Talk:Evolution/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 29 March 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)(back)

Contents

[edit] simple question

If two monkeys have a baby, what species is the baby?
A. Dolphin
B Human
C Lion
D Monkey

PandaLover (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dolphin, dolphin! Is it dolphin? I bet it's dolphin!! Scarlet A.pngmoral 18:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
A. "Monkey" is not a species.
B. The baby would be a mutant monkey, same as its parents. (DNA copying during wp:meiosis is not perfect. => Small mutations. => The baby is a "mutant", i.e. its genome is not identical to the source parts of its parents' genomes.) --ZooGuard (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
No, the monkey would be mutated only if it was affected by radiation, and if the baby was mutated it would not be the same as its parents. Even if your answer is correct then that does not mean a human can be born to monkey parents.PandaLover (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


Lunch! tmtoulouse 18:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking permission to call Poe, as it's far too obvious to point out that "mutations" aren't due to radiation. Indeed, radiation doesn't just change you into the X-Men, it will probably just outright kill you. Scarlet A.pngmoral 18:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Poe was called about 17 hours ago. tmtoulouse 19:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I assume he said something like "who the hell is this and how did you get this number?!?" Scarlet A.pngmoral 19:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You are all missing the point! monkey parents cannot give birth to human children, so the bogus theory that humans came from monkeys is proven false. I don't see how this has anything to do with Edgar Allen Poe.PandaLover (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Damn right the theory that humans came from monkeys is bogus! Scarlet A.pngmoral 19:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
How did we lose track of the dolphin discussion? Can we refocus this conversation back to dolphins...or lunch even. tmtoulouse 19:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's enough in this article about how dolphins come from monkeys. --Kels (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Its pretty obvious to me that you are not taking my opinion seriously. this kind of taunting is immature. maybe you are afraid of having your belief in evoution shattered, so you mock others to protect yourself from the truth.PandaLover (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, don't monkeys get born from Dolphins? And to PandaLover, I'm afraid that 1) if you're joking we're just joking with you and I assume you'll appreciate it or 2) if you're serious, your opinion is deserving of nothing but mockery for how stupid it is. Win-win situation here. Scarlet A.pngmoral 19:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's been a long time since high school biology, but I know there's some sort of relationship between monkeys and dolphins. I mean, it's obvious isn't it?
As to taking you seriously, there's nothing wrong with laughing at clowns. That's why we have clowns, after all (I think they're born from marmosets). --Kels (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
How come there are still monkeys? TomS TDotO (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Dolphins and monkeys have a common ancestor - the donkey. (Or did I get that the wrong way round?)Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 09:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Why call Poe when you can call Ian Brown?

Where do pandas come from?--BobSpring is sprung! 15:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] New article idea.

As I walked into town, I was thinking about ideas for new very much on-mission articles. I had the idea of a full article on evolution denial, which focuses on (a) The contemporary response to evolution; (b) Modern Day Religions' responses; (c) How different nations view evolution and (d) How evolution-denial has become so mainstream among the American Right. The thing that got me thinking was that... we know ALL about Christian denialism, with their creationist arguments and conspiracy theories, etc, etc... but what about Islam? Hinduism? Judaism? Despite being really into this stuff, I'm not clued up at all on how these religions respond to it. I'd be up for doing this in my userpage as a base for the article, and putting in proper research and referencing well. This article could also address the 'social darwinism' crap. It could cover points like, "X claims that belief in evolution leads to A, B & C. But just because it leads to that doesn't make it false. If belief in the tooth fairy makes people nice and denying the tooth fairy leads to suicide and murder... it doesn't make the tooth fairy real. What do people think? DalekEXTERMINATE 19:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of that would already be in this article as the "broad arguments against evolution" and other bits would be in our creationism articles, but I'd say that an article on evolution denial would probably be a good idea. But not all your points are really about denialism. For example Social Darwinism is not really part of denialism - it's about miss-application. But I'd say go for it and see who joins in.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Kropotkin and mutual aid

Not mentioned? — Unsigned, by: 81.96.237.53 / talk / contribs 19:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Mutualism

I think the article needs a section on Symbiosis and how it applies to evolution. I believe that people need to focus more on the mutualistic and altruistic aspects of natural selection instead of the predatory and competitive. — Unsigned, by: 70.112.39.33 / talk / contribs 13:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Darwinian and Lamarckian evolution

Organic life evolves Darwinian-wise (for the most part - humans etc can select for particular characteristics in certain other species).

Knowledge and technology can 'evolve' Lamarckian-wise - there are deliberate improvements on precursor models. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Randomness

Since this is a featured article, I wanted to talk here before making any changes. My concern is specifically about the assertion that nothing apart from mutation is random about natural selection. While certain genes enhance the chances of reproductive success (and we might also make it clear that that's all the fitness needed), that doesn't guarantee success. Even on a macro level, sometimes a species just loses the crapshoot and dies out. Neanderthals, for example, certainly were competent -- their intelligence gave them a distinct edge over other species. Even humans had a evolutionary bottleneck like 75,000 years ago where we came pretty close. Thoughts? ShorinBJ (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly true that sometimes it just doesn't work out. A bird with a potentiating mutation for having more and better offspring might just get whacked by a cat early in its life, and a species that is very well adapted may get wiped out by a freak storm or earthquake. But I don't think that's quite the same level of randomness as with mutations. Events like these are the (high impact) outliers of the natural selection mechanism that, overall, isn't totally randomised. ADK...I'll snap your brisket! 11:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Doonesbury

Today's cartoon [1] seems relevant. Pashley (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Toolbox
support