User talk:Cooner7777777

September 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Natural selection has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Nsaa (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, more specifically, Wikipedia is written with a neutral point of view. Among other consequences of this, we do not give undue weight to views that are an extreme minority. Thus, articles about natural selection and evolution discuss primarily the views of mainstream science rather than fringe beliefs. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, FYI you may want to be aware of the complete context of that quote from Darwin about the eye. The complete quote is "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory." This is the sort of thing that happens when you rely on n-hand sloppy sources. The quote in question says the exact opposite of what it was being quoted to say. Moreover, science doesn't work off of proof-texts: even if the quote had been in context it would have no impact on the truth or falsity of evolution. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)