From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.

Archives for this talk page: , (new)


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!(Mod) 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!(Mod) 20:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Evolution is based on a logical fallacy[edit]

1. if evolution is true we should observe varying fossils in the fossil records 2. we observe varying fossils in the fossil records 3. therefore, evolution is true

A textbook example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.--Anotherbeliever (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Anotherbeliever if you think fossils are the only evidence for evolution, please read Common descent, or much more what you may be looking for (something recent), look at the Lenski affair. Evolution and its mechanisms are relatively easy to observe. its as simple as the proteins that replicate our DNA making a mistake, or placing a "stop" in the wrong spot. Creatures who manage to make it to reproduction with these changes (at least if the change occurred prior to the creation of reproductive cells) will pass on the trait to their offspring.PhoxyDude (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, there are multiple lines of evidence which support the Theory of Evolution. The fossil record is not even the most compelling - something which is borne out by the fact that it is only mentioned once in the entire article! (And which leads me to think that Anotherbeliever hasn't even read the article before commenting on it.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Are there "multiple lines of evidence" that a bat and a sponge share a common ancestor? Since that's what evolution imagines.--Anotherbeliever (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
There is evidence that points to life on earth being at least 4 Billion years old, the "microevolution" you speak of is really the only kind of evolution. The current prevailing idea is that the very first single celled organisms would have "eaten" (more just adsorbed through their cell membrane) the raw minerals within the earths early ocean, and very, very, very slowly inched their way into separate directions, of course completely dictated by what caused them to reproduce best. sponges are actually animals, and are possibly the oldest animal, which would have been over 600 million years ago. filter feeding wasn't the most efficient thing for some of them, and in some areas they died off, but the animals capable of moving were able to reposition to better feed themselves and reproduce. This continued in similar veins as things like sexual reproduction concentrating characteristics as two creatures would have to be successful enough to reproduce. Animals diverged in many different ways, but the source of commonalities is traceable. I don't know if this will make you feel better, but regardless of anything this could all be "god's plan" as it is impossible to prove he does not exist. PhoxyDude (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Reportedly, sea sponges share almost 70 percent of human genes according to this Sydney Morning Herald article! (Note: There is a way more technical article in Nature itself that correlates to the Herald article. If you don't mind dry and technical, the Nature article is the superior read, because its purpose was to examine the genome of a Great Barrier Reef sponge in relation to the evolution of animal complexity, and the article goes into a lot more detail about various biochemical similarities.) Either way, whether a sponge, bat, or human, the biochemistry is quite similar for any self-replicating multicellular organism. As *cough* pointed out in the common descent article. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
(fuck your edit conflict) Yeah, I was gonna point out, about 60% of the human genome has a recognizable counterpart in the genome of a banana, while the actual proteins encoded by them are 40% identical. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes. It's really really easy to find backup for "humans sharing X percent of DNA with Y". This is not even open for debate.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
1. If (something) is true we will find evidence that supports it being true. 2. We found evidence. 3. Therefore (something) is true.
Hey, look at that, you can rephrase ALL OF REALITY as a form of affirming the consequent. Guess existence is based on a logical fallacy and nothing is real, huh? --Zipperback (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Ape-Human bus queue[edit]

Some mention of this argument 'here or wherever' perhaps? Anna Livia (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Watch the birdie[edit]

Some mention of this or equivalent perhaps? Anna Livia (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


Can someone proof read my added section please?

TITLE OF SECTION: What Evolution is not

Unfortunately due to creationists, there has been bit of a misunderstanding of what the Theory of Evolution actually attempts to explain.


The origin of life. While it is true that evolution predicts that all of life on Earth is based on a common ancestor it does not explain how life has came here in the first place. Scientist try to explain the origin of life in the study of abiogenesis

It also doesn't try to explain the origin of the universe. This is under the domain of physics (specially cosmology) not biology. The most commonly accepted theory of the creation of the universe is by the Big Bang cosmology

Evolution only attempts to explain the diversity of life. That's it. Done. QED.

I am new to RationalWiki and I need practicing my writing skills. Thanks. SixtyNine (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The idea behind the section is actually quite good and - as far as I can see - it's not actually covered in the article.
I might suggest, under the proposed heading:
"Unfortunately, "evolution" is sometimes understood to encompass the whole of science and even ethics - and this tends to be a misunderstanding common among different types of creationists.
It should be clearly understood that evolution does not explain, makes no attempt to explain and is not designed to explain:
  • The origin of the universe. This lies under the domain of physics (specially cosmology), not biology. Nevertheless scientists are working on various models of Big Bang cosmology which attempt to explain the earliest moments of the universe.
  • The origin of life. While it is true that evolution accepts that all of life on Earth is based on a common ancestor, it does not explain how life arose in the first place. Studies into the the origin of life are called abiogenesis
  • Morality. The science of evolution makes no ethical claims.
Evolution explains the diversity of life in an existing universe and in which life exists - nothing more."

Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks SixtyNine (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
The benefits of the Wikiverse is the collaborative process/the willingness to cover each others' weaknesses (I can dislocate tables 'no problem'). Anna Livia (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Linking snakes and mammals[edit]

Came across this - suitable for this page? (Possibly with an 'Adam and Eve and the snake' reference.) Anna Livia (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)