Talk:Evolution/Archive 6

Deleted sentence regarding Roman Catholicism and soul
I deleted the last, concluding sentence (in bold) from the following:


 * In the same address, Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul:


 * "Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."


 * placing the Catholic church at odds with the findings of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology, both of which attempt to provide scientific explanations for human behavior and consciousness.

It does not follow from the definition of "soul" in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man." --Johnstone 00:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Mutation and Article Organization
I believe that this statement about mutation may be incorrect or misleading:

"Mutations are considered the driving force of evolution, since they introduce new genetic variation, without which evolution cannot proceed."

The comment about the "driving force of evolution" also appears in the Mutation article.

I thought natural selection was considered the driving force of evolution and mutation was only one of several mechanisms that could generate variation that natural selection could act upon. Other mechanisms include genetic recombination and horizontal transfer.

This focus on mutation over natural selection is also apparent in this passage, "Microevolution consists of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over the course of a few generations. These changes may be due to a number of processes: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, as well as natural selection" and also in the organization of the article.

I feel like the article would be better if natural selection were moved up, maybe organizing the section on the scientific theory more like this:
 * 1) Differential survival of traits
 * 2) Emergence of novel traits
 * 3) Microevolution and macroevolution
 * 4) Speciation and extinction
 * 5) Ancestry of organisms

(this comment by User:Mayumi 8:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC), {Kim Bruning 09:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)} )


 * Selection and Variation are roughly equally important I think. If either is missing, then there's no evolution. Kim Bruning 09:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Mutation is perhaps the most important way of providing variation, but I don't think it should really be called a "driving force" - I would think that the strength of selection is independent of the rate of mutation. If it were to be considered a "drivign force" then there should be some relationship between the rate of mutation and the rate of evolution.  Guettarda 14:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I also think that in the section on mutation, there should be more discussion about the different types of mutation (point mutation, frameshift mutation cause by insertions or deletions, etc.) and the relative helpfulness/harmfulness of mutations, maybe including examples like sickle cell anemia. This page from the Talk Origins archive might be a good source. Mayumi 21:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The article is sloppy in places in making a distinction between two kinds of forces: those that introduce genetic variation, and those that alter the frequency of that genetic variation. Not surprising, since a lot of biologists are sloppy about making the same distinction. Obviously mutation falls in the first category, and drift, selection, gene flow, fall in the second. I think both of these should properly be considered components of evolution, and I DO think the article generally makes that clear. But there are probably many places where it is not clear that need to be cleaned up, to emphasize that both kinds of forces are necessary, "driving" forces.
 * I don't agree that a full discussion of different types of mutation is in order, incidentally; that's a level of detail not required in this article, especially since there is already a separate mutation article. Graft 21:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If we don't elaborate more on specific aspects of mutation, then I think we should think about how to make the organization of that section a little tighter. Right now there's the picture of the different kinds of mutation on the right (which seems to have been lifted from the mutation article) that has neither an informative caption nor a direct relation to the article text, and the comment on neutral mutation seems out of place where it is (not to mention that neutral mutations are defined again in the section on natural selection, which seems redundant) . Mayumi 23:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah I don't really like that picture. It only presents chromosomal rearrangements as mutations. It was put in there to make the article prettier for featuring... i think we should lose it. Graft 03:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

niche creation
I think that the article is currently wrong when it states that there is no clear distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. I'm not an ecologist, but I know several ecologists and they seem to think that there is a distinction. I think this comes down to niche creation...you can't have speciation without a niche for the new species to fill. Also, I want to point outerstershgdhgfdjhdh that niche creation is different from niche construction. Niche creation does not require any activity on the part of the organism, except to exploit the opportunity. I think it has something to do with competition for a limiting resource... This is to say nothing about the organismal changes involved in speciation, such as genetic incompatibilities or physiological trade-offs requiring specialization for one niche or another. AdamRetchless 22:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Adam, the mechanisms of micro and macro evolution are the same; the difference between the two is a matter of scale only.
 * If you mean "mutation and natural selection", then I agree that they are the same. However, I think that the nature of the mutations and the nature of the selection is (self-evidently) different. Anyway, we aren't going to resolve this here. I won't return to this topic until I get a chance to pull up some textbooks and get a better idea of the common opinion on this topic is. As a note, I get the impression that there may be different opinions from those who study microbes (like I do) and those who study plants/animals. Or perhaps the gap is between those who study genetics from a physiological viewpoint and those who study it from a population viewpoint. Anyway, that gap is closing and we're gonna see some big advances in this area in the next few decades.AdamRetchless 22:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think what you are referring to is better situated in a debate over what is the object of natural selection -- many believe it is the organism; Dawkins argues it is the gene; Gould argues (in his last work, which I have read about but not read directly) that it operates at the species level. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  17:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Gould was arguing that it happens on multiple levels simultaneously, which makes sense to me. (I never finished reading his last work...I only made it through the 90-page introduction)AdamRetchless 22:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on what the "niche creation" aspect has to do with it, but I'd agree that "macroevolution" implies something different than "microevolution". There's no clear distinction in the sense that physical processes underly them both, but there are obviously distinct mechanisms driving speciation, genetic and selective, compared to everyday adaptation. Graft 17:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Drop the "niche creation" comment if you'd like. It may be more of an ecological concept than an evolutionary concept. AdamRetchless 22:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The mechanisms are identical in micro and macroevolution, The only real difference is that in "macroevolution" you have the situation where 2 (or more) populations become decoupled and thus will tend to eventually drift apart. Kim Bruning 00:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm talking about. Macroevolution involves the genetic and ecological separation of populations. That is very different from the mechanisms involved in microevolution (still mutation and selection, but of a different nature). AdamRetchless 13:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I think I just said that those were not different, just that they go out of sync in 2 separated populations. Kim Bruning 15:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyway, that's ONE mechanism of speciation out of many; furthermore, mechanisms resulting in genetic isolation can't be described merely by "mutation and selection". Large chromosomal rearrangements are a good example of an event that might be considered to partition these two. Graft 16:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, is there any reason to keep treat macroevolution separately from speciation and extinction? AdamRetchless

Perhaps my concern over making a distinction between micro and macroevolution is this: it fetishizes the concept of "species." I am not trying to argue over the definition of "species," but the fact that evolutionary scientists argue over it is enough to signal that it is a complex issue. What I am trying to call attention to is that one of Darwin's most profound insights was to realize that species are statistical phenomena. Previously, European taxonomists believed that all species were distinct and unrelated and that for every species there was an ideal type. Variations within the species (an organism that diverged from the idea) were considered signs of damage, decadence, or some other imperfection. Darwin's genious was to explain why variation is actually a good thing -- because variation provides the fodder for natural selection, and what is a variant today might be a new species tomorrow. If we define micro and macroevolution as distinct, don't we run into the specious "missing link" problem? Slrubenstein  |  Talk  14:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on your missing link concern? Graft 16:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only reason people ever thought there was a "missing link" is because they misunderstood the Darwinian view of species as statistical phenomena. Thinking that species are real, discrete things, they assume that in a transition from one species to another there must be one transitional form (the missing link between the two species). In fact we all know there is no "missing link," there is no single transitional form, because the transformation from one species to another occurs through the interaction of variation and natural selection over many generations. This process is simultaneously microevolution and macroevolution. Or, to put it another way, "microevolution" is what we call it when we choose to look at a relatively small sample taken from a relatively short time-span, and "macroevolution" is what we call it when we look at a relatively large sample from a relatively long time span. We choose the scale of our research. But objectively, it is the same thing. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  16:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

bickering

 * On my user discussion page, Graft writes "Your argument that scientists are sometimes wrong is irrelevant." I believe you need to check your logic if you are thinking that this has no relevance with evolution, Graft.  Scientists in history have FREQUENTLY been wrong.  The scientists is Galileo's day were convinced that our solar system possessed a geocentric nature (planets revolved around the earth,) while Galileo himself hypothesized that it was Copernican (planets around sun.) Most European thinkers in the late 15th century believed the earth was flat until Columbus proved that it was round.  Be careful, sir, when you say that I am ignorant.  Just because you know a few greek symbols and a thing or two about biology does not mean that you are the epoch of wisdom.  Notice that you are the one that has fired the personal comments, not I.  I respect your education, but keep in mind that just because you were indoctrinated with the religion of evolution does not mean that evolution is the explanation for all living things; if you would like to refer to this as "species," then go ahead, but in this article, I see a theory that attempts to explain the origin of life.  There is no problemo there!  That is science!  Great!  Fantastic!  (*Applauds*)  Because considering the lack of proof and abundance of disproof for evolution, YOU CAN'T CALL IT ANYTHING MORE THAN A THEORY!!!  And a theory is indeed scientific.  I'm OK with that! The problem here is a three sentence paragraph in the introduction of this article that is so incoherent and deceptive with presenting the important details of evolution as a theory.  Once again - I will promptly retire after that is corrected.  Salva31 9:57 10 Apr, 2005
 * Evolution is not a religion, regardless of what indoctrination you have recieved. You obviously lack knowledge of what a theory is. Did you know that General Relativity is a theory? Pretty much EVERYTHING in science is theory, because ANYTHING can be disproven... in theory. In practice, however, we most likely have some things right, completely, totally, and utterly right. In most cases, we probably know a subset.
 * Ironically, evolution is quite possibly among the best theories science has at the moment. We know that certain parts of it are almost certainly correct, and that other parts at least describe a large number of subsets.
 * We DO know that creatures change over time (evolve), and we DO know that natural selection and sexual selection are at least two major components of it. It is pretty much impossible to dispute that in any reasonable manner, and no one has made any sort of good attempt to falsify either in a scientific manner. The fossil record supports evolution very well indeed, and in the scientific community it is the ONLY theory. It is at the very center of biology; all of biology works, occurs, is consistant because, and is explained by evolution.
 * Your belief that "theory" makes it a lesser thing is flawed. Additionally, your example of Galelio is ironic because it was the church which suppressed him, just as it has attempted (and failed) to suppress evolution, because it undermines their authority. Titanium Dragon 04:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * As an aside, before relying on the Galileo story, you should read up on it. He was really excommunicated for calling the pope an idiot, not because he said the Earth orbits the Sun.  Of course, I am simplifying this, but the Roman Catholic Church gets a bad rep for something they didn't really do.  Then again, everything comes through the lens of history, now doesn't it :-D.  (Oh, and I'm not a Catholic) --Ignignot 18:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with trying to draw a line between macroevolution and microevolution is that you have to determine at what point "speciation" occurs. Problem number one is the definition of species - do morphologically identical birds which do not respond to each other's calls constitute a species (since they will not interbreed if they don't recognise that the other bird is trying to breed)? If it's hard to draw the line between species, it's hard to draw the line between the process leading to speciation and the process leading to change within a species. The second problem is that of sympatric speciation. If you can have sympatric speciation (which you can) then you can have macroevolution without the sort of separation that Adam was talking about.
 * I was not assuming allopatric speciation. Anyway, that's trivial (in some ways). Sympatric speciation is where things are really interesting. AdamRetchless

As for "niche creation", again, we have the problem of defining the niche. Does niche creation lead to speciation, or does speciation cause niche creation? [At this point I will not get into the debate over neutral theory (in ecology), but it adds a whole new dimension to this]. Guettarda 13:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how the niche is created, all that matters is that two species can't occupy the same niche in a stable manner. Anyway, I think this gets back to why the "micro/macro" section exists in the first place. It seems to be a place for evolutionists to simply assert that creationists are wrong, without any real scientific content. In such a case, I think we should merge it with "speciation and extinction" AdamRetchless 13:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I might disagree with that. Hubbell's neutral theory suggests just that - that functionally identical species can coexist.  Chesson's lottery model actually allows pretty much stable coexistence between identical species so long as there is dispersal limitation.  As for micro/macro - they are real differences, the problem is only how you define the boundary - and that is a big problem, but only for people who work along the border.  Micro is real because there are lots of lab-type reductionists who wouldn't know a real plant or animal if they say them (unless you're talking about C. elegans, Drosophila or Arabidopsis, and then only sometimes).  Micro is very much the study of the "possible", while macro is the study of what works (has worked) in the real world.  So, although creationists often say they accept micro and not macro, the problem is that micro is actualy far more of a challenge to creationism than macro is.  Guettarda 14:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Offtopic discussion removed. check page history)


 * This is in fact not a discussion forum, public or otherwise. Please take this discussion to such a forum. Thanks! :-) Kim Bruning 19:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said following the OP in this discussion, this page is a forum for discussing how to write this encyclopaedia entry. I'm sure many people would be happy to educate you at IIDB. Joe D (t) 19:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand there are many more productive things we could be discussing here. These arguments have been had before. How about creating a subpage for this nonsense and so the real discussions don't get drowned out? Barnaby dawson 21:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, thank you. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum :-) Kim Bruning 21:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course its not. However, talk pages are for discussion of enhancing page content.  Now that function is being undermined by a few users who insist on making poor arguments regarding creationism.  This is a problem that isn't limited to this page.  The question is "How can we deal with the problem without compromising the principles of wikipedia?"


 * What's been done is a purge of much of creationist talk on this talk page. That is hardly the answer to the problem.  I suggest rather that we create a section/subpage to deal within creationist issues with the article.  That way when people are looking at the talk page it won't be a total mess.  I suggest that any material that falls under that heading is moved to that section.  Barnaby dawson 08:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * All I can say is beware of what you wish for. We're not going to be making "free speech zones" on wikipedia though. Folks should fight it out here, but keep it fair and square :) Kim Bruning 10:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm I might have missed some offtopic stuff. Feel free to remove any you still see. You can do the same in future, but allow for a little while for discussions to progress, some folks take a little while getting to a point (which might well be valid wrt wikipedia). Kim Bruning 21:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Finished Kim's refactoring (removed part of the "bickering" section, but rescued Adam's and my comments about speciation, which were actually part of the prior discussion). Since I was in the process and got an edit conflict I also removed Salva's latest bit in which he insisted that this is a pubic board (again, it's in the archive). See: What Wikipedia is not. Guettarda 21:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground
Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter in an intelligent manner, and engage in polite discussion. Do not create or modify articles just to prove a point. Do not make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation 3. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban. See also Dispute resolution.

So you simply remove everything that you disagree with? We were still on topic. This is not a spirit of cooperation! Salva31


 * I'm sorry Salva but I do not think that your comments to this talk page really qualify either as in "a spirit of cooperation". I think that you have been guilty of many of those things you are accusing others of.


 * You have broken the above rules in several ways:


 * You've insulted people by the tone you've used in discussion.
 * You've tried to intimidate those who don't agree with you by the shear volume of your text (on the talk page).
 * You've not been civil or calm with your edits.


 * As such although I have criticised others for deleting much of your text in which you do these things I would support them in moving all such material to a subpage in future. Barnaby dawson 09:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's not do that. As long as Salva 31 keeps it short and simple and on topic, there shouldn't be a problem in future, right? Kim Bruning 10:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, to be fair to Salva, I was pretty uncivil to him, I think. Graft 12:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Graft. This is obviously a debate that is sensitive on both sides.  Likewise, I owe you an apology for the contributions I made in escalating the argument.Salva3109:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evolutionary creationism and theistic evolution
As I understand things, the phrase evolutionary creationism usually refers to the general belief that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the scientific theory of evolution. However, if most people who use this term hold that God is directly involved in the formation of new species, then this indeed should be noted as having the emphasis on Creationism, with evolution only tacked on as a secondary concern.

I have been hearing the term theistic evolution used to describe the view that the acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology. In this view, it is held to be religiously correct to reinterpret ancient religious texts in line with modern-day scientific findings about evolution. Is my understanding of this useage correct? (BTW Reinterpreting ancient texts to match the findings of modern day science and philosophy is not new. Many of the medieval religious rationalists, such as Maimonides, did just this.)

Please offer your ideas and thoughts at Talk:Evolutionary creationism. Thanks. RK 20:21, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * RK, would Pierre Teilhard de Chardin be an example of what you are talking about? Slrubenstein  |  Talk  21:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More discussion of evolution as a scientific theory

 * I removed the uneccessary label inferring that I was ranting against science. That makes me laugh!  I love science!  Love reading, writing, studying, and learning about it!  I am not against science -- I am against lies, and twists in the truth.  That is complete nonsense.  Your attempts to bullhead me and any threats to your belief system are irrational and have been seen before in this nationwide debate.  Post on my talk page plz, so as not to cram this one.  Salva31 09:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I took the liberty of removing the inappropriate opinion in this article's introduction. Oversteps guidelines for NPOV. Salva31


 * Ok, you were bold, that's good. But you can improve on taking it to talk. :-) It might be good to paste the paragraph you removed to here, and disect it, showing what you think is wrong with it. That way we can all pitch in and help you fix :-) Kim Bruning 20:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would be glad to, but it will have to wait to tomorrow, as I want to be sure and display my analyses in detail. As of now, my fingers are paralyzed from typing and they need to get their beauty sleep. Oh, and be sure to check out my new and improved user front page. I will eventually use that info to support my position, and don't really feel like it would make sense to clog up this talk page any further by posting it all here. Until then... Salva31 10:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok so I didn't get a chance to save the original, but the only difference between that one and this segment was the somewhat more un-NPOV statement about the Creationist skeptics and so forth. If I am wrong, correct me. Right, so here's round #2: Currently, the modern synthesis is the most powerful theory explaining variation and speciation, and for use in the science of biology, it has replaced other explanations for the origin of species, including creationism and Lamarckism. I have to admit I'm proud. We're almost there! But not quite.
 * 1) Currently, the modern synthesis is the most powerful theory explaining variation and speciation,
 * Could there be a slight grammar error there? Can we take out the the after currently?  This is a rock-solid, A+ statement about evolution.


 * 1) and for the use in the science of biology, it has replaced other explanations for the origin of species, including creationism and Lamarckism.
 * And here we have the same exact problem in a simply different context. Still a little egregious.  Guys, if your theory is legit, it's gonna survive on its own=).  No need to try and convert others to your beliefs in a wiki article.  We are only in the Information Age, not the Too-Much-Information Age.  If you have an argument with this, look at the chromosome table on my user page, and if you need more proof that human beings did not evolve from rocks, then I would be glad to help you out!

Salva31 21:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Salva, this is not about converting anyone to any beliefs - that sentence presents a simple fact. Biologists do not accept Lamarckism or creationism as an explanation for the origin of species. Graft 07:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Graf. I wouldn't delete the "currently" because all scientists understand that a more robust model or theory is always a possibility.  But certainly, at this time the modern synthesis is the most robust theory.  Moreover, that in the science of biology it has replaced other theories is accurate.  Perhaps Alva isn't thoroughly familiar with English grammar.  "Is" is normative, not indicative, so it is not trying to "convert anyone"  As to Salva's comments about the too-much-information age, chromosomes, and rocks -- I simply do not understand what he is talking about. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  17:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * How many times do I have to say this, Graft? Not all biologists believe that we came from rocks!  Maybe the ones that you know believe this, but making such a bold, unsupported claim is very impulsive on your part.  You let the biologists believe what they want to believe and you believe what you want to believe.  This has become a very supercilious mantra of yours!  We need patient analysists here, not assumptive admonitors.  Also, sarcasm is not an effective way to communicate.
 * Like I say, there's a lot of biologists around here who actually know and work with a lot more biologists. We actually know the number of creationist biologists is negligible. Project Steve has the best take on that claim.  Joe D (t) 00:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * When I refer to rocks, I am trying to incite a feel for the slight cheesiness in Neo-Darwinism. What makes more sense?  Scientist #1 says "there is evidence for design, so there must be a designer," and scientist #2 says "well, maybe it just took millions and millions and millions and millions of years for all of this to materalize by itself without a creator."  You think science isn't science unless it is viewed atheistically?
 * No, we think science isn't science when it isn't based on the scientific method, especially observation. The argument from design is therefore not scientific.  Joe D (t) 00:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The chromosome chart on my user page is a quantitative analysis of the number of chromosomes carried by each of those organisms. And if you really, really need me to explain it, I would be happy to.  But look at it one more time and think carefully.  Think--"what is Salva trying to prove here?" Salva31 18:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have posted to your UserTalkPage a question about what your quantitative analysis of the number of chromosomes means--if you have a moment. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That Salva knows even less about genetics and molecular biology than about evolution? Like I say, a lot of the people on this talk page actually study, have degrees and doctorates in, do research on and teach biology. Your claims about rocks and chromosome numbers are pretty lame and laughable, showing you don't even know what you're arguing against. Why not start with the Origin of Life page, especially the bit describing the pre-life chemistry of Earth and early replicators, then move on from there. Please do explain what you're trying to prove with the chromosome table, because I'm stuck on which one of the three ludicrous claims it is. Joe D (t) 00:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salva, I wasn't attempting to be sarcastic. I was being serious. There is a good reason to say that biologists accept the modern synthesis theory of evolution and don't accept creationism. It is true; there may be a handful of practicing biologists who are also creationists, but they are a bare handful, and they are not taken seriously. Few if any of these very, very few creationist biologists would attempt to publish scientific papers disputing evolution, because they are unable to muster scientific arguments that pass the scrutiny of their peers. On the rare occassion when they ARE published (e.g. Behe just published a piece of crap paper in Protein Science) their work is not highly regarded and is torn apart by critics. Graft 00:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joe D, I know enough about your theory to know that it is imagination with a tiny amount of evidence. I glanced at the origin of life page and was not surprised; I have been taught those silly theories ever since I was a freshman in high school. If you are going to resolve by attacking my education, it only makes you look more arrogant. I have not chosen to disclose my educational background, nor will I until this argument is over. You are making quite a gamble there by saying such things, my friend 8-|
 * I am not attacking your education, I am attacking your qualifications to speak on this subject, as clearly demonstrated by your poor arguments and the fact that you are continuing to avoid arguments. I am well aware that my reply to you may look arrogant to somebody who isn't aware of the background of the argument or the fact that creationism and evolution are not equally valid explanations.  But I don't care, I'm tired of you misrepresenting science and trying to put anti-scientific POV in this article.  Your qualifications would be of some minor interest, but they don't change the fact that you are yet to make a valid argument against evolution or for creation on this page. Joe D (t) 23:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it just because I'm a Yank?

 * 1) I am not avoiding arguments, you are the one saying that I am avoiding arguments. Which arguments do you think I have avoided?  I'm arguing with you right now, aren't I?  DUH!
 * See above, e.g. chromosomes.


 * 1) I am not anti-science! I am against using lies and misrepresentation of information to support your theory.  You are an imbecile if you think that having an atheistic viewpoint of biology makes that field more or less scientific, and you are an imbecile if you think that the foundations of science collapse without the theory of evolution.
 * Who was taking an atheistic viewpoint of biology? You think evolution is atheistic?  Evolution simply does not invoke a designer, it does not need to, natural selection is a very powerful imitator of a designer.  I didn't say science collapsed without evolution, I am saying evolution is science and creationism is not.  Creationism does not follow the scientific method and is not supported by evidence, the study of evolution does follow the scientific method and evolution is supported by mountains of evidence (and you are an imbecile if you think it is not), therefore you are anti-science in accepting a non-scientific idea as a scientific theory.


 * 1) We are making NO PROGRESS because you are the one that keeps attacking me and my reasons to have a discussion about editing this article, which I originally was going about in a completely appropriate manner. This is against Wikipedia regulations, considered trolling if I am correct.  Every time I try to present information for discussion, you have attempted to inferiorate me just because I am skeptical of your theory.  This is getting old and I really really wish we could just get back on topic, but I am being forced to defend my credibility instead.
 * Your credibility is questioned because you are showing an extreme ignorance of the topic you are attempting to edit, if you didn't make glaring errors such as those above (starting by getting evolution mixed up with cosmology and then thinking evolution is atheistic isn't a good start)


 * 1) A respectable scientist considers all possibilities and keeps an open mind. You are not acting respectable or like a scientist, but I will pray for you!
 * No, a respectable scientist does not. A respectable scientist favours those explanations that are supported by the evidence, and are consistant with other theories and evidence.  Evolution is supported by evidence and is consistant, it follows the scientific method, creationism is not supported by evidence and is not consistant.  Evolution and creationism are not equal scientific ideas, which is why the overwhelming majority of biologists reject creationism.


 * 1) Use of the scientific method does not rely on the existence/non-existence of a Designer.
 * No, and science says nothing about the existence of a designer. It does however show us how life on earth arose without a conscious purposeful designer, through evolution by natural selection. Joe D (t) 12:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salva31 21:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Are you finished now so that we can have a humane conversation?
 * And here is another attempt on Graft's part to inferiorate the Creationist viewpoint. That is YOUR opinion, Mr. Graft!  I could just throw up my arms and say some similar things about evolution, but I won't because some of those words are against my theistic religion, which establishes a code of ethics for me!  So let's leave the impulsive, derogatory comments at the door and talk about science!
 * Scientifically the creationist viewpoint is quite clearly inferior, as it is not in any way a scientific theory or explanation. We would all love to be talking about science, but so far you've been more interested in making silly anti-evolution claims.  Joe D (t) 23:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How does evolution explain fireflies, who use 100% of the energy they produce for making light? Did you know that human beings cannot even explain or replicate this?  We can create light, yes, but most of the energy is used for heat, even in flourescent lightbulbs.  Did you know that there is actually a species of bee which is the only animal that can pollinate the vanilla plant?  How does evolution explain that?  Anomalous?  Salva31 17:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Fireflies have evolved over millions of years and they have been selected in an environment where calories mean the difference between life and death. Light bulbs have evolved over a century in an environment where it's not worth manufacturers time or money on the R&D involved in making light-bulbs more efficient.  The co-evolution of the bee and flower can be explained in several different ways: other species may have come and gone, there may have been an arms race in which the bee evolved ever greater ways to exploit the flower while doing the least work itself, and the flower evolved ever greater ways to exploit the bee while doing the least work, producing the least nectar etc itself, while other insect pollinators just stuck to the easier flowers.  The flower may have developed ultra-violet or some other kind of markings which appealed particularly to the one species of insect, and the two from then on co-evolved.  These are not in any way problems for evolutionary biologists.  Joe D (t) 23:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Salva, fireflies are not 100% efficient. Sorry to burst your bubble. They are highly efficient, but not 100%. And yes, human beings can both explain and replicate it; if you were to look in the firefly article, you'd realize that the genes used to make it have been spliced into a number of organisms. Not only is this an argument from lack of imagination, but a poor one because we do understand it. As for the vanilla plant - that isn't even highly unusual, many plants are reliant on specific species to pollenate them. It is beneficial to the plants to have exclusive pollenators. As for having only one species - they'd have to compete with the bees for the flowers to evolve to pollenate them. Titanium Dragon 18:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Light bulbs did not evolve, they were improved through intelligent design. Perhaps that is the problem that we are having here -- you seem to think that anytime something improves or is improved, it evolves. It would definately be worth any manufacturers' time if they could produce a light bulb that used 100% of its energy for light rather than heat. This would remove the need to make different types (Ex: type A, B) of bulbs, because they would not have to worry about the danger of fire resulting from an overheated lightbulb. In fact, I would be willing to bet that an invention such as that would be just as revolutionary as the invention of the original, if not more! I'd say you have a grand problem on your hands if you cannot explain how this tiny creature was able to muster its evolution superpowers to perform such a feat.
 * If this universe were subjected to the rules of randomality, it would inevitably fall apart. There is order and incomprehensible complexity everywhere we look.  Salva31 20:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really. You seem to misunderstand entropy. Entropy is simply the universe moving towards a uniform energy state (see the heat death article). You can decrease local entropy but only at the cost of increasing net entropy in the universe, at least according to our current understanding of the laws of physics, and we have found nothing which violates this except (perhaps) the Big Bang. Titanium Dragon 18:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I was playing along and using "evolve" to mean change (and only change, the discussing the issues of improvement would be yet another abuse of this talk page. It may be worth a manufacturers time, if time was free, but research and development costs money, in this case more money than would be generated by the product.  Do you actually have any evidence that fireflies did not evolve, or are you going to carry on with this argument from incredulity?  Saying "I don't see how it could have evolved" isn't very convincing.  Joe D (t) 01:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's the same thing as you saying "I don't see how a Creator created this universe." It wasn't meant for you to judge my opinion about the evidence I presented, but the actual evidence itself.
 * If such a lightbulb was invented, the sales volume drawn from its market demand would most certainly exceed its research costs!! -- this shows how much you are refusing to recognize the awesomeness behind an extraordinary characteristic of such a tiny animal. This is evidence of enginuity, Joe, not evidence of randomness! Salva31 21:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it is not the same. Nobody is saying that they don't see how a creator created the universe, infact, many have no problem uniting evolution with their religion. All I am saying is that we do not need to invoke a creator to explain the diversity of life.  That is not an argument from incredulity, it is simply that evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of life.
 * Nobody is saying that fireflies arose by randomness alone, and saying such shows yet again that you're working on a fundimental misunderstanding of what evolution and natural selection are. Natural selection is the exact opposite of randomness, it is the non-random mating of individuals determined by their phenotypes.  This is where the issue of questioning your right to be posting here arises: you are arguing against a straw man of evolution, demonstrating your lack of background knowledge.
 * Do you know what the market for a heat-free bulb would be? Probabaly small, because they would almost certainly cost work, and work considerably differently, to normal bulbs, to pay back the cost of R&D.  Joe D (t) 12:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't forget, such a lightbulb would run off of chemcials rather than electricity, and thus we would have to constantly put more chemicals into the light bulbs in order to keep them working. As people are lazy, I doubt it would be much of an innovation - sure, it doesn't increase heat, and some scientists would use them, but for normal uses its far easier man-power wise to just use electric bulbs of various sorts.

PS. I have removed the additional claim that evolution has replaced, or ruled out Creationism. Notice that this does absolutely nothing to the subject at hand -- in fact it makes it a little more NPOV. Look up the definition of science if you think that I am being anti-science. I am not anti-science and would be more than happy to educate anyone about the reasons that this is an inappropriate statement to make in an encyclopedia. Salva31 21:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a good idea, considering the demonstrations above of how you don't understand what science or evolution is. Joe D (t) 12:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm not stating my opinion, i'm stating a fact! FACT! Evolution is nearly universally accepted by biologists. Period. That's true. Do you dispute the truth of that statement? If so, on what basis? I have plenty of evidence to support it - the great body of scientific literature, for example, in favor of evolution, while there is maybe one or two papers in crap journals arguing against evolution in the past 50+ years. Graft 03:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What happened to my edit?
Could someone tell me why I was reverted.


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you'll take the time to read our Introduction and the material linked therefrom on how you can contribute. From the look of your contributions page, this might be the first article you've worked on. Because of the nature of the subject, this article is frequently highly controversial. It has also been listed as a featured article, so many editors keep an eye on it to make sure that it remains of high quality. An article like this is a difficult spot to start editing Wikipedia.


 * Please sign your Talk page comments, so we know who you are without diddling around with the history. You can use the notation --~ to sign a comment with your name (or IP address, since you're not logged in) and the date. You might want to also log in so that your work will be recognized.


 * I did not revert your contribution. However, the editor who did left a comment: "revert/casual comments by anon." While it is not entirely clear what s/he meant by this, my supposition is that s/he believed your contribution was not in keeping with the tone or content of an encyclopedia article.


 * Some of the claims that you make contradict other material which has been cited to primary sources. Other claims represent what we tend to call "POV" content, meaning, opinions or speculations offered from an idiosyncratic point of view. They are also couched in idiosyncratic language. For instance, it is not clear what it means to call evolution a "force of nature" or a "semi-conscious trait" -- but this is clearly not the ordinary use of the expressions force or consciousness. Because this article is about a natural science topic, we're going to be careful to use scientific and philosophical terms accurately -- and in the ordinary senses of the words, evolution is neither a force, nor is it conscious or "semi-conscious".


 * Finally, since this specific article is about evolution and not about religious opinions of evolution or the like, some of the material is simply off-topic here, and particularly in the introduction. The introduction of an article needs to be about the topic itself, and not about outsider responses to that topic: for instance, we would not start the article on Christianity by saying that Muslims consider the doctrine of the trinity to be "sacrilege".


 * There is another article about the creation-evolution controversy, and I believe you will find it is quite well-researched and shows many examples of how an encyclopedia can approach the topic from a standpoint that reflects many points of view. --FOo 03:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anon's comments/philosophy
Entry from anon user 69.208.212.163 on April 17, 2005 (see above).
 * "Evolution is what one may call a semi-conscious trait. Semi-conscious meaning in the sense of a natural order. Or perhaps it IS in order of a higher consciousness. At any rate evolution is not accepted by most people. It was and still is considered sacrilege in the sense of a personal God or have you. The scientific community at this date accepts evolution as fact and conducts scientific experiments proving it."

Although I reverted your entries, I also moved it here to provide you the opportunity to respond. Why? The philosophical questions relating to evolution are often discussed here and (as above) are dealt with on another page as well. You managed to select a complicated, somewhat controversial and often edited article as one of your first edits. Please read the ongoing discussion on this page and then expand on your thoughts before attempting to edit the actual article. The suggestions above are wonderful Please also read Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view (NPOV), dealing with fact versus opinion. We welcome your thoughtful comments on this and other discussion pages and NPOV edits in articles. Look forward to working with you.WBardwin 05:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It happened again.
Im not an expert on evolution. No one is (except Charles Darwin-and he aint talking)No sooner did I leave this page it was reverted by a second person-with no explanation!
 * Sorry. I was looking up some information, and this edit did not make sense.  Can you explain please?  ---Rednblu | Talk 03:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Acually, there are quite a few experts on evolution in biology departments and labs and other places around the world who know much more about evolution than Charles Darwin ever did. Yellow Ant 04:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)