User talk:MSTCrow/Archive 2

Welcome to my current talk page. Please do not edit or delete other people's posts. Disruptive or vandalistic posts will be removed. All posts left in good faith will remain as a matter of record.

Question
You are a believer in intelligent design, correct? -Silence 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, intelligent design as currently concieved is an absurd question begging notion. I am an atheist, which rather precludes me from believing in any god-based solution.
 * MSTCrow 03:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I must have misunderstood what you meant by saying "creationism is only one of the factions that opppose the theory of evolution on its scientific merits. I am not a creationist, for instance." The implication of what you said seemed to be that you oppose the theory of evolution and are not a creationist, and the vast majority of people who claim not to be creationists but oppose evolution are IDers. So, if you don't mind clarifying, on what grounds do you oppose evolution&mdash;or is that not what you meant to imply? -Silence 14:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I find the Darwinian "Theory" of evolution untenable for the following reasons:
 * there is no evidence in the entire fossil record of any transitional species we would have to see
 * the unexplained Cambrian explosion, in which all the animal phylla leap into existence, lacking any Darwinian ancestors
 * the Galapagos finch population remains unchanged in over 170 years
 * the aforementioned peppered moth experiment hoax
 * Haeckel's embryos, in which animals in their early stages of gestation are to be similar, was actually a fraud in that the woodcuts were modified to match the desired form, that the Darwinians have known of this fraud for over 100 years, and only deigned to tell the rest of us in the late 1990s.  Leading defender of evolution Stephen Gould is on record on this. Even now, this is still used in textbooks as evidence of evolution.
 * the Miller-Urey experiment is based on a premise that is no longer accepted
 * there is no computer simulation of the evolution of the eye
 * The "theory" of evolution is a non-falsfiable hypothesis, rendering it psuedo-science, even if the theory turned out to be true
 * MSTCrow 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks for the explanation: though you still have left one thing unclear. Since you reject the theory of evolution out-of-hand, and have dismissed creationism and intelligent design (the views that some intelligence or divinity is responsible for life), what do you think accounts for the existence, and the diversity, of life in the world? Or do you simply feel that all explanations are profoundly lacking, and reject any attempts whatsoever to learn about life?
 * (By the way, just tell me if you want me to explain some of the misconceptions and errors in your above arguments against evolution. I wasn't sure if you wanted an in-depth counterargument or debate or anything of the sort, so if you don't, I won't trouble you with inconvenient facts right now. I'd certainly be interested in a discussion on this topic, but I'll leave it up to you.) -Silence 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have any explaination for the existence and diversity of life at the momennt. I'm thought up a half-assed hypothesis that the universe is just a gigantic quantum computational device and life is a byproduct, but that's just a non-falsifiable idea that doesn't have any facts to back it up right now.  One can learn quite a bit about life without knowing how it came about.
 * MSTCrow 02:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'd like to hear the counter-arguments.
 * MSTCrow 04:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in my response! I've been very busy the last few days, and I just got over a 24-hour bug a few hours ago. Lame excuse, I know, but I look forward to an engaging discussion now that I'm back.
 * "the universe is just a gigantic quantum computational device and life is a byproduct, but that's just a non-falsifiable idea that doesn't have any facts to back it up right now." - The main problem with this hypothesis isn't that it's non-falsifible, it's that it's too vague: simply characterizing life as a "byproduct of gigantic quantum computational device" isn't explaining life, it's merely writing it off as "random" without any specific description of how life came to be, of what processes or events actually led to life. You could just as easily write off gravity, or electricity, or speciation, or anything else in the world, with buzzwords like "quantum", but that wouldn't give you any real understanding of the phenomena involved, especially at a superatomic level. Moreover, even if your hypothesis is correct, it doesn't rule out evolution, or just about any other, more detailed explanation for life than your own.
 * "One can learn quite a bit about life without knowing how it came about." - One can learn quite a bit about the universe without knowing how it came about, but that doesn't make the Big Bang theory extraneous. Indeed, learning a thing's origin is one of the most important areas to explore; our growing understanding of evolution has led to countless advances in biology, and even in unrelated fields where evolutionary advancement is beginning to be implemented (e.g. the evolved antenna).
 * "Ok, I'd like to hear the counter-arguments." - Sure.
 * there is no evidence in the entire fossil record of any transitional species we would have to see
 * Actually, technically every species that has ever lived is a "transitional species". (See transitional fossil: "According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a 'transitional form' is a human construct that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight.") This is a common misunderstanding of evolution, and the problem exists in that you yourself don't understand what you would expect to see that would satisfy your demand for "transitional species". What would such a species look like? Would it demonstrate features linking two distinct groups of animals, like an Archaeopteryx or Cynodonta or Tiktaalik? Not only do we have plenty of such groups, but one could even point out that entire classes of animals can be called "transitional": for example, amphibians certainly demonstrate a transitional group between fish and reptiles! If you can't explain what type of evidence you would find satisfactory in this regard, then it's no wonder you aren't satisfied by any evidence found thus far (and never could be satisfied in the future, if you kept moving the goalposts whenever new evidence rose).
 * the unexplained Cambrian explosion, in which all the animal phylla leap into existence, lacking any Darwinian ancestors
 * Actually, there are plenty of explanations for the Cambrian explosion. First off, the actual explosion was really much less dramatic and sudden then people once believed: a large part of the reason it was once believed that the species of the Cambrian explosion just suddenly "poofed into being" is because pre-Cambrian microorganisms were so poorly-understood (and are still very underrepresented in the fossil record). The fact that you erroneously claim that these Cambrian species were "lacking any Darwinian ancestors" shows that you (or at least your sources) are both already pre-biased against evolution, and have wildly out-of-date information (perhaps even from the 19th century, when we genuinely did have next to no understanding of "Pre-Cambrian" lifeforms and their relationship with their Cambrian descendants). The "Cambrian explosion" is as much a result of the fact that we have much better records of the larger, hard-bodied creatures (most of which only arose in the Cambrian explosion and later) than of the smaller, softer-bodied ones, leading to a sudden rise in quantity of fossils for those periods, as it is the result of an actual biological "explosion" of diversity. As for the actual cause of the changes in the Cambrian period, this is a matter of debate, but the most compelling theory is that the rapid deglaciation following the Snowball Earth period of the planet's history is what precipitated the evolution of many dramatically new phyla. Of course, not a single viable scientific theory for the Cambrian explosion that has ever been proposed claims that evolution wasn't involved. If evolution wasn't involved, then how do you explain the new species and phyla that developed in that time? The answer, as you've already stated, is that you can't: you dismiss evolution, yet provide no viable alternative to stand in its place. This is hardly fair or reasonable: evolution may not be a 100% perfect theory, but it's clearly the best one we have for explaining the diversity of life.
 * the Galapagos finch population remains unchanged in over 170 years
 * This is not only untrue, but would also be completely irrelevant even if it were true. No evolutionary theory ever based itself on Darwin's finches; they're just an especially dramatic and simple example of evolution, and hence are often used, for example, in teaching schoolchildren about evolution (much like peppered moth evolution). But in any case, it doesn't matter that this is an irrelevant objection, because it's also mistaken: beginning in 1973, Peter and Rosemary Grant extensively researched "thousands of individual finches across several generations, showing how individual species changed in response to environmental changes". But obviously, since evolution is a very slow process (even the Cambrian explosion you mentioned took tens of millions of years, not a mere 170 years!), we wouldn't expect dramatic changes in the finch population, especially without the sort of drastic environmental changes that would select for significantly different populations. Changes occur in every single generation of a species, but they are usually minor ones and can only properly be observed over longer spans of time, as such changes accumulate (e.g. through genetic drift) and become more noticeable and significnt.
 * the aforementioned peppered moth experiment hoax
 * No such hoax exists. (And even if it did, non sequitur: evolutionary theory is no more based on the peppered moth example than it is on Darwin's finches.) The hoax-claims are themselves a hoax. I'm surprised that someone who seems as hyperskeptical as you (rejecting every potential hypothesis about life) would be so gullible as to blindly accept the claims of Of Moths and Men just because of a New York Times book review, while rejecting the consensus of thousands of scientists who actually specialize in evolutionary biology and lepidopterology. You should be more consistent in your scrutiny of claims.
 * Haeckel's embryos, in which animals in their early stages of gestation are to be similar, was actually a fraud in that the woodcuts were modified to match the desired form, that the Darwinians have known of this fraud for over 100 years, and only deigned to tell the rest of us in the late 1990s.  Leading defender of evolution Stephen Gould is on record on this. Even now, this is still used in textbooks as evidence of evolution.</tt>
 * A third non sequitur: evolutionary theory is not based on Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings. Haeckel's embryo drawings, which are now recognized by all evolutionary biologists as inaccurate in several respects (though this was probably a result of human error on Haeckel's part, not deliberate fraud), were the basis of recapitulation theory, not modern evolutionary theory. It is (literalist) recapitulation theory, not modern evolutionary synthesis, that has been discredited: it is a common creationist tactic to attempt to falsely equate the two, but I'm surprised that you'd fall for such a ruse. The fact that textbooks still use these outdated drawings is an indictment of badly-outdated textbooks and a scientifically-poor education system, not an indictment of evolutionary biology: "evolutionists" have hardly kept this "fraud" a secret for "over 100 years, and only deigned to tell the rest of us in the late 1990s"&mdash;this is just an amazingly ridiculous conspiracy theory. Quit being so melodramatic; textbook-recycling is hardly such a bizarre or unusual phenomenon that it requires a massive global conspiracy to explain. :)
 * <tt>the Miller-Urey experiment is based on a premise that is no longer accepted</tt>
 * Yet another non-sequitur: modern evolutionary theory is not based on the Miller-Urey experiment. In fact, that experiment isn't even directly related to evolution, since evolution is the process of life diversifying and changing over time, not an explanation for the origin of life, per se (you'd want to read up on abiogenetic theories for that). Moreover, even if this example was relevant, your claim that the experiment "is based on a premise that is no longer accepted" is exceedingly vague: I expect you to specify what premise this is. Randomly citing arbitrary, 50-year-old, tangentially-related experiments as proof that evolution must be false is phenomenally weak argumentation: you could just as easily point to error-filled 19th-century experiments on the refraction of light as evidence that the electromagnetic spectrum doesn't exist!
 * <tt>there is no computer simulation of the evolution of the eye</tt>
 * What a truly bizarre claim! Why so specific? Is it because if you stated "we don't know how the eye evolved", you know I'd be able to easily tell you in great detail how it happened? :) A blatantly obvious example of moving the goalposts. Why is the eye so special? Why do we need a computer simulation of it, specifically? You seem to have a huge number of suspicious unstated assumptions hiding behind these seemingly random claims. Moreover, yet again, even if this claim was directly relevant to evolutionary theory (and it's not: would evolution be proven false if you asked for a computer simulation of the evolution of the femur and none was provided to you?), it's still disingenuous and misleading: there actually are plenty of computer simulations of the evolution of the eye. In fact, there have been for decades: just last week I was watching a video from the mid-1980s which had a simplistic computer simulation of the eye's development. And you can find plenty of basic simulations of the eye's evolution online. So what actual (unstated) requirements do you have for this computer simulation? We clearly have such simulations already, so something about them must not satisfy you: are they not detailed enough? Not exact enough? Such is an inevitable requirement of inexact computer models of processes that have not been directly observed; computer models of the orbit of Neptune are not completely exact or detailed either, yet they're relatively reliable nonetheless.
 * <tt>The "theory" of evolution is a non-falsfiable hypothesis, rendering it psuedo-science, even if the theory turned out to be true</tt>
 * This is the falsest statement you've made thus far, and shows that you clearly have a very poor understanding of what evolution actually is (and that you are applying a terrible double standard to different occurrences: you reject evolution for being "non-falsifible", yet don't reject the notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun, even though it's just as "non-falsifiable"! that's because there's so much evidence in favor of both: it's not "pseudo-science" to state that the Earth revolves around the Sun for the same reason evolution isn't pseudo-science: because it's a clear and simple observation). I strongly recommend that you read the Evolution article, especially so that you can come to realize that evolution is both a fact and a theory: evolution is both an observed process (evolution), and a theory to explain how that process occurs (modern evolutionary synthesis), and even if the theory is someday disproven, the process will still be true, just as the theory of gravity being revised wouldn't disprove the observed occurrence of objects falling. I have been mostly addressing the theory in my above responses, but it is nonetheless important for you to realize the important distinction between the two: a fact doesn't need to be "falsifiable", per se. We observe evolution every day, when we see bacteria evolve into new strains, when we breed new dogs breeds, when we see new species evolve, etc.: this observation doesn't need to be "falsifiable" to be scientific anymore than the observation of water being wet needs to be "falsifiable" to be scientific. The theory of evolution on the other hand, is quite falsifiable, it just hasn't been falsified, and has huge amounts of evidence on its side. That something hasn't been falsified doesn't mean that it can't be falsified. Don't confuse the two concepts. -Silence 20:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced. New dog breeds are not new species, haven't seen any new species, and mutating bacteria are still just bacteria.  As for evolution being disprobable, you can't point to the evolution article on Wikipedia of all places as proving that it's theory and fact, which is circular thinking and an appeal to (bad) authority.  I still remain convinced that evolution is a non-disprovable "theory" and I don't see any counter-evidence, just suggestions.
 * MSTCrow 00:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "New dog breeds are not new species" - The distinction between what is and isn't a "species" is often arbitrary or disputable, and it's a trivial issue in the overall spectrum of evolutionary study. Dogs and wolves belong to the same species, for example. It doesn't matter whether new dog breeds are technically "new species", because they demonstrate the same principles of natural selection and genetic drift which does come into play when new species arise. In other words, this is another example of the false, pseudoscientific distinction between macroevolution and microevolution: unless you can demonstrate how there is any fundamental difference in the biological processes at work between new breeds and new species developing (other than the simple difference in timescale, which is the only real one), your protestation is a hollow and semantic one. The only factor that keeps all dog breeds in the same species is that they remain sexually interbreedable, and using that as the only indicator of what is or isn't a species, though reasonable, is hardly an overwhelming difference, and is subject to countless ambiguities and disagreements (for example, ring species poke a hole in the idea that there is a hard and fast line between "new species": there isn't one, speciation is a slow and gradual process of divergence-by-degrees).
 * "haven't seen any new species," - Actually, there have been numerous observed examples of new species arising. The idea that no new species have ever been discovered is a folk myth. (Though it is true that such instances are, understandably, rare, as it most often takes thousands of years for different species to arise in a population, especially when the population isn't isolated.)
 * "and mutating bacteria are still just bacteria." - Of course they are. If they weren't, that would disprove the theory of evolution. Why on earth would a bacterium reproduce a cat, or a lizard, or a virus? A new species of bacterium is still a bacterium, just as a new species of animal is still an animal. It sounds like you aren't aware that the term "bacteria" is actually just as broad as the term "eukaryote": it's an entire domain of organisms, not just a single species, as you're implying (by dismissing new types of bacteria as "still just bacteria").
 * "As for evolution being disprobable, you can't point to the evolution article on Wikipedia of all places as proving that it's theory and fact, which is circular thinking and an appeal to (bad) authority." - I agree that Wikipedia isn't a very reliable resources (though the evolution article is clearly one of the most reliable articles on Wikipedia, being a long-standing and highly-worked-on Featured Article!), but it's hardly "cyclic" to link to a Wikipedia article for information on a certain topic, especially since the Wikipedia article cites references for its statements! The knife cuts both ways: if you disagree with anything that's written on the evolution article, you could easily provide a reputable source contradicting any of the information there, then have it added to the article and have the errors in the article corrected. So why haven't you even tried, if you're so sure that evolution is "psuedo-science"? In any case, it doesn't matter, because none of my statements rely on Wikipedia to be true; I merely pointed you to the Wikipedia article so you could learn about a few things which you have misconceptions about (like your clearly mistaken belief that evolution isn't both a fact and a theory), not necessarily to provide evidence to support some claim or other. I don't need to support any claim, I merely need to give you access to some of the information that you clearly lack; I'd do exactly the same for someone who said that gravity "wasn't science" due to being unfalsifiable.
 * "I still remain convinced that evolution is a non-disprovable "theory"" - I'm surprised that you'd be convinced of something which you have no evidence of. I could see someone thinking that evolution is a non-disprovable theory, if they didn't have a very good understanding of modern evolutionary synthesis, the scientific method or the nature of the scientific theory, but to be convinced of that requires an extra-unusual leap of faith. If your disbelief in evolution is based on faith and conviction alone, then I suppose I'm wasting my time providing contrary evidence and arguments. Still, in the hopes that you're open to new ideas, I'll point out again that evolution is a fully falsifiable theory (and furthermore point out, once again, that "the Earth revolves around the Sun" is pseudoscience by your definition, since we can't falsify it); it just hasn't been falsified, despite people having tried their very best to do so. :) -Silence 01:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, because the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun is easily provable via both basic geometry and empirical space-borne observation. I do understand the scientific method quite well, and I don't see where evolution comes in.
 * MSTCrow 01:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're changing the topic; that sort of evasiveness will be ineffective here. We aren't talking about whether a theory is provable, we're talking about whether it's disprovable. You just stated, repeatedly, that evolution is pseudoscience because it is not disprovable. So, don't apply a double standard: explain to me how we could disprove the theory of the Earth revolving around the sun, or admit that if evolution is pseudoscience because it is not disprovable (which isn't remotely true anyway; please read the three links I provided you with), the-Earth-revolves-around-the-sun is also pseudoscience because it is not disprovable. -Silence 01:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If the Earth did not revolve around the sun, we could have disproven that via geometry or empirical observation. You're slipping into a dogmatic zone.
 * MSTCrow 01:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong. I'm pointing out, correctly, where you are hypocritically applying a double standard to two phenomena (evolution, and the Earth revolving around the Sun). Being wrong is understandable, but being wrong and inconsistent is just bizarre, and implies that you not only lack all the relevant information, but also are operating under an unfortunate bias (hence your applying a different standard to evolution than you do to all other empirical facts and scientific theories).
 * To explain: If organisms did not evolve, we could have disproven that via empirical observation. Exactly as much as we could have disproven the Earth revolving around the Sun via empirical observation. The sole difference is that the empirical observations "the Earth revolves around the Sun" is based on are astronomical, whereas the empirical observations "the allele frequency of a population of organisms changes over successive generations" (i.e., "evolution happens") is based on are biological. Biology is not "pseudoscience".
 * By the way, I would appreciate it if you actually responded to some of my above points, rather than just ignoring 99% of my posts and then lobbing accusations and insults at me. It's easier to have a meaningful and productive conversation when both sides listen and respond to the other, yet you have dismissed pages and pages of my in-depth, backed-up, significant points with nonsense like "I don't see any counter-evidence, just suggestions" and "You're slipping into a dogmatic zone"&mdash;such unsubstantiated claims amount to useless rhetoric, not effective counterarguments. Please provide in-depth rebuttals if you disagree with anything I've said above. -Silence 07:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Last night, it occurred to me that by saying transitional species exist because there are transitional species, which means that all species are transitional, this is another fallacy of circular logic. I'd like to see some clear transitional species in the fossil record, not dead end odd duck species.  I'm not a hyper-skeptic, I just require a disprovable hypothesis.  ID isn't one of those.
 * MSTCrow 20:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, what I said was not, properly, circular logic. You are mistaking it for circular logic because you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I actually said. I did not say "Transitional species exist because there are transitional species", I said "Your request for transitional species is meaningless if you do not specify what you are looking for when you ask for 'transitional species'&mdash;what species are or aren't transitional is a purely subjective, after-the-fact, arbitrary, human-created distinction with no real basis in modern biology. Strictly speaking, according to modern evolutionary theory, either pretty much every species is transitional, or none is (and none needs to be), depending on what you mean by 'transitional'." Understand what I was saying now? What I was doing was deconstructing your question to show how flawed it really is, and how it demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of evolutionary biology by assuming that some species are objectively "transitional" and others are not&mdash;I was simply pointing out a flawed premise in your claim. I was not saying "transitional species exist" or "transitional species don't exist"&mdash;I can hardly do either before you've even explained to me what you mean when you ask for "transitional species"! Everyone has a different definition, it seems, and too many people don't bother to define it at all so they can easily move the goalposts when someone meets their requirements&mdash;if you want to demonstrate to me that this isn't the case for you, then provide a clear and consistent explanation for what you mean by "transitional species".
 * "I'd like to see some clear transitional species in the fossil record, not dead end odd duck species." - I already provided you with plenty of examples. You ignored them. It's your own fault if you close your eyes to the evidence whenever it's presented to you. (This is an example, incidentally, of the "moving the goalposts" thing I mentioned earlier. The reason I deconstructed the flaws in your question rather than spending multiple pages explaining various "transitional fossils" to you is because I knew that no matter how strong the evidence I provided to you was, if you haven't defined what you're looking for yet, you'll be able to dismiss it all as "not really transitional" in the end. I have no interest in wasting my time like that if you're going to respond to evidence with cheap tactics, so, I await a clear definition from you of what a "transitional species" really is, since I've already explained modern evolutionary theory's view of "transitional species"&mdash;that the concept is meaningless, all species are, from a biological perspective, "transitional".)
 * "I'm not a hyper-skeptic, I just require a disprovable hypothesis." - Modern evolutionary theory is a disprovable hypothesis/theory. All of your requirements, by your own admission, are met by it. If the fossil record contradicted evolutionary theory, that would falsify evolutionary theory. If organisms' genetic code contradicted evolutionary theory, that would falsify evolutionary theory. If anatomical structures possessed by organisms couldn't possibly have come about under evolutionary theory, that would falsify evolutionary theory. If organisms didn't occasionally mutate, didn't pass on their traits to the next generation, didn't vary their allele frequency, didn't adapt based on natural selection, that would falsify evolutionary theory. There are literally tens of thousands of possible ways that evolutionary theory could be falsified, yet it hasn't been falsified. Your profound error is in assuming that because it hasn't been falsified (despite so many creationists trying), that means that it can't, even hypothetically, be falsified, and therefore evolution is pseudoscience. That's like saying "gravity can't be falsified, therefore gravity is pseudoscience"&mdash;clearly and demonstrably incorrect, on all counts. As Project Steve correctly points out, "Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry." Evolution is foundational to all of biology, a cornerstone of the life sciences, which almost every single field of biology contributes to, is based upon, and regularly puts to the test with billions of evolution-related experiments every year&mdash;that doesn't make it unfalsifiable, it makes it incredibly well-supported by the evidence (but still falsifiable in principle). There is no valid reason to conflate the two. -Silence 00:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The fossil record contradicts Darwinian evolution, and many anatomical structures possessed by life forms are mathematical impossibilities to have arisen from Darwinian evolution. The fact that some of the base requirements for Darwinian evolution are not met, but that the proponents of Darwinian evolution ignore and blackball serious flaws in their fundemental foundations, that makes it pseudo-science.  You are indeed being circular in your logic, for one to assume that all species are transitional, one would have had to already accepted Darwinian evolution as fact.  Find me a clear progression in the fossil record of a species that progressed from one to another, not that there are extinct species that happen to similar to current species, but have no clear relation to them.
 * MSTCrow 00:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "The fossil record contradicts Darwinian evolution," - No, it doesn't. Please back up this claim with some actual evidence. The fossil record is 100% consistent with evolutionary theory. Indeed, the fossil record is one of the earliest, broadest sources of evidence upon which evolution was based! No plausible, consistent explanation for the fossil record has ever, in all of human history, been proposed other than evolution, and evolution without exception explains the ever-changing variety of life we see in fossils.
 * "and many anatomical structures possessed by life forms are mathematical impossibilities to have arisen from Darwinian evolution." - This is another falsehood. No anatomical structure has ever shown to be "mathematically impossible" for evolution. Many creationists and intelligent design supporters have claimed that there are certain "irreducibly complex" structures, but these have already been explained by evolution a thousand times over, from the evolution of flagella to the evolution of the eye. Can you provide some actual examples of anatomical structures that couldn't possibly have arisen through the natural process of evolution?
 * "The fact that some of the base requirements for Darwinian evolution are not met," - Such as? You're a huge fan of broad, overarching statements, aren't you? Yet you have yet to back a single one of them up, once they are faced with scrutiny or counter-arguments.... Curious.
 * "but that the proponents of Darwinian evolution ignore and blackball serious flaws in their fundemental foundations," - Flaws such as? You, and every other anti-evolutionist in the world, have thus far failed entirely to provide even a single "serious flaw" in evolutionary theory. It is profoundly easy to claim that there are flaws in anything you want (I could just as easily say there are "serious flaws" in gravitational theory, for example), but unless you can back such claims up with real evidence and concrete examples, you're just spouting rhetoric.
 * "You are indeed being circular in your logic, for one to assume that all species are transitional," - I never assumed that. Please read what I actually wrote, not what you want me to have written. I asked you to define for me how you are using the word "transitional" in this context, since the word is meaningless in an ordinary, neutral biological context, as there is no objective difference in transitionality between the archaeopteryx or the squirrel, between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens; both are "transitional", by their very nature (because all life is continuously evolving!). You have repeatedly sought to evade my simple, easy request to define for me what would meet your absurdly-high requirements for a "transitional species". This demonstrates for me that you are indeed succumbing to the "moving the goalposts" fallacy, and that your expectations are unreasonably high, inflated by an anti-evolutionary bias&mdash;that in turn has been fed by creationist propaganda: you reject creationism, yet every single one of your arguments is clearly handpicked from creationist literature. Very strange.
 * "Find me a clear progression in the fossil record of a species that progressed from one to another," - Certainly! I thought you'd never ask. I'm delighted to acquaint you with the fascinating evolution of the horse. :) Next question? -Silence 00:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's rather embarassing to come up with the evolution of the horse of all things used as "evidence" for evolution. One of the most flouted, and most famously in error examples of evolution in existence, I don't even think many Darwinians use it anymore.  I offer http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/horse.asp as a brief example.  It would be helpful for supporters of evolution not to use the most discredited tid-bits as their crown acheivements.
 * MSTCrow 00:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * MSTCrow, you replied to my previous post only 6 minutes after I had posted it, and ignored the vast majority of the contents of what I said, instead replying solely to the very last line (which is exactly what you've also been doing in all your previous replies, ignoring 95% of the contents of my arguments). Moreover, it's blatantly clear that you didn't take the time to read anything at any of the websites I provided you with to back up my points; you are simply regurgitating creationist propaganda and talking-points, not neutrally considering the evidence from a skeptical, but open-minded, perspective.
 * As an aside, I find it peculiar that you claim not to be a creationist, yet thus far every single one of your arguments has been 100% creationistic in origin, and you seem to rely solely on extreme creationist literature to back up any of your points. This is particularly bizarre since you have claimed to be an atheist: why would an atheist and a skeptic like yourself rely entirely on a website like Answers in Genesis, a Christian apologetics site which, hilariously, asserts (even in the amusing "Non-evolution of the horse" article you just linked me to) that "the horse is part of the pattern God created to tell us there is one Creator" and that the fossil record was caused by the Flood in the Noah's Ark story! You are essentially attempting to refute scientific evidence by quoting the Bible. You are doing it indirectly, sure, by linking to a website that bases its entire criticism of evolution on Biblical passages, but it is nonetheless a bizarre source for an atheist to rely upon. Have you been dishonest with me about your ideological background? Or have you just been misled by all the creationist doubletalk and rhetoric?
 * In any case, the evolution of the horse has never been "discredited"&mdash;the precise sequence of species involved has been revised over the decades, as new fossil evidence has continued to reveal more and more complexity and detail about the evolutionary progression of the various equine species, but the original understanding of the horse's evolution has not been "disproven", it's been refined. That's what science does: it improves, in small ways, based on new evidence; it does not cast aside thoroughly well-supported occurrences (like the horse's evolution) for having a defunct description that was only 99%, not 100%, accurate. That's just silly. Yet again, I must tell you to please read the link I provided you before jumping to conclusions. The link I provided you with already explains that the evolution of the horse is "bushy", not a "straight line". If evolution was a straight line, that would refute modern evolutionary theory, not confirm it! Evolution is by its very nature directionless and opportunistic: modern horses were not the "goal" of their ancient predecessors' genes, they are just the one genus that has happened to survive out the entire equid family. Again, I strongly urge you to at least read some of a scientific, not religious, source, so you can get start to get a conception of reality on this matter: Horse Evolution and Is "Dawn Horse" a Hyrax? are excellent, well-referenced, well-written pages that rely on evidence, not rhetorical tactics (like citing random, obscure, centuries-old taxonomical errors like the name Hyracotherium as "evidence" that there is any modern doubt among biologists that the Hyracotherium is an ancestor of the horse, and other non-sequiturs, irrelevant conclusions and factual errors), to explain the actual story of the biological history of the horse. -Silence 01:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, I haven't been able to find any arguments against Darwinian evolution online that are not mixed in with ID and creationism yet. One can have the same facts and use them to different ends.  Yes, I am an atheist and a skeptic, but that does not mean that believers are to be totally discounted simply because they happen to be a bit superstitious.
 * MSTCrow 02:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. The site you linked to is wrong because it is factually inaccurate and because its evidence does not support its claims and implications, not because it's a creationist site. I just find it odd that every argument you make is derived directly (almost word-for-word) from creationist literature. Incidentally, the reason that you haven't been able to find arguments against Darwinian evolution from non-creationist sources is because next to noone disputes evolution except creationists. That's just a fact: take from it what you will. You are an interesting (and almost unique) anomaly, probably some "collatoral damage" from all the creationist propaganda floating around the Internet.
 * In any case, I look forward to hearing your response to the links I provided above, once you've checked them out. I find this a very interesting discussion, and, now that I've read your reference for your claims about evolution, hopefully you will do me (and yourself) the courtesy of checking out the opposing evidence. Enjoy. -Silence 02:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a question for you, what is the meaning of your life, if we all came out of nothing, because if we just evolved, you wouldn't believe in God right? So if we came out of nothing and we're going into nothing, why does it matter where we came from?

Consensus on Chavez
As a recent editor on Hugo Chávez, can you review developments on Talk:Hugo Chávez and let us know which version you think we should move forward with, considering that either version we pick will need work? Thanks ! Sandy 14:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly confused as to which two versions I should be looking at, do you have a link to each version? Thanks.
 * MSTCrow 04:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not providing detail. I didn't want to push any particular "POV" by giving too much information. But, since you've asked:

Hugo Chávez was recently FARC'd.   Subsequently, an editor (who had never edited the article) reverted it to a six-month old version, without a single prior talk page comment or consensus.

The current article, Hugo Chávez, is based on the revert to the December 10th FA version. Since it is six months old, the work required to reconstruct it amounts to updating outdated information, repairing links and references, and including important edits that had occurred in the six-month interim (including work on the POV issues). IMO, the architects and supporters of the revert don't appear willing to do that work (in spite of several talk page queries). Other active editors are not returning, since six months of contributions were obliterated. Since the revert four or five (?) days ago, another editor has deleted references rather than update them (discussion on talk page), so the FA version is already deteriorating (IMO).

The pre-revert version is here. It was a mess. I had only recently become involved in trying to salvage it. It has the advantage of updated statistics, information, references and links, and some corrections to POV; and the disadvantages of being a hodge-podge collection of facts, with deteriorated prose.

My personal opinion is that, rather than deconstructing six months worth of work (without consequent reconstruction and updating), it would have been preferable to merge the best of the two: that is, incorporate the superior prose and structure from the FA version into the updated version, retaining links (external and internal) and references.

Hope this helps, Sandy 13:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cute cat
Which one? cutemonty1.jpg or greece-cat.jpg? My cat is cutemonty1.jpg. The other one is just a wikimedia pic I found. MontySpurling 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * cutemonty1.
 * MSTCrow 00:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

mediation
You asked that the Peppered Moth article be mediated, and I offered to mediate. I have not heard from you since. Do you still want to pursue this matter? Rick Norwood 17:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks
Mr. Crow, you wrote the following on my talk page:

I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attacks. It is against WP to delete edits, characterizing them as "unsupported dogma."
 * MSTCrow 09:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The page that you refer to says nothing about the phrase, "unsupported dogma." I said nothing about you, personally. Therefore, my edit was nothing like a "personal attack."--RattBoy 10:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, "unsupported dogma" is a pretty good shorthand description of the bit he deleted. But more to the point, characterization of an edit is NOT characterization of an editor, no matter how think-skinned an editor may be. --Calton | Talk 11:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

NPR
Regarding the addition of information about WMD and NPR's 2003 poll, the information you're adding is irrelevant and I would support its continued removal.


 * 1) The Pentagon has said the weapons found were pre-1991, not considered dangerous, and not the weapons we were looking for.
 * 2) At the time of the poll, which asked if weapons had been found, not if they would be found.  If you did a poll on my age, and someone said I was 40 years old, they'd be wrong, and it'd be silly to tack on a "in 2023, ceejayoz turned 40" as a rebuttal.

— ceejayoz <sup style="color:darkred;">talk 16:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can help if you present a case. I'll need your specific sources and diffs of what was removed. In the meantime, if you are adding your own information, don't let them spin a 3RR on you; you are adding material, not reverting it (I presume). Haizum 23:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Haizum, you know as well as anyone that continually adding disputed content is treated as a 3RR violation just as removing it is. — ceejayoz <sup style="color:darkred;">talk 05:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not clear at all if the content is disputed because the truth makes liberals look bad, that the criticisms section has to be censored to keep too much of NPR's faults publicly known, or that "truth" isn't even allowed, see disc. on talk page. All three are in bad faith reasons for disputing content.
 * MSTCrow 10:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)