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

Talk:Evolution: A Fairy Tale for Grownups

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I think this title might be one of the best/worst cases of weapons-grade projection ever. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Side by Side[edit]

perhaps it is just me, but the side-by-side columns are way off. The Fairy Tale section is very wide that goes off the article and the RW Responses are squished. Maybe it is just my computer, but if not, can someone please help fix it. thanks. Feredir28 (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, it turned out it was just my computer. Feredir28 (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Table of Contents[edit]

As this book review gets bigger and more and more "questions" are included the table of contents of going to go through the roof, and it will be really irritating. Is it possible to construct a unique TOC for this review, so it is more horizontal than vertical. Maybe a 10x10, a row of 10 questions and columns of 10 questions. I'm sure it will make thinks much simpler and this page more enjoyable. Feredir28 (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hiding the table of contents can be done by putting _NOTOC_ on the page. For creating a new one, I don't think there's an automagic way to do it, but you can create your own with a table. ThunderkatzHo! 16:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps for the moment, hiding the TOC will be better and we can decide later to include a custom made table. Thanks Feredir28 (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This color-coding[edit]

Is pretty cool. I propose using it as a standard for "refutation" articles around RationalWiki, as I've seen these same fallacies pop up in conspiracy theorist circles (such as Thrive). Mr. Anon (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

ಠ_ಠ tq is bad enough. ТyLonely. Ever so lonely. 03:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
??? Mr. Anon (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
??? You have no answer. Тyeh? 01:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Outdated Sources[edit]

As already made clear, Ray Comfort includes quotes and references from WAY WAY back, some back to Darwin's day (or even Newton) when scientists did not know as much as we do know. Therefore, it is not surprising that scientists from then hold doubts of the theory of evolution or dismissed it because it is incomplete. However, there are numerous references and quotes in this book that are a bit more recent. That is what we need to discuss right now.

When do we draw the line for a reference to be considered out of date? Clearly, claims from the turn of the 20th century are old. I'm sure we can agree claims from the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's are old as well. Example, back then they did not know about things like the fusion of the human chromosome #2 that confirmed genetically we share a common ancestor with chimps. They did not know all of our current data on genetics to explain the Cambrian explosion. Scientists back then could only make judgements based on the evidence available to them at the time. Given all the vast evidence we know now, they can be forgiven for not knowing. But to quote these men from way back then and try to argue that their position is the same exact position amongst the present scientific census is just flat-out wrong.

When I started this review and came up with the colored-coded fallacies piece, I had in mind that anything older than 1990 to be out of date. But I think we need to examine this. For Ray Comfort to provide a decent argument (that'll be the day Xp), he must use contemporary quotes and references from modern scientists about the census and evidence of the theory of evolution.

So, let's discuss please: at what point when should we label a reference out-of-date? Anything older than 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? I think the most generous we can be is 20 years, but I want to know what you think. Feredir28 (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

References are out of date depending on how you use them. For example, if someone asserts that Darwin said X, but he really said Y, it would never be out of date to reference the statement of Y. References about scientific fact are out of date when a new reference comes along and provides conclusive evidence for revision. It can't be 'suggests is wrong' or 'points to the need for further research on possibly being wrong' but actually outmodes the previous information. For example, we probably shouldn't update everything right now to include the aquatic ape theory because it hasn't been researched enough and supported with enough really substantial proof but that doesn't mean that it's an invalid or impossible theory, just that it needs stronger evidence in the fossil record and maybe some contemporary fossils to support the assertion of a swampy or shallow lake-filled habitat. But we should update resources that say dinosaurs were scaly and naked to ones that include the presence of feathers on at least a few species, because we've actually found some and that means that our view of what dinosaurs were like has for-certain changed. Just going by date is ridiculous; there are some items that may really not have been overturned in many years. And of course, when citing a historical context or statement, sources from that time period may be inaccurate by our modern views but your aim wouldn't be to talk about what we think now, just what they thought then. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRmore at 11 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Question about the title[edit]

Is the title itself an accurate description of the book - #it# is the fairy tale? Anna Livia (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Schwartz[edit]

I think the current article overreaches in responding to Comfort’s use of Schwartz. From the provided extracts of Schwartz (see: https://archive.org/details/suddenoriginsfos00schw), it seems that he does find issue with squaring the fossil record with Darwinian gradualism. This seems to be evidenced simply from the fact that he proposes something called “homeobox genes” to explain the appearance of new species without a chain of immediate ancestors. It honestly evokes how some creationist evoke rapid speciation, but whatever the case, I think that section should be trimmed.

Moreover, this entire article might require a go over for its depiction of modern evolutionary theory. Apparently, gradualism isn’t all that in anyway? I’m not read on this, but someone with the time and qualifications should probably take a look at your collective work here anyway. God bless. — Unsigned, by: 47.154.152.3 / talk / contribs