User talk:BlueFireIce

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Ec5618 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Evolution
Please see Talk:Evolution before making any further edits to the article. As you may be aware, your edits diametrically changed the meaning of part of the article, and it is important to gain community consensus for such edits. Thank you. -- Ec5618 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, when you find your edits reverted, use the Talk page to discuss reasoning behind the changes. Simply reverting away from the status quo is quite pointless. -- Ec5618 18:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "hell any doctor can tell you of the importance of the coccyx." - Read the last paragraph of "Confirmation" this page. -Silence 21:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I read the link that you posted, and it is nothing that I have not heard before. The meaning of vestigial which seemed to be the biggest point everyone was trying to make is that "vestigial" does not mean that it has no purpose but rather it is not used in the same way that it was at one time, but I like to ask the question what proof do you have or do you just think that is what it use to be? Now, I do not know if it was you or someone else who said that but the person also said I should not use an everyday encyclopedia because of that, and I should use some scientific encyclopedia, so I went and pulled out my Medical and Health encyclopedia and did just that. "vestigial: of the nature of a remnant of an organ that is no longer functional" -Britannica, Medical and Health encyclopedia, Reference index page 135. I do believe that everyone in the discussion agreed that those "organs" mentioned do indeed have functions, so I do not see how these are "vestigial" in any sense of the word. BlueFireIce 13:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Just checking that you were okay after our disagreement on the talk pages. It really isn't personal (at least, from me it isn't), and I think you really are thinking and trying to find the best solution, but the arguments you were raising were familiar and debunked. There was no reason for you to know that when you raised them, but hopefully you now understand (even if you don't agree with) the reasons why people didn't want to change the article in this way. Thanks for raising a concern when you have one, though. Too many people see something that looks wrong in an article and just assume someone else will deal with it. Talk pages are your friends...

Happy editing, and see you around. Skittle 08:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am fine. I do not take many thing personal, so don't worry. I have just been at work alot and have yet to have time to really get on here, I am also getting ready to move, so I have been busy to say the least. If you would like to see my "response" so to say to what had been said, see above. I do not feel like posting it in the discussion part as I am sure it would invoke a mass of replys that at this time I could not hope to have time to respond. I think of myself as open to ideas but not if they go against the evidence. I will also admit I am not an evolutionist, so you might see me as being very unaccepting of the theory. In any case, I find the discussion of any topic intriguing and hope to see you around when I have more time on my hands. BlueFireIce 13:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey! Glad to see you're okay. As for proof that people have been defining 'vestigial' with still being able to have some functions (that could have been worded better) since the theory began, take a look at the sources I added to the Vestigial structures article. Darwin, Weismann and Wiedersheim (who is credited with coining the term 'vestigial' to refer to them) all used it in this way right from the beginning, in the 19th century. So it isn't a redefinition of the term to match a discovery of function, it has always meant this. Hope this helps, but I suspect you will still disagree. Skittle 14:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well as I have seen the meaning is that it is no longer used but as soon as you move into the whole evolution thing the meaning changes and that to me is very suspicious. Resons for that is the word came from "vestige" which is of French origin in the 1600's I believe, but I think that this on either side is going to be pointless and is based on who uses the word. The point remains that there is no absolute (scientific) evidence that these so called "vestigial" structures are from any so called ancestors. Now I know what you are thinking "well look at all these bones (fossils)" but there is no way to link any of them to humans, you can say "well they look like us" or something to that effect, but it gives no evidence other than that which you want to see. If you found some bones in the ground and went into a corut of law and said "these bones are of my parents" in hopes of getting their inheritance or whatever the case, does not really matter, they would laugh at you with out some DNA or some documented event proving they gave birth to you. And that is where I stand on the matter, you can put whatever interpretation you wish onto these bones but as long as it remains unprovable, it will be fiction in my mind. BlueFireIce 15:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine. You don't need to believe or understand the scientific evidence for evolution, but when it comes to something as easily demonstrated as the historical use of a word in print, I like to make it clear :-) . After all, there's no point saying you disagree with what someone says if that isn't what they're saying! Oh, and "Vestigial: (from vestigium, a footprint): "of, or of the nature of a vestige; surviving in small or degenerate form." " might be of interest. As I said, the very first guy to coin the word 'vestigial' to apply to this theory didn't require vestigial organs to be useless; its historical and scientific meaning are not the same as some would have it. Anyhoo, happy edits! Skittle 16:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I believe I have a good understanding of the "evidence" I have just yet to see any that is provable ;) . But I understand and know how he used it, and that is why I said the meaning of the word it self is really of no importance as it is based on the person using it. Happy edits to you as well BlueFireIce 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Just a warning that we have something around here called the Three revert rule. If you revert an article more than three times in one day, you get banned for 24 hours, no matter what. Just letting you know. The goal is to discourage revert wars, which are not productive. --Fastfission 19:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no "threat" involved, please assume good faith in others. I only wanted to make sure you knew about our rules, since you had done two reverts already by that point. --Fastfission 19:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)