Talk:On the Origin of Species/Archive 3

"American" non-scientists.
A minor note, but I think that opposition to Origin is certainly more widespread than just America. I suppose it could be argued that in places like Africa, it's more ignorance than opposition, but it's still far from accepted, so best not to mislead readers into thinking that Origin is accepted everywhere but America. SnowFire 02:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In my opinion this article at present places too much emphasis on "the controversy", which is amply covered elsewhere, and not enough on the actual book. So when I can tear myself away from other distractions I'll expand book sections and reduce the controversy. .. dave souza, talk 09:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that'd be for the best. As for Africa - maybe, maybe not. The issue is whether we can source it and whether there is opposition. If people don't even know about it (as many Africans may not) it is kind of hard to -oppose-. Most RSs relate to the first world because of accessibility and education reasons; its hard to know what Africans think on issue X because our polling methodology has a hard time with people in such primitive conditions as exist in most of Africa. I've seen brief mention of Middle Eastern fundamentalism/rejection of evolution, but not much. Titanium Dragon 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Theory in a nutshell
Per my earlier comment, I plagerized a pre-existing section and combined with the theory as presented in the book into a new section called theory in a nutshell. This is largely based on a quick reading of CHAPTER 14. RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION, here. It does leave the problem that this is again recapitulated later in the article. It is a work in progress, but I think putting the theory in a nutshell earlier in the article is high priority.

StudyAndBeWise 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good, and hardly plagiarising: once I've added references, it'll be properly cited usage, and anyway Darwin's Public Domain. This link is to the section you refer to, but at a first glance it doesn't seem to relate: any particular page number? My intention is to remove the Mayr list anyway and substitute the paragraph Darwin has in his intro page 5.
 * Have been diverted by a troll lately, will try to get down to it now.... dave souza, talk 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, feel free to adjust the theory in a nutshell. Mostly I used terms Darwin used like "slowly effected" and "interminable", and "varieties."  To this extent, and upon reflection, I wonder if I added detail that did not exist in the book. StudyAndBeWise 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Peer review.
Dave and I have been doing a lot of work on this article, and I would like some other feeback as to what I can do to improve this article. I think it is coming along fine, but want other input, being relatively new. StudyAndBeWise 03:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Whiggist views of creationism
There seems to be confusion here between the views of creation as espoused in Darwin's time, and 21st Century American Creationism.

The article claims OoS "was controversial because it contradicted religious beliefs and the doctrine of "created kinds", which underlay the then widely accepted theories of biology".

Now when was the "created kinds" created? I don't know - but I doubt whether it is more than 20 years old.

Can someone who knows more about this than me go through and cut out these false Whiggisms please?


 * Johnbibby 17:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, don't know what Whig history has to do with it: of course Darwin was a Whig, but then the term's changed meanings a few times since the Whiggamore Raid. Anyway, thanks for cleaning up the intro. Looks to me like an improvement. Fair point about Created kind being a neologism, but in many ways YEC ideas revive concepts that were being pushed around when Darwin was a laddie: that article is framed in post 1941 terms, but a lot of the ideas were current around 1810 – see Moore's broadcast for a brief overview of the context, and History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth for a lot of detail. Think we should pipe the link as "kinds in the Genesis creation"? .. dave souza, talk 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, looking at whig related articles brought up this essay which includes a crack about whig history oversimplifying, then asks for pre-Darwin to be put into the sort of political context mentioned briefly in the background section here. Could be a useful link. .. dave souza, talk 22:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Social Darwinism
Neither public welfare nor private charitiy should restrain the natural struggle for existence, he [William Graham Summer] stressed in an 1881 essay: "The law of the survival of the fittest was not made by man and cannot be abrogated by man. We can only, by interfering with it, produce the survival of the unfittest." [19] Darwin's translator, Clemence Royer, made similar arguments in her long preface to the French edition of Origin of Species and in her 1870 book, The Origin of Man and Societies.

This is from. I am not sure how it could be worked into the article, but that a translator of Darwin's book was making social-darwinistic arguments might merit inclusion in this or another article. (Probably already done in other articles). I just came across this and thought it was interesting. StudyAndBeWise 02:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Ill informed"
Using the phrase "ill-informed" to describe the creation-evolution controversy is definitely weasel-wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Squeak! ;) dave souza, talk 21:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Its kinder than; "willfully ignorant".--THobern 17:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

darwin's theory
did darwin ever study molusks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.127.223 (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you click on one of the links to editions of The Origin and search for "mollusc" you'll find numerous references. Darwin was well aware of information on molluscs, but didn't do a major study devoted to them – his big work was on barnacles. Have a look here. .. dave souza, talk 16:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for help with Neo-Darwinism
I have put a lot of effort into writing a page on Neo-Darwinism, a page which once existed but was replaced by a redirect to Modern evolutionary synthesis. Sadly, it is marked for deletion. I feel strongly that Neo-Darwinism is a term with a long history, and in frequent use, by Evolutionary experts like Gould and Dawkins. It is used to mean 'the current theory that' rather than, 'the consensus arrived at in the 1940's' a distinction that I feel is important. There has been nothing agressive or improper about my approach, and I have supplied copious explanations on the talk pages of both articles. I feel badly treated, with unwarranted accusations that I have some hidden creationist agenda, which is total nonsense. Support on the page, and in the vote (see link on Neo-Darwinism would be appreciated. --Memestream 22:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mayr
The Philosophical influence section seems to place far too much focuse on Mayr, who's unicited claims seem somewhat irrelevant. I move to strike, or at very least condense.--THobern 12:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's 'philosophical implications' and though I find that paragraph hard going it's interesting and relevant and I would not like to see it removed. Mayr is regarded by many as THE central figure in the modern synthesis, which is at the root of current accepted theory, so he is important. People like Herbert Spencer, also a very important figure in Darwin's day, did indeed see perfection as the goal of evolution, so I think it makes sense to point out this shift in thinking. --Memestream 20:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

On the Origin of Species?
The redirect of this page from The Origin of Species to On the Origin of Species brings it into line with the earlier editions, but the "On" was omitted for the final (and arguably definitive) 6th edition. I've always taken care with this distinction when adding links to articles, so it means that all links, whether piped or not, are now to a redirect. .. dave souza, talk 21:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree Dave and I was shocked to see that this page had been renamed when I thought this distinction was well understood. Yes, I think the latest has to be taken as the definitive version, even though we know that the earlier versions are important to those searching for Darwin's true position. Yes the change has messed up links, and I will support you in putting things back as they were. --Memestream (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So should this remain at "On the Origin of Species" or moved back to "The Origin of Species"? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not too bothered either way, uses the full title for all save the 6th edition, so from Naming conventions (books) "try to determine which of the widely spread versions of the book in the English-speaking world was the most authoritative original (that is, the version that contributed most to the book's becoming known in the English-speaking world)" the "On the Origin of Species" version appears preferable. Oddly enough, Naming conventions (books) gives as an example "The Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, nor On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (see example →)" Will raise the issue on that talk page, guess this may have to go to a wider request of consultation. ... dave souza, talk 17:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly I have always known it as "On the Origin of Species" and never heard of "The origin..." Also the photograph that is used on the page says "On ..." I think it is safe to say almost every college, university and high school uses "On ...". Britannica also uses "On ..." Either way, I do not have a strong feelings about this, but have never heard the name of the book without "On". I always remember it with "On" when I was in school. When was the "On" taken "Off"? And Why? Why did the history books and Britannica, etc. never take off the "on"?--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PS-Dave, okay, wow, so I just spent a few hours trying to correct the "On" on all the pages you asked me to. I did it on a few, but 95% of all the pages that linked into "On the Origin of Species" already use "On", so I did not even have to add anything, but I checked most of them anyway.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move the page, per the discussion below, regardless of the perceived officiality of the longer title. Sources such as science journals (and Brittanica) tend to use this title, and the pertinence of the naming convention mentioned by Dave souza does not appear to be in question. Dekimasu よ! 11:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) The Origin of Species → On the Origin of Species — Talk:The Origin of Species —Francis Schonken (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose (nominator) per Naming conventions (books) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Origin of Species is what I am used to; except for scans of the book itself, Google Scholar indicates a distinct preference for forms without the On. The real question is whether it would be more idiomatic to drop the The also. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the "On" is not included, it would be preferable to drop the "The" as well. It's common to see references to "the Origin of Species" as a generic reference to the book in a sentence, but I've not seen the Origin of Species. Of course The Origin of Species is used when referring specifically to the 6th edition. The downside of just having Origin of Species is that it could be mistaken for the subject rather than the book. ... dave souza, talk 23:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support “On the Origin of Species”. as Darwin named it. Read below!--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Honestly, why are we wasting time on this matter? I wouldn't even care, save for the fact that Persianhistory canvassed a huge number of articles that I follow.  The final and authoritative volume published by Darwin himself drops the On.  Can we move on?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 08:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Did not try to canvass and don't appreciate your accusation. I did not know that I did not have the right to ask other peoples opinion. Sorry, for some strange reason I thought I had freedom of speech (to ask questions). I find your comments very rude and arrogant. If you are a scientist, you must understand reasoning. I explained very well why the name is “On the Origin of Species”. Darwin himself never took the “On”, off. That was a business move to sell more books over a decade after the book was published. Your reasoning of “wasting time on this matter” and “Can we move on?” is not an explanation.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Support move to include the prefatory "On". But it really isn't that important, as long as it's stable and not subject to edit-warring. But note that an opening sentence in the form "Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (published 1859) is a seminal work..." really must include the "On", because the version that was published in 1859 did so. Snalwibma (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * On reflection - including the "On" is a useful way of clarifying that this is the book, not the topic. So I am changing my "weak keep" to a proper "keep" (or "move", or "support", or whatever it is). Snalwibma (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support move to On the Origin of Species in accordance with Naming conventions (books) as the most authoritative original (that is, the version that contributed most to the book's becoming known in the English-speaking world). It first appeared under that title, as shown here. The shorter title came with the 6th edition, and Google Scholar indicates a 50/50 split, forms without the On being used for that edition, or for some new edited editions. (oddly, the first hit gets the subtitle wrong as well) My preference is for the "On" version, as most Wikipedia references are to the impact of the original publication in 1859. ... dave souza, talk 10:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support move to On the Origin of Species despite as I suspect that a majority of people if asked to name the famous book written by CD would not include the On in the title. Meanwhile it is my experience that in scientific and other ssuch circles, at least, the book is more often cited with the On included, often with specific emphasis, when referring to the book. On balance I am persuaded about the change, despite the fact that the remaining part of the subtitle is omitted because it would be making clear that the article is about the book without compromising the utility of the article's title and perhaps help to distinguish it from any other general discussion about the origin of species.Tmol42 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support move to On the Origin of Species. That is what Darwin named it.--208.125.21.226 (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Support move to On the Origin of Species especially considering the opening two sentences are very clear on the name and reasons for the change. Baegis (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support On the Origin of Species as per Dave souza. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as it was the name Darwin gave it and editions that have dropped it have been attempts to "modernise" the title. And per Tmol42, including "On" is a useful way to disambiguate this article from an article about the topic of the book itself. Snocrates 00:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose move to On the Origin of Species. Actually it's most commonly known simply as Origin of Species (not the) and IMO that should be the article title in accordance with WP:NC. The proposed move makes the article name less in line with policy, not more. Both The Origin of Species and On the Origin of Species should be redirects. Andrewa 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support for the sake of accuracy. "On" is not part of a subtitle.   AlphaEta  05:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Malformatted poll entry moved to discussion area:

KEEP “On the Origin of Species”

 * Charles Darwin named it “On the Origin of Species”, lets not try to change history.
 * The book was published in 1859. In the 1850s, 60s, up to the mid 70s it always had “On”.
 * Harvard University Press also published it with “On”.
 * Even current reprints use “On the Origin of Species”, ISBN-10: 0674637526.
 * Also “On the Origin of Species” ISBN-10: 0486450066
 * Also “On the Origin of Species” ISBN-10: 1592242863
 * Also “On the Origin of Species” ISBN-10: 1551113376
 * Also “On the Origin of Species” ISBN-10: 1434616851
 * Also “On the Origin of Species” ASIN: B000JML90Y
 * Also “On the Origin of Species” ASIN: B00079PSPG
 * The photograph on the main page also says "On the Origin of Species".
 * Encyclopedia Britannica also uses “On the Origin of Species”.
 * Almost every college, university and high school uses "On the Origin of Species".
 * Some businessman decided to take off the “On” over a decade after the book was published so he could make a quick buck, why fall into his trap??--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(moved by Francis Schonken (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC))


 * From Naming conventions (books):
 * [[Image:Origin of Species title page.jpg|200px|thumb|left|If an authoritative edition of a book has letters of various size on its title page, usually only the line(s) of the book title in the largest print are used as Wikipedia article name, the rest being considered "subtitle" in the context of this guideline]]
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)



Correct name
Most if not all of the arguments in favour of the move seem to be based on the idea that the title of the book should ipso facto be the article name. Is this possibly an exception to the policy at WP:NC?

For nearly all books, the original title as published and the common name would be the same. But this is a particularly famous one, and has been published under several titles, and the common name may well differ from the book title. Does that matter? Comments? Andrewa 06:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed - and I (and others, above) would contend that the common name of the book is exactly as it was first published: On the Origin of Species. Snalwibma 08:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, WP:NC has one provision which indicates that we should use the name it first became famous under, On the Origin of Species, and another provision which suggests, rather confusingly, stripping off "on" or "the" so that, for example, The Female Eunuch should be titled Female Eunuch – oops, no it isn't. From a look through early reviews, the book was commonly referred to as On the Origin of Species or as the Origin of Species. Note carefully where the italics are in the second example. By the logic of using the second common reference, the title would become Origin of Species. As a title, The Origin of Species refers specifically to the 6th edition of 1872. For clarity, it's best in my opinion for the page title to be On the Origin of Species as first published. ... dave souza, talk 10:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Descent of Man images
Please see Talk:The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Richard001 (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead
While I'm here, I might point out that, as with many other articles, the lead isn't as long as it should be. The two paragraphs are solid, but for something as long as this three or (better still) four are needed. Richard001 (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Concise is good, and I'd rather see two short paragraphs than a screed which is almost an article in itself. However, both the lead and the article reflect interest in the theory and reaction to the theory rather than the book itself. has a very useful brief summary of the main points in the book, rather than being focussed on the theory. Suggest making the Summary of his theory section a subsection of a broader overview of the book, will try to think of a title. That could then be concisely summarised as a third paragraph for the lead. .. dave souza, talk 10:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Title
Among scholars and the such, it's referred to only as "The Origin of Species," and should be reflected as such in the title. Elfred (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Already discussed and agreed – evidence shown at Talk:On the Origin of Species/Archive 3 onwards, see also . .. dave souza, talk 05:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Bias
it refers to the notion of intelligent design as unscientific, also it describes On the Genesis of Species, as "the cleverest and most devastating critique of natural selection" The article also implies that theology and Science are separate, however, if God is a being, and creator, then he is involved in the natural world.

also checking the sources for the line "A number of non-scientists in the United States and a few other countries disagree, often on religious grounds.[47]" finds the line to be misleading. the article is about "a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers." The point of the petition being that those opposing evolution, none of them explicitly cite religious grounds. Personally, I find it hard to know the validity of the numbers given, since it cites a 91' poll, gives no definition of a scientist was, how many were polled, where they were polled, and so on and so forth. Rds865 (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure you aren't talking about another article? --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Some fair points: there were some fossils in the article from the days when ID was pushed more seriously. I've removed "A number of non-scientists in the United States and a few other countries disagree, often on religious grounds. < /ref>" and "Still, despite these ostensibly religious references, the actual mechanism of natural selection as described in the work bears no semblance whatsoever to the non-scientific notion of "Intelligent Design." Rather, Darwin was couching his arguments in the terms that resonated with the discourse of his time." as they're really rather off-topic. Janet Browne covers the issue of Darwin holding to a non-teleological line if discussion of that issue is needed. The reference to Mivart's On the Genesis of Species, as "the cleverest and most devastating critique of natural selection" is described by Desmond & Moore as a significant influence on the 6th edition, will look up a page number and give a reference for that in due course. . .  dave souza, talk 08:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also it seems to me that Mark Isaak's quote, it letting the opponents of Creationism, define Creationists. A quote from a Creationist should be found. This article is not about a modern scientist's reaction to an opposing view of Darwinism, but rather reactions to the Origin of Species. Rds865 (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting using a primary source for a scientifically non-notable viewpoint, thus contravening WP:NOR. We can and do cite reputable historians on notable points relating to the book, and while it's reasonable to mention the creation-evolution controversy with a link, that long postdates the book and isn't really relevant to this article. See WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ for relevant policies such as NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". .. dave souza, talk 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Philosophical implications removed
An anon removed the Philosophical implications section, and I've sympathy with the point that it's related to Darwinism or Darwin's ideas rather than the book.. . dave souza, talk 18:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy?
The opening section says: The at-times bitter creation-evolution controversy continues to this day. I suggest adding: "...in some countries". In most parts of Western Europe, for example, there is no such controversy, and evolution is almost universally accepted as fact. Aridd (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I'm for that. Maybe add "Nonetheless" to the start of the sentence, and delete the rather cumbersome "at-times bitter" while you're at it: Nonetheless, the creation-evolution controversy continues to this day in some countries. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As this is the lead section which has been the subject of prolonged examination already I would encourage you not to act too hastily here in making changes but allow time for a debate to take place if desired and allow if so some balance through consensus to emerge. Meanwhile you may want to take a look over here at Creation-evolution controversyTmol42 (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What does the controversy have to do with the subject of the article? This isn't about evolution as a whole, so I don't think the sentence is relevant and certainly shouldn't be in the lead. --Gimme danger (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mark Isaak
Above a user complained about using a scientist, Mark Isaak, who favors evolution, to define the Creationist's position. Another user responded that one couldn't find a primary source to refute a non-notable position. The problem is that Creationism is historically notable, and worse, Mark Isaak may have no credentials as a scientist. A brief search on Yahoo, turns up plenty of Isaak articles, but never his credentials. His own internet home web page includes no credentials. His book is viewable on Amazon, but there's no credentials given in the book, and the back page, which usually contains that sort of information, is not available for viewing. I am removing Isaak's rather editorializing comments, and reintroducing the polling data on the prevalence of Creationism among scientists from the original source he cites. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (i) The Isaak quote is not currently in the article. (ii) Much of what Isaak has written is published in his Counter-Creationism Handbook. (iii) Additionally, TalkOrigins Archive (where much of his stuff is hosted) has received the stamp of approval from a number of scientific organisations. (iv) "favors evolution"=overwhelming majority scientific view, which will be given WP:DUE weight. HrafnTalkStalk 03:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
should there be some list of criticisms such as the racist nature of it. Rds865 (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How can it be racist? The book doesn't even discuss human beings. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph of the Publication section fully covers that point – note "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage". . . dave souza, talk 06:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia article suggests that it does talk about humans. If Darwin didn't suggest that humans came from animals in Origin of the Species, then the picture of Darwin as an ape as well as the part about peoples reaction to the idea that humans came from animals be edited. Also Huxley's sketch of primates doesn't really belong here. Some pictures of finches would be more appropriate, wouldn't you say so? Rds865 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How about a decent picture of Darwin, instead of, or at least in addition to, the caricature? Tedtoal (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, this picture of Darwin may be suitable as it shows him without the beard that he grew later. The caricature is in relation to the response in the 1870s, but from Janet Browne it appears to be part of a rather affectionate absorbtion of the bearded Darwin as ape into popular culture, not the attack that some people think it is. So, no big problems with removing it, though I suppose it does relate to the later editions. Darwin barely hinted at the humans from animals issue, but that had already been well aired in the fiercer controversy over Vestiges of Creation in 1844, and the first review jumped quickly to that issue. Oddly enough the finches don't really get a mention, though the mockingbirds do. Something to review. . dave souza, talk 23:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Would it be a good idea to add that many mathematicians still laugh at Darwin's views as being utterly mathematically improbable, or does that belong on another page, maybe to be used on the Probability article as an example? Invmog (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, that belongs in a list of common creationist lies. Been listening to Dembski? . . dave souza, talk 20:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)