Talk:Evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evolution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

WARNING: This is not the place to discuss any alleged controversy or opinion about evolution and its related subjects. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, which is about evolution (not creation science, not creationism, and not intelligent design to name a few), and what has been presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature about it. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. If you are interested in discussing or debating over evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins or elsewhere.

edit

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Many of these questions are rephrased objections to evolution that users have argued should be included in the text of Evolution. The reason for their exclusion is discussed below.

The main points of this FAQ can be summarized as:

The process and theory of evolution are both uncontroversial among biologists.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis.
Therefore it is against Wikipedia policy for views without scientific support, such as all known objections to evolution, to be interjected into a science article like Evolution.

More detail is given on each of these points, and other common questions and objections, below.

To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why won't you add criticisms or objections to evolution in the Evolution article?

A1: This is essentially mandated by Wikipedia's official neutral point of view policy. This policy requires that articles treat views on various subjects proportionally to those views' mainstream acceptance in the appropriate academic field. For example, if two contradictory views in physics are held by roughly an equal number of physicists, then Wikipedia should give those views "equal time". On the other hand, if one view is held by 99% of physicists and the other by 1%, then Wikipedia should favor the former view throughout its physics articles; the latter view should receive little, if any, coverage. To do otherwise would require, for example, that we treat belief in a Flat Earth as being equal to other viewpoints on the figure of the Earth.

Due to the enormous mainstream scientific consensus in support of modern evolutionary theory, and pursuant to Wikipedia's aforementioned policies, the Evolution article references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Although there are indeed opposing views to evolution, such as Creationism, none of these views have any support in the relevant field (biology), and therefore Wikipedia cannot, and should not, treat these opposing views as being significant to the science of evolution. On the other hand, they may be very significant to sociological articles on the effects of evolutionary theory on religious and cultural beliefs; this is why sociological and historical articles such as Creation–evolution controversy give major coverage to these opposing views, while biological articles such as Evolution do not.

Further information: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

Q2: Evolution is controversial, so why won't you teach the controversy?

A2: As noted above, evolution is at best only controversial in social areas like politics and religion. The fact that evolution occurs and the ability of modern evolutionary theory to explain why it occurs are not controversial amongst biologists. Indeed, numerous respectable scientific societies, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences, have issued statements supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and/or ID.^[1] In 1987 only about 0.15% of American Earth and life scientists supported creationism.^[2]

Thus, as a consequence of Wikipedia's policies, it is necessary to treat evolution as mainstream scientific consensus treats it: an uncontroversial fact that has an uncontested and accurate explanation in evolutionary theory. There are no scientifically supported "alternatives" for this view.

However, while the overall theory of evolution is not controversial in that it is the only widely-accepted scientific theory for the diversity of life on Earth, certain aspects of the theory are controversial or disputed in that there actually are significant disagreements regarding them among biologists. These lesser controversies, such as over the rate of evolution, the importance of various mechanisms such as the neutral theory of molecular evolution, or the relevance of the gene-centered view of evolution, are, in fact, covered extensively in Wikipedia's science articles. However, most are too technical to warrant a great deal of discussion on the top-level article Evolution. They are very different from the creation–evolution controversy, however, in that they amount to scientific disputes, not religious ones.

Further information: Teach the Controversy, Level of support for evolution

Q3: Why is evolution described as though it's a fact? Isn't evolution just a theory?

A3: That depends on if you use the words evolution, theory, and fact in their scientific or their colloquial sense. Unfortunately, all of these words have at least two meanings. For example, evolution can either refer to an observed process (covered at evolution), or, as a shorthand for evolutionary theory, to the explanation for that process (covered at modern evolutionary synthesis). To avoid confusion between these two meanings, when the theory of evolution, rather than the process/fact of evolution, is being discussed, this will usually be noted by explicitly using the word theory.

Evolution is not a theory in the sense used on Evolution; rather, it is a fact. This is because the word evolution is used here to refer to the observed process of the genetic composition of populations changing over successive generations. Because this is simply an observation, it is considered a fact.

Fact has two different meanings: in colloquial usage, it refers to any well-supported proposition; in scientific usage, it refers to a confirmed observation. For example, in the scientific sense, "apples fall if you drop them" is a fact, but "apples fall if you drop them because of a curvature in spacetime" is a theory. Gravity can thus either refer to a fact (the observation that objects are attracted to each other) or a theory (general relativity, which is the explanation for this fact). Evolution is the same way. As a fact, evolution is an observed biological process; as a theory, it is the explanation for this process. What adds to this confusion is that the theory of evolution is also sometimes called a "fact", in the colloquial sense—that is, to emphasize how well-supported it is.

When evolution is shorthand for "evolutionary theory", evolution is indeed a theory. However, phrasing this as "just a theory" is misleading. Theory has two different meanings: in colloquial usage, it refers to a conjecture or guess; in scientific usage, it refers to a well-supported explanation or model for observed phenomena. Evolution is a theory in the latter sense, not in the former. Thus, it is a theory in the same sense that gravity and plate tectonics are theories. The currently accepted theory of evolution is known as modern evolutionary synthesis.

Further information: Evolution as theory and fact

Q4: But isn't evolution unproven?

A4: Once again, this depends on how one is defining proof. Proof has two meanings: in logic and mathematics, it refers to a proposition that has been shown to be 100% certain and logically necessary; in other uses, proof refers to a proposition that is well-supported by experimental evidence (much like the colloquial meaning of fact).

In the first sense, the whole of evolutionary theory is not proven with absolute certainty, but there are mathematical proofs in evolutionary theory. However, nothing in the natural sciences can be proven in the first sense: empirical claims such as those in science cannot ever be absolutely certain, because they always depend on a finite set of facts that have been studied relative to the unproven assumptions of things stirring in the infinite complexity of the world around us. Evolutionary science pushes the threshold of discovery into the unknown. To call evolution "unproven" in this sense is technically correct, but meaningless, because propositions like "the Earth revolves around the Sun" and even "the Earth exists" are equally unproven. Absolute proof is only possible for a priori propositions like "1 + 1 = 2" or "all bachelors are unmarried men", which do not depend on any experience or evidence, but rather on definition.

In the second sense, on the other hand, evolutionary theory is indeed "proven". This is because evolution is extremely well-supported by the evidence, has made testable confirmed predictions, etc. For more information, see Evidence of evolution.

Main article: Evidence of evolution

Q5: Has evolution ever been observed?

A5: Evolution, as a fact, is the gradual change in forms of life over billions (1,000,000,000s) of years. In contrast, the field of evolutionary biology is less than 200 years old. So it is not surprising that scientists did not directly observe, for example, the gradual change over tens of millions of years of land mammals to whales.^[3] However, there are other ways to "observe" evolution in action.

Scientists have directly observed and tested small changes in forms of life in laboratories, particularly in organisms that breed rapidly, such as bacteria and fruit flies.^[4] A famous experiment was developed in 1992 that traced bacterial evolution with precision in a lab. This experiment has subsequently been used to test the accuracy and robustness of methods used in reconstructing the evolutionary history of other organisms with great success.^[5]^[6] Evolution has also been observed in the field, such as in the plant Oenothera lamarckiana which gave rise to the new species Oenothera gigas,^[7] in the Italian Wall Lizard,^[8] and in Darwin's finches.^[9] A new species of mosquito has even evolved in the London Underground system since it opened.^[10]

Scientists have observed large changes in forms of life in the fossil record. From these direct observations scientists have been able to make inferences regarding the evolutionary history of life. Such inferences are also common to all fields of science. For example, the neutron has never been observed, but all the available data supports the neutron model.

The inferences upon which evolution is based have been tested by the study of more recently discovered fossils, the science of genetics, and other methods. For example, critics once challenged the inference that land mammals evolved into whales. However, later fossil discoveries illustrated the pathway of whale evolution.^[3] So, although the entire evolutionary history of life has not been directly observed, all available data supports the fact of evolution.

Main article: Evidence of evolution

Q6: Why is microevolution equated with macroevolution?

A6: The article doesn't equate the two, but merely recognizes that they are largely or entirely the same process, just on different timescales. The great majority of modern evolutionary biologists consider macroevolution to simply be microevolution on a larger timescale; all fields of science accept that small ("micro") changes can accumulate to produce large ("macro") differences, given enough time. Most of the topics covered in the evolution article are basic enough to not require an appeal to the micro/macro distinction. Consequently, the two terms are not equated, but simply not dealt with much.

A more nuanced version of the claim that evolution has never been observed is to claim that microevolution has been directly observed, while macroevolution has not. However, that is not the case, as speciations, which are generally seen as the benchmark for macroevolution, have been observed in a number of instances.

Further information: Microevolution, Macroevolution

Q7: What about the scientific evidence against evolution?

A7: To be frank, there isn't any. Most claimed "evidence against evolution" is either a distortion of the actual facts of the matter, or an example of something that hasn't been explained yet. The former is erroneous, as it is based on incorrect claims. The latter, on the other hand, even when accurate, is irrelevant. The fact that not everything is fully understood doesn't make a certain proposition false; that is an example of the argument from ignorance logical fallacy. Examples of claimed evidence against evolution:

There aren't any transitional fossils, or there aren't enough.

There are many transitional fossils, including Archaeopteryx (earliest and most primitive bird known), Thrinaxodon (a cat-sized mammal-like "reptile"), Tiktaalik (fish with many features akin to those of four-legged animals), Acanthostega (first vertebrate animal to have recognizable limbs), and Ambulocetus (early whale that could walk as well as swim). See also List of transitional fossils. That there are not more is explained by the rarity of fossilization and by punctuated equilibrium. Furthermore, technically all fossils are transitional fossils, because no species is fixed and unchanging. For example, you can argue that Homo erectus is a transitional fossil between Homo sapiens and Homo habilis. But in the same line of thought, you can say Homo habilis is a transitional fossil between A. afarensis and Homo erectus, and so on.^[11]^[12]
Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium".

Organisms are not isolated systems. Rather, they are open systems; they exchange energy with their environment, and thus their entropy can either increase or decrease. Specifically, the main fuel source for evolution is the Sun, which is continually adding energy to the Earth ecosystem. See also Entropy and life.^[13]^[14]
Evolution can't create complex structures like the eye, or the bacterial flagellum.

The evolution of the eye and the evolution of flagella are well-understood, and "irreducibly complex" structures can evolve through mechanisms such as exaptation, in which a structure is adapted to serve a different function. Moreover, the fact that the evolutionary history of every biological structure is not fully understood is not evidence against evolution, any more than the fact that the gravitational orbit of every astronomical body is not fully understood is evidence against gravity.^[15]^[16]
Evolution can't create new information.

New information is created every time a mutation occurs. Even random "noise" is a form of information. (This random information is then non-randomly propagated by natural selection.) Examples of the evolution of completely new information include the enzymes of nylon-eating bacteria, which can digest nylon, a polymer that didn't exist before 1935.^[17]^[18]

With regard to the Wikipedia Evolution article, if there is any evidence against evolution, it has yet to be accepted by any peer-reviewed scientific publication. This means that even if every editor on Wikipedia knew that there was evidence against evolution, we could not add that information to the article without violating Wikipedia's official policies of no original research and neutral point of view. Whether editors think that evolution has evidence against it or not is irrelevant; what matters are the noteworthy scientific views on this issue.

Q8: How could life arise by chance?

A8: If by "arise", one means "develop from non-organic matter through abiogenesis", then this is a question that is not answered by evolutionary theory. Evolution only deals with the development of pre-existing life, not with how that life first came to be. The fact that life evolves is not dependent upon the origin of life anymore than the fact that objects gravitate towards other objects is dependent upon the Big Bang.

On the other hand, if by "arise" one means "evolve into the organisms alive today", then the simple answer is: it didn't. Evolution does not occur "by chance". Rather, evolution occurs through natural selection, which is a non-random process. Although mutation is random, natural selection favors mutations that have specific properties - the selection is therefore not random. Natural selection occurs because organisms with favored characteristics survive and reproduce more than ones without favored characteristics, and if these characteristics are heritable they will mechanically increase in frequency over generations. Although some evolutionary phenomena, such as genetic drift, are indeed random, these processes do not produce adaptations in organisms.

If the substance of this objection is that evolution seems implausible, that it's hard to imagine how life could develop by natural processes, then this is an invalid argument from ignorance. Something does not need to be intuitive or easy to grasp in order to be true.

[edit] Al-Jahiz

A recent edit (diff) has introduced some text including some prescient claims from a 1000 year old book. The edits are totally different from previous undue material added to the article (see archive 54), but should be examined: are the two newspaper columns by Jim Al-Khalili presenting a reasonable interpretation of history? Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Jim Al-Khlalili is fairly mainstream and has been actively involved in the promotion of science, particularly in the UK. I am not too sure about his views presented in his newspaper columns. I am not saying I distrust them. I just don't know enough about Al-Jahiz to be sure. They seem reasonable. In any event, I reverted the edit because the Wikilink to "Struggle for Existence:" is taken out of context as I am not sure if Al-Jahiz meant it in the same way as Darwin did. Moreover, much of the newly added text is a carbon copy of one of the newspaper articles. They should of course be paraphrased. danielkueh (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Good. The problem is that a theoretical physicist probably has no particular knowledge of the history of science, or of developments within biology (such a person of course may be an expert on these matters, but they have no known credentials in the field). There has been a large industry both on and off Wikipedia devoted to the promotion of dubious historical factoids to suggest that Islamic scholars were the "fathers" of various branches of scientific knowledge (one extreme case involved the idea that some writings many centuries in the past were forerunners to Einstein's relativity). Al-Jahiz was outstanding, but it is extremely unlikely that information available in his time could have led to any serious finding that "Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring", and the text asserting that there is a line from his book to Darwin is an enormous stretch. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, you may feel that line is a stretch but I quoted directly from Al-Khalili, a reliable source. That there are people out there who make claims about people being 'fathers' of fields is irrelevant and cannot be used as an argument in this individual case. danielkueh, if you did not like the style I added the material, then I think it is fair to request that you at least add this info in the way that pleases you instead of not mentioning this at all. Sodicadl (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sodicadl, this is a featured article and so any changes made to this article must be well written, adequately sourced, and have strong consensus. The material that you added is not very well written, in fact, it was very much plagiarized. The sourcing needs to be improved, how about finding a secondary source that says the same thing written by an evolutionary biologist? Otherwise, it might just be a WP:fringe view. Finally, please don't give me or other editors "chores" to fix up your mess. You want it in, you need to the leg work. danielkueh (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand you feel this may be fringe, for Al-Khalili's point was that it is not known and I am trying to get outside opinion about it [1], but I don't get who was plagiarized. It's not the Telegraph or Khalili, because I cited them, and it's not Al-Jahiz, because Khalili is not claiming the quote is his?! What I meant by the "chores" is that it may be better to correct a material than to not have it at all. Maybe that policy is wrong, but if your policy is consistent shouldn't you delete the first two paras in that section as they are not "adequately sourced" (or not sourced at all)? Sodicadl (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sodicadl, just because you "cited" another person's work doesn't mean you can or should copy their texts and sentences verbatim and pass them off as your own or as WP's (see WP:plag). I know what you meant by chores. But in the end, it is still a chore and it is a chore that no one cares for at the moment because it is based on an info that is not adequately sourced. You made a fair point about the first two paragraphs of the history section. I recommend that we add citation tags to those two paragraphs. The references are there and are fairly mainstream, they just need to be added. danielkueh (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I would not consider Al-Khalili a reliable source on the history of science. And I trust newspapers as sources concerning the news, not as sources on the history of science. If a newspaper is reporting on emerging scholarship - e.g. a book review of a new book published by an academic press or by a notable scholar in a trade press, or an article reviewing some debate in a journal (as when they often report on something going on in Science or the Lancet — great! We can track down the book, or find the article in Science or the Lancet. My point is, if this is a significant view among historians of science, we should be able to find an appropriate source which would be a book or journal article by a specialist. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find that Al-Khalili is an authority on the history of science especially muslim science. He has fronted/authored a TV series on it and written at least one book on the subject.For obvious reasons his expertise is strongest in maths and physics. Abtract (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It still fails WP:WEIGHT. There is no evidence that Al-Khalili's views are shared by other historians of evolutionary thought. His book was evidently written to aggrandize the historical role of Isalmic science, a self-confessed agenda which no doubt makes him give significant weight to events and persons that are largely ignored by most, if not all, academic experts on the subject. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Why is there any mention of Intelligent design?

What possible purpose does any mention of that half-brained idiocy serve on this article? No creationism articles have sections dedicated to evolution from a scientific perspective and we don't go forcing "THEORY OF" in front of every single creationist belief. I opt to remove all reference to non-science in this scientific article. Opinions are NOT facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.171.127.77 (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh actually you do go forcing "theory of" before everything. Why don't you read the pages? "attempt to explain" "theory of" etc. Seriously. 71.214.218.58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC).

First of all, you should always post your messages at the bottom of the discussion page. Secondly, i removed your unneccessary swear word. Third, please sign your messages with four tildes (~). Anyway, intelligent design can be mentioned where it is relevant. No where in the article is it presented as scientific or a valid alternative theory to evolution. Anything can be mentioned in an article as long as it is on-topic, factual, referenced, and relevant, whether you would like it to be there or not. Cadiomals (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no prohibition on using swear words on Wikipedia and it was against talk page guidelines for you to edit the content of this user's post. N^oformation ^Talk 23:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Cadiomals please see the relevant talk page guidelines on refactoring others comments. There is no prohibition on swear words. It also wouldn't hurt to be nice to the newbs.--Adam in MO Talk 02:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And I'm pretty much with our IP newbie on this. I'd like to see the article completely ignore creationist crap. If anything, what's in the article is too much emphasis on one bunch of crackpots in just one country. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Like it or not, opposition to evolution is perennially newsworthy. The US does not have a monopoly on creationists. Brief mention in one section seems appropriate, in this lengthy article. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. I agree on the lack of value of ID and creationism generally, but we cover all notable material that gets written about a lot, and there is no real doubt that ID is a notable thing that has to do with the theory of evolution. ID might be wrong, but it really exists and is unfortunately probably more widely known than real biology in some parts of the world, so it is part of our duty according to WP:NEUTRAL to make sure we note it as a well-known error and source of notable of deliberately produced hot air and confusion. If you prefer not to think in terms of policies, then see it as a help to guide naive readers who might in fact in many cases not quite understand the true relationship (or lack thereof) between ID and real science.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the legal system has made the link between ID and creationism and basically disqualified it as science. So if the legal system doesn't recognize it as science why should we? Sad really because, evolution withinstanding, the possibility of life being artificially designed is a real possibility. Venter has designed life (not from scratch and maybe more a deconstruct-reconstruct) but still the scientific possibility has to recognized. Then there is this interest in other "earth-like" planets and the search for intelligent life (although personally I don't see the logic). We have moved from artifical selection to artficial design. Still the principal of evolution persists but I find it fascinating we are molding and designing life and this will likely increase more and more. I have to admit I have some reservations and often lament we have evolved to the point we are usurping evolution. Like aging research. Ecologically and evolutionarily do we really want people to live hundreds of years? Genetically manipulated species and non-native introduction of species and the ecological and evolutionary implications possible-are we designing. I was just reading how scientist will clone a wooly mammoth in the next five years???? Jeez. We will defy extinction events and time itself. We zealously protect species from extinction but extinction events are central to earth's life history. Is there method to the madness and do we really know what we are doing? Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a particular suggestion for the article. This is not a forum for your opinions on evolution or scientific consensus.--Adam in MO Talk 09:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative but I didn't relate my opinion on evoution but artifical design and altering evolution. That is factual. Just like now there are human beings running around with mitochondria from their Dad rather than their Mom because of one in vitro fertilization technique. So much for mapping a mitochondrial Eve in the future and will this have evolutionary implications. Gentically modified crops and organisms like modified silkworms, etc can have a huge impact on ecosystems, ecology, and evolution. Anyway the problem at hand has been addressed. I was just expouding that a real science independent from creationism is feasible for artifical design-I wouldn't call it "intelligent" is my point. Great progress in the article as a whole. My bet is in the next five years there will be an "artifical design" article. Hmmm maybe sooner. GetAgrippa (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

GetAgrippa, (sticking to your first 2 sentences) agreed that WP should not describe ID as conventional science. But does it? Not everything notable to say about the theory of evolution is about science.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but are we discussing one sentence in one paragraph? This hardly seems disproportionate to me. Can we close this thread? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The IDiocy is mentioned once, under the heading "Social and cultural responses". Read the sentence for yourselves: "Since then, the competing religious belief of creationism was legally disallowed in secondary school curricula in various decisions in the 1970s and 1980s, but it returned in the form of intelligent design, to be excluded once again in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case." This is a storm in a teacup. - Soulkeeper (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that wording is there, but I'm sure the religious nutcases would just point to it and say "Look, the law got it wrong." The reality that we should be making clear is that creationism and ID are just plain wrong. We are not actually saying that at all. We're just telling readers what a couple of American legal cases have said. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Better now? (unless it's reverted) - Soulkeeper (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

~~No, that's not better at all and I reverted you. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)~~ And I got reverted too. Sorry about this. I simply misread the change as "...ID in its pseudoscientific form..." --Fama Clamosa (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘That misreading was understandable. I think I just fixed it. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok by me, technically ID was preceded by the pseudoscience of creation science but there's no point in going into these nuances of more or less covert creationism. . dave souza, talk 18:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine here too. Thanks. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] FAQ nominated for deletion

The FAQ section of this talk page has been nominated for deletion. [[2]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Holy banana-nut-bread! That's one of the best FAQ pages in the known universe. Gads. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking the same. (Redacted) *cough* — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My religious beliefs have nothing to do with my deletion nomination. I nominated the FAQ for deletion, because it is violates the neutral point of view policy and misrepresents policy. Jeraphine Gryphone, need I remind you to assume good faith. I have often been involved in areas where I had a personal opinion, yet I was neutral and followed policy. That is precisely what I am doing now. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 08:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Guys, you are horribly immature right now and these attacks on Alpha Quadrant will probably not help your case anytime soon. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see good faith from Alpha Quadrant. I only see an objection to the FACTS of evolution. It would stun me if that wasn't based on religion. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the FAQ dismisses a controversial subject for one particular point of view. It isn't up to editors to decide who is right and who is wrong. Information presented must be done so neutrally. The FAQ is endorsing one point of view, and dismissing all others, which violates policy. Plain and simple. The wording to the FAQ needs to be changed so that the answers are presented neutrally and without bias. You can't honestly tell me that the FAQ is, at this moment, neutral. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 08:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The point of view the FAQs are rejecting and the view that it's a controversial subject is one held only by deliberately uninformed, religiously motivated nut cases who are opponents of Wikipedia's goal of improving the world's knowledge. By their actions they encourage a wider mistrust of genuine and important scientific knowledge. I regard them as dangerous people. The FAQs are completely neutral. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 you are absolutely correct. You know things are going south when words like "bias" are used. I'm sure "liberal bias" is next and will be followed by labeling people as atheists. Disrupting Wikipedia just to make a WP:POINT is very bad form. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's already happened. If you follow the link in Dominus Vobisdu's initial post, you'll find precisely that allegation from Kevin Rutherford, twice. So, good call. And, as someone from a country where the word "liberal" would never equate with "spawn of the devil" (in fact, it's the name of the more conservative of our two major political parties), I laughed out loud when I read it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, that was fast. Sounds like you've got it easy. I live in Texas where liberal is soaked in condemnation then hurled at others with the force of hatred and being gay or an atheist is still illegal. Tis a silly place. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, in the UK liberal is often soaked in condemnation. but that's because they're in bed with the conservatives. So to speak. What's commonly called the ConDem government. . . dave souza, talk 18:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You're correct, of course, AQ, that we must be neutral. The two most prestigious scientific journals in the world are Nature (Journal) and Science (Journal), would you care to find me an article in either of those publications that attempts to dispute evolution? I have a subscription to science, so if you can't get the full text I'm happy to pull it up for you. As Hilo said, the only people who consider evolution controversial are those with a high degree of religiosity, or those who are uneducated in biology (the former generally being the latter as well). There are literally no alternatives to evolution being taught in any universities worth their salt in the world. I'm sure you did this in good faith, but, and I don't mean to be rude but there's no other way to say it, you simply don't know what you're talking about. N^oformation ^Talk 08:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

@ (Redacted) N^oformation ^Talk 08:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: these may be of some relevance/interest:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Science_is_not_a_point_of_view
- "While scientists have points of view, scientific inquiry itself is a methodology, and cannot hold one. That coverage of a topic is primarily scientific does not prevent it from being (nor obviates the need to be) neutral."
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Neutral_point_of_view_as_applied_to_science
- "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement /--/"

— Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wholly relevant, and thanks for those statements. N^oformation ^Talk 09:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Many of those who favor evolution refer to creationism as pseudoscience. Similarly, many of those who favor creationism refer to evolution as pseudoscience. There is even an article, Creation Science, that explains that mainstream science rejects creationism and vice versa. It isn't our place to decide who is right, and who is wrong. To say that there is no controversy surrounding the topic is false. There is an entire article on the controversy. The FAQ page is a mess and needs a complete rewrite.

I do find myself wondering, if there truly was no problem with the template, then why has over half of the keep !voters resorted to personal attacks, ad hominem remarks, or assumption of bad faith? If their arguments were highly compelling, there is no need for such attitude. I merely brought up a concern that I felt to be valid. That is what MfD is for, to discuss a particular concern that may lead to deletion. Rather than discuss my concerns in a calm and neutral tone, several users felt the need to act with hostility. This hostility was not needed, but it would explain why they don't see any neutrality problems with the FAQ page.

There is really no point for me to argue neutrality with users who can't even write three sentences without including personal attacks. I have better things to do than fend off personal attacks while arguing for deletion. If editors can't get past the "Alpha Quadrant is a Christian, so he must be bias." attitude, they need to have a serious self analysis. Not once in that MfD, or elsewhere, have I expressed my personal opinion about the accuracy of evolution. Wikipedia isn't the place for such remarks. Wikipedia is run by a set of policies, and if we can't even adhere to them when we have strong personal opinions, how can we possibly hope to write a accurate and neutral encyclopedia. I'll leave this discussion with that and wish you all the best. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that the personal attacks are un-called for. Editors in this area of the encyclopedia have a tendency to be over-firm with "creationist" editors who edit articles like Evolution, Natural selection, Intelligent Design, Creation Science with the viewpoint that the Evolution vs. Creation debate is not settled within the scientific community--it is a constant battle to prevent creationism, intelligent design, etc. from sneaking in to article on scientific topics. Making statements like "There are a number of scientists on both sides of this debate" is a red flag that can very quickly get you labeled as one of these "creationist" editors, and bring with it the attitude/firmness towards that kind of editor. (As an aside, read up on Project Steve--that statement is demonstrably false/misleading) Personal attacks are still inexcusable, but that's a bit of a view of where they're coming from.

You are correct that there exists controversy about Creation vs Evolution, which is a notable social phenomenon. However, the fact remains that evolution is a scientific fact--there is no scientific controversy about it--which is the basis for how this article (and the associated FAQ) is written. There are even a few high-profile court cases that confirm this (1, 2). As a corollary, one could also claim that there is controversy about the shape of the earth, but yet the Earth article unequivocally states that the Earth is round, not flat, because there is no legitimate scientific debate over the matter. That said, I agree with you that the FAQ's tone could overall be less WP:BITEy, but its content is still fundamentally sound. Mildly Mad^T_C 17:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, AQ, I didn't attack you (I said you don't know what you're talking about but this is not a personal attack, it's an observation that would be equally valid if someone said there was a controversy between flat earth and round earth theory). I asked you to furnish an article from one of two of the most prestigious journals in the world because if there is a scientific controversy they will be the first to print it. If you are able to do so I will set up a webcam and eat my shorts for your viewing pleasure. No joke, you have my word as a gentlemen that if either one of those journals has an article which posits that evolution may be false and that there is another viable theory, I will eat my own underwear and I won't even wash it first. N^oformation ^Talk 21:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree, you did not make personal attacks against me. However, some other editors did make personal attacks. For example, comments like this one. As for the journals, I will see what I can find. I don't have access to either scientific journals, so I would have to go on abstracts. I found Easterbrook, G. (15 August 1997). "SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY: Science and God: A Warming Trend?". Science 277 (5328): 890–893. doi:10.1126/science.277.5328.890. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/277/5328/890.summary?sid=fa451c63-40ca-4747-bf33-bdeb44262421. Retrieved 12 January 2012.. It is difficult to determine from a three sentence summary, but it appears it may be what you requested. It was published in 1997, so I want to find something a bit more recent. However, before I start looking for recent reports, I want to make sure I am looking in the right place. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That comment you linked to is mine. Why not have the guts to say so. I totally re-endorse everything I said there. Creationists, and all the evidence identifies you as one, ARE dangerous. They make proper science education harder by sowing doubt under all scientific knowledge, and encourage ignorance and myths. Bad for the world. Bad for Wikipedia. Oh, and another tactic of the religious nutters is niceness. When called on the facts, they retreat to the "love another and don't be rude" mantra. I don't love people who deliberately mislead innocent youth. And I will be brutal in pointing out the tactics. Stuff your niceness. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think AQ has ever identified himself as a creationist (creationism =/= Christian) but either way your views on this are noted but honestly not relevant to the discussion here, and automatically criticizing an editor's beliefs is an WP:AGF violation as well as a chilling effect on discourse. AQ may not be educated in the sciences, he may simply not know what you know regarding biology, but that's no reason to attack him. Evolution has enough evidence that we don't need to resort to ad hominem.

@AQ: That article makes no claims questioning the validity of evolution, here is a passage from it: "But “flood” creationism, which attempts to deny both evolution and the basic findings of geology, is preached only by a few subsets of the monotheist denominations. Catholicism, for instance, is today conservative but not creationist, while mainstream Protestant denominations and most of Judaism and Islam long ago stopped making claims such as Earth was only recently created. “Creationism is an incredible pain in the neck, neither honest nor useful, and the people who advocate it have no idea how much damage they are doing to the credibility of belief,” says physicist Houghton, who has written articles on the value of prayer."

If you'd like the full text I can email it to you, let me know. N^oformation ^Talk 22:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Just want to address your point regarding scientists calling creationism pseudoscience and creationists calling evolution pseudoscience. It seems to me that the 99% of biologists educated in sciences would be the correct experts to whom to appeal regarding classifications of pseudoscience. In the same way, a flat earth theorist may call geology pseudoscience but their opinions are not on equal footing and are severely misinformed. There is literally zero controversy among life scientists that evolution is a fact - a totally indisputable fact. I would not offer to eat my own shorts on a webcam for anything less certain :). N^oformation ^Talk 23:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Telling me to shut up by appealing to WP:AGF ignores my comment about the niceness strategy of religiously driven creationists. They actually don't assume good faith themselves, but hide their manipulativeness and nastiness behind a façade of niceness. They do massive damage to scientific learning and waste an awful lot of valuable editors' time here. We need to look beyond the seeming niceness to what they are really doing. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If this were talk origins I would agree with you but we're here to build an encyclopedia, not debate. Two wrongs don't make a right, if AQ is being dishonest then that's something to deal with civilly, not by attacking him (though I do not believe he is being dishonest, I just think that you know more than him about this subject; stupidity is something to condemn, ignorance is not as everyone is ignorant to the majority of human knowledge). N^oformation ^Talk 23:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You make some very good points Noformation. Looking through the Science journal archives, it does appear that in recent years, opposition in mainstream science by other scientists has faded. The most recent article I could find was this one, and it was not presenting any evidence against evolution. I have withdrawn my deletion nomination. I still believe the current wording is problematic, but that isn't going to get resolved at MfD. I'd like to thank you for your patience and civility in this discussion.

@HiLo48, I'm sorry my civil attitude is offensive to you, but you are going to have to deal with it. I am here to build a reliable and neutral encyclopedia based on the policies we have laid out. I am not here to defend my personal beliefs, nor push an agenda. Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. Yes, I am a Christian and I don't hide that fact, but that does not mean I am incapable of acting neutrally on contentious topics. I have yet to see a diff where you substantiate your claims against me. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That all fits my point about using niceness as a manipulative tool. Many religious folk do it, in fact so much so, that you probably don't realise you're doing it yourself. I regard my approach as far more honest (surely a positive attribute) and, while likely to upset some folks along the way, actually gets my point across much more effectively. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Civility is a manipulative tool. Now that's a new one. How is acting with a civil attitude harmful to this project? Your statement goes against multiple Wikipedia behavior guidelines. With that kind of attitude, we might as well throw all of our policies out the window. I will note that users who follow the ignore civility philosophy usually end up indefinitely blocked/banned in the long run. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to debates the merits of being civil versus civil POV pushing (which is sometimes seen here, although not for a while). As no examples of problems with the FAQ have been presented, this discussion can be closed ... until next time. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously it's sensible and necessary to keep this FAQ to point out to editors holding minority or fringe views the extent and way in which these views should be shown in articles. As in WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI as well as WP:FRINGE. There is of course a place and way to show such minority views in articles, taking care to give due weight to the majority expert view. . . dave souza, talk 18:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The mere fact people want to delete the FAQ as having a "liberal bias" only reinforces in my mind strong need for this FAQ and its message. Yobol (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The FAQ should stay precisely because it is difficult for some editors to see what is neutral concerning this topic. The idea that evolution is just one scientific theory amongst various options is not only a misunderstanding, but is in fact a myth which has been deliberately spread by a well-funded political-religious movement in one particular country where many WP editors happen to live. It is part of local politics and religion. Of course there are many theories considered true in particular parts of the world, but we aim to summarise what can be generally agreed by people independent of their political, geographical and religious position. So where peculiar local beliefs and debates are notable we can mention them as what they are.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar on top

I don't know what happened but after I added citation tags to the history section, the evolutionary biology sidebar now appears on top of the lede and not at its side. I am trying to see what can be done to fix this. If somebody else knows the problem, feel free to correct it. danielkueh (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that this is a recurring problem in other pages that uses the sidebar such as evolutionary biology and history of evolutionary thought. It appears to be a problem with the sidebar itself. danielkueh (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, something wrecked all the evolution articles (and your edit just caused the servers to regenerate the cached page with the error). I fixed it with an edit to {{Evolutionary biology}}. I don't know why, but a recent change somewhere conflicted with the style used in that template. All I did was to delete a bunch of style settings so the defaults would be used. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq, thanks for looking into this. It was quite puzzling. danielkueh (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] First line of second paragraph in the intro

"Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago."

I'm not sure why this sentence is written so unambiguously. All the links in the sentence are very forthcoming in regards to this sentence not being a hard and fast fact. I know you guys get very angry when people say things like "Evolution is *just* a theory" and that it hasn't been proven, but could we at least try to make this sentence a little more open-ended with regards to abiogenesis and common ancestry? Billytrousers (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

How else would you state this? From the links and references I've read, the only thing up for debate is what kind of bacteria it was, and the exact time. Judgeking (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well abiogenesis would not be from "bacteria", but the sentence is not saying much anyway. The most controversial point is perhaps whether there was one or more such events, something which was for example not clear to Darwin. But one single "common ancestry" is today I believe not seriously contested? Does anyone have a source for any real contestation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Only creationists. They have a source that's perfect. At least it is to them. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that isn't a hard fact in that sentence is the number 3.7. Of course there is no way for scientists to know exactly when life originated, but its somewhere around there. Maybe it could be changed to "between 3-4 billion years ago" to acknowledge that, otherwise the rest of the sentence is fine. Cadiomals (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of articles on the subject and at a evolutionary biology meeting the consensus was the LUCA was already a complex organism-likely bacteria evolved by gene loss. A polyphosphate organelle (yes prokaryotes do have this organelle contrary to dogma)is universal to bacteria, archae, and eukaryotes, so it is believed that this organelle was in a common ancestor that precedes the divide into the three domains. GetAgrippa (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with making the 3.7 less certain sounding.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not be consistent with the LUCA Wikipedia article: "The last universal ancestor (LUA), also called the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), or the cenancestor, is the most recent organism from which all organisms now living on Earth descend.[1] Thus it is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all current life on Earth. The LUA is estimated to have lived some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago (sometime in the Paleoarchean era).[2][3] A universal common ancestor is at least 102860 times more probable than having multiple ancestors…[4] A model with a single common ancestor but allowing for some gene swapping among species was... 103489 times more probable than the best multi-ancestor model...[4]". The consensus is that is wasn't primordial soup or a gene pool but an actual sophisticated cell. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That is long and getting off topic. This article here has a history of getting over-taken by other subjects. Let's keep whatever we say short.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement that life arose approximately 3.7 billion years ago is within the ballpark of what is found in many reputable sources. I am looking at an introductory text by Hillis et al, and it says 3.8 billion. But before we decide to go with whatever source, I think it is important that we put this in context. 3.7 billion years might sound precise to some people, but that is only because they are thinking in seconds or minutes. 3.7 "billion" is a very large number. For example, the difference between 3.65 billion years and 3.7 billion years is 500,000,000 years. That is a long time. To us, at least. If someone says that life arose 3 703 562 922 years ago, then I agree, that is a little too precise. But the statements says "approximately." There is enough room for error there. My two cents. danielkueh (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the "Life on Earth originated". It may confuse people about the origin of life and biological evolution. Perhaps "The tree of life originated from...." or "All life is related by common descent from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago that gave rise to bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes." That way it isn't confusing that this LUCA is the first original life form. Abiogenesis could have lots of successes and failures that finally produced the LUCA that gave rise to all life we presently know. Or just leave the sentence alone. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with LUCA. How about "All life originated from a common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago"? danielkueh (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

To the point. We have a winner give that man (Danielkueh) a Kewpie Doll. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you are in agreement. Let's wait a bit and give some time to the rest of the peanut gallery to chime in. danielkueh (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the 3.7 thing I have no big concern. My only point was that I would not be against wording which does not sound so exact. Note that I am talking about an impression. So just a style thing. Concerning other aspects of the wording, well now that we are looking at it, would this not be more accurate: "All life today has a common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago"? The point is that there must have been other types of life before the common ancestor. Who knows, maybe there was even more than one abiogenesis. In this article we do not need to go very far with this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

How about the following? "All current life on earth originated from a common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago." danielkueh (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, I really don't like the word "current" or "today", as it is quite exclusive and ignores all the other life forms before it. I think it is understood that once you refer to the common ancestor, it really doesn't matter if there was life that occurred before it or other abiogenesis that never caught on. My two cents again. danielkueh (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, your original proposed sentence ("All life originated from a common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago") is preferable (and great). --AlphaEta 20:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

DK, Your logic is sound, but I do think people get confused about the difference between a common ancestor and the earlier origin of that line of descent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, I understand but I won't worry about it. danielkueh (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the words "evolved from," and "all," there is really no difference between my proposed statement and the existing one in the text. So no changes were made. danielkueh (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

[0] See List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.

[1] As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. Earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." See also Public beliefs about evolution and creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995. for a discussion on acceptance of evolution.

[OriginOfWhales-2] The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

[3] Dobzhansky T, Pavlovsky O (1971). "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila". Nature 230 (5292): 289–292. doi:10.1038/230289a0. PMID 5549403.

[Hillis92-4] DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux (1992). "Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny". Science 255 (5044): 589–592. doi:10.1126/science.1736360. PMID 1736360. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/255/5044/589.

[Crandall94-5] Crandall, K. (1994). "Intraspecific cladogram estimation: Accuracy at higher levels of divergence". Systematic Biology 43 (2): 222–235. http://crandalllab.byu.edu/accuracySB94.pdf.

[6] Gates, Reginald Ruggles (September 1909). "The Behavior of the Chromosomes in Oenothera lata x O. gigas". Botanical Gazette 48 (3): 179–199. doi:10.1086/329990. JSTOR 2467513.

[7] Herrel, A.; Huyghe, K.; Vanhooydonck, B.; Backeljau, T.; Breugelmans, K.; Grbac, I.; Van Damme, R.; Irschick, D. J. (2008). "Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (12): 4792–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711998105. PMC 2290806. PMID 18344323. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2290806.

[8] Cressey, Daniel (2009). "Darwin's finches tracked to reveal evolution in action". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2009.1089.

[9] Byrne, Katharine & Nichols, Richard A., Heredity January 1999, Volume 82, Number 1, Pages 7-15 doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6884120

[10] Hunt, Kathleen (1997). Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. TalkOrigins Archive.

[11] Elsberry, Wesley R. (1998). Missing links still missing!?

[crutch-12] Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions

[13] Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

[14] Isaak, Mark (2005). Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CB200: Irreducible complexity. TalkOrigins Archive.

[15] Robison, Keith (1996). Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?. TalkOrigins Archive.

[16] Musgrave, Ian & Baldwin, Rich, et al (2005). Information Theory and Creationism. TalkOrigins Archive.

[17] "Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug". New Mexicans for Science and Reason. http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

Talk:Evolution

Contents

[edit] Al-Jahiz

[edit] Why is there any mention of Intelligent design?

[edit] FAQ nominated for deletion

[edit] Sidebar on top

[edit] First line of second paragraph in the intro

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

Actions

Search

Navigation

Interaction

Toolbox

Print/export

	This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Susan Kruglinski (2006-07-02). "Map: Evolution Evolving". Discover (magazine). http://discovermagazine.com/2006/jul/evolutionmap/. Michael Booth (2007-04-30). "Grading Wikipedia". Denver Post. http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_5786064.

Archives (Index)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62

Threads older than 15 days may be archived by MiszaBot I.