From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon evolution.svg

This evolution related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>


[edit] Evo and edu studies

Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

[edit] What kind of leftist propaganda is this?

I thought this was Rational Wiki. How can any site calling itself rational simply dismiss creation science and intelligent right out of hand? (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
Also, ROTFLOL.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Because there's no science to dismiss. It's not science, it's pseudoscience! It would be like calling astrology "astrological science". --Kittycat (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Dismissing right out of hand yet again. Typical leftist projection. (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

OK then I'll bite. How about "because there's no evidence for them?" Flannan Isle (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
We "believe" in all the scientific theories or, as you put it, propaganda. Evolution, electricity, germs causing disease, plate tectonics, gravity... I went to a doctor today instead of using faith healing then used my computer without setting it on fire for being infested with demons. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
No, Emerald, YOU are the demons! --Ymir (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I am certainly not a bunch of little demons in a suit. *looks shifty* -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll tell you what kind of leftist propaganda this is. Rational leftist propaganda. Ba dum ts.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 10:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly rightist propaganda seeking to destroy the human dignity necessary for true socialism in favor of a capitalist valorization of competition. Annquin (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I rather think we are back on Poe's Law. Is the IP serious or not?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

How come you don't mention evolution being completely pagan?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Troll--JorisEnter (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I thought it was Satanic. Hurry up and sort this out. I need to know who to sacrifice this goat to. --Ymir (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Pagan? Satanic? I thought it was an irreducibly complex process guided by the hand of God and revealing His grand design!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Clearly scientists who study evolution are devil-worshiping, pagan, communistic atheists. And I thought they were Muslim, devil-worshiping, pagan, communistic atheists.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Study showing an increase in birth by Ceasarian Section impacting(and thereby proving) human evolution.

I believe this could be of some interest. I haven't read the actual paper itself, just this report from the BBC. Perhaps someone can look at this study in further detail to decide if it is worthy of inclusion in the 'proof of evolution' section. Thanks. not a real jedidamn right i'm paranoid 10:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Comedy goldmine GreatPerson (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I love how it says "testable", yet the very first point in Dr. Ross' list appeals verbatim to miracle. Facepalm.png Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Most people

... who have a basic knowledge of science can understand how much of evolution 'works' on the broad level - members of one species go into two different environments (in the broadest possible sense) can lead to two different variants and eventually two different species; as environments change the creatures will also do so (eg the transition from life in the sea to seashore/mangrove life and then land based life); and 'if there is no good reason why eg one eye colour has a particular benefit then variants all are likely to survive.' (And 'if life has evolved here on Earth it will probably emerge elsewhere in the universe - insert Trappist/Dr Who Silence pun here - and some of it will seem very peculiar to us, but there will be certain practical limits to it.)

However it is some of the technicalities that provide 'the problems' - how did 'the original chemicals' develop into 'self-replicating components' which then became cells (beyond 'some self-replicators make use of other such's by-products and associate together as a result' or how one gets from 'sensors' ('nerves or whatever') to eyes and taste buds. To some extent this may lead to 'god of the gaps'-itis (and should be where there is more explaining). (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The "place" you describe is basically the link between philosophy of mind (in the sense of a "philosophy of life") and evolution — but also where chemistry specifies into biology. Abiogenesis, in other words. As a skeptic, this place about marks the furthest end of where methodological naturalism has currently take us with certainty. Beyond this point, in the unexplored "gap" which lies ahead, the only guide you can trust is metaphysical naturalism — but that's assuming you want to stray into the jungle at all. I highly recommend doing so, but only responsibly. See our article on philosophical naturalism for more. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] In a nutshell

Welcome to the jungle. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Rev BP - write the book on 'eyes, cells and suchlike puzzles' aimed at the curious person described and you might well get rich (or more likely to do so than 'responding to the stuff in your email spam folder'). (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the github???

This is the best computer simulation I have ever seen of evolution.

I can't find the github repository. The author said in 2016, he was releasing his source publicly in a few weeks.

ClickerClock (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal tools