User talk:W00tboy

Kinds, etc.
Evolutionists of all stripes have for a long time been lamenting the refusal of Creationists to give an exact definition of what constitutes a 'kind' - that is, what were the original kinds? - so that this could at last be debunked definitively. Until you specify what makes up a kind in a more rigorous fashion it's just hand-waving and doesn't constitute an argument.

As to 'new information', this, too, is a tired old argument. DNA stores information states; mutations in DNA necessarily imply new states and therefore new information. There is no way around this if you accept that mutations occur. A cow cannot grow a fifth leg without a DNA mutation instructing this to happen; this is novel information in the cow's genome. Surely you see this?

Finally, these are all (bad) attempts to show that Biblical creationism is plausible; they do NOT demonstrate flaws in evolutionary theory. The latter is a far superior explanatory framework for the state of the world. We should reject it only if an improvement exists.

If your faith requires you to accept poorly constructed and irrational arguments, it might be a good idea for you to more carefully examine the foundations of your faith and whether it's one worth holding. Contrary to what others might tell you, faith by itself has no value. Graft 06:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Emergence of new species is evolution, just as change within species is evolution. It isn't "proof of" evolution - evolution is the term to describe this process of change. As for the idea of "kinds" - as Graft pointed out, what is a "kind", and how is it defined? What is the cut-off point of one "kind"? For "kinds" to exist, members of different "kinds" would show no more relationship to members of any other kind - which would mean, in the end, that there was just one "created kind" which evolved into all living things. Which ends up as a question of what caused the first living thing...which has nothing to do with evoluion. Guettarda 11:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Spirituality and religions have nothing to do with evolution. They are different domains. Many noted scientist (some evolutionist)are people of faith. It is an absurd argument that faith has no value, because faiths have contributed to history (good and bad), art, music, and science. There are a number of studies demonstrating a positive influence of faith in medical practice and psychological practice. In fact, a recent trend is including psychiatric course work dealing with faith issues. Islam, Judaism, and Catholicism endorse evolution, however each still hold Allah, Yahew,or God is creator. Faiths don't disprove evolution nor evolution disprove faiths. I recommend keeping faith issues out of science, although science is definitely studying the belief in belief. Don't take these assertions as support of any faith, but it is difficult to ignore the impact faiths have had on the history of man. Pursue spirituality till your heart's content. While I don't agree with the notion of kinds, you do bring up a scientific issue in defining a "species". While many accept the Mayr definition, that is an issue that is still debated. Species is a unit of evolution and a unit of taxonomic classification. Further, a species as an interbreeding isolated population is problematic because of hydridization of species. Over 800 species of birds have been demonstrated to hybridize with fertile offspring out of about 10,000 species. It is thought 40% of plant diversity is generated by hybridization. Hydbridization in mammals is relatively rare. However, hybridization is problematic in the defintion of a species, although it is considered a means of evolutionary diversity.GetAgrippa 14:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Get a grip, man, religion and evolution intersect at what Eugenie Scott calls "theistic evolution" or "evolutionary creationism". It's not all cut and dried.


 * And to address a more recent commont by W00tboy, I realize that the Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first to sin; and that this means that there should have been no "death" before their sin. But it's not actually a mainstream religious view, even in Christianity, that nothing ever died before the 6th Day of Creation. There are some people who believe human beings would have been physically immortal, but this is a minority view (see Jehovah's Witneses). --Uncle Ed 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)