User talk:Orangemarlin/Evolution-Creation Discussions 2

Rough draft of article on creationist organization

Please look at it and give me your comments: User talk:Filll/AllAboutGod--Filll 03:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Evolution/Gene flow

I've made a start, I have =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Religous Perspectives on Dinosaurs: Kinds disagreement

OrangeMarlin and Rossnixon. I would like the two of your to file a RfC (Request for Comment) over your ongoing mini revert war. [Requests_for_comment] explains what is necessary. This article need work done on it. The revert war is draining scare resources. My guess is that a RfC will lead to a quick resolution. SmithBlue 03:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not going to waste my time with this. It's one word, he's violating NPOV, and I'm not going to worry about. Pathetic. Orangemarlin 05:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed it anyway.--Filll 23:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good to see the two of you communicating - I suggeszt that in future you both limit yourselves to 1 revert and then discuss or request comment. SmithBlue 03:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Lots of users chat about ideas on each others pages. Sigh. Orangemarlin 08:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Darwin Fish UBX

Hope you don't mind but I came across your evolution support userbox and mercilessly copy and pasted it into my user page. Nice job on it, BTW... Katalaveno^T_C 15:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmm.... Intelligent design... don't get me started! Thanks for the response; I'm glad you feel honoured... BTW - if you are like minded, as I am guessing you are, may I suggest a great book if you have not already read it? The Demon-Haunted World Amazing read. Katalaveno^T_C 17:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolution: Controversy WIP

Please comment at Talk:Evolution#Controversy (2) and especially at Talk:Evolution/WIP. Thanks, Gnixon 16:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for responding. I must say, I'm a little surprised you seem defensive enough of a section you don't like to revert changes!  ;-) I hope you'll keep an eye on that subpage and continue to offer your input. Gnixon 18:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution comment

---

Hi Orangemarlin... I'm not really a Wikipedia'er... I've just taught Evolution in Universities for several years (and used to TA with Steve Gould at Harvard), and so I was just idly trying to improve this article -- which could use a lot of improvement, but that's just my opinion. Since it is clear that there is a lot of bureaucracy/political difficulty making changes to this article (which seems to be watchdogged by people who might not be the best informed to do so?) -- perhaps I ought to not get involved.

However, I will note that there is nothing "creationist" about the term "biological evolution" (to distinguish it from other things that evolve, such as galaxies) -- and furthermore, natural selection *is* a self-evident process in the sense that variation + heritability + superfecundity + survival of only select individuals *necessarily leads to* perpetuation and an increase in the frequency of the heritable traits that were selected.

>>>Finally, it is perfectly acceptable to say "theory of evolution" or "evolutionary theory", in the same way it is acceptable to say "number theory" or "atomic theory". To scientists the word theory does not equal the word hypothesis -- this is why we say Evolution is a theory AND it is a fact, and this is a topic that might be fleshed out a bit.

I also think the adaptationist angle on the Evolution page is a bit extreme. A great deal of evolutionary change has nothing at all to do with "adaptation", strictly defined.

Anyway... I ought not get involved with this, since I don't have a lot of time for the chit-chat, but I am more than willing to help with the article if you'd like. I teach Evolution on a near daily-basis to undergraduate biology majors, and I have for years now. Kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandaclair (talk • contribs) 18:47, March 26, 2007

---

Hi Orangemarlin. Thanks for your comments and help. I hope that anything I may have said or contributed on the Evolution Talk page can be useful to the article. However, as a result of what I view as a somewhat uncalled-for tirade on my UserTalk page by one of the active editors on the article, I have decided to withdraw my participation in this process. It is just too difficult and time-consuming to sort through all of the complicated etiquette, protocol, and much worse now -- drama -- that I now understand why there is not more of a professional presence on Wikipedia. At this point, if you decide you'd like any further help or assistance on the article, feel free to e-mail me directly. Kind regards, Mandaclair 18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Neocreationism

The first few edits were because I felt the "abrupt appearance theory" was non-notable and another name for ID. The current edit is because the source which is referenced states, "Subsequently, antievolutionism has evolved into new forms which are characterized by the avoidance of any variant of the "c word"; phrases like "intelligent design theory", or "abrupt appearance theory" are used instead of "creation science", "creationism", and related terms." This has nothing to do about the two views being "most recognized" and the "abrupt appearance theory" is certainly not "most recognized" in the US given there are only 479 ghits for the phrase. Sorry for any confusion. Pbarnes 17:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So this is just another attempt by the creationists to invent a term so that it confuses the discussion. I'm on board then. I never heard of it, until I was watching this article. Orangemarlin 17:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Intelligent design movement. Guettarda 18:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: discussion and consensus can lead to knowledge:

Absolutely. But I can bet that while you were sitting around having those discussions, you were talking about the *separation column*, and not arguing about how you were going to decide who was going to operate it, and who wasn't going to operate it, and how one person built the column one way but it didn't satisfy everyone and so we had it destroyed (several times), and what the politically correct etiquette of protein fractionation is, and a lengthy explanation of the controversy behind all that etiquette, its history, and all the etiquette mistakes that were ever made in the field of protein fractionation, accompanied by hyper-linked references to the online protein fractionation manual of protocol (also impossibly dense), and peppered with all conceivable kinds of passive-aggressive, nonprofessional and nonacademic drama that didn't get anyone anywhere. Nope, my guess is that you discussed, kept *on topic*, and finally -- *took action* and built the thing, did your work, and moved on. Question: now that I've followed protocol and taken many suggestions to the Evolution Talk page, how does the "consensus" and "progress" process unfold now, resulting in a constructive edit to the article that won't immediately be reverted? THAT is the part of Wikipedia protocol I would be interested in witnessing, in action. Thanks,Mandaclair 00:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"Teaching your grandmother to suck eggs" :)

[1] :) Guettarda 06:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with Evolution

Hi Orangemarlin. Just wanted you to know that I got fed up with Gnixon as well, and finally threw my hands into the air and left the Evolution article too. Wikipedia, in my general assessment, can be pretty damn ridiculous. The furthest thing from an intellectual, academic, or educational pursuit I can imagine! Anyway, my regards, Mandaclair 23:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Note how Gnixon archives parts of the article with discussions that may offend him and only him. But he lives in Creationist POV discussion as is. I intensely dislike his continued "policing" of the articles. He seems to derive some pleasure from using the factoring (I think that's what it's called) of the article, as if he and only he knows what's best. As for a number of articles on here dealing with Evolution and Creationism (including the Intelligent Design article), they have been corrupted and weakened by the POV pushers. It's interesting, I worked on the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article, and I actually work with some of the more religious editors in making it a very good article. There are some sectional problems that need to be fixed, but otherwise a couple of the "creationist" editors have worked very closely in developing it. We have argued about things, but in the end we developed a NPOV that is both accurate and meets the needs of the reader. I once was shocked to see one of those editors revert a very POV edit that actually made the article more religious, but also more POV. Historically, the Evolution article was written over time with a lot of input from many different POV's--it used to be very well written, and was a featured article once. Now, it has been damaged by certain individuals trying to force a religious POV on the article. I'm hoping some of the stronger willed editors will come back. You should hang in there. Orangemarlin 09:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You should come back. Your past contributions were good ones. It's hard sometimes to fight for intellectual integrity and fend off the agendas and rhetoric, but it's a worthy battle. TxMCJ 19:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

your edits to United States National Academy of Sciences

You don't seem to be a new user so I assume that you are not just trying to vandalize the article. It would be more productive if you participated in the discussion on the talk page for United States National Academy of Sciences rather than deleting sections of the article off hand. Kborer 17:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll be interested in your comment: the sources presented are inadequate for the claim of "criticism". By the way, the discussions on ID look interesting. .. dave souza, talk 18:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin: if you would, please have a look at the talk page for Evolution now. Things got a bit out of hand there today and I felt compelled to post something that was difficult, but I felt, necessary. I am sure that holy hellfire will rain upon me for it, but sometimes a person just has to do what she feels is right. Hope you come back around someday, TxMCJ 03:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have. A certain editor keeps factoring or archiving discussions that are essentially opposed to his own. Amusing POV. Orangemarlin 09:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean about POV refactoring... he did it again today, where someone posted a question about "scientific controversy", and he left that posting and archived the response. Then he tried to justify this by the fact that exactly one person agreed to a format where the "original comment is left, and the rest is archived" -- when in fact, I doubt that one person fully understood the potential abuse of that system. TxMCJ 19:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I am currently trying to address this on the article talk page -- making sure that things get archived and factored objectively and consistently, with no POV pushing either way. Could be a losing battle with Gnixon, but I'm trying. TxMCJ 20:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're doing, but have you seen what he's doing lately? He has redesigned the whole Evolution article to meet his needs. Maybe he thinks he has some sort of tacit support. I don't know. I'm watching. But unless some of the other editors jump in, I don't know if we can save the article from this religious POV attack. Orangemarlin 22:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There are some good voices there -- Graft and Silence and GetAgrippa, and Filll still checks in from time to time. I am there trying to at least keep the conversations intellectual rather than rhetorical. Come back and join in again, orange -- majority consensus will prevail. Also: I daresay that the bold thing to do is just for one of us to just go ahead and edit the article to one of the more academic formats suggested by Silence or me or others, and simply refuse to allow POV-centered edits to the article to stand. Remember my long-standing complaint: how all of this roundabout discussion on the "talk" page really results in very little progress at the end of the day (which may in fact be the clever-but-not-invisible intentions of a certain editor), but the important thing is the article itself. If Gnixon wants to hinder the process by micromanaging the "talk" page and mixing up issues with intent and rhetoric and tangents, then let him have that little party. None of those suggestions are likely to culminate in anything meaningful, or gain much support. Then the rest of us can edit the actual article itself, which is really all that matters. TxMCJ 00:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

evolution

Hi. I am going to modify my comments on the evo talk page. I honestly think that your specific interactions with Gnixon over evolution as theory were trollish but I cannot and didn't mean to make any larger comment about your involvement in the article or you personally, and I apologize for my impatience and intemperance. About evolution being a theory - it is a theory. It is also a fact, but it is a theory. I understand entirely your frustration with people who think that theory = opinion. However, I am absolutely certain that the proper response is not to say that evolution is not a theory, but rather, to explain that theory is not the same as opinion. I think you are right that "theory of evolution" is used differently from "theory of gravity" but we have to insist that people use the word theory correctly, and be consistent in telling people they are wrong when they misuse it. The article has gone through many changes and I always thought a clear explanation of "theory" should be included ... right now I think it is in a spin-off article on misconceptions or FAQs. As to Gnixon - I have not observed him or her enough to make any general comments, but I have seen her make informed edits concerning science. In any event, whatever agenda she may/may not have, she is right to call evolution a theory. If you had criticized her for saying evolution is therefore not a fact, or that theory means opinion, I would have taken your side instantly but my reading of the argument (admittedly, a hasty one) is that she was simply saying evolution is a theory. Well, I will go over the discussion again. Thanks for contacting me. peace, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I found it and made a change. Gnixon explicitly stated that evolution is also a fact. You ask me what could you do differently. All I can say is: especially when you have finely-tuned sensitivities (e.g. to creationists), bend over backwards to assume good faith at leat by reading what someone says carefully and be willing to take it at face value. This is hard advice to follow because I often over-react myself. But in at least this one exchange with Gnixon I think you overreacted. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My unsolicited 2 cents is that I agree with orangemarlin that there appear to be some subtle agendas at play here, and that much of Gnixon's suggestions often seem to be guided by a (perhaps unconscious and unintentional) attempt to make the article "more acceptable" to creationists. For example, creationsists love to incant "evolution is *only* a theory" over and over and over again. And whereas it is true that evolution is a scientific theory, it's not always clear whether Gnixon stresses that point for the sake of being intellectually complete, or because he knows that many readers with other beliefs or agendas would really like to see such a statement (which they do not really understand), top-center and first-foremost in the article. Sure, anyone can click to the FAQ and see the word "theory" defined, but I believe Gnixon knows that most readers won't do that, (and this is also the logic behind some of the POV-biased archiving and factoring strategies he takes.) It is possible that I am way off target with this, but that is, I believe, much of where orangemarlin's objections may come from. TxMCJ 22:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, you are indeed way off target. Gnixon 22:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have avoided your POV editing with a passion. I don't want to see your commentary on my personal page. Orangemarlin 22:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And to add, with all due respect to G: anyone clearly and admittedly grounded in a POV that involves any doubt or disbelief about a certain topic (and worse: very little sound knowledge or background in that topic) has NO BUSINESS editing a scientific or informational article about that topic. I don't believe in the little gnomes and fairy-folk of Scandinavia, but I am not over at those pages monopolizing the talk pages and cluttering the airwaves because of it, while maintaining a false guise of belief and good faith. Not trying to launch an attack, G., but I just haven't the foggiest idea what on earth someone with your background is doing trying to take a lead on the Evolution page if it's not based on some agenda. It's not clear that your intent is based on knowledge, or a sincere intent to write a scientifically accurate and educationally valuable article. TxMCJ 00:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, OM, I've no desire to communicate with either of you, but I will answer lies. The paranoid are welcome to accuse me of being some deep-under-cover creationist with a hidden agenda, but I've certainly never "admitted" any such thing. Gnixon 04:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So I guess you're a psychiatrist too. Wow, I didn't know that!!!! Orangemarlin 04:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Gnixon, are you denying being a creationist? Before you answer too quickly, you might want to read John 18:27... the Big Man's always listening, you know... TxMCJ 10:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"cricket, cricket..." TxMCJ 19:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And hey OM, have you seen how Silence is pulling his hair out about this now as well? Check out this little gem he posted to Gnixon today: "The thing I understand least about this entire exchange is how you can so consistently and unwaveringly misrepresent what everyone else wants. It shouldn't even be possible to misunderstand what structure people are advocating or trying out, when those people have explicitly listed their entire article layout proposals in ToC form!" And there's more... it's rich, man, really rich. TxMCJ 08:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation templates

Hey OM, where the heck are the instructions for naming a reference for later use in the same article? I know I've seen them but I can't seem to find them now. You're the citations guru so I thought you could help. Thanks. --Margareta 20:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been using the CITET templates, but where do I find info on the "ref" tags? I know there's a way you can use them to name a reference the first time you use it so that you don't have to put the whole citation in every time you use it again in the same article. I just can't find the instructions on how to do it... Oh wait, found it here. Just had to hunt around a bit.

I agree it can be pretty amazing what gets in here as citations. It seems to be getting slowly better overall, though. --Margareta 04:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design

2 is not the be all and end all, and, frankly, when it comes down to it, I'm the one who put up a block on the article because of the edit war, so it's my responsibility to mediate, propose compromises, and help work towards a version that as many people as possible can be happy with, or, at least, grudgingly accept. I'll admit to having my doubts over the ability to bring a few people into the compromise, but I really would appreciate if you would help. If you don't like the proposed compromises, by all means propose more. I do, however, think the first sentence of 2 has problems - for one thing, "is an argument for the existance of a God" is somewhat awkward English anyway, and that direct quote from the DI, complete with calling natural selection undirected... is troublesome.

If you honestly feel after consideration that they aren't acceptable, I accept that, but please do consider them first. A, B and D are actually pretty good - C probably was a mistake, given I forgot to add a replacement for some of the the removed content, but, oh well. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick reply to your request on "ID isn't an argument for the existence of God". I didn't put it into its own section (sorry) as I don't think that is what we were trying to prove. I didn't think it would be anything worth a thread. Anyway, the problem comes with it being limited to only an argument for the existence of God and telling readers that as a statement of fact, when this is a disputed point. Morphh ^(talk) 21:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Morph, I agree that it is disputed, but only in a narrow sense of the word. DI individuals, when under oath, stated that it was an argument for G_d. How about language like, "Although it is claimed by DI that ID is science, in courts and in certain documents, ID appears to be an argument for the existence of G_d." I'm trying to balance both feelings with some equal weight, though I contend that most of the weight is that it is an argument for G_d.Orangemarlin 21:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

Thanks, I'm just fiddling with refs at the moment, it really needs a major rewrite. I didn't protect it, it was already protected (which is why there hasn't been much vandalism!) All I did was add the tag that indicates it is protected. TimVickers 17:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fred Hoyle

Hi Orangemarlin, Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I know you are not an idiot but you do jump to conclusions. Try reading the following article by Sir Fred, published in the most prestigious review journal in astronomy: [2] (page 16 in the journal if you are in a hurry, although the whole thing is quite fascinating).

Without a doubt, Fred Hoyle had some very strange ideas and was strongly opposed to the idea that evolution got going by chance. He was responsible for discovering/predicting one of the first famous examples of fine tuning, i.e. the Carbon-12 resonance. Barrow and Tipler give a couple of verbatim quotes from Hoyle showing that at other times he also offered what is now the standard anthropic explanation (a decade before the anthropic principle came into use.

NB: A google search for "Hoyle 747" offers several sources which suggests this is a real quote, albeit not from a Nature article. But he says much the same thing in the above article without the fanciful analogy.

Best wishes, PaddyLeahy 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

PS I note that you reverted fine-tuned universe back to your version after admitting on Talk:Objections to evolution that Hoyle probably did tell the 747 story. But that's not really the point; the question here is whether Hoyle supported a "metaphysical" solution to fine-tuning and there is ample evidence from eg the Barrow & Tipler quotes, not to mention the paper cited above, that he did. So I think you are honour-bound to undo this particular edit. PaddyLeahy 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little calloused towards arbitrary edits without facts. In this case, I have spent some valuable time reading the linked Hoyle article. It reads like a Philosophy article rather than a scientific one (and frankly, I haven't a clue about this two isotopes of Oxygen and what it means); my conclusion from reading a few key sections is that he is pondering some unusual bits of order that don't make sense, but nowhere does he conclude that the universe is ordered by anything, let alone little green aliens, Zeus or a Judeo-Christian deity. I guess one could quote-mine a couple of sentences, but in a 37 page treatise, that's a bit much to say conclusively that he's a Creationist or believes in some sort of intelligent design. With regards to the Hoyle 747 google search, I actually did that and read a number of the top 50 hits. Most of them, frankly, referred back to either a) the nonexistent Nature article, or b) referred to someone who might have heard him say it (hearsay). In either case, I have no proof he ever said it, but the myth is so persistent, it could be true. It's just that something so critical to a critique of Evolution should have some substance. Again, I'd like to see one article where Hoyle denies everything. By the way, because I cannot, for certain, comprehend the Big Bang and abiogenesis, I remain unsure as to roles of little green men or a Judeo-Chrisitian deity in starting (but certainly not guiding) the development of the natural universe). Orangemarlin 23:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly did not admit that he did tell the 747 story, I keep finding pieces of hearsay that he did, but certainly no conclusive facts, citation or context. Who knows what he was saying, if he even did. Orangemarlin 23:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It was not suggested on that page that Hoyle was a creationist in the religious sense. If you do trouble to read Hoyle's article more carefully, you will see that his position is very close to the "official" position of the ID-ers in that he thinks there is "an enormous intelligence abroad in the universe" which has "monkeyed with physics", fixing the energy levels of carbon and oxygen in a "put-up job" to maximise production of these elements. This is a classic (if not the classic) example of fine tuning. (if this still reads like gobbldegook I respectfully suggest that you find out just a little about the relevant physics before editing pages discussing fine tuning). I'm sure Hoyle is not being coy in failing to identify this "enormous intelligence" with God; in his autobiography he comes over as very anti-religious, and I think you've seen quotes from his other books opposing creationism as usually understood.

I don't want to argue about 747s; whether Hoyle said it or not, there was no reason to edit the fine-tuned universe article since the story is not cited there and your assumption that Hoyle was mentioned because of that story was wrong; the 747 argument is widely regarded a fallacy, but the Carbon-12 fine tuning is taken seriously by physicists; in fact Hoyle won the Crafoord Prize largely on account of it. So, as far as editing without facts goes, we are both guilty. I know citations are sadly lacking on that page, but Sir Fred's maverick status is one of the most well-known facts referred to there; he prided himself in disagreeing with the establishment. PaddyLeahy 00:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a "plain English" version of the O2 isotope issues and why that might indicate a FTU? I tried a google search and found nothing that helped me understand it better. Orangemarlin 22:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Best description I know is in Barrow & Tipler's The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, pp 250-255; this is mostly plain English but they do expect the reader to have some scientific background. They in turn cite Hoyle's (1965) Galaxies, Nuclei and Quasars, but it's not clear whether this is technical or for the general public — if the latter it's probably just what you want. You won't like to hear this, but for on-line versions, the Bradley & Collins links given on fine-tuned universe are fair and accurate on this point at least (& more up-to-date than B&T in the case of Collins), although not as detailed as B&T. There may very well be versions on other university web sites; I havn't done a search. Otherwise there is a brief, non-quantitative description in Ree's Just Six Numbers and I expect it's covered in Davies' The Goldilocks Enigma but I havn't read that. (NB I take it you're asking about the fine tuning issue, on which all the above agree, not on attempted explanations, which consist of all the usual suspects... e.g. Davies' list quoted at anthropic principle). PaddyLeahy 01:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of poll

Given that Creationism is a subset of intelligent design theory, don't you think it's misleading to say that the poll listed 10% support for ID, when in fact it indicated 74% support? JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. ID is a subset of Creationism, polls are evil, and I prefer to get rid of the whole thing. Orangemarlin 00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

ID is absolutely not a subset of Creationism, as other theories that fall under the ID umbrella are, say, seeding of the planet by aliens, which ain't Creationism. Creationism is a specific explanation as to how man came to be involving a conscious, intervening force, but there are a potentially large number of such theories. If you object to the poll, why didn't you simply remove it altogether? JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's all BS, so I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. This should be on the ID talk page. However, you are reading the Discovery Institute propaganda, not facts. ID is Creationism by a Judeo-Christian G_d plain and simple. All they're trying to do is make it out to be something it isn't, science. At any rate, take a look at Creationism which makes ID out to be a subset. If you're going to argue what you are above (and I could be convinced, except ID really was never intended to include little green men from space), then a lot of articles need revision. That might not be worth your time. Orangemarlin 00:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Flood geology#Fossilization

I know you don't like these creationist articles so much, but smart people have to watch over them, or they become so POV, that a casual reader could think that there's a lot of proof for Noah's flood. Anyways, one of the editors is really make a stink about the soft tissues of the T. Rex fossils in the Hells Creek formation prove the flood. I cut and pasted TalkOrigin's counter, but it's not really well written. Maybe you've got a couple of ideas, since I've already nominated you as the resident paleontologist around here.  :) Orangemarlin 05:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey OM! Always nice to get a pleasant orange box letting me know you've left a message for me! As I believe I mentioned above, I am not a paleontologist (just a wannabe), but there are vertebrate paleontologists here: J. Spencer has an MS in Geology; Greygirlbeast is a vertebrate paleontologist (but she's not active right now); Kevmin; Mark t young; and in a pinch, Sheep81 is a total whiz at geological formations. I highly recommend asking one of these fine editors for advice on countering proponents of "flood geology".

You know, I've only ever written one article which centered around Creationist-vs.-real science debates ("Unicerosaurus"), and that took a whole lot of research on my part. Pardon the pun, but I think I'd feel out of my depth working on a "flood geology" article. And what's wrong with the TalkOrigins rebuttal? Seems to cover the bases to me... Firsfron of Ronchester 06:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I know you are trying to be modest, but seriously, you know more about dinosaurs than I could ever imagine. I just learned what "Hell's Creek" was just a few days ago, and I come to find out it's like the Mecca of dinosaur bones (which I thought was out in Vernal, Utah). It's amazing how you can counter the Creationists with just a few facts, since they usually have precious little. Orangemarlin 16:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionist

I do not remember using that word. If your remark was meant for someone else, then please disregard this message. Dan Watts 17:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't meant for anyone in particular, I saw it utilized somewhere in that LONG discussion. Orangemarlin 20:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Living dinosaurs

Not to bring up a sore subject, but this article is just ticking me off more and more. Why is it even in the Wikiproject for dinosaurs? It's cryptozoology pseudoscience that is probably less interesting and definitely less referenced than Nessie. Can you remove it from the Dinosaur project? Please???? Orangemarlin 07:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You won't get any argument from me: this article wasn't added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs by a WP:Dinos editor. It was added by a non-Project editor, which is why we didn't learn of this article until recently, and part of the reason it's in such bad shape. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, since I'm not a member, I don't think it would be prudent to remove the category, so I vote that you do it? Orangemarlin 07:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Bwah! But if you aren't a member, do you even have a vote? ;) Hey, if you joined WP:Dinosaurs, you could then vote, and we'd have to remove it. What do you say? Our membership dues are quite reasonable... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes, and I believe they give out secret decoder rings to new members. I'm trying to implement a secret handshake, but it's not taking. What are you offering? A T. Rex tooth necklace? I think I'll join up. But first, I'm going to sleep. It's late here in California. Orangemarlin 07:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a secret handshake (done with two fingers, just like a T. rex would do). No decoder ring, though (what would a dinosaur do with one?). And once a month, one lucky member gets to jump into a picture with Jimbo Wales at the last second. This month's winner was our dear Cas. Yes, go to sleep: it's late here, too, which is why I'm babbling on and have revealed many of our group secrets on a public page... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, how come Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes is red? Cause of all the lava...? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny. Now I won't show you my volcano decoder ring. Ppppffffffffttttttttttttt. Besides, it's well known that the Deccan traps trump your T. rex. So, how do I join the group so I have official powers to remove that dinosaur category from dumb articles Living dinosaurs. Orangemarlin 16:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Add yourself to WP:DINO#Participants, take a look at WP:DINO#Open_list_of_tasks. Then comes the ritual hazing. ;) Actually, you wouldn't have to do anything at all, but it just helps to have one more set of eyes, or one more voice. When we get an article to Featured status (or what we think is Featured status), it would be good to have an unbiased eye looking at the material, and you've done some great geology-related work. It would rock to have you around (pun intended). But no pressure. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 19:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. But we can still vote on removing crappy articles from Project purview. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 06:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes a benevolent dictatorship is just what is necessary. Orangemarlin 14:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Benevolent? Muahahahahaha... Firsfron of Ronchester 18:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Creationist museum rough draft

Take a look at my rough draft list of creationist museums at [3]. Comments?--Filll 00:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Creation Museum

Thanks, your edit is exactly what I meant to do. Apparently brain wasn't thinking completely. JoshuaZ 03:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I knew what you meant. Although, I was wondering if you were a plant. LOL. Orangemarlin 03:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Extinction and evolution

I wrote a section on this in the main evolution article. See Evolution#Extinction. TimVickers 19:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Teach the Controversy

Despite your exhortation to "Discuss first, gain consensus", you have not responded to anything I wrote on Talk:Teach the Controversy. Please explain why you feel that it is appropriate for Wikipedia to decide what is true and false. Rhobite 00:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You were reverted by several editors. And I don't exhort. Orangemarlin 05:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your choice of verb, you have been reverting me without any attempt at meaningful discussion. The fact that multiple editors, all of whom seem to specialize in promoting anti-Discovery Institute articles, reverted me, does not excuse you from discussion. Rhobite 23:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean editors who utilize science to understand the natural world are anti-DI? No, I'm anti-DI because I think they're wasting school district money trying to get them to include religion in the classroom, which is going to waste taxpayer dollars. Of course, school boards are being thrown out regularly when they try to do that, so maybe Di is their own worst enemy. But I rant. You're not allowed to be POV. I'm not sure what else to say. Orangemarlin 23:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Random comment

heya, I was reading a discussion page where as you said "and I believe in evolution". I figure I can offer some advice on how to be careful with such wording to avoid accusations from creationalists. As a fellow scientist, I would best describe my own feelings on the issue for reference. I would say, instead of a belief in evolution that I accept evolution as the best current scientific explanation of the phenomena. Thus avoid any idea of blind belief in something without explanation or evidence, just like one would accept gravity as put forward as the best current explanation of the phenomena. My point is to avoid notions of belief or faith in anything scientific.

My two cents.

Carl Szczerski BSc. Ecology, MSc. Botany Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.136.212 (talk) 07:15, May 30, 2007

Don't worry, I've changed the way I state it, although I might have slipped up lately. I'm tired of being called an "evolutionist," which is a word, but it is defined as taking evolution on faith as a method for Creationists to make evolution appear to be a religion. Well, it's not. Anyways, the problem with your sentence is that it is nuanced, and I have found that the fundamentalists (whether Christian or Muslim) tend to not understand nuance out of ignorance or out of intention. So you say "best current scientific explanation of phenomena", but they would say, so "current" means it could be replaced. Yes, it could, but not the way they're thinking, but the argument is lost. I don't have the luxury of utilizing nuance, so I go with "evolution is a fact supported by a wealth of scientific research." It's more blunt, probably not the way a real scientist speaks, but in an argument, simplicity matters. But thanks for your advice, it is well taken. Orangemarlin 16:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Creation Museum

I think this belongs under Category:Dinosaur, because you know that everything in the museum is accurate and useful to the education of all of us. I saw your edits there, and obviously you agree. Orangemarlin 20:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest Category:Pseudoscience, but I note Category:Creation Science is already a subcategory of the former, so I'm satisfied. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the kind words, it's good to know that people actually read this stuff! Any comments or suggestions on the FAC nomination would be appreciated. Thanks again. TimVickers 23:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Those breaks are just so people don't have to scroll so far when adding new comments, don't worry about them, formatting can always be adjusted later. TimVickers 14:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

I am concerned that you implied that I did not edit the appropriate Talk:Evolution section before removing the image. If you believe the image should stay, please tell me (1) why you think squares are a good representation of life forms, and (2) why a single arrow is a good representation of many generations of reproduction. Thank you. BenB4 06:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. Orangemarlin 06:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I know this editor has been involved in conflicts in the past, but I'm aiming to focus entirely on the article and be polite and neutral. TimVickers 14:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Just be careful. He has a pattern that eventually leads to edit warring as a POV warrior. But you're much more civil than I can be, so I know you'll take care of it! Orangemarlin 14:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Notation

I don't argue that the vast majority of scientists accept evolution as fact -- simply that the number of those who do not is increasing and that the "over 99%" statistic is from a magazine article two decades ago. I'm sure you could find a current statistic to use. Just find one to use rather than resorting to the 80's and making one search through another page to even find the citation.

You seem an intelligent person with a solid knowledge of your faith in evolution. As such, I pose this question in the spirit of honest academic debate:

As someone in the medical field, with (I would assume) a substantial background in the study of biology, what do you believe was beneficial about the many transitory phases between animal types? The driving force behind evolution is natural selection (which Creationists don't refute and celebrate as the cause of such diversity in the animal kingdom today), but more importantly, a belief that Natural Selection enabled the evolution of one animal type to another (fish to amphibian or reptile to bird). Even forgiving the internal biological changes that would have to radically take place, how do the changes in these animals' structures themselves give them a competitive benefit? Birds have (and require) hollow bones<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s"> to fly. In what period of evolution was it somehow beneficial for an organism to live on land with such a frail body? Surely animals with more brittle bones would have died as a result of natural selection. What would the transition between a reptile's arms and a bird's wings appear like? How would the loss of the use of arms in replace of nubs slowly evolving toward wings have benefited the creature? If I saw a creature with nubs for arms and a weak skeleton, I wouldn't expect it to thrive among the other predators on the ground. In effect, the question is this: How would these transitory organisms have been seen most fit to survive according to natural selection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christof1887 (talk • contribs)

That's a lot of questions! Most of which can be answered at Talk Origins Firsfron of Ronchester 15:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'm at work at the moment, and the site is blocked. Any articles on wikipedia that would provide explanations? I've printed the article on Evolution in its entirety and am reading it now.Christof1887 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a FAQ here. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Christof1887, first of al, I have no "faith" in Evolution. I don't believe in Evolution, and I don't accept Evolution because of faith, opinion, conviction--I accept Evolution as a fact, because it has been subjected to rigorous scientific analysis, because of the substantial proof, and because a lot of people smarter than I have studied and accepted it. Evolution is not a doctrine, it is not a dogma, and it does not require faith to accept. Therefore, I am a scientist by trade, by education and by lifestyle, and as such I accept Evolution, not without question, because I am a critical thinker, but because the wealth of scientific evidence confirms the hypothesis. Your points about natural selection are not valid and are easily dispatched in the FAQ that Firsfron has linked. Moreover, natural selection has no compass of what is good or bad. LIghter bones may have evolved not to fly, but because a dinosaur could leap higher to get prey or to keep from becoming prey. Feathers probably evolved as insulation, but became the aerodynamic material that allows birds to fly. By the way, I only use over 99% because I'm a scientist and I don't believe in absolute values. Actually, in being in science and medicine for over 30 years, I've yet to run across any scientist or physician (including several physicians who are fundamentalist Christians) who disputes Evolution. None. Orangemarlin 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I might also note that I recently read that only about 10% of all Christian schools and colleges reject evolution (I should find a reference to that). If you find your faith and your school rejects evolution, just realize that you are a teeny tiny minority. Granted, a large group of the general public rejects evolution, but in general most of the general public do not know what evolution is, or even what science is, or even what their own religion's fundamental doctrine is, and a lot of the public believes in ghosts, astrology, UFO abductions, etc. So the fact that the public sometimes rejects evolution means very little. --Filll 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OM and I wrote most of the article that discusses how many scientists subscribe to NeoDarwinian Evolution. Yes, the Newsweek article is 20 years old. However, we also right after that, quote a reference 1-2 years old from the National Institute of Health with the same figures. We repeat the calculation done in the Newsweek article at the bottom of Level of support for evolution and find that the figures given in the Newsweek article are probably an underestimate. Instead of about 99.84% of the biologists and earth scientists accepting the NeoDarwinian theory, the figure is probably greater than 99.98% of the biologists and earth scientists in the US, and even larger in other countries than the US. To try to make any case that there is significant rejection of evolution mechanisms like natural selection and genetic drift etc. among the relevant part of the scientific community is beyond ludicrous and borders on insanity. The main problem here is biblical literalism, not evolution. Look into biblical literalism.--Filll 16:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm, yes. Not only may the author intentionally place metaphoric values to writing, but also exaggeration due to lack of understanding of things at the time, and more commonly, lack of the awareness of caveats in translating from one language(ancient Hebrew) to another (Modern English). Wikidan829 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read through the article here on Evolution and just wanted to point out that I agree with most of the article. I think it's worth noting that accepting a literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't mean disagreeing with every bit of science at all related to Evolution. In fact, the only part of the article I'd disagree with is the evolution of one type of animal into a totally different kind (which itself would mean I'd disagree with the later section on the origin on life). The rest on natural selection and the different methods of species diverging I don't feel pose any conflict with Biblical Literalism. Exaptations, while providing some possible explanations, don't seem valid enough to explain all the changes and transitory stages -- but alas, I'm not going to try and start an argument on a Wikipedia User talk page and will leave you all to your editing. I just wanted to be sure and leave the comment that just because someone rejects the concept of macro-evolution, that doesn't mean they reject all principles of science related to Evolution. You seem quick to judge that someone who disregards macro-evolution automatically rejects natural selection and the evidence for genetics proven through repeated controlled experiments and research... thus deeming them an absolute moron and idiot. I hope to disagree but leave this without hostilities. Christof1887 18:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, no one is deeming you an absolute moron nor an idiot. That is your imagination. However, macro and micro-evolution are an invention of Creationists, they are entirely the same thing in science. Evolution of one "animal" into another one happens over some long period of time, and if you look at each generation individually, you would not notice the difference. Over thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of years, you'll see speciation. Of course, speciation can be observed in certain situations, and in organisms with short lifespans. You aren't starting any hostilities with me, nor I believe with Filll. Both of us have heard these arguments hundreds and thousands of times. You appear to be civil so both of us are responding to your questions in a logical manner. From a scientific POV, I reject your arguments out of hand. From a philosophical one, I pose this question--why do you find it necessary to establish rules for your G_d and religion? Your religion is not going to fall apart because of science. Mine hasn't. Orangemarlin 19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend that you have called me personally an idiot, so I assure you I have not felt the presence of a personal attack. My comment was meant that someone who rejected the concept of Natural Selection would be seen as a moron and I was simply clarifying that I (nor do Creationists by default) do not. As far as the philosophical question you pose, I do not worry about my faith falling apart because of science. I establish no rules for my God or my faith. I simply accept the "rules" about and by my God in Scripture. Christof1887 19:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I also do not think you are a moron at all. However, the Christian leaders of the largest denominations in the US have no problem with evolution (corresponding to the denominations including roughly 80-90% of all Christians in the US). The way I view it is, some small segment wants to make rules that God must follow, and want to dictate to God how they think he operates, instead of letting God himself (or herself) tell us. You are free to do so. However, others should be free to have their own vision of God and nature as well. Thanks.--Filll 19:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

God isn't going to throw anyone in Hell for eternity because of uncertainty of our origin. From a religious standpoint, is it really important how we came to be? Wikidan829 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is only important if you want to "prove" that every word of the bible is literally true. However, the people who push this agenda actually pick and choose what parts are true, if you look into it. They also have very special views about the interpretation of the bible and are very negative towards other people with different interpretations.--Filll 22:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Best not go there. Goes along the lines of people quoting scripture out of context in whatever way is convenient to them. I was actually attacked by someone(not on Wiki) for daring to read and attempt to understand scripture outside of a church study group. I don't see this kind of individual on a different plane as Islamic "terrorists". Wikidan829 22:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to believe whatever you like, in spite of actual observed and repeated evidence of "macroevolution" (which is mainly a term used by creationists and science-deniers, so you might want to avoid it if you can). However, there should be some place where the actual scientific understanding that we currently have, and accepted by over 99.98 % of biologists, should be described and accessible. If you want to read a religious tract, there are many other places for that on the internet. However, Wikipedia articles about science should contain science, not speculation without evidence and superstition and religious proseletyzing. Thanks.--Filll 19:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You might find some useful examples of speciation ("macroevolution") at [4]--Filll 19:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)