User talk:76.167.179.6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Evolution as theory and fact, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SOAP from Talk:Evolution as theory and fact

[edit] Define what is meant by "evolution"

There's so much to cover here, but I'll just focus on the following statement and throughout the article where you refer to "evolution" as fact:

The observation of fruit fly populations changing character is also an example of a fact, using the scientific meaning of the word fact. So evolution is a fact, at least using the scientific meaning of the word fact.

I think it's important to define what you mean by "evolution". This is a broad word that can mean many things. If you mean to say "microevolution" there wouldn't be a problem with *that* word in the statement; however, if you mean to say "macroevolution" then there would be serious problems with that statement. It would be likewise troubling if you mean "theory of evolution". Either way, you need to state what you mean and not leave it to interpretation.

If by saying "evolution" you mean the theory of evolution then I think it's a huge leap to say that since there are small variations (mutations) in fruit flies then that proves the "theory of evolution" as fact. The theory of evolution goes far beyond than just theorizing about variations. After all, variations within species has been known even before Darwin's time. But the theory of evolution went further to theorize that these variations eventually lead to an evolution of a new family of species. THIS IS NOT A FACT! That has not been observed and there is no conclusive evidence of such. You can say that variations within species is a fact which can be interpreted to support the theory of evolution, but to paint evolution in general as fact is dishonest. Furthermore, you can state that microevolution is fact since observing such variations is an undisputed specifically within the canine family and others; however, you cannot make a leap that since one piece of theory is fact then that makes the theory as a whole "fact". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.203.181 (talk • contribs)

Actually macroevolution and microevolution are concepts mainly used by creationists and not used much by real scientists. There is no known barrier to speciation. Speciation has been observed in the field and the laboratory. --Filll (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, in addition to the fact that macroevolution has been observed, there is overwhelmingly conclusive evidence of the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors: sufficient to call this a "fact" too. The theory of evolution is basically the theory that the fact of evolution is sufficient to account for the fact of common descent: this does appear to be the case, and there is no evidence to the contrary. --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Speciation is a fact. The existence of numerous series of transitional fossils is a fact. The existence of numerous phylogenetic relationships is a fact. Therefore macroevolution is entirely factual on a small scale (speciation), and well substantiated by facts on a larger scale (genus and above). HrafnTalkStalk 13:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, there's no proof that new families of species evolved let alone amino acids evolved into complex organisms and mamals. I may be going by old scientific data here, so by all means, if there's new scientific data to such, please state it for all to see. I would hate that the article appear misleading by the lack of evidence considering it boasts a high standard of scientific process in proving the theory as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.203.181 (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read the article, you will see that it makes no pretence of "proving the theory as fact". I do not know if you genuinely misunderstand, or if you are deliberately equivocating, using tactics espoused by the likes of the Discovery Institute - but I will assume good faith and tell you that the whole point of the article is to draw a distinction between fact and theory, and to demonstrate how "evolution" is both. That does not mean that a "theory" is being turned into a "fact". Snalwibma (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As stated in the article, "A fact is an observation or a piece of data. Facts can include objective measurements which can be either pieces of verifiable evidence, or the results of an experiment which can be repeated over and over again by different people." The theory of evolution has not been observed, cannot be repeated in a lab and lacks the transitional fossil record to be remotely identified as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zigzagzoo12 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The origin of life is abiogenesis which is not part of evolution and never was. Only creationists claim it is, as part of a strawman argument. Evolution has been observed repeatedly in the laboratory and the field.

You don't have to go back that far. I'm not arguing origin of life, but evolution from simple to complex. This is not a fact. There is no evidence of that. This is not something that can be repeated in a lab. It's becoming more apparent to me that you willingly choose to close your eyes to the facts.

And there will always be a lack of transitional fossils since if you have two fossils of two species, one that evolved from another, there is a gap between the two that a transitional fossil can fill. If you discover a transitional fossil to fill the gap, now you have two gaps to fill with new transitional fossils. If you fill those two gaps with new transitional fossils, now you have four gaps that need to be filled with new transitional fossils. The more transitional fossils you find, the more gaps will exist that will lack transitional fossils. Of course, it is a miracle that the fossil record is as complete as it is, given the vagaries of the fossilization process.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. There is no transitional fossils whatsoever! Evolutionists themselves have indicated this problem. What you call transitional is a matter of interpretation.

...And yet there are actually more transitional fossils than there are Bibles in the world. "No transitional fossils" is a creationist lie: from the same people who, ironically, try to pretend that creationism and evolution are "different inferences from the same data". We actually have the data: they deny that the data exists. The same applies to DNA anaysis and so forth. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Go here. WLU (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Or if you think it can't be lab tested, enjoy :o) . . dave souza, talk 17:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you know that of the several thousand fragments of early bibles we now have, there are more differences than there are words in the bible? For example, the number of the beast we think is 666, but we have fragments with several other numbers. We do not even know what the number of the beast REALLY is! So if you want to believe in biblical literalism in spite of all evidence to the contrary, go ahead. However, you are not allowed to try to force others to believe it. Same with evolution. You can reject it if you like in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, but you are not allowed to try to force others to reject it. Enjoy!--Filll (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you trying to archive this? We are nowhere near done with this topic especially that you are completely changing topic and want to talk about the Bible fragments and the "number of the beast". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.203.181 (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because this page is for discussing the article it is not a soapbox for tired, fallacious Creationist whines like the "I accept microevolution but not macroevolution" one you parroted above. HrafnTalkStalk 05:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made very valid logical arguments and yet you consider them "fallacious Creationist whines". You are oviously a religious evolutionist and have lots of time on your hands to preach and your propaganda and using wiki for that purpose. This is a very dangerous precedence you are trying to set. wiki is not to be used as your pulpit for preaching. As I mentioned numerous times, you MUST define what you mean by "evolution". There are factual parts to the theory of evolution, but just because there are factual parts to it, does not make the theory as a whole fact. You are tying to make a huge falacious mistake to help with your preaching and propaganda and I'll not allow that to happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.179.6 (talk • contribs)

Some points:
  • Learn to sign your posts
  • Evolution is defined in evolution and in this article. have you read it?
  • Evolution is what evolutionary biologists define it to be, not creationists
  • Evolution does not include the big bang
  • Evolution does not include abiogenesis
  • evolution is a polyseme
  • evolution is both a fact and a theory
  • The facts known as evolution are the data, also known as the observations, from field studies, genetic data, and fossil records and the results of laboratory experiments.
  • The theory known as evolution is the current dominant scientific explanation for these facts.
  • You are confused and you just make yourself look bad ranting about things you do not know or understand.--Filll (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
76.167.179.6, are you "Zigzagzoo12"? Because, so far, the only edit made to the main article using this IP address was an act of blatant vandalism [1]. A vandal is in no position to make pompous remarks such as "wiki is not to be used as your pulpit for preaching" or "I'll not allow that to happen". --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Everybody: WP:DNFT HrafnTalkStalk 15:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Evolution as theory and fact. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. HrafnTalkStalk 06:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)