Talk:Acceptance of evolution

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

This Evolution related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Orphaned pages[edit]

This page is Number one in the list of Orphaned pages for some reason. HeartGoldJump up and down 19:36, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

Title[edit]

Should be "Acceptance of evolution". ħumanUser talk:Human 19:43, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I'm contemplating[edit]

making a Fun:Acceptance of Evolution syndrome that would mirror this article nicely... Neveruse513 17:30, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

1837[edit]

Evolution wasn't dicovered by Darwin. various evolutionary ideas had been knocking around before him. What Darwin hit upon was natural selection. Totnesmartin 17:35, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

I see your point, but perhaps we could say that the discovery of natural selection enabled Darwin, as the first, to accept evolution on what turned out to be a valid scientific basis? Or not. Delete it if you will. - Nasreddin 17:51, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Probably not. Erasmus Darwin was already on the track with mutability of species, as were many others. Transmutation (evolution) was seen as a scientific "fact". Darwin just happened upon the naturalistic mechanism. ArmondikoVmoral 18:23, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Evidence for intraspecies speciation[edit]

Would be a useful write-up somewhere on Rationalwiki, as I know of GCSE biology teachers who contend that there is no proof of it "ever since the peppered moth findings were discredited", and that therefore "evolution is just a theory". 171.33.193.245 (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be "intraspeciation"? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Or that, or maybe it should just be "speciation" (I'm not a biologist :( ). 171.33.193.245 (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Changing the angle slightly - how good is 'the moths case' as a theoretical example of how the process works? One can accept evolution in general (including 'species evolving in response to each other's changes and also to make full use of the variety of environments) but 'have issues' with how particular aspects work/how the complexity of organs and bodies etc develop 86.146.100.95 (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)