User talk:Doug youvan/01
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 - See page History 5/26/08 Doug youvan (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Genetic code
Hi there, hope you're happy with the new version of the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and I learned a lot from you in the process: Put the insert where it belongs, and don't start out with something to heavy. ,,,,,, I don't think that there are any open questions on the discussion page, but if you look at my archiving technique, I am not the one to try to do the archiving! ThanksDoug youvan (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] June 2008
Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Intelligent design for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. HrafnTalkStalk 17:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have any sources that discuss the relation of the material you are trying to add to the article to the subject of intelligent design? If you don't have sources that discuss this relationship, and discuss the implications of the non-random nature of the genetic code for ID, then adding this material would be original research. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Tim - I am simply looking for cooperation from fellow editors to start on some editing. Having now been deleted a few times, I started a search of the literature myself and posted where Hrafn is deleting. So, I will now stay off that page until I have a draft. But this is clear: The literature contains valid references to directed panspermia as part of an "intelligent design" by an earlier civilization. If directed panspermia is omitted, then we are simply defining ID as religion and then turning around and saying it is religion. That philosophy and cherry picking of references excludes valid references to scientific theories that are non-Darwinian. Thus one is left with Darwin and no other scientific possibilities. That is not what the long history of science reflects. After all, Arrhenius is one of the fathers of thermodynamics. There is also a possible link with artificial intelligence, and I will beging to research references on that subject, too. However, if the ID article has an agenda other than science, I can't edit this alone. Doug youvan (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- On another issue, can we reference a published patent application? At www.uspto.gov, utility applications are published prior to issue. Doug youvan (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- You don't get cooperation by making spurious posts about a "made-up term" (your words). Such garbage is routinely removed per WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" HrafnTalkStalk 07:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] "Made up" information userfied from Talk:Intelligent design
-
-
-
-
- I don't know if any guidelines are violated but I agree that some of these are extreme. Wouldn't it be better to link to an article in an established magazine setting forth the case for ID?--Stetsonharry (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't know if any guidelines are violated but I agree that some of these are extreme. Wouldn't it be better to link to an article in an established magazine setting forth the case for ID?--Stetsonharry (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- - == Unexplained Data = UD? == -
- Would fellow editors here like to try to find references that clearly separate UD from ID such that UD can be published without creating the appearance that it is ID? As an example, I would offer figure 3 in the current genetic code article as UD. Doug youvan (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC) -
- :Lacking a WP:RS linking a hitherto undocumented relevance of 'Unexplianed Data' (likewise a hitherto undocumented term) to Intelligent Design, the answer would be no. HrafnTalkStalk 15:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC) -
- ::Forgive me, "UD" was just a made-up term to illustrate the point that it is in everyone's best interests (I think) to be able to keep "UD" open for further scientific inquiry, especially for students. Surely someone has seen that point before, and has published in a reliable source. Can you think of a better term to search than "UD"? At this time, perhaps there is a perception that ID = UD, when in fact, this article and all of the groups in education, science, and law say: ID != UD, where "!= is not equal to". Please assume good faith, because I think this distinction might zero out some edit wars and save Admin time.Doug youvan (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Doug youvan (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
respaced for clarity Doug youvan (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I also do not understand this:
Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Intelligent design for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. HrafnTalkStalk 17:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doug_youvan/01"
Doug youvan (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoug_youvan%2F01&diff=218354047&oldid=218340619
Doug youvan (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
