Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Evolution

2006-04-26T02:41:40Z

CommonJoe:

{{hoax}}
{{dablink|This article is about evolution in biology. For other uses, see [[Evolution (disambiguation)]].}}
[[Image:PhylogeneticTree.jpg|thumb|350px|A speculative [[phylogenetic tree]] of all living things, based on [[non-coding RNA|rRNA]] [[gene]] data, showing the separation of the three domains, [[bacteria]], [[archaea]] and [[eukaryote]]s.]]

In [[biology]], '''evolution''' is the process by which novel traits arise in populations and are passed on from generation to generation. Its occurrence over long stretches of time explains the origin of new species ([[speciation]]) and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world. Contemporary species are related to each other through [[common descent]], products of evolution and speciation over billions of years. The [[phylogenetic tree]] on the right represents these relationships for the three major domains of life.

The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of [[natural selection]], which was first set out in a joint 1858 paper by [[Charles Darwin]] and [[Alfred Russel Wallace]] and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book ''[[The Origin of Species]]''. Natural selection is the idea that individual organisms which possess [[genetic variation]]s giving them advantageous heritable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce and, in doing so, to increase the frequency of such traits in subsequent generations.

In the 1930s, scientists combined Darwinian natural selection with the theory of [[Gregor Mendel|Mendelian]] [[heredity]] to create the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]], also known as [[Neo-Darwinism]]. The modern synthesis describes evolution as a change in the frequency of [[allele]]s within a population from one generation to the next. The mechanisms that produce these changes are the basic mechanisms of population genetics: natural selection and [[genetic drift]] acting on genetic variation created by [[mutation]], [[genetic recombination]] and [[gene flow]].<ref>"Understanding Evolution", [[University of California, Berkeley]], online at http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_17 and http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_16.</ref> This theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of [[antibiotic resistance]] in bacteria, [[eusociality]] in insects, and the staggering [[biodiversity]] of the living world.

Because of its potential implications for the origins of humankind, the evolutionary theory has been at the center of many [[Creation-evolution controversy|social and religious controversies]] since it was first introduced.

== History of evolutionary thought ==
{{main|History of evolutionary thought}}
[[Image:Charles Darwin.jpg|frame|right|[[Charles Darwin]] in 1854, five years before publishing ''[[The Origin of Species]]''.]]

The idea of biological evolution has existed since ancient times, notably among Greek philosophers such as [[Epicurus]] and [[Anaximander]]. However, scientific theories of evolution were not established until the 18th and 19th centuries, by scientists such as [[Jean-Baptiste Lamarck]] and [[Charles Darwin]]. The transmutation of species was accepted by many scientists before 1859, but the publication of Charles Darwin's ''[[The Origin of Species|On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection]]'' provided the first cogent theory for a mechanism by which evolutionary change could occur: [[natural selection]]. Darwin was motivated to publish his work on evolution after receiving a letter from [[Alfred Russel Wallace]], in which Wallace revealed his own, independent discovery of natural selection. Accordingly, Wallace is sometimes given shared credit for originating the theory.

Darwin's theory, although successful in profoundly shaking scientific opinion about the development of life, could not explain the source of variation in traits within a species, and Darwin's proposal of a [[heredity|hereditary]] mechanism ([[pangenesis]]) was not compelling to biologists. Although the occurrence of evolution of some sort became a widely-accepted view among scientists, Darwin's specific ideas about evolution—that it occurred gradually by natural and sexual selection—were actively attacked and rejected. From the end of the 19th century through the early 20th century, forms of neo-Lamarckism, "progressive" evolution ([[orthogenesis]]), and an evolution which worked by "jumps" ([[Saltation (biology)|saltationism]], as opposed to [[phyletic gradualism|gradualism]]) became popular, although a form of neo-Darwinism, led by [[August Weismann]], also enjoyed some minor success. The biometric school of evolutionary theory, resulting from the work of Darwin's cousin, [[Francis Galton]], emerged as well, using statistical approaches to biology which emphasized gradualism and some aspects of natural selection.

[[Image:Mendel.png|frame|left|[[Gregor Mendel]]'s work on the inheritance of traits in pea plants laid the foundation for [[genetics]].]]

When [[Gregor Mendel]]'s work on the nature of inheritance in the late 19th century was "rediscovered" in 1900, it was interpreted as supporting an anti-Darwinian "jumping" form of evolution. The convinced Mendelians, such as [[William Bateson]] and [[Charles Benedict Davenport]], and biometricians, such as [[Walter Frank Raphael Weldon]] and [[Karl Pearson]], became embroiled in a bitter debate, with Mendelians charging that the biometricians did not understand biology, and biometricians arguing that most biological traits exhibited continuous variation rather than the "jumps" expected by the early Mendelian theory. However, the simple version of the theory of early Mendelians soon gave way to the [[classical genetics]] of [[Thomas Hunt Morgan]] and his school, which thoroughly grounded and articulated the applications of Mendelian laws to biology. Eventually, it was shown that a rigorous statistical approach to Mendelism was reconcilable with the data of the biometricians by the work of biologist and statistician [[Ronald Fisher|R.A. Fisher]] in the 1930s. Following this, the work of population geneticists and zoologists in the 1930s and 1940s created a model of Darwinian evolution compatible with the science of genetics, which became known as the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]].

The most significant recent developments in [[evolutionary biology]] have been the improved understanding and advancement of [[genetics]].<ref>According to the [[BBC]]: [[Colin Norman]], news editor of [[Science (journal)|Science]], said "[S]cientists tend to take for granted that evolution underpins modern biology [...] Evolution is not just something that scientists study as an esoteric enterprise. It has very important implications for public health and for our understanding of who we are" and Dr. Mike Ritchie, of the school of biology at the University of St Andrews, UK said "The big recent development in evolutionary biology has obviously been the improved resolution in our understanding of genetics. Where people have found a gene they think is involved in speciation, I can now go and look how it has evolved in 12 different species of fly, because we've got the genomes of all these species available on the web." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4552466.stm BBC News]</ref> In the 1940s, following up on [[Griffith's experiment]], [[Oswald Avery|Avery]], [[Colin McCleod|McCleod]] and [[Maclyn McCarty|McCarty]] definitively identified [[DNA]] (deoxyribonucleic acid) as the "transforming principle" responsible for transmitting genetic information. In 1953, [[Francis Crick]] and [[James D. Watson]] published their famous paper on the structure of DNA, based on the research of [[Rosalind Franklin]] and [[Maurice Wilkins]]. These developments ignited the era of [[molecular biology]] and transformed the understanding of evolution into a molecular process: the [[mutation]] of segments of DNA (see [[molecular evolution]]). [[George C. Williams]]' 1966 ''Adaptation and natural selection: A Critique of some Current Evolutionary Thought'' marked a departure from the idea of group selection towards the modern notion of the gene as the unit of selection. In the mid-1970s, [[Motoo Kimura]] formulated the [[neutral theory of molecular evolution]], firmly establishing the importance of [[genetic drift]] as a major mechanism of evolution.

Debates have continued within the field. One prominent public debate was over the theory of [[punctuated equilibrium]], proposed in 1972 by [[paleontology|paleontologists]] [[Niles Eldredge]] and [[Stephen Jay Gould]] to explain the paucity of gradual transitions between species in the fossil record.

==Science of evolution==
The word ''evolution'' has been used to refer both to a fact and a theory. The existence of these two distinct meanings, and confusion over the relationship between and definitions of ''fact'' and ''theory'' in science, have often caused misunderstandings among laypeople about the scientific status of evolution.

When ''evolution'' is used to describe a [[fact]], it refers to the observations that populations of one species of organism do, over time, change into new species. In this sense, evolution occurs whenever a new species of bacterium evolves that is [[antibiotic resistance|resistant to antibiotics]] which had been lethal to prior strains.

When ''evolution'' is used to describe a [[theory]], it refers to an explanation for why and how the process of evolution (in the sense, for example, of "speciation") occurs. An example of evolution as theory is the [[modern evolutionary synthesis|modern synthesis]] of Darwin and Wallace's theory of natural selection and Mendel's principles of genetics. This theory has three major aspects:

# [[Common descent]] of all [[organism]]s from a single ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
# Manifestation of novel traits in a lineage.
# Mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.

When people provide evidence for the process (or "fact") of evolution, they are supporting the idea that evolution occurs at all; when they provide evidence for a certain theory of evolution, however, they are supporting a given theory as the best explanation yet as to why and how the process of evolution occurs.

===Academic disciplines===
[[Image:RDawkins.jpg|frame|220px|[[Richard Dawkins]] is a contemporary evolutionary biologist who has written several best-selling books on the subject.]]

Scholars in a number of academic disciplines continue to document examples of evolution, contributing to a deeper understanding of its underlying mechanisms. Every subdiscipline within [[biology]] both informs and is informed by knowledge of the theory and details of evolution, such as in [[ecological genetics]], [[human evolution]], [[molecular evolution]], and [[phylogenetics]]. Areas of mathematics (such as [[bioinformatics]]), physics, chemistry and other fields all make important foundational contributions. Even disciplines as far removed as [[geology]] and [[sociology]] play a part, since the process of biological evolution has coincided in time and space with the development of both the Earth and human civilization.

[[Evolutionary biology]] is a subfield of biology concerned with the origin and descent of [[species]], as well as their changes over time. It was originally an [[interdisciplinarity|interdisciplinary]] field including scientists from many traditional [[taxonomy|taxonomically]]-oriented disciplines. For example, it generally includes scientists who may have a specialist training in particular organisms, such as [[mammalogy]], [[ornithology]], or [[herpetology]], but who use those organisms to answer general questions in evolution. Evolutionary biology as an [[academic discipline]] in its own right emerged as a result of the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]] in the 1930s and 1940s. It was not until the 1970s and 1980s, however, that a significant number of universities had departments that specifically included the term ''evolutionary biology'' in their titles.

[[Evolutionary developmental biology]] is an emergent subfield of evolutionary biology that looks at the [[gene]]s of related and unrelated organisms. By comparing the explicit [[nucleotide]] sequences of [[DNA]] and [[RNA]], it is possible to trace and experimentally determine the timelines of species development. For example, gene sequences support the conclusion that chimpanzees are the closest non-extinct primate ancestor to humans, and that [[arthropod]]s and [[vertebrate]]s have a common biological ancestor.

[[Physical anthropology]] emerged in the late 19th century as the study of human [[osteology]], and the fossilized skeletal remains of other [[hominid]]s. At that time, anthropologists debated whether their evidence supported Darwin's claims, because skeletal remains revealed temporal and spatial variation among hominids, but Darwin had not offered an explanation of the specific mechanisms that produce variation. With the recognition of Mendelian genetics and the rise of the modern synthesis, however, evolution became both the fundamental conceptual framework for, and the object of study of, physical anthropologists. In addition to studying skeletal remains, they began to study genetic variation among human populations ([[population genetics]]); thus, some physical anthropologists began calling themselves biological anthropologists.

==Evidence of evolution==
{{main|Evidence of evolution}}

The process of evolution has left behind numerous records which reveal the history of different species. While the best-known of these are the [[fossil record]], fossils are only a small part of the overall physical record of evolution. Fossils, taken together with the [[comparative anatomy]] of present-day plants and animals, constitute the morphological, or [[anatomy|anatomical]], record. By comparing the anatomies of both modern and extinct species, biologists can reconstruct the lineages of those species with some accuracy. Important fossil evidence includes the connection of distinct classes of organisms by way of so-called "[[transitional fossil|transitional]]" species, such as the [[Archaeopteryx]], which provided early evidence for the link between [[dinosaur]]s and [[bird]]s, and the recently-discovered [[Tiktaalik]], which clarifies the development from [[fish]] to [[tetrapod|animals with four limbs]].

The development of [[genetics]] has allowed biologists to study the genetic record of evolution as well. Although the [[DNA]] sequences of most extinct species cannot be obtained, the degree of similarity and difference among modern species allows geneticists to reconstruct lineages with greater accuracy. It is from genetic comparisons that claims such as the 95% similarity between humans and [[chimpanzee]]s come from, for example.<ref>Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium (2005) Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature 437: 69–87. Britten RJ (2002) Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99: 13633–13635.</ref>

Other evidence used to demonstrate evolutionary lineages includes the geographical distribution of species. For instance, [[monotreme]]s and most [[marsupial]]s are found only in [[Australia]], showing that their common ancestor with placental mammals lived before the submerging of the ancient [[land bridge]] between Australia and Asia.

Scientists correlate all of the above evidence—drawn from [[paleontology]], anatomy, genetics, and geography—with other information about the [[history of the earth]]. For instance, [[paleoclimatology]] attests to periodic [[ice age]]s during which the world's climate was much cooler, and these are often found to match up with the spread of species which are better-equipped to deal with the cold, such as the [[woolly mammoth]].

===Morphological evidence===
[[Image:Knightia.jpg|right|thumb|220px|Fossil fish of the genus ''[[Knightia]]''.]]

[[Fossil]]s are important tools for estimating when various lineages developed. Since fossilization of an organism is an uncommon occurrence, usually requiring hard parts (like bone) and death near a site where soft [[sediment]]s are being gently deposited, the [[fossil record]] only provides sparse and intermittent information about the evolution of life. Fossil evidence of organisms without hard body parts, such as shell, bone, and teeth, is especially rare, but exists in the form of ancient microfossils and the fossilization of ancient burrows ([[trace fossil]]s).

Fossil evidence of prehistoric organisms has been found all over the Earth. The ages of fossils are typically synchronized with the geologic context in which they are found; many of their absolute ages can be verified with [[radiometric dating]]. Some fossils bear a resemblance to organisms alive today, while others are radically different. Fossils have been used to determine at what time a lineage developed, and [[transitional fossil]]s can be used to demonstrate continuity between two different lineages. [[Paleontology|Paleontologists]] investigate evolution largely through analysis of fossils.

[[Phylogenetics]], the study of the ancestry of species, has revealed that structures with similar internal organization may perform divergent functions. [[Vertebrate]] limbs are a common example of such [[homology (biology)|homologous]] structures. Bat wings, for example, are very structurally similar to hands. A [[vestigial structure]] may exist with little or no purpose in one organism, but a clear purpose in ancestral species. Examples of vestigial structures in humans include [[wisdom teeth]], the [[coccyx]] and the [[vermiform appendix]].

===Genetic sequence evidence===
Comparison of the genetic sequence of organisms reveals that [[phylogenetics|phylogenetically]] close organisms have a higher degree of sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the [[chimpanzee]], 1.6% from [[gorilla]]s, and 6.6% from [[baboon]]s.<ref>Two sources: 'Genomic divergences between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees'. and 'Quantitative Estimates of Sequence Divergence for Comparative Analyses of Mammalian Genomes' "[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11170892] [http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/13/5/813]"</ref> Genetic sequence evidence thus literally provides a picture of the "missing link" between humans and other apes.<ref>The picture labeled "Human Chromosome 2 and its analogs in the apes" in the article [http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry] is literally a picture of a link in humans that links two separate chromosomes in the nonhuman apes creating a single chromosome in humans. It is THE missing link since it is the ape-human connection that is the big deal in the first place. And while the term originally referred to fossil evidence, this too is a trace from the past corresponding to some living beings that when alive were the physical embodiment of this link.</ref><ref>The [[New York Times]] report ''[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07evolve.html Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story]'', based on ''[http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040072 A Map of Recent Positive Selection in the Human Genome]'', states the [[International HapMap Project]] is "providing the strongest evidence yet that humans are still evolving" and details some of that evidence.</ref> Sequence comparison is considered a measure robust enough to be used to correct erroneous assumptions in the phylogenetic tree in instances where other evidence is scarce.

Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as [[pseudogene]]s, regions of DNA which are [[orthologue|orthologous]] to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration.<ref>Pseudogene evolution and natural selection for a compact genome. "[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10833048]"</ref>

Since [[metabolism|metabolic]] processes do not leave fossils, research into the evolution of the basic cellular processes is done largely by comparison of existing organisms. Many lineages diverged when new metabolic processes appeared, and it is theoretically possible to determine when certain metabolic processes appeared by comparing the traits of the descendants of a common ancestor.

===Evidence from studies of complex iteration===

"It has taken more than five decades, but the electronic computer is now powerful enough to simulate evolution" assisting [[bioinformatics]] in its attempt to solve biological problems.<ref>[http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2003/052103/Simulated_evolution_gets_complex_052103.html Simulated evolution gets complex]</ref> [[Computer science]] allows the [[iteration]] of self changing [[complex system]]s to be studied, allowing a mathematically exact understanding of the nature of the processes behind evolution and providing evidence for the hidden causes of known evolutionary events. The evolution of specific cellular mechanisms like [[spliceosome]]s that can turn the cell's genome into a vast workshop of billions of interchangeable parts can be studied for the first time in an exact way.

Christoph Adami et al., for example, make this point in ''Evolution of biological complexity'':

<blockquote>To make a case for or against a trend in the evolution of complexity in biological evolution, complexity needs to be both rigorously defined and measurable. A recent information-theoretic (but intuitively evident) definition identifies genomic complexity with the amount of information a sequence stores about its environment. We investigate the evolution of genomic complexity in populations of digital organisms and monitor in detail the evolutionary transitions that increase complexity. We show that, because natural selection forces genomes to behave as a natural "Maxwell Demon," within a fixed environment, genomic complexity is forced to increase. <ref>{{cite journal | author=Adami C, Ofria C, Collier TC | title=Evolution of biological complexity | journal=Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A | year=2000 | pages=4463-8 | volume=97 | issue=9 | id=PMID 10781045}}</ref></blockquote>

David J. Earl and Michael W. Deem also make this point in ''Evolvability is a selectable trait'':

<blockquote>Not only has life evolved, but life has evolved to evolve. That is, correlations within protein structure have evolved, and mechanisms to manipulate these correlations have evolved in tandem. The rates at which the various events within the hierarchy of evolutionary moves occur are not random or arbitrary but are selected by Darwinian evolution. Sensibly, rapid or extreme environmental change leads to selection for greater evolvability. This selection is not forbidden by causality and is strongest on the largest-scale moves within the mutational hierarchy. Many observations within evolutionary biology, heretofore considered evolutionary happenstance or accidents, are explained by selection for evolvability. For example, the vertebrate immune system shows that the variable environment of antigens has provided selective pressure for the use of adaptable codons and low-fidelity polymerases during somatic hypermutation. A similar driving force for biased codon usage as a result of productively high mutation rates is observed in the hemagglutinin protein of [[Influenzavirus A|influenza A]]. <ref>{{cite journal | author=Earl DJ, Deem MW | title=Evolvability is a selectable trait | journal=Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A | year=2004 | pages=11531-6 | volume=101 | issue=32 | id=PMID 15289608}}</ref></blockquote>

"Computer simulations of the evolution of linear sequences have demonstrated the importance of recombination of blocks of sequence rather than point mutagenesis alone. Repeated cycles of point mutagenesis, recombination, and selection should allow in vitro molecular evolution of complex sequences, such as proteins." <ref>{{cite journal | author=Stemmer WP | title=DNA shuffling by random fragmentation and reassembly: in vitro recombination for molecular evolution | journal=Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A | year=1994 | pages=10747-51 | volume=91 | issue=22 | id=PMID 7938023}}</ref> Evolutionary molecular engineering, also called "directed evolution" or "in vitro molecular evolution", involves the iterated cycle of mutation, multiplication with recombination, and selection of the fittest of individual molecules (proteins, DNA and RNA). The process of natural evolution can be reconstructed, showing possible paths from catalytic cycles based on proteins to ones based on RNA to ones based on DNA.<ref>[http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20060327/evo.html scripps.edu]
[http://bio.kaist.ac.kr/~jsrhee/research03.html bio.kaist.ac.kr] [http://www.isgec.org/gecco-2005/free-tutorials.html#ivme free-tutorial] [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=45099 pubmedcentral.nih.gov]</ref>

==Ancestry of organisms==
{{seealso|Common descent}}
[[Image:Huxley - Mans Place in Nature.jpg|left|250px|thumbnail|Morphologic similarities in the [[Hominidae]] family is evidence of common descent.]]

In biology, the theory of universal [[common descent]] proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.

Evidence for common descent may be found in traits shared between all living organisms. In Darwin's day, the evidence of shared traits was based solely on visible observation of morphologic similarities, such as the fact that all birds—even those which do not fly—have wings. Today, there is strong evidence from genetics that all organisms have a common ancestor. For example, every living cell makes use of [[nucleic acid]]s as its genetic material, and uses the same twenty [[amino acid]]s as the building blocks for [[protein]]s. All organisms use the same [[genetic code]] (with some extremely rare and minor deviations) to [[translation (genetics)|translate]] nucleic acid sequences into proteins. The universality of these traits strongly suggests common ancestry, because the selection of many of these traits seems arbitrary.

Information about the early development of life includes input from the fields of geology and [[planetary science]]. These sciences provide information about the history of the Earth and the changes produced by life. However, a great deal of information about the early Earth has been destroyed by geological processes over the course of time.
 

===History of life===

{{main|Timeline of evolution}}
The [[chemical evolution]] from [[Catalyst|self-catalytic chemicals]] to [[life]] (see [[Origin of life]]) is not a part of biological evolution.

[[Image:Stromatolites.jpg|right|thumb|280px|[[Precambrian]] [[stromatolite]]s in the Siyeh Formation, [[Glacier National Park (US)|Glacier National Park]]. In 2002, William Schopf of [[University of California, Los Angeles|UCLA]] published a controversial paper in the journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' arguing that formations such as this possess 3.5 billion year old [[fossil]]ized [[alga]]e microbes. If true, they would be the earliest known life on earth.]]

Not much is known about the earliest developments in life. However, all existing organisms share certain traits, including cellular structure and [[genetic code]]. Most scientists interpret this to mean all existing organisms share a common ancestor, which had already developed the most fundamental cellular processes, but there is no [[scientific consensus]] on the relationship of the three domains of life ([[Archaea]], [[Bacterium|Bacteria]], [[Eukaryota]]) or the [[origin of life]]. Attempts to shed light on the earliest history of life generally focus on the behavior of [[macromolecule]]s, particularly [[RNA]], and the behavior of [[complex system]]s.

The emergence of oxygenic [[photosynthesis]] (around 3 billion years ago) and the subsequent emergence of an oxygen-rich, non-reducing atmosphere can be traced through the formation of [[Banded iron formation|banded iron]] deposits, and later [[red bed]]s of iron oxides. This was a necessary prerequisite for the development of [[aerobic respiration|aerobic]] [[cellular respiration]], believed to have emerged around 2 billion years ago.

In the last billion years, simple multicellular plants and animals began to appear in the oceans. Soon after the emergence of the first animals, the [[Cambrian explosion]] (a period of unrivaled and remarkable, but brief, organismal diversity documented in the fossils found at the [[Burgess Shale]]) saw the creation of all the major body plans, or [[phylum (biology)|phyla]], of modern animals. This event is now believed to have been triggered by the development of the [[Homeobox|Hox genes]]. About 500 million years ago, [[plant]]s and [[fungi]] colonized the land, and were soon followed by [[arthropod]]s and other animals, leading to the development of land [[ecosystem]]s with which we are familiar.

The evolutionary process can be exceedingly slow. Fossil evidence indicates that the diversity and complexity of modern life has developed over much of the [[history of Earth|history of the earth]]. [[geology|Geological]] evidence indicates that the Earth is approximately [[Age of the earth|4.6 billion years old]]. Studies on guppies by David Reznick at the University of California, Riverside, however, have shown that the rate of evolution through natural selection can proceed 10 thousand to 10 million times faster than what is indicated in the fossil record.<ref>Evaluation of the Rate of Evolution in Natural Populations of Guppies (Poecilia reticulata) "[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9072971&query_hl=2]"</ref>

==Modern synthesis==
{{main|Modern evolutionary synthesis}}

The current understanding of the mechanisms of evolution differs considerably from the theory first outlined by Charles Darwin. Importantly, advances in [[genetics]] pioneered by [[Gregor Mendel]] led to a sophisticated understanding of the basis of variation and the mechanisms of inheritance. In addition natural selection has come to be seen as only one of a number of forces acting in evolution. A notable milestone in this regard was the formulation of the [[neutral theory of molecular evolution]] by [[Motoo Kimura]].

===Heredity===
[[Image:DNA123.png|thumb|left|125px|A section of a model of a DNA molecule.]]

Gregor Mendel first proposed a gene-based theory of inheritance, discretizing the elements responsible for heritable traits into the fundamental units we now call genes, and laying out a mathematical framework for the segregation and inheritance of variants of a gene, which we now refer to as alleles.

Later research identified the molecule [[DNA]] as the genetic material, through which traits are passed from parent to offspring, and identified genes as discrete elements within DNA. Though largely faithfully maintained within organisms, DNA is both variable across individuals and subject to a process of change or [[mutation]].

Non-DNA based forms of heritable variation exist, which may change the way in which genes are expressed or maintained. The processes that produce these variations leave the genetic information intact and are often reversible. This is called [[epigenetic inheritance]] and may include phenomena such as [[DNA methylation]], [[prion]]s, and [[structural inheritance]]. Investigations continue into whether these mechanisms allow for the production of specific beneficial heritable variation in response to environmental signals. If this were shown to be the case, then some instances of evolution would lie outside of the typical Darwinian framework, which avoids any connection between environmental signals and the production of heritable variation.

Many organisms reproduce by [[sex|sexual reproduction]], which involves [[meiosis|meiotic]] [[recombination]] followed by independent [[Mendelian inheritance#Mendel.27s law of segregation|assortment]] of chromosomes and the joining of the gametes - usually egg and sperm.

===Mechanisms of evolution===
Evolution consists of two basic types of processes: those that introduce new genetic variation into a population, and those that affect the frequencies of existing variation. "Variation proposes and selection disposes." <ref>[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1151 NY Books]</ref>

The mechanisms of evolution include mutation, linkage, heterozygosity, recombination, gene flow, population structure, drift, natural selection, and adaptation.

These mechanisms of evolution have all been observed in the present and in evidence of their existence in the past. Their study is being used to guide the development of new medicines and other health aids such as the current effort to prevent a [[H5N1]] (i.e. bird flu) pandemic. <ref>The use of evolutionary principles to guide disease diagnosis and drug development with respect to bird flu (i.e. H5N1 virus) is shown [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol11no10/05-0644.htm here at CDC]. [http://www.nap.edu/books/0309095042/html/123.html#p2000c2099960123001 Here] is the "tree of life" showing the evolution by [[reassortment]] of [[H5N1]] that created the Z genotype in 2002 and [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol11no10/05-0644-G1.htm here] is evolution by [[antigenic drift]] that created dozens of highly [[pathogenic]] varieties of the Z genotype of avian flu virus [[H5N1]], some of which are increasingly adopted to mammals. Evolution. Right before our eyes. </ref>

====Mutation====
{{main|Mutation}}
[[Image:dna-split.png|thumb|right|150px|Mutation occurs because of a small number of errors that occur during DNA replication.]]

The ultimate source of all genetic variation is mutations. They are permanent, transmissible changes to the [[genetic material]] (usually [[DNA]] or [[RNA]]) of a [[cell (biology)|cell]], and can be caused by "copying errors" in the genetic material during [[cell division]] and by exposure to [[Radioactive decay|radiation]], chemicals, or [[virus (biology)|viruses]]. In multicellular organisms, mutations can be subdivided into ''germline mutations'' that occur in the [[gamete]]s and thus can be passed on to progeny, and ''somatic mutations'' that often lead to the malfunction or death of a cell and can cause [[cancer]].

Mutations that are not affected by natural selection are called [[Neutral theory of molecular evolution|neutral mutations]]. Their frequency in the population is governed entirely by genetic drift and gene flow. It is understood that a species' genome, in the absence of selection, undergoes a steady accumulation of neutral mutations. The [[probable mutation effect]] is the proposition that a gene that is not under selection will be destroyed by accumulated mutations. This is an aspect of [[genome degradation]].

Not all mutations are created equal; simple point mutations (substitutions), which comprise the vast majority of genetic variation, usually can only alter the function or level of expression of existing genes. [[Gene duplication]]s, which may occur via a number of mechanisms, are believed to be the major mechanism for the introduction of new genes; most genes belong to larger "families" of genes derived from a common ancestral gene (two genes from a species that are in the same family are dubbed "[[paralog]]s"). Finally, large chromosomal rearrangements (like the fusion of two chromosomes in the chimp/human common ancestor that produced human chromosome 2) almost invariably result in a speciation event.

====Linkage and heterozygosity====
Genetic variation cannot move perfectly freely through the population from one generation to the next. Deviations from a random distribution of alleles (a population where alleles are truly independently assorted and gametes randomly joined) may appear in the form of decreased [[heterozygosity]] - that is, the fraction of the population which has one copy of each allele. Low heterozygosity may result from [[inbreeding]] populations. High heterozygosity is usually a product of some forms of [[balancing selection]] (see below).

A second significant restraint on alleles appears in the form of genetic linkage, where alleles that are nearby on a chromosome tend to be propagated together. This tendency may be measured by comparing the co-occurrence of two alleles, usually quantified as [[linkage disequilibrium]] (LD). A set of alleles that are often co-propagated is called a [[haplotype]]. Strong haplotype blocks are associated with high LD, and can be a product of strong positive selection or rapid demographic changes.

====Recombination====
{{Main|Evolution of sex}}

This haplotype structure is the result of limited rates of recombination combined with drift or selection. It is the random assortment of chromosomes and meiotic recombination that allow mutations that have arisen on the same chromosome to be propagated in the population independently. This allows bad mutations to be purged and beneficial mutations to be retained more efficiently than in asexual populations.

Recombination is mildly mutagenic, which is one of the proposed reasons why it occurs with limited frequency. Recombination also breaks up gene combinations that have been successful in previous generations, and hence should be opposed by selection. However, recombination could be favoured by negative frequency-dependent selection (this is when rare variants increase in frequency) because it leads to more individuals with new and rare gene combinations being produced.

When alleles cannot be separated by recombination (for example in mammalian [[Y chromosome]]s), we see a reduction in [[effective population size]], known as the [[Hill Robertson effect]], and the successive establishment of bad mutations, known as [[Muller's ratchet]].

====Gene flow====
[[Gene flow]] (also called ''gene admixture'' or simply ''migration'') is introduction of variation into a population from an outside population. It is the only mechanism whereby two populations can become closer genetically while increasing their variation. Migration of one population into an area occupied by a second population can result in gene flow. Gene flow operates when geography and culture are not obstacles. When gene flow is impeded by non-geographic obstacles, the situation is termed [[reproductive isolation]] and is considered to be the hallmark of [[speciation]].

One source of genetic variation is [[gene transfer]], the movement of genetic material across species boundaries, which can include [[horizontal gene transfer]], [[antigenic shift]], [[reassortment]], and [[hybrid]]ization. Viruses can transfer genes between species <ref>[http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:tpICVNWaTbgJ:non.fiction.org/lj/community/ref_courses/3484/enmicro.pdf+sex+evolution+%22Horizontal+gene+transfer%22+-human+Conjugation+RNA+DNA&hl=en enmicro.pdf]</ref>. Bacteria can incorporate genes from other dead bacteria, exchange genes with living bacteria, and can have [[plasmid]]s "set up residence separate from the host's genome" <ref>[http://www2.nau.edu/~bah/BIO471/Reader/Pennisi_2003.pdf Pennisi_2003.pdf]</ref>.
"Sequence comparisons suggest recent horizontal transfer of many [[gene]]s among diverse [[species]] including across the boundaries of [[phylogenetic]] 'domains'. Thus determining the phylogenetic history of a species can not be done conclusively by determining evolutionary trees for single genes." <ref>Oklahoma State - [http://opbs.okstate.edu/~melcher/MG/MGW3/MG334.html Horizontal Gene Transfer]</ref>

Biologist Gogarten suggests "the original metaphor of a tree no longer fits the data from recent genome research" therefore "biologists [should] use the metaphor of a mosaic to describe the different histories combined in individual genomes and use [the] metaphor of a net to visualize the rich exchange and cooperative effects of HGT among microbes." <ref>[http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=10&pageid=105&pgtype=1 esalenctr.org]</ref>

"Using single [[gene]]s as [[phylogenetic marker]]s, it is difficult to trace organismal [[phylogeny]] in the presence of HGT [horizontal gene transfer]. Combining the simple [[coalescence]] model of [[cladogenesis]] with rare HGT [horizontal gene transfer] events suggest there was no single [[last common ancestor]] that contained all of the genes ancestral to those shared among the three domains of [[life]]. Each contemporary [[molecule]] has its own history and traces back to an individual molecule [[cenancestor]]. However, these molecular ancestors were likely to be present in different organisms at different times." <ref>[http://web.uconn.edu/gogarten/articles/TIG2004_cladogenesis_paper.pdf TIG2004_cladogenesis_paper.pdf]</ref>

====Population structure====
:''Main article [[Population genetics]]''

[[Image:Evolution_evi_mig.png|350px|thumb|right|Map of the world showing distribution of camels. Solid black lines indicate possible migration routes.]]

An important facet of evolution occurs through changes in population structure. The movement of populations and changes in their sizes can have profound impacts on evolution by altering extant selection pressures or patterns of drift. For example, migration can result in admixture, leading to the introduction of new genetic variation, or it may result in geographic isolation which may in turn lead to reproductive isolation or speciation.

Populations may also shrink or grow over time, producing "bottlenecks" or "explosions" respectively. Since population size has a profound effect on the relative strengths of genetic drift and natural selection, changes in population size can alter the dynamics of these processes considerably. Such changes may also produce dramatic and dangerous crashes in the level of genetic variation in the population, or allow rapid increases in standing genetic variation.

The free movement of alleles through a population may also be impeded by population structure. For example, most real-world populations are not actually fully interbreeding; geographic proximity has a strong influence on the movement of alleles within the population. Many models of evolution rely on simplifying assumptions of constant population size and fully interbreeding populations for mathematical convenience.

An example of the effect of population structure is the so-called [[founder effect]], resulting from a migration and population bottleneck. In this case, a single, rare allele may suddenly increase very rapidly in frequency within a specific population if it happened to be prevalent in a small number of "founder" individuals. The frequency of the allele in the resulting population can be much higher than otherwise expected, especially for deleterious, disease-causing alleles.

====Drift====
{{main|Genetic drift}}

Genetic drift describes changes in allele frequency from one generation to the next due to [[variance|sampling variance]]. The frequency of an allele in the offspring generation will vary according to a probability distribution of the frequency of the allele in the parent generation. Thus, over time, allele frequencies will tend to "drift" upward or downward, eventually becoming "fixed" - that is, going to 0% or 100% frequency. Fluctuations in allele frequency between successive generations may result in some alleles disappearing from the population. Two separate populations that begin with the same allele frequencies therefore might drift by random fluctuation into two divergent populations with different allele sets (for example, alleles present in one population could be absent in the other, or ''vice versa'').

Many aspects of genetic drift depend on the size of the population (generally abbreviated as N). This is especially important in small mating populations, where chance fluctuations from generation to generation can be large. The relative importance of natural selection and genetic drift in determining the fate of new mutations also depends on the population size and the strength of selection: when N times s (population size times strength of selection) is small, genetic drift predominates. When N times s is large, selection predominates. Thus, natural selection is 'more efficient' in large populations, or equivalently, genetic drift is stronger in small populations. Finally, the time for an allele to become fixed in the population by genetic drift (that is, for all individuals in the population to carry that allele) depends on population size, with smaller populations requiring a shorter time to fixation.

====Selection and adaptation====
{{main articles|[[Natural selection]], [[Adaptation]]}}
[[Image:Peacock.displaying.better.800pix.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A [[peacock]]'s tail is the canonical example of [[sexual selection]]]]

Natural selection comes from differences in survival and reproduction as a result of the environment. Differential mortality is the survival rate of individuals to their reproductive age. Differential fertility is the total genetic contribution to the next generation. Note that, whereas mutations and genetic drift are random, natural selection is not, as it preferentially selects for different mutations based on differential fitnesses. For example, rolling dice is random, but always picking the higher number on two rolled dice is not random. The central role of natural selection in evolutionary theory has given rise to a strong connection between that field and the study of [[ecology]].

Natural selection can be subdivided into two categories:
* [[Ecological selection]] occurs when organisms that survive and reproduce increase the frequency of their genes in the gene pool over those that do not survive.
* [[Sexual selection]] occurs when organisms which are more attractive to the opposite sex because of their features reproduce more and thus increase the frequency of those features in the gene pool.

Natural selection also operates on mutations in several different ways:
* Positive or [[directional selection]] increases the frequency of a beneficial mutation, or pushes the mean in either direction.
* [[Stabilizing selection]] drives a population towards common traits. The stabilized population has relatively little genetic diversity since, over time, the common traits (or middle ground of traits) are favored. Turtles and sharks are a good example of stabilizing selection. Their form and traits have remained virtually identical over a long period of time. It is argued that stabilizing selection is the most common form of natural selection.
* [[Artificial selection]] refers to purposeful breeding of a species to produce a more desirable and “perfect” breed. Humans have directed artificial selection in the breeding of both animals and plants, with examples ranging from [[agriculture]] (crops and livestock) to [[pet]]s and [[horticulture]]. However, because humans are only part of the environment, the fractions of change in a species due to natural or artificial means can be difficult to determine. Artificial selection within human populations is a controversial enterprise known as [[eugenics]].
* [[Balancing selection]] maintains variation within a population through a number of mechanisms, including:
** [[Heterozygote advantage]] or overdominance, where the [[heterozygote]] is more fit than either of the homozygous forms (exemplified by human [[sickle cell anemia]] conferring resistance to [[malaria]])
** [[Frequency-dependent selection]], where rare variants either have increased fitness or decreased fitness, because of their rarity.
* [[Disruptive selection]] favors both extremes, and results in a bimodal distribution of gene frequency. The mean may or may not shift.
* [[Selective sweep]]s describe the affect of selection acting on [[genetic linkage|linked]] alleles. It comes in two forms:
** [[Background selection]] occurs when a deleterious mutation is selected against, and linked mutations are eliminated along with the deleterious variant, resulting in lower genetic polymorphism in the surrounding region.
** [[Genetic hitchhiking]] occurs when a positive mutation is selected for, and linked mutations are pushed towards fixation along with the positive variant.

Through the process of natural selection, species become better adapted to their environments. [[Adaptation]] is any evolutionary process that increases the [[fitness (biology)|fitness]] of the individual, or sometimes the trait that confers increased fitness, e.g. a stronger prehensile tail or greater visual acuity. Note that adaptation is context-sensitive; a trait that increases fitness in one environment may decrease it in another.

Evolution does not act in a linear direction towards a pre-defined "goal" — it only responds to various types of adaptionary changes. The belief in a [[teleology|telelogical]] evolution of this sort is known as [[orthogenesis]], and is not supported by the scientific understanding of evolution. One example of this misconception is the erroneous belief humans will evolve [[polydactyly|more fingers]] in the future on account of their increased use of machines such as [[computer]]s. In reality, this would only occur if more fingers offered a significantly higher rate of reproductive success than those not having them, which seems very unlikely at the current time.

Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of many mutations of small effect. However, [[macromutation]] is an alternative process for adaptation that involves a single, very large scale mutation.

===Speciation and extinction===
[[Image:Allosaurus1.jpg|right|thumb|200px|An [[Allosaurus]] skeleton.]]

[[Speciation]] is the creation of two or more species from one. This may take place by various mechanisms. [[Allopatric speciation]] occurs in populations that become isolated geographically, such as by [[habitat fragmentation]] or migration. [[Sympatric speciation]] occurs when new species emerge in the same geographic area. [[Ernst Mayr]]'s [[peripatric speciation]] is a type of speciation that exists in between the extremes of allopatry and sympatry. Peripatric speciation is a critical underpinning of the theory of [[punctuated equilibrium]]. An example of rapid sympatric speciation can be eloquently represented in the [[Triangle of U|triangle of U]]; where new species of ''Brassica sp.'' have been made by the fusing of separate genomes from related plants.

[[Extinction]] is the disappearance of species (i.e. [[gene pool]]s). The moment of extinction generally occurs at the death of the last individual of that species. Extinction is not an unusual event in [[geological time]] — species are created by speciation, and disappear through extinction. The [[Permian-Triassic extinction event]] was the Earth's most severe extinction event, rendering extinct 90% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species. In the [[Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event]] many forms of life perished (including approximately 50% of all [[genus|genera]]), the most often mentioned among them being the extinction of the non-[[avian]] [[dinosaur]]s.
{{-}}

== Misconceptions about modern evolutionary biology ==
Many critics of evolution claim that the theory robs life and the universe of any transcendental meaning. Indeed, one of the great strengths of evolution by natural selection is that it has no need for a [[supernatural]] intelligence or any [[intelligent design]]. As [[Louis Menand]] has pointed out, what was radical about Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection was not the notion of evolution — a concept people espoused before Darwin, and a word that does not appear in ''The Origin of Species'' — but his presentation of a natural method by which this might take place: "Darwin wanted to establish... that the species — including human beings — were created by, and evolve according to, processes that are entirely natural, chance-generated, and blind" <ref>(Menand 2001: 121)</ref>.

Nevertheless, many critiques of modern evolutionary thought involve misunderstandings of the theory itself, or of science in general.

===Distinctions between theory and fact===
:''Further information: [[Theory#Science|Theory]]

The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a ''scientific theory.'' In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion." [http://www.answers.com/theory&r=67] In this sense, "theories" are opposed to "facts" — parts of the world, or claims about the world, that are real or true regardless of what people think. In scientific terminology however, a theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which [[falsifiability|falsifiable]] predictions can be generated and tested through controlled experiments, or be verified through [[empiricism|empirical observation]]. In this scientific sense, "facts" exist only as ''parts'' of theories – they are things, or relationships between things, that theories must take for granted in order to make predictions, or that theories predict. In other words, for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship – for example, it is a "fact" that every apple ever dropped on earth (under normal, controlled conditions) has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains these observations is the current theory of [[gravitation]]. In this same sense evolution is an observed fact and the modern synthesis is currently the most [[predictive power|powerful]] theory explaining evolution. Within the [[science]] of biology, modern synthesis has completely replaced earlier accepted explanations for the origin of species, including [[Lamarckism]] and [[creationism]].

===Evolution and devolution===
One of the most common misunderstandings of evolution is that one species can be "more highly evolved" than another, that evolution is necessarily progressive, or that its converse is "[[devolution (fallacy)|devolution]]". Evolution provides no assurance that later generations are more intelligent, complex, or morally worthy than earlier generations. The claim that evolution results in moral progress is not part of modern evolutionary theory – that claim is associated with [[Social Darwinism]], which held that the subjugation of the poor, and of minority groups, was favored by evolution.

In many cases evolution does involve "progression" towards more complexity, since the earliest lifeforms were clearly much simpler than many of the species existing today. In that sense, there clearly has been a gradual movement over time from simple organisms to complex – and in some cases intelligent – lifeforms. However, there is no guarantee that any particular organism existing today will become more intelligent, more complex, bigger, or stronger in the future. In fact, natural selection will only favor this kind of "progression" if it increases chance of survival. The same mechanism can actually favor lower intelligence, lower complexity, and so on if those traits become a selective advantage in the organism's environment. One way of understanding the apparent "progression" of lifeforms over time is to remember that the earliest life began as maximally simple forms. Evolution could only drive life towards greater complexity, since to become more simple was impossible. Once individual lineages had attained sufficient complexity, however, simplification was as likely as increased complexity. This can be seen in many parasite species, for example, which have evolved simpler forms from more complex ancestors.

===Speciation===
{{main|Speciation}}
[[Image:Darwin's finches.jpeg|frame|left|The existence of several different, but related, finches on the [[Galápagos Islands]] convinced Darwin of the occurrence of speciation.]]

Another misunderstanding is the claim that [[Speciation|speciation]] – the origin of new species – has never been directly observed. This is a misunderstanding of both science and evolution. First, scientific discovery does not occur solely through [[Reproducibility|reproducible]] [[experiment]]s; the principle of [[Uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarianism]] allows natural scientists to infer causes through their empirical effects. Second, Darwin provided a compellingly large amount of evidence to support his theory. Moreover, since the publication of ''On the Origin of Species'' scientists have confirmed Darwin's hypothesis by data gathered from sources that did not exist in his day, such as [[DNA]] similarity among species and new [[Fossil record|fossil]] discoveries.

A variation of this assertion is that "microevolution" has been observed and "macroevolution" has not been observed. Some creationists redefine [[macroevolution]] as a change from one "kind" to another. One of Darwin's key insights was to view species statistically – that is, a "species" is not a homogeneous and immutable thing; rather, it consists of a mass of individuals that vary in form from one another and from their offspring. This view was substantiated with the development of Mendelian genetics, which distinguishes different species in terms of differences in the frequencies of particular genes. "Microevolution" and "macroevolution" both refer fundamentally to the same thing, changes in gene frequencies. The difference between them is primarily one of scale; that is, qualitative differences between species is the result of quantitative differences in gene frequencies. Commonly, macroevolution is defined as microevolution over a longer timescale. Some scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, use the term macroevolution to instead describe evolutionary processes that occur at the level of species or above.

Evidence of the mechanisms for the larger scales of time comes from evidence of the mechanisms for the smaller scales of time. The differences between macroevolution and microevolution are a result of this change of scale and do not necessitate mechanisms of change other than those already found in microevolution.
 

===Entropy===
{{main|Entropy}}

Another misconception is the claim that evolution violates the [[second law of thermodynamics]]. The second law holds that in a [[closed system]], [[entropy]] will tend to increase or stay the same. The misconception is that entropy means "disorder" and evolution means an increase in order (thus, a ''decrease'' in entropy). This is a misunderstanding of both entropy and evolution. "Entropy" does not mean "disorder" in a generic way (any set of objects may be ordered in any number of ways; disorder from one perspective may be order from another). Secondly, entropy refers specifically to differences in useable energy; an example of which is temperature differences.

What ''appears'' to be a violation of the second law is not evolution (meaning, the development of new species of life) but rather life itself. But the existence of life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics for two reasons. First, the second law of thermodynamics applies only to a closed system. Earth is not a closed system because it receives an energy input from the sun. However much life may proliferate on Earth, the energy of the sun does [[dissipative system|dissipate over time]].

The second law is not deterministic, it is probabilistic as is shown in [[statistical mechanics]]. For example, molecules within a container move at different velocities; the temperature of the contents is an average. The more time passes, the greater the probability that differences in temperature within the chamber will even out. This fact does not mean that at any given moment there is a small chance that differences in temperature will increase. As [[Louis Menand]] has observed, Darwin's theory of natural selection operates in an analogous fashion: at any given moment most of the members of a species vary little from the average form. Nevertheless, at any given moment there are deviations from the average, and it is the natural selection of specific deviations that leads to a new species. In other words, Darwin applied the same statistical approach to biology that Maxwell applied to physics <ref>(Menand 2001: 197-199)</ref>.

===Organization===
When they consider rocks that just sit there, some people may think it is obvious that matter cannot organize itself. Matter, in fact, organizes itself in numerous ways. Crystals such as diamonds and snowflakes can and do self-organize. Likewise [[protein]]s fold in very specific ways based on their chemical makeup. [[Amino acid]]s are the building blocks of proteins. While the chemical conditions on the relatively young Earth 3.5 billion years ago, when life evolved, are still being debated, the spontaneous synthesis of amino acids has been shown for a wide range of conditions, in such settings as the [[Miller-Urey experiment]].

===Information===
Misunderstanding the nature of information, some assert that evolution cannot create information, that information is a manifestation of intelligence. [[Physical information]] exists regardless of the presence of an intelligence, and evolution allows for new information whenever a novel mutation or [[gene]] duplication occurs and is kept. It does not need to be beneficial nor visually apparent to be "information." However, even if those were requirements they would be satisfied with the appearance of [[nylon]]-eating [[bacteria]] <ref>[http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm Nylon at NMSR]</ref>, which required new [[enzyme]]s to digest a material that never existed until the modern age.
:''"It wasn't a highly competent design because the bacteria weren't extracting a lot of energy from the process, just enough to get by. And it was based on a simply frame shift reading of a gene that had other uses. But with a simple frame shift of a gene that was already there, it could now "eat" nylon. Future mutations, perhaps point mutations inside that gene, could conceivably heighten the energy gain of the nylon decomp process, and allow the bacteria to truly feast and reproduce faster and more plentifully on just nylon, thus leading perhaps in time to an irreducibly complex arrangement between bacteria who live solely on nylon and a man-made fiber produced only by man."'' <ref>[http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/darwin_design.html darwin_design]</ref>

==Social and religious controversies==
{{main articles|[[Social effect of evolutionary theory]], [[Creation-evolution controversy]]}}

[[Image:Darwin ape.jpg|left|150px|thumb|A satirical 1871 image of [[Charles Darwin]] as an [[ape]] reflects part of the social controversy over whether humans and apes share a common lineage.]]

Starting with the publication of ''[[The Origin of Species]]'' in 1859, the modern science of evolution has caused near constant controversy. This controversy, however, centers on the philosophical, cosmological, social, and religious implications of evolution, not the science of evolution. That is to say, the proposition that biological evolution occurs through one method or another has been almost completely uncontested within the scientific community since the early 20th century. The controversy primarily concerns interpretations of what evolution means for human life, rather than the specifics of the biological theory.<ref>An overview of the philosophical, religious, and cosmological controversies by a philosopher who strongly supports evolution is: [[Daniel Dennett]], ''[[Darwin's Dangerous Idea|Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life]]'' (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995). On the scientific and social reception of evolution in the 19th and early 20th centuries, see: [[Peter J. Bowler]], ''Evolution: The History of an Idea'', 3rd. rev. edn. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003).</ref>

As Darwin recognized early on, perhaps the most controversial aspect of evolutionary thought is its application to human beings. The idea that all diversity in life, including human beings, arose through [[natural science|natural]] processes without a need for supernatural intervention poses difficulties for the [[teleology|belief in purpose]] inherent in most religious faiths — and especially for the [[Abrahamic religion]]s. Many religious people are able to reconcile the science of evolution with their faith or see no real conflict: this position has been called [[theistic evolution]]. However, others generally known as [[creationism|creationists]] consider evolutionary [[origin belief]]s to be incompatible with their faith or religious texts and [[teleological argument|their perception of design in nature]], so cannot accept what they call "unguided evolution". As a result the debate is often heated and seemingly endless.

One especially contentious topic evoked by evolution is the biological ''status'' of humanity: whereas the classical religious view is approximated by the [[great chain of being]] (where people are "above" the animals but slightly "below" the angels), evolution entails both that humans are animals and have ancestors in common with [[chimpanzees]], [[gorillas]], and [[orangutans]]. Many people have found this last view repellent, as, in their opinion, it "degrades" human kind. A related conflict arises when critics combine the religious view of people's status with the mistaken notion that evolution is necessarily "progressive": if human beings are superior to animals but yet evolved from them, these critics claim, inferior animals would not still exist, but they do exist, hence the incorrect inference that evolution is false.

In some countries—notably the [[United States]]—these and other tensions between religion and evolution have fuelled what has been called the [[creation-evolution controversy]], which, among other things, has generated struggles over the teaching curriculum. While many other fields of science, such as [[physical cosmology|cosmology]] and [[earth science]], also conflict with a literal interpretation of religious texts, evolutionary studies have borne the brunt of these debates.

Evolution has been used to support philosophical and ethical choices which most modern scientists argue are neither mandated by evolution nor supported by science. For example, the [[eugenics|eugenic]] ideas of [[Francis Galton]] were developed into arguments that the human gene pool should be improved by [[selective breeding]] policies, including incentives for reproduction for those of "good stock" and disincentives, such as [[compulsory sterilization]], [[T-4 Euthanasia Program|"euthanasia"]], and later, [[prenatal testing]], [[birth control]], and [[genetic engineering]], for those of "bad". Another example of an extension of evolutionary theory that is widely regarded as unwarranted is "[[Social Darwinism]]"; a term given to the 19th century [[Whig]] [[Malthusianism|Malthusian]] theory developed by [[Herbert Spencer]] into ideas about "[[survival of the fittest]]" in commerce and human societies as a whole, and by others into claims that [[social inequality]], [[racism]], and [[imperialism]] were justified.<ref>On the history of eugenics and evolution, see [[Daniel Kevles]], ''In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity'' (New York: Knopf, 1985).</ref>
{{-}}

==See also==
:''For a more comprehensive list of topics, see [[:Category:Evolution]] and [[:Category:Evolutionary biology]]''

{| style="background-color: transparent; width: {{{width|100%}}}"

| width="50%" align="{{{align|left}}}" valign="{{{valign|top}}}" |
*[[Abiogenesis]]
*[[Altruism in animals]]
*[[Anagenesis]]
*[[Argument from evolution]]
*[[Atavism]]
*[[Animal evolution]]
*[[Behavioral ecology]]
*[[Catagenesis (biology)|Catagenesis]]
*[[Cladistics]]
*[[Cladogenesis]]
*[[Convergent evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Dual inheritance theory]]
*[[Endosymbiont]]
*[[Eugenics]]
*[[Evolution of sex]]
*[[Evolutionary algorithm]]
*[[Evolutionary art]]
*[[Evolutionary biology]]
*[[Evolutionary developmental biology]]
*[[Evolutionary medicine]]
*[[Evolution of multicellularity]]
*[[Evolutionary psychology]]
*[[Evolutionary tree]]
*[[Evolutionism]]
*[[Evolvability]]

| width="50%" align="{{{align|left}}}" valign="{{{valign|top}}}" |
*[[Experimental evolution]]
*[[Fitness landscape]]
*[[Genetic algorithm]]
*[[Genetics]]
*[[Gradualism]]
*[[HeLa]]
*[[Human behavioral ecology]]
*[[Human evolution]]
*[[Instinct]]
*[[Language]]
*[[List of publications on evolution and human behavior]]
*[[Modern evolutionary synthesis]]
*[[Natural science]]
*[[Natural selection]]
*[[Neutral theory of molecular evolution]]
*[[Niche construction]]
*[[Origin of life]]
*[[Parallel evolution]]
*[[Punctuated equilibrium]]
*[[Quantum evolution]]
*[[Quasispecies model]]
*[[Scientific method]]
*[[Sexual selection]]
*[[Social effect of evolutionary theory]]
*[[Teratogenesis]]

|}

==Notes==
<div style="font-size: 85%">
<references />

</div>
==Additional References==
*[[Sean B. Carroll]], 2005, ''Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom'', W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0393060160
*[[Natalia S. Gavrilova]] & [[Leonid A. Gavrilov]], 2002, ''[http://health.families.com/evolution-of-aging-458-467-eoa Evolution of Aging]'', In: David J. Ekerdt (ed.) Encyclopedia of Aging, New York, Macmillan Reference USA, 2002, vol.2, 458-467.ISBN 0028654722
*Gigerenzer, Gerd, et al., ''The empire of chance: how probability changed science and everyday life'' (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
*Edward J. Larson, ''Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory'' (Modern Library Chronicles). Modern Library (May 4, 2004). ISBN 0679642889
*Mayr, Ernst. ''What Evolution Is''. Basic Books (October, 2002). ISBN 0465044263
*Menand, Louis. 2001 ''The Metaphysical Club''. New York: Farar, Straus and Giraux. ISBN0374199639
*{{cite journal|author=Smith, D. C.|year=1988|title=Heritable divergence of ''Rhagoletis pomonella'' host races by seasonal asynchrony|journal=Nature|volume=336|pages=66-67|id={{doi|10.1038/336066a0}}|issue=6194}}
*Williams, G.C. (1966). Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of some Current Evolutionary Thought. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
*Zimmer, Carl. ''Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea''. Perennial (October 1, 2002). ISBN 0060958502
</div>

==External links==


{{Spoken Wikipedia|Evolution.ogg|2005-04-18}} 
* [http://www.talkorigins.org Talk.Origins Archive] — see also [[talk.origins]]
* [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ Understanding Evolution] from [[University of California, Berkeley]]
* [http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/ National Academies Evolution Resources]
* [http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki] — A wiki whose goal is to promote general evolution education, and provide mainstream scientific responses to the arguments of antievolutionists.
* [http://www.chains-of-reason.org/chains/evolution-by-natural-selection/introduction.htm Evolution by Natural Selection] — An introduction to the logic of evolution by natural selection
* [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html Evolution] — Provided by ''[[Public Broadcasting Service|PBS]]''.
* [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution Everything you wanted to know about evolution] — Provided by ''[[New Scientist]]''.
* [http://evol.allenpress.com/evolonline/?request=index-html International Journal of Organic Evolution]
* [http://www.necsi.org/projects/evolution/cover/evolution_cover.html New England Complex Systems Institute]
* [http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm/printable Howstuffworks.com — How Evolution Works]
* [http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/ Charles Darwin's writings]
* [http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/categories/index/genome/evolution.php Evolution News from Genome News Network (GNN)]
* [http://www.nap.edu/books/0309063647/html/ National Academy Press: Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science]
* [http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html Evolution for beginners]
* [http://www.rmcybernetics.com/science/cybernetics/ai.htm RMCybernetics - AI] Evolution can create emergent behavior in a computer program.
* [http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Nov/hour2_111805.html NPR - Science Friday: links to museums, articles and books.]
* [http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html "Evolution: Fact and Theory" by Richard E. Lenski]
* [http://www.2think.org/evolutionbylevel.shtml Evolution by level] Book reviews of books on evolution by knowledge level.
* [http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_evolution.htm Understanding Evolution: History, Theory, Evidence, and Implications] Deals heavily with the history of evolutionary thought

;Evolution Simulators
* [http://www.truthtree.com/evolve.shtml Isolated species evolves to interact more efficiently with its environment (java applet)]
* [http://obermuhlner.com/public/Projects/Applets/Blobs/index.html Evolution in a predator-prey relationship (java applet)]

* [http://physics.syr.edu/courses/mirror/biomorph/ Blind Watchmaker Applet (java)]

{{evolution}}
{{featured article}}





[[Category:Evolutionary biology]]
[[Category:Evolution| ]]
[[Category:Theories]]

[[af:Evolusie]]
[[ar:نظرية النشوء]]
[[bn:বিবর্তন]]
[[ca:Teoria de l'evolució]]
[[cs:Evoluce]]
[[cy:Esblygiad]]
[[da:Evolution]]
[[de:Biologische Evolution]]
[[es:Evolución biológica]]
[[eo:Evoluismo]]
[[fa:فرگشت]]
[[fr:Évolution]]
[[ko:진화]]
[[id:Evolusi]]
[[it:Evoluzione]]
[[he:אבולוציה]]
[[lt:Evoliucija]]
[[lb:Evolutioun]]
[[hu:Evolúció]]
[[mk:Еволуција]]
[[nl:Evolutietheorie]]
[[ja:進化]]
[[no:Evolusjon]]
[[pl:Ewolucja biologiczna]]
[[pt:Evolução]]
[[ro:Teoria evoluţionistă]]
[[ru:Эволюционное учение]]
[[sl:Evolucija]]
[[sk:Evolúcia]]
[[su:Évolusi]]
[[fi:Evoluutio]]
[[sv:Evolution]]
[[th:วิวัฒนาการ]]
[[tr:Evrim]]
[[zh:进化论]]

Climate change

2006-04-26T02:41:07Z

CommonJoe:

{{hoax}}
[[Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png|thumb|250px|right|Global mean surface temperatures 1856 to 2005]]
[[Image:Global Warming Map.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Mean temperature anomalies during the period 1995 to 2004 with respect to the average temperatures from 1940 to 1980]]
'''Global warming''' is a term used to describe the trend of increases in the [[Historical temperature record|average temperature]] of the [[Earth's atmosphere]] and [[ocean]]s that has been observed in recent decades. The [[scientific opinion on climate change]], as expressed in the [[UN]] [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC) Third Assessment Report in 2001 and explicitly endorsed by the national science academies of the [[G8]] nations in 2005, is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and that it is likely that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is [[Attribution of recent climate change|attributable to human activities]]" [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm]. The increased volumes of [[carbon dioxide]] and other [[greenhouse gas]]es released by the burning of [[fossil fuel]]s, land clearing and agriculture, and other human activities, are the primary sources of the human-induced component of warming. The natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth about 33 °[[Celsius|C]] warmer than it otherwise would be; adding carbon dioxide to a planet's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make that planet's surface warmer.

Observational sensitivity studies [http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html] [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/309/5731/100.pdf] and [[General circulation model|climate model]]s referenced by the IPCC predict that global temperatures may increase by 1.4 to 5.8 °C between [[1990]] and [[2100]].

The range of uncertainty results in large part from not knowing the volume of future carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, there is uncertainty about the accuracy of the underlying climate models.

The increase in global temperatures is expected to result in other climate changes including rises in [[sea level rise|sea level]] and changes in the amount and pattern of [[precipitation (meteorology)|precipitation]]. Such changes may increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as [[flood]]s, [[drought]]s, [[heat wave]]s, and [[hurricane]]s, change [[agricultural]] yields, cause [[glacier retreat]], reduced summer streamflows, or contribute to biological [[extinction]]s. Although warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events, it is difficult to connect any particular event to global warming.

Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming would be expected to continue past then, since CO2 has a long average atmospheric lifetime [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134]. Also, [[Climate commitment studies]] indicate that there is a further warming of perhaps 0.5 °C to 1.0 °C — already committed but not yet realised.
{{global warming}}

There are only a few [[list of scientists opposing global warming consensus|scientists that contest the view]] that humanity's actions have played a significant role in increasing recent temperatures. However, uncertainties do exist regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and a hotly-contested political and public debate exists over what, if anything, should be done to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to cope with the consequences.

{{Sidebar|'''Terminology'''

'Global warming' is a specific case of the more general term '[[climate change]]' (which can also refer to cooling, such as in [[Ice age]]s). Furthermore, the term is in principle neutral as to the causes, but in common usage, 'global warming' generally implies a human influence. Note, however, that the [[UNFCCC]] uses 'climate change' for human caused change and 'climate variability' for non-human caused change [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/518.htm]. Some organizations use the term 'anthropogenic climate change' for human induced changes.

See also: [[Glossary of climate change]]
}}
==Historical warming of the Earth==
{{See also|Temperature record of the past 1000 years}}
[[Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png|thumb|250px|right|Two millennia of temperatures according to different reconstructions, each smoothed on a decadal scale. The unsmoothed, annual value for 2004 is also plotted for reference.]]

Relative to 1860-1900 the global temperature on both land and sea has increased by [[Instrumental temperature record|0.75 °C]]. Temperatures in the lower [[troposphere]] have increased between [[Satellite temperature measurements|0.12 and 0.22 °C per decade]] since 1979. Over the past one or two thousand years before 1850, world temperature is believed to have been relatively stable, with various fluctuations, which are possibly local, such as the [[Medieval Warm Period]] or the [[Little Ice Age]].

Based on estimates by [[NASA]]'s [[Goddard Institute for Space Studies]], 2005 was the warmest year since reliable wide-spread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, beating the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree Celsius. Similar estimates prepared by the [[World Meteorological Organization]] and the [[United Kingdom|UK]]'s [[Climatic Research Unit]] concluded that 2005 was still only the second warmest year behind 1998 [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=231].

Depending on the time frame, different [[temperature record]]s are available. These are based on different data sets, with different degrees of precision and reliability. An approximately global [[instrumental temperature record]] begins in about 1860; contamination from the [[urban heat island]] effect is believed to be small. A longer-term perspective is available from various proxy records for recent millennia; see [[temperature record of the past 1000 years]] for a discussion of these records and their differences. The [[attribution of recent climate change]] is clearest for the most recent period of the last 50 years, for which the most detailed data is available. [[Satellite temperature measurements]] of the tropospheric temperature date from 1979.

==Causes==
{{main articles|[[Attribution of recent climate change]] and [[Scientific opinion on climate change]]}}
[[Image:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr-2.png|thumb|right|250px|[[Carbon dioxide]] during the last 400,000 years and the rapid rise since the [[Industrial Revolution]]; changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as [[Milankovitch cycles]], are believed to be the pacemaker of the 100,000 year [[ice age]] cycle.]]
The climate system varies both through natural, "internal" processes as well as in response to variations in external "forcing" from both human and non-human causes, including [[solar activity]], and volcanic emissions as well as [[greenhouse gas]]es. Climatologists accept that the earth has warmed recently but the [[attribution of recent climate change|cause or causes of this change]] is somewhat more controversial, especially outside the scientific community.

[[Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png|thumb|left|250px|Plots of atmospheric [[Carbon dioxide]] and global temperature during the last 650,000 years]]
Adding [[carbon dioxide]] (CO2) or [[methane]] (CH4) to an atmosphere, with no other changes, will tend to make a planet's surface warmer. Indeed, greenhouse gases create a natural [[greenhouse effect]] without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding carbon dioxide or CH4 to the Earth's atmosphere will result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth, absent indirect mitigating effects. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and CH4 will be.

===Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere===
The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. This is considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from [[ice core]]s. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that carbon dioxide values this high were last attained 40 million years ago. About three-quarters of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere during the past 20 years is due to [[fossil fuel]] burning. The rest is predominantly due to land-use change, especially [[deforestation]] [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/006.htm].

The longest continuous instrumental measurement of carbon dioxide mixing ratios began in 1958 at [[Mauna Loa]]. Since then, the annually averaged value has increased [[monotonic function|monotonic]]ally from 315 [[parts per million|ppmv]] (see the [[Keeling Curve]]). The concentration reached 376 ppmv in 2003. South Pole records show similar growth [http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/info/spo2000.html]. The monthly measurements display small seasonal oscillations.

Another important greenhouse gas, methane, is produced biologically. Some biological sources are "natural" such as termites and others are attributable to human activity such as agriculture, e.g., rice paddies [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/134.htm#tab42]. Recent evidence suggests that forests may also be a source ([http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=236 RC]) ([http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm BBC]). Note that this is a contribution to the ''natural'' greenhouse effect, and not to the ''anthropogenic'' greenhouse effect ([http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/m-gw-011806.php Ealert]). Also, at higher latitudes afforestation may increase the albedo (due largely to the effects of winter snow); at these latitudes, this results in a net warming effect ([http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,69914-0.html Wired]).

Future carbon dioxide levels are expected to continue rising due to ongoing fossil fuel usage, though the actual trajectory will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. The IPCC [[Special report on emissions scenarios]] gives a wide range of future carbon dioxide scenarios [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/123.htm], ranging from 541 to 970 parts per million by 2100.

===Sources of greenhouse gas emissions===
[[Image:FuelcombustionGHGs1990.gif|300px|right|thumb|Anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fuel combustion - contributions to total CO2 emissions, 1990. Source: UNFCCC]]

Globally, the majority of anthropogenic [[greenhouse gas]] emissions arise from fuel [[combustion]]. The remainder is accounted for largely by "fugitive fuel" (consumed in the production and transport of fuel), emissions from industrial processes (excluding fuel combustion), and agriculture: these contributed 5.8%, 5.2% and 3.3% respectively in 1990. Current figures are broadly comparable.[http://ghg.unfccc.int/index.html]

Around 17% of emissions are accounted for by the combustion of fuel for the generation of electricity.

A small percentage of emissions come from natural and anthropogenic biological sources, with approximately 6.3% derived from agriculturally produced methane and nitrous oxide.

[[Positive feedback]] effects, such as the expected release of possibly as much as 70,000 million [[tonne]]s of [[methane]] from [[permafrost]] [[peat bog]]s in [[Siberia]], which have started melting due to the rising temperatures, may lead to significant additional sources of greenhouse gas emissions. [http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=56&ItemID=8482].

Note that anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants - notably sulphate aerosol - exert a cooling effect; this can account for the plateau/cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the 20th century [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/462.htm], though this may also be due to intervening natural cycles.

===Alternative theories===
Various alternative hypotheses have been proposed to explain the observed increase in global temperatures, including but not limited to:

* The warming is within the range of natural variation.
* The warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period — the [[Little Ice Age]].
* The warming trend itself has not been clearly established.
* The warming is a result of variances in solar irradiance.

At present, none of these has much support within the climate science community as an explanation for recent warming.

There are several "fingerprints" as called by [[Ben Santer]], that show through models that global warming is human induced, such as higher altitudes getting warmer faster than lower altitudes, land warming faster than the ocean, which refute the claim that warming is the result of solar irradiance.

====Solar variation theory====
[[Image:Solar-cycle-data.png|thumb|right|20 years of solar output]]
{{main|Solar variation theory}}

In general the level of scientific understanding of the variance in direct solar irradiance is low [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/245.htm]. Although the majority of scientists believe that direct [[solar variation|variations in solar output]] appear too small to have substantially affected the climate, some researchers (e.g. [http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/SSR_Paper.pdf]) have proposed that feedbacks from clouds or other processes enhance the effect. Proxy studies indicate that the level of solar activity during the last 70 years has probably been the highest in more than 8000 years. Solanki (2004) estimates that there is only an 8% probability that this current period of high activity can last another 50 years.

In the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), it was reported that volcanic and solar forcings might account for half of the temperature variations prior to 1950, but that the net effect of such natural forcings was roughly neutral since then [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/450.htm]. In particular, the change in climate forcing from greenhouse gases since 1750 was estimated to be 8 times larger than the change in forcing due to [[:Image:Solar Activity Proxies.png|increasing solar activity]] over the same period [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/251.htm#tab611].

Since the TAR, various studies (Lean et al., 2002, Wang et al., 2005) have suggested that changes in irradiance since pre-industrial times are less by a factor of 3-4 than in the reconstructions used in the TAR (e.g. Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, Lean, 2000.). Stott et al. [http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf] estimated solar forcing to be 16% or 36% of greenhouse warming.

==Potential negative effects==
{{main|Effects of global warming}}

The predicted effects of global warming are many and various, both for the [[natural environment|environment]] and for [[civilization|human life]]. These effects include [[sea level rise]], [[Global warming and agriculture|impacts on agriculture]], reductions in the ozone layer (see above), increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, and the spread of disease. In some cases, the effects may already be being experienced, although it is impossible to attribute specific natural phenomena to long-term global warming. In particular the relationship between global warming and hurricanes is still being debated. [http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2005/dec2005/] [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/reactions-to-tighter-hurricane-intensitysst-link] Four new papers correlating climate change with increased hurricane intensity seem to be making the case that the two phenomena are linked [http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/oct/policy/pt_curry.html] [http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/03/major_new_paper_on_hurricanes.php]; a draft WMO statement acknowledges the different viewpoints [http://www.bom.gov.au/info/CAS-statement.pdf].

The extent and likelihood of these consequences is a matter of considerable [[global warming controversy|controversy]]. A summary of possible effects and recent understanding can be found in the report of the [[IPCC]] Working Group II [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm]. Global warming is already causing death and disease across the world through flooding, environmental destruction, heatwaves and other extreme weather events, according to some scientists. (Reuters, February 9, 2006; [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0209-05.htm archived]).

=== Effects on ecosystems ===
Secondary evidence of global warming — lessened snow cover, rising sea levels, weather changes — provides examples of consequences of global warming that may influence not only human activities but also the [[ecosystem]]s. Increasing global temperature means that ecosystems may change; some [[species]] may be forced out of their habitats (possibly to extinction) because of changing conditions, while others may flourish. Few of the [[terrestrial ecoregions]] on Earth could expect to be unaffected.

=== Impact on glaciers===
[[Image:Glaciermassbalanceglobal.jpg|right|thumb|280px|Global Glacial Mass-Balance in the last forty years, reported to the WGMS and NSIDC. Note the increased negative trend beginning in the late 1980s that is driving the increased rate and number of retreating glaciers.{{ref_harv|Dyurgerov|Dyurgerov|Dyurgerov}}]]

Global warming has led to negative [[glacier mass balance]], causing [[Retreat of glaciers since 1850|glacier retreat]] around the world. Oerlemans (2005) showed a net decline in 142 of the 144 mountain glaciers with records from 1900 to 1980. Since 1980 global glacier retreat has increased significantly. Similarly, Dyurgerov and Meier (2005) averaged glacier data across large scale regions (e.g. Europe) and found that every region had a net decline from 1960 to 2002, though a few local regions (e.g. Scandinavia) have shown increases. Some glaciers that are in disequilibrium with present climate have already disappeared [http://www.nichols.edu/departments/Glacier/Bill.htm] and increasing temperatures are expected to cause continued retreat in the majority of alpine glaciers around the world. Upwards of 90% of glaciers reported to the World Glacier Monitoring Service have retreated since 1995 [http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/].

=== Destabilisation of ocean currents ===


There is also some speculation that global warming could, via a shutdown or slowdown of the thermohaline circulation, trigger localised cooling in the North Atlantic and lead to cooling, or lesser warming, in that region. This would affect in particular areas like [[Scandinavia]] and [[United Kingdom|Britain]] that are warmed by the [[North Atlantic drift]].

See also: [[Shutdown of thermohaline circulation]]

=== Environmental refugees ===
[[Image:Glacial lakes, Bhutan.jpg|thumb|right|250px|The termini of the glaciers in the [[Bhutan]]-[[Himalaya]]. Glacial lakes have been rapidly forming on the surface of the debris-covered glaciers in this region during the last few decades. According to [[USGS]] researchers, glaciers in the Himalaya are wasting at alarming and accelerating rates, as indicated by comparisons of satellite and historic data, and as shown by the widespread, rapid growth of lakes on the glacier surfaces. The researchers have found a strong correlation between increasing temperatures and glacier retreat.]]

Even a relatively small rise in sea level would make some densely settled coastal plains uninhabitable and create a significant [[refugee]] problem. If the sea level were to rise in excess of 4 metres almost every coastal city in the world would be severely affected, with the potential for major impacts on world-wide trade and economy. Presently, the IPCC predicts [[sea level rise]] of less than 1 meter through 2100, but they also warn that global warming during that time may lead to irreversible changes in the Earth's glacial system and ultimately melt enough ice to raise sea level many meters over the next millennia. It is estimated that around 200 million people could be affected by sea level rise, especially in [[Vietnam]], [[Bangladesh]], [[China]], [[India]], [[Thailand]], [[Philippines]], [[Indonesia]] and [[Egypt]].

An example of the ambiguous nature of environmental refugees is the emigration from the island nation of [[Tuvalu]], which has an average elevation of approximately one meter above sea level. Tuvalu already has an ad hoc agreement with [[New Zealand]] to allow phased relocation [http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1063181,00.html] and many residents have been leaving the islands. However, it is far from clear that rising sea levels from global warming are a substantial factor - best estimates are that sea level has been rising there at approximately 1-2 mm/yr, but that shorter timescale factors - [[ENSO]], or [[tide]]s - have far larger temporary effects [http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060403/pdf/440734a.pdf] [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/681.htm] [http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=070d8d54cad94ca9a10ec2069c7bd079&referrer=parent&backto=issue,14,14;journal,43,114;linkingpublicationresults,1:102022,1] [http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/chanton.html]

=== Spread of disease ===
Global warming may extend the range of [[Vector (biology)|vectors]] conveying [[infectious disease]]s such as [[malaria]]. [[Bluetongue disease]] in [[domesticated]] [[ruminants]] associated with [[mite]] bites has recently spread to the north [[Mediterranean]] region. [[Hantavirus]] infection, [[Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever]], [[tularemia]] and [[rabies]] increased in wide areas of [[Russia]] during 2004–2005. This was associated with a population explosion of [[rodents]] and their [[predator]]s but may be partially blamed on breakdowns in governmental [[vaccination]] and rodent control programs.[http://www.promedmail.org/pls/promed/f?p=2400:1001:11691307049244640380::NO::F2400_P1001_BACK_PAGE,F2400_P1001_PUB_MAIL_ID:1010,30306] Similarly, despite the disappearance of malaria in most temperate regions, the indigenous [[mosquito]]es that transmitted it were never eliminated and remain common in some areas. Thus, although temperature is important in the transmission dynamics of malaria, many other factors are influential [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no1/reiter.htm].

=== Financial effects ===
Financial institutions, including the world's two largest insurance companies, [[Munich Re]] and [[Swiss Re]], warned in a 2002 study ([http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/CEO_briefing_climate_change_2002_en.pdf UNEP summary]) that "the increasing frequency of severe climatic events, coupled with social trends" could cost almost 150 billion US dollars each year in the next decade. These costs would, through increased costs related to insurance and disaster relief, burden customers, tax payers, and industry alike.

According to the [http://www.abi.org.uk/Display/File/Child/552/Financial_Risks_of_Climate_Change.pdf Association of British Insurers], limiting carbon emissions could avoid 80% of the projected additional annual cost of tropical cyclones by the 2080s. According to Choi and Fisher (2003) each 1% increase in annual precipitation could enlarge catastrophe loss by as much as 2.8%.

The United Nations' Environmental Program recently announced that severe weather around the world has made 2005 the most costly year on record [http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2005/2005-12-07-01.asp], although ''there is no way to prove that [a given hurricane] either was, or was not, affected by global warming'' [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181]. Preliminary estimates presented by the German insurance foundation [[Munich Re]] put the economic losses at more than 200 billion U.S. dollars, with insured losses running at more than 70 billion U.S. dollars.

==Potential positive effects==
[[Image:Arctic Ice Thickness.gif|250px|right|thumb|[[NOAA]] projects that by the 2050s, there will only be 54% of the volume of sea ice there was in the 1950s.]]
Global warming may also have positive effects. Plants form the basis of the biosphere. By means of [[photosynthesis]], they use solar energy to convert water, [[nutrient]]s, and carbon dioxide into usable [[biomass]]. Plant growth may be limited by a number of factors, including soil fertility, water, temperature, and carbon dioxide concentration. Lack of carbon dioxide can induce [[photorespiration]], which can destroy existing [[sugar]]s. Thus, an increase in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide can stimulate plant growth in places where these are the limiting factors. IPCC models predict that higher carbon dioxide concentrations would only spur growth of flora up to a point however, because in many regions the limiting factors are water or nutrients, not temperature or carbon dioxide. Despite the limiting factor of water, an increase in carbon dioxide concentration has the direct effect of increasing the transpiration efficiency of most plants so that they actually produce more net biomass per unit of water used by the plant.[http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/47/294/61] Satellite data shows that the productivity of the northern hemisphere has indeed increased from 1982 to 1991 [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v386/n6626/abs/386698a0.html]. However, more recent studies [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/31/10823],[http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/38/13521] found that from 1991 to 2002, wide-spread droughts had actually caused a decrease in summer photosynthesis in the mid and high latitudes of the northern hemisphere.
Moreover, an increase in the total amount of biomass produced is not necessarily all good, since [[biodiversity]] can still decrease even though a smaller number of species are flourishing.

Melting [[Arctic]] ice may open the [[Northwest Passage]] in summer, which would cut 5,000 [[nautical mile]]s from shipping routes between Europe and Asia. This would be of particular relevance for supertankers which are too big to fit through the [[Panama Canal]] and currently have to go around the tip of South America. According to the Canadian Ice Service, the amount of ice in Canada's eastern Arctic Archipelago decreased by 15 percent between 1969 and 2004 [http://www.washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20050612-123835-3711r.htm].

==Responses==
{{main|Mitigation of global warming}}
{{main|Adaptation to global warming}}

The threat of possible global warming has led to attempts to mitigate global warming, which covers all actions aimed at reducing the negative effects or the likelihood of global warming.

The world's primary international agreement on combating climate change is the [[Kyoto Protocol]]. The Kyoto Protocol is an [[amendment]] to the [[United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change|United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)]]. [[Countries]] that [[ratify]] this [[protocol (treaty)|protocol]] commit to reduce their emissions of [[carbon dioxide]] and five other [[greenhouse gas]]es, or engage in [[emissions trading]] if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

Although the combination of scientific consensus and economic incentives were enough to persuade the [[List of Kyoto Protocol signatories|governments of more than 150 countries]] to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, there is a continuing debate about just how much greenhouse gas emissions warm the planet. Some politicians, including [[President of the United States]] [[George W. Bush]] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR2005070602298.html], [[Prime Minister of Australia|Prime Minister of Australia]] [[John Howard]] [http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17747938%255E30417,00.html] and some [[intellectual#Academics and public intellectuals|public intellectuals]] such as [[Bjørn Lomborg]] [http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2001dec01_lomborg.html] and [[Ronald Bailey]] [http://reason.com/rb/rb061301.shtml] have argued the cost of [[mitigation of global warming|mitigating global warming]] is too large to be justified.

However, some segments of the [[business position on climate change|business community]] have accepted both the reality of global warming and its attribution to anthropogenic causes, as well as the need for actions such as [[carbon emissions trading]] and [[carbon tax]]es.

Strategies for [[mitigation of global warming]] include [[Future energy development|development of new technologies]], [[wind power]], [[nuclear power]], [[renewable energy]], [[biodiesel]], [[electric car|electric]] or [[hybrid vehicle|hybrid]] [[automobile]]s, [[fuel cell]]s, and [[energy conservation]], [[carbon tax]]es and [[carbon sequestration]] schemes. Some environmentalist groups encourage [[individual action against global warming]], often aimed at the [[consumer]], and there has been [[business action on climate change]].

[[Adaptation to global warming|Adaptation strategies]] accept some warming as a foregone conclusion and focus on preventing or reducing undesirable consequences. Examples of such strategies include defense against rising sea levels or ensuring [[food security]].

==Climate models==
[[Image:Global Warming Predictions.png|thumb|250px|Calculations of global warming through 2100 from a range of [[climate model]]s under the [[SRES]] A2 emissions scenario, one of the IPCC scenarios that assumes no action is taken to reduce emissions.]]
[[Image:Global Warming Predictions Map.jpg|thumb|250px|Shows the distribution of warming during the 21st century calculated by the HadCM3 climate model (one of those used by the IPCC) if a business as usual scenario is assumed for economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions. The average warming calculated by this model is 3.0 °C.]]
{{main|General circulation model}}

Scientists have studied this issue with computer models of the climate (see below). These models are accepted by the scientific community as being valid only after it has been shown that they do a good job of simulating known climate variations, such as the difference between summer and winter, the [[North Atlantic Oscillation]], or [[El Niño]]. All climate models that pass these tests also predict that the net effect of adding greenhouse gases will be a warmer climate in the future. The amount of predicted warming varies by model; one of the most important sources of this uncertainty in [[climate sensitivity]] is believed to be different ways of handling clouds.

As noted above, climate models have been used by the IPCC to anticipate a warming of 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100 [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/339.htm]. They have also been used to help investigate the [[Attribution of recent climate change|causes of recent climate change]] by comparing the observed changes to those that the models predict from various natural and human derived forcing factors.

The most recent climate models can produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century. These models do not unambiguously attribute the warming that occurred from approximately 1910 to 1945 to either natural variation or human effects; however, they suggest that the warming since 1975 is dominated by man-made [[greenhouse gas]] emissions. Adding simulation of the ability of the environment to sink carbon dioxide suggested that rising fossil fuel emissions would decrease absorption from the atmosphere, amplifying climate warming beyond previous predictions, although ''"Globally, the amplification is small at the end of the 21st century in this model because of its low transient climate response and the near-cancellation between large regional changes in the hydrologic and ecosystem responses" ''[http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0504949102v1].

Another suggested mechanism whereby a warming trend may be amplified involves the thawing of [[tundra]], which can release the potent greenhouse gas, methane, that is trapped in large quantities in [[permafrost]] and ice [[clathrate compound]]s [http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725124.500].

Uncertainties in the representation of clouds are a dominant source of uncertainty in existing models, despite clear progress in modeling of clouds [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/271.htm]. There is also an ongoing discussion as to whether climate models are neglecting important indirect and feedback effects of [[solar variability]]. Further, all such models are limited by available computational power, so that they may overlook changes related to small scale processes and weather (e.g. storm systems, hurricanes). However, despite these and other limitations, the [[IPCC]] considered climate models "to be suitable tools to provide useful projections of future climates" [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/309.htm].

In December, 2005 Bellouin et al suggested in Nature that the reflectivity effect of airborne pollutants was about double that previously expected, and that therefore some global warming was being masked. If supported by further studies, this would imply that existing models underpredict future global warming. [http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/23/content_505942.htm]

==Other related issues==
===Relationship to ozone depletion===
{{main|Ozone depletion}}

Although they are often interlinked in the [[mass media]], the connection between global warming and [[ozone depletion]] is not strong. There are four areas of linkage:

* Global warming from carbon dioxide radiative forcing is expected (perhaps somewhat surprisingly) to ''cool'' the [[stratosphere]]. This, in turn, would lead to a relative ''increase'' in [[ozone]] depletion and the frequency of ozone holes.

* Conversely, ozone depletion represents a radiative forcing of the climate system. There are two opposed effects: reduced ozone allows more solar radiation to penetrate, thus warming the [[troposphere]]. But a colder stratosphere emits less long-wave radiation, tending to cool the troposphere. Overall, the cooling dominates: the IPCC concludes that ''observed stratospheric [[Ozone|O3]] losses over the past two decades have caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system'' [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/223.htm] of about −0.15 ± 0.10 W/m² [http://www.ipcc.ch/press/SPM.pdf].

* One of the strongest predictions of the greenhouse effect theory is that the [[stratosphere]] will cool. However, although this is observed, it is difficult to use it as an [[attribution of recent climate change]]. One of the difficulties of this conclusion includes the fact that warming induced by increased solar radiation would not have this upper cooling effect. However, similar cooling is caused by ozone depletion.

* Ozone depleting chemicals are also greenhouse gases, representing 0.34 ± 0.03 W/m², or about 14% of the total radiative forcing from well-mixed greenhouse gases [http://www.ipcc.ch/press/SPM.pdf].

===Relationship to global dimming===
{{main|Global dimming}}

Some scientists now consider that the effects of the recently recognized phenomenon of [[global dimming]] (the reduction in sunlight reaching the surface of the planet, possibly due to aerosols) may have masked some of the effect of global warming. If this is so, the indirect aerosol effect is stronger than previously believed, which would imply that the climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is also stronger. Concerns about the effect of aerosol on the global climate were first researched as part of concerns over [[global cooling]] in the 1970s.

===Pre-human global warming===
It is thought by some geologists that the Earth experienced global warming in the early [[Jurassic]] period, with average temperatures rising by 5 °C. Research by the [[Open University]] published in ''Geology'' (32: 157–160, 2004 [http://www3.open.ac.uk/earth-sciences/downloads/Press%20Release.pdf]) indicates that this caused the rate of rock weathering to increase by 400%. Rock weathering locks away carbon in [[calcite]] and [[dolomite]], which are minerals with various degrees of carbon oxides. As a result of this, carbon dioxide levels dropped back to normal over roughly the next 150,000 years.

Sudden release of methane from clathrate compounds (the [[clathrate gun hypothesis]]), has been hypothesized as a cause of past global warming. Two events possibly linked in this way are the [[Permian-Triassic extinction event]] and the [[Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum]]. However, warming at the end of the last ice age is thought not to be due to methane release [http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_55405.htm].

The greenhouse effect has also been invoked to explain how the Earth made it out of the [[Snowball Earth]] period. During this period all silicate rocks were covered by ice, thereby preventing them from combining with atmospheric carbon dioxide. The atmospheric carbon dioxide level gradually increased until it reached about 350 times current levels. At this point temperatures were raised to an average of 50 °C, hot enough to melt the ice. Increased amounts of rainfall would quickly wash the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Thick layers of [[abiotic]] carbonate sediment which can be found on top of the glacial rocks from this period are believed to have been formed by this rapid carbon dioxide removal process.

Using [[paleoclimatology|paleoclimate]] data for the last 500 million years (Veizer et al. 2000, Nature 408, pp. 698-701) concluded that long-term temperature variations are only weakly coupled to carbon dioxide variations. Shaviv and Veizer (2003, [http://www.envirotruth.org/docs/Veizer-Shaviv.pdf]) extended this by arguing that the biggest long-term influence on temperature is actually the [[solar system]]'s motion around the [[Milky Way Galaxy|galaxy]]. Afterwards, they argued that over geologic time a change in carbon dioxide concentrations comparable to doubling preindustrial levels, only results in about 0.75 °C warming rather than the usual 1.5-4.5 °C reported by climate models [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/122.htm]. In turn Veizer's recent work has been discussed and criticised on RealClimate.org [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=153].

Palaeoclimatologist William Ruddiman has argued (e.g. [http://scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000ED75C-D366-1212-8F3983414B7F0000 Scientific American, March 2005]) that human influence on the global climate began around 8000 years ago with the development of agriculture. This prevented carbon dioxide (and later methane) levels falling as rapidly as they would have done otherwise. Ruddiman argues that without this effect, the Earth would be entering, or already have entered, a new ice age. However other work in this area ([http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v429/n6992/abs/nature02599_fs.html Nature 2004]) argues that the present interglacial is most analogous to the interglacial 400,000 years ago that lasted approximately 28,000 years, in which case there is no need to invoke the spread of agriculture for having delayed the next ice age.

[[Image:IPCC_Radiative_Forcings.gif|thumb|right|250px|[[Radiative forcing]] from various [[greenhouse gas]]es and other sources]]

==References==
* [http://www.abi.org.uk/Display/File/Child/552/Financial_Risks_of_Climate_Change.pdf Association of British Insurers] ''Financial Risks of Climate Change'', June 2005, (PDF) Accessed Jan. 7, 2006
* {{cite news | publisher=BBC | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm | title=Plants revealed as methane source | date=11 January 2006 | author=Tim Hirsch}}
* Choi, O. and A. Fisher (2003) "The Impacts of Socioeconomic Development and Climate Change on Severe Weather Catastrophe Losses: Mid-Atlantic Region (MAR) and the U.S." ''Climate Change,'' vol. 58 pp. 149
* {{cite book
| last = Dyurgerov | first = Mark B
| coauthors = Mark F. Meier
| year = 2005
| title = Glaciers and the Changing Earth System: a 2004 Snapshot
| publisher = [[Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research]], Occasional Paper #58
}} [http://instaar.colorado.edu/other/download/OP58_dyurgerov_meier.pdf]
* Emanuel, K.A. (2005) "Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years." ''Nature'' '''436,''' pp. 686-688. ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE03906.pdf
* Ealert [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/m-gw-011806.php Global warming - the blame is not with the plants]
* {{cite journal
| author = Hoyt, D.V., and K.H. Schatten
| year = 1993
| title = A discussion of plausible solar irradiance variations, 1700-1992
| journal = J. Geophys. Res.
| volume = 98
| pages = 18895–18906
}}
* {{cite journal
| title = The effect of increasing solar activity on the Sun's total and open magnetic flux during multiple cycles: Implications for solar forcing of climate
| author = Lean, J.L., Y.M. Wang, and N.R. Sheeley
| year = 2002
| journal = Geophys. Res. Lett.
| volume = 29 | issue = 24 | pages = 2224
| url = http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0224/2002GL015880/
| id= {{DOI|10.1029/2002GL015880}}
}}''(online version requires registration)''
* {{cite journal
| author = Oerlemans, J
| year = 2005
| title = Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records
| journal = Science
| volume = 308
| issue = 5722
| pages = 675 - 677
| id = {{doi|10.1126/science.1107046}}
}}
* Naomi Oreskes, 2004 [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change] - The author discussed her survey of 928 peer-reviewed scientific abstracts on climate change. Retrieved [[December 8]], [[2004]]. Also available as a [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf 1 page pdf file]
* {{cite journal
| author = Revkin, Andrew C
| year = 2005
| title = Rise in Gases Unmatched by a History in Ancient Ice
| journal = New York Times
}} "Shafts of ancient ice pulled from Antarctica's frozen depths show that for at least 650,000 years three important heat-trapping greenhouse gases never reached recent atmospheric levels caused by human activities, scientists are reporting today." (November 25, 2005) [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/25/science/earth/25core.html?ei=5090&en=d5078e33050b2b0c&ex=1290574800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss]
* RealClimate [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=236 Scientists Baffled]
* {{cite book
| last = Ruddiman | first = William F.
| year = 2005
| title = Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate
| location = New Jersey
| publisher = Princeton University Press
| id = ISBN 0691121648
}}
* [http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/CEO_briefing_climate_change_2002_en.pdf UNEP summary] (2002) ''Climate risk to global economy'', Climate Change and the Financial Services Industry, United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiatives Executive Briefing Paper (UNEP FI) (PDF) Accessed Jan. 7, 2006
* {{cite journal
| author = S.K. Solanki, I.G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schussler, J. Beer
| year = 2004
| title = Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years.
| journal = Nature
| volume = 431
| pages = 1084-1087
| id = {{doi|10.1038/nature02995}}
}}
* {{cite journal
| author = Wang, Y.M., J.L. Lean, and N.R. Sheeley
| year = 2005
| title = Modeling the sun's magnetic field and irradiance since 1713
| journal = Astrophysical Journal
| volume = 625
| pages = 522–538
}}
* Wired [http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,69914-0.html Careful Where You Put That Tree]
* Kennett J. P., Cannariato K. G., Hendy I. L. & Behl R. J.American Geophysical Union, Special Publication, Methane Hydrates in Quaternary Climate Change: The Clathrate Gun Hypothesis. 54, (2003).
* {{cite journal
| author = Sowers T.
| journal = Science
| volume = 311
| issue = 5762
| pages = 838-840
| year = 2006
| id = {{doi|10.1126/science.1121235}}
| title = Late Quaternary Atmospheric CH4 Isotope Record Suggests Marine Clathrates Are Stable
}}
* {{cite journal
| author = Hinrichs K.U., Hmelo L. & Sylva S.
| journal = Science
| volume = 299
| issue = 5610
| pages = 1214-1217
| year = 2003
| id = {{doi|10.1126/science.1079601}}
| title = Molecular Fossil Record of Elevated Methane Levels in Late Pleistocene Coastal Waters
}}
* [http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2334 Questions about Clathrate Gun Hypothesis (source of information)]

==See also==
*[[Climate change]]
*[[Global cooling]]
*[[Economics of global warming]]
*[[Effects of global warming]]
*[[Mitigation of global warming]]
*[[Adaptation to global warming]]

*[[Global Atmosphere Watch]]
*[[Greenhouse effect]]
*[[Iris Hypothesis]]
*[[National Assessment on Climate Change]]
*[[Phenology]]
*[[Timeline of environmental events]]
*[[United Kingdom Climate Change Programme]]

*[[Wind power]]
*[[Solar power]]

*[[United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]]
*[[Kyoto Protocol]]

==External links==
===Scientific===
*[http://www.ipcc.ch Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)]
** [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/ IPCC Third Assessment Report] published in 2001
** [http://www.greenfacts.org/studies/climate_change/index.htm A summary of the above IPCC report] - by [[GreenFacts]]
*[http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_home.html NASA's Global Hydrology and Climate Center]
*[http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/ National Center for Atmospheric Research] - Overview of NCAR research on climate change
*[http://www.pik-potsdam.de/pik_web/index_html Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research]
*[http://www.aip.org/history/climate Discovery of Global Warming] — An extensive introduction to the topic and the history of its discovery
*[http://www.wmo.ch/web/etr/pdf_web/926E.pdf Introduction to climate change: Lecture notes for meteorologists] ([[World Meteorological Organization]]) (PDF)
*[http://www.realclimate.org RealClimate] - A group blog of climate scientists
*[http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/basic_science/ Pew Center on Global Climate Change] — Basic Science

===Other===
*[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change Greenpeace Climate Change Facts]
*[http://www.climateark.org/ Climate Ark] - climate change and global warming portal providing news, search, links and analysis
*[http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/index.html Climate change (global warming): a couple of answers to some elementary questions] by Jean-Marc Jancovici
*[http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/globalwarmingfaq.htm Global Warming FAQ] by [http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/ Tom Rees]
*[http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/enviro/globalwarming.html A large compendium of links to sites with information on global warming]
*[http://www.istl.org/01-fall/internet.html Science and Technology Librarianship: Global Warming and Climate Change Science] — Extensive commented list of Internet resources — Science and Technology Sources on the Internet.
*[http://www.climateimc.org Climate Indymedia] - An independent, open publishing, news media website about Climate Chaos. (A topical [[Indymedia]] )
*[http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm "Global Warming" at a glance] - latest data of the global temperature from JunkScience.com
*[http://www.globalwarmingarchive.com Global Warming Newspaper Articles Archive] - free archive of more than 50,000 historical newspaper articles on Global Warming

[[Category:Climate change]]
[[Category:Climatology]]
[[Category:History of climate]]

[[bs:Globalno zatopljenje]]
[[ca:Escalfament global]]
[[cs:Globální oteplování]]
[[da:Global opvarmning]]
[[de:Globale Erwärmung]]
[[et:Globaalne soojenemine]]
[[el:Παγκόσμια θέρμανση]]
[[es:Calentamiento global]]
[[eo:Tutmonda varmiĝo]]
[[fr:Réchauffement climatique]]
[[gd:Blàthachadh na cruinne]]
[[gl:Quentamento global]]
[[ko:지구 온난화]]
[[it:Riscaldamento globale]]
[[he:התחממות עולמית]]
[[nl:Opwarming van de aarde]]
[[ja:地球温暖化]]
[[no:Global oppvarming]]
[[pl:Globalne ocieplenie]]
[[pt:Aquecimento global]]
[[ru:Глобальное потепление]]
[[simple:Global warming]]
[[sk:Globálne otepľovanie]]
[[sh:Globalno zatopljenje]]
[[fi:Ilmastonmuutos]]
[[sv:Global uppvärmning]]
[[ta:புவி வெப்பநிலை அதிகரிப்பு]]
[[tr:Küresel ısınma]]
[[zh:全球变暖]]

Evolution

2006-04-26T02:40:45Z

CommonJoe:

User talk:JustSomeKid

2006-04-26T02:37:35Z

CommonJoe: rv

==Welcome==
Hi and welcome to wikipedia. I noticed you had a blank talk page, so I decided to welcome you. I hope you like it and decide to stay. Here are some handy links for newcomers.
*[[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|Welcome]]
*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]]
*[[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial]]
*[[Wikipedia:Picture tutorial|Picture tutorial]]
*[[Wikipedia:How to write a great article|How to write a great article]]
*[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|Naming conventions]]
*[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]
*[[Wikipedia:Help|Help pages]]
*[[Wikipedia:village pump|Village pump]]
*[[Wikipedia:help desk|help desk]]
*[[Wikipedia:Wikiquette|Wiquette]]
Also you can sign your name on talk pages and vote pages with three tildes like this <nowiki>~~~</nowiki>, and your name with a time stamp with four like this <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. [[User:Howabout1|Howabout1]] 15:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

JustSomeKid are you a molecular biology person? Me too. ron 15:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

:I'm grossly ignorant of the field. Some aspects I know a bit about, though, and there are a few things in it I think are really cool. - [[User:JustSomeKid|JustSomeKid]] 22:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey -- I noticed you have redirected a vast number of pages on individual kata to the page [[karate kata]]. I'm a mergist myself, so I understand the principle of this, but I think this is effectively removing a LOT of information from Wikipedia. Was this the result of a consensus somewhere? If so, let me know on my talk page; for now, I'm reverting all of those so the information is preserved. If not, I'm happy to debate this if you disagree; let me know and we can start a discussion, perhaps at [[Talk:Karate kata]] so that other people can find it. [[User:Mangojuice|Mangojuice]] 04:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

:Looking through your history, I found many similar redirections to [[Blocking techniques]] and other mass-merge pages. Similarly, I'm undoing this, it's losing a lot of information. [[User:Mangojuice|Mangojuice]] 04:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

:Okay, I'm posting a response at [[Talk:Shotokan#Kata instruction]], but I am making a link to that discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial Arts]], because some interested editors may not be aware of it, on a Shotokan page. [[User:Mangojuice|Mangojuice]] 12:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

==Warning [[Monkey-baiting]] article==
Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]. If you want to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. Thank you.  <noinclude>[[User:SirIsaacBrock|SirIsaacBrock]] 21:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:Omission of two unwiki sentences does not constitute vandalism. - [[User:JustSomeKid|JustSomeKid]] 21:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

::Please see my comment in regards to this at [[User_talk:SirIsaacBrock#Monkey-baiting_2]]. --[[User:S charette|Stephane Charette]] 05:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

==Warning==

[[Image:Stop_hand.png|left|30px]] Please do not remove [[Wikipedia:Maintenance|maintenance]] notices from articles unless the required changes have been made to the article. If you are uncertain whether the article requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the article's talk page before removing the notice from the article. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered [[Wikipedia:vandalism|vandalism]]. Thank you.  [[User:CommonJoe|CommonJoe]] 02:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:FlyingOrca

2006-04-26T02:36:34Z

CommonJoe: rv removal of warnings

'''Welcome!'''

Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome]] to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
*[[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]
*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]]
*[[Help:Contents|Help pages]]
*[[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Tutorial]]
*[[Wikipedia:How to write a great article|How to write a great article]]
*[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|sign your name]] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out [[Wikipedia:Questions]], ask me on my talk page, or place <code>{{helpme}}</code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --D-Day([[User:D-Day|Wouldn't]] [[User talk:D-Day|you]] [[Special:Contributions/User:D-Day|like]] [[User:D-Day/sandbox|to]] [[User:D-Day/Userboxen|be]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|a pepper]] [[User:D-Day/You know you've been editing for too long on Wikipedia if...|too?]]) 14:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:Stop_hand.png|left|30px]] Please do not remove [[Wikipedia:Maintenance|maintenance]] notices from articles unless the required changes have been made to the article. If you are uncertain whether the article requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the article's talk page before removing the notice from the article. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered [[Wikipedia:vandalism|vandalism]]. Thank you.  [[User:CommonJoe|CommonJoe]] 02:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Blanking your talk page will not remove the warnings from the page history. If you continue to blank your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks.  [[User:CommonJoe|CommonJoe]] 02:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Evolution

2006-04-26T02:35:28Z

CommonJoe: rv

Climate change

2006-04-26T02:35:03Z

CommonJoe: rv again

Climate change

2006-04-26T02:32:06Z

CommonJoe: rv van

Evolution

2006-04-26T02:31:42Z

CommonJoe: rv

User talk:FlyingOrca

2006-04-26T02:30:58Z

CommonJoe:

User talk:JustSomeKid

2006-04-26T02:30:23Z

CommonJoe: rv inappropriate removal of warning

Evolution

2006-04-26T02:29:18Z

CommonJoe: rv vandalism

User talk:JoshuaZ

2006-04-26T02:28:49Z

CommonJoe:

[[User talk:JoshuaZ/Archive000|Talk Archive000]]

'''Important''' I prefer to keep conversations in one place. So if you send put a talk message on my page, I will respond there. However, if I leave a talk message on your page, and you respond here, I will respond on your page for consistency.

==Our RfAs ==
[[Image:1000000eme.jpg|thumb|110px|right|Another sysop rolls off the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hoary|conveyor belt]], thanks you for your help, and excuses himself for a few days while he practices his new [[List_of_powers_in_superhero_fiction#Energy|abilities]]. Back in action soon! -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 09:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)]]
{| cellpadding=6 style="border: black 1px solid; background-color: orange"
|-
| [[Image:TeabagandMilk.jpg|110px]]
| Hi JoshuaZ. Just a quick note to thank you for your support in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TigerShark|my RfA]], which recently passed '''62/13/6'''. I will do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please [[User talk:TigerShark|let me know]] if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers [[User:TigerShark|TigerShark]] 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
|}

== Blacklisting a webpage ==

Hola, on the [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]] page you told me I had to get a webpage blacklisted. Could you tell me how that is done?[[User:Rosameliamartinez|'''Rosa''']] 03:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at [[WP:SPAM]], basically you need to find a meta sysop and explain to them what is going on. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

:Try [[User:Essjay|Essjay]] [[User:Prodego|''Prodego'']] [[User talk:Prodego|talk]] 13:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

==guidelines/help needed==

Hello,
Thanks for showing me the way how wikipedia works. Maybe you can have a look at these articles, and investigate if they are written according to the guidelines:

*[[Politics_of_the_Netherlands#Historical_overview]]:
The fragment “the present cabinet, which is one of the most right wing cabinets since the late 19th century” is far from neutral, but I could not convince the rest of wikipedia this was the case..

*The article about [[David Irving]] contains a lot of negative editing against him. For example, o October 11, a user called [[user:Redzen]] put some intelligent-looking quotes from Irving on the page, and they were quickly removed. However, when Irving is making some stupid remarks, these remarks are still there (under ‘racism’). I am as much a fan of [[Adnan Oktar]] as of David Irving, but when one gets a neutral treatment, the other should get it as well.

Could you do something about these 2 articles? Thanks [[User:Jeff5102|Jeff5102]] 07:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

: The key here is [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]]. For example, in the Oktar article you referred to "absurd rhetoric." That's NPOV, and unsourced, essentially opinion. In the cases of the Irving and Netherlands the comments are sourced and not opinions of Wikipedians. For example, in the Irving article, it gives examples of his racist comments, it doesn't say "Irving is a racist ass whose only appeal is to idiots and brutes." Sourced, negative information does not violate [[WP:NPOV]], general editorial remarks do. I hope that example clarifies matters. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

== Blocking policy ==

Hi. I assume that the new proposed blocking policy hasn't been implemented yet? You can still slap a temp-ban on the user ([[User:65.197.192.130]]) though, can't you?

Question for you: What's to stop me (for example) from vandalising consistantly, and yet still contributing many useful edits to Wikipedia.. anonymously? --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 16:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

: At this point, not much really. But if an anon IP is really bad, people will start to keep track of that IP's contrib list, to prevent large scale damage and will block much faster. Also, if an IP is sufficiently problematic, the provider may be contacted. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As I think you understand, I'm not trying to be argumentative. But I think that policy, as it stands, is not good enough. For example, I spent a few minutes having a look at the IP's contribs list, fixing the vandalised pages, adding a level 4 warning template, and following up afterwards (plus this discussion we're having). Instead of which, I cuold have been editing articles and otherwise contributing to the 'pedia. As it turns out, no action is going to be taken against this vandal (or vandals as the case may be).. so that has meant basically that my time has been wasted (other than to have fixed vandalism which shouldn't really have got through in the first place).

Don't get me wrong though - obviously I appreciate the work you (and other admins) put in to the alert pages and time taken to deliberate on issues etc etc. I just felt that I needed to vent my frustration at the policy as it stands. I'd love to hear your personal opinion and thoughts on the matter. Cheers. --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 17:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

:: Er, I'm not an admin yet. But yes, I strongly agree that the current policy on IPs is not strict enough. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh right.. I didn't reealise that anybody could deliberate on the Vandal alert page. Anyway ... have you taken part in the voting regarding the blocking policy? --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

: Well, really I shouldn't have. The main reason I made the comment there was to make sure the admin who handled it knew that some good edits had been coming from that IP (which should be taken into account when determining block times). I haven't completely made up my mind yet about the new blocking policies. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

== Sam Spade RfC ==

Hey, I noticed you signed the RfC - currently, the statement is focusing specifically on his actions on [[Socialism]], because that is where I have encountered him. Could you provide comments about his actions on the other articles? Thanks. -- [[User:Infinity0|infinity]]'''[[User_talk:Infinity0|0]]''' 18:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

:Sorry, what I meant is, write your own section in the "disputes" section detailing his actions. This RfC isn't meant to be about the specific dispute at any article, but the general pattern of behaviour he sometimes engages in when he meets opposition. -- [[User:Infinity0|infinity]]'''[[User_talk:Infinity0|0]]''' 18:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

:: I'm not going to have time for that right now, and I think KillerChihuaha was talking about doing that. If she does add to the dispute section, I'll move my sig back up to basis rather than endorse. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

==Pianka controversy==
*Thanks for adding the info about Pianka's response to [[Forrest Mims]]' comments. For my own edification, can you point me to a source? (It's probably _really_ obvious, but I can't seem to get Google to cough it up....) For that matter, could you also add the link to the Mims page when you get a chance? Thanks much. [[User:MarcoTolo|MarcoTolo]] 18:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

: Er, there are a few sourced in the Pianka article. I'll go snag one from over there and move it to Mims. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

== Please be sure to use talk pages ==

Hey Joshua

Please try to use "talk" pages when making changes to articles.

Although it isn't unheard of, it isn't the best etiquette to visit pages, and revert immediately. I'll assume you are acting in good faith on [[Ron Dellums]], that is, that you came across on the article on your own and evaluated it, and determined what changes would be best, and made them. But, it might look a little better if the future you express your opinion as to why your changes are needed and also attempt to add meaningful content to articles.

That particular article has been frequented by users that know very little about Dellums and haven't shown any willingness to research the man.

Take care,
[[User:Justforasecond|Justforasecond]] 18:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

== Re: [[User:Pro-Lick|Pro-Lick]] ==

Hi Josh.

No, I didn't ask about the blog, and Pro-Lick didn't say anything about it in our communication. I'm honestly not too worried about it. Maybe you could suggest to Pro-Lick that taking that post down would be a sign of good-faith, and a good bridge-mending step? -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]]) 20:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

== RFA ==

[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dangherous|Does it look OK to you now?]] --[[User:Dangherous|Dangherous]] 21:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

==Good faith==

Joshua, I've asked you nicely to leave talk page messages to describe why you are making changes. I'd appreciate if you took me up on the offer.

[[User:Justforasecond|Justforasecond]] 14:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

: I think it should be pretty obvious; the other version was the consensus version, yours was not. Furthermore, the others reasoning seemed sound. Hence I reverted to the consensus. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

==Serbian nationalist editors==
Hi Joshua. I see you have noticed the influx of Serbian nationalist editors, and are following closely. I originally tagged [[Zadar Kristallnacht]] for POV on my [[WP:NP]] patrol a couple of weeks ago, and have not been following very closely. [[User:CeBuCCuCmeM]] popped up yesterday, his first edit was his userpage, and then on his fourth edit he created [[Template:Persecution of Serbs]], which seems highly POV and stuck it all over the place. I think he may be a sock or meatpuppet. Are you interested in investigating? Regards, [[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] 01:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
* It seems highly unlikely that a first-day editor would know that templating exists, let alone how to create such a complex template.[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] 01:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

::I haven't been actually paying that much attention to the problem. Its just very blatant. In fact, until you mentioned this I had no idea about that template, or that new user. It may make more sense to discuss it here where sockpuppetry of this sort has already been brought up, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:WikiMB_is_a_sockpuppet_of_User:Bormalagurski]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
:: Also, you may want to bring it up at [[WP:RFCU]]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
::: I thought of that, but I can't really think of a match. Can I submit open-ended requests, or do I have to suggest a match. It could be any of the Serbian warriors.[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] 01:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
:::: I think one isn't allowed to go on general hunts, but if you have a plause example you can ask for him to check Bormalagurski for example, and note that its a general problem with the Serbian POV pushers, and they might turn up info on the checkuser that connects the sock to someone else. Slight gaming of the system, but acceptable. In any event, I would be highly unsurprised if this were Borma. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

==Questions==
I know, I was just wrapping up my responses, thanks for being alert though :) -- [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 03:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dangherous|My rFA]] ==

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm stumped. There was a question "What do you understand will happen at the end of this five day discussion process?" What on earth is this 5 day discussion period of which [[User:Robchurch]] speaks? The RFA is a 7 day discussion period. Have I missed something? --[[User:Dangherous|Dangherous]] 17:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

== 67.160.36.12 ==

I've blocked 67.160.36.12 for 24 hours for vandalism, harassment etc. Please let me know if he continues to be a problem and I'll handle it.[[User:Gator1|Gator]] [[User talk:Gator1|(talk)]] 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

Thanks, that is I think the same vandal that made the [[User:Joshuaz]] (note lower case z) impostor earlier. I really don't understand what his problem is with me, he seems to think I did something on some other forum he was involved in. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
:No problem. It is one thing that Wikipedia does not do very well with--when the vandals themselves start giving out warnings. Keep up the good work. --[[User:TeaDrinker|TeaDrinker]] 20:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

== Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot ==

[[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
{|cellspacing=10
|-
|valign=top|
;Stubs:
:[[Scientific community]]
:[[The Kids Will Have Their Say]]
:[[Hypothesis]]
:[[Ex nihilo]]
:[[The Genesis Flood]]
:[[Hugo Claus]]
:[[Infinity Watch]]
:[[Francis J. Beckwith]]
:[[Rumble in the Bronx]]
:[[Creator deity]]
:[[Divine simplicity]]
:[[Neptunism]]
:[[McDonogh School]]
:[[No Answers in Genesis]]
:[[National Center for Science Education]]
:[[WCWM]]
:[[Natural theology]]
:[[List of Korean ceramic artists and sculptors]]
:[[Separation of church and state in the United States]]
|align=top|
;Cleanup
:[[Islamic creationism]]
:[[Mathematical coincidence]]
:[[Flathead Lake]]
;Merge
:[[Resurrection of the dead]]
:[[Biblical cosmology]]
:[[Bill Gothard]]
;Add Sources
:[[Post-feminism]]
:[[Toba catastrophe theory]]
:[[Extra-sensory perception]]
;Wikify
:[[Steve DeVito]]
:[[Social Liberals (Austria)]]
:[[George Seddon AM]]
;Expand
:[[List of British entomological publishers]]
:[[Random variate]]
:[[God complex]]
|}

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on [[User_talk:SuggestBot|SuggestBot's talk page]]. Thanks from [[User:ForteTuba|ForteTuba]], SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on [[User:SuggestBot/Requests|the SuggestBot request page]]. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- [[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

== EAS ==

JoshuaZ,

Please review the Enterprise Audit Shell. Please understand that EAS is simply a new version of the EXISTING software [[sudosh]] which already has a wiki article. EAS == Sudosh. I've also updated the discussion page. Also note that Freshmeat, SourceForge and the Sudo maintainer have blessed Enterprise Audit Shell and that I have 3rd party validation. This isn't simply a small program, tooting my own horn, or spam. It's just confusing because of the '''name change''' from Sudosh to EAS.

== Barnstar ==

{{award2|image=raok barnstar.png|size=100px|topic=The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar|text=For one ''amazing'' explaination on your support vote (and the great job of keeping the counts up to date) - Keep up the good work! :) [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 08:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC) }}

: Thanks, I have taken the liberty of moving the Barnstar to my Things page. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 03:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

== Bribery ==

Copied from [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship]]
''The servers are based in Florida yes? So one doesn't have as much in direct bribery, but one has other options. These include finding the right person to have a very quick affair with, helping stuff ballot boxes, helping remove valid ballots, being a lobbyist and paying for the person to go to an excotic location for their "research" as to whether you should deserve an account. Also, just having a dinner or lunch meeting at a very expensive restaurant and paying for that. But no bribery, not in the US, they would never have bribery. Did I miss any other common behaviors that are definitely not bribery? JoshuaZ 02:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)''
:lol '''; )''' [[User:FloNight|'''FloNight''']] [[User talk:FloNight|''talk'']] 13:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

== Ethics in the Bible ==
" Among religions which treat these sciptures as divinely sourced, is there controversy as to whether some immoral acts which the Bible does not discuss, is controversial. " This is in the form of a declarative sentence, but the information content appears to be a question.
Are you attempting to ask if there is controversey concerning if the fact that the Bible does not discuss some immoral acts might be controversial?
I have reverted the paragraph because the current version does not make sense (or at the very least, is in no way clear). [[User:Wdanwatts|Dan Watts]] 14:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that should be "there is" rather than "is there" I'll fix it and revert back if you don't object. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

:<strike>I hope that you can change it so that there are not two usages of 'controversey' in one sentence.</strike> That is much more readable. [[User:Wdanwatts|Dan Watts]] 14:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

== Kusma's RfA ==

[[Image:WikiThanks.png|left]] Hello, JoshuaZ! Thank you for your support in my recent successful [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kusma|request for adminship]]. It was interesting to think about your questions; I still am trying to figure out what my perspective on adminship from the [[WP:PNT]] point of view is. Anyway, if you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] [[User_talk:Kusma|(討論)]] 19:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

== thanks for the support ==

Hi JoshuaZ- thanks a lot for your support on my recent, (barely) successful [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Heah|rfa]]. Please feel free to leave me any comments or criticisms on [[User talk:Heah|my talk page]]! --[[User:Heah|He]]:[[User_talk:Heah|ah?]] 22:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

== AFD ==

Hey JoshuaZ, I replied to your comments on the [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Deletion_log_yesterday_-problem.|talk page of AFD]]. Just wanted to let you know I've written my bot to update the yesterday pages from now on. Cheers! --[[User:Lightdarkness|light]][[User:Lightdarkness|darkness]] ([[User_talk:Lightdarkness|talk]]) 04:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

== Re: Kilo's rfa ==

Thank you for your reminder. I have seen these answers.--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] 16:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC

==stop [personal attacks deleted by [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]]] my talk page==

Read over the relevant articles and talk pages. It's not about a "vote", its about "fact-finding", and if you don't have the time for fact-finding, please stop vandalizing my talk page. [[User:Pat8722|pat8722]] 19:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

: I don't recall using the word vote. My point was simply that when many users (such as KillerChihuahua) who have been on Wikipedia much longer then you have tell you that you are misunderstanding the relevant policies and guidelines, it might be because you are misunderstanding them. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Or it might be because I'm not. If you don't have the time to investigate, STOP [personal attacks deleted by [personal attacks deleted by [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]]]MY TALK PAGE. [[User:Pat8722|pat8722]] 19:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

: I have looked into it, and Killer is quite correct. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It takes FACTS, not CONCLUSIONS, to establish "who" is correct. An unsupported conclusion is MEANINGLESS. Furthermore, an allegation of vandalism is not prohibited under the personal attacks rule. An allegation of vandalism requires "fact finding". As it appears a small cabal can result in blocks against one who is STRICTLY FOLLOWING ALL WIKIPEDIA POLICY, I suspect you will block me if I again revert your vandalism of my own talk page today. So I will be back tommorrow to revert your vandalism of my talk page, while awaiting a real resolution of the real dispute, over whether [[William Connelley]] [personal attacks deleted by [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]]] by BLOCKING A USER WHO WAS REVERTING VANDALISM UNDER THE PRESENT DEFINITION OF VANDALISM. [[User:Pat8722|pat8722]] 20:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

:Knowingly false accusations of vandalism are person attacks. Please desist. While you may have misread the vandalism policy, it's been explained to you why that was not vandalism. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 20:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to understand what I've been threatened with, particularly since I have violated no wikipedia policy. Does JoshuaZ, or any admin, or other, have "power" to permanently stop a user from editing their own talk page? If he tries to do that, would I then have to find another admin to engage in what I think is termed a "wheel war", so that I can re-edit it again? It's seeming very arbitrary to me at present, almost like any admin can do whatever he wants and its all a matter of who is willing to be dirtiest and who is in a political majority. I also don't understand why you are blanking out the word "vandalizing", is there a list somewhere that says that it is a prohibited word? I don't see you blanking out "vandalism", just "vandalizing", how come? You can respond here, as I have placed this on my watchlist. [[User:Pat8722|pat8722]] 20:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refer me to the policy that says unfounded warnings cannot be removed from talk pages. Unfounded warnings are vandalism are they not? The dispute with connelley began when he blocked me for removing vandalism from the libertarian talk page. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Vandalism (April 2006) at paragraph "what does 'nonsense' mean? and see the libertarian talk page at "the most accurate definition should be used" (March 2006), and see connelley's talk page (he does lots of deletes, so you may have to really look hard for it). I did not lodge a personal attack against connelley in accusing him of abusing his admin powers, I merely stated fact, so his complaint on my talk page was itself nonsense, and subject to deletion under the wikipedia: vandalism policy. You have got to look at "what happened" to determine "who" is the vandal, and you are merely siding with "a friend", without performing "fact checking". What is the procedure for removing your unfounded warnings from my talk page, without fear of being blocked for doing so? [[User:Pat8722|pat8722]] 20:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I found this on my talk page just now:

== DBAD ==

Please read [[m:Don't be a dick]] (In this case we can mean [[dick]] to mean [[head louse]] rather than [[penis]]), so give it a break, please. It is boring. — [[user:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|☺]] 21:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Am I allowed to delete this under your definition of reverting "warnings"? [[User:Pat8722|pat8722]] 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

: You may not be violating any formal rule by deleting it, however, in general removing comments from talk pages is strongly frowned upon without a very good reason. As for removal of warnings, if you can find an admin who agrees with you, that admin can presumably talk to whoever placed the warnings and then decide if they should stay or not. As a last resort, you can go to [[WP:ANI]] and make a complaint there, however I caution against it. I hope that helps. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

==ProhibitOnions's RfA==
{| align=center style= "text-align:center;background:#00DD77;-moz-border-radius: 15px;"
| colspan=3 style= "text-align:center;background:#007722; color:white;-moz-border-radius: 20px;"|'''''Thank you, {{PAGENAME}}!'''''
|-
| [[image:WikiThanks.png|Thank you!]] || ...for voting in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ProhibitOnions|my RFA]]. It passed with a result of 58/2/0. If you have any comments, or for some reason need any new-admin help, please let me know [[User talk:ProhibitOnions|here]]. Sorry about the boilerplate. Regards, [[User:ProhibitOnions|ProhibitOnions]] 22:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC) ||
|}

==A [[KISS principle|KISS]] Rfa Thanks==
Thank you, I've been promoted. [[User:Pschemp|psch]][[WP:ESP|e]][[User:Pschemp|mp]] | [[User talk:Pschemp|talk]] 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

== My RFA ==

[[Image:smiley.png|thumb|left|100px|Thanks for your vote.]] Hi, this is Matt Yeager. I wanted to thank you for your vote on my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt_Yeager_2|request for adminship]]. The count was something like was 14/20/5 when I decided to withdraw the request. My decision was based on the fact that there are enough things wasting people's time on the Internet that doomed RFA's shouldn't be kept up for voters to have to think about. Regardless of the rationale behind your vote, I hope you will read [[User:Matt Yeager/RFA|this note]] for an extended note and discussion on what will happen before I make another try at adminship (I didn't want to clog up your userpage with drivel that you might not be interested in reading). Thank you very, very much for your vote and your time and consideration of my credentials--regardless of whether you voted support, nuetral, or oppose. Happy editing! [[User:Matt Yeager|Matt Yeager]] [[Special:Random|♫]] ([[User_talk:Matt Yeager|Talk?]]) 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

== RFA ==

It appears you voted on [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lightdarkness|my RFA]] and weren't logged in. Just a heads up. Cheers --[[User:Lightdarkness|light]][[User:Lightdarkness|darkness]] ([[User_talk:Lightdarkness|talk]]) 18:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, How did you know that was me? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
:1337 hax! I checked the contribs of one of the other edits from the IP, saw you then edited with the edit summary "Whoops, wasn't logged in", and put 2 and 4 together to get 7. --[[User:Lightdarkness|light]][[User:Lightdarkness|darkness]] ([[User_talk:Lightdarkness|talk]]) 18:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

{| style="border-top:1px solid grey; border-right:1px solid grey; border-bottom:2px solid grey; border-left:1px solid grey; background-color:Cornsilk; font-family:Verdana; font-size: 12px;"
|[[Image:PaintedBunting23.jpg|right|100px]]
|'''Thank you!''' Hello {{PAGENAME}}. Thank you for your support in my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fang Aili|RfA]]! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to [[User talk:Fang Aili|talk]], let me know. Cheers! -- [[User:Fang Aili|F]][[User:Fang Aili/Esperanza|a]][[User:Fang Aili|ng Aili]] [[User talk:Fang Aili|說嗎?]]
|}

== Chuck... ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution&curid=9237&diff=48122111&oldid=48121652 Good move...] Though I bet the discussion that would have followed would have been fun. :) [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikker]] [[User talk:Mikkerpikker|(...)]] 15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

== password ==

I guess that would be someone abusing the password reminder feature. There really should be a way to turn it off short of disabling e-mail. In the meantime there's really nothing that can be done. -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 15:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

== RE: Your RfA ==

I would like to thank you for posting these questions for me on my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Siva1979|RFA]]. I have answered all of them and hope that you would take a look at them as soon as possible. Any constructive comments from you will be greatly appreciated and taken into account. --[[WP:EA|S]][[User:Siva1979|iva1979]][[User talk:Siva1979|Talk to me]] 16:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

== YECs ==

Thanks for your comments on YEC. I have never been up on the topic of YEC and started studying it after a YEC sermon at my church (Southern Baptist). The pastor suggested I read a book by [[Ken_Ham|Ken Ham]], which I did. Some of his stuff was right on, while others, I thought were way off. I am continuing to give feedback to my pastor. As I research and learn things, if I see a hole in Wikipedia of something I have learned, I try to add it.

Since I am new to both Wikipedia and the YEC discussion, if you see something that I said that is incorrect, unfactual, or you think is just POV, please feel free to let me know. [[User:Liberty4u|Liberty4u]] 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Will do. If you really want to know more about the topic I strongly suggest looking at the talkorigins archive FAQ and browsing some of the other stuff they have. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

== My RfA ==
Many thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It was successful. Thanks again, [[User:Mark83|Mark83]] 10:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

==Follow Up==
I've answered the questions that you posted [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Master Jay|here]]. Give them a look when you have the chance. Thanks --[[User:Master Jay|'''Jay''']]'''([[User talk:Master Jay|Reply]])''' 01:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

== Admin ==

So wait...are you an admin?--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|'''The''']]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|'''i''']][[user:ikiroid|'''kiro''']][[Ego, superego, and id|'''id''']] ([[user talk:ikiroid|talk parler hablar paroli 说話し parlar]]) 01:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

: Er, no. Why did you think I was? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You handle a lot of disputes, ask questions, and hang out on the admin noticeboard. You're admin material. A lot of edits, a cool head, etc. Can I nominate you?--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|'''The''']]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|'''i''']][[user:ikiroid|'''kiro''']][[Ego, superego, and id|'''id''']] ([[user talk:ikiroid|talk parler hablar paroli 说話し parlar]]) 01:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm flattered, but not right now. Among other issues, I'm currently involved in the Agapetos Arbitration case, and I'd rather have that cleared up before I try to become an admin. That case will wrap up soon, I'm wouldn't mind a nomination around the end of the month though. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

:OK, just give me the word when the time comes and I'll do it.--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|'''The''']]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|'''i''']][[user:ikiroid|'''kiro''']][[Ego, superego, and id|'''id''']] ([[user talk:ikiroid|talk parler hablar paroli 说話し parlar]]) 01:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

== tb2's reporting ==

What would you like to see? Any ideas? [[User:Joshbuddy|josh]]buddy[[User_talk:Joshbuddy|talk]] 04:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking that it might make sense for it to see if the reported user is already listed on the page, and if so to not report them again. (although I'm not an admin, so my opinion on this really isn't very relevant). The current behavior could be slightly problematic if it reported A, reported B, reported A, then one admin deals with A and stops there, and then the next admin needs to go check through A again and note that A is already blocked. So having it not double up may be a slight timesaver. Just a thought though, nothing strong. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

== List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years ==

Hello,

I've added the reference to the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of [[List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years]] you asked for.

Regards, [[User:Nicki Mennekens|Nick Mks]] 13:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

: Thanks, I'll take a look. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

:: Thank you for your support. As far as the copyright is concerned, the image was created and released by a Wikipedian as a merge of 50 NASA images. The astronomical reason that eclipses occur less often at the poles is relatively simple, why the South Pole is even more discriminated is less obvious. For more information, I recommend [http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/eclipse.html] and [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SEML/]. If the article is recreated, I will include the explanation in it. [[User:Nicki Mennekens|Nick Mks]] 14:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

::: Thanks for the clarifications. It looks like the new version will be an excellent article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

==LaRouche==
Hi Joshua, LaRouche 2 doesn't mention user pages but says Wikipedia shouldn't be used to promote any individual or group (or words to that effect) and Cognition has been specifically joined to it. I'll take a look later to see whether the rest of the user page is promoting LaRouche's ideas, though I'm minded to leave the positive comments; it was the negative ones that were the most problematic. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree a bit there, in particular "Franklin D. Roosevelt: Fighter of fascism, defender of the American System, architect of the original Bretton Woods system" "Mahathir bin Mohamad, had the courage to adopt the American System in Malaysia, to champion progress and industrial development" "Abraham Lincoln, great, hard-fought victor over the British monarchy's puppet, the Confederacy" are exactly the sort of statements that Larouche 2 tried to get rid of. So if the ruling includes user pages, these should go. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 03:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

== No prob ==

That guy attacked you because you reverted his vandalism, guess that means I gotta watch my own page!!

Thanks

[[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]][[User:Srikeit|Srik]][[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]][[User:Srikeit|it]]'''('''[[User_talk:Srikeit|talk]] ¦ [[Special:Emailuser/Srikeit|✉]]''')''''' 03:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

== AFD 4 on the Game ==

There's no reason you should have noticed my earlier comment, or remembered that it was from me if you had. And certainly my new comment wasn't as helpful as it could have been. No hard feelings. --[[User:PHenry|phh]] 15:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki]] ==

As a contributor to the page CreationWiki, I feel it fair to warn you that it has been nominated for deletion. Please make your opinion known. [[User:PrometheusX303|PrometheusX303]] 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

== Master Jay's RfA ==

Hey Josh, thanks for your support at my recent [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Master Jay|RfA]]. I have made a note of the new user concern that you commented on during the discussion. I will do my best to correct the problem. If you have any further questions, leave me a note [[User talk:Master Jay|here]]. Regards, [[User:Master Jay|'''Jay''']]'''([[User talk:Master Jay|Reply]])''' 02:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC).

== I've answered your questions ==

I've answered the questions you posted on my RfA, thought I'd give you the heads up. Thank you for asking them, they were tough but good and I had fun answering them. : ) Thanks for interest and let me know if you need anything else. : ) [[User:Cookiecaper|cooki]][[WP:EA|e]][[User:Cookiecaper|caper]] ([[User talk:Cookiecaper|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Cookiecaper|contribs]]) 19:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

== Your question... ==

Would you like me to answer on my RfA page, or would you like me to answer here. I think I could go into more detail here, as I don't ''really'' want to muck up the RfA page with so much writing. It's up to you really. Thanks. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|LV]] [[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]] 20:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

: No strong preference, although if you answer it here you may want to put a note there that you are answering it on my talk page (and by the way, if you think an answer to it will muck up the RfA page you should take a look at Tawker's final RfA). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

::Well, I think most questions can best be handled by directly asking the candidate themselves on their talk page, and Tawker's RfA ''was'' crazy. To be frank, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lord Voldemort|my last RfA]] explains much of what happened in the past. To sum it up, I had an issue with a certain editor who tended to bring out the worst in people, namely, me. He did so, and I made a small personal attack on my user page. Then an Admin, Rhobite, scolded me and I attacked him childishly. I have apologized, and all parties have moved on. Gabrielsimon, the first editor, even supported me in my last sysop bid. Other than that, I've stayed pretty clean.

::As to the handling of other contentious situations, I have dealt in some depth with Zephram Stark, a POV warrior with a cabinet full of socks. I have always treated him, and all his socks, with respect. I reprimand those that make personal attacks, including wikifriends that happened to cross the line. For a current sampling, you may want to see my dealings with Merecat at the [[Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush]]. I somewhat agreed with him on his RfC, but am fair and tried to nudge him in the right direction. You may also want to see my handling of [[User:Thewolfstar]].

::I have tended to haunt the American politics articles a bit, so I am no stranger to heated debate. I just try and keep things light and try to remind people, while remembering myself, what our purpose is here. I hope I have answered your question. For further info, you can see my contribs. See ya. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|LV]] [[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]] 21:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

== Spoiler notice ==

I took it off because it seemed really, really out of place. By all means put it back, it's no big deal :) [[User:Proto|Proto]]||[[User_talk:Proto|type]] 13:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

== Lesser degrees ==

How bout stating where they do come from, then? Talking about what people don't have is rarely acceptable, even if the subject is as shady as Cornuke. Try to keep it encyclopaedic and NPOV. [[User:Bastique|'''ℬ'''astique]]▼'''[[User talk:Bastique|parℓer]]'''♥'''[[Special:Contributions/Bastique|voir]]''''''♑''' 15:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
:If they claim expertise in an area, especially when proposing controversial hypotheses, shouldn't their lack of credentials be identified? [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 16:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
:Especially when they claim to have a "doctorate" (unaccredited) without the merits of a undergraduate degree. [[User:Arbustoo|Arbusto]] 20:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
:Quite. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis Guy you know?]] 21:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

== vandal i just blocked . . . ==

yes, i was just looking at the block log when i got your message, and had decided to kick it up to a full week given the incessant vandalism and lack of any constructive edits. So i've done that. cheers --[[User:Heah|He]][[User_talk:Heah|ah?]] 18:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

== Rasputin ==

Well done for removing the Oppose. I have to say that I unconditionally support this one, but nobody can expect to agree on everything :-) [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis Guy you know?]] 21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

==Stargate project==
:Hi, I have noticed that you have been making lots of edits on Stargate related pages, however, your name was not on the list of participants in the stargate project. You are more active in stargate on WP than some people who are on the list. I thought you might want to join the project. [[User:Tobyk777|Tobyk777]] 22:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
:Also, whether you join or not, for your work in stargate I am giving you an award.
{{award2|color={{SGColor|Other}}|image=Stargatebarnstar.jpg|size=110px|topic=The Stargate Barnstar|text='''{{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}} | User | {{PAGENAME}} | {{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}} | User_talk | [[User:{{PAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}}]] | This user }} }}''' has been awarded with the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stargate|WikiProject Stargate]]'s '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stargate/Award|Stargate Barnstar Award]]''', in recognition of his or her valued and exceptional contributions to Wikipedia's articles on '''[[Stargate]]'''. --[[User:Tobyk777|Tobyk777]] 22:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC) }}

: Thanks, I will add a copy of the barnstar to my barnstar page and will sign up on the project page. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

== my RFA ==

Regarding your recent vote switch on my RFA, I've clarified my position underneath the oppose votes. For simplicity's sake, I'll copy it over here as well: "For that, please read further to the next paragraph stating "Anons do some good on wikipedia, especially when it comes to little things like capitalizing, punctuation etc. You may not think it's much, but it kills the sense of "wow this is a real encyclopedia" when you read poor english, with no punctuation and bad spelling. Anons do a lot of work fixing that, and I appreciate that. I'm always willing to work with any anon that shows me the same respect back.", as well as reading "As a counter to that: some articles just, for some reason, attract all the GOOD anons." and "Still, that, combined with an article I've created, BF2Combat.net which is maintained mostly by anons, gives me hope." The user article was structured in a multi paragraph style, where I present an argument, and follow it with a counter argument. [[User:Swatjester|⇒]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|SWATJester]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|Ready]] [[RSTA|Aim]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|Fire!]] 03:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)"

My opinion regarding anonymous acounts is this: They should register. I understand the editors who are anons out of convenience or security reasons (no time to log in, or a public/shared computer so no desire to log in), but still, excluding bot style vandals, the majority of simple vandalism and test reverts on wikipedia come from anonymous IP's, and I strongly feel that if registration were required to edit the project, it would only be excluding the vandals who get bored in school and vandalize wikipedia, or come across an article through google and vandalize it because it's there and they've never heard of an editable encyclopedia. [[User:Swatjester|⇒]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|SWATJester]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|Ready]] [[RSTA|Aim]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|Fire!]] 03:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

== Attribution: ==
:''better articles are our goal, not better policies'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/-Lumi%C3%A8re&diff=prev&oldid=49557394]

None needed. Thanks for all the good you do around here. Cheers, -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:You can have it for free if you can figure out which is correct: "Better articles is our goal" or "Better articles are our goals". That'll prove your worth as an editor. -W.

:: Maybe I should just attribute it you as you put it in the edit summary and then claim I was only quoting when the grammar police show up. I'm pretty sure "better articles are" since in English number is decided by the subject not the predicact nominative. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 06:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Actually, "better articles" might be a collective noun. Now I'm not sure. Groan. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 06:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:::Probably will be different in AE and BE, like "team". [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 06:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

== [[The Game (game)]] ==

''Hi, you may want to rv back to just the deletin review notice and protect the page. Certain users seem to think the article should be up now while the deletion review is ongoing. My understanding of policy suggests that it should not. JoshuaZ 06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)''
:I'm actually not an admin (though I'm flattered that I've managed to fool you) but I think allowing the article to stand while the DRV runs is actually a better idea, since the deletion was out of process. If the DRV decides the deletion was actually the right decision, which seems unlikely, it can be deleted then.-[[User:Polotet|Polo]][[User talk:Polotet|te]][[Special:Contributions/Polotet|t]] 06:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

== Request for Help ==

Hi. I've been noticing that we seem to share a lot of the same interests so I was wondering if you would like to lend a hand over on [[Cold Fusion]]. This used to be a listed article but it has since degenerated after being abandoned by skeptics. I would appreciate your cool head and words of wisdom is convicing the other editors to make the article something other than a propaganda piece. Yours sincerely, [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] 09:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but my knowledge of the subject is very poor, so I don't know how much assistance I'll be. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks. I'm managed to impliment a lot of changes so it's not as bad as before. The article [[Cold fusion controversy]] is still in pretty bad state. [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] 14:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
::My friend Séamus was working in the same lab as Fleischmann in 1989, he did some of the control algorithms for the reaction. He's now professor of bio- and electro-sensors at Cranfield University. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis Guy you know?]] 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

==RfC comment==
I felt it was borderline fair comment, but with hindsight you're probably right. I'll go back and remove it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 15:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

== [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] ==

I agree with what you are doing, reverting those claims in the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] article, but I recommend you to avoid the article for the rest of the day as you are close to [[WP:3RR]] as you do got 3 non-vandalism reverts in the article in like a six hour period. Thanks [[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Jaranda|wat's sup]] 21:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

: Thanks, I was aware of that, I was actually planning on avoiding the article for at least 24 hours before I touch it again. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

==The Game==
I was ''hoping'' common sense would prevail and the consensus of the AfD would be that WP:V cannot be voted out by an AfD, but my hopes were dashed, and therefore policy has to be followed, regardless of a vote which violates policy. I was hoping that whichever admin closed it would realize that the only possible result, regardless of the AfD "vote", was deletion because of WP:V. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 04:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

: I'm still not sure I understand. Are you saying that you intended to delete it regardless of any outcome or discussion in the AfD? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

::I hoped that the closing admin would do the right thing, but since that didn't happen, deletion was the only correct result. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 04:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
:::''So the possibility that there was disagreement over whether or not the Belgian source was sufficient was irrelevant?''
::::Most definitely. 1-It's a Dutch language article which requires you to register. 2-The translation was problematic. 3-The supposed article doesn't cite its own sources. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 04:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
::::: Ugh... since when do newspapers EVER cite their sources? There's a picture of article anyways -- if you had taken the time to '''read or search the extensive discussion page,''' you would have seen it. The translation's fallibility is another story. What made/makes you think so? [[User:Brabblebrex|brabblebrex]] 00:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::''I see, and you didn't discuss this with Prodego why? ''
::::::Would it have led to Prodego changing his/her decision? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 05:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And your repeated badgering of me is relevant because ...? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 05:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facist#Definition Hahaha] [[User:Kernow|Kernow]] 11:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

: Kernow, What point are you trying to make? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

::I'm just joking. Your and Zoe's attitudes to Wikipedia are at opposite ends of the tolerance spectrum. It makes an amusing read. [[User:Kernow|Kernow]] 16:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

::: I don't think that is what is going on. I think the issue is not about "tolerance" more unilateralism (and possibly my lack of understanding Zoe's rationale for her unilateralism). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

== Village pump ==
You have seen my proposal on WP:RS. Could you please tell me what the next step would be if I wanted to change the policy? My list of reliable sources which should be listed is very concise: [[PubMed]], [[Cochrane collaboration]], [[HONcode]] and all articles listed in these. But I really don't know what to do about it now. [[user:ackoz|ackoz]] [[Image:Flag of the Czech Republic.svg|20px]] 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

: I would start a discussion on the talk page for [[WP:RS]] and make a note with a new header that on the village pump that a discussion on that topic is occuring there. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

==Template:HealthDisclaimer==
Hello JoshuaZ ''': )''' Excellent job spotting this template and bringing it to Tfd. The user that made it was well intentioned but we don't need any ambiguity here. regards, [[User:FloNight|'''FloNight''']] [[User talk:FloNight|''talk'']] 23:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

==Irony, hypocrisy==
"On adverbs: Most adverbs should be shot on sight." --JoshuaZ on his user page

"Take a look at [[WP:SPAM]], '''basically''' you need to find a meta sysop and explain to them what is going on. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)" --From the top of this page (adverb bolded for easy spotting)

Just thought I'd be a [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick dick] and point that out. I think that the adverb you elected to use is the '''worst''' in existence. Have a nice day! [[User:Brabblebrex|brabblebrex]] 00:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

: Hah, yeah. That rule refers to in article space and stuff that I'm going to bother doing drafts of. In talk space I'm really layed back and even end sentences with prepositions. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

==Whats vote stacking?==
Hi, you said that my proposal is close to vote stacking. What is vote stacking? [[User:Tobyk777|Tobyk777]] 02:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

: Vote stacking is deliberately organizing a group of Wikipedians to all vote one way on a specific matter (examples where this problem commonly occurs are [[WP:RfA|Adminship requests]] and [[WP:AfD]]). In general such behavior is considered to be possibly disruptive, unproductive and generally frowned upon. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
::I dont see the problem with vote stacking. It's like campangining, just on a smaller scale. [[User:Tobyk777|Tobyk777]] 04:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:: Yes, its precisely identical to campaigning, and campaigning on the wiki is frowned upon since it minimizes actual discussion of the matter at hand and measures more who can get-out-the-vote better rather than what the actual consensus is. [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a democracy]]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

== FYI ==

FYI, [[User:JedRothwell]] has been blocked for 24 hours. ~[[User:Mdd4696 |MDD]][[User_talk:Mdd4696 |46]][[Special:Contributions/Mdd4696 |96]] 02:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

: Thanks. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

::I left JedRothwell and Jefffire messages on their talk pages asking what the dispute was about (I'm having trouble understanding exactly what the problem is). If you have any additional commentary, I'd like to hear it too. On the one hand, we can't have JedRothwell being disruptive, but on the other, I'd like to try and figure out if he has a valid point. Thanks. ~[[User:Mdd4696 |MDD]][[User_talk:Mdd4696 |46]][[Special:Contributions/Mdd4696 |96]] 21:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

::: Jeff is correct here. Jed has been POV-pushing on the article, the section of the paragraph he wants to add is not relevant. To be blunt, Jed insists that every section give the last word to the cold fusion advocates even if he has to find an only tangentially related statement to stick in. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

== Malthusians re Eric Pianka ==

Thanks for your interest on the matter of Malthusians. I do think that Eric Pianka certainly fits like a hand to a glove with this doctorine. Essentially it boils down to population control and the idea that humans are no better than animals and should be culled accordingly. There is certainly much science to argue for this, but the idea is morrally repugnant as it advocates massive genocide using the excuse that humans are destroying the planet. This is certainly at odds with the creationists who believe that human life is special and certainly above that of the animals or vegetation of the planet. They argue that science is reductionist in that it only deals with what can be measured by repeatable experiments, so it has no validity in matters of ethics.

The history of Malthusians is long and complex and stretches far further than the man who is credited for this doctrine. You might be interested in looking at the involvement of the British Royal Society and Lindon LaRouche’s EIR is probably the best researched source of information on its history.

This link has a collection of articles from EIR featuring this

http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/contents.htm#environ

e.g.
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/malthsay.htm

: Ok, for starters, articles on personal websites are not reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. Second of all, this has to be one of the most convoluted definitions of malthusianism I have ever heard. It isn't at all clear to me what Malthusianism has to do with creationism or a reductionist viewpoint, or one's ethical system at all. If these concerns are addressed, it might possibly make sense to call Pianka a malthusian, but no time before that. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Malthusian was used with reference to his political stance on population reduction and a disregard for human life, which is an ethical subject. It does not have anything directly to do with creationism except that the label was applied to Forrest Mims his accuser.

I was just trying to make the issue a little clearer for your benefit. The links I provided were also for your benefit in order to show you the history of the subject so you would not think I was making it up or something. The site is a reprint of EIR articles and EIR is a long establish political publication. I could simply use the reference as in the issue number and author but the link was provided to help you so you don't need to go and buy the magazine back issue to check it. I appreciate it is not possible for you to be an expert in every subject but I hope this shows you that the alteration I made has grounding in published works of credibility.

: The links you provided are to articles from The American Almanac, a Larouchian newspaper(as I understand it), not a reliable source. You are getting closer to what a reasonable definition of Malthusian might be, but that's 1) not what the word means and 2) you meaning doesn't support his claim. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

==Perhaps you should ba an Admin==
Hi, I have been coming across you alot lately, at random times. (partialy because we are both active inn stargate) You are the most active wikipedian I know of. You are constantly voting on FAc and AFD and are very active on RFA. I think that you surely have enough edits to become an admin and have as clear of an understanding of wiki policy as anyone. You seem to know everything about wikipedia, even obscure stuff, like vote stacking. Youve helped so many people become admins, why not become an admin yourself? You are more than qualified. [[User:Tobyk777|Tobyk777]] 04:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

: Thank you. People have made the comment before. Right now, I'm not yet running because I feel I have enough experience (in particular, I still have very little experience with the images and templates), and I'm also peripherally involved in an arbitration case which I'd like to finish before I run so there isn't an cloud over me. I suspect I will be running soon, in about a week or two. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 05:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:: As a word of caution though, some might be weary of supporting an RfA for you due to your short tenure so far at Wikipedia. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:Joturner|r]] 05:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

::: I'm aware of that. I unfortunately have a slight impatient streak(which doesn't go well with waiting for adminship when one has some heavily vandalized pages in ones watchlist (like [[Evolution]] and [[God]]). Also, as far as I can tell, after e months, the number of users who object to time related concerns drops off fast (this impression is simply based on looking at the last month or so of RfAs). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 05:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:::: Butting in, you may want to write some more articles before then because you may face inevitable questions about whether you are a career bureaucrat??[[User:Blnguyen|ßlηguγΣη]] | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] - [[WP:ER|review me]] 05:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
::::: Sorry, my edit summary should be "butt in"[[User:Blnguyen|ßlηguγΣη]] | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] - [[WP:ER|review me]] 05:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Hah, I know. This coming week is actually reading week before exams, i.e. procrastination week, so I have a few articles I've been meaning to start and/or drastically improve. That's really incidental to adminship though. I'm not going to change my editing patterns just to look good for the RfAs. "career bureaucrat" also seems like an odd term in this context, and I think I get the idea, but not completely sure (I'm also shocked how many people have my user page on their watchlists). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 05:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:Let me know when the time is right, I will nominate / support you for sure. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis Guy you know?]] 12:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
:: I think [[User:Ikiroid]] called dibs on nominating me, would you mind doing a joint nomination with Ikiroid when the time comes? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
:::Can you do a joint nomination? Like, 2 people give their reasons for nomination, instead of one?--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|'''The''']]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|'''i''']][[user:ikiroid|'''kiro''']][[Ego, superego, and id|'''id''']] ([[user talk:ikiroid|talk parler hablar paroli 说話し parlar]]) 17:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
:::: I've looked through the RfA rules and I can't find anything that says one can't. I also don't see any reason why one shouldn't be able to. There might be an objection if one had say 10 people do a joint nomination due to it basically looking like vote stacking, but beyond that I can't think of any reasonable objections. I wouldn't be surprised if it had been done before, but a quick search doesn't turn up any obvious examples. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
::::: Co-nom's do occur on occasion; there haven't been ''too'' many recently but [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lightdarkness|Lightdarkness']] happened a couple of weeks ago. ~ [[User:PseudoSudo|PseudoSudo]] 21:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

== Comparative Embryology ==

Hi there,
I know, I know, I just did a massive edit on this section of the article: "Evidence of Evolution". This is not proper etiquette I understand, but the facts presented on this section are not up to date. I can see from you user page that you do not like to discuss pseudoscience but I can assure you that this topic isn't, so I assume that I can talk to you freely about it.

This isn't a debate either because I am not stating that evolution or any aspect of the theory is wrong but that what is stated in this section is not factual.
What is stated in the section is, "Comparative embryology shows how embryos start off looking the same" and "...adult vertebrates are diverse, yet their embryos are quite similar at very early stages." Now, this isn't a theory with equations and processes. All you need to update the information in this encyclopedia section are some actual pictures that prove otherwise.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html]

The website above has some pictures of several embryos and I am willing to bet you can find many more pictures in any scientific literature regarding this topic.

Now, I am ''not'' taking any side of the evolution-intelligent design debate at all.
As you will note, the author of the website is a professor who believes and teaches evolution. He however doesn't not believe in ontgeny recapitulating phylogeny, especially when it is based on Haeckel's fraudulent data.
I am sure you will find that this professor is not the only one who thinks so.

What I mentioned about the gill slits had nothing to do with refuting evolution. In fact, I strictly remember stating that, "These pharyngeal arches are common in all vertebrates." This would actually be evidence ''for'' evolution not against it. To state that an embryo has "fishlike structures," as it was written before, is just an outdated notion.
I noticed that this phrase didn't show up on my third edit; that was my error.

So to sum up my rambling, I did not take any biased viewpoint nor was I trying to impose my viewpoint. I was merely trying to keep this free encyclopedia as current and relevant as possible. And since science is constantly being updated, modified, and changed, I just felt that this article, which is about a great biological theory, should also be current.

thanks

: Hmm, looking over the section again, it looks like you edit wasn't what it initially appeared although it was slightly problematic (and yes, I agree the current version has problems) I suggest you take it to the evidence for evolution talk page and hammer it out there with the other editors. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 07:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

== ''Signpost'' updated for April 24th ==

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
! [[Image:WikipediaSignpostHead.png|center|500px|The Wikipedia Signpost]]'''Weekly Delivery'''
|}
 
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
| colspan=3 |
----
|-
| align="left" | '''Volume 2, Issue 17''' || align ="center" | '''[[24 April]] [[2006]]''' || align="right" |
'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About|About the Signpost]]'''
|-
| colspan=3 align=center |
----
|}
{| align="center" cellspacing="20" width=90% style="background-color:transparent;"
|| [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-24/Office actions|Confusion over office actions as veteran contributor briefly blocked]]
|| [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-24/Wikimania series|Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages]]
|-
|| [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-24/Jay Robert Nash|Author threatens to sue, deemed unfit as source]]
|| [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-24/Job board|Proposal to pay editors for contributions]]
|-
|| [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-24/News and notes|News and Notes: Alexa rank, milestones]]
|| [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-24/In the news|Wikipedia in the News]]
|-
|| [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-24/Features and admins|Features and admins]]
|| [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-24/Technology report|Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News]]
|-
|| [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-24/Arbitration report|The Report On Lengthy Litigation]]
||
|}
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
| colspan=2 |
----
|-
| align="left" | [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|'''Home''']]  |  [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives|Archives]]  |  [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom|Newsroom]]  |  [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions|Tip Line]]
| align="right" |
|-
| colspan=2 |
----
|}
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist|''Signpost'' spamlist]]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

== Please don't go around accusing me of a being a sockpuppet ==

I don't appreciate your accusation that I am a sockpuppet of RabinicLawyer simply because I side with him on the Somethingawful articles. I would appreciate if you retracted your sockpuppet comments. --[[User:TrollHistorian|TrollHistorian]] 01:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

: Your AfD voting record makes it clear that you are a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of Rabinic. This is unacceptable behavior. Heck, I agree with you about a lot of the SA-cruft. That doesn't make meatpuppeting acceptable. Considering that you, Rabinic, et al. have done almost nothing but vote for deletion on SA related articles, I suggest you stop vote stacking and make a few productive edits. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

:: I have made productive edits but I also feel that Wikipedia can be better served by being more conservative about what is hosted on Wikipedia. I feel the value I can add to Wikipedia is related to what gets removed or cleaned up rather than what I add myself. How are the goons not meat puppets? Are they voting objectively, because I am. --[[User:TrollHistorian|TrollHistorian]] 01:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

::: And yet the only AfDs you seem to vote on are those RabinicLawyer nominates. Right. (Also, calling voters you don't like "goons" is not a good thing, please see [[WP:NPA]]), Even if someone else is votestacking (of which I see no evidence), that hardly justifies votestacking in return. Furthermore, in many of the AfDs you voted right after RabinicLawyer nominated them, so you can make no claims that stacking was occuring by others. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

:::: If you read the somethingawful page you will understand that "Goon" is the title that Something Awful forum users have given themselves. Sorry if I offended you by suggesting they were actually thugs. I don't think you understand this. I am not doing RabinicLawyer any favors. I simply agree with him (except on Green Lighting). --[[User:TrollHistorian|TrollHistorian]] 02:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:Stop_hand.png|left|30px]] Please do not remove [[Wikipedia:Maintenance|maintenance]] notices from articles unless the required changes have been made to the article. If you are uncertain whether the article requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the article's talk page before removing the notice from the article. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered [[Wikipedia:vandalism|vandalism]]. Thank you.  [[User:CommonJoe|CommonJoe]] 02:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:FlyingOrca

2006-04-26T02:28:26Z

CommonJoe: rv removal of warning

User talk:JustSomeKid

2006-04-26T02:27:54Z

CommonJoe: /* Warning Monkey-baiting article */

Evolution

2006-04-26T02:27:24Z

CommonJoe: rv

User talk:FlyingOrca

2006-04-26T02:25:25Z

CommonJoe:

Evolution

2006-04-26T02:24:42Z

CommonJoe: rv van

Climate change

2006-04-26T02:18:38Z

CommonJoe: rv van

Evolution

2006-04-26T02:18:15Z

CommonJoe: rv van

Climate change

2006-04-26T02:08:57Z

CommonJoe:

Evolution

2006-04-26T02:08:35Z

CommonJoe: