Talk:Evolution/Archive3

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)

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)

Mivart
'What use is half a wing?' - still no satisfactory answer...
 * 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)

The Pagan Roots of Evolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mhlm_PK7Uw4


 * ...is of course the usual creationist BS (as could be expected by a production by someone calling themselves EdinburgCreationGroup.org), and surprisingly includes the usual quote mining circus (even in the info box). It also includes the usual "cosmical evolution" shtick that creationists are the only one who seems to be using.
 * It's simply another stone cold example of a bagful of PRATTs by a minion from Creation Ministries International whose qualifications seems to be that he has "worked as a West End Theatre Chaplain in shows like Cats, Phantom of the Opera and Lion King, and was a missionary to the New Age Movement for six years. Since 2004 he has been working with Edinburgh City Mission. He now runs an historical walking tour and has pioneered Edinburgh Creation Group next to the University of Edinburgh where he works with students".
 * Not to mention that it wouldn't matter one fetid dingo's kidney even if the idea of evolution had it's roots in the Official Monster Raving Loony Party programme . It's science, it has been observed, the theory works, deal with it.
 * (Oh, and if the theatre pastor's idea is that  the scientific theory of evolution  has "Pagan origins", he's just wrong.) ScepticWombat (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be worthwhile to note that many of the features of Christmas have "pagan" origins. Beginning with the date, close to the solstice, through Christmas trees, festival of lights, and, too obvious to mention, Santa Claus.
 * And, BTW, the famous analogy of the clockmaker can trace its roots back to pagan, classical Rome.   TomS TDotO (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The pagan roots of Christianity are more apparent than the pagan roots of evolution. But everything somewhere and if some pagan previously had an evolutionary thought so what? Knowledge is knowledge?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Why Evolution is False
Evolution has changed its tune on it's multiple aspects from genetics to astrophysics a dozen times from when I first started following it as a kid 20 years ago, and that is just from an amateur such as myself. Any other theory/equation that needs modified so frequently usually gets discarded. Look that up... Adaptation is programmed into the nanotech genome to sustain and diversify life with limited heritable boundaries. There are no total gene function changing mutations beneficial for the overall system. Yes Darwin was partially right, but macro evolution is an assumption leap, and the evidence is pointing in another direction. Speciation after their kind with slow genetic entropy and degeneration over time! I strongly recommend "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design", by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, in which he painstakingly lays out the intra-cellular mechanics behind Creation, demonstrating why any theory for the spontaneous generation of such complex machinery is statistically absurd. Do you want to prove evolution? Ok. Perform an experiment for me that demonstrates a superior or more complicated lifeform being evolved from an inferior / less complicated one. I'm waiting. there IS NO missing link, they can't find one and that right there proves evolution is FALSE. "Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself...If it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing...This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no thing to think about." -GKC It always amazes me to see your handwaving when it comes to the TRUTH. It just shows the absolute ignorance of people when it comes to the TRUTH. The world around us has been carefully constrcuted and designed by a small group of people who want nothing but total control of what we say, think and do. They're making themselves false idols to us for their own false idol(s). It's an apostasy of unimagineable proportions and sadly many people the world over have bought into their lies. Do you know that most Darwinist Atheist's hold the opinion that one day Science will grant man immortality through transfering their consciousness into digital format of some kind and becomming a robot of sorts. This is the false hope they find comfort in, many want to use cryogenics to freeze themselves to wake up in the future in a world where science has achieved immortality (Gaining the tree of life through the tree of knowledge with their own hands) 'The illusion of knowledge'; good insights.--InsomniaManiac (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a fun fact for you: everyone knows you're crazy when you all-caps the word "truth". It's completely impossible to not seem crazy when you do it.  Compare:

"The TRUTH is that cheese is made of bacteria"
 * to

"The truth is that cheese is made of bacteria"
 * Word for word identical, yet the former is crazy. Ikanreed (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, evolution has absolutely nothing to say about astrophysics. I'm not sure where you get the idea that changes in astrophysical theories have anything to do with evolution. - Grant (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there's panspermia forks that allege nebulae are relevant to the earliest evolution of life. Tangential, but it's there.  Ikanreed (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose, though I think "tangential" might be an understatement. Heh. Even with that in mind, I'm having a difficult time thinking about which changes in our understanding of nebula development could possibly have thrown a wrench into evolution. This is going to bug me now... :P - Grant (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But doesn't the status of "astrophysicist" have an influence on breeding potential? Or maybe it should. MarmotHead (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * True, there may very well be some negative correlation there (cue laughter). - Grant (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's one fantastic Gish gallop. How many individual mistakes are there in that ghastly wall of text?--Weirdstuff (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else find the name "Dr. Stephen C. Meyer" a little unbelievable? The book mentioned is probably on a level with Stephenie Meyer's though.--TiaC (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well yes, to people that don't understand them the big bang, cosmology, evolution, the origin of life, and why 7-11 doesn't have ones favorite soda are all part of the same process. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, we are told about the false idols. What are the true idols?    TomS TDotO (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Film stars? Sports stars?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 15:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why must there be true idols? EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Our paragraph-challenged scribbler writes: "They're making themselves false idols to us ..."
 * The creation of "false idols" implies the existence of true idols - otherwise "false" is a redundancy. Nobody capable of capitalising "TRUTH" in that manner would make such a silly mistake.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * True, I can see that. I just don't get the use of idols at all, and I never got why knowing facts is idol worship.  It's not worship to know how electricity works and how it's not a good idea to put a fork in the electrical socket.  EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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)
 * Bah! Enough of the idle chatter!--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Controversially, is that what idol hands do in a chat room, while idle hands hover over the keyboard and wait their turn?
 * (Forgot to add my signature 17:57, 25 December 2014‎) DonaldKronos (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Demonstrating Evolution
I want to make a point for discussion. Much of the problem with the topic of evolution comes from the fact that religious organizations have poured excessive resources into convincing the world at large that evolution is something it's not. There are several such 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. Fact is, none of those describes what evolution is, even though that last one does at least describe something evolution is responsible for.

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)


 * To nitpick, trans-species reproduction is definitely a thing, which of course underscores that species are fuzzy, man-made classifications. Some biologists think that "species" isn't even a concept that can really be meaningfully applied to bacteria, since they swap genes so freely. Anyway your edits look fine to me. --Ymir (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, the liger is a good example, and they have been know to reproduce also. I'm glad you like my edits. Unfortunately, they all just got rolled back. Would you consider restoring them, or asking someone else to review them and consider doing so? I don't know people here yet, and I'm trying to avoid having happen to me here what happened to me in Wikipedia. I really don't want another such experience. :(
 * DonaldKronos (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the evolution page not allowed to evolve?
I just had over twenty edits rolled back. Here's what the fossil record reports: ''21:35, 26 December 2014‎ ZooGuard (Talk | contribs)‎. . (-3,270)‎ . . (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.") (rollback | undo)''

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)
 * If would certainly be a good idea if those rolling you back would appear on the talk page to discuss the issue. No doubt they will show up shortly.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope so. In the mean time, thanks for saying something, because I was starting to feel terribly alone in here. I went ahead and restored my changes for now, modified to better accommodate the format of the "Random Featured Article on the main page, so I hope that will satisfy what they were concerned about. I removed an extra line break to make the top more compact (not sure if that will effect the randome featured article display) and I moved the first paragraph from the new Overview section back into the top section above the index, since it includes the line stating that "All modern species on Earth have come about through the mechanisms reproduction and of evolution, which continue to bring about new varieties of life."
 * DonaldKronos (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that you have restored it. It might have been better to wait for a response from those who are concerned about something though, as it's always better to find out what people are disturbed about before going ahead with significant changes. Cheers. :- )--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 10:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bob. I did the best I could to adjust the latest revision before the rollback to make a new version that should be better for the Random featured article on the main page. I really do think that if it's going to be on the main page, representing RationalWiki, it should at least not start off with "Evolution refers to the change in a species' inherited traits from generation to generation." as that is not a true statement about evolution but rather a true statement about a limited scope of evolution that Charles Darwin called descent with modification and in fact not even all descent with modification. For example, it does not apply to the evolution of a wiki page, which does evolve through descent with modification, but lacks any kind of species concept. DonaldKronos (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC) (Copied over from my talk page)
 * DonaldKronos (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And yes, Bob, it maybe would have been better to wait, which is what I was originally going to do (and I did wait for a while), but in consideration of the holidays I figured they may be a bit busy and it is obviously easier to delete my work again than it was to do it in the first place, or to adjust it according to what the comment in the reversion record asked me to keep in mind... so hopefully they will understand that I am trying to work with them and not disrespect their efforts to keep the page up to standards. In fact, I am trying to raise the standards. I know that's a big aspiration, but even random mutations can be beneficial when evolution is taken into consideration, and I did make adjustments with the reasons given for selection against my work as they found it kept in mind. I'm guessing it was not so much my work that was the issue, as not having the time to properly review it. I hope they will find the revised version to their liking. DonaldKronos (talk) 10:29, 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)


 * ZooGuard I'm still learning how to communicate with people in here, so please have patience with me. I looked over the description of what you asked me (in the summary of your reversion) to keep in mind when editing the evolution page, and I modified my changes accordingly. I hope when you have time to properly review them, you will find the new arrangement satisfactory. If not, please consider discussing with me what you see fault with and allowing me the chance to modify it or explain my reasoning or something.  It's a page about evolution after all... so let's apply the principles of evolution to improving it rather than make it stagnate, shall we? :) DonaldKronos (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Those edits that were rolled back do appear sound to me. -RNS 65.128.154.27 (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate the feedback, and the time and effort put in to reviewing the work I've been doing on the page. DonaldKronos (talk) 11:50, 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)
 * The opening sentence is "Evolution[1] is the accumulation of change", citing "Introducing an annotated bibliography on temporal and evolution aspects in the World Wide Web". As far as I can tell this source does not define evolution that way, nor is it particularly authoritative or relevant - it is about the representation of time and change on the World Wide Web.  The other citations appear to also not be relevant.  How about a good source on etymology, a scholarly article or book about "evolution of evolution", or a web link to a reference that sparks a good opener? PonoPono (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, now a couple of references in the second sentence, "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.":
 * [2]A link to Rossmann MG, Moras D, Olsen KW. 1974. Chemical and biological evolution of a nucleotide-binding protein. Nature 250(5463):194-199. Hmm... "Three-dimensional alignment of the common nucleotide binding structure in dehydrogenases, kinases and flavodoxins permits the recognition of homologous amino acids when sequence comparisons alone would fail." Oh yeah...
 * [5]Civetta A, Singh RS. 1999. Broad-sense sexual selection, sex gene pool evolution, and speciation. Genome 42(6):1033-1041. Uhh, a journal article about sexual selection, in particular "an extension of sexual selection as a mechanism of change for courtship and (or) mating male characters (i.e., narrow-sense sexual selection) to all components of sexuality not necessarily related to courtship or mating (i.e., broad-sense sexual selection)." Interesting...
 * PonoPono (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Origins of the scientific theory
I renamed the section Origins of the theory to Origins of the scientific theory because that seems to be its focus. By contrast, the theory (in the common non-scientific sense) that things evolve, probably predates any words used to describe it. :) DonaldKronos (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that this site isn't a dictionary or an encyclopedia. This article is about biological evolution & doesn't need to cover other general uses of the word evolution.  13:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the article itself is evolving, and it is interesting to watch it evolve. Do you know if there is a page on this site about evolution? DonaldKronos (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Weaseloid PonoPono (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think the evolution page should be reserved for biological evolution then what would you suggest we should name the page about evolution if we wish to have one here on RationalWiki. As it stands, it appears to me that the evolution page is in fact NOT a page about biological evolution but does cover and focus on a bit of that subject, which happens to be a part of the larger subject of evolution in general. 00:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs and Evolution
I've noticed there have been at least some attempts made to add a sort of disclaimer to the evolution page pertaining to the apparent conflict between religious beliefs and evolution, presumably for the sake of those people who try to debunk evolution because they believe that such effort is necessary to protect their religious beliefs.

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)
 * Well, the thing is that a lot of the "religious views of evolution" stuff is covered here.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 07:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And in more depth at Theistic evolution.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As it should be, in my opinion Bob. Same goes for biological evolution, computational evolution, morphological evolution, and so on. Each should have its own page, where it can be described in detail, and many such narrow branches of evolution (especially reproductive biological evolution) should be covered here on the evolution page (as that one is) in enough detail to contribute to an overall understanding of what evolution is and how it applies to various facets of the world we live in. DonaldKronos (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Evolution page not allowed to evolve. How ironic.
A change on -4601 characters in length happened on 15:22, 12 January 2015 for one purpose, and one purpose only. To REVERT THE PAGE BACK TO STAGNATION!It first happened on 14:50, 12 January 2015 with a comment of "(evolving)" when it was anything but, and then was reverted, only to be done again, with a comment of "actually this is an undo of a major revision for which discussion is incomplete (back to earlier version that was award winning). See Talk:evolution)"

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)
 * You got your evolution, your involution, and your devolution. Perhaps you'd like to teach the world about convolution, too? Alec Sanderson (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems necessary.
 * @Donald: I'm not completely familiar with going-ons here myself, but I think if you took a version of this page into a sandbox page and edited as you see fit, then submitted it to this talk page for review, it might go over a little better? RW as a whole is, understandably, very protective of the front-page articles. Just an idea. Trick (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I get what they're trying to say. Just because something is good doesn't mean it can't be improved.  But yeah, Donald, big changes should probably be discussed first.  Ikanreed (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I won't do it. The claim in the description of the change was "this is an undo of a major revision".  Okay, so just how far back was it reverted? Can anybody figure that out? If it was an undo of a major revision, *where's the major revision* in the fossil record?  No.  I've done my part. It's futile for me to attempt to help directly.  Instead, I am contributing to this discussion... and even that, reluctantly.


 * Evolution defined as biological evolution, is like technology defined as computer technology. Just because it's obvious, doesn't mean it's accurate. There's chemical evolution, which is not all biological. There's technical evolution, pretty much none of which is currently biological. There's cultural evolution, which involves much more than just biological evolution. There's economic evolution, chromatic evolution, textual evolution, numeric evolution, computational evolution, religious evolution, educational evolution, stellar evolution, cosmological evolution, ontological evolution, automotive evolution, design evolution, pathological evolution, psychological evolution, grammatical evolution, linguistic evolution, phonetic evolution, galactic evolution, ergonomic evolution, robotic evolution, and you know what? I could keep adding more kinds of evolution to that list, and the list itself would be evolving the whole time, and it is *not biological* in any sense.


 * DonaldKronos (talk) 20:49, 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)


 * I understand where you're coming from which is why I tried to give you a constructive solution regarding it, but take it as you will. It's not like your changes don't exist. Personally I thought they were pretty valid. Your reaction to the revert, not so much. Trick (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (EC)Long answer short - yes. This is a high profile front page article that has "evolved" to a pretty fit state. it is unlikely that any "macro evolution" would happen unless the environment changed considerably. If you were to present your ideas in an acceptable manner then maybe they would have survival potential but the genes of peritus troglodytam tend to be regressive. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I thank you both for the feedback, but again, if you look in the fossil record, and check my input on the talk page, you should see that I have been vary diligent with regard to generally keeping my changes small, and keeping the discussion going. However, I quit trying to help on Wikipedia because the evolution page there had too many people anxious to revert beneficial changes in favor of stagnation, and I am seeing the exact same thing here.
 * DonaldKronos (talk) 21:20, 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)
 * This kinda lawyering doesn't really work. Yeah, undoing a major revision is a major revision itself, in sheer byte volume, but from a subjective standpoint, it's not.  Ikanreed (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you mean from the subjective standpoint of the person who simply did a copy-paste.... yeah, that probably doesn't seem like much of a revision. From the subjective standpoint of considering all the smaller revisions which were lost, it's rather huge.
 * DonaldKronos (talk) 21:44, 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)
 * And I'll be honest, that's a better first sentence for wikipedia than here. It's very technically oriented, and over-concerned with qualifying meaning to be technically precise.  In the end, it hurts the punchiness of the intro.  I'll wait for others to way in, but my vote is revert it.  Ikanreed (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've taken out the first ref as it's not helpful. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Before the article changes too much in the interim, this is the edit being discussed Ikanreed (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so maybe I'm jumping the gun but, as far as I am concerned, the words are OK but the refs to very specific and quite technical papers were unhelpful and broke the flow. For me it's now OK as stands. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair. I like short and to the point, but it's not that bad on that front.  Ikanreed (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a slight modification to the general definition, which makes it less ambiguous. Wikipedia's "evolution" page is STRICTLY about "biological evolution" and they have no page which is about "evolution", so no.... it would not go over there.  As for the removed reference, it was about the evolution of the World Wide Web. Perhaps not the best reference, but I thought it rather appropriate considering that's where this page is located.  I'll leave it removed though. Here's a link to the page, in case anyone wants to have a look. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1024709 At least we're discussing things now.  That's important, and I would like to thank everyone involved. As for being technical, the subject of evolution is extremely broad, and in general is not technical at all. The broad definition of "the process of accumulating change" is not at all technical, but biological evolution is a very technical subject. Dumbing it down only leads to misunderstanding it. DonaldKronos (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hadn't noticed there were more references removed. Okay.... well, I'll leave it to other people to check out what they were and decide if any should be put back, or replaced with different references. It does look slightly "less technical" without them. LOL! :) DonaldKronos (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't much care for "the first ref" (a paywalled article in ACM SIGMOD) and am happy it's gone. The primary focus of this RationalWiki article is biological evolution, since that's what attracts all the pseudoscientific fuss. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Biological evolution attracts all the fuss for a reason. It's complicated, difficult to fully comprehend, and not easily observed. For example, the evolution page currently contains the statement "Evolution occurs as changes accumulate over generations." That is actually NOT TRUE of all evolution. It is specific to generational evolution such as reproductive biological evolution. This sort so narrowing of the meaning of the word is what makes it possible to fool people into thinking evolution does not happen. Fact is, biological growth is also a form of biological evolution, but does not occur over generations. What's more, cell differentiation is also an evolutionary process, but it happens across generations of cells, often within an individual organism, and without substantial genetic change. The text of this talk page is also evolving, with each posted edit, but the text of this edit is evolving between such "generations" as I type it, even though you will not see any evidence, in  what makes it to the page, of my having corrected typos, inserted phrases, or even typed individual characters, beyond that which is preserved by my finally having posted it. Now, ask someone who says there's no such thing as evolution whether they can type a paragraph, without it accumulating changes in the process. DonaldKronos (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * yeah, and a zygote evolves into a blastula, but that's not the topic of this article. This article is primarily about descent with modification, titled "Evolution" as a commonly graspable handle. The equivocation of "typing a paragraph" with "descent with modification," because each might be labeled "evolution" in its own context, will be hard to sell. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The equating of "typing a paragraph" with "descent with modification," should be an impossible sell. They're both evolution, but they are certainly not the same thing. As for the topic of the article being "primarily about descent with modification" shouldn't that have its own page? This is an evolution page, and last I checked it does cover more than that narrow subject.  If it is meant to be about a narrow subject, then it should probably stick to the narrow subject.  It does not.... nor do I feel it should. The RationalWiki needs an evolution page.  If it also needs a biological evolution page ASLO, then perhaps one should be started. DonaldKronos (talk) 23:41, 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. -- DonaldKronos (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, how nice. And it's already been deleted. Before I could even test the link from here. Well, here's a link to it in the fossil record. #Real Evolution Doesn't Happen DonaldKronos (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the fossil record of the revized #Real Evolution Doesn't Happen section I just added to the Fun:Evolution page, since I was told in the talk page that it wasn't funny enough. I'm giving the fossil record link here rather than the current page link, because I've gotten a strong impression from what was said in the talk page that whatever editing I do is going to be reverted, by Wikipedia editors who also edit here.  DonaldKronos (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about your problems at Wikipedia. I reverted you because your edits here were horrible on their own terms. Sorry. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, AgingHippie, I know. I agree that my first draft wasn't that good, and at least it was not a bunch of small edits being undone all at once, which is what tends to be so frustrating. You also were not the one who mentioned Wikipedia (or rather WP, but I know what was meant by the person who did mention it). I hope you like my revised version. If not, please consider improving it or leaving it for others to attempt to improve, at least for a while.  I don't think it's hurting anything, it does make a point, and there is humor in it.  DonaldKronos (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not hearing much support for shifting the article's focus to "Evolution as accumulation of change". Check out the Etymology section, which covers that point.  WP is not relevant here.  There is a lot of misunderstanding and sloppy thinking addressed here.  I'm all for some wit and levity, but not loss of substance.  PonoPono (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not "HEARING" much support? Try reading. The lack of support in those last few comments was in regard to a section I mentioned having added to the Fun:Evolution page.   Read the comments on the Evolution page, and you will see. I am not the only person who wants to see the evolution page represent evolution . Why are you so anxious to hide how simple evolution is? Why are you so anxious to delete people's work?  Do you enjoy working hard and then having someone undo your work? DonaldKronos (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing much support for shifting the focus away from biological reproductive evolution. If I missed something, please show me.
 * As far as "working hard and then having someone undo your work" goes, in collaborative content creation it happens all the time. There is even a caveat below the edit window, saying "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." IIRC, wikipedia used to have the exact same wording. RW content is hammered out by consensus, or at least the highly visible content. Your subjective sense of "working hard" has little to do with content quality or fitness for purpose. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's okay. The hypocrisy here is too palpable for me. Maybe I'll come back some day if I hear things have improved. Take care.
 * Note my final comment at: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun_talk:Evolution#Not_Funny
 * DonaldKronos (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * om sciency terms Evolution usually means the Theory of Evolution which is a biology topic. If you want to change the biology page on TOE then start on the talk page with some references. In common english evolution is used as change over time but there are scientific terms that are more precise than the creationist stellar evilution, chemical evolution and so on. There should be pages on nucleosynthesis, star formation and life cycle and most of the other topics. Hamster (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Simple question
Does honesty matter here? DonaldKronos (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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? &mdash; Unsigned, by: DonaldKronos / talk / contribs 08:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki is not an encyclopaedia, nor is it a dictionary; there is no intention of defining or explaining anything in ways outside our mission:
 * Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:
 * Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
 * Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
 * Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
 * Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
 * We, and I would hope our readers, are well aware of the non-biological meaning(s) of the word "evolution" but we feel no need to give explanation of them. Sorry. Scream!! (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Scream!!. My my, insuations about "perpetual dishonesty" and "blatant dishonesty" - no need for that, honestly.  There are obviously non-biological meanings of the word "evolution", honest to goodness. Now the question of how the view of evolution (yes, I mean with respect to biology and with implications in all sorts of other subjects and society in general) is changing is honestly interesting. How about epigenetics and other non-Mendelian inheritance?  Or other articles about other types of evolution?  This article is honestly about descent with modification.  😄 PonoPono (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Insinuations? No, I'm coming right out and saying it. Both here are in Wikipedia, there is a blatant aversion to allowing evolution to be seen for what it is. The concept of evolution far predates the concept of biological evolution, and while biological evolution is an example of one kind of evolution, it is by no means all that evolution is. Okay, so I can not get the truth to be represented here. Don't expect me to pretend that it's not perpetual blatant dishonesty when the truth is consistently hidden. I'll simply take this as an answer to my question. I asked if honesty matters here. Obviously, to some people here who insist on hiding the truth, it does not. DonaldKronos (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No-one here is denying that the term 'evolution'  covers more than "descent with modification" as PonoPono states. However the main thrust of our article is to explain that aspect of evolution which is disputed by, among others, nutty religious persons. Any other part of the meaning is outwith the scope of RationalWiki. Now fafuxsake leave it, please. Scream!! (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Scream!! -- The opening statement Evolution refers to change in a biological population's inherited traits from generation to generation. denies that any evolution is non-biological, and denies that anything other than descent with modification Not all Not all "descent with modification" is biological.


 * Not all evolution is biological evolution and not all evolution is descent with modification. Yes, people who revert the page back to dishonestly claiming that Evolution refers to change in a biological population's inherited traits from generation to generation. are in fact denying that the term 'evolution'  covers more than "descent with modification".


 * If you wish to "explain that aspect of evolution which is disputed by, among others, nutty religious persons", then keep in mind that many such people deny that ANY KIND OF EVOLUTION happens, ever. Those who do admit some evolution, often restrict it to biological microevolution, claiming that no other kind of evolution has been observed. Well tell me... can you see this conversation evolving? I can... and so can they. The question then is will they RECOGNIZE THAT as evolution, or be reassured by lies such as Evolution refers to change in a biological population's inherited traits from generation to generation., that such evolution is in fact NOT EVOLUTION AT ALL, because it's not biological, and inherited across distinct generations?


 * DonaldKronos (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, you don't want to be that guy randomly capitalizing whole words. As emphasis, a lot of it even doesn't align with you'd actually emphasize words in the real world.
 * Now, for something besides a tone argument: We are not seriously concerned with the technicalities of incorporating non-biological evolution. It's just not that big a deal.  Ikanreed (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding on the argument, there's no need to assume bad faith by accusing us of hypocrisy and dishonesty while mulling over extremely minor wording. Frankly, that's being pedantic. LEFTY  GREEN  MARIO 21:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If there is no dishonesty intended, they why constantly revert it back to a lie? Non-biological evolution is a form of evolution, just as the much more narrow and specialized field of biological evolution is. Stating otherwise is telling a lie. I'm not claiming to know anyone's motives. I'm simply stating facts, and how I choose to emphasize key points within such facts is a matter of style preference. This is the talk page, after all, and not the article itself.


 * The fact remains that this conversation continues to evolve while the evolution page continues to deny that such evolution is in fact evolution at all, because it does not fit the definition given, and that definition is not qualified as applicable only within a specific context.


 * Is the idea behind the evolution page, to re-enforce the notion that there's no such thing as evolution? If not, then it should not be denying its very own evolution as the observable evolution that it is.


 * DonaldKronos (talk) 21:44, 27 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)
 * This isn't a "lie" per se. Using the "sky is blue" comparison, you can argue that it isn't even blue; it's simply light scattering at the atmosphere at precisely this wavelength which isn't blue, but technically light sky aqua purple cornflower blue so calling it blue would be a lie. Even then, it's not even blue since our eyes see this particular wavelength reflecting and entering our eyes and eventually our brain processes it as "light sky aqua purple cornflower blue". My point is, calling it a "lie" and being anal about word choice is pedantry. LEFTY  GREEN  MARIO 21:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Need I point out that the existence of the sky is not in dispute? There are many people who deny that the process of evolution even happens. Imagine if some purely nocturnal person who worked nights and slept through the daylight hours was denying that the sky exists, and you told them to go outside and look up, so they did... and then they looked up a definition of what a "sky" is, and found it defined as a "blue expanse in the upper atmosphere" or some other such inaccurate and potentially deceptive "summary".


 * This is what we are doing, by having evolution defined as being biological evolution, because those who deny evolution happens at all go out of their way to never see biological evolution, but they see all around them the process of change accumulating, or "rolling out", and this process is in fact evolution, but the easiest examples of it to see are generally not biological.


 * Is that the goal here? To further fool people who are already fooled? To give confirmation bias to those who seek to destroy our education system? To re-enforce lies which are perpetuated against science and understanding? I certainly hope not.


 * DonaldKronos (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC) page
 * As has been spelled out for you numerous times, this is neither an encyclopedia nor a dictionary. This wiki page is obviously on the topic of biological evolution which is frequently referred to simply as "evolution"; that the word "evolution" (hell, it's the name of a car made by Mitsubishi too, should we mention that?) has other meanings is irrelevant, this article isn't about those meanings as they have little if anything to do with our goals here.  That you think the lack of discussion of these other meanings is a result of some kind of anti-science plot is, frankly, insane.  Have you read the article or any others on this Wiki about science? Marlow (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And many forms of non-biological evolution are also frequently referred to simply as "evolution", which they are. That does not mean that evolution defined as any one of them is an accurate definition of evolution, nor does it change the fact that defining evolution as if it were strictly biological evolution regardless of context, is misleading. If misleading is acceptable here, then so be it. Perhaps in time that too will evolve... or go through what ever you call the process of accumulating change when it's not in the context of biology. DonaldKronos (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * My, my still going on with allegations of "dishonesty", "lies", "hypocrisy", and being "misleading" -- such incivility and with such fervor. Let's see: the Oxford English Dictionary defines "incivility" as "rude or unsociable speech or behaviour" and "an impolite or offensive comment".  And the Oxford English Dictionary defines "fervor" as "intense and passionate feeling" and "intense heat (archaic)". Whatever words we choose -- rudeness, discourtesy, impoliteness, bad manners, disrespect, boorishness, ungraciousness, insolence, impertinence, or impudence; delivered with intensity, passion, or heat  -- it's time to develop some civility and self control. And oh yes, this is not a dictionary, but important as that point is, there is an even bigger point.  My point: please be polite.


 * Oh yes and without being distracted by incivility and fervor, there really is not much substance in the "discussion". Yes, there are various uses of the term "evolution", including non-biological and even a car made by Mitsubishi, and this article is quite clear about its usage, so there is nothing unclear or deceitful.  Somehow it appears that you believe a small matter is big, and that you are championing some great cause of right versus wrong.  Good sir, you are clearly mistaken, and you are trying the patience of intelligent and well-intentioned people.


 * Let's see: the Oxford English Dictionary defines "discussion" as "the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas", "a conversation or debate about a certain topic", and "a detailed treatment of a particular topic in speech or writing", to be distinguished from a "diatribe", which is "a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something". In addition to being a polite discourse, a discussion should generally be proportional to the content, except perhaps for the sake of entertainment.  The content: there are different uses for the term "evolution"; this article clearly is using the term "evolution" with respect to a particular topic relevant to this Wiki; it even includes a nice little section about etymology and usage of the term; nobody (evolutionist, creationist, scientist, or lay person) is likely to be confused about the topic; 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 (no this article is not about the term or other uses).  Ideally, this should be the end of the discussion.  PonoPono (talk) 16:26, 28 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)


 * I'm also not simply complaining. I have tried to suggest various possible minimally obtrusive ways of correcting the issue.


 * Foe example, changing "Evolution", to "Evolution, within the context of biology,".


 * Even that is not as encompassing as "Evolution, in the context of biological populations over generations," but I'm not suggesting we attempt to make it such a definition perfect, within an imperfect language. Merely that we try to make it no longer blatantly deceptive.


 * DonaldKronos (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This has come solidly into the realm of "oh, please, give it a rest, will you?" If you think that the article is "blatantly deceptive" then you haven't been paying attention. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to imply that the entire article is deceptive. Far from it. I'm pointing out that the definition at the top is deceptive, and why. Remember, many people will not read the article beyond that definition, because they are only looking to reinforce their confirmation bias. A more encompassing definition would encourage reading more of the article.


 * To clarify why I say it is deceptive to pass off a definition of biological evolution as a definition of evolution, Imagine if a definition of non-biological evolution had been passed off as a definition of evolution instead.


 * Consider the following example: Evolution refers to the accumulation of change or rolling out of change in non-biological items, non-biological entities, non-biological substances, or non-biological collections.


 * Would you consider that an honest definition of evolution? I would not. It is an honest definition of non-biological evolution but not an honest definition of evolution because it arbitrarily excludes biological evolution.


 * Likewise, a definition of evolution which arbitrarily excludes all evolution other than that of biological populations, is not an honest definition of evolution, nor even an honest definition of the most common type of evolution but rather an honest definition of an important type of biological evolution, which is deceptive when passed off as a definition of evolution without so much as specifying the narrow context in which the term is used in such a way.


 * I present as an observable example, the evolution of this conversation, which is by no means a biological population's inherited traits.


 * DonaldKronos (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "I'm not trying to imply that the entire article is deceptive".
 * Oh yeah?
 * "Does honesty matter here?"
 * "Is that the goal here? To further fool people who are already fooled? To give confirmation bias to those who seek to destroy our education system? To re-enforce lies which are perpetuated against science and understanding? I certainly hope not."
 * "Both here are in Wikipedia, there is a blatant aversion to allowing evolution to be seen for what it is."
 * "As has been spelled out for you numerous times, this is neither an encyclopedia nor a dictionary. This wiki page is obviously on the topic of biological evolution which is frequently referred to simply as "evolution"; that the word "evolution" (hell, it's the name of a car made by Mitsubishi too, should we mention that?) has other meanings is irrelevant, this article isn't about those meanings as they have little if anything to do with our goals here.  That you think the lack of discussion of these other meanings is a result of some kind of anti-science plot is, frankly, insane.  Have you read the article or any others on this Wiki about science?"
 * I can parrot points too and bold them to make them seem extra important! Don't you realize that you're assuming bad faith from us, which we view as a toxic attitude? Will you please cut it?
 * "Imagine if some purely nocturnal person who worked nights and slept through the daylight hours was denying that the sky exists, and you told them to go outside and look up, so they did... and then they looked up a definition of what a "sky" is, and found it defined as a "blue expanse in the upper atmosphere" or some other such inaccurate and potentially deceptive "summary"."
 * You're not understanding our analogies to skies and Mistubishi cars.
 * LEFTY GREEN  MARIO 07:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I missed that analogy ], but those too evolve. [[User:DonaldKronos|DonaldKronos (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not the only place Donald's tendentious editing has raised the collective ire of a wiki. RationalWiki has a strong institutional tendency towards focusing on an editor's behavior on this wiki alone. Maybe it is in the community standards somewhere, I don't know. Still, once in a while, someone gets shut down on Wikipedia and brings their hobby here, hoping for easier going. There is now an active proposal on Wikipedia ANI to ban DonaldKronos from the topic of evolution, for a whole laundry list of wiki-sins. His reception on Wiktionary has been lukewarm, at best.


 * If any moderator or sysop sees my comment as out of line, feel free to collapse or delete it. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My general attitude is that there is enough drama happening without importing any. Regardless, his change is going to get no traction here.  That's pretty much the end of it.  Out of a half dozen editors, no one has gone "you know, maybe..." about it.  It's just not gonna happen.  Ikanreed (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever DonladKronos does in Wikipedia has no bearing on what he does here, so don't bring it up unless he has very questionable actions here that is parallel to over there. Nevertheless, he hasn't have brought anything productive nor has he even addressed our points which we repeated several times. I wouldn't be surprised if any Sysop has blocked him for assuming bad faith, making repeated pedantic arguments, and several others. LEFTY  GREEN  MARIO 00:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Parallel and very questionable... well, yes, that is kind of the point, isn't it? Go looking, and you will see him trying to sell the exact same bullshit here as he did there, with the same "I can't hear you" kind of style. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * True, bad karma doesn't migrate from WP to RW, but I don't think that it's beyond the pale to point out the similarity after an editor has been given a fair hearing when trying to pull the same stunt in the same BS way on both fora. If it had been used in the beginning of this discussion, I could see a good reason to chastise those trying to poison the well, but I agree with CamelCasePragmatist that the cases seem strikingly parallel in hindsight. So, the WP behaviour is not a reason to dismiss our über-pedant a priori, but it is an indication that, at the end of the day, the pedantry displayed here is not a single aberrant case, and that dismissing it is not just RW being an unfair mobocracy. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't natural selection have a mind?
It seems like it... I mean it chooses the best traits for the environment. Isn't that natural selection having a mind? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 71.222.47.95 / talk / contribs
 * A mighty clumsy mind, maybe. It's less of a choosing of the best traits, but more of a organisms who happen to have the better traits having a higher chance of survival. Nullahnung (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It has no more of a "mind" than a river flowing downhill. Change the land and the flow will change - but it's not making conscious decisions, it's not self-aware and it's not planning ahead. It's not a "mind".--Weirdstuff (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Natural selection works like this: Mutations occur, and an organism maintains, thrives, or dies under environmental pressures. Mutations--that is, an imperfect replication of DNA--happen all the time, and most of them don't amount to much because most DNA is just junk. Then, too, mutations have a bigger difference if they happen early on--because then the altered DNA will be passed along by the cells derived by the original mutant one. If you get a skin cell with the mutant power to change color according to your will, but you're 25 when it occurs, you'd never know. Every now and then a mutation happens in an important spot, and--usually--an organism dies (because you're in trouble if your liver is miscoded, or other important organs). And then, sometimes, one hits the genetic lottery, or a bunch of the previously useless mutations happen to add up to something new and useful. Check out the wiki's page on The Lenski Affair for an example of a beneficial mutation letting something thrive under environmental pressures.. --Maxus (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Illuminati
Maybe I'm too fed up with the recent Illuminati explosion on RW (mostly from BoNs), but isn't this article's Illuminati section just too silly? It's like following a discussion of Inflammatory Bowel Disease with a bad fart joke. MarmotHead (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should have its own section unless there is more recognition (newspapers documenting it, viral videos of it, that stuff). The source is pretty scanty, being only one (most likely obscure) Youtube video. What's next, the article on Pokémon having the Illuminati because one person talked about it? The best we can do it make a one-liner bullet point in the main Illuminati article, I believe. Finally, there's an awful lack of coherence that leads to this section. So, I'd support removing it. LEFTY  GREEN  MARIO 20:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I just heard that the Illuminati invented Pokémon. Proof? Someone mentioned those two words in the same sentence on RW! MarmotHead (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * brb creating section on the article. ;) P.S. Does anyone else agree? LEFTY  GREEN  MARIO 03:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Proof evolution is a hoax
http://creation.com/evolutions-achilles-heels

Possibly interesting
http://search.proquest.com/openview/d9097bbc2a097c5dbc37ffed00f8fff0/1?pq-origsite=gscholar 00:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Evolution, as theory and fact
I don't want to redact an entire section of an important article (I'm also a newbie here), so I propose this here. If some people agree to this, I'll gladly put it in.

“In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.” We know that smaller masses are attracted by greater masses, whether they are apples or moons. We call this phenomenon “gravity” even when there is still considerable unclarity how it works exactly. Our understanding of gravity has changed between Newton and Einstein, and yet the fact that masses do attract each other in some specific way is true regardless of how we think about it. Evolution happens and is therefore a fact. In contrast, the theory of evolution is our currently best attempt to explain how it happens. Scientists will continue to improve our understanding, but regardless of how they go about it, masses attract each other, and life evolves.
 * I like it. 21:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * straighened it a bit, added linkage and plugged it in now. ^^ Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Why teach evolution?
[http://www.utoledo.edu/education/lamp/accelerated/docs/Learning_to_Teach_WEB.pdf#page=43 Why Teach Evolution? Going Beyond the Laws and Standards]. 00:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

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). 31.49.115.208 (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 taken 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)

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'). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:40, 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'). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

Common misconceptions about evolution
SciShow lends a hand. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice. I one time had to argue with my art history teacher that "nature is survival of the fittest", attributed that to Darwin, and that "nature selects the best and discards the rest" and that doesn't really line up with evolution. The video didn't touch too much on the idea that "less fit" organisms die off when I think they simply slowly vanish from the population; their genetics change slowly, gradually, it won't be noticed until after tons of generations to the point species from one point is different from species from a past point. The part about genetic traits being "strange", "useless", "neutral" is very interesting, I'd bring that up whenever the opportunity arises. It might mess up some brains! 18:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Where should I put my edit?
Tell me where I should put it, or you can put it there yourself, or, if it is already somewhere else, then tell me. Jeezbaby (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't rightly know. It's got some applicability to De-evolution but there's nowhere I can find on the wiki that really suits it exactly.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

jeezbaby's edit
It doesn't have a good section. Do we even have an article about misconceptions about evolution? Because they're describing a common one, even among people who believe in evolution. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)