All things fall at the same rate in a vacuum, big and small
 * Newton: the force of gravity is attractive and proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of mass
 * Einstein: Gravity bends light and is not an inverse square law but it is attractive. Gravity is due to bending of space time
 * Still to understand, so the theory of gravity will have to be changed:
 * quantum gravity
 * gravitons
 * unification with other forces
 * understanding of what happens inside the Schwarschild radius
 * repulsive gravity
 * and on and on and on. There is no question the Theory of Gravity has had to be altered repeatedly and will have to be altered drastically in the future. If we count from the first theory of gravity that we know of, it has been 2300 years. Even Newton's theories and Einstein's theories have had very few applications and uses compared to evolution. Certainly they were not as useful and powerful in such a short period of time. So on the issue of time and applications, Evolution beats gravity hands down. And there are many many repeated experiments of evolution. Literally thousands or tens of thousands of publications per year. It is far more active an area than gravitational research.--Filll 22:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * From what little I know as a non scientist, countless experiments in homology, variability and heritability. As this site sets out rather nicely, evolution explains observations about differences and similarities in organisms. Find something that goes against the predictions of the theory and you can falsify it. For example, Charles Bell splendidly predicted that humans had unique muscles to express exquisite feelings: Huxley found homologous muscles in apes, and Darwin wrote The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals exploring the subject in detail. Similarly predictions that fish with characteristics like tetrapods would be found in the Fram formation resulted in the finding of Tiktaalik. Had they found remains of fluffy bunnies, evolution would have been falsified. All it needs is for someone to find something showing the unique origin of a species, or an invariable organism. To relate this to what this talk page is for, the section on Morphological evidence seems to me to play up vestigial appendages at the expense of the importance of homologous structures adapted to different functions in related species. . And a merry Yule to y'all. .. dave souza, talk 22:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The sliding filament theory was originated by the Huxley's (I believe) from observation and deductions of ordered muscle molecules under polarizing optics. Of course now this theory is more or less the sliding filament mechanism of muscle contractility. How would you Falsify this theory? If you can falsify the theory then it is false and no longer a viable alternative. I have never heard of Popper before this discussion, nor do I find an extensive or impressive literature to follow. This seems a philosophy and logic discussion and not science. I have always been a library worm (now internet) so I have scoured the journals for decades. Taught and published for decades also and never heard of Falsifiability. I am more concerned with misuse of statistics than this kind of discussion. GetAgrippa 23:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "If you can falsify the theory then it is false and no longer a viable alternative." You misunderstand the concept.  A falsifiable theory has an experiment that could prove it wrong if it were to occur.  For example, as I wrote, Ohm's Law states that V=I*R.  But if I measure that V=3*I*R, Ohm's law has been falsified.  This does not mean that I actually measured 3*I*R.  I just means that if I did.  Since Ohm's Law is falsifiable, it is at a higher level than a theory that two membranes touched ever so slightly to set off the big bang.  While membrane theory might be scientific theory, it is not yet at the level of Ohm's law, Maxwell's equations, Laws of Thermodynamics, and so on and so fourth.  Whether or not it is in the literature, I don't know.  But it is important, I think, in the philosophy of science. VacuousPoet 03:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

That is my impression. Working scientists do not worry about falsifiability. It has arisen in these debates with creationists in recent decades as one of the ways that scientists can use to discriminate between science, like evolution, and nonscience or pseudoscience, like creationism and intelligent design. Now the vacuous poet is attempting to use it back on evolution like a weapon. It really is a concept from philosophy of science. Real scientists do not worry about it because they know garbage like intelligent design or creation science when they see it. Basically if there is no evidence for the theory, it is all crap.--Filll 23:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay fill. Darwinists used falsifiability as a weapon against creationists, and the creationists have sent me back to use the weapon on Darwinists.  And it's all crap.  You win the debate.  And the tinfoil hat award .  Good job.  Seriously, now, you wrote "In what aspect?"  I responded.  You obfuscated by bringing up the field and fossil record when I only commented on experiments.  You then go on to point out that the Newton's laws evolved from previous theories, and were latter modified to predict and/or account for predicted/observed behavior near the boundaries of matter/space/time.  Newton's laws are hard science.  Einstiens theory is a hard science.  Some of Einsteins predictions had never been observed when he made them, but were latter validated with predictable, repeatable experiments, and much more quickly than the evolutionary origin of species.  Note too, they were quantified.  That we still have questions at the boundaries is much different than the "theory" of evolutionary origin of species not quantifying or statistically bounding how many generations it would take to evolve a new species.  Not only are Newton's laws hard science, they were validated, falsifiable, and improved upon at the boundaries much more quickly.  I'm still waiting to see the creation of a new species in the lab, you know, one that isn't still a fruit fly when we started out with a fruit fly.  VacuousPoet 03:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Well Vacuous Poet, you clearly are not a biological scientist. You have admitted to being an unpublished scientist. You also clearly are not a physical scientist. So what kind of scientist are you? What you have written about Newton's laws being modified at the "boundaries of matter/space/time" is complete nonsense. It is clear to me that you do not know very much at all about gravity. Or physical science. Or biology. What kind of scientist are you? Then you claim that Einstein's theory was hard science, I guess as opposed to evolution. So what makes a science hard and not soft? (these are completely vague terms). Is it making predictions that can later be verified? Evolution does that. Is it making quantitative predictions? Evolution and genetics do that; ever hear of bioinformatics? biostatistics? Even the paper you found that you claimed proved evolution was wrong was about some sophisticated mathematical modeling. Does having repeatable experiments make a science hard? Evolution has repeatable experiments. You claim that the modification of Newton's laws came faster than the modifications to Darwin's theory. Well I count more than 225 years between Newton's theory and Einstein's theory. Einstein's theory was met with great disdain at first (so was Newton's). These were not universally accepted by any means. If people with your attitudes had been running things at the time, these men might have been imprisoned like Galileo was for their theories, or even executed for these theories. These sorts of things were viewed as a threat to religion just as Evolution was (and by some fruitcakes, is still viewed as such). It has not been 225 years since Darwin's origin of the species; more like 137 years. And it had already been modified several times, including the first time in just a few years by the incorporation of genetic information to form NeoDarwinism. So the temporal argument you make is complete hogwash as well. And as for the species arguments, do you know what a species is? I think that the problem is, you only have one answer you want to hear in mind. And nothing else will satisfy you. Isn't that correct?--Filll 13:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Vacuous Poet you are obviously not a biological scientist from the naivety of you speciation question. Speciation is modification of a fly, canine, hominid, worm, bird, etc. Not start with a fly and end up with a dog. Further you didn't know where to find Science articles. Anyone with a Master's or Ph.D. in the biological sciences would have no problems with finding Nature or Science articles. I joined the AAAS when I was working on my Master's (Nice addition for your c.v.).GetAgrippa 03:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a biological scientist. Consequently, it is easy for me to see that a dog and a deer are different species, and hard for me to see that a fruit fly and its great grand child ^N are different species.  Forgive me.  VacuousPoet 04:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
 * If you expect to be able to define your own standards for what you will accept as experimental or observational proof of evolution, then you obviously will just set up impossible standards to protect your own not-so-secretly held viewpoints. Do you really think that it is possible to have a dog turn into a deer in the laboratory by watching them change over generations? And do it in less than 137 years? By setting the environment such that this will happen? Not with our current technology, as should be obvious. It is like telling Einstein, show me gravity bending my flashlight beam in the lab and I will believe. Otherwise, you are a jerk and your theory is nonsense. That is not how this game works. If you knew anything about science, you would know that. Unfortunately, you are completely ignorant of science, so your objections make no sense.--Filll 13:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If you expect to be able to define your own standards for what you will accept as experimental ... proof of evolution:  Please explain how you inferred this? Do you really think that it is possible to have a dog turn into a deer in the laboratory by watching them change over generations?: No. Why do you think that. I just pointed out that as a person who is not a biologist, it is easy to see that a deer is a different species than a dog, and hard to see that a fruit fly is a different speicies than its descendants that still look, act, and smell like fruit flies. It is like telling Einstein, show me gravity bending my flashlight beam in the lab and I will believe: Einstien's theory is falsifiable. If you could have enough mass sufficient to measure the bending of light in the lab, it would either be validate or falsify it. The experiment does not actually have to be done. However, the evolutionary origin of species, unlike the Einstein example, doesn't propose that species X will turn into species Y within N generation under environment E. If it did, it would be falsifiable, even if the experiment could not yet be performed. 74.33.29.35 18:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * I apologize if it sounded like an accusation. I was just deducing that you were not a biological scientist. I think you find it hard to follow when did a reptile give rise to a "hairy" reptile to eventually produce mammals. When did a fish transition to land type of questions. GetAgrippa 04:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I think those are difficult questions. I know various definitions of species exist, and my level of understanding is somewhere between the Folk concept and Biological Concept. It is most easy for me to understand mammals. 65.73.44.65 06:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

As I originally thought Falsifiable is just another alternative. Evolution is a fact like gravity, however there are and have been alternative mechanisms and theory to explain the fact, so the issue is mute. Evolution theory is falsifiable and continues to be so as it is changing with more info. Orthogenesis and Lamarckism have been ruled out as alternative theory.GetAgrippa 12:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

More than fluffy bunnies--on falsifiability
I decided this page was probably not the place one was going to get many answers to the question of "what would falsify evolution," (besides Precambrian rabbits--not that hat wasn't a good example) so I went looking for what other people had to say on the matter. For anyone who's interested, here is a sampling of some other ideas:


 * A fossil record that does not change or show species turnover over time.
 * Discovery of a true chimera, made from widely differing lineages, which could not have been created by lateral gene transfer (like a hippogriff or sphinx).
 * Discovery of some limitation on the accumulation of mutations.
 * The creation of a new organism (i.e. observation of direct creation, or spontaneous generation).
 * Incontrovertible evidence that the earth is too young to have allowed evolution to occur (e.g. thousands or millions of years old, rather than billions).
 * Discovery that genetic information could not be passed down from generation to generation.
 * Discovery that a subset of organisms within a clade (for example, a group of vertebrates) have a genetic code that is entirely different from the one currently observed to be universal
 * Discovery that many places on earth, widely separated from one another, have a nearly identical flora and fauna

As I mentioned above, I was interested in the answer to this question because it is the sort of thing I could easily see myself called upon to answer, and I wasn't confident in my own ability to address it. These examples may not satisfy everyone, but they do me.--Margareta 07:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try to provide some answers, although I'm no expert.
 * A fossil record that does not change or show species turnover over time: Evolution isn't something that must happen to every species. If there's no reason for a species to evolve, it won't evolve.  Dionyseus 07:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But the fossil record as a whole does show species turnover. E.g. mammals replace dinosaurs which replace trilobites, etc.--Margareta 08:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What did birds replace? It is now known that mammals flew before birds did.  What will replace birds and mammals?  They won't evolve if there's no reason for them evolving.  Dionyseus 08:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replace? That's a false question. Niches are real in the sense that they describe something, but not everything "replaces" something else. That being said, there were pterosaurs and flying insects at the very least when birds evolved, though they didn't replace them in any meaningful way. Moreover, look at bats. They coexist with birds, but didn't replace them. They may supplant them in some ways, but not necessarily; there are always unoccupied niches which are simply difficult to evolve into. Also, since when have we known mammals flew before birds? Titanium Dragon 09:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A new fossil find of an ancient squirrel is estimated to be about 50 million years older than the current known oldest flying mammal fossil find, a bat. This ancient squirrel fossil is estimated to be between 130 million to 164 million years old, which may replace the ancient bird Archaeopteryx as oldest flying species (except for reptiles which flew much earlier).  Dionyseus 09:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Finding one ancient fossil of a possible gliding mammal is not finding a mammal that flew before birds. And what does it prove, if it turns out to be true?--Filll 14:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know. That evolutionary speciation is not falsifiable.  65.73.80.45 06:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * Discovery of a true chimera, made from widely differing lineages, which could not have been created by lateral gene transfer (like a hippogriff or sphinx) : If such a creature is ever discovered, the scientists will study it and if the evolution theory must be modified to account for it, then it would. That's the great thing about theories, they can be updated in response to new discoveries.
 * Well, it wouldn't even be all that surprising. We can graft plants together, and there's nothing which says that extremely distant relatives can not breed; its just highly, highly unlikely for them to be genetically compatible and capable of generating offspring, particularly fertile offspring. Heck, speciation is largely arbitrary; the species definition is not really solid. Its not necessary either, though. Titanium Dragon 09:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Discovery of some limitation on the accumulation of mutations: I don't understand this. Dionyseus 07:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If scientists were to discover some biological mechanism that limited the number of mutatoins in an organism to a finite, relatively small number (they haven't), then evolution would be limited and speciation could not occur.--Margareta 08:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The creation of a new organism (i.e. observation of direct creation, or spontaneous generation) : Isn't this what happens when you have sex and create a human baby, a direct creation of an organism? Dionyseus 07:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No. When you have sex and make a baby, you are creating life from life--two living humans make living gametes that fuse and make a living zygote.  By "direct creation" I meant, for example, if someone were to say a bunch of prayers over sterile mud and a frog were to crawl out-you get the idea.--Margareta 08:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A better objection is that abiogensis occurs anyway; it occurs gradually via non-biological evolution. However, evolution doesn't care about how organisms came to be; it cares about how they change over time. Abiogenesis isn't even a part of evolution. Titanium Dragon 09:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting: we exist, and can make this sort of thing already. Titanium Dragon 09:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Incontrovertible evidence that the earth is too young to have allowed evolution to occur (e.g. thousands or millions of years old, rather than billions) : Well the evidence says the Earth is billions of years old. There's no reason to talk about this matter unless someone finds evidence that the Earth is only thousands or millions of years old. Dionyseus 07:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But suppose you could demonstrate that the earth is younger. That would prove evolution is wrong. Therefore, evolution is falsifiable. If you even agree with even one of these, you have admitted that evolution satisifies the falsifiability requirement.--Filll 14:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * All this means is that evolution has not been falsified. This was merely being presented as an example of something that could falsify evolution, if such evidence were ever to be found.--Margareta 08:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the point of Popper's work was, a science SHOULD be falsifiable; that is, just that these tests exist. Because many beliefs are not falsifiable, including creationism.--Filll 14:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The fact of the matter is that you're asking us to come up with things which aren't going to happen because evolution is absurdly well confirmed; basically the world itself supports it. Titanium Dragon 09:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Discovery that genetic information could not be passed down from generation to generation: We can and have and do observe genetic information being passed down from generation to generation each time we give birth to a child. Dionyseus 07:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But suppose it didn't. Suppose you could demonstrate that. That would prove evolution is wrong. Therefore, evolution is falsifiable. If you even agree with one of these, you have admitted that evolution satisifies the falsifiability requirement.--Filll 14:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well yes, of course. But if instead of discoverying DNA, we had somehow discovered that information was not passed down from generation to generation (and what we thought was that happening was some other sort of phenomenon), then it would be very difficult to still support evolution. --Margareta 08:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Discovery that a subset of organisms within a clade have a genetic code that is entirely different from the one currently observed to be universal: I don't understand this.Dionyseus 07:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All vertebrates studied to date (like all living things studied) pass on genetic information using the universal genetic code so far observed in all organisms (ATG codes for Methionine, and so on). The universal genetic code is powerful evidence in support of evolution.  If someone were to discover, for example, that all crocodilians actually use a completely different (not just slightly modified) genetic code, and more and more of these sub-groups (or even single species) were to be found, this could falsify evolution.  Of course, this has not happened.--Margareta 08:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This wouldn't disprove evolution at all; it would simply prove that life arose on Earth multiple times with different genetic codes. For it to really disprove evolution, it'd have to show that something which should be a clade had wildly differing genetic codes - if it was totally haphazard with no rhyme or reason. I'd not be surprised to find critters on Earth with a seperate origin; its unlikely, but certainly possible. However, all known species are of common descent. Titanium Dragon 09:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Discovery that many places on earth, widely separated from one another, have a nearly identical flora and fauna: Many places on Earth are quite identical. What exactly is different about the living conditions in a desert in Africa, and a desert in the United States?  What exactly is different about the living conditions in a forest in Africa, and a forest in the United States?  Dionyseus 07:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The flora and fauna in U.S. and African deserts are in fact quite different, even where living conditions are the same. For example, in the United States you would find succulent plants in the family Cactaceae, and in Africa you would also find succulent plants, but they would belong to the Crassulaceae and Euphorbiaceae.  Likewise, the jungles of Africa contain great apes, but those of South America contain only monkeys (and in Madagascar, not so far from continental Africa, we find lemurs).  The fact that such very similar environments all over the world do contain such different sets of organisms was one of the phenomena that led Darwin to develop his theory.   If every similar environment contained exactly the same set of organisms (which they don't), it would go a long way towards falsifying evolution.--Margareta 08:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the opposite is rather true. For instance, look at the marsupial lion and the standard lion - they're quite similar. Same with the several clades of saber-toothed tigers which evolved seperately. In reality, evolution is often convergent in terms of phenotype - you'll often end up with similar looking critters in the same environment, even if on the inside they're wildly different genetically. Heck, you can even compare stuff like rhinos to triceratops! Sometimes you do end up with weird things (Kangaroos as the antelope analogue of Africa, for instance). And being closely related means nothing really. We know that continental drift occured partially because Africa and South America have a lot of animals with common ancestors because they were once a single continent. This isn't really something which can disprove evolution, as living organisms are quite mobile. Titanium Dragon 09:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Dionyseus, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't actually trying to say that any of these things have happened, thus I wasn't seeking explanations for any of them (no one has found Precambrian bunnies, either). What I meant was, these are examples of things that, if they were to happen (none of them have), they could potentially falsify evolution. Thus, the existence of these hypothetical situations that could falsify evolution makes evolution falsifiable (not falsified). This was in response to the long threads above regarding whether evolution is falsifiable. So in the places where you said you did not understand, perhaps it was because you were thinking I meant that someone had discovered those things?--Margareta 07:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand you now. I think those examples don't show that evolution is falsifiable because they're either impossible, or they're irrelevant.  I'm having a hard time at coming up with an example that would show that evolution is falsifiable.  Maybe if we were to find fossils of modern humans dating back to the time of the T.rex.  As for the responses in which I said I did not understand, I meant that I did not understand what it is saying.  Dionyseus 08:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understand falsifiability, it is a distinction that philosophers of science use to try to decide what is a science and what is not. And it has been used in the battles with creationists, to try to distinguish between science and pseudoscience like creationism. All you need is to have tests you can perform that will show the theory is false. In creation science, there are no tests that one can perform to demonstrate that the "theory" is false, because the "theory" is true by definition, by fiat, by declaration ab initio. So Creationism/Creation Science/Intelligent Design etc are not falsifiable. The very fact that scientific theories would change and have to adapt to new data, and have already done so, is proof that they are falsifiable. And that is the distinction between them.--Filll 14:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That they're impossible doesn't mean they're bad examples. Apples flying upwards would falsify gravity, but it's impossible for apples to fly upwards because gravity is a fact. The examples given above would falsify evolution, but evolution is a fact so those examples are impossible.--Margareta 08:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Margareta, I think I love you--in a platonic manner only, mind you. You are being thoughtful about this topic.  However, not all of your examples would, if they occurred, indicate a need to either revise or dispute the fact of evolution:
 * As Dionyseus states, species do not necessarily need to evolve. For example, if their environment is stable, and you don't add additional variables, say a new predator, there is no pressure to evolve.
 * Evolution will probably occur regardless, though, via genetic drift and natural selection. X gets a beneficial mutation which makes him better at having offspring than his comrades; he's more likely to have more offspring and it will spread throughout and the species will evolve. Also, genetic drift will occur in such an environment. Evolution feeds itself. Titanium Dragon 09:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, to repeat Dionyseus, a true chimera probably wouldn't falsify evolution, but it would require some refinement to the underlying processes.
 * If I understand your comment on the accumulation of mutations, that might change some of the theories that underly evolution, but it probably wouldn't falsify it.
 * Simply put, the earth is several billion years old. I could not conceive of a condition where this might be wrong.
 * Ah, but this is a very simple way to falsify evolution. As was pointed out, apples won't randomly start falling upwards - so it is too with the Earth being billions of years old. Just because it is confirmed doesn't mean it isn't falsifiable in the general sense but in the specific sense. The Earth not being old enough for evolution to occur would put a huge hole in evolution! You're mistaking "well, it could be wrong" with "Well, it could be wrong, but it isn't." See, evolution is effectively fact, and thus stuff like this is obviously assured - the Earth IS billions of years old. But if it wasn't, it'd be a problem and falsify evolution. Thus, it could falsify evolution. But it can't in reality because the Earth is billions of years old. Titanium Dragon 09:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll hold out that there might be a possibility somewhere that genetic code could not be passed from one generation to the next, but in billions upon billions (not quoting Sagan, because he never claimed to have said that) of observations of innumerable earth species show that genetic code is passed along.
 * There might be some organism somewhere that might have a different genetic code than the bulk of organisms on earth. It may use a different DNA or something.  That would be fascinating, but it would prove to me and probably any other scientist that they found an interesting relic of an evolutionary dead end.  Who knows what happened several billion years ago, maybe one set of organisms used different nucleic acids to build up their genetic code, but it wasn't efficient, or required a fluorine ion to make it work right, who knows?  Such organisms might still exist in some deep ocean vent.  That would be so interesting, if it were true, and it would probably confirm everything about evolution more so.
 * In fact, your last one would be, in my opinion, a perfect example of evolution. There are many places, widely separated, that have identical flora and fauna.  Some locations have drifted apart due to plate tectonics, but they return very similar plant and animals.  Similar environments force the evolution of similar animals.  For example, Australia has marsupials that enter into almost every environmental niche that you find for placental mammals in other continents.
 * Many, if not all, of the items on your list would not necessarily falsify evolution. And some cannot possibly exist, such as the age of the earth, which is irrefutably several billion years old.  Again, you really would need something as outrageous as the fluffy bunny (well, not much fluffiness would exist) embedded in Precambrian rock to falsify evolution.OrangeMarlin 08:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "But the fossil record as a whole does show species turnover. E.g. mammals replace dinosaurs which replace trilobites, etc."--Margareta 08:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
 * "What did birds replace? It is now known that mammals flew before birds did.  What will replace birds and mammals?  They won't evolve if there's no reason for them evolving. " Dionyseus 08:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't try to think of evolution, as evidenced by the fossil record, of replacement order. IMHO that is the wrong way to think about it for at least two reasons.


 * The media and simplified literature tend to portray that extinctions take place far more rapidly than they actually did.
 * The fossil record is very incomplete in both temporal and geographical respects
 * Although it is fun to try to do it, you can extrapolate the fossil record
 * Mammals didn't replace dinosaurs. The gradual decline in dinosaurs let other species fill some of the niches left available. Many of these happened to be mammals, some were undoubtably other saurians or other non-mammalian or reptile species. Candy 09:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dinosaurs didn't exactly "gradually decline"; we've never found dinosaurs below the KT boundry, and they had HUGE diversity immediately before it. They all went extinct more or less simultaneously, within a very short period of time. While it is true that there were some extinctions occuring in the late Creataceous, the fact of the matter is that something suddenly got rid of -all- the dinosaurs (well, almost all of them) which were previously very successful, and indeed got rid of practically all megafauna on the planet - we were left with only small animals, by and large. How sudden it was isn't entirely certain, but there's nothing saying that all the dinosaurs didn't go extinct within a few years of a six mile wide meteorite smacking into the Yucatan Penninsula. Titanium Dragon 09:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the resolution of the dating method used to date the decline of the dinosaurs? If the resolution is +/- 1Myears, for example, I am not sure saying they went extinct simultaneously is verifiable using dating methods.  Also, do we know how frequent fossilization events were?    65.73.80.45 06:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * I don't believe you are correct Titanium dragon. There is plenty of evidence that many, many species of dinosaur went extinct before any possible/probably catastrophe. In fact, I recently read that most dinosaur species only survived a few million years before they became extinct (as measured where the fossil record was reasonably well reconstructed). Candy 16:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement that most dinosaur species only lasted a few million years is, while true, also misleading. The fact of the matter is that most -species- only last a few million years. It doesn't matter if they're species of dinosaur or species of clam; they don't last "long", though of course millions of years is an awfully large time.
 * Most dinosaurs were extinct before any catastrophe. Guess what? Most species of mammals are extinct too. Why? Because mammals have been around for a couple hundred million years; most species of ANYTHING are extinct. Dinosaurs were thriving at the time of the KT extinction event, and it is very, very notable that absolutely no non-avian dinosaur fossils have ever been found below the KT boundry. Indeed, it is an incredibly marked difference, as before there are many and after there are none. This is part of why it got so much focus early on, and is the most examined mass extinction event (save perhaps the one caused by humans).
 * Basically, these arguments hold no water and are meaningless, as they're always true, 100% of the time. Titanium Dragon 09:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the great and thoughtful replies, everyone. I just want to clarify a few things.


 * When I said "mammals replace dinosaurs which replace trilobites, etc." I didn't mean that, literally, those groups "replaced" each other. Obviously dinosaurs did not fill the same niche as trilobites, and mammals coexisted with dinosaurs for a time.  I was trying to demonstrate the fact that in general there is turnover in the fossil record.  Trilobites appear in abundance in earlier rocks, mammals in later ones.  This is the sense in which I meant "replace."  By studying this turnover of organisms we gain understanding of how life on earth evolved.  So the counter-example, the one that would go against evolution, would be a static fossil record.  The fossil record is not static; the composition f life on earth has changed over time.  So the finer points of what "replaced" what, if anything, are totally irrelevant to the discussion.
 * OrangMarlin says, "There are many places, widely separated, that have identical flora and fauna. . . For example, Australia has marsupials that enter into almost every environmental niche that you find for placental mammals in other continents." What you have given is the counterexample to what I wasy trying to say.  Australia's fauna is totally different from the fauna fround anywhere else on Earth.  Yes, the animals fill the same niches, so as you say, this is a perfect example of evolution.  Darwin had to solve this puzzle of why the same environments around the world contained such different assemblages; he did so with his theory of the origin of species.  We still study this pattern of different organisms filling the same niches all over the earth for clues on modern organisms' relationships to one another. If every continent with conditions similar to Australia's had exactly the same fauna--not just that filled the same niches, but that were the same animals (i.e. koalas were the arboreal hrbivores on every continent, rather than sloths in South America, etc.)
 * Regarding the difering genetic code. I understand thta is is possible that some lineages could be found someday, for example of bacteria, that did not use the universal genetic code, and that this would only indicate separate origins, not disprove evolution.  The example I gave was of a group within a clade that used a different code.  So, for example, if we found that all koala DNA used a totally different "language"--or perhaps did not use DNA at all--it would create seroius problems for our current idea of evolution.
 * Some people are still confusing my examples of what could falsify evolution with the idea that some of these things are possible. Yes, of course we have overwhelming evidence hat genetic information is passed on, and that the earth not just a few thousand years old.  But if either of these things were not true, evolution could not be true.  Period.  Thus, evolution satisfies the "falsifiability" test, and is "scientific" by any definition of the word (i.e., whether or not you demand that something be "falsifiable" to be scientific).

In short, in answer to the question of "how could evolution be falsified," all you really need to do is take any of the proofs of evolution and imagine its opposite. Of course it's a purely intllectual excercise. Apples don't fly up and genetic information is passed on. But an intellectual excercise is all that's been asked of us: present an example that, if true, would disprove evolution. And here we are. Maybe you don't agree that any one of these would amount to disproof, but certainly several of them together would. One or two might even do so in isolation.

A merry Christmas (to those of you who celebrate it, of course) and a big thanks to Delta Tango for a great laugh this morning!--Margareta 19:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Happy Festivus to everyone! And yes, Delta Tango deserves giant kudos for his picture.  OrangeMarlin 19:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Aye nice piccy.
 * I would like you to calm a little Titanium Dragon. It isn't appropriate to shout at me and I find your tone quite unpleasant. If you have something to say or feel I should be corrected then a logical sequence is all I need. I do feel that you are still missing some points.
 * "Basically, these arguments hold no water and are meaningless, as they're always true, 100% of the time. " Sorry, I feel this statement arrogant as well as non-sensical. Try reason and not condescention. Thanks. Candy 11:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read what I wrote. I wasn't "yelling", and the only thing which is even remotely offensive is the final paragraph. I gave good reasons why it was always true - the average lifespan of any given species is only a few million years. Thus, saying "dinosaur species only lasted on average a few million years" is true, but isn't meaningful in that it doesn't imply dinosaurs were dying out; that's the natural background extinction rate. You don't have a meaningful argument as your "points" do not support your argument (that dinosaurs were on their way out prior to the KT boundry). That was my point, and you've failed to address it, possibly because you can't or because you got angry at the last sentence. Please give actual evidence for this. Titanium Dragon 11:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, You are misinterpreting what I am saying. Yes, using capitals is shouting (you should know this). I was not saying dinosaurs were on the way out before any "mass extinction". What I was saying was:


 * The media and simplified literature tend to portray that extinctions take place far more rapidly than they actually did. They portray the event as taking a few months. It did not. There must have been niches available to protomammals available from dinosaur extinctions or niches available which dinosaurs were unable to exploit
 * Mammals didn't replace dinosaurs. The gradual decline in dinosaurs let other species fill some of the niches left available. Many of these happened to be mammals, some were undoubtably other saurians or other non-mammalian or reptile species. The replacement idea is a false one imo and leads to misunderstandings at a fundamental level because it is not qualified. Candy 04:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusion about falsifiability
As GetAgrippa points out, real scientists do not worry about falsifiability. The reason is that falsifiability is already built in to real science because it is inherently part of the scientific method.

We are getting sucked into tapdancing to the creationist tune here. However I will admit that this has revealed more good information, but we are still getting our chains yanked by creationists.

As I understand falsifiability, it is a distinction that philosophers of science use to try to decide what is a science and what is not. And it has been used in the battles with creationists, to try to distinguish between science and pseudoscience like creationism.

All you need is to have tests you can perform that will show the theory is false. Any tests. They might not be easy to perform, or might be very unlikely to produce the contrary result. If you do, the theory is falsifiable.

In creation science, there are no tests that one can perform to demonstrate that the "theory" is false, because the "theory" is true by definition, by fiat, by declaration ab initio. So Creationism/Creation Science/Intelligent Design etc are not falsifiable.

The very fact that scientific theories would change and have to adapt to new data, and have already done so, is proof that they are falsifiable. And that is the distinction between evolution and creation science.

The creationists who visit us are using falsifiability as a weapon against us, to try to claim that evolution is not falsifiable, and that evolution is a religion like creationism. They are taking advantage of the fact that evolution scientists, and scientists in general, are not familiar with the term "falsifiability". Since new theories have to be produced or modified to account for new data, it is already built in. We never think about it.--Filll 14:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This has given me an idea for another article.--Filll 15:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do tellOrangeMarlin 16:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Regrdless of motivation, I think we have done a pretty good (and thorough) job of showing that evolution is falsifiable. As you said, "All you need is to have tests you can perform that will show the theory is false." We have shown that. I would like to see an article on this, though. That way next time it comes up (and it will), we can just refer back to it.--Margareta 19:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My thought exactly Margareta. So I would like to invite everyone to help me with this rough draft on an article on falsifiability and evolution. Please go to Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft. --Filll 19:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ph.D.
falsifiability is a distinction that philosophers of science use to try to decide what is a science and what is not: Do you know what Ph.D. means?

real scientists do not worry about falsifiability: Really? Therefore, you're not a real scientist? Ph.D.s are not real scientists?

We are getting sucked into tapdancing to the creationist tune here: This is a philosophy of science point, not a creationist point. You already claimed that you used the philosophical point against creationists, and you clearly are not a creationist. You're also trying to avoid with the guilt by association fallacy.

In creation science...: This is an article on evolution, not "creation science" which is also an oxymoron. The falsifiability criticism on the evolutionary origin of species is a philosophy of science criticism. If it is also used by those who deem themselves "creation scientists", if as you assert it is, does not make the criticism invalid.

All you need is to have tests you can perform that will show the theory is false.: Exactly right. But don't confuse this with a test that would invalidate a tool that is used to provide evidence for the theory. E.g., falsifying dating techniques would not falsify the theory of evolutionary origin of species. Likewise, showing that a voltmeter is inaccurate would not show that ohms law was incorrect.

This has given me an idea for another article: Good. Let's hope you don't used biased comparison like your comparision of the evolutionary origin of species with the law of gravity, while completely ignoring speciation, and the other flaws I already pointed out in your comparison.

Merry Christmas. By the way, fill, I am not a sockpuppet of [| Ken]. I saw the dispute you had with him, and can deduce from the actions of the admins and from your comments that you think I am him. Contact me via email, and I will proove to you that I am not that person. You have defamed me and caused admins to block my account on very shaky speculation. I hope you think more clearly when you do real science. 74.33.29.35 18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * Ph. D. indicates you've achieved a certain level of educational mastery in your field, or got a diploma from a degree field. It doesn't actually connotate expertise necessarily; not only are many Ph. D.'s not very competant (though on the whole they are far more competant than normal people) but Ph. D.'s are specialists. You seem to think it indicates you are a scientist, but a historian is not a scientist yet can get a Ph. D. Almost every creationist Ph. D. is the result of either a diploma mill or is in a wildly different field, often liberal arts and quite often religion. Wielding the Dr. prefix is fun, but it doesn't actually mean you're competant or even able to commment meaningfully in a field. Most creationist Ph. D.'s, even the legitimate ones, don't actually know what they're talking about in terms of biology. Titanium Dragon 09:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to our vacuous friend
falsifiability is a distinction that philosophers of science use to try to decide what is a science and what is not: Do you know what Ph.D. means?


 * Of course I know what a PhD is. I have one and several other graduate degrees from major research universities. Do you know what it means? Why do you not tell me what a PhD is?--Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

real scientists do not worry about falsifiability: Really? Therefore, you're not a real scientist? Ph.D.s are not real scientists?


 * The fact that you think that PhDs, aside from those specializing in philosophy of science or those fighting creationists, worry about falsifiability, is a sign you do not know what science is. Look in any major science textbook at the professional level. No falsifiability anywhere to be found. Why do you think THAT is? It is as I said above; it is readly built in when the scientific method is used. Falsifiability was "invented" by philosophers of science just in the 1930s. Does this mean that before that, Newton et al were not doing science? No it does not. Their work was already falsifiable, because it was built in. The philosophers just came along later and named it. The legal profession then used it over and over as a method to destroy creationist claims and make creationists look like fools. It is a matter of history. Look it up.--Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that you think that PhDs, aside from those specializing in philosophy of science or those fighting creationists, worry about falsifiability, is a sign you do not know what science is: Google is your friend:  [] 65.73.44.65 06:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

We are getting sucked into tapdancing to the creationist tune here: This is a philosophy of science point, not a creationist point. You already claimed that you used the philosophical point against creationists, and you clearly are not a creationist. You're also trying to avoid with the guilt by association fallacy.


 * I did not use it. But evolution defenders have used it. And Judges and lawyers have used falsifiability arguments over and over and over and OVER. Look it up. And what the heck is this guilt by association? I am not a creationist. Never was. I think it is myth. Fine as far as it goes, but more akin to poetry or allegory. It is not science. And even if you try holding your breath until you turn blue, you will not convince me or anyone else that creationism is science. I will believe data. Verified repeatable observations or experiments. By competent authorities. Examined over and over and over. And accepted by the majority of REAL scientists, not bogus pretenders and fakes. If you don't have that, then forget it. --Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * you will not convince me or anyone else that creationism is science: You are confused if you think that a.  I believe creationism is science.  b.  That I am trying to convince anybody else that it is.  It is clear that I am skeptical that the evolutionary theory of the origin of species is a valid scientific theory using the falsifiable criteria.   65.73.44.65 06:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

In creation science...: This is an article on evolution, not "creation science" which is also an oxymoron. The falsifiability criticism on the evolutionary origin of species is a philosophy of science criticism. If it is also used by those who deem themselves "creation scientists", if as you assert it is, does not make the criticism invalid.


 * Well creation science, as you well know, is the name creationists have tried to adopt to hide the mythological magical supernatural unsupported nature of their beliefs. And what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you criticize evolution, be prepared to get your own beliefs looked at in the same nature. You are not allowed to put up a sign that says "No trespassing". That is not science. And of course it is used by creation scientists. They want to claim evolution is a religion, which it is not. Look it up.--Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You fight for Darwin nearly the same way I fight for my Lord.


 * --You believe what he has written without question
 * --You quash any attempt to discredit him
 * --Evolution is a 100% documented scientific truth, yet you try to spin it as such
 * --You have never met him, have never performed any studies yourself, but you take his word as law
 * --You have never performed any double blind tests to show that evolution is fact
 * --You refuse to acknowledge the cambrian explosion
 * --You refuse to acknowledge the lack of intermediary fossils
 * --You use semantics and false logic to say the second law of thermodyamics doesn't apply
 * --You refuse to acknowledge that gas doesn't clump in a vacuum, which means stars couldn't have formed in the vacuum of space, which means no life on earth


 * Sounds like quite a bit of religious zeal to me.


 * 21:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you criticize evolution, be prepared to get your own beliefs looked at in the same nature.: I am not advocating creationism as a science.  Nowhere in my posts do I advocate creationism as a science.  And I hope that evolutionary origin of species is more than just a belief to you.  I am criticizing the notion that the evolutionary origin of species is a scientific theory that meets the falsifiability criteria.  65.73.44.65 06:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacous Poet

All you need is to have tests you can perform that will show the theory is false.: Exactly right. But don't confuse this with a test that would invalidate a tool that is used to provide evidence for the theory. E.g., falsifying dating techniques would not falsify the theory of evolutionary origin of species. Likewise, showing that a voltmeter is inaccurate would not show that ohms law was incorrect.


 * But if you were able to show that all dating techniques were nonsense and the earth was only 5000 years old, which is not long enough for evolution to take place, it would be all over. And the existence of this test means the theory is falsifiable. End of story. Evolution passes the falsifiability test. GAME OVER!--Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This has given me an idea for another article: Good. Let's hope you don't used biased comparison like your comparision of the evolutionary origin of species with the law of gravity, while completely ignoring speciation, and the other flaws I already pointed out in your comparison.


 * I will be as clear and unbiased as I can be. If that irritates people, then so be it.--Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas. By the way, phil, I am not a sockpuppet of Ken. I saw the dispute you had with him, and can deduce from the actions of the admins and from your comments that you think I am him. Contact me via email, and I will proove to you that I am not that person. You have defamed me and caused admins to block my account on very shaky speculation. I hope you think more clearly when you do real science. 74.33.29.35 18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * I never claimed you were a sockpuppet of Ken, although the fact that you even know who Ken is is curious. I do not care if you are Ken or not. In fact, if you look at the leadup to the RfC against Ken, I pleaded against banning Ken and giving him another chance. He then proceeded to be obnoxious and burned his bridges. So your proof is irrelevant to me. And I would ask you to again define "real science" and tell me what I am doing that is not real science now?--Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I know about Ken because in my ban the reason for the ban was that I was supposedly a sockpuppet of this character.  I suppose when you guys cannot participate in an honest debate, it is just easier to make false, secret accusations against those who are pointing out that like creation science, the theory of the evolutionary origin of species does not hold up to the falsifiable test (your ridiculous article not withstanding).  Biological evolution that leads to new species is a good story, but it has not been reproduced in the lab, and it has not been observed with living species.  It has been inferred in the fossil record, and is akin to astrology, not astronomy.  It is clear that many of you treat the theory as a religion, and behave like fanatics, complete with witch trials, ostracization, secret alligations, obfuscation.  I am a heretic, according to many of you. 67.139.169.22 23:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * That is right, we are dishonest and stupid and in a global conspiracy against you. All several million scientists are in on this. Didnt you know? You know every PhD is trained in how to trick people like you. It is part of our secret cult. OOoooh!!! You are so clever, you found us out. We have had a secret society for hundreds of years just to fool you. Look, I seriously know it is impossible to convince you of anything. I would be shocked if you ever changed your mind about anything. It is not in your best interests, after all. Why would you? You cannot be convinced. And this page is not for this kind of discussion, although once in a while useful information comes out. Such as another article or two to continue to make our point. So go ahead and bitch some more, because all that will do is strengthen your opponents, it seems to me. And then you can talk some more about how unfair we are and how stupid we are etc etc. In the meantime, we will actually be continuing to undermine your ridiculous position which is founded on sand. --Filll 23:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ken, Vacuous Poet, Mr. Sockpuppet, whatever. Here's a fact--you get banned, you come back under another IP Address.  Then you register your name.  I presume that gets banned, although I don't know and I don't care.  You now come back under another IP Address.  You bore me, and I hope you realize that you have zero credibility with this group.  Note how none of the other Christian/Taliban types have come to  your defense or support.  Curious.  So, in my personal opinion, just by saying you're not a sockpuppet does not mean you aren't.  By definition WP:SOCK, you are most definitely one. I'm done with you, and I'm moving on.  OrangeMarlin 19:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think of number of editors have addressed Vacuous poets concerns. I see no value or improvements to be made to the article from this discussion so let us move on. Also Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas to all. It reminds me of All quiet on the Western front. Let us light candles and sing. Peace on earth and goodwill towards men. Seems this old earth could use some peace.GetAgrippa 19:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think some have addressed it. However, there is potential value in continuing the conversation. 65.73.44.65 06:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * Wrong! Nothing in this will improve the article. Fill points out that scientist have used this in legal battles against creationist, so obviously it is done. I question the need to bring the subject up, if one knew it had been addressed as a legal issue. The subject needs to be in the creation-evolution controversy article and not in a science related topic. Further it is a philosophical issue and not the hard science needed for the article. Evolution theory is falsifiable in theoretical terms and historically other alternative theories have surfaced to explain evolution. The concerns about speciation were based on naivety. All have been addressed. Let us move on. GetAgrippa 21:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember, it was All Quiet for precisely one Christmas, and only on a small part of the Western Front! :)  Happy Festivus.  OrangeMarlin 19:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh god everyone, stop. Please, please, just stop. Go drink some egg nog and you'll feel much better.--Margareta 19:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hate egg nog. I'll drink some good chardonnay.  Then go to a movie or two because all the Gentiles will be with families, and the theaters will be empty for us Jews and Atheists.  OrangeMarlin 19:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Falsifiability and evolution draft
My thought exactly Margareta (about the article, not the egg nog). So I would like to invite everyone to help me with this rough draft on an article on falsifiability and evolution. Please go to Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft. --Filll 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The LEad Again
The lead again is useless: We've rearranged the article so the expanded descriptions come just after the lead, however, the lead, instead of making use of this to head towards simplicity, provides unexplained terminology as if it explains something to the intended reader. This is a clear violation of WP:LEAD. Adam Cuerden talk 13:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct Adam. I and others have noticed this. However, since you had suggested that we wait until you had worked more on the rest of the article, I was going to hold off. Also we had some strong opposition from one or two quarters. I wrote to the editors about trying to develop some sort of simpler compromise, but I have not heard back yet.--Filll 16:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Afraid I have guests over Christmas and so cannae do much until mid-January sometime, so I'd suggest we be bold and kill the return of the old lead. Adam Cuerden talk 16:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've partially restored the last low-jargon version, then adjusted the new material. I'm not sure the whole history is useful in the lead, and the gloss of alleles needs work, but it's better. Adam Cuerden talk 01:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to our vacuous friend
falsifiability is a distinction that philosophers of science use to try to decide what is a science and what is not: Do you know what Ph.D. means?


 * Of course I know what a PhD is. I have one and several other graduate degrees from major research universities. Do you know what it means? Why do you not tell me what a PhD is?--Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

real scientists do not worry about falsifiability: Really? Therefore, you're not a real scientist? Ph.D.s are not real scientists?


 * The fact that you think that PhDs, aside from those specializing in philosophy of science or those fighting creationists, worry about falsifiability, is a sign you do not know what science is. Look in any major science textbook at the professional level. No falsifiability anywhere to be found. Why do you think THAT is? It is as I said above; it is readly built in when the scientific method is used. Falsifiability was "invented" by philosophers of science just in the 1930s. Does this mean that before that, Newton et al were not doing science? No it does not. Their work was already falsifiable, because it was built in. The philosophers just came along later and named it. The legal profession then used it over and over as a method to destroy creationist claims and make creationists look like fools. It is a matter of history. Look it up.--Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that you think that PhDs, aside from those specializing in philosophy of science or those fighting creationists, worry about falsifiability, is a sign you do not know what science is: Google is your friend:  [] 65.73.44.65 06:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

We are getting sucked into tapdancing to the creationist tune here: This is a philosophy of science point, not a creationist point. You already claimed that you used the philosophical point against creationists, and you clearly are not a creationist. You're also trying to avoid with the guilt by association fallacy.


 * I did not use it. But evolution defenders have used it. And Judges and lawyers have used falsifiability arguments over and over and over and OVER. Look it up. And what the heck is this guilt by association? I am not a creationist. Never was. I think it is myth. Fine as far as it goes, but more akin to poetry or allegory. It is not science. And even if you try holding your breath until you turn blue, you will not convince me or anyone else that creationism is science. I will believe data. Verified repeatable observations or experiments. By competent authorities. Examined over and over and over. And accepted by the majority of REAL scientists, not bogus pretenders and fakes. If you don't have that, then forget it. --Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * you will not convince me or anyone else that creationism is science: You are confused if you think that a.  I believe creationism is science.  b.  That I am trying to convince anybody else that it is.  It is clear that I am skeptical that the evolutionary theory of the origin of species is a valid scientific theory using the falsifiable criteria.   65.73.44.65 06:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

In creation science...: This is an article on evolution, not "creation science" which is also an oxymoron. The falsifiability criticism on the evolutionary origin of species is a philosophy of science criticism. If it is also used by those who deem themselves "creation scientists", if as you assert it is, does not make the criticism invalid.


 * Well creation science, as you well know, is the name creationists have tried to adopt to hide the mythological magical supernatural unsupported nature of their beliefs. And what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you criticize evolution, be prepared to get your own beliefs looked at in the same nature. You are not allowed to put up a sign that says "No trespassing". That is not science. And of course it is used by creation scientists. They want to claim evolution is a religion, which it is not. Look it up.--Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You fight for Darwin nearly the same way I fight for my Lord.


 * --You believe what he has written without question
 * --You quash any attempt to discredit him
 * --Evolution is a 100% documented scientific truth, yet you try to spin it as such
 * --You have never met him, have never performed any studies yourself, but you take his word as law
 * --You have never performed any double blind tests to show that evolution is fact
 * --You refuse to acknowledge the cambrian explosion
 * --You refuse to acknowledge the lack of intermediary fossils
 * --You use semantics and false logic to say the second law of thermodyamics doesn't apply
 * --You refuse to acknowledge that gas doesn't clump in a vacuum, which means stars couldn't have formed in the vacuum of space, which means no life on earth


 * Sounds like quite a bit of religious zeal to me.


 * 21:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you criticize evolution, be prepared to get your own beliefs looked at in the same nature.: I am not advocating creationism as a science.  Nowhere in my posts do I advocate creationism as a science.  And I hope that evolutionary origin of species is more than just a belief to you.  I am criticizing the notion that the evolutionary origin of species is a scientific theory that meets the falsifiability criteria.  65.73.44.65 06:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacous Poet

All you need is to have tests you can perform that will show the theory is false.: Exactly right. But don't confuse this with a test that would invalidate a tool that is used to provide evidence for the theory. E.g., falsifying dating techniques would not falsify the theory of evolutionary origin of species. Likewise, showing that a voltmeter is inaccurate would not show that ohms law was incorrect.


 * But if you were able to show that all dating techniques were nonsense and the earth was only 5000 years old, which is not long enough for evolution to take place, it would be all over. And the existence of this test means the theory is falsifiable. End of story. Evolution passes the falsifiability test. GAME OVER!--Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This has given me an idea for another article: Good. Let's hope you don't used biased comparison like your comparision of the evolutionary origin of species with the law of gravity, while completely ignoring speciation, and the other flaws I already pointed out in your comparison.


 * I will be as clear and unbiased as I can be. If that irritates people, then so be it.--Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas. By the way, phil, I am not a sockpuppet of Ken. I saw the dispute you had with him, and can deduce from the actions of the admins and from your comments that you think I am him. Contact me via email, and I will proove to you that I am not that person. You have defamed me and caused admins to block my account on very shaky speculation. I hope you think more clearly when you do real science. 74.33.29.35 18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * I never claimed you were a sockpuppet of Ken, although the fact that you even know who Ken is is curious. I do not care if you are Ken or not. In fact, if you look at the leadup to the RfC against Ken, I pleaded against banning Ken and giving him another chance. He then proceeded to be obnoxious and burned his bridges. So your proof is irrelevant to me. And I would ask you to again define "real science" and tell me what I am doing that is not real science now?--Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I know about Ken because in my ban the reason for the ban was that I was supposedly a sockpuppet of this character.  I suppose when you guys cannot participate in an honest debate, it is just easier to make false, secret accusations against those who are pointing out that like creation science, the theory of the evolutionary origin of species does not hold up to the falsifiable test (your ridiculous article not withstanding).  Biological evolution that leads to new species is a good story, but it has not been reproduced in the lab, and it has not been observed with living species.  It has been inferred in the fossil record, and is akin to astrology, not astronomy.  It is clear that many of you treat the theory as a religion, and behave like fanatics, complete with witch trials, ostracization, secret alligations, obfuscation.  I am a heretic, according to many of you. 67.139.169.22 23:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * That is right, we are dishonest and stupid and in a global conspiracy against you. All several million scientists are in on this. Didnt you know? You know every PhD is trained in how to trick people like you. It is part of our secret cult. OOoooh!!! You are so clever, you found us out. We have had a secret society for hundreds of years just to fool you. Look, I seriously know it is impossible to convince you of anything. I would be shocked if you ever changed your mind about anything. It is not in your best interests, after all. Why would you? You cannot be convinced. And this page is not for this kind of discussion, although once in a while useful information comes out. Such as another article or two to continue to make our point. So go ahead and bitch some more, because all that will do is strengthen your opponents, it seems to me. And then you can talk some more about how unfair we are and how stupid we are etc etc. In the meantime, we will actually be continuing to undermine your ridiculous position which is founded on sand. --Filll 23:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ken, Vacuous Poet, Mr. Sockpuppet, whatever. Here's a fact--you get banned, you come back under another IP Address.  Then you register your name.  I presume that gets banned, although I don't know and I don't care.  You now come back under another IP Address.  You bore me, and I hope you realize that you have zero credibility with this group.  Note how none of the other Christian/Taliban types have come to  your defense or support.  Curious.  So, in my personal opinion, just by saying you're not a sockpuppet does not mean you aren't.  By definition WP:SOCK, you are most definitely one. I'm done with you, and I'm moving on.  OrangeMarlin 19:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think of number of editors have addressed Vacuous poets concerns. I see no value or improvements to be made to the article from this discussion so let us move on. Also Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas to all. It reminds me of All quiet on the Western front. Let us light candles and sing. Peace on earth and goodwill towards men. Seems this old earth could use some peace.GetAgrippa 19:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think some have addressed it. However, there is potential value in continuing the conversation. 65.73.44.65 06:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * Wrong! Nothing in this will improve the article. Fill points out that scientist have used this in legal battles against creationist, so obviously it is done. I question the need to bring the subject up, if one knew it had been addressed as a legal issue. The subject needs to be in the creation-evolution controversy article and not in a science related topic. Further it is a philosophical issue and not the hard science needed for the article. Evolution theory is falsifiable in theoretical terms and historically other alternative theories have surfaced to explain evolution. The concerns about speciation were based on naivety. All have been addressed. Let us move on. GetAgrippa 21:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember, it was All Quiet for precisely one Christmas, and only on a small part of the Western Front! :)  Happy Festivus.  OrangeMarlin 19:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh god everyone, stop. Please, please, just stop. Go drink some egg nog and you'll feel much better.--Margareta 19:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hate egg nog. I'll drink some good chardonnay.  Then go to a movie or two because all the Gentiles will be with families, and the theaters will be empty for us Jews and Atheists.  OrangeMarlin 19:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Fill and Orangemarlin, your comments here seem strange, since you've been adding this to another article:


 * All scientific theories are falsifiable; that is, if evidence that contradicts any given theory comes to light, or if the theory is proven to no longer fit with the evidence, the theory itself is shown to be invalid and is either modified to be consistent with all the evidence or is discarded. Scientific theories can be (and often are) found to be incorrect or incomplete. Since creationism rests on an article of faith, its construction assumes that the narrative accounts of origins can never be shown falsified, no matter how strong the evidence is to the contrary.

Your behavior might objectively appear to be troll-like in that you take a point raised here on the talk page and troll it to the Creationism article page. Why do you not want falsifiablity addressed on the evolution page? This seems truly inconsistent. Would you care to explain this? Your behavior might be interpreted as you're on a mission, in violation of WP:POINT. 65.73.81.251 11:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

It seems to me that there is a crucial flaw in the argument that evolution is not falsifiable. If the fossil record somehow indicated in future discoveries that creatures did not actually change, or tests showed that the earth is in fact 5,000 years old, or scientific evidence emerged which showed that genetic mutation does not in fact affect the phenotype of a given animal, or any other of a host of other possible discoveries are shown to be true, the viability of evolution as a scientific theory would dissolve. The problem with previous arguments on the subject is that they assume you must watch as evolution actually happens in order to prove its truth. Under this reasoning, a huge amount of science should be thrown out because it cannot be directly observed: to use Vacuous Poet's earlier example of Astronomy, we shouldn't try to guess at the composition of sun based absorbance of light because you can't actually touch the suns atmosphere and measure it. We shouldn't try to investigate the composition of the atom or the behavior of electrons (this knowledge has been essential to past and current progress in computing and other fields, by the way) because we can't hold it in our hands and watch where an electron goes. The point of my argument is that not all scientific evidence needs to be directly observed with our five senses, in the present; in fact, indirect evidence, such as that used to judge the feasibility of evolution as a theory, must be used in order to further understand the world. Natsirtguy 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Falsifiability and evolution draft
My thought exactly Margareta (about the article, not the egg nog). So I would like to invite everyone to help me with this rough draft on an article on falsifiability and evolution. Please go to Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft. --Filll 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The LEad Again
The lead again is useless: We've rearranged the article so the expanded descriptions come just after the lead, however, the lead, instead of making use of this to head towards simplicity, provides unexplained terminology as if it explains something to the intended reader. This is a clear violation of WP:LEAD. Adam Cuerden talk 13:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct Adam. I and others have noticed this. However, since you had suggested that we wait until you had worked more on the rest of the article, I was going to hold off. Also we had some strong opposition from one or two quarters. I wrote to the editors about trying to develop some sort of simpler compromise, but I have not heard back yet.--Filll 16:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Afraid I have guests over Christmas and so cannae do much until mid-January sometime, so I'd suggest we be bold and kill the return of the old lead. Adam Cuerden talk 16:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've partially restored the last low-jargon version, then adjusted the new material. I'm not sure the whole history is useful in the lead, and the gloss of alleles needs work, but it's better. Adam Cuerden talk 01:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary comparison table for you to consider
Take a look at this: Talk:Evolution/evolutionreligiondraft. We need more references and citations for this. I am not proposing that for this article but for another article. It is a summary for people to understand the differences between creationism and evolution. Please comment.--Filll 20:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it just me or is fill obsessed with creationists. No offense, I understand that they have their beliefs, and they can be a pain to others who have their own beliefs (such as fill and the intelligent atheist and possibly Ashkenazi Jew M.D.).  But I do request that you reconsider your estimation of me as a creationist.  That the Bible does not discuss evolutionary origin of species is a coincidence.


 * Lumping me in with creationists leads to unproductive discussions. I am not basing anything I say on the Bible (although I have made corrections when other people say incorrect about the bible, e.g., mutable goats in Genesis, in the interest of intellectual honesty.)  If you want to discuss my comments on mutable goats, that is fair game, since I introduced it.


 * I have eyes and a brain, and have never been one to believe what is written over what I see or over what I consider logical. Calling me a creationist is clearly intended as an ad hominem.  I too argue with creationists, because intellectually honest discussions can lead to new ways of seeing things, and realization of errors of ways.  65.73.44.65 03:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * If vacuous is not a creationist and considers that label a slur, I apologize for any offense anyone has caused him. However the views he adopts are quite similar to creationists, to the point of being indistinguishable. Maybe we should call him an evolution sceptic or an anti evolution activist.--Filll 04:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You keep feeding this kid, but he throws out these things that you just have to answer. I am obsessed with Creationists only when they fight science, try to force kids in this country to listen to their myths, and convince politicians to make statements in favor of ID and other pseudo science.  And as for you Vacuous Sockpuppet, you have stated over and over again comments that, for all intents and purposes, are nothing more than what a Creationist would espouse. Just because you say you're not a creationist does not mean that you are not.  It just means you are pushing a creationist agenda in a very unsubtle manner and trying to make you appear to be a "scientist."  But I think it would be best to put you on ignore, but that is not something that can be done with Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin 15:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think the label "creationist" is a slur. Many people are proud to be creationists. And I have no problem with creationists UNTIL they try to force these beliefs on others. Once you are dictating what I and others should believe, then that is over the top. Scientists do not dictate what you should believe. If you want to ignore science and live in a cave, then you are free to. If you want to teach creationism in your church, you are free to. If you want to stand on a street corner and proclaim it, you are free to (within legal limits of course). If you want to hand out fliers about it, go ahead. If you want to write letters to the editor and try to get them published, go ahead. However, at some point this sort of proclamation of your own personal belief crosses over the line. And that line is science class. What is wrong with teaching creation beliefs in:
 * social studies classes
 * religion classes
 * law classes
 * history classes
 * debate classes
 * philosphy classes
 * politics classes
 * current events classes
 * and similar classes. The one boundary that exists is that since creation mythology is not science, it should not be in science class. You can get on your local school board and try to push a curriculum that includes "teach the controversy" and intelligent design and other nonsense for 6 out of 7 hours of the school day, if parents and the state testing requirements let you. However, the one place that this sort of nonscience does not belong is in science class. I personally would love to teach a class on the "controversy" but I would tell the truth and make the creationists look like complete and utter fools and dishonest liars and power hungry jerks. You want it taught? Let me teach it. But don't complain if I teach the truth about this horse****. I think if given the choice of no teaching, and teaching the truth, most creationists would rather it not be taught at all. --Filll 15:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA
Does this apply to the talk pages? 65.73.44.65 04:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacous Poet


 * And how have you been personally attacked? And have you got clean hands yourself? Look what you have done is useful, but I do think that one has to be careful not to badger others. If one starts to make foul charges against the other editors, then the knives will be out.--Filll 04:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Filll. I reread most of what was written here.  Here's what I've accused you of.  Being a sockpuppet.  Not being a scientist.  Not being able to read (and backing it up with quotes of how you misread what I wrote, and badly).  Being a Creationist (or lackey thereof).  Not understanding falsification.  Not understanding speciation.  Wholesale revisions and deletions of this talkl page.  Those could be interpreted as personal attacks, although not in the in the sense of WP:NPA.  You are a sockpuppet.  You aren't a scientist.  You cannot read.  You are a Creationist.  You do not understand falsification.  You do not understand speciation.  And you did delete and revise what was posted on here.  Oh yeah, I called you brainless, but I deleted it.  Your cheap shots on the other hand were not fact based and persistent.  I now am really done with you.OrangeMarlin 15:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You have been reported for abuse and personal attacks.

Ymous 22:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I also will confess to almost calling the vacuous one a Vacuum head, but then I thought better of it. I do not want to make personal slurs.--Filll 15:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I just go to the FSTDT website and I always feel better about it!!!! OrangeMarlin 16:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It was not a threat, it was a quesiton. I did not initiate the ad hominems, but I admit I did take a few cheap shots.  I was asking if this was against policy.  If it is, I will stop.  If it is not, I will continue to take cheap shots from time to time in the interest of entertainment and defense.  65.73.44.65 06:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacous Poet


 * Also, the link seems to vindicate my earlier attempts to remove ad hominem posts. Of course, that lead to my IP being blocked.  Anyway, I don't plan to turn anybody in or anything.  I do not resort to getting admins to defeat my intellectual opponents.  Rather, I attempt to have a discussion.  I will say shame on the person who had an admin block my IP and account, whomever that might be.   65.73.44.65 06:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * It is also possible it was simply an admin policing the article; I'm sure one or more watches this article and checks in periodically. In any event, I fail to see the purpose of bringing it up again, as the issue appears to be closed and you unblocked. As for WTA, it is a guideline, not a policy, and there are other reasons not to insult one another, such as official wikipedia policy. Guidelines are good, but policy obviously trumps them. Titanium Dragon 06:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Vacuous Poet when I started trying to edit this article a whole different crew of editors were here and I thought they were overly paranoid about creationism, however I quickly discovered I was wrong. I was frustruated with all the paranoia and scrutiny, however it is justified. I wish there were no mention of creationism in the article. Vacuous Poet you should not feel slighted, because it has become like a right of passage to be scrutinized. I can't believe the depths of trickery that some supposed Christians take to pursue their agenda and activism (I personally find it offensive). Because creationist use any information that would slight evolution, then any slight quickly is associated with creationism (it is like Pavlov's dogs). I think Titanium is right that a past editor was probably cruising by and blocked you. I do recommend introducing new ideas and concepts with lots of references. That way you may be accused of being an idiot, but at least you would be an educated idiot and follow Wiki policy. I don't think anything in falsifiablity is useful for this article (put in creationist-evolution controvery article), but your points about speciation maybe useful to address misconceptions. I did learn something from the discussion. GetAgrippa 13:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A sockpuppet complaint has been filed against Vacuous Poet and his 4 different IP addresses under which he logs into this discussion. Two of those IP Addresses were banned, and he attempted to get around the ban with other IP addresses.  He made a wholesale deletion of various posts, none of which attacked him personally.  I think Vacuous Poet should move on.  As for his bringing up Speciation, his complete misunderstanding of the science was the basis of a lot of attacks on his knowledge of science, and pseudo-claim to being a "scientist."  I think his knowledge of science is lacking.  I intend to add my comments to any sockpuppet charges that are brought against Vacuous Poet.  OrangeMarlin 15:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This complaint was a secondary complaint. The first complaint, and the first the ban to be under appeal, was when I was banned for being a sockpuppet of KdBuffolo and a single purpose account.  The posts I deleted where in accordance with practices discussed here.  Laying traps for your intellectual opponants might be fun, but all anybody has to do, OrangeMarlin, is review your talk page User_talk:Orangemarlin to see where you right things like This topic infuriates me, because I just despise the Christian Right in the US. - OrangeMarlin  and One day someone has got to explain to me the difference between our Religious Terrorists and the ones in Iran. - OrangeMarlin, leaving no doubt about your beliefs.  In fact, even though you commented on the need for an explaination, when somebody (a person who claimed to be a Jew and a Christian) offered to have such a discussion with you, you scoffed with Jewish Christian? My personal mitzvah is to ignore you. -OrangeMarlin   and later I don't like the Christian right, and I particularly dislike Jews who deny who they are. -OrangeMarlin .   65.73.44.65 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * What is wrong with that? The christian right has done nothing but show hatred towards outsiders. Orangemarlin is completely within his rights for being uncomfortable with them, since there are many from the Christian Right that would like to see him executed for his ancestry. Not much different than the Islamic Right that would want to execute any American for their citizenship. Both make me uncomfortable. Because they are both extremists and dangerous.--Filll 17:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And what is your point Vacuous Puppet. LMFAO.  By the way, you have no clue what a mitzvah is  :)  OrangeMarlin 19:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If this accusation is true then Vacuous Poet needs to be soundly dismissed. GetAgrippa 15:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What accusation? 65.73.44.65 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * Just so you know where I'm coming from with him, here's a quote from above:


 * "Regarding block my account. Easy enough to get around (assuming it is true, and I do not think it is true). Regarding my single purpose account. Not true, I have contributed to other articles on wikipedia. With regard to me being a Creationist. False. Regarding to my not being interested in this article. Self-evident that I am. Regarding my deleting of posts. I did not delete posts that I disagreed with. I left many posts that I disagreed with. I deleted posts that seemed to violate an honeset intellectual discussion. Regarding my being brainless. False. I am in fact a scientist (though unpublished in a journal). I admit that I am not a relevant scientist, though. Regarding the hostility. Some of you are clearly fanatics, self-appointed gaurdians, who obfuscate and ignore a perfectly valid question. Regarding others who have defended the question, thanks. VacuousPoet 20:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC) VacuousPoet" He admits to deleting posts, changing his IP to get around blocks.  Sounds true to me.  OrangeMarlin 16:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good. I wrote that after my IP was blocked for being a sockpuppet of KdBuffalo. I admit to deleting posts in accordance with WP:NPA 65.73.44.65 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

I find Vacuous Poets claim not to be a creationist disingenious. While not promoting creationist positions, he/she trots out well worn creationist attacks on evolution, both here and on other pages. Proof? VP previously quoted a D.S. Woodroff, U.of CA, San Diego, who it turns out only exists on the internet on four creationist quote mine pages. This page is about the science as it exists today. Unless VP can come up with a scientificly accepted theory that challenges the current theory he/she should be ignored, like the troll he/she is. --Michael Johnson 22:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mike, See here: [] where did I cite D.S. Woodroff.  I don't remember doing it.  If I did, it would have been an error of me not knowing it was a quote mine page.  But I do not remember doing that.  Are you sure you don't have me confused with somebody else?  199.62.0.252 23:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * It was in the archive section labeled December 2006. An unsigned anon user, sounding very much like you if not you. I don't have the time to go back and try and match them to your IP, it would help if you actually logged in. You were certainly editing Talk:The Origin of Species where you were trying to associate evolution with Hitler's racial policies. This is a strategy used by creationists in the southern United States, where it strikes a particular note. You used as a reference From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, a book of course written by a Fellow of the Discovery Institute. --Michael Johnson 12:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But I asked where did I cite D.S. Woodroff. That From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany was written by a fellow of the Discovery Institute is a coincidence.  It is also ironic that you object to pointing out that some NAZIs called NAZIism applied darwinism (not a coincidence, by the way), but do not hesitate to say I must be a creation scientist because I mentioned a book who belongs to the Discovery Institute.  I found the book on amazon.  65.73.80.45 06:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

I was going to put something very inflammatory here, but I have thought the better of it. If you can't say something nice....--Filll 22:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wisdom Teeth and Hair
I know little about the way evolution works, and I didn't find the article helpful in answering some of the questions I still have. I have heard that wisdom teeth either evolved in order for humans to have an extra set of molars (because of decay) or that it is because our jaws have just gotten smaller and could not accomidate this. Can someone tell me which of the two theories is true? I've also heard that having fewer wisdom teeth today means that you are more "advance" or have evolved (in the context of your dentry), since now humans do not require their wisdom teeth. Is it true that if I lack wisdom teeth, I have more advanced in this sense? I really don't understand how evolution works.

I have also heard that humans have a trend of losing hair (or having our hair become thinner) as we evolve; that is, our ancesters had a lot of thick hair, while we have gradually evolved to having fewer or thinner hair. What is the reason for this? From what I understand of evolution, you only evolve when a new genetic mutation benefits the species in some way so that the new mutation is selected for -- in terms of humans eventually growing to have fewer hair... I don't see how the mutation of less-hair would make much of a difference -- how could we have "evolved away" our body hair?

Assuming that the logic so far is correct, would it mean that having less hair today would mean you are more evolved or "more advanced" in this sense? For example, asians tend to have less body hair (or at least, thinner body hair) than other races from what I know -- would this mean that in this sense, they are more advanced (in that they have "evolved away" their useless hair)? I don't mean more advanced generally speaking, but in the sense of being "further along" in terms of body hair (or lack thereof). I mean, if Homo sapien sapiens have evolved from having a lot of body hair to having less hair, doesn't that mean that those races today with less body hair have evolved? 24.23.51.27 14:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be good for you to get an account and sign in. Evolution does not make a later species "more advanced" or less advanced, or more or less evolved. This is a common misunderstanding. If there was some strong disadvantage to having wisdom teeth, they would disappear. If there was some strong disadvantage to having body hair, it would disappear. If there is no strong disadvantage, my impression is that it is a matter of genetic drift, but I would bow to any biological experts to weigh in on this. These are examples of vestigial structures, and you can read about them in that article. Humans have at least 180 of these. This was presented as part of the Scopes Monkey Trial in which creationists were roundly and soundly discredited and made to look like complete, well, monkeys (even though they won the case, they lost the battle). --Filll 14:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Evolution doesn't make things more or less advanced. In the case of humans, natural selection is not playing nearly as strong a role as it used to - we can cure cancer and a number of previously-fatal diseases, so genes which select for resistance to those are not as strongly held. Basically, were we still under significant pressure, with clothes we might lose our body hair even more, and with our softer food and better dental care, lose our wisdom teeth. These mutations, however, are more likely to be controlled by genetic drift, as few people in the first world die of wisdom teeth, and we have enough food to support body hair freely. Only when there is pressure will it be forced, though sexual selection may gradually select for or against certain traits. Titanium Dragon 20:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that if humans do not wipe themselves, out, we will end up changing the gene pool through genetic engineering rather than through natural selection.--Filll 21:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A great "explanation" of mutations
''Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes (because of sin and the Curse), and these mistakes show up in a variety of ways. For instance, some people let their hair grow over their ears to hide the fact that one ear is lower than the other -- or perhaps someone's nose is not quite in the middle of his or her face, or someone's jaw is a little out of shape -- and so on.'' from. Wow we have to revise all those science books. All those Nobel Prizewinners and scientist are dumb !! We had it all wrong--Filll 19:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Entertaining, and remarkably similar ideas to Aristotle's concept of Formal Cause, the perfect ideal with variations being perceived as deterioration: see also History of biology. This perception filled well with the medieval interpretation of Created kinds. Which of course resurfaces with out modern evangelical chums. Onward to the Dark Ages! .. dave souza, talk 00:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this contributing to the evolution article? Selective application of rules and guidelines.  The rules and guidelines apply to those who find fault in the evolution article.  74.33.26.71 06:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

I don't know how to start a new topic: this topic looks bogus and biased, but its the closest one I could find to the MUTATION section in the main EVOLUTION page. I propose a few comments be added to the following sentences:

''Mutations that are not affected by natural selection under current environmental conditions are called neutral mutations. Their frequency in the population is governed by mutation rate, genetic drift and selective pressure on alleles to which they are linked. It is understood that most of a species' genome, in the absence of selection, undergoes a steady accumulation of neutral mutations. Note that if the environment changes, a mutation that was originally neutral may become either deleterious or beneficial'' --DNAunion 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A few improvements can be made to this:

''Large chromosomal rearrangements do not necessarily change gene function, but do generally result in reproductive isolation, and, by definition, speciation (species (in sexual organisms) are usually defined by the ability to interbreed). An example of this mechanism is the fusion of two chromosomes in the homo genus that produced human chromosome 2; this fusion did not occur in the chimp lineage, resulting in two separate chromosomes in extant chimps.''

1) the name of a genus should be capitalized and either underlined or italicized. Therefore, I believe that "in the homo genus" should be changed to "in the Homo genus".

2) Is the parenthetical definition of species needed here? Can't it be eliminated?

3) It would more convincing to point out that the fusion did not occur in chimps, gorillas, or orangutans, which all have the primitive state of possessing 24 pairs of chromosomes, instead of 23 pairs as humans do. --DNAunion 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal Disputes
Why are only some personal disputes removed? E.g., see []. 199.62.0.252 23:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * You want to be helpful? You want to not get in trouble here? My suggestion is to be constructive and offer constructive suggestions. Do not use creationist websites in any way shape or form, but your own brains. The creationism article is in sad shape and it could stand some assistance. Many others could as well. Arguing and fighting with other editors is not helpful. For example, think up more falsifiability tests for evolution. Do web searches and find others. Find better references to Huxley's precambrian rabbit example. See if you can find other references to precambrian rabbits besides Huxley and Dawkins. See if you can find references to the falsifiability tests we already have. There are many many things that can be done that are constructive instead of mindless fighting and dredging up tired old nonsense from creationist websites that was dismissed 20, 50, 100, 150 years ago.--Filll 23:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Constructive Criticisms, again
1. The article does not sufficiently differentiate between evolution in general and evolutionary speciation in particular. Specifically, evolution can be divided into two classes: a. Evolution within a species. b. Evolutionary speciation. The article (and author?) treats them as equal, when in fact there is a quantum leap from a. to b.
 * Why this concern about evolution inside or outside species when the concept of a species is so illdefined anyway? --Michael Johnson 11:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Think it is fairly well defined. Wikipedia states:, "Biological / reproductive species = Two creatures of the same species are able to reproduce (without human help) and have a 'child' that is fertile." I know what that means although I'm off to change it so the thing makes sense. Candy 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't, actually. Different species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring; not all mules are infertile, for instance. It is actually relatively arbitrary. It is still up for debate, honestly; it is an arbitrary line drawn by humans. Titanium Dragon 20:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it is an arbitrary line drawn by humans in some cases. I think though it is clear enough. The speciation arguments should go on the species page because, arbitrary or not, the definition should easily fit a large majority of current and prior species. Candy 07:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

2. The first sentence might be improved with "In biology, evolution is the process in which the relative frequencies of inherited traits change through successive generations."
 * I disagree with the "In biology,". I wiped that earlier because the article starts with the sentence, "This article is about evolution in biology." Adding that simply makes it two words larger and no clearer. Candy 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, well how about "Evolution is the process in which the relative frequencies of inherited traits change through successive generations." This seems better worded and technically correct?  Is this incorrect?  Or is the present "Evolution is the process in which some inherited traits in a population become more common relative to others through successive generations." more readable?  65.73.80.45 01:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

3. The article does not define what term population means.
 * It shouldn't. It should merely link to the biological def of population. It's fairly self explanatory anyway don't you think? Candy 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

4. While some in this discussion object to science philosophy with regard to falsifiability of evolutionary speciation, the article relies on science philosophy for definitions of a scientific fact and scientific theory.

5. With regard to falsifiability, 1.a is much easier to show as being falsifiable (read: testable/observable/empirical) than 1.b.  Describe in the article how falsifiability is applied to 1.b.  From wikipedia's article on the scientific method.


 * Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.

6. "Some people find this offensive because it "degrades" humankind." should have a reference. Otherwise, it sounds like original research.
 * Strike the sentence anyway. Weasley words = "some people".

7. "Evolution has been used to support philosophical and ethical choices which most contemporary scientists consider were neither mandated by evolution nor supported by science..." Reference, please? Sounds like original research, please provide a reference. Scientific theories never limit how they are applied. Not that the misapplication should be removed from the article, but the defensive stance seems to be more soapboxing. This section needs to be reworked with regard to social controversies.
 * Agree totally Strike it unless there is some validation or explanation. It's vague at best and confused PoV as it stands. Candy 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

8. The section on speciation would do well enumerate experimental confirmation of speciation in the lab. Please consider the inclusion of a table of the various life forms. E.g., insects in one row, mammals in another row, plants in yet another row, and so on and so forth. In one of the columns list if speciation has been experimentally observed, or if a change in fertility has been observed between two or more distinct populations descended from the same lab ancestry (which does not prove speciation, but it is evidence of moving toward speciation). Another column might explain why speciation has not been experimentally verified in the lab, e.g., because the generation time of some life forms is too long. Do not let concerns with providing so-called "Mythical God-believing fundamentalist Christians" ammunition dissuade you from making the article better and more informative.

I'll add more in the future as time goes on. Meanwhile, please consider these suggestions, but please do not take them personally. I like the new fill who is trying to avoid personal attacks. 74.33.26.71 07:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * Falsifiabilty has been addressed ad nauseum. It is time to archive it. I added Mayr's definition of a species to species extinction section. The intro reads like evolution is synonymous with speciation. The article is too long to make a table of speciation (that would be better in Speciation article). However, references should be provided and a couple of good examples.GetAgrippa 14:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the a proposed table for speciation, that might be fine (moving it to speciation, but it reminds me, why is the gravity table in so many different articles? E.g., Evolution], [[Creation-evolution controversy, and Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft.  I think I have seen it other places, but the table even once has problems.  74.33.26.71 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Vacous Poet


 * The posting above is part of the reason that I think it would be best if the evolution article was just on the science, and all other comments were summarily deleted on the talk page. Separate articles on creationist nonsense arguments could be created. Falsifiability is just a distraction because creationists are frantic to attack evolution; it was used as a way to show their beliefs are not science and they are aching to use it against evolution. And the speciation argument is as old as the hills and ludicrous. These have all been dismissed over and over. People who bring these up are not interested in discussion or debate or knowledge. They are just luddites and angry anti-intellectual malcontents. Also, this is not the way science is done. One side does not just have to be opened up to attack and the other side gets to hide its beliefs or have its beliefs beyond criticism. In a true debate, Creationism has to be open to criticism. Of course they do not want that because it will fail every test put before it, and they know that. --Filll 15:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Ymous 18:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC) "Luddites" and "angry anti-intellectual malcontents" are personal attacks.


 * The response above from Filll shows that constructive criticism is not taken in the spirit it was given. Falsifiability is on the wikipedia page for the scientific method, but an editor declares that falsifiability of evolutionary speciation is creationist criticism, and therefore somehow invalid by association. "They are just luddites."  Is that the creationists or the authors of wikipedia's scientific method page74.33.26.71 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * That point about deleting the controversy has merit in the article. It has always been assumed that addressing the issue will help neutralize the onslaught. I don't know it may precipitate it. It would be interesting to compare troll-vandal hits in an evolution article without controversy or history compared with controversy and history. Expand the present article with jargon but explain it in laymans terms-just science. Make it an overwhelmingly convincing article that would be difficult to dismiss. Lots of images to demonstrate phenomena. Rather than an article a production like presentation. Get A Grippa!!! Sorry just dreaming. GetAgrippa 15:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am just wondering what the right response is. They want to find someone to play word games with, and play the same games over and over. They are not interested in knowledge or learning, as near as I can determine, but just being trolls. I do think that Wikipedia needs to have some good articles where people looking to defend themselves from this sort of crap can go to get information and links to other sites. But should it in be in the science article itself? Just wondering... If we deleted that material, and then just deleted people like vacuous poet on sight, then how long would a given creationist nut try to disrupt things?--Filll 17:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And Filll continues to delete messages on a talk page that he has NO BUSINESS deleting. None. If a post agrees with his factually inaccurate view of Evolution, it stays. If it disagrees, he removes it.

Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias.

12.145.177.110 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "...and then just deleted people like vacuous poet on sight..." Come on fill, some people are agreeing with my constructive criticisms that you requested. 74.33.26.71 17:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * I think you need to mention the controvery, probably in just one section, but the whole article should not be written as propaganda defense. 74.33.26.71 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * "should not be written as propaganda defense." You should state defensive not propaganda defense that is your POV. Vacuous, why do you change you I.P. so much seems dishonest or a POV pusher at a minimum. You also seem like more than one person. GetAgrippa 18:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah. I don't believe that Vacuous is a creationist. I don't believe true Christians would resort to dishonest tactics to expound an agenda, however I realize there are nutcases like the Army of God, etc.GetAgrippa 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)