Talk:Evolution/Archive3
Contents |
[edit] WTF?
You can't compare evolution to creationism. There are facts for evolution. We know for example that the ancestors of birds are dinosaurs. Nothing proves creationism. 91.115.62.5 (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's worse than that. Evolutionary biology offers accounts about what happens and how so that features of the world of life turn out the way things are. For example, how it is that mammals are all air-breathing four-limbed vertebrates. Why humans, being mammals, have typical structure to the eyes of vertebrates, rather than of insects, or of octopuses. Creationism shows no prospect of ever addressing such issues. Creationists have no interest in offering an "alternative" account for such "complex specified" structures in the world of life. (Something which couldn't have happened by chance.) TomS TDotO (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not by chance? I was taught that the reason we even have life here is because we got lucky with the chance of the primordial soup arranging itself. And then we got really lucky that all the environmental factors somehow came together to evolve eucaryotes and eventually human beings. As in, genetic changes pretty much just happen by chance and are seemingly random, and then it is up to the survival of the fittest which one ends up persisting. (Unless you are going to argue a complete chain of deterministic events all the way from primordial soup to now, in which case I'm not going toargue with you.)
- Indeed, I would think that the creationists are more likely to hold the view that everything didn't happen by chance, but God designed it. Nullahnung (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- It isn't a matter of chance that mammals are air-breathing four-limbed vertebrates. Whenever we come across a mammal, we can feel confident that, upon investigation, we will find that it is air-breathing (even if it is fully adapted to water), it is four-limbed (in some cases, like whales, some of the limbs are vestigial), and have a bony skeleton. Creationists have never attempted to say why God created things that way - it's just a matter of an "act of God". Why are no five-limbed mammals? TomS TDotO (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, but is a tail not counted as a limb, as it can be extremely useful for things that limbs are used for, like keeping balance or grabbing tree branches? And are monkeys with such tails not mammals? Consider yourself slightly corrected, good sir! (<--sidetrack)
- And yes, it is still always a matter of chance. Just because we can work with probabilities and good predictions based upon such probabilities doesn't mean the random element doesn't come into play. Kinda like quantum physics (not really, but you get my point). Nullahnung (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- And the question posed by Lincoln: if we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
- My point was that we have a good account for how it happens that mammals are tetrapods. And "an omnipotent creator made things that way or "intelligent designers were responsible" does not tell us why, in so many ways, every mammal that we have examined is a tetrapod. And we can predict that every mammal that will be discovered, extant or extinct, will be a tetrapod. Evolution accounts for such observations and such predictions, and it is not just a matter of the luck of the draw. Creation/design has no way for accounting for that: Calculate, as the creationists like to do, the probability that every species of mammal has so many features in common - it is a regularity, and the only regularity that any one has thought of to produce that (and so many other facts of life) is common descent with modification. Unless someone has any prospect of ever discovering why God or intelligent designers are constrained to do things that way.
- It is not a matter of chance that the next mammalian fossil that is dug up will fit the pattern. TomS TDotO (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, sure. Nullahnung (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- It isn't a matter of chance that mammals are air-breathing four-limbed vertebrates. Whenever we come across a mammal, we can feel confident that, upon investigation, we will find that it is air-breathing (even if it is fully adapted to water), it is four-limbed (in some cases, like whales, some of the limbs are vestigial), and have a bony skeleton. Creationists have never attempted to say why God created things that way - it's just a matter of an "act of God". Why are no five-limbed mammals? TomS TDotO (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestion
Include a link to 'devolution' until 'about next Monday' (or whenever Salmond and Westminster have stopped arguing over who which side won). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Mivart
'What use is half a wing?' - still no satisfactory answer... — Unsigned, by: 78.146.32.24 / talk / contribs
- Yawn. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- They're called "drumettes" and they're delicious with barbeque sauce. Ikanreed (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Until we crack the code on penguin or emu speech... we'll never know.--Inquisitor (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- They're called "drumettes" and they're delicious with barbeque sauce. Ikanreed (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
[edit] The Pagan Roots of Evolution
| Barking up the wrong tree... |
|---|
|
This discussion has been closed, please do not modify it. The outcome was: "Creationism has readily traceable pagan roots, as does the clockmaker analogy and the Edinburgh Creation Group. Regardless of historical origins, creation science is not science, and evolution is solid science."
|
[edit] Why Evolution is False
| Missing links...between TRUTH and science...FALSE idols and true idols...immaculate preconception and reality... |
|---|
|
This discussion has been closed, please do not modify it. The outcome was: "The TRUTH that is believed strongly has no need for falsifiable hypotheses, except when it is convenient and fits immaculate preconception. A rather complete example of missing the links between creation "science" and scientific theory, worthy of a little amusing idol chatter."
The TRUTH is that cheese is made of bacteria
The truth is that cheese is made of bacteria
Welcome back to Evolutionary Idol, the show where only the winners of our singing contest can survive and reproduce. As with every other season, the stand-out leader is: bacteria! Ikanreed (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
|
[edit] Demonstrating Evolution
| It was a dark and stormy night, and then... |
|---|
|
This discussion has been closed, please do not modify it. The outcome was: "In her novel Frankenstein, Mary Shelley wrote 'one man's life or death were but a small price to pay for the acquirement of the knowledge which I sought, for the dominion I should acquire and transmit over the elemental foes of our race', foreshadowing the price Frankenstein would eventually pay for his pursuit of knowledge. Let's see... Is this really relevant? Umm... Sure sounds cool... Oh yes, the foreshadowing: 'straw-man definitions of evolution out there, ranging from trans-species reproduction, to falling asleep one species and waking up a different species in the morning, to things as ridiculous as animals being created via urinating on a rock, to often seemingly sensible definitions such as variation within a species of living organisms'. And so Frankenstein's monster went on a rampage... '...typing this paragraph, the text of the paragraph is evolving'... Huh? ...and therefore evolution as 'accumulated change' is a better topic for this article because 'evolution of biology, while observed both in nature and under laboratory conditions, is not easily demonstrated to people claiming that there is no such thing as evolution, but many kinds of non-biological evolution are'. Huh? While the suggested changes may have made 'evolution both accessible and defensible', it really had little to do with writing a good article, and probably not a great novel. Beware..."
To be clear, this talk page evolves another step every time someone makes an edit to it which is not reverting a previous edit. No single edit would be evolution on its own, but would rather be a "change" to the page. However, when such changes add up, that is evolution. Similarly, as I am typing this paragraph, the text of the paragraph is evolving. That's not the same as the talk page evolving, because those changes are not being made to the talk page, but every single character I add to this paragraph constitutes another evolutionary change, when viewed as part of a set or series of such changes. Again, individually no such change would be evolution. I bring this up because evolution of biology, while observed both in nature and under laboratory conditions, is not easily demonstrated to people claiming that there is no such thing as evolution, but many kinds of non-biological evolution are. Anyway, I have made a few additions to the page. I hope people here like them. I've gone out of my way to make sure they are well referenced and do not break the spirit of the page as I found it, but rather strengthen it and help it to better serve the purpose of making the concept of evolution both accessible and defensible. I have more that I would like to do, or to see others do, but I would rather get a discussion going first if possible, to make sure that I don't make changes that would give anyone valid reasons to undo my hard work. Thanks. DonaldKronos (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
|
[edit] Is the evolution page not allowed to evolve?
| Caution: Slippery when wet... |
|---|
|
This discussion has been closed, please do not modify it. The outcome was: "Little or no support was garnered for this article 'to evolve' from a relatively well-written GOLD status article to a poorly written article about dictionary definitions of 'evolution' that are not necessarily relevant to RationalWiki, and based on references that do not correspond to the ideas being presented. The answer: 'Yes, the evolution page is allowed to evolve with at least some semblance of improvement (or wit)'."
So my question is, are we killing a non-biological wiki page because it has evolved to perfection, and preventing it from evolving so that it can continue to deny that evolution happens outside of biology, or could someone please look over the changes I had made, and consider rolling it back? I would rather not do it myself, because I recently learned in the Wikipedia community that undoing the deletion of hard work is can upset people..... so, please? Anyone? DonaldKronos (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
How does one now nominate the latest version of the evolution page? Does that involve modification or replacement of the cover template entry at the top of this talk page? I notice that the old version is showing there, so I take it the changes do not automatically show there (which makes sense, but leaves me wondering then what the concern was). Anybody know? DonaldKronos (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, ideally the evolution page keeps evolving in ways that it gets better. In looking back at recent edits, I appreciate adding content about the "evolution of evolution", but overall the older version is better. I would favor rolling back the work, adding a sentence about evolving views of "evolution", and adding back part of the changes in a section "Evolution of evolution". PonoPono (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
|
[edit] Origins of the scientific theory
| Try, try again... And again... And again... |
|---|
|
This discussion has been closed, please do not modify it. The outcome was: "If you can't get any traction, try spinning your wheels... Or try opening another thread... Most sequels don't live up to the original. In this case the original was a flop. Maybe some kind of cult movie about a dictionary definition that keeps rising from the dead..."
|
[edit] Religious Beliefs and Evolution
| While they are not looking, let's sneak around the back... |
|---|
|
This discussion has been closed, please do not modify it. The outcome was: "A suggestion to add 'a sort of disclaimer... ...pertaining to the apparent conflict between religious beliefs and evolution...' A lot of this is covered in Theistic evolution and Old Earth creationism. Yet this is another chance to champion the cause of changing the focus of the Evolution article to a dictionary definition and away from a 'narrow branch of evolution' referred to as 'reproductive biological evolution'..."
I was going to try to add a simplified version of such a disclaimer, but I could not find enough satisfactory reference material out there to decide what would be the best minimalist content for such a section. However, I did find a recent study that I think is perhaps at least worth mentioning here on the talk page, as it does seem unusually detailed. I will say though that some of the survey questions used in the study were in my opinion poorly worded. For example, asking people if they thought only evolution should be taught in public schools could be taken as a question of whether such things as spontaneous generation should be left out of the curriculum, but it could also be taken as a question of whether such subjects as mathematics and sociology should be eliminated. Anyway, here is the link... https://www.dropbox.com/s/k8pm1s48uaqvvm3/NSRHO%20Report.pdf?dl=0 Perhaps we can get some discussion going in here and find a way to address the concerns involved in attempts to add some sort of section covering the relationship between religion and evolution. Here's a link to the page which brought that study to my attention... http://ncse.com/polls-evolution As an after-thought, I decided it would also be good to include here, for the sake of encouraging research and potentially generating discussion. DonaldKronos (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
|
[edit] Evolution page not allowed to evolve. How ironic.
| Warning... Warning... Danger... Danger... |
|---|
|
This discussion has been closed, please do not modify it. The outcome was: "Big changes should probably be discussed first, especially when they lead us astray. Edits were rolled back because they 'were horrible on their own terms', not because of anything to do with problems this editor had with Wikipedia. RationalWiki content is 'hammered out by consensus'. The editor's concept of 'working hard' apparently has 'little to do with content quality or fitness for purpose'. "
Okay, so I get it.... same problem here as in Wikipedia. The evolution page is not allowed to be about evolution, but rather about a narrow facet of evolution, and itself not allowed to evolve. Well.... you lost my help. Bye. Contact me on Twitter @DonaldKronos if the aversion to evolution is ever cured here. Donald Arthur Kronos, Ph.D. DonaldKronos (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Fact: "change in a species' inherited traits" is no more a description of "evolution" than "having four sides" is a definition of "shape". Examine the differences before and after the reversion: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=1406629&oldid=1402833 Not all shapes are quadrilaterals, and not all evolution is biological. The reversion that was made was not made to improve the page. It was made to unchange the page, back to what it had been. Why? Are we worshiping ancestral version? I'm not. Do what you feel is best with it. I tried. The fact remains, that the evolution of the evolution page has ceased, and it may as wall say that "evolution" means "cats giving birth to dogs" for all it's going to teach people who come to RationalWiki looking to see if maybe they were mistaken after all. DonaldKronos (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: For those who understand better in creationist terms, does macro-evolution only happen to the evolution page when it's to undo lots of micro-evolution? DonaldKronos (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I agree with Ikanreed that "big changes should probably be discussed first". Now, look in the fossil record. When was the last "big change" that I made? Try 09:16, 27 December 2014, which increased the page by 3629 characters, which I made to restore content and address concerns expressed in the reason given for a modification which had reduced the page by 3270 characters, which had as its stated explanation: (to quote that template on the talk page, "This evolution related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please bear this in mind when editing the article."). So, reverting to a stagnant form seems to be all too easy here, and the evolution page, ironically, is being kept from evolving, because it had once won some sort of award. And that raises the important question. Did it win the award for what it had evolved into, so far, or was there an all knowing creator who simply *CREATED IT* that way? DonaldKronos (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC) I would like to further clarify, that the so-called "undo" was nothing of the sort. When many changes are reverted all at once like that, and then more changes are made, the task of restoring even the most valuable parts of what was lost becomes difficult or impossible without disrupting other valuable additions. The so-called undo, was a major revision, and should have been discussed BEFORE being carried out! DonaldKronos (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I changed ONE SENTENCE back, to restore the broader definition of evolution, while still giving the narrow biological definition. It may look like a big change in the fossil record, but that is only because that version of the sentence has half a dozen reference links which were removed when the so-called "undo" happened. The sentence itself is actually much shorter, and reads as follows (copied and pasted, reverence links and all)... Evolution[1] is the accumulation of change. Biological evolution, or evolution[2] within the context of biology[3], generally refers to accumulation[4] of changes to the set of inherited traits[5] within a species, from generation to generation, also known by the name descent with modification[6] as Charles Darwin called it. DonaldKronos (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
On the subject of the evolution of these wiki pages being a good example of simple-to-understand evolution that might encourage people who think there's no such thing as evolution to reconsider their working definition if enough people point such things out to them as evolution, I added a section to the Fun:Evolution page which I think humorously illustrates my point. Fun:Evolution#Real_Evolution_Doesn't_Happen. -- DonaldKronos (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
|
[edit] Simple question
| Closed for Cleaning: Reductio ad absurdum et nauseam |
|---|
|
This discussion has been closed, please do not modify it. The outcome was: "Discussion proceeded to absurdity ad nauseam, and little or nothing productive resulted; the article clearly uses the term 'evolution' with respect to the theory of evolution, as is relevant to this RationalWiki; indeed there are different uses for the term 'evolution' including non-biological, and this article includes a nice section about etymology and usage of the term 'evolution' and another nice section about non-biological evolution; nobody (evolutionist, creationist, scientist, or lay person) is likely to be confused about the topic of this article, and (although it is not clear it was needed) the article now has a hatnote 'This page is about biological evolution. If you are interested in other uses of the word, please consult a dictionary'; and there is good correspondence between the title of the article 'evolution', the most common use of the term to refer to 'descent with modification' or 'change in heritable traits in a biological population', or 'modern synthesis', and the actual subject of the article; a diatribe is not a discussion; and importantly incivility and fervor are not welcome — please be polite. Then again, perhaps reality is overrated. Oh yes, and the answer: Yes, honesty does matter here! And so does assuming good faith, and hearing what others have to say..."
Outside of the narrow scope of biological evolution through descent with modification, "evolution" does not refer to change in a biological population's inherited traits from generation to generation. It is simply not honest to give a definition of biological evolution and pass it off as a definition of evolution without specifying the narrow context in which it fits such a definition. I've tried yet another small modification to remedy this seemingly perpetual dishonesty here. If it is not good enough, someone please find a better way, rather than once again reverting the definition to a blatantly dishonest one. Unless of course, honesty is not important here. Or does honesty PERHAPS NOT matter here? — Unsigned, by: DonaldKronos / talk / contribs 08:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Because, buddy, pal, language serves more than just the master of accuracy. Being technically correct can fall to the wayside against being punchy and to the point. It's okay to summarize the sky as blue, and not have to point out that you're talking about the non-cloudy daytime sky on planet earth, and that the blue you mean is actually a light blue. It'd be bad to never acknowledge those things, but when summarizing things, being overtly technical isn't always the best idea. Ikanreed (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't ignore the fact that biological is merely being used as an adjective in the term biological evolution, which simply means evolution of a biological nature or evolution of something biological. Biological evolution and non-biological evolution are not separate concepts sharing similar labels, but rather two parts of the same concept, namely evolution, which has been falsely defined here as if it covers only one of the two. I'm not saying the editors are attempting to be dishonest. I'm saying the misleading definition is dishonest. DonaldKronos (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
|