Talk:Evolution/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 9 March 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <3>

, (new)(back)

In the beginning

Can't you at least get references for these claims?Bohdan 19:21, 30 May 2007 (CDT) 19:20, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

For these facts? Of course we can, Oh Anonymous One. We just choose not to. Seriously though, we'll get to it. But really, it's like asking for references for statements like, "Proteins are encoded by DNA".--PalMD^{-yada yada} 19:18, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Actually, that would be a pretty easy reference to get. Any high school biology textbook should have it. --Kels 19:19, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Well, since OAO identified himself, at some point we should reference some of this. But it really is hard to decide which facts are to basic to ref, and which ones require more citation. TimS or me should probably help with that. When I get some free time.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 19:26, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I can't remember, how does Satan work into it again? And shouldn't you add more quotes? Like, lots more quotes. --Kels 20:39, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree. Needs more cowbell and Satan. Also, can you mention how an enormous cow threw up the universe? Thanks! ʄĹїþþїɲ^;-) 15:33, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Recently, some biologists have ignored all other scientific fields (ie, physics) and claim that evolution is the ultimate scientific explanation, which is of course completely ridiculous. (note that I accept evolution in its place) 68.197.173.216 15:42, 9 November 2008 (EST)

How recently, and which biologists, and surely you jest? ħuman 16:47, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Cover Story?

Please do not archive this section Yes. DogP 21:16, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Seconded. JÁνąŞ₡Ωp Talk to ME BAN SOMEONE! MOWSE!

I think it's close, let's vet it some more. And let's kill the animated mowse, slowly. ħuman 23:55, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Back off! Nobody kills the mowse! JÁνąŞ₡Ωp Talk to ME BAN SOMEONE! MOWSE!

I have killed hundreds of mowses, and I am not ashamed of it! ħuman 00:05, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Why don't you like Mowses? $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 00:17, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Animated mowses, attack Human! JÁνąŞ₡Ωp Talk to ME BAN SOMEONE! MOWSE!

Dead mowses all around, my traps defy your onslaught! ħuman 00:44, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

LeMark

I don't quite understand this addition by Helios: A somewhat similar theory had been made by LaMark, but was quite different in that it said an individual orgasms would develop traits and pass them on because it wanted to. As I remember, LeMark postulated that characteristics acquired by an individual during its life could be passed on. "Wanting" had nothing to do with it.--Bob_M (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, Helios just fails. Teh Vandal&lt(out for a bit of trolling) 15:42, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

I thought the "M" was small, but, yes, that is "Lamarkian" inheritance. Basically, the blacksmith's kids will inherit his big strong arms not due to genetics but due to his having built them up. Likewise, I would imagine, the lutists fingertip calluses. He was wrong, but it was a good try. human^{be in} 15:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Lamarck has a c in it. Daecon 13:05, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, well, I was slightly closer than the header ;) Thanks! ħuman 13:34, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

cool vandalism

I nominate Ruthless Vandal's changing of "organism" to "orgasm" as almost amusing vandalism. --Bob_M (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, cool. You gonna create Talk:evolution/vandalism and copy it and annotate it there? Don't forget the archived vandalism template and a link from the bottom of the article page... human^{be in} 15:49, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

I think we (meaning me) might need some good directions on how we archive vandalism--that wasn't clear to me what was decided. (This is not part of RobS' idiotsgrin strategem, I really don't know.) ʄĹїþþїɲ^;-) 15:51, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

One, create the archive page if it does not exist. See the red link above. It should have sections, like funny vandalism, dumb vandalism, etc. Two, copy enough of the vandalism to it, the time, editor, date, permalink, whatever makes sense. Include the template {{archivedvandalism}} at the top of the archive page. Four, add a "Vandalism to the this page" section at the end of the article, with a link to the archive page. Five, repair the article. I think that's about it. human^{be in} 18:47, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

OK, I'll give this a shot. But remember that I'm new at this. It's a lot of effort to preserve a bit of stupidity - but I suppose the practice will be good. --Bob_M (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Looks sort of OK. Didn't get that permalink thing though.--Bob_M (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, it's 90% there. The "hard work" is doing the first one, after that they are easier. A permalink is one of two things - either the URL when the screen shows an edit (ideally, the one referenced), or, if youare looking at what you want to refer to, click on "permanent link" at the left side and the URL will change to say "OLDID=#####" at the end. That will always bring up the same version. Wikis are cool for that, great audit trail. I'll see if I can get that over to the vandalism page. Nice job! human^{be in} 13:20, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

OK, I attributed it, added the diff link, and moved the vandalism link to "See Also" in the article. human^{be in} 13:24, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Playing with numbers

An often cited stat is about the percentage of Americans who believe in creationism. Here's a recent poll for people to chew on.

Highlights:

• people answering "God created man in present form" is down to 43% from 46%. Likewise, "Man developed, with God guiding" is up to 38% (from 36%) and "Man developed, but God had no part in process" is up to 14% from 13%.
• A nice grid which gives a more useful breakout:

		View of Creationism
		Definitely True	Probably True	Probably False	Definitely False
View of Evolution	Definitely true	3	1	2	11
	Probably true	5	14	12	3
	Probably false	6	8	1	1
	Definetly false	24	3	<0.5	1

The lower left quadrant shows the strong creationists; the upper right, the strong evolutionists (for lack of a better term). When you add up the top half, you get 51% of the population believing that evolution is true. Adding up the left half, you get 64% beliving that God had some hand in it... somewhere. That hand is not specified by the poll and could be anything from creating the universe to whatever the other half thinks.

Also of note in the report is the commentary on the religious basis for the opposition to evolution. The survey points out a number of conflicting ideas that the supporters of creationism seem to maintain in their mind. Hurray for compartmentalization.

The key point being, however slow it has been, in the past 20 years, the percent of Americans who believe in pure science evolution has nearly doubled. --Shagie 00:25, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Links

I propose we add this link as it is an excellent source for studying evolution. Berkeley's Understanding Evolution Site ^{— Unsigned, by: Devils advocate / talk / contribs}

Please start signing your comments! human^{be in} 23:48, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I found the Ebon Musings website to be quite interesting, too. Daecon 14:04, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Conservative and Google rankings

Conservative likes to see how his essay in misinformation fairs in the Google search. He keeps adding links and material to it (any resemblance of this to the original CP Panel approved article?) and checks to see how it looks when you do a search for it. The amusing bit here is that Google biases searches to what you have searched for before. So, when Conservative is reporting what it shows up for him, thats for him - if he keeps at it, he might get it to first on his search results page. For me, I had to click through to page 5 to see the conservapedia page on there. So keep at it Conservative - the more you search for it, the more it moves up to the top of your page. This has little bearing on the rest of the world and what Google reports.

Now, if you really wanted to boost google ranking, http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/internet/google-ranking-factors.htm . Note items such as:

• Number of links on the page -- 200 footnotes is bad ( "Keep the links on a given page to a reasonable number (fewer than 100)."[1]
• Page size (> 100k is bad, <40k is good)
• TLD - .com is bad, .org is good.
• Boosting sites in general with fake pages (lots of redirects compared to actual content) is bad - all those redirects to deleted page, thats bad. All those redirects with various capitalization and alternative names that you want to funnel to evolution? Thats bad.
• Over Optimization Penalty - the more you try to make the page look right for google, the worse your ranking.
• (Andy is going to love this one) use of poison words. While things such as 'sex' and 'masturbation' and 'penis' will lower your ranking, so will words like 'terrorist', 'bomb', 'jail'. The later pages tend to be associated with extreme viewpoints. While your search ratings for those would go up, the search for the rest of the material on the site goes down.
• Linking to sites that also have a bad rating is bad. The questionable not-family friendly material on abortion? Thats really bad.
• Being able to access the site - removing the special pages that allowed a spider to index the rest of the site is bad. Now a spider can only find what is linked some level down from the main page. This makes the site look smaller (big sites = good)

Now maybe, if you were trying to write a page that was informative rather than a manifesto that searches high on google... but the more of the later rather than the former the worse the search results. And your own queries will only deceive you. --Shagie 15:32, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Interesting. I just tried the same experiment, and got the same results. Halfway down page 5, and probably sinking. I'm surprised it's as high as it is. --Kels 22:12, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

check out the article of the week at Conservapedia

Check out what the article of the week is at Conservapedia: http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Newton 13:58, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Come back when CP's featured article status actually counts as anything. Remember, in the past, completely uncited and unverifiable articles had been featured on the front page. But for what it's worth, I'll give your ego a pat on the back if that somehow makes you help the rest of CP instead of just ToE and Homosexuality (plus your YEC side projects). --Sid 14:01, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Question, do you realize that 100,000 views of the evolution article came in February during that scienceblogs rush? Do you realize that the reason its one of the more "popular" CP articles is because you deleted and pasted back any articles that were more popular? Do you see anything at all strange about this? tmtoulouse ^annoy 14:02, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Tmtoulouse, I deleted some articles recently temporarily because one that stat features was turned off temporarily and I wanted to see what the 11th and 12th most popular articles were. Secondly, if the current traffic regarding the Conservapedia TOE article continues the TOE article will have gotten over a million views in 3 years. However, if the Conservapedia's article database increases over the next 3 years the TOE article could get even more views. Time will tell. Newton 14:12, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

I find your explanation for why you deleted articles to be.....smarmy....but anyway, lets just assume it was "honest" you can't then turn around and claim how popular TOE is when you simply erased the stats of the more popular articles. But whatever..........lets move out of page views for a second.........what exactly is it that you hope to accomplish with your TOE article? Is it really just about page views? Is that it? Or do you have a larger goal in mind? tmtoulouse ^annoy 14:16, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Ken/Newton/Conservative's explanation of the "temporary" deletions is positively deceitful. If he wanted to see what the eleventh and twelfth articles were why didn't he delete the two immediately before? Alternatively he could have just checked the popular pages list. You can find a handy link to this here - just under the Conservapedia stats page on Conservative's talk page. Genghis Khant 07:43, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Tmtoulouse, by the way there may be some new developments happening in the next 30 days which will cause the TOE article to get even more traffic. Of course, I am not going to tell you what those possible developments may be. Lastly, given the blatent lying in the Conservapedia article here, I cannot say I am concerned about whether or not you believe what I stated above. :) Newton 14:18, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Ermm....you are aware 'Newton', I hope, that your cause would be best served by as few people as possible seeing your ToE article? The more people see this, the more like the village idiot you all look. If I were you, I'd lock that article in a box and only show it to members of your tribe. If the intarweb gets hold of it, wow, it's all over for you guys. Doggedpersistance 14:22, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Okay, okay, look lets call a time out for second on the page view pissing contest. I am really interested in your response to my question above. What is your goal with the TOE article? Is it really nothing but page views? Is this nothing but a "15 minutes of fame" thing for you? Or do you really want to accomplish something? tmtoulouse ^annoy 14:21, 10 August 2007 (CDT

Tmtoulouse, the purpose of the Conservapedia TOE article is to inform. Secondly, I cannot take all the credit for the articles composition. By the way, how do you like the Skell quote and the Grasse quotes that were added? :) Newton 14:35, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

So then really, since the purpose is to inform, page views are not a way to figure out the relative success of the article is it? I guess what you have to do is subtract out the number of people who just looked at the article and scoffed and mocked it and then also the number of people who all ready agree with your position. The only "valuable" page views are those from the undecided or undereducated viewers. About 100,000 of those views came from scienceblog scoffers, I would bet half as many come from those that support it. So you have MAYBE 10,000 views of people that count....interesting.

I know little of Skell but I do not that Grasse is not a supporter of your ideas. Grasse complained about mechanisitic problems in the modern synthesis but never about the reality of evolution or common descent. tmtoulouse ^annoy 14:38, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Read the Skell quote at the beginning of the TOE article. Secondly, are you not understating Grasse's contempt? Did he not use the word "pseudoscience" in regards to the TOE being promoted in the 1970's by his peers? [2] Newton 14:48, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

I will look up Skell in full context somewhere else, as you are a known quote miner. First of all, Grasse fully accepted the reality of evolution and common descent. That is immutable fact. His argument was against the mechanism of evolution. Second what one scientist had to say in 1970 has no baring on the reality of evolution or the strength of its position. There is a reason that argument by authority is a logical fallacy. If I just sat here and quoted back at you the thousands of scientist that support evolution and said there thats the evidence for evolution you would rightfully laugh. tmtoulouse ^annoy 14:51, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Spare me the quotemine rhetoric and the Conservapedia TOE article links directly to the Skell article. Newton 15:00, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Perhaps its rhetoric but that does not mean its not true. You are a quote miner. There is no doubt about that. Still why do I care what a person has to say about evolution when I have access to all the data? Data is always better than anecdote. tmtoulouse ^annoy 15:06, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

So you paid money for a subscription and read the Skell article yourself? --Sid 15:09, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

The full text is available at the DI here. tmtoulouse ^annoy 15:20, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

A few points, Skell is basically a chemist, yes he seems to have a bone to pick with the Theory of Evolution, about 700 scientist on a list the DI keeps seem to. A 100 percent acceptance of the TOE but all people with a Ph.D is not a requirement for a it to be true. The fact that 99.99 percent do is a nice data point, but again says nothing about its reality. Evidence is what counts, and a chemists opinion about the value of TOE as a "paradigm" for research is meaningless tmtoulouse ^annoy 15:30, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

tmtoulouse, Skell wrote in The Scientist: "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."Newton 15:34, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Who are these researchers? Any of them have any baring on biology or evolution at all? Or just a bunch of engineers and chemists. What about the thousands and thousands and thousands of scientist that disagree? The NAS which Skell is a member of has written multiple times about how evolution is a unifying and invaluable theory for multiple disciplines. Skell even admits in his piece that the vast majority of Biologist would agree with Dobzhansky's quote. You offer me an anonymous 70 "scientist" I offer you the NAS and many hundred of thousands of scientist in retort.

But again this has nothing to do with the reality of evolution my million man march of support nor your 70 anonymous researchers who talked to Phillip Skell, neither of these is meaningful data for the truth of the theory of evolution. So its a silly argument. tmtoulouse ^annoy 15:39, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

This is evidence, not personal anecdote. tmtoulouse ^annoy 15:41, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

This might be useful

http://www.bloggingwv.com/20-useless-body-parts-why-do-did-we-need-them/

Totnesmartin 16:41, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Evolution is true. More big pointy animals please Dad! '*Jesus*' 15:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Not too bad, but room for improvment

This article is a rather nice one, short, sweet, and to the point, but it fails to cover any information about Lamarck and his theory of use and disuse (and how it was supported by the lack of social mobility in his era) and it does not talk about (brain fuzz, forgot their names) and how they claimed the gene pool could mathmatically remain stable (No change in population, 50% male, 50% female, No gene flow, etc)

So what do ya tink, should I add it in or not? Javascap 22:16, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Add away, we can always VAPOURISE it if we hate it! Susan^{purrrrr ...} 22:26, 20 December 2007 (EST) (Welcome, bytheway)

How about a new article called something like "dead ends in evolution science"? human 22:36, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Hey Javascap, can you try not to leave half finished sentences with "will return to this" comments in the text of the article? Otherwise, thanks for the additions. See you when you get back! human 20:21, 30 December 2007 (EST)

cover story

I feel that this is a good cover story nominee. ŖєuĻєux^{say wнäτ?} 13:18, 28 January 2008 (EST)

I think it's close, but not quite there? human 13:58, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Wallace

I added Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discoverer of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection to the history page. It's not much, but I feel that the guy who helped spur Darwain into early publication (if you call taking 20 years to work out the theory early, as I'm inclined to) deserves some props. Also, from the perspective of fighting the anti-science movement. I think it's important to remind Creationists and IDers that Darwinism is a misnomer. Darwin isn't the only figure when it comes to natural selection. Rylon 04:39, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Good point. Darwinism refers to evolution as it was laid out by Darwin, and we've come a long way since then. I think Darwin would have loved to see how we've filled in the gaps and developed his theory. PoorEd 08:16, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Yes. I suppose the most obvious addition would be that we now have knowledge of genetics which was unavailable to him. Indeed, his absence of knowledge about this fundamental element of evolution is said by some to be the reason why later editions of "The Origin of Species" tended towards lamarckism and were (allegedly) less compelling intellectually.--Bob^{bing up} 09:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)

It amazes me how much he accomplished without having a clue about DNA, chromosomes, etc. and with the full weight of common opinion against him. A testament to the human mind and the power of the scientific method. PoorEd 10:21, 29 February 2008 (EST)

IIRC, Darwin did try to guess how traits were passed on, but guessed wrong. It wouldn't be until the discovery of DNA that we would know. Of course, nobody would have known to look for a way to pass on traits if Wallace and Darwin had first shown that it was necessary for traits to be passed down. Rylon 12:51, 29 February 2008 (EST)

???

I couldn't figure out what this meant exactly, so I couln't correct it: "Georges Curvier proposed a mechanism by which the fossil record could sway over time without evolution (which by now had come into usage as a term) might occur." PoorEd 13:01, 29 February 2008 (EST)

I'm going completely on memory here, but I think that Curvier, a catastrophist, had little time for Lamark's theory and did his best to belittle and discredit it. It's probably got something to do with that. Lamark may well have got a bit of a raw deal from history, as he really did his best to formulate a theory of evolution - he just got it wrong.--Bob^{bing up} 13:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)

In any case, it's got a serious problem with syntax. Would it make sense if the words "might occur" were left off? PoorEd 13:26, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Yes, it's badly phrased. I'd be inclined to just zap it or give some idea of what Curvier's or Cuvier's suggestion was. (I don't know.) That would imply an expansion into the history of the theory (or theories) of evolution - which could easily make a separate article.--Bob^{bing up} 13:36, 29 February 2008 (EST)

And by the way, is it Curvier or Cuvier? It was the latter in my childhood book on fossils. Леушка^{(Editor at CP)} 13:28, 29 February 2008 (EST)

refs

Not relating, but the References section is messed up, with two 1.s and one 2. (pun perhaps intended). That is, the text has one REF, in addition there are two other listed references. What's the policy here? Леушка^{(Editor at CP)} 13:35, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Well, it's because the Jay Wile one was entered manually, not as a footnote. I'll see if I can pretty it up a bit. human 13:49, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Non-Biological

Does the demise of HD, and Betamax & 8 track etc. qualify as survival of the fittest? :) Susan^{The Earth Moved} 13:30, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Yes and no. Many people say that Betamax was technically superior, and one could make the same argument for HDDVD. On the other hand the winners were, by definition, commercially superior, so you could argue it either way. :-) --Bob^{bing up} 13:43, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Exactly. :) The ones that died out may have had advantages, but they weren't the traits being selected for. For instance, Beta had a better picture, but VHS had many advantages in terms of convenience. The development of decent portable sound from compact cassettes drove the 8 track to extinction, and was wiping out the vinyl LP before the CD finished the job (except in a few pockets with different environments). human 13:48, 29 February 2008 (EST)

There can be no doubt that pure chance has played a role in evolution, adding to the list of factors that supplement natural selection as a mechanism. If the first individual to be born with some very special trait is the victim of a falling piano before she has the opportunity to reproduce, then that's all he wrote. PoorEd 13:53, 29 February 2008 (EST)

If I recall correctly, one of the straws of the downfall of Beta (and one of the things working against blu-ray) was sony's reluctance to license duplication equipment to companies making porn. This arguably uses the same metric as natural selection, it is the success at sex that makes something available for the next generation. --Shagie 14:19, 29 February 2008 (EST)

I love the theory, but it looks like blu-ray is going to win.--Bob^{bing up} 14:29, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Sony has learned to be a bit more promiscuous now. They'll sleep with almost anyone and have no morals about it. --Shagie 14:39, 29 February 2008 (EST)

That's what happens when you put a Welshman in charge.--Bob^{bing up} 14:56, 29 February 2008 (EST)

    Time to take a leek!    

Be nice, tomorrow is our day ;) human 15:16, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Wot? St David's day tomorrow?--Bob^{bing up} 15:21, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Yup, it' always March 1 (unless it's also Ash Wednesday, sort of, I guess). You're lucky this was a leap year, or we would have had to feed you to the goat for blaspheming the magnificence of Welsh culture on their special day! human 16:01, 29 February 2008 (EST)

You mean I only have one hour 11 minutes left before I have to stop blaspheming Welsh culture for a whole day? Better get started, then! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:49, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Or does this work from your time zone? Or maybe the Welsh one? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:50, 29 February 2008 (EST)

I think for regional specialities, the timezone should be the one "local" to the holiday. So, yah, it will run on UTC I guess. Or whenever I change holydaze this evening... And for you, Mr. Gloomy Dane, you should respect the Welsh for 47:59:59 - the whole time it is March 1 anywhere! human 17:12, 29 February 2008 (EST)

As a resident of Wrexham, there is no way that I can respect the Welsh. Genghis ^Marauding 17:16, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Aye. We can negotiate on abstaining from mockery, but outright respect is pushing it. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:28, 29 February 2008 (EST)

"Peace, peace, this piece of toasted cheese will do't." Susan^{The Earth Moved} 17:52, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Patterns in Nature

I'm new to RationalWiki, so I may misunderstand a lot, but ...

The article says, under the heading "Patterns in Nature":

"The field of evolutionary biology seeks to provide explanations for four conspicuous patterns that are manifest in nature. The first three concern living species, whereas the fourth relates to fossils." And then there are three sub-headings: Genetic variation, Adaptation, Divergence.

This is confusing to me. I would have expected a list of four patterns. And I would have expected something like these four:

• The Tree of Life. Including comparative anatomy, embryology, genetics.
• Biogeography.
• Direct observations of Evolution.
• Variation over Time.

TomS TDotO 13:14, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

'tis a Wiki: write & be praised/lampooned.   ^Contribs_Talk 13:29, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Evolution by Sexual Selection

Hey, I was wondering if it would be appropriate to add some information on other forms of evolution besides evolution by natural selection (which is what the article seems mostly to deal with)...specifically I was thinking of evolution by sexual selection, which was described by Darwin much later than "Origin of the Species" and has since been expounded by other evolutionary biologists. It's really a critical part of evolutionary theory that operates very differently than natural selection, I'm just unsure where it would logically go; "Mechanisms of Evolution" perhaps?Thinker 12:00, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

"Pressures other than natural selection"? I dunno... ħuman 15:54, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Evolution's new wrinkle

A team of Princeton University scientists has discovered that chains of proteins found in most living organisms act like adaptive machines, possessing the ability to control their own evolution. [3] ^{— Unsigned, by: Harry O / talk / contribs}

http://cectic.com/019.html ^{— Unsigned, by: Harry O / talk / contribs} 05:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Overwhelming evidence

The final section "Where is the overwhelming evidence?" begins:

• "Science doesn't work by presenting overwhelming evidence, because that leads to unquestioned dogma."

I think this is wrong on a couple of counts. If evidence is overwhelming - as it is for evolution and common descent - why wouldn't it be presented? Secondly, if evidence is indeed overwhelming why should that lead to dogma? It's still "evidence" we are looking at not "faith".--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I had wondered about that section before, when this page came up on my trawl using the Random Page feature. I wasn't quite sure what to do with it. There's "overwhelming evidence" that human eyes use electromagnetic radiation in a narrow set of wavelengths in order to resolve images... but that's not "unquestioned dogma". Rather, it's a theory that has accrued more and more evidence over the years while none has been presented in refutation. That whole section should probably be deleted. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 18:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think so as well. Let's see if anybody else has any objections first though. Alternatively change it to say that the overwhelming evidence exists in various places.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As there have been no other comments I've cut it to this talk page below:

Cut starts..............

• Where is the overwhelming evidence?

Science doesn't work by presenting overwhelming evidence, because that leads to unquestioned dogma. Real scientists prefer to build a rickety house of cards, where each precept is vulnerable to falsification. So the question is not "where is the overwhelming evidence", but where is the one counterexample falsifying the standard model of descent with variation?

Cut ends ..............

--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I approve of this cut - while it does try to say something useful, it does it so badly, I probably wrote it. ħuman 00:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

website - may be good source

http://www.oeaw.ac.at/klivv/evolution/ ^{— Unsigned, by: Hamster / talk / contribs} 20:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Btw, can someone whose genetics aren't as dusty as mine, explain how skin colour works out based on Mendelian inheritance laws? I am pretty sure, that if you assume evolution/selection pressures/adaptions don't exist, that pretty little image in all of the children's books of Adam & Eve being a caucassian couple doesn't work too well. My question is wither you can get all the hues if they were both brown-ish. If not, it could be a fun argument to stick, along with a mendelian chart. Sen (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Origin of bird flight

What do you think is the most plausible theory about the origin of bird flight? I guess it's possible that they started out as gliding dinosaurs. Today we have gliding squirrels, for instance, and for all we know they are in an intermediate stage that will eventually result in winged squirrels that migrate south in V-shaped formations every winter. Tisane (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really, I would imagine they were actually more fish like in orgins. Birds, like flying dinosaurs, have a single finger that extends out that gives the wing its structure, similar to that of a fish. Bats actually use there whole hand to give the wing structre. Gliding squirrels have skin that stretches between the arm and the leg. - π 06:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Compare

• Fish fin
• Petrosaurs wing
• Bird wing
• Bat wing

Just my thoughts. - π 06:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

From my vague recollections of a NS article on this there are two ideas. Top town and bottom up. Top down would be the squirrels living in trees and learning to fly. Bottom up would be ground living animals gradually improving their ability to escape into trees. I also seem to remember reading a suggestion that dinosaurs developed feathers before they developed flight - which would make the bottom up hypotheses a little more credible.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This is one NS article on feathered dinosaurs, but it's not one of the ones I was looking for.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Asking questions like this will earn you a place in hell. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Evo and edu studies

• Evolution As Opinion Versus Fact: A False Dichotomy With True Consequences
• The Effects of Performance-Based Education on Evolutionary Attitudes and Literacy
• Scientifically Adrift: Limited Change in Scientific Literacy, and No Change in Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution, over Three Years of College
• Academic Factors that Predict Community College Students’ Acceptance of Evolution

FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

What kind of leftist propaganda is this?

I thought this was Rational Wiki. How can any site calling itself rational simply dismiss creation science and intelligent right out of hand? 68.188.68.66 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!

Also, ROTFLOL.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Because there's no science to dismiss. It's not science, it's pseudoscience! It would be like calling astrology "astrological science". --Kittycat (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Dismissing right out of hand yet again. Typical leftist projection.68.188.68.66 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

OK then I'll bite. How about "because there's no evidence for them?" Flannan Isle (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

We "believe" in all the scientific theories or, as you put it, propaganda. Evolution, electricity, germs causing disease, plate tectonics, gravity... I went to a doctor today instead of using faith healing then used my computer without setting it on fire for being infested with demons. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

No, Emerald, YOU are the demons! --Ymir (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I am certainly not a bunch of little demons in a suit. *looks shifty* -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll tell you what kind of leftist propaganda this is. Rational leftist propaganda. Ba dum ts.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 10:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly rightist propaganda seeking to destroy the human dignity necessary for true socialism in favor of a capitalist valorization of competition. Annquin (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I rather think we are back on Poe's Law. Is the IP serious or not?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

How come you don't mention evolution being completely pagan?^{— Unsigned, by: 108.225.151.65 / talk / contribs}

--JorisEnter (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was Satanic. Hurry up and sort this out. I need to know who to sacrifice this goat to. --Ymir (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Pagan? Satanic? I thought it was an irreducibly complex process guided by the hand of God and revealing His grand design!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Clearly scientists who study evolution are devil-worshiping, pagan, communistic atheists. And I thought they were Muslim, devil-worshiping, pagan, communistic atheists.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Study showing an increase in birth by Ceasarian Section impacting(and thereby proving) human evolution.

I believe this could be of some interest. I haven't read the actual paper itself, just this report from the BBC. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38210837 Perhaps someone can look at this study in further detail to decide if it is worthy of inclusion in the 'proof of evolution' section. Thanks. not a real jedi^{damn right i'm paranoid} 10:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Comedy goldmine

http://www.reasons.org/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believe-s-testable-creation-model GreatPerson (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I love how it says "testable", yet the very first point in Dr. Ross' list appeals verbatim to miracle. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)