User talk:Z1nemo

Talk pages

Please to sign your talk with four tildes: "~~~~" Replies in threads go under the person's talk that you are replying to. Format and indent to maintain readability. See Wikipedia:Indentation, help:talk pages, and wp:talk page guidelines Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW: No need to add the [[user:z1nemo]] and the four tildes. The latter will add a link to your user page, your talk page, and a time stamp. Jim1138 (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Jim! My Wiki formatting skills are less than optimal. I'll Keep that in mind in the future. Z1nemo (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Please refrain from using talk pages such as evolution for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. McSly (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

That's what I started the conversation about, improving an article about a scientific theory to avoid statements which could mislead people. I trust you have posted an identical message to everyone involved. user:z1nemo21:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Kent Hovind/ICR/Discovery Institute/AnswersInGenesis aren't valid sources. You aren't here to have a real discussion; you are here to spew literalist biblical creationism and vandalize the Evolution page with Hovindian nonsense. Wikipedia is not the place for such shenanigans. Please refrain from trying to make it your personal screed against the fact of evolution. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I don't recognize anything on your lovely reading list - I'm guessing it must have taken you a little too long to finish up "Answers in Genesis" since it is quite clear that you didn't bother to read anything that I actually wrote or referenced. Case in point: I certainly didn't say anything related to... "Answers in Genesis?" Where did you establish even the remotest tangential connection there? Oh, mystery. Perhaps in a bid to demonstrate the untold promise of your roots you suddenly divert full reactor capacity to FTL and set off for the galaxy center, deep into the twilight zone. Knight of BAAWA "Kent Hovind/ICR/Discovery Institute/AnswersInGenesis aren't valid sources. You aren't here to have a real discussion; you are here to spew literalist biblical creationism and vandalize the Evolution page with Hovindian nonsense." I don't think that you're likely to understand this but here goes: All I wanted was for the subject to be addressed correctly and in much the same way as virtually every well-established and respected reference already does. Assignment of value to information based on personal prejudice has no place in reference materials. Wikipedia is actually extremely important to me, and I find it to be pretty distressing when people use it as a platform to reinforce their own notions about the world and then spout nonsense affirming that "consensus of the experts" establishes something as fact. You know: those experts who were in total agreement that the world was flat, the earth was at the center of the universe, the immediate odor of necrosis post-surgery was a testament to the surgeon's skill and the Mach barrier would never be broken. Those kind of experts. No matter that the entire concept amounts to a comically classic and crystal clear example of the Agreement Fallacy (Argumentum ad populum... In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so.") However since you clearly didn't read anything I said about the issue and elected to come bother me here for some unknown reason with bizarre claims about random seemingly unrelated religious dogmas whose bearing on the structural changes I suggested is thus far a complete and total mystery. Do you even know what the changes I suggested were? Doubtless no. You did make sure to do a thorough job of being arrogant, pompous and accusatory whilst stretching your vocabulary to the absolute limit to prove how smart you can make yourself feel. You also managed to make a few decidedly wobbly grammatical choices in the process, but whatever gets you warm and fuzzy, champ. And last but not least... Hovindian? Wow. You got that straight from a Google search about your beloved "creation science" stuff which you keep telling me about! I ran across the same page, even featuring the very same wording on copies that others had likewise plagiarized, Hovindian and all! Naughy naughty, you've gotta properly credit the words of others. Sadly I never was able to develop a solid foundation of understanding concerning this attraction/fixation you have with Senor Hovind. Finally you close it out by proudly trumpeting about "The Fact of Evolution." Here we go again. I'm just going to copy/paste this -

Evolution As Fact and Theory

Evolutionary biologist Kirk J. Fitzhugh[39] writes that scientists must be cautious to "carefully and correctly" describe the nature of scientific investigation at a time when evolutionary biology is under attack from creationists and proponents of intelligent design. Fitzhugh writes that while facts are states of being in nature, theories represent efforts to connect those states of being by causal relationships: "'Evolution' cannot be both a theory and a fact. Theories are concepts stating cause–effect relations. Regardless of one's certainty as to the utility of a theory to provide understanding, it would be epistemically incorrect to assert any theory as also being a fact, given that theories are not objects to be discerned by their state of being." Fitzhugh recognizes that the "theory" versus "fact" debate is one of semantics. He nevertheless contends that referring to evolution as a "fact" is technically incorrect and distracts from the primary "goal of science, which is to continually acquire causal understanding through the critical evaluation of our theories and hypotheses." Fitzhugh concludes that any "certainty" in regards to evolution still "provides no basis for elevating any evolutionary theory or hypothesis to the level of fact."[40]

See where I'm going with this? Evolution is a Theory - That is what I corrected in my edit. Ok? That's all I did. It's a theory - you know, like the big bang theory, the theory of relativity, you know... that "Science Stuff." I even described it as "well supported!" For some reason that doesn't seem to be good enough for militant evolutionists (regardless of the fact that theories are often described as the "crown jewels of science." I guess their lack of understanding about the scientific method means they think that it's an insult to describe evolution as anything other than set in stone: kinda like the ten commandments I guess... seems like the evolution Nazis have a lot more in common with your wacky "Hovindians" than they probably want to admit. Either way, you might consider refraining from making wild unsubstantiated accusations towards others based on what you've decided they must think about a subject without ever bothering to read their words. Peace & Love dude.

Remember: if 4 out of 5 dentists agree... then the most important thing is immediately ensuring that swift and acrimonious measures are taken to punish, discredit and alienate that 5th dentist for unabashedly arriving at a different conclusion. Z1nemo (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

That's really nice. However, it's clear that: 1. You're a literalist biblical creationist. 2. You have no idea what a theory in science is. 3. Gravity is both theory (quantum theory of gravity) and fact (warpage of spacetime around matter so that, in layman's terms: things fall), so clearly something can be both theory and fact. 4. Theory does not mean guess. 5. Theory does not mean hypothesis. 6. Theory does not mean "something you dreamt up while watching clouds when you were 10". 7. You aren't going to change the consensus of biology as a whole by editing wikipedia. 8. You're taking a page from one or more of the sites/people I mentioned.

To sum up: your attempt to fool with your denials won't fly. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you continue to return and make assumptions about my personal beliefs. I don't know who Kent Hovind/ICR/Discovery Institute/AnswersInGenesis are. You seem to be more interested in them than I am. Since in your tiny world anyone that doesn't spout exactly what you believe cannot be valid sources, then throw them on the pile I suppose. But here we go, one more time and from YOUR source: "Regardless of one's certainty as to the utility of a theory to provide understanding, it would be epistemically incorrect to assert any theory as also being a fact, given that theories are not objects to be discerned by their state of being." - Evolutionary biologist Kirk J. You make a wonderfully self-important troll. Now kindly return to your parent's basement where you belong. Z1nemo (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

And oh, by the way:

At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference.

"As can be noted from the listed principles, current evolutionary theory is predominantly oriented towards a genetic explanation of variation, and, except for some minor semantic modifications, this has not changed over the past seven or eight decades. Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings, concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of those mentioned among the explanatory goals above. The theory performs well with regard to the issues it concentrates on, providing testable and abundantly confirmed predictions on the dynamics of genetic variation in evolving populations, on the gradual variation and adaptation of phenotypic traits, and on certain genetic features of speciation. If the explanation would stop here, no controversy would exist. But it has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior — whose variation it describes — actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences."

Hovidian nonsense, huh? And notice how he refers to evolution as "theory." Wonder why that is? Hmmmm...

The bottom line is that there are gaping holes in evolutionary biology that folks like you like to pretend don't exist. And please. I don't want to hear anything about the book of genesis. Please. Please. Please. Z1nemo (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

2nd "oh by the way" gravity in your words as: (warpage of spacetime around matter so that, in layman's terms: things fall) is about as far from "fact" as you can possibly get. I guess physics isn't your strong suit. Z1nemo (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

EvolutionNews is not a reliable source, especially about biology. Wikipedia is not for soapboxing or to promote pseudoscience. I also recommend reading Talk:Evolution/FAQ, scientific method, scientific theory, evolution as fact and theory, evidence of common descent. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying that the transcript is incorrect? Or... ? Z1nemo (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

How about nature? Z1nemo (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The Atlantic? Z1nemo (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I could go on, but would be wasting time and effort on zealots. My point from the beginning is that the theory of evolution is debatable, imperfect and incomplete. You and your kind do a disservice to readers by enforcing a one-sided illusion of evolution as a "perfect fact." It is not. You are all essentially lying and accuse anyone who dissents your views as being "Hovidian psuedoscientists." Refusal to consider another viewpoint does not make it disappear. Z1nemo (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

References

This is not what those articles are about (that evolution stands on thin ice). No biologist would say that natural selection is the only mechanism in evolution, deny that some aspects are less understood than others or pretend that the theory and knowledge will not keep improving. Sciences tend to converge, precisely because they are focused on studying and explaining aspects of the world (i.e. the modern synthesis was itself a result of this, today we have the development of evodevo, etc). Those are not alternatives to evolution but continued development. In any case, what matters for article content is not editor point of view, but what reliable mainstream sources say. This also means that articles must avoid original research and the promotion of non-notable material (even scientific; Wikipedia is not where such research takes place). We do have an extended evolutionary synthesis article, by the way (what The Atlantic article is about). —PaleoNeonate – 12:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

What is bothersome is wording/syntax which continuously uses very absolute terminology in the discussion/explanation of issues that are very far from closed. Keeping in mind the goal of making information on the site consistently comprehensible and accessible to the majority of readers, it seems pretty clear that we are doing them a disservice by dressing an extremely speculative and disputed topic in robes of certainty. Simply dismissing this concern by throwing wild accusations about Christian Fundamentalism (which was actually pretty funny) does nothing to change the fact that the chasm that separates our Wiki article from those in other established references on the same topic is wide and deep. It does nothing to lend credibility to the platform and will cause damage as knowledge accrues and theories evolve over time. When claims that were referred to in certain terms are altered or proven completely false, it becomes a black eye for the published references that hailed them as absolute.

Example: Eyeless fish in caves - It has been demonstrated that the loss of Ocular organs in cave fish is probably not an example of traditional evolution, but rather epigenetics.(Since this is a talk page entry, I will skip the reference) Publications that previously reported this as bedrock are discredited.

I would like to see Wikipedia as a strong and respected reference. I feel that this can be achieved by setting aside bias and respecting uncertainty. That's it.Z1nemo (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)