Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.


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

This evolution related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>

Most people[edit]

... 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). (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[edit]

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

Where is the github???[edit]

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[edit]

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! --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Where should I put my edit?[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[edit]

Contrary to popular belief (and what most Creationists will say) evolution does not necessarily mean the fluid transition from lower life forms to higher life forms. Rather, Evolution is a complex process with many steps and processes. Religious people have reduced the idea of evolution to a ridiculously simplified caricature. Do not fall for this tactic.

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)


Where does [1] belong on the various RW-evolution-related pages? Anna Livia (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

[2] well, read that. It says that a carcass is still an open system. — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F160:161D:8676:18B5:893C:1DAE / talk
AiG? Really? The apologetics group who's leader's default argument is "Were you there?"... Really aiming for the heavy hitters aren't you? Next up, Gravitiy is a satanic plot... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
But does it mean being an open system does not mean evolution is consistent with the second law? — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F160:161D:8676:18B5:893C:1DAE / talk
No, resresponse? Does that mean there is not argument against it? So AiG has a point? — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F160:161D:8676:18B5:893C:1DAE / talk / contribs
What does this have to do with a species that reappeared because its common ancestor evolved twice? Piss off, creationists. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Well I am no scientist. Just seeing the difference in opinions. And seemed Answers in Genesis has a response to the debunk of open system, unless a scientist reading also has a response. And it seems both sides can give responses forever. — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F160:161D:8676:18B5:893C:1DAE / talk / contribs
It's not a "difference" in opinions. It's one side being willfully ignorant and dishonest to real scientists and advancing questions that has been already answered. "Both sides" are giving responses forever only because creationists are intellectually dishonest. Anyway, this is veering off topic. I like to have comments that don't involve promoting creationism, okay? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)