User talk:Roland Deschain

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens

Who is Mandal?

And what did he have to do with the modern synthesis? — Dunc|☺ 19:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Mendel (never write a post when you just got out of bed). He is the Father of Genetics. He provided the foundation for genetics, which was later shown to complement and validate the Theory of Evolution (ie: it offered a molecular mechanism for evolution, which up to that point was supported by mostly anatomical observations of fossils and extant organisms). And I'll go and fix the spelling error. --Roland Deschain 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I hate to nitpick, but for what it's worth, it's Behe, not Bahe ;) And, by the way, good work at evolution and it's nice to have you over at intelligent design. Guettarda 14:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should create a templete for this. English is my third language, so I apologize in advanced for all my spelling mistakes.--Roland Deschain 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source and reporter

Hi, Roland. at talk:Intelligent design you wrote:

I'm very confused. The topic offers reasonable arguments (7 I think) that ID is not science. Now you want to call ID science, but you do not want to give supporting evidence. Neutrality is not the issue here. One cannot call ID science just so that the article is neutral. I will go to the round earth hypothesis side and argue that in the intro the earth should be called flat as well, so that the aricle is neutral. If you want to call ID science, give your reasons.

I can see why you might be confused, if you think *I* want to call ID science. I don't.

I'm not interested in my own opinion of ID; I don't even have one. I don't want the article "to call ID science", because that would violate neutrality. Our policy here at Wikipedia is to describe points of view, not to assert them.

Certain proponents of ID consider it "to be science", right? If so, we should cite the sources for this assertion. Like:

Hessa Dumdum wrote, "Intelligent design is a scientific theory."

It would also interest our readers if we said why Professor Dumdum wants to call ID science, like this:

H.D. said that ID makes useful, verifiable predictions and can easily be falsified (or whatever reasons are given)

Does that make sense? --Uncle Ed 19:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes perfect sense. And the intro of Intelligent Design gives it perfect justice: "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2] say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life." So the intro takes care of that policy perfectly. Why ID is not science is explained later in the article. My problem is that you want to include specific arguments in the intro and give undue weight to them (such as the exclusion of supernatural causation).--Roland Deschain 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The specific section on ID and science is against ID, but for a very clear and obvious reason: ID has not made any response to the various critiques that are mentioned in that section. If you can find quotes and statements by leading ID proponents that address those issues, feel free to put them there as a counter arguement. You cannot argue that this section is not neutral. It leans against ID becase ID have not addressed these issues and have chosen to ignore them. To delete/modify this section because ID proponents refuse to response to it is ridiculous.--Roland Deschain 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kinds

I hear with regard to undue weight. On the other hand it is in the misconceptions section. Nevertheless, i can go either way. What is the deal with Aidan, is worth responding too? I am trying to get him to make specific recommendations but he seem to prefer rambling. Any suggestions, like just ignore him? David D. (Talk) 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. He did raise some good points (having a link for the kinds idea) but he seems to be of the opinion that every sentance should be cited. So far I think he should not be ignored as he has actually helped improve this article.--Roland Deschain 19:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IC

You don't seem to have a problem including arguments against evolution based solely on faith, so why not one of the most popular 'logic based' arguments? —Aiden 07:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spurious science/religion controversy

(added ref + revert: it is general knowledge that science contradicts religious faith.)

OK, so Dawkins, Dennet and the Dembskis know this.

but apparently, Francis Collins doesn't. neither did Newton, Maxwell, Pasteur and others. or John Paul II or Benedict XVI.

I agree with most of your edits (including your comment about "This sentence is really bad: "While from a scientific viewpoint one of the great strengths of evolution by natural selection is that it has no need for a supernatural intelligence or any intelligent designer . . .". "). keep up the edits, ;-) cheers, Sillygrin 02:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution revert

While you are correct, the reason I changed it from "not occuring" was because controversy isn't something that magically "occurs". It's something people to do. This is similar to how one does not say "A fun time occured last night". Instead it is more common to say "I went to an awesome party". Perhaps something like:

There is no such controversy within the scientific community ...

is more appropriate? (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 06:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to talk about the entropy part in the evoution it should be added that order can only come out of added energy in a system if there is a way to use that energy like the chorophly in plant other wise added enegry just increase choas if there is not a system to use itBarry White 00:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

embrology

What is wrong? All I said is that if you have info that wasn't proven wrong he could use it. I was just explaing that human embroyos don't have gill silts.

evidence

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v2i1e.htm

Read the part about the "The Biogenetic Law" saying that human don't have resperoray organs in those pharyngeal pouches that become glands in the neck and the ear canal.

I want to talk about the entropy part in the evoution page it should be added that order can only come out of added energy in a system if there is a way to use that energy like the chorophly in plants other wise adding enegry to a system just increase choas if there is not a desing or system to use it. Barry White 00:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Or"

"Or" is non-exclusive [1] Guettarda 04:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, "or" is exclusive in normal English language. In logic, the concept of "or" is a little bit more tricky. See here for more info.--Roland Deschain 05:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While or is exclusive in boolean logic, it definitely is not exclusive in English. So yes, the rationale for your edit is mistaken. Guettarda 13:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you two sources to back up my view point. Please provide some sources for yours. However, if you have a problems with my edit, please take this up in Talk:Evolution.--Roland Deschain 16:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask a favor?

Since you seem to like editing Evolution related topics, I was wondering if maybe you could give some input on a dispute over the Natural selection article on the Good Article dispute page, somebody has used some reference to try and argue that the article is not sufficiently broad in it's coverage, but I can't really understand it compleatly and I have no idea if it's valid or not. Homestarmy 13:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The E=MC² Barnstar
		For consistently good edits and talk page explanations as well as resisting the forces of pseudoscience in the Evolution-related articles. Nowimnthing 17:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Poor Arbitration

You are listed as a supporter of Ed Poor at his arbitrartion. You may wish to comment on this there [2]. --ScienceApologist 01:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution NPOV

Roland, I'd like to take some of our discussion about NPOV issues in the Evolution article off of the main talk page. I feel like when you say stuff like "I'm just trying to make the point that every single creationist scientific claim is a misunderstanding" or "I know it casts a bad light on creationists..." or "If this article offends people, so be it," then it becomes clear that part of what you want the Evolution article to do is to prove its case against the creationists. I'm personally very interested in how to convince creationists that evolution is correct, but I don't think Wikipedia is the place to do it. Don't you think we can phrase the article so as to explain what the theory of evolution says without arguing that it's correct? Gnixon 02:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the...?

Okay, if YOU'RE Roland Deschain, who is this? Graft 22:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It, my friend, is a sockpuppet. Ratso 02:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like it Ratso. Contributions don't seem to overlap at all. Looks like they are just two people who like the same Stephen King character. Did you even bother to check before you made that claim? Varith 18:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For all your contirbutions to and stewardship of the evolution talk pages, It's very much appreciated...--Amists 13:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gene duplication

Interesting that we picked on the same sentence at the same time :) David D. (Talk) 18:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

If my post on Talk:Evolution seemed a little... well, less than brilliant and possibly even not-quite-civil. I apolgise and offer as explanation that the appalling prospect of rewriting the Lead Sentence of a Featured Article to add weasel-wording to satisfy a ... there, I'm becoming uncivil again. I'd best just apologise and go on my way. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I've opened an RfC on Ken's recent edits. It can be found here. I was wondering if you would be willing to be listed as the second primary disputant. JoshuaZ 05:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

I saw you and Standonbible's discussion about evolution on his talk page, and I'd like to make a few clarifications myself. Beneficial mutations are rare, but mutations that introduce new information don't occur. For instance, the wide variety of finches on the Galapagos Islands is not an example of new information, but rather different organizations of the same information in that gene pool. A mutation that would turn gills into lungs isn't possible, because that would require new information which gene mutations can't produce. Nor could it simply be a rearrangement in already-present information, because gills and lungs are vastly different in their genetic makeup. And as for your autobiography on your page which states that the population is "too lazy to pick up an introductory textbook to science", I agree, because they are simply accepting the spoonfeeding of evolutionist scientists rather than investigating the matter themselves. Ratso 15:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you obviously missed the references to polyploidy and gene duplication. This is new information and it is common. David D. (Talk) 16:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haw haw ahwhawhawhawhawhawhawshawhwaw!!!!unsigned by User:4.158.60.191

These are perfect examples of how little you know of the subject. None of these are examples of "new" information; they are all simply the expression of genes that are already there. Polyploidy is simply a double set of the same information, thus it is not new. Gene duplication isn't "new" information; it is an error that causes a gene's specific region of DNA to be duplicated. This means either you didn't know quite enough about them or your definition of "new" information is off. Ratso 02:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once you have a duplicate set then one gene can be mutated to do new things, there are plenty of examples (cryptochrome and photolyase being a classic example). The second gene is expressed differently, it has a different function; clearly it is new information. Maybe you are missing the simple point that a duplication leads to new information? David D. (Talk) 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mutations do introduce new information. Your argument is like saying that all literature is the same old, because it uses the same 26 letters of the alphabet. You're trying to explain the whole system by taking one part of it and making it responsible for the whole function. Using your method of argument, I could say a car can't drive because the brakes don't provide propulsion. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS NOT NEW INFORMATION; IT IS A REORGANIZATION OF ALREADY EXISTING INFORMATION! If mutations could produce new information, then I should be having an extra arm or an extra eye. I don't, see. Ratso 18:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Samsmara, I see no need to respond to your spurious little paragraph. You're using a totally irrelevant example; this is precisely not what it's like. Ratso 20:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratso, no need to shout. You may not have a third leg but you do have a brand new light receptor (well not that new now, but you get the idea). You can thank that CRY protein for a robust circadian clock, even if it did used to be a photolyase. No matter how you spin it, there is a new protein and a new function. How is this not new information? David D. (Talk) 20:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratso, someone has misled you. Gene duplication does indeed produce new "information". Other forms of mutation produce new "information" as well. thx1138 21:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, "new information" is a meaningless term used to obsfucate things and try and convince people evolution isn't real.

Missing structures? Some would define this as new.
More features? Extra fingers, toes, wings, ect. are simple.
Novel features? Webbed fingers on humans?
Huge, complex features? Wait a few million years, it takes a while.
New genes? This happens often.
More/less size? Again, common.

"New information" means absolutely nothing useful. We've observed it happening before; gene duplication, increase and decrease in gene length, and all sorts of other mutations have occured and until you can come up with a meaningful defintion it is pointless. Titanium Dragon 11:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Observation

My God, he's like a trained ape! Without the training!

I just couldn't resist, knowing that you'll "get it" --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is like a "trained ape without the training", because they put a computer chip in his brain to make him behave the way they want him to. Ha. Ratso 02:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grrr. That comment was an in-joke, not Troll-bait. Shoo! Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grr, likewise that was not trolling. Boo! Ratso 18:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how to argue

I have placed a comment on Wikipedia talk:NPOV (Comparison of views in science) about the methods & purposes of such discussions as these.DGG 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fixed link. sorryDGG 05:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution 2

Every paragraph of creationist nonsense requires a 20 page essay to refute in detail. Unfortunately, I don't have the time nor the will, but I will leave you with a very interesting paper. Rather than give you thousands of papers showing gene duplication and evolution (see Standonbible's talk page for a couple of those) here's a really cool one in one of the top scientific journals in the world (any major library should have it). It deals with large genome duplications that have been implicated in being a dominant force in the human/primate evolution. It's 5 years out of date and much more work has been done since, but that's the most up to date review I could find. Again, this is not to start a debate, but more to show you that while you are sitting screaming that it cannot be (the Earth cannot rotate!!!! if it did we would all be flung off into space), people are finding, describing, and understanding those impossible things.--Roland Deschain 02:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you are using silly irrelevant arguments to support your theory. We know for absolute certainty that the earth revolved and that nobody has been flung off into space because of gravity. We DO NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT EVOLUTION IS THE CAUSE OF THE VAST DIVERSITY OF LIFE ON EARTH, DANG IT! Gene duplications DO NOT produce new information, they simply reorganize the existing information. So cut out your confounded nonsense and realize the truth! Ratso 18:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RD, have you considered laying out some rat traps on your talkpage? You seem to have a bit of a rodent problem here. Or this perhaps a pet that you keep around because its antics are so amusing? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see my comment on Ratso's home page05:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It does seem rather strange to be having this discussion on another user's talk-page (I hope you don't mind, Roland), but... Ratso, why are you so dogmatically certain that mutations cannot produce new information? There is absolutely no scientific basis for such a view. Mutations CAN and DO produce new information: there is no natural law or principle that would prevent this, and we can see it happening.

To extend the "letters of the alphabet" analogy already mentioned: do you wish to deny that "AAAA" could be transformed into "I shall go shopping this afternoon" by an appropriate combination of duplication-mutations (to make it long enough) and point-mutations (to change individual letters)? Both of these mutations occur to DNA in nature. So, where's the problem? The filtering-out of detrimental "noise" and the accumulation of "appropriate" mutations is achieved by natural selection. --Robert Stevens 09:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, Doc Tropics is quite the comedic thespian. Yes, Robert stevens, I do wish to deny that AAAA could be transformed into a very complex and organized sentence such as "I shall go shopping this afternoon" simply by a few random mutations. More likely, the result would be "Sighso phi tn dsaio", a disorganized and random group of letters. It takes intelligence to take letters together to make a word and words together to make a sentence. What's your point? Ratso 16:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question was, do you wish to deny it could happen by an appropriate combination of duplication-mutations (to make it long enough) and point-mutations (to change individual letters). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Stem Cell Debate, just thought you might want to know about Debatepedia.com

Noticed your many contributions and interest in the stem cell controversy article. Just thought I would point you to the Debatepedia (wiki debate encyclopedia) article on stem cell research. [3] You may find this a better forum for methodically presenting the different, third-party points of views in these debates. A bunch of us have started going over to it for this kind of thing. Loudsirens 00:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theory

Roland, it's not a theory. Hypothesis vs. theory has nothing to do with how much support there is for it. Universal descent is a prediction that arises from our understanding of evolutionary and ecological processes. It's a simple testable thing. It's not a whole body of mathematical models (i.e. not a theory). Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:39, 11 December ==2006 (UTC)

Good luck on Exams

Good luck on your exams. I have enjoyed reading your Evolution retorts. Good job. The present brew of editors want a lot of change. I must admit I appreciate your resistance to changing the article. I dont like Adam's rewrite and take exception to lot of what he says. I have proposed to add a section or mention hybridization (it is significant in plants and birds)either after HGT or with mutation section. It produces speciation and rapid change and evolution. Good luck on your exams!!GetAgrippa 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited material

You may wish to comment on Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, which contains a section about "uncontroversial knowledge". Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution changed

You may wish to sound out on the intro changes in Evo article. I think it is more complicated than the original and redundant. GetAgrippa 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had voiced an objection, but then thought the experts have voiced their opinions so it only seems fair to let the novices have a go. Besides the majority wanted change. I really don't like the first sentence at all, especially the term processes. Some of it is good, but I see no advantage from the previous version. Other than the intro changes, I did make a few semi-bold changes that I think are valid. Since the Gene flow and population section was redundant with Genetic drift. I fused it and left everything intact. Since the Gene flow article includes HGT, I added HGT to the Gene flow part for consistency. It flows better and the last part goes into population dynamics and natural selection and genetic drift. The founder effect follows genetic drift which it should. Give it a look see and see if my logic is valid. I have no problem with a revert, but HGT should be a subsection of Gene flow to be consistent with the Gene flow article and the founder effect should be mentioned as an example of genetic drift (that is my understanding from the literature). Hope your exams are going well. Do you have a thesis or dissertation also? Trying to make 4-6 people on a committee happy is a daunting task. You have been missed at the evolution article. Whatever happened to Graft? I enjoyed our converstions. He has a lot to offer the subject (a bright individual as yourself). Hope you kick butt!!!GetAgrippa 00:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. Before the major revision of the intro I mucked with the original framework of the first paragraph (an ill fated venture), but it turned out awkwardly phrased and hyperlinked to death. I always thought that only the first paragraph needed some change, so we need to revert to the original form and start there if that be the case. Sorry! Couldn't help myself-saw the winds of change a comin, so figured what the heck. No pain,no gain. I fear the rapid and bulky changes might set a trend of mucking! Why can't an article be protected from huge changes? This could go on forever, but the advantage of change is being current. It would be a better system to have a Talk and then enter a plea of change with a committee of editors. It would end vandalisms but would always be current and open to change. I think you would make an excellent editor for such a panel. You have always been fair and reasonable with my suggestions for minor changes. GetAgrippa 01:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution introduction

I thought I could bend your ear and see what your feelings are about making the introduction to evolution accessible to the great unwashed hordes. I am not talking about the entire lead; maybe just the first paragraph or two. I can appreciate the need for technical precision, but somehow that has to be balanced against the junior high school student who just wants to look it up for his biology course, or the parent who wants to understand the science side better when caught up in the creationism controversy. I see you are a fellow canuck, so maybe we could chat a bit.--Filll 23:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad reversion Your recent reversions of the introduction confuse two seperate things i) the observed 'fact' of change over time, with ii) a 'theory' (natural selection) about the direction of the change. The Cuerden text recognises this distinction. The word 'evolution' is often used carelessly to refer one or other of these (or even both at once) but they are not the same thing. Wikipedia users should define their terms carefully. 82.47.176.254 22:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)mikeL[reply]

Talk:Intelligent Design

I would appreciate it if you would try to be more civil in future. SheffieldSteel 13:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Hox mutant fly.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hox mutant fly.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Roland_Deschain_DTVII.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Roland_Deschain_DTVII.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bigr Tex 14:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]