 | Evolutionary biology Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Since this talk page has gotten too big to edit for some users, some of the sections are being split off into separate pages:
Critical evaluation of Evolution
What I want to know is why Ernst Haeckel's embroyo drawings are still published in high school text books as if they prove something? They have been proven fraudulent since 1890. Thanks in advance for your courteous and well thought out reply. DavidR 01:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I'd suggest asking the publishers of the textbooks. I have no idea, and probably no one else here does either, since we don't work for the publishing companies. My guess would be ignorance on the part of the publishers. In any event, I don't see how this amounts to a critique of evolution; unless you're suggesting that they were deliberately included despite knowledge of their flaws because there is scant evidence for evolution. If this were true, I think it would merit inclusion in the article. Graft 14:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Many text book publishers have been notified of this "mistake" yet it still remains in print. I can supply a list from 2003 Biology Textbook Hearings by the Texas State Board of Education if you wish. Respectfully - DavidR 16:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, so you've been reading the recommended propaganda, eh? See the talk.origins FAQ for a reply on this matter should answer questions, or atleast give answers to them (and if you're not trolling you perhaps should take a few hours to look at it). Some other people here might be more knowledgable than me in this area. There is also a reply by whatsisname that wrote the book that was wrong on his website, somewhere (Brown University chap?). If there is anything wrong with Wikipedia's article on Haeckel's embryos or Ernst Haeckel then that should be discussed there. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:27, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No, haven't gotten my copy yet. I read things and critically evaluate them for myself. Thanks for the link, I'll be checking it out. Respectfully - DavidR 16:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Dunc_Harris,
To quote from the link you posted "Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory."
And further down "Furthermore, Haeckel's theory was rotten at the core. It was wrong both in principle and in the set of biased and manipulated observations used to prop it up." ...skipped section explaining Haeckel's theory... "Unfortunately, it was also completely wrong."
So I'd say I have my answers, in part. Even proponents of the theory of evolution recognize that A) Haeckel's drawings were exaggerated (at best) and B) Haeckel's drawings have no place in a modern biology text.
What this doesn't explain is why numerous biology text book publishers fail to correct this egregious error. That however, is a subject for another time and place. Respectfully - DavidR 19:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Changes by 67.68.243.23
I reverted your addition. I think the complaints about evolution are discussed elsewhere. There must be a place for them in the Creationism article, or if not, perhaps there is a Creation Science article where they might fit. I just don't think that spot is the right place to voice them. Please speak up here if you disagee. --DanielCD 15:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Why should questions about the theory of evolution be discussed on a page other than one about the theory of evolution? This truely seems the correct place for them. Respectfully - DavidR 12:37, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Take a look at the revert. If you disagree, put it back. It pretty much speaks for itself. You did look at the revert in question...right? --DanielCD 15:48, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily agree with the exact text you reverted, but I feel an edit would have been better than a revert. Nevermind, I'll post my own thoughts after a bit. I'm engaging in discussion first since some people in here seem to have itchy trigger fingers on the revert button. Respectfully - DavidR 20:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Don't bother yourself; I'll put it back for you. I was trying to be helpful, offering help to the editor to try to find the proper place for it. I'll try not to be so helpful from now on. I just don't think that particular spot is right for it. Another place in the article perhaps? I didn't necessarily mean it had to go in another article. --DanielCD 20:27, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Whoops! looks like someone else reverted it! --DanielCD 21:35, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The beginning of the article states that the origin of life was likely a single cell. However, the theory ( for which there is an article in this encyclopedia) is that the original life form was RNA. The cell did not occur until after this when the RNA was surrounded by a lipid membrane (though probably not a bilayer at this stage.) --MattDal 12:05, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- All of which depends on what you consider to be "life". In any event, all that "origin of life" crap is mostly smoke and mirrors, anyway. There's no really good experimental justification of the RNA world (like, for example, a self-replicating RNA enzyme), and people are still hashing out whether the RNA world came before the protein world or vice-versa. For now, this is mostly nonsense, and any discussion of it should be HEAVILY qualified. Graft 15:00, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- This page should be an overview, and following the rule that in biology there is always an exception to the rule, it is worth ignoring it here but mentioning it on the "subarticles" to avoid unnecessarily confusing readers. The definition of life is somewhat blurred anyway. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Absolutely not, I say... There may always be an exception to the rule, here, but there's no "rule" to speak of - only vague propositions, which even as they are proposed in journals are heavily qualified. Why should we ossify them? I think it's perfectly valuable in an overview article to say that there are areas of disclarity - I don't think it will unnecessarily confuse anyone. The whole "history of life" section is far too sure of itself to give a realistic picture of the state of our knowledge. Lack of certainty is also important information for an encyclopedia to convey. Graft 17:08, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Suggested fixes for someone with edit privileges to make to the outline of Evolution
Someone with edit privileges in this age of censorship should please fix the outline to Evolution. The current outline is
- History of evolutionary thought
- Present status
- History evolutionary thought
- De Chardin's & Huxley's theories
If you see no flaw in the above outline, then please ignore the following suggestions. Otherwise, I suggest the following:
- .
- History evolutionary thought ....... (the subcategory) should be changed to "History of evolutionary thought"
and
- History of evolutionary thought ....... (the primary heading) should be changed to some phrase generic enough logically to include the three subcategories, one of which is "History of evolutionary thought"
and
accordingly you may want to change the subcategory "Present status" to some phrase that would be a logical subcategory of whatever you propose for the primary heading. ---Rednblu 23:59, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry, that was my revision. I can see the edit was made in good faith and it does need a tidy/rewrite. I took one look at User:Rednblu and panicked a bit. I have since been told off by both User:Lexor and User:Mike_Jones. Just remember the NPOV. :) Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:19, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- You are a good man. All is well. ---Rednblu 19:42, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
---
Why isn't this article named Evolution (biology)?
The Evolution (disambiguation) page is one of the best disambiguation pages I've seen. Can anyone spell out the reasons why this article shouldn't be renamed Evolution (biology) so that Evolution points to the disambiguation page? The disambiguation page can be expanded a little to be a better overview of all facets of evolution, and this article, renamed, might provoke less controversy and vandalism from creationists. --Samuel Wantman 05:39, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Good idea! At least that would be logically consistent in making the page symmetric to Creationism (theology). ---Rednblu 07:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Because it is standard practice here to place articles under the most common and obvious title — this is the "least surprise rule". Evolution, unless qualified with a modifier (such as "cultural evolution") is pretty much universally taken to mean biological evolution. In short, the current placement is correct. (BTW, as you say, the disambiguation page is excellent. Do we have a Wikipedia:Featured disambiguation pages? It ough to be listed there!) Tannin 07:57, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I personally would agree with you that the obvious meaning of evolution is biological evolution. But apparently that is not the obvious meaning to most Americans. Here is a link to some historical polls. [1] Apparently, to the 63% of the 2025 Americans polled in the September 9-12, 1999, NBC / Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the Hart & Teeter Research Companies, evolution is not obviously a matter of biology but rather a matter of religion; accordingly, they voted for teaching creationism "in teaching the origin of man." In view of all of the above, I propose as a hypothesis that what is acting here on Wikipedia is simply the evolutionists' view on religion forcefully censoring in a public forum the expressions of the creationists' view on religion. You and I may feel that religion should be silenced on the evolution page. But the empirical evidence suggests that silencing religion on the evolution page violates the "least surprise rule" for 63% of the 2025 Americans polled in 1999. So as Mr. Wantman suggests, clarifying that the discussion is about Evolution (biology) might satisfy the "least surprise rule" better--assuming that the civilized world would allow a pedagogical remedial gesture to assist the 63% of Americans who are "slow learners." ---Rednblu 14:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Does anyone know of an example of another article that has a corresponding disambiguation page as lenghthy as Evolution (disambiguation)? It seems from JUST from the contents of the disambiguation page, that Evolution can have many meanings, and it is not a foregone conclusion that someone searching on Evolution expects to get the biology article. Isn't that reason enough to rename this article Evolution (biology)? --Samuel Wantman 20:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- An interesting poll, Samuel, but this is not the Americapedia, it's an international encyclopedia. The peculiarities of any one nation's religious views cannot be permitted to dominate. Tannin 22:30, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)