Talk:The incontrovertible evidence of common descent

Might want to change title, as "irrefutable" sounds a lot like "unfalsifiable".--PalMD-Talk 10:52, 23 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Suggestions? Tmtoulouse 10:53, 23 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Undeniable? (something along those lines) Airdish 10:56, 23 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Undeniable was the first thing that came to my head....I am going to go get lunch, maybe brilliance will strike in the Hospital Cafeteria, or I will just move it to undeniable. Tmtoulouse 10:57, 23 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Maybe since Andy's a lawyer he might like this one: "Common descent is beyond reasonable doubt" Airdish 11:00, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Common descent is demonstrable. Common descent is easily demonstrable.  Common descent is easy to demonstrate. Common descent can be readily proved. Common descent can be understood by a child of ten. (but he’s not in at the moment)  The evidence for Common descent is overwhelming.  The existence of common descent is undeniable.


 * I think maybe we should avoid words such as undeniable or irrefutable - unless this article is meant to be a parody of religious extremism. 142.46.224.163 13:12, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

incontrovertible evidence
I'll have to read this article. Will be back. Heart ♥  Gold tx 12:27, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Second Law of Thermodynamics
While interesting, does this really belong in an article on common descent?

No, but since creationists (ab)use it in their arguments it's has to be in here. MiddleMan

Mmmm, Might it not be better placed under a more general article on arguments against creationism which would include links to both Common Descent and the Second Law? I see that we have an article on Young Earth Creationism maybe a bit of editing would fit it in there?--Bob_M (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

debate rages
Check this out, it's a pretty hot topic even when seemingly level-headed people are involved (i.e. unlike those at RW and CP). Oh and the parent article has something about the creation museum crazies. αιρδισΗταλκ 17:05, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Spam about CP's TOE article "popularity"
Is now here. One place is enough, okay? human be in 19:14, 8 August 2007 (CDT)


 * I am not even going to comment on your obession that some how search rank equals value, but your absolutely wrong about yahoo's rank, look here . 18:54, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

What does popularity on a search engine have to do with anything? --Kels 19:13, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Less than 700 views for this article! Might I suggest having more than 25 footnotes and relying less on TalkOrigins!
Less than 700 views for this article! Might I suggest having more than 25 footnotes and relying less on TalkOrigins! Newton 19:22, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Do you have ANY IDEA at all about search engine optimization? Foot notes are 99 percent meaningless. Anyway, enough of that, do you have a response to the actual content? 19:24, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Might I suggest (1) that we don't really care about pageviews, and (2), you learn to come up with header text that is not your entire comment? I thought you were an experienced wiki person? human be in 19:26, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 * tmtoulouse, I defer to the search engine optimization experts at RationalWiki who made the site as successful as it is (By the way, your main page has received significantly less views that the theory of evolution article at Conservapedia). :) Newton 19:33, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Get back to us if you want to talk content, otherwise go back to CP and circle jerk there. 19:34, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 * tmtoulouse, I noticed the fossil section of the article was exceedingly thin. Is that because the fossil porridge is so exceedingly thin/absent in regards to the theory of evolution that even Oliver Twist would not ask for more?  Newton 19:41, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 * This is a collaborative work, and its far from finished, I didn't write the fossil section it was added later. Try the ERV section or pseudogene section. 19:44, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, at least Ken reminded us to get back to work on that. Our biologist (TimS) is MIA. He's not a fossil guy tho. --PalMD-Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice! 20:41, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Wow, "Newton" seems obsessed with our pageviews! Will he help us "get them up"? By linking to RW from the website where he is an admin?
Wow, "Newton" seems obsessed with our pageviews! Will he help us "get them up"? By linking to RW from the website where he is an admin? human be in 22:21, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Almost the best of RW
Not yet complete.

"broken" image...
In this article, the thumbnail of appears to be broken. Yet, by clicking on the "broken" image's link, I arrive at the Retrovirus.gif page, and there it is! Does anyone else have this problem? I've looked at the wikicode to see if anything was wrong with it, but could find no error...  ŖєuĻє  ux say wнäτ? 21:00, 13 January 2008 (EST)
 * Hmm, looks fine to me. human  03:27, 14 January 2008 (EST)
 * Damn, its as I suspected.  ŖєuĻє [[Image:ReuleauxTriangle.png|10px]] ux say wнäτ? 16:41, 14 January 2008 (EST)
 * The same thing happened for me! However, I have found that gifs respond a differently than say jpgs and bmps so I took out the thumnail size parameter and it appears to be OK now. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis Marauding 14:35, 22 February 2008 (EST)

Ignorance of Science
I wonder if we couldn't fit something in here (or elsewhere) about how while most fundamentalists (indeed, most Americans), would gladly admit they do not understand quantum mechanics, and would not feel qualified to make a judgement about whether the theory is true or not, they hav no such qualms when it comes to the Theory of Evolution. I would suggest that the Theory of Evolution, while fairly simple on the surface (as taught in high school), is just as complex as quantum mechanics when you consider the vast body of different kinds of evidence that add up to a powerful proof of its validity. Yet fundamentalists and many others seem to feel that they are qualified to decide based on a gut-level feeling (or "evidence" in the bible), that the theory must be invalid. PoorEd 14:20, 22 February 2008 (EST)
 * You shouldn't have to rewrite what you just wrote very much to add it in ;) human  14:28, 22 February 2008 (EST)

Blogged!
"The site is frighteningly anti-christian, they have an article which is named "Incontrovertible Proof of Common Descent". I have examined it and it has convincing evidence, thugh I have found good rebuttals to them on this site. If anyone other then myself would look at them it would be most helpful." . Well, we're getting out there. Susan purrrrr  22:52, 2 March 2008 (EST)
 * Means it should actually be completed.....lots of "coming soon". 23:23, 2 March 2008 (EST)
 * Sad that simple mainstream science would be considered "frighteningly anti-christian." How did some versions of christianity stray so far from the simple concepts of mercy and forgiveness, and come to concentrate on such irrelevant crackpot ideas as the a 6,000-year-old earth? PoorEd 09:05, 3 March 2008 (EST)

cover story nominee
Please do not archive this section. The article is very good and is very informative but it lacks the wit of what I like about Rational Wiki.
 * Yes, pretty good. Let me reveiw it before I "vote".  human  01:10, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Copied into Common descent article
I've copied the entire article and merged it into Common descent, which a number of use (see CD talk page) felt was a better way to arrange things as many of us feel this should be a Front Page article. The body of it now lives in a section of that article entitled "The incontrovertible evidence of common descent". If you think this is appropriate, we should eventually remove this article and redirect to CD. And obviously move this Talk page as well. DogP  16:07, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I am all for making them into one article with this being a redirect. That said, since this one probably has a longer history, to do the final step, CD should be merged into this one, then deleted then this title moved to that one - that way the history of  IECD will be saved. I also say, do this anytime, sooner is better. human  16:22, 28 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Ooh, can you do that?  It sounds like you have a clear plan, and if I screw it up I'll have intelligently designed egg all over my face.  DogP  16:31, 28 March 2008 (EDT)