User talk:Kim Bruning/Talk:Creationism and macroevolution

I have no expertise in this area, but the following usenet posting might be interesting for writing the article: -- mkrohn 00:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Microevolution examples
Hmm hey, the "microevolution" examples came back... hmm, I'm not sure what's exactly happened then, but I'll just leave off editing for a bit and watch first. Kim Bruning 13:58, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The microevolution pages came back because you deleted good examples of micro>macroevolution. The polar nad the brown bears are two separate species (they no longer breed in the wild) and are significantly different, one having adapted to a very different life. The next step is the loss of ability to breed at which point creationists will say that they never were related. The polar bear thus is balancing on the cusp of complete separation and is an ideal candidate for this page. The turtle and tortoise again are animals that are clearly related and yet have diverged and adapted to completely different environments, one on land (even in deserts) and one in the sea (see the tree of life web project for more). The same with the aardwolf and hyena. For a variety of reasons they are classified together and yet the aardwolf has aquired substantial differences including becoming an insectivore. Theres more on this in Archive 8 of the Creationism page (bottom of the page). User:12.64.228.227 07:13, 7 Sep 2004

Well, the problem is that the examples don't actually show the speciation event, which is the one thing that's characteristic of macroevolution. They're suggestive, but that's not going to satisfy a creationist eh? :-) Bother though! Kim Bruning 15:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh No! Look! Now that's gone and done it! Well, can't say I didn't warn you! %-) Kim Bruning 19:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess I'd better bury the corpses then. :-/ (see what happened to them here: ) Kim Bruning 20:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They don't need to have a videotape of the speciation event. It's quite obvious by the fact that they can still breed that they are related and that therefore subsequently substantial change took place. If you'd bother to read the Archive 8 you would have noticed these comments from the cheif creationist site regarding the polar bear: "The Polar Bear, however, provides evidence for more dramatic change", "These morphological changes seem to me to go beyond the small, microevolutionary changes which are widely cited in creationist literature", "At the very least, a study of these members of the Ursus group suggests that creationists need to be more positive about larger-scale adaptations (with the appearance of design) than generally appears to outside observers" Again these are good examples of macroevolution. Pleasee don't delete because you disagree. User:12.64.228.227 13:40 7 Sep 2004.


 * No worries, I heard you first time! Just I didn't delete what you think I deleted :).
 * What I actually deleted was.
 * Hmm, can you see why I might have wanted to do that? Hmm, and what do you think will happen, now that you did an rv? :-) Kim Bruning 20:49, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, well I guess I'm not as familiar with wiki as maybe I should be. I looked up the creationism and evolution page and found the two paragraph missing. I look at the comments and find humorous comments about the bears getting "mauled". Sorry if I misunderstood. User:12.64.228.227 14:14 7 Sep 2004


 * Ah, serves me right for using silly edit comments. I'll be more careful in future. My apologies. Kim Bruning 22:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Due to confusion and in the interests of information I decide to expand upon the examples. A side benefit is that I am letting creationists speak for themselves. User:12.64.228.227 17:43 7 Sep 2004

Well, it turns out there's 2 sorts of NPOV. It's better to write stuff which both sides agree on, than to put different opinions on the things they *don't* agree on. So by putting in the bears, and expanding and expanding and expanding, we will have a lot of heat, noise, and handwaving, but since both sides aren't likely going to agree on it anytime this side of 2050, it doesn't actually enlighten much, unfortunate though it is. But I won't immediately delete again for a little while now. Let's first take a look and see what happens. Kim Bruning 08:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If we write only that which both sides agree on we will have a very short article. There is a lot of commentary from creationists about a supposed lack of evidence for macroevolution and lots of misunderstanding about what it is. What better place to discuss a specific example at length than a "creationism and macroevolution" page. As already shown bears are a source of concern for them. Also much of the expanding you mention is quoting creationists directly. Isn't this what many have been asking for? Of course I agree that professional creationists will never agree with evolutionists, but their listeners ought to be allowed access to the info. User:12.64.228.227 09:20 8 Sep 2004

I for one am not certain that any creationists have gotten involved yet. In related news, this article needs a lot of work, and I hope the edit frequency doesn't die down too soon. --Yath 09:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

HELLO...Hello...hello. Hey there's nothing but an echo in here. Is the article anywhere now?

Ok I found it here. How will others ever find it?

---


 * Interesting. I was thinking something similar--"I for one am not certain that any creationists have gotten involved yet"--but then reread the original contribution.  And in my opinion, that original statement is clearer than the Creationism and macroevolution page that is there right now.  Take the "bear" section for example.  I understand that the current "bear" section right now nukes the Hell out of creationism. And as a parody, the "bear" section makes lots of "Yuk-Yuks," lots of laughs.  So it is a brilliant job of nuking on the part of the evolutionists.   But it is a damn poor encyclopedia page.  In contrast, the original contribution was not bad; it was surprisingly balanced--much more balanced than the current page.  Maybe this page would work if the evolutionists would put all their disproofs and "Yuks" in one section at the bottom called something like "The Evolutionists' Rebuttal."    ---Rednblu 22:23, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reason for {TotallyDisputed}
It's customary to put the totallydisputed template on an article only after discussion has failed. Would the person who put it there mind saying something here, so we can work toward a resolution? --Yath 16:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that. Basically, it was POV because it was an apology for creationism. Secondly, the examples that it used were just plain innaccurate, and did not use appropriate language. Basically they are trying to equate the Biblical concept of "kind" with the scientific notion of species. The guy who wrote it obviously hasn't got the first clue about biology, because basically, it's wrong. (I hope my biology degree allows me to comment on that). Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 17:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

more
Talk about domesticated plants and animals into fancy breeds after several millennia. (Of course, there was human intervention, but being in their care meant that fossils were saved.) As for genetic complexity, what about extra digits, extra retinal cone, tongue rolling, detachable tonsils, hermaphrodites, double genitals, double-jointedness, chameleon irises, third teeth set...? lysdexia 11:33, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)