User talk:UseYourGreymatter

Talk: Evolution of the horse

Please do not use talkpages to promote fringe points of view, or personal opinions, like you are trying to do in Talk:Evolution of the horse. Please see [1]--Mr Fink (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Since a list of citations questioning the Evolution of the horse was deleted [2] by Apokryltaros at Talk:Evolution of the horse with the explanation that it is a soapbox with personal opinions, it will be appreciated if:

The the applicable 'personal opinion(s)' can be quoted (as none was made, only citations were quoted)?
The term(s) at WP:SOAPS can be quoted along with the offending 'personal opinion'?
It can be explained how the deletion contributes towards the Wikipedia:Fringe theories guidelines?
It can be explained which citation(s) is in contravention of Wikipedia:Verifiability and why?

The fact that the youngest citations are around 18 years old does have a bearing, strong suggesting that they are all woefully out of date, as well as strongly suggesting that you have not taken the time to read any of the current scientific literature about horse evolution (which states that horse evolution is "in a bush, not a straight line"). Furthermore, the extreme brevity of the quotes you've provided suggest that they have been taken out of context in order to suggest that they are saying that (horse) evolution did not occur, period.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's the problem of how the citations you've given sound suspiciously similar to the quotemines and falsehoods recycled by creationists (including the claim that "modern" horses were found beneath primitive horses, therefore evolution is (allegedly) false).--Mr Fink (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reply by Mr Fink does not address the questions above and is just a display of prejudice with a personal attack: "...you have not taken the time to read any of the current scientific literature about horse evolution". Furthermore remarks like "falsehoods recycled by creationists" does not contribute anything constructive to the discussion as the same can be said about any religion including Evolutionism (The religious belief in evolutionary hypothesis without scientific substantiation eg. Big Bang Theory).

The Evolution of the horse article has several problems and will be rejected if reviewed by objective scientists, yet it is guarded religiously by a few people. The least that should be done to maintain the objectivity of the article, is to allow criticism of this hypothesis to be included in the article.

Just to be clear, the big bang theory and the Theory of Evolution are two very different concepts. The Theory of Evolution is not a religion any more then the theory of gravity or Atomic theory is.--Kev min § 00:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanisms of Evolution

Scientific evolution is not a haphazard undefined process. Science requires a mechanism for evolutionary processes otherwise it is a hypothesis and purely speculative in nature as it cannot be demonstrated. Scientific articles often fail to draw a clear distinction between evolution (the creation new genetic information) and speciation (the creation of a new species within a genotype), although it should because different mechanisms are at work to produce different results.

Genotype

All genetic options for the offspring of living organisms are present in the parent’s genotype. The only natural mechanism for changes to the genotype of offspring is mutation and it happens rarely and by chance. However not all genetic options are expressed in the offspring, although expressions can be influenced by environmental conditions.

Phenotype

The phenotype relates to the physical appearance off the offspring. Genetic drift and natural selection only operates at the level of the phenotype and not at the level of the genotype. Therefore genetic drift and natural selection can only account for speciation within a specific genotype and not for evolution from one genotype to another.

Evolution vs Speciation

Genetic drift and natural selection is therefore not a key mechanism of evolution, but rather it is a key mechanism of speciation within a genotype. Speciation can thus occur relatively fast. Mutation operates at the level of the genotype and can therefore account for evolution, however in nature it is rare and mostly consist of a scrambling of existing genetic information. In genetic sciences, heredity can therefore be traced back to a common ancestor within the same family tree over hundreds of years despite different races or breeds of offspring.

Why the Evolution Theory is Flawed

If Evolution is True:

Harmful Mutation as only Mechanism

Other than mutation, what other mechanisms are there for evolution if evolution can only occur at the level of the genotype and not at the level of the phenotype? Genetic drift is clearly just a variation in the expression of existing genes and natural selection can only eliminate what is already there.

Complexity of Design

Considering the complexity of body-parts of every living being, it is clear that it requires several genes before a body-part can perform its function; for example the human eye or the wing of a bird. Where did all the genes come from for the body-part and why will the all the right genes evolve in collaboration to create a complex body part which is useless on its own?

January 2015

Hello, I'm Haminoon. Your recent edit to the page Boer appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Haminoon (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See response User Talk:Haminoon - Boervolk