Talk:Flock of Dodos

Evolutionary famous dodo

Can you say 'evolutionary famous dodo'? This seems to me to be bad grammar, but 'evolutionarily famous,' while more correct, has the wrong meaning. I didn't change this piddling little detail b/c I thought that perhaps I don't know of some special scientific use of this form of the word! Oh, the details we obsessive editors obsess about! Hazelii 05:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations

We need to put in more citations. This is a good citation link from the paragraph on Haeckel's embryos. http://designparadigm.googlepages.com/haeckel William2233 02:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Added citations. William2233 03:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphan Pages

Since I added links to this page in all the pages that referred to Flock of Dodos, I took off the orphan marker.William2233 02:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hacked-up sentence

What is this sentence supposed to be saying:

The film attempts to determine who the real "dodos" are in a constantly evolving world: the mainstream scientists who are failing to promote evolution as a scientifically accepted fact, the intelligent design advocates who, to other scientists, or the American public who get fooled by the slick salesmanship of the Discovery Institute.

There seems to be something missing in the "who, to other scientists" area. Once upon a time it said 'are known as "dodos."' there, but that does not seem appropriate. I'd edit it myself, but I haven't seen the movie to be able to rephrase this authoritatively.

Kevinwparker 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's true -- the sentence doesn't make sense. I'll fix it as I've watched it. William2233 21:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I would say that PZ Meyers comment doesn't really belong to the criticism section, as he's not really criticizing the film. Having watched the film and looked at the textbooks myself, it's obvious that it's an error. If we feel it's very necessary then we can make another section called "Response to Criticism", but that would look kind of silly (imho).William2233 04:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

---

On the contrary, Meyers quote restores some neutrality to the article, after the extremely biased two paragraphs in the criticism section posted there by the Discovery Institute. If anything, the entire criticism section should be removed, as it tries to make a controversy appear where, for the most part, none exists. Abdul Muhib

Nonsense, Abdul. :-) The Discovery Institute didn't put it there. I put a lot of the synopsis and the criticism there after having watched the movie and seen the textbooks myself. You're right -- the goal is to have a neutral, informative and factual article. I finally took Meyer's quote out because in the Criticism section doesn't really seem the place for one blogger's opinion in favor of the movie. We could consider including it in a "Bloggers Reactions", but I'm not sure how useful and informative that would be.William2233 16:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

---

The criticism section currently does not accurately represent Flock of Dodos and (at least one of) the textbooks on the point of Haeckel's embryos. Flock of Dodos basically (and correctly) states that if Haeckel is present in a modern textbook, it is as a historical footnote with appropriate criticism. I have Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology" 3rd edition (a text in the criticism section) in my lap as I write this, and it does mention Haeckel on pages 652-653 and follows this pattern. After briefly introducing the topic it sums up Haeckel's views as "...an individual successively passes through the adult forms of all its ancestors, from the very origin of the first cell to the present." While in the next paragraph it is stated that "But by the end of the nineteenth century, it was already clear that the law rather seldom holds. The real development of organisms differs in several improtant ways from Haeckel's simple scheme..." followed by specific criticisms. The segment ends with "There are, to be sure, many cases in which certain features of an ancestor are recapitulated in the ontogeny of a descendent; for example, the metatarsals of a bird, as we saw above, at first develop separately (the ancestral condition) before becoming fused together. Still, the biogenetic law is honored more often in the breach than in the observance, and it is certainly not an infallible guide to phylogenetic history." I don't have access to the other texts, but biology textbooks I do have either don't mention Haeckel at all or are similarly critical, a point ignored in the criticism section. A rebuttal to the criticism section would be informative by accurately portraying Flock of Dodos and modern textbooks on the matter, and at the same time correcting a popular misconception about Haeckel's role in biology. Danst 01:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I tried to fix it, but I'm not very good at stuff like that. If you can do a better job go for it.--TheAlphaWolf 01:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

As there have been blatant attempts to disrupt Wikipedia neutrality on this article, where editing to restore neutrality is simply completely removed and restored to the original biased form, recommend editing of this article be disabled to new and unregistered users. If it continues recommend editing be restricted further to remove the possibility of an edit war. Abdul Muhib

Abdul, I'm afraid it's you who have been continuingly trying to disrupt Wikipedia neutrality. If you have any changes you would like to make, please put them on the talk page first.William2233 22:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed 'signficant to your 'some' because that seemed like a legitimate npov issue. Your other edits to me don't seem to change npov but do effect the accuracy of the article. That's why I reverted them back. Have you watched the movie?William2233 22:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that ID proponents are either deliberately or accidentally omitting the part of the film where Olson states the context in which Haeckel's drawings could be found. William, do you acknowledge this?--Eloquence* 09:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Eloquence, I've watched the film and I remember him saying very clearly that Haeckel's drawings could not be found in any old textbooks. They do not just appear as an historical footnote, but as a present day fact. See the Biology of the Cell book published in 1994. Olson himself admitted that he had made an error. (See here: http://www.idthefuture.com/2007/02/flock_of_dodos_filmmaker_admit.html)William2233 16:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Gould say in Abscheulich! (Atrocious!)(Natural History, 2000, vol. 109, issue 2, p 42, ISSN 00280712.):

"We should therefore not be surprised that Haeckel's drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks! Michael Richardson, of the St. George's Hospital Medical School in London, a colleague who deserves nothing but praise for directing attention to this old issue, wrote to me (letter of August 16, 1999):

If so many historians knew all about the old controversy [over Haeckel's falsified drawings], then why did they not communicate this information to the numerous contemporary authors who use the Haeckel drawings in their books? I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically. I think this is the most important question to come out of the whole story. "

I think you have to agree Gould is not part of the Discovery Institute.William2233 16:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

William, this is now a second revert in 24 hours, by you. It is a revert by you, because I made the changes to reflect neutrality, and you completely removed my changes the first time, and mostly the second time. I have not only watched the movie, I have spoken personally with the director. In truth, the criticisms listed here are incredibly trivial, as Olson has stated, and are held by a small minority- namely the Discovery Institute, who posts their criticisms on their site, which your initial post nearly copied word for word. Personally, I think the criticisms shouldn't even be listed, as so few people are actually making them, though there is a concerted effort to make it *appear* like it is a big controversy. But in pursuit of Neutrality, I think they should be left up- but with accurate references. DI objects to Olson's stating that the embryos don't appear in any modern books, but as others have state here, Olson never says that in the film. He refers to the caveat of historical examples. Secondly the DI objects to his saying their budget is 5 million, when in truth it is 4.2, with 1 million spent on ID. This compares with the entire budget for the equivalent NCSE organization of 650,000, of which a small portion is spent on evolution. Therefore to compare like figures, the 4.2 million is the important one, and should be highlighted first. Abdul Muhib

I haven't been following this argument much, but I think Eloquence is right. His last version was far more eloquently put (pun intended? lol) than the previous version. That's why I reverted to his version. The other version doesn't flow very well. As for the neutrality issue, neutrality is not about allowing people to blatantly lie or distort facts. The criticisms should be mentioned, but if there is a counter criticism IT should be mentioned as well. I think Eloquence's version does this. William, this discussion doesn't involve very many people but you're clearly in the minority. Therefore I think that for now, we should leave Eloquence's version and if you want to radically change it you should discuss it in the talk page before making any changes. Otherwise it might be considered vandalism. --TheAlphaWolf 17:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and William, you said

I finally took Meyer's quote out because in the Criticism section doesn't really seem the place for one blogger's opinion in favor of the movie. We could consider including it in a "Bloggers Reactions", but I'm not sure how useful and informative that would be

I don't know if you still think that, I guess not since you thanked me for the link to his post, but I'll beat the dead horse anyway and say that he is an associate professor at UMM and has a PhD. in developmental biology. Therefore the way he said it is irrelevant (ie. in his blog), he still has every qualification to be a source and to be quoted in the article. --TheAlphaWolf 17:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Establishment v. Consensus

It highlights the debate between proponents of the concept of intelligent design and the scientific consensus/establishment that supports evolution.

I have reverted to consensus rather than establishment, since the former is far more accurate. In the two decades since creation science was rebranded as intelligent design, millions of papers have been published in the field of biology that accept the dominant evolutionary paradigm. Even if you count creationist "journals" like PCID, it's still a 1-in-a-million that does not use an evolutionary framework. Thus "consensus" is far more accurate than "establishment". Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How about majority, I agree that establishment is a bad phrase, don't know what I was thinking. Are we all on all the ID articles or something. I know were all members of the project but, it seems like we can't get enough of each other. I have to go to articles like Tampa Bay Rays to get a break. Well, I'll look on the bright side. We know each other better than most people that have only met online. Saksjn (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Majority is also somewhat misleading, since 50% + 1 is a majority. Guettarda (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Large majority? Saksjn (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Grammar?

From the article: "Biologist PZ Myers responded to the institute's "bogus complaint that Olson was lying in the movie" about Ernst Haeckel's drawings of embryos is false."

I don't understand this. Maybe the intended meaning is that Meyers responded that the complaint is false? Would somebody who's familiar with the matter please fix the grammar? 173.66.1.39 (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)