Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 20:00 UTC, 1 December!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, (new)(back)


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. (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)


Include a link to 'devolution' until 'about next Monday' (or whenever Salmond and Westminster have stopped arguing over who which side won). (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


'What use is half a wing?' - still no satisfactory answer... — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

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[edit]

Why Evolution is False[edit]

Demonstrating Evolution[edit]

Is the evolution page not allowed to evolve?[edit]

Origins of the scientific theory[edit]

Religious Beliefs and Evolution[edit]

Evolution page not allowed to evolve. How ironic.[edit]

Simple question[edit]

Doesn't natural selection have a mind?[edit]

It seems like it... I mean it chooses the best traits for the environment. Isn't that natural selection having a mind? — Unsigned, by: / 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)


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. LEFTYGREENMARIO 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? LEFTYGREENMARIO 03:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Proof evolution is a hoax[edit]

Possibly interesting[edit] The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Evolution, as theory and fact[edit]

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.”
—Stephen Jay Gould[1]

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. — Unsigned, by: Aneris / talk / contribs

I like it. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 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)


  1. “Evolution as Fact and Theory”, Discover 2 (May 1981): 34-37

Why teach evolution?[edit]

Why Teach Evolution? Going Beyond the Laws and Standards. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)