User:Salva31/Myownhappyplace1

Memo from Graft

Look, Salva, you're obviously ignorant. I don't mean that as a simple insult, I mean it literally. For example, the "Second law of thermodynamics" argument you advance is laughably ignorant of the meaning of "disorder". Systems become ordered all the time. Just not -closed- systems. If energy is being inputted into the system (certainly true for earth) then entropy for that system does not need to increase, so long as the entropy of the system and its surroundings increases. Or, even more simply, a spontaneous chemical reaction can occur if the free energy of the reaction (ΔG) is negative. This is described by the following relationship: ΔG = ΔH - TΔS. That is, depending on the enthalpic (ΔH) contribution to the reaction, it may occur spontaneously even if the net entropy (ΔS) decreases.

Also, you'll be chagrined to learn that life makes use of entropy to drive reactions all the time. This inevitably involves the expenditure of energy at some point, but that's why we need to consume energy to live. Life can form because there's a sun shining on us.

This is why I say you really need to study what it is you're talking about in greater depth before you begin to critique it. Graft 17:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your critique of stellar evolution is also flawed. Your argument that scientists are sometimes wrong is irrelevant. This is akin to my saying "Once I thought I saw my girlfriend across the street. But it turned out to be someone else. Therefore, my girlfriend does not exist." Obviously there is some standard by which evidence is being evaluated if people are capable of distinguishing between la vraie chose and an error.

Also, one need not observe an entire process in order to conclude it is occurring. You don't need to see your nephew to know that he grew an inch taller last month; you can be told this by your cousin. Or, similarly, you don't need to watch the lake freezing over to know that someone didn't come and place that ice there. You can infer what happened based on your knowledge that water freezes into ice below a certain temperature.

I can't really present you with a reasoned exlanation of the evidence for stellar formation; it's not my field. But your argument that "no one watched it happen" is wholly at odds with the way science operates, and the way we learn about the world. Graft 18:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evolution

Hi, wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It's quite ok to actually edit articles or make suggestions to change articles, even with very very very long discussions attached. If you really have to. But the discussion on Evolution was too content free, so in the end I tossed it. Everyone was getting into a furball and not actually talking about the article. :-)

Sorry about that!

In any case I'm familiar with both evolution and creation, due to my background. I'm not opposed to people wanting to make articles on this topic more NPOV, just be sure that that's what you're doing, and go slow, because it's a rather controversial topic. :-)

If you want a good example as to how to debate, look to User:Hawstom at Talk:Human perhaps (hmm, you'll need to dig through the archives a bit, though he's in most of them) . He appears to have a creationist POV, and he manages to interact with people to ensure that articles fairly represent that view.

Kim Bruning 22:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You made the following comment:

1. My argument is not over the theory of evolution.

In that case, why are you on debating on a page about biological evolution? The only purpose of that page is the discuss evolution, and to discuss it as it pertains to the page. If you have specific changes that you think should be made, or if you have objections to the content of the article, feel free to discuss it on Talk:Evolution. But Wikipedia is not a public discussion board, it is not public in the sense that people have a right to edit, and most importantly, it does not exist as a debate forum. The purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopaedia. If you have issues with the way that the age of the earth is presented in the article that deals with the age of the earth, raise it on the relevant page - not on the page about biological evolution. If you think that the entries dealing with the life cycles of planets is unencyclopaedic, raise the issue there. If you have real questions that you actually want answers to, try the Wikipedia:Reference Desk. If you think that your (uncited) 2000 college text book is inaccurate - take it up with the author. This isn't the place for that. You are trolling the Talk:Evolution page. Find a constructive way to edit the encyclopaedia. Don't argue with people and demand that they "prove" anything to you. That is not the point of Wikipedia. If you choose to make constructive input into an encyclopaedia, you are welcome at Wikipedia. If you want a debate forum, go somewhere else, this is not the place for that. Guettarda 22:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When I said it was not over the theory of evolution, I said that because I was getting the impression that there was militant resistance being executed because some people were thinking that I was threatening the theory itself. That's why I said that. And, it is the honest truth. I don't care whether or not evolution as a scientific theory exists; what I essentially cannot accept is the unneccesary comment in the intro. My complaints started off as nothing more than about this. AdamRetchless and Graft primarily escalated it into a way off-topic discussion in which I was forced to provide reasons supporting the presentation of evolution as a scientific theory instead of a "super-theory." There is no absolute certainty in the factuality of evolution. It is subject to replacement just as the original theories of atomic structures were. There are many problems with the theory itself which tend to make it slide a little off its high horse. I was using those errors to support my argument, and not once was it my intention to 'destroy the foundations of science.' Salva315:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong on the point There is no absolute certainty in the factuality of evolution. - there is a theory or group of related theories (modern synthesis) which attempt to provide mechanisms for the observation [fact] of evolution. How we explain these facts will change as we refine our observations and models, but evolution itself, "descent with modification", so to speak, is not a theory. It's like comparing gravitation (a theory) with gravity (a name for an observed phenomenon)...or, to use your analogy, like atomic theory...our idea of what an atom is has changed through time, but that atoms exist is not in dispute.

Granted, there is a lot that lies beyond current knowledge. But at the same time there is a political opposition to evolution. When you here the same arguments, repeated over and over, arguments that were explained a generation ago, it's very annoying. Many people (me included) have a very short fuse with these arguments. It's impossible to win an argument against people who refuse to be swayed by facts. The fact that you have heard the same arguments, word for word, repeated, makes you realise that you are banging your head against a wall.

It's disheartening when people raise long discredited arguments, for the 100^th time. It's like hearing about "punctuated equilibrium" as "proof" that EB's don't all agree on evolution (when the reality is, that was an argument that existed in the 80s - most of the ideas have either been incorporated into the mainstream, or haven't turned out to have enough of a foundation).

As it stands the Evolution article has stood up to criticism, and it fits decently into NPOV. Feel free to raise objections and suggest changes, but they need to be well-suported. If you can demonstrate that something in the article is either factually incorrect or non-neutral, please do so. Point out specific flaws, and be prepared to back your arguments up with credible information. So far your arguments have not (as far as I could tell) raised specific issues, and you have not provided credible evidence. You need to cite sources to back up your arguments. Facts, not opinions.

In addition, with respect to your question of why only your postings were deleted, they weren't. Kim deleted part of the argument and I deleted the rest - I left my comments (and some of Adam's) because they related to a completely different topic - about niches, species, and specific wording of a part of the article. Guettarda 23:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, you asked for it:

1. If you think your appendix is vestigal, you're wrong. Your appendix is part of your immune system and if it is removed, your lifespan will shorten by appx. 10-15 years. Wisdom teeth could also prove that human beings used to grow larger and live longer. Evolutionists used to say this about the tailbone, and they looked pretty ill-informed when they found out that there were ligaments and tendons connected to it that were vital for excretory processes.
2. The complexity of RNA and DNA is not proof for evolution. Are computers proof for evolution? What is the probability that computers put themselves together through a gradual process? I'll bet that if you sat a clump of wires and silicon together they would produce nothing even over millions of years. And any geneticist knows how much more complicated a strand of DNA is than even the most advanced computers on earth.
3. "Variations (microevolution) in species are observed all the time. This is proof that dogs are related to coconuts." Uh...wrong. Similar types of animals have the genetic information to reproduce variations of their own kind. There are limits! DOINK!!
4. The fossil record does not exist anywhere except in the imagination.
5. Look in any version of a public university textbook from

before 2000, and you will likely find discrepancies if you open-mindedly look for them. Some examples are human embryo gill slits, Haekel's drawings, Archaeopterix, etc. These things have been proven to be either hoaxes or simply wrong.

Stop being so stubborn and try to be more scientific. If you would like me to provide you with a bibliography for the above then it might take a week or so, as time is currently not a luxury for me. Salva31 8:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What, pray tell, do you mean by [T]he fossil record does not exist anywhere except in the imagination? (By the way, Stop being so stubborn and try to be more scientific is a major insult to a practising scientist. It's also a personal attack which is considered out of bounds in Wikipedia. Please bear that in mind in the future). Guettarda 14:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, and it would be out of bounds even if this weren't wikipedia. I was not aware that you were a scientist, nor was it my intention to fire a personal attack at you. I am merely frustrated because it appears sometimes that evolutionists (not saying you are or are not one) frequently ignore certain facts that are placed in front of them. Thank you, by the way, for asking me what I mean. I would be more than happy to ellaborate, but as always I find it inconceivably frustrating to post a lengthy assessment only to have it cast aside. That is not science. Theories are subject to change. Creation is subject to change. Evolution is subject to change, and any and all observations should be valid for review. That is the scientific process. When a new problem is found, it should render the formulation of a new hypothesis. Now, if you are a scientist, then that is fantastic, and so far, you seem to be the only one who has stayed around for a little bit before sticking his/her chin up at what I am trying to say. Please understand that I respect this beyond belief. As you can see from some of the first comments that Graft made, the debate was not in a very good place to begin with. If some of that frustration rubbed off onto you, then I am sorry. Before I begin, I will take a few deep breaths and I ask you to do the same.

OK, so you want to know about the fossil record? Well, there are a couple of discrepancies with it even though it is used to support the theory of evolution. First of all, the process of dating fossils and layers of strata is determined using circular reasoning. Radiometric dating is used, but it is next to impossible to gather accurate data from these methods. I will refer to my sources for this which I will post later on today so that you can check for yourself. Aside from that, scientists primarily date the fossils that they uncover by the age of the rock that they are found in, and the layers of rock (strata) are dated by the fossils contained within them. Do you see where that could create a problem? My reason for stating that the record itself is pure imagination was touched on in one of my previous postings. It was essentially invented by a British lawyer whom I believe was named Charles Lyle. Again, this is from the top of my head, so I will cite the respective sources and make corrections as soon as I get a little bit of free time to check my research. Charles Darwin was greatly influenced by this lawyer to write The Origin of Species. The next best evidence that I can think of for disproving the fossil record would be polystrate trees (petrified trees running through several rock layers; found all over the world), existence of organisms thought to be confirmed extinct by the record, etc.) Once again, I do have other things to do in my life so I promise I will find lots more and post it ASAP! Salva31 01:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you've read "Icons of Evolution" or some derivative. Why do you say it is "next to impossible" to gather accurate data from radiometric dating methods? Graft 18:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bulk editing

Always causes trouble like that. Annoying as always. Ah well, I didn't mean to be unfair or uneven or anything. Your comments are still all there in the page history, so if there's anything in particular which is relevant, and/or which you'd like to keep, or copy over or whatever, go right ahead. :-)

Sorry for the inconvenience. It did help get the discussion back on topic though :-)

Kim Bruning 22:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Hawstom

I have never visited the Evolution article before today. Perhaps if you could tell me what you would like the article to look like, I could comment. Tom Haws 14:30, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Kim's Theory of Evolution.

Hey slow down with Tom Haws, he might not be able to take THAT much traffic from you all at once. :-)

I'll help out a very small bit by showing you where all these evolution folks are coming from. (You already know about creation :-) )

Seeing your current position, could you see if you agree with the following 2 statements, and -if so or if not- why?

1. All people are unique. With the exception of the occaisional twins (and even they have some differences), no 2 people are alike
2. Because of this, different people are good at different things. Some people are good at plumbing, some people are good at farming. Also some people are better at farming than others.

Notice I didn't say anything about fossils or macroevolution or etc. Just precicely these 2 statements.

Do you think those are reasonable so far?

Kim Bruning 23:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to have to admit that I lured you into a trap there. :-) Watch what happens when we combine these statements:

Let's take the above 2 statements, and as well assume that people actually reproduce.

• Let's take folks who are for some reason good at farming (good muscles, a feeling for weather), well, they'd be more successful at farming than their peers.
  • their peers wouldn't be too happy doing farming next to those cool expert folks, so they will likely go and do something else instead. That's a story for another day.
• Our farmers would have kids, who differ from them somewhat, some of who would be worse at farming, others who whould be even better than they were. (it's random eh?).
  • The kids who are worse at farming will go paint paintings or something, that's a story for another day again, perhaps.
  • The kids who are better at farming will keep on going and actually enjoy it, and who knows, maybe they'll even ask da and ma if they're allowed to inherit the farm. :-)
• Repeat the above for a couple of generations, and in the end you'll have this bunch of families who are really good at farming (in this example).

Note that in humans, culture often overrides the mechanism to a degree, but it's still visible. There's still lots of kids who "walk in their fathers footsteps" for instance. ("Lad, my father plowed this land before me, and my fathers father before that, this land is in the family, it's ancient.")

That, and when you look around you, you DO see people who are gifted in a particular area, and you DO see that every individual is unique. You can just see it around you, and everyone knows (because it's common sense) that these things are true.

And would you believe that that, and that alone is actually kim's theory of evolution? No more, no less. It's a theory that explains why we're all different, and at the same time explains why some people are more gifted than others.

Actually it's a lot more powerful (powerful means that it's capable of explaining more) than that, but that's for another day.

I think I've done enough scary stuff today by tricking you into agreeing with *a* theory of evolution at least. :-)

I'm curious as to your response to this story. I hope I haven't offended at least. Thank you for reading. :-)

If you find this line of reasoning uncomfortable, let's leave it at that. On the other hand if you're curious as to how this ties into the Evolution page, I'll gladly explain! :-) Kim Bruning 15:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your kindness. I haven't seen a lot of that on wiki in the few weeks that I have been here. Your example of what you call "microevolution" is one that I have heard before, and is not offensive even in the least. What offends me, Kim, is the next step which the evolutionists often claim as fact and use it to eventually say (in a more or less complicated way) "boys and girls, we formed from rocks over a gradual process of billions of years. This is more than theory, you see, and because both of my collegues here, Joe Stalin and Paul Pot, who are scientists, believe that it has replaced creation as an explanation for the origin of life, you should think that too." Do you understand now what my concern is? (don't let the names offend you by the way.) It always amazes me how two people can look at the same thing and come to opposite conclusions about it. In one hand, we have the evolutionist, who looks at our beautiful, inconceivably complex world and says, "well, it must have taken gazillions of years for this all to randomly put itself together." On the other hand, the creationist looks at the world and says, "due to the organizational complexity which we see everywhere we look, the only explanation is that there must be a Creator." The example you formerely cited is one of microevolution. Now, if that is what you want to call it, then that's fine, but all it is is a variation of genetic information. Do you think that humans will ever be able to grow wings? Given, there is randomness in variation, but there are limits. Salva31 10:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah well, that explains things, if learnt about evolution (indirectly?) from the writings of such great liars as Stalin and Pol Pot. (Perhaps those were just illustrative names, I don't know :-) ). You might have perhaps gotten some rather odd ideas about what evolution scientists think! Goodness!

In any case, I get much of my knowlege (indirectly) from the writings of a wise and industrious catholic monk, by the name of Gregor Mendel. :-)

Kim Bruning

Hmm, that was intended as a mild jab, but on rereading you might feel it is too strong. My apologies. In any case, it did give me a chance mention Gregor Mendel. ;-) Kim Bruning 17:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2 forces

Ok, well you noticed the genetic variation in "kims theory". But the theory has 2 elements. The first element is indeed called variation. The second element (where everyone who isn't suited to being a farmer goes off and does something else, hopefully (at least I hope they're not going to starve to death))), is called selection.

Selection is just some mechanism that gets rid of "bad" variations. Because only good variations remain each time round, selection could be said to work like a kind of ratchet.

Together these two elements force development in a particular direction, sometimes at incredible or even alarming rates.

If you want to see how you can get this directional movement out of a random force, try randomly turning a turnstile, or ratcheting wrench, next time you're near one. Do you notice? It'll refuse to turn in any direction but one, no matter what you do. In the case of the turnstile, you can only get in (or out). With the wrench, no matter what acrobatics you perform, that nut will get tightened (or loosend :-P ). That's kinda useful if that dratted nut is in a really tight corner!

Back to biology, here's some places where these elements are used or dealt with:

• In Hospitals, to prevent and fight antibiotics resistant organisms. (counteracting natural variation and selection)
• In Breeding where they can be used to breed better plants and animals. (artificial selection)
• In Genetics especially. (artificial variation and artificial selection)

The two forces when taken together are typically called evolution.

Being noticed vs being listened to

If you use examples like Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot you are more likely to be noticed than listened to. People will react to what your comments make them feel (in this case, you are likely to make evolutionary biologists feel you are equating them with Pol Pot) - what you have to say is less likely to get noticed. Guettarda 18:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Simple question? I think not - it's not one I have ever been asked before, so I don't think it's simple :)

So, what drives me? Truth, fairness, equality, justice, God. My science (community ecology). My family. My desire to try to make the world a little better, or at worst, to make it no worse a place. I realise that's very generic. Guettarda 18:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quote from Jerry Coyne (found at Boston Review)

Jerry Coyne writes:

I am painfully and personally acquainted with Behe's penchant for fiddling with quotations. On page 29 of Darwin's Black Box he writes:

Jerry Coyne, of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, arrives at an unanticipated verdict: "We conclude--unexpectedly--that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak."

Apparently I am one of those faint-hearted biologists who see the errors of Darwinism but cannot admit it. This was news to me. I am surely numbered among the more orthodox evolutionists, and hardly see our field as fatally flawed. The paper in question (actually by Allen Orr and myself)3 addresses a technical debate among evolutionists: are adaptations based on a lot of small genetic mutations (the traditional neo-Darwinian view), a few big mutations, or some mixture of the two? We concluded that although there was not much evidence one way or the other, there were indications that mutations of large effect might occasionally be important. Our paper cast no doubt whatever on the existence of evolution or the ability of natural selection to explain adaptations. -- Jerry Coyne

If I were you I'd remove that misleading quote from your list. It'd be a shame to leave it there as there are some good ones up there. Barnaby dawson 09:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I haven't claimed to have worked on the paper Jerry Coyne worked on. When talking about the "passage" (on my user page) I was referring to the text above. I think you misread it in that you attributed some of the italic text to me (where as the italic text is the quote). Never the less I am glad you've removed the quote. Barnaby dawson 17:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

quick note

Did you read the bit above (2 forces?)

I'm kinda wondering if you've actually tried the experiments above, or if you've heard of the applications and so :-) Could you respond on that, if you have some time, please? Thanks :-)

Kim Bruning 09:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ps. I'm also a bit puzzeled by peoples' use of the word "evolutionist" right at the moment, it seems to mean 101 different things to 101 different people. Currently I'm asking User:Rednblu about his position, and -since you're using the word too- I'm curious as to yours too :-) Kim Bruning 09:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I read your segment about the 2 forces, which hints towards microevolution. Am I right??? These are variations, Kim, but they do not always go in the same direction. For example, there is a pack of small feral housecats that lives around my house, and for the past 2 years or so, I have watched them produce different variations of their own kinds. Sometimes the coloration in their fur gets very different, turning lighter colors, despite the fact that they live in an outdoor environment. But other times, kittens will start running around that have darker fur variations. This process has jumped back and forth many times in front of my eyes. I don't think that it is a unilateral direction for all species, do you? Salva31 14:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cats have a relatively long generation time, so you'll see pretty much variation and not much selection on the short term of 2 years that you're looking at. It takes breeders years and years to come up with a cat they like, and they're applying artificial selection!

However, if you look at bacteria, the generation time can be a-maze-ingly short (hours, instead of years for cats), and the evolution times are only just short of breathtaking. (No pun intended, people do die from that :-/ )

And yeah, I'm talking mostly "microevolution" here. :)

Kim Bruning 20:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evolutionists?

<<Sorry about the intrusion. I have moved the conversation to Kim's TalkPage. Feel free to join us there if you want.>> ---Rednblu | Talk 20:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apologies from me too. I was just mentioning your name to Rednblu, because he's another sane and level headed person I'd like to introduce you to. :-) Apparently something got scrambled and confusion ensued. Sorry about that! :-)

While we're here then:

• I think Rednblu is a sane person who's neutral on the evolution issue. He has a cool head, and likes epistemology rather too much for my poor aching head sometimes ;-)
• Tom Haws (who I don't want to drag in too deeply unless he wants to :-) ) is more creationist I think, but is very calm-headed, and is bound to show up from time to time and he sounds like he won't mind helping you out to edit calmly from time to time.
• Another person who might occaisionally pop up is Sam Spade who is also more of a creationist. Though he's very dedicated to NPOV, at the same time he's a bit rougish, and gets himself into all kinds of trouble on wikipedia. :-P
• Finally, as you've noticed, I'm both sides all at once somehow, due to experiences I've had in life. :-)

Kim Bruning 21:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanx Kim ;-) We need all the sane people we can find for the betterment of wikipedia! I am looking forward to throwing some ideas back and forth. Epistemology, huh? Sounds good to me. Also good to be as analytical as possible when dealing with a subject such as Creation/Evolution. By the way, I knew you would, Kim! You seemed right off the bat to have too much of a level head to stay one-sided. There is still a ton of information that I can bring into the spectrum here, and I promise, if you keep that open mind, you'll feel like a brand new scientist when I'm through! (I'm assuming you are at least related to a scientific field, but still OK if you're not=) I've got about 3 more hours of daylight here, so I have to get back to working on my house before it falls apart, then we can talk some more! Until then, Salva31 17:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

<<The chromosome chart on my user page is a quantitative analysis of the number of chromosomes carried by each of those organisms. And if you really, really need me to explain it, I would be happy to. But look at it one more time and think carefully. Think--"what is Salva trying to prove here?" citation

Kim has called us all together, and we are here. 8)) I am wondering what your chromosome chart means? I just looked up my data on chromosomes, and I notice that many plants have double or even quadruple the basic set of chromosomes without changing the kind of "beastie" very much at all. For example, those commercial large, juicy strawberries you can buy in your local market--in season--are octaploid--which as you know means that those commercial strawberries have four times the diploid pack of two sets of chromosomes. But they are still strawberries. So the number of chromosomes in a "beastie" has little correlation to the appearance or characteristics of the "beastie"--though for some plants, doubling the number of chromosomes makes the plant fruit much larger--but they are still the same fruit. Is that what you are saying? ---Rednblu | Talk 00:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, if evolution were true, you would assume that the organisms with the least number of chromosomes evolved first, correct? Salva31 19:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe. That would be a good first theory about it, I would say. But shouldn't we test our theory against the facts? We can see within our own lifetimes strawberries that reduce their number of chromosomes from the year 2000 to the year 2002, so what would you say? ---Rednblu | Talk 00:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right, so then I would say that even if primates (not humans) have similar genetic characteristics, this does not prove that they are related. I have never heard of that before. Where did you get that information? Just curious. Salva31 19:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no, that's an incorrect assumption. There's no really clear relationship between chromosome number and organismal complexity, as far as anyone can tell. There's not even a really clear relationship between gene number and complexity. Furthermore, there's no reason to imagine that chromosome number should have been steadily increasing over an organism's evolutionary history - new chromosomes can form by duplication events, nondisjunction, fragmentation of an existing chromosome, sure. But they can also reduce in number by fusing together - as happened in the human lineage. Compare to the chimp or gorilla, which have 48 (24 pairs) chromosomes, while humans have 46 (23 pairs); one of our chromosomes is an apparent fusion of two separate chromosomes in the other great apes. The parsimonious assumption is that in the common ancestor had 48 chromosomes; in the human lineage, a fusion event occurred (possibly resulting in a speciation event), reducing the chromosome number by one pair.

Also, Salva is incorrect to state that humans descended from chimpanzees - this is not what anyone claims. Rather, both chimp and human have been evolving for 4.5 million years since they diverged from a common simian ancestor (which no longer exists). Graft 00:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since you are the Biology grad, I'll take your word for it on the chromosomes. (The table is still correct by numbers, right?) That's a reasonable assumption. My next question is this -- how do you know that it was appx. 4.5 million years ago? Salva31

It amazes me how you state that like it is a fact, even though it is entirely theoretical. How could this have been possible when the human race has never even seen one beneficial mutation? Sickle cell anemia is primarily exhibited in areas with malaria. Obviously, anemia's genetic frequency is proportional to the presence of malaria, but neither malaria nor sickle cell anemia are conditions which improve. They both destroy, or weaken its inheritors. Macroevolution is an unobserved hypothesis based on a few fossils and a lot of imagination. There are limits to our adaptations, and adaptations do not produce entirely new families of organisms. Salva31 21:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying the human race has never seen a beneficial mutation within our species or are you saying that we've never seen one in another species. The second is most certainly incorrect. We should be much less likely to see beneficial mutations within our species because of its long lifespan. To prove that a mutation had occured in a human population and it was beneficial would require (assuming no unethical experiments):

a) To have a complete sequence of the human genome including all minor variants. b) To observe that a mutation has occured in an individual. c) To wait while that mutation spreads to the rest of the population.

This process may take many many generations. There will always be tests that are too hard to carry out today. But one day we may be able to test evolution in this way. Personally I think that the evidence from phylogenetic trees constitute a much harsher test and one that the theory of evolution has passed with flying colours. Barnaby dawson 09:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To clarify here as Grant correctly points out you can quite conceivably be able to show that many mutations have occurred without being able to show an example of one. There are many statistical tests that support the existence of beneficial mutations. If 10,100 votes are recorded in a town of 10,000 then there has been voter fraud. You may however, be unable to identify an single example of fraud taking place. Barnaby dawson 11:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are tests for selection on genes within the species - e.g. the K_A/K_S test, which compares the ratio of non-synonymous (amino-acid altering) substitution rates to synonymous substitution rates within a gene. A high K_A/K_S ratio is an unambiguous sign of positive selection; even population structure cannot explain it otherwise.

As to the 4.5 million years, this number is based on molecular clocks (e.g. looking at the rate of substitutions between species and inferring, based on that rate and some fossil peg for a known speciation event, what the distance is separating them.) In this case the figure was taken from Chen and Li, Am. J Human Genetics 2001. They examine divergence in 53 intergenic regions as well as some genes and compute genetic distance (e.g. divergence - number of substitutions per site) between those regions in chimp, human, gorilla, and orangutan according to the Jukes-Cantor model of DNA evolution (probably not the best choice, but oh well), and peg the speciation event of orangutans at 12-16 million years based on other fossil evidence. This gives a range of 4.5 to 6 million years for human-chimp divergence. There's other estimates, but they all fall generally in this range. Knowing it with more precision is difficult (although the distance in terms of neutral substitution rate, which might be seen as how much "evolutionary time" has gone by, can be known with much much greater precision). Graft 16:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that study done based upon the preassumtions that evolution actually did occur in those species? Regardless of the difference (or similarity) in substitutions per intergenic regions between those primates, that does not prove that they all had a common ancestor. Based on that, you cannot arrive at your conclusion on a molecular clock reading because that inference is derived with the assistance of the fossil record, which is illegitimate and unreliable at best. Salva31 11:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you are comfortable with moving into the fields of geology and astronomy for references in this discussion, I have many arguments to present against an older earth, and subjectively, evolution itself in these arenas. Salva31

Oh yeah, one last thing about molecular clocks: "Molecular clock says eutherian mammals diverged 130 million years ago - fossils indicate 65 million years ago The molecular clock hypothesis suggests that certain orders of eutherian mammals diverge as early as 129 million years ago (Kumar, S. and S.B. Hedges. 1998. Nature 392: 917). However, the current study indicates quite clearly (from many thousands of fossils) that nearly all the placental mammalian orders appeared suddenly at the time of the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, 65 million years ago. Researchers analyzed the quality of the fossil record during the late Cretaceous period, and found that there were large numbers of fossils that make it extremely unlikely that eutherian mammals existed before that time. According to Dr. Foote, "If the record really stinks, almost every species you find will be from single fossils. But the empirical record is something like 10 to 100 times greater than what would be required to allow for a 65-million-year gap in the fossil record."

Foote, M. J.P. Hunter, C.M. Janis, and J.J. Sepkoski, Jr. 1999. Evolutionary and preservational constraints on origins of biologic groups: divergence times of eutherian mammals. Science 283: 1310-1314.

May I remind you that 65 million years is a loooonnnnng time. Salva31 12:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are many valid criticisms to be made of molecular clocks. The rate of evolution is fairly well correlated with effective population size (which is correlated with body size and generation time), which changes over time - but for the simian lineage in question there's no reason to suspect that clock rates would be different in different lineages (which is certainly true across the large distances in the example above); independent tests also support the idea that the clock rate is the same in these lineages.

As to your criticism that it requires the assumption of evolution: yes, obviously. Common descent is assumed because it's the most plausible explanation for what we see, and it's well-established in its own right. How else do you explain the pattern of genetic divergence we see, other than through ridiculous "just so" stories? Graft 19:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is that more plausible than the idea that species were originally created with the ability to produce differences in their own kinds? I still don't quite understand your logic in this debate. (Meant in a kind way.) You're ruling out everything except evolution as an explanation for life on Earth, when the answers can be revealed right in front of your eyes =). And if you believe I am basing everything on "just-so" stories, you are correct in a sense. Let me remind you that just because evolution attempts to counter the theory of ID, does not mean that it replaces creationism. If evolution were discovered to be a dud in the near future like many of the mistakes that humanity has removed from its psyche in the past, your honorable and very neccessary field of Biology would not lose any of its vitality as a science. (Also: you didn't answer my question about bringing other scientific genres into the discussion?) Salva31 15:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A "just-so" story is not a scientific explanation. It is an unproveable assertion that must be taken on faith. We can have epistemological arguments about whether this is an inappropriate attitude, but I think it can be agreed that people who make arguments along the lines of "Dinosaurs were put there by God to test our faith" are being intellectual cowards; we should try and understand the world based on what we see, and not based on what our dogmatism requires.

That said - I've heard ID proponents vaguely mutter about "kinds" before, but no one is willing to take it to the next step and lay out a coherent theory. What constitutes a "kind"? Can you give me an example of organisms descended from a progenitor "kind"? Does the genetic evidence bear out your theory? Do you have a model of molecular evolution that can explain existing variation in DNA sequence, chromosome number and arrangement, etc., within a "kind"? If not, why not? And why would you assert that this is a more plausible theory than common descent? Why is common descent implausible, anyway?

As to other fields - you may have mumbo-jumbo there, too, but I'd like to stick with what I know well. Graft 03:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Educate rather than convert

Oh my! I just wanted y'all to meet so you knew each other. Now all the discussion has moved here.

Note that I don't think we should be here to convert each other to each other's positions. We'd be sitting around with cobwebs in our long white beards (or long grey hair, where applicable), long before we'd finally come around to writing any wikipedia articles. :-)

I think the objective here should be to educate each other as to the many different views we hold, and why we hold them. That way we can come to NPOV and write articles.

I don't think it's as useful to discuss the merits of each view at this point in time at this location. There are plenty of discussion forums where that can be done. We're here to present an objective representation of each of the views, and where they interact, agree, and disagree with each other. That way we make it possible for people to discuss among themselves, and come to their own conclusions. We're not here to hold the discussion for them. That would be arrogant, I think. :-)

Kim Bruning 11:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salva31's position

That sounds so right it almost hurts, Kim. Here's my position:

• This universe was created in six literal days, as the bible clearly states. There are current scientific theories pertaining to how humans were able to live longer lifespans before the Flood (as recorded in the Bible), how creatures of immense proportions were able to survive before the Great Flood, etc.
• There is evidence everywhere we look for creation and a massive worldwide flood, not evolution. The only type of evolution that I agree is supported by scientific evidence is microevolution; the rest is highly speculative.
• Scientists and non-scientists alike are beginning to see the many problems with evolution, primarily some of the blatant lies used to support it. (vestibular structures, human embryo gill slits, peppered moth, etc.)
• Evolution, therefore, has not replaced all other theories, especially Creationism, for the origin of life. Other theories are very much alive and it is inappropriate to propagandize such a claim on an encyclopedia website.
• The modified Ichtyus picture in the latter portion of the article vandalizes upon symbol that many Christians hold close to their hearts and their faith. This also tarnishes the NPOV of the evolution article and will not be tolerated.
• Lies will not be used to support the credibility of this article.

OK, well I think that about covers it! Thanks a lot for rallying everyone, Kim! Regards, Salva31 15:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, stay cool, take it step by step

Stay cool anyway. Nothing folks do here can hurt you eh? It's like driving a car or whatever, you actually have to sometimes do slightly illogical things to make the darn thing go, and if you do something wrong, it'll go all unpredictable on you :-)

Let's try to get towards our actual objective step by step.

Let's step back and look at those 2 lines only. Which lines are they, and why do they need to be changed/removed?

Kim Bruning 23:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shortcut

Hey, buddy! I just saw that you would like to have the system report your signature as Salva rather than Salva31. Here is how you can do that automatically.

1. Click on "preferences" in the upper right of your screen.
2. Then, under "User data," enter Salva in the box labeled "Your nickname (for signatures)."
3. Then click the "Save preferences" button on the bottom left of the page.

Then, when you type ~~~~ at the end of your comment, the system will automatically fill in "Salva." But you already knew this. 8)) I just want to say that I admire your engaging with what Kim is saying about very important issues for all of us. ---Rednblu | Talk 03:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response to your note re Evolution

My friend - Evolution is not my article or one of high priority to me. I found your edit when I was spending my customary 30 minutes at the close of my edit time looking over non-logged in user entries. Wikipedia gets a lot of true vandalism -- people blanking or moving pages, placing curses and obscenities in the midst of articles, or shuffling information around. We all have to work at cleaning up these types of edits.

Evolution is a controversial, often vandalized site. When I came across your edits, I noticed several things. First, at that time, you were an anon user, usually indicating that you are new to the system. Second, you edited the introduction to the article, which is also a new person thing to do. And third, I saw that your short edit was relatively casual in structure, had a modest point of view (you should see some of the other controversial pages!) and probably contained things that had been discussed on the talk page. I checked the talk page and found that some of your points had been discussion topics. One Wiki protocol is to give the new person the benefit of the doubt, often by moving their edit to the discussion page or by copy editing to remove obvious POV or issues that have already been settled. Moving edits to the discussion page is not censorship, but allows the new editor to read related discussion topics, refine his/her thoughts, and gather comments from others. We all can learn new things. Since I don't know the site and don't know what concensus had been reached by the editing group, I did not feel that I should delete or change your comments without giving you and the group a chance to respond. You are always free to place your edits back into the article, but in the Wiki we have to defend our edits, our sources and our opinions if the edit is to stay in place. In contrast to internet talk sites, blogs, and discussion groups, the encyclopedia is intended to provide as neutral and balanced body of information as possible, because our readers need to be confident that they are not reading one individual or group's perspective. Cooperation and concensus are important concepts here.

So, my intention was to preserve your edit so others could see it, so you could explain it, and so that everyone could learn from the discussion. I did not remove your comment from the discussion page, nor have I even read the discussion that evidently led to it being removed. Since Evolution is not one of my regular watch pages, I don't know the politics and people related to that edit group.

In my short time here, I have found that feeling personally attacked when others edit your work, in whatever article, is generally non-productive. If you want to edit Evolution on an ongoing basis, I hope that you will try to resolve this dispute to those who have responded to your original edit. Like any community, there are people who are easy to work with and then there are others.The administrators here are users who have been "elevated" by votes from all the editors. One admin I've found approachable is Mel Etitis, if you feel you truly have a grievance. I also hope you stick around. Peace. WBardwin 04:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sticker

Hi Salva — I'm afraid the evolution sticker you have on your userpage, Image:Evosticker.jpeg, is a copyright violation (as it's from AP). I realize that it's just for your user page, but unfortunately it is also on Wikipedia's servers, and we can't let copyvios remain on the servers.

I'm listing the image on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, but won't delete the image from your page. Feel free to respond either there on on my Talk page if you believe I'd listed the image in error.

Thanks, — Asbestos | Talk 09:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

• Ok, first up, I'm going to have to admit not knowing precicely what to do about the Icthyus image. You could mention that you find it offensive, but wikipedia has a policy of showing all peoples' opinions and soforth, so I'm not sure what we can do about it. I'd say try asking, it can't hurt! Worst case folks say no, and you wouldn't be worse off than before.

• , and for use in the science of biology, it has replaced other explanations for the origin of species, including creationism and Lamarckism.

Ah, I actually was listening to you before, and made the edit just bolded. Like you may have heard me mention before, wikipedia tries to explain all views on the subject, and let the reader make up his or her own mind.

In this case, the change I made to the sentence makes it clear what is thought (evolution is the most useful theory) , and who thinks it (people practicing in the science of biology). Put that way, the sentence is true, because biologists do think that. :-)

See Wikipedia:NPOV for more detail.

I'd better elucidate some more, in case you're still doubtful.

Note that theories in the context of science need not be The One Truth. They're just there because they are useful, they possess a property known as "predictive power".

Like when you're driving your car from Amsterdam to Brussels, you're probably not going to use the theory of relativity to calculate your estimated time of arrival. In fact you're probably not even going to take the time to bother doing differential equations based on newtonian physics. You'll just do some quick linear sums like "I'm doing 120 km/h, (2 km per minute), I have 20 km to cover to the next waypoint, so that'll take me 20/2=10 minutes"

People on ships use celestial navigation, and it's quite possible to get all the way across the atlantic while assuming that the sun and stars turn around the earth, instead of vice versa, and in fact, people have done so ;-)

So scientific theories are very different from religeous teachings, and no one is claiming them to have anything to do with "truth" in the religeous sense.

In the epistemic sense, scientific theories do bear a strong relationship with truth. In that when you apply a theory, the predictions the theory makes will actually coincide what really happens. Like no matter that the sun doesn't turn around the earth, if you sail your ship at that and that angle to the sun at such and so time, and at such and so angle at that and that time, then you will arrive in the new world along the nth parralel in d days. And when people who followed Columbus did that, hey, they actually *DID* arrive in the new world along the nth parralel in d days! :-)

Hmm, ok, having covered that, let's look at the sentence we were talking about. Do you think I NPOVed it enough the way it is, or did I miss something? Kim Bruning 10:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I answered your thought at my user talk page. Tom Haws 20:09, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Lose the fish

Looks like Graft picked up on your other complaint! :-)

A little patience and serendipity can go a long way. ;-)

Kim Bruning 23:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Catholicism, Politics, and the Culture Wars

And lastly, I am a proud American Catholic.

Just out of curiousity, if you are Catholic, what is the basis for your support of young earth creationism? Is it just that you believe creationism is the best explanation for the formation of the Earth given the geological record? Or do you hold a belief in biblical inerrancy that's at odds with the Church? Do you believe the Church erred in adopting its current neutral attitude toward the teaching of evolution? If you're not comfortable answering, that's fine. -- Temtem 22:31, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have a somewhat unorthodox view of Catholicism - First of all, since my entire family has been Catholic since their coming to the US in the late 19th century, it is more of a cultural duty for me than anything to have pride in the denomination itself. Believe me, I hate many of the mistakes that the church has made in its long past, but I also have a deep trust and devotion to it because of its long and established place in the world's religions. This being said, please do not think that I mean to give the impression of being a fundamentalist Catholic - there are many things that I still disagree with, such as praying to the saints, Mary, evolution etc, etc. Aside from that, I believe that things are going to change for the Church as far as evolution goes, especially since Benedictine XVI seems to be even more of a moralist conservative than John Paul II was. Many people have been deceived unendingly by false teachings about evolution. This has been performed by Neo-Darwin Communist globalists (NDCGs as I like to call them=)) quite effectively for many years now in an effort to bring about the birth of the New World Order. The Church, therefore, consisting of human beings, is liable to deception just like the rest of us. They will learn sooner or later. Salva 22:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So... am I a Neo-Darwin Communist globalist? or am I merely being victimized by them? What about John Gillespie? Or Masatoshi Nei? Graft 02:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That was a very bad attempt at humor on my part =). However, strangely enough, most of the Neo-Darwinists whom I have been acquainted with seem to all possess aspirations of socialism, marxism, communism, globalism, or even anarchism on occasion. To me it seems that there is much more political essence rather than scientific essence in the C/E debate than most people want to think. Communism is not as achievable within a capitalist system when a nation's citizens enjoy freedoms such as free press and free speech. But one of the most powerful preventatives to throwing us into a sort of "Brave New World" (a fantastic prophetic novel, by the way) is the freedom to think. People do not have the freedom to think when they are lied to. It is a known fact that the theory of evolution has frequently come off as being rather ambiguous. Whether you would like to name the people who have discovered this "Southerners" or "Republicans" or "Conservatives," the fact remains - that stereotype has emerged because people are starting to realize that if you are a Neo-Darwinist, chances are that you're somewhat of a liar. I suppose that is not always the case, perhaps if those proponents are simply not aware of the fallacies they advocate. But it is impossible to ignore if you have educated yourself about the history of evolutionary teachings up untill the present day. That said, one is left with quite an ironic reminder of the power of God-given free will. In one hand you have the choice to second-guess who's side you're really playing on, and hopefully learn from what you know is true and what is false; and in the other hand you can choose to continue to ravage the education system in whatever way possible by singling out your theory for the origin of life and working for the censorship of all others that combat it. Believe it or not, there are organizations, like the ACLU and the NCSE that exist for that very purpose. Their triumph would likely hasten the movement of globalization, whereby Marx's fondest dream would be indubitabally achieved - an eventual, worldwide revolution that would toss us into a communist, uniform government. But these "Southern-Redneck-Hillbilly-Dogmatists" have risen to become the Left's worst enemy, and any Left Wing Liberal knows good and well this is true, despite what they might say.

So, to summarize my thoughts, there is a war going on. It isn't a war with guns or clashing metal or beating drums...it's a war of information. And it is a war between the forces of good and evil. Just make sure you are fighting for the right side.Salva 03:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To answer your question, Graft, I will say that I think there is at least some good in every human being. Everyone usually wants to do what they think is right at some point in time or another. If you would allow me, Graft, I would say that you have been victimized more than you might suspect. Perhaps it is a culmination of things that have happened in your life that have led you to what position you stand in. You know what though? You have the power to change. The most powerful thing that a man can do for himself is to find the will to change; to choose to be better or worse and work for that. Because I guarantee you - someday you will be dust - "to dust shall you return." It happens to all of us. It could be tomorrow, or next year or the year after or 40 years from now. Should you be granted the blessing to sit in anticipation of your looming death and contemplate upon what you have done in your life, you must be prepared to face whatever fate that you might encounter after your passing. Salva 03:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're far too convinced of your own correctness. I know you'll find this ironic, since you could accuse me of the same. But I know where I'm coming from. I'm not a liar, and I haven't arrived at the positions I hold (regarding evolution, at least) because I was lied to. I learned what I've learned through my own study of people's best efforts to understand the world: through science. It may be comfortable for you to believe that your ideological opponents are part of a great, evil conspiracy, behind which Satan is standing, but I think your viewpoint comes from a position of ignorance. Had you lived my life and learned what I learned, you'd realize that I hadn't been lied to.

There's no war going on. There are no forces of good and evil acting. There IS good and evil, but it's not something we can entangle from ourselves, or even from individual actions. There are no evil people, and there are no good people. It's extremely wrongheaded to think that you are on the "good" team. Graft 04:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey Salva, surely with freedom of speach comes responsibility not to mislead. So how's about removing that misleading quote from your front page eh (the one referred to above)? I might see if I can find another for you to replace it if you do so. Barnaby dawson 08:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point to make, Graft. I suppose that in some sense we can all be pharisaical from time to time, no matter what our religious direction is. have you ever read the book NOSTROMO by Joseph Conrad? If you haven't I urge you to take it into consideration. Yes, there is some sense in your words, but then again, how can you be sure that you have the truth? Over-confidence is not a good thing to have as a human being. Now I may be confident about my religion, but I never said that you were ignorant because you have claimed to be my opponent. Be careful in the way that you apply your logic. Salva 17:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salva, I'm confused. One thing I don't understand is why you want Pope Benedict to intervene in the C/E controversy. Catholics can, I know this is a poor word choice considering the subject but it is the best I can think of, believe in evolution, so long as they believe God is the driving force. This is basically evolutionary creationism, and I support that, as a fellow Catholic. Also, I thought the Catholic church holds that Genesis is more symbolic than literal, and doesn't preach biblical inerrancy anymore. Granted, Catholic doctrine doesn't require Roman Catholics to treat evolution as real and doesn't punish those who believe in Creationism. This lets everyone have their own point of view on the subject. And I know Catholicism is part of a minority in Christianity for allowing belief in evolution. Before I go on, I feel it would be best to mention I know many arguements/evidence that are used against evolution and I have looked at other theories, but evolution does seem to describe the way the world looks. I also don't think the Creation-Evolution debate isn't really a war of good vs. evil. And I'm not a socialist, Marxist, communist, or anarchist. I'll admit I'm a Democrat, but I view myself as a fairly moderate one. I might be a "globalist," although I am now confused on what globalization is after reading so many different articles on it, so I'll describe what I am. I think countries should work with other countries to solve problems, and international trade is ok (I'm pretty neutral on it for now). I don't think that all the countries of the Earth should lose their individuality and be ruled under one government, and as I said before, I'm not a communist. Also, are you interested in working on NPOV on Creation/Evolution related articles? Mred64 21:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This may sound rude, but I don't mean to be. I just think your arguemetns could be better. You say that the evolution article can't be based on "lies." Yet you consider most arguements in support of evolution lies. So wouldn't any scientific evidence supporting evolution in the article be considered a lie to you? Also, you say evolutionists try to isolate their theory of orgin from all others, preventing other theories from being taught in schools. Yet you say evolution "lies" (keep in mind, the validity of "lying" isn't my point) to us and almost seem to think it shouldn't be taught. So aren't you equal, wanting to raise your theory above all others, or at least ostracize another theory? I mean, I know there are other scientific (or pseudoscientific, depending on who you talk to, I would just rather say both since saying only one has someone make me eat my words later) theories that exist to try to explain the origins question, like Intelligent Design. However, mainstream science doesn't teach these yet becasue it says theories like these lack the "clincher" evidence that makes the theory seem, "Oh yeah this almost has to be it!" Again, I'm not arguing the validity of mainstream or creation science, just bringing up a point. (Of course, I doubt Creationism will be taught in public schools in the near-future because of separation of church and state arguements.) I mean I read up on evidence that both supports evolution and goes against it, to keep myself open and see other arguements.And I'll admit evolution doesn't fully explain some things. However, science tries to take in new knowledge, and change theoires to fit the evidence, or it makes new theories becasue old ones just don't work anymore. I'd say evolutionary creationism, and putting some onipotent power (God) into evolution, makes it stronger. I do have to give you credit though, for supporting microevolution. I know some people who say microevolution isn't real even. I believe God created the universe and life, I just don't go with literal Creationism right now. Although if you the book "The Science of God," the author makes science and Genesis fit wonderfully with each other. Mred64 00:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down there my friend! So much to answer and so little time. =) I'll do my best though:

• The reason for my association of evolution with far-Left and Communist philosophies is very simple. If you are an American, you might or might not know what I am talking about. For nearly the last 70 years, America has been on the sure path towards the polarization of her politics, much like what we saw in the Civil War hundreds of years ago. Now, most Abrahamic conservatives, (which do form a majority in the U.S.) are frankly disgusted of the way the Left has pushed the rest of us towards its lunacy using psychologically manipulative tactics - especially in the media, but also in schools, in the courtrooms, and even in our churches. I have personally alienated myself from many other doctrines that the Left has brainwashed me with in the past by keeping an open mind and making sure to READ as much as possible. Hitler and his thugs burned books (and Bibles) because he wanted the Germans to read Mein Kampf. I don't think that the Nazis would have been as successful if Germany would have exercised its brain with more good books.
• Let me ask you something - if I read The Origin of Species and then decided the next day that I believed in it with my whole heart, convinced that God was always just an illusion, and my purpose on this Earth was nil, then who is to make the rules? If anyone could say, "I'm the maker of my own rules, and my rules say that I can kill you right now if I want to," then what is to become of this world? Sheesh...no wonder we have little evolutionists breaking into schools and shooting their classmates. Look at what we are teaching them!!!
• Evolution is way too ambiguous. Microevolution is an observable phenomenon, but things like abiogenesis and macroevolution are not observable, and they certainly are not fact (as the evolutionist would have you believe.)
• You are wrong about separation of church and state being an issue in the future. Both evolution and creationism possess religious implications. The amazing thing is there are also scientific qualities to both. People are beginning to see this. Just look at what is happening right now in Kansas - you have highly educated doctors, professors, and scientists who are putting their fists down and saying "enough is enough." Intelligent design is testable because it has empirical evidence. Take the Grand Canyon for example - the Colorado river only runs through the bottom of the Canyon, therefore, it is impossible, according to the laws of physics, that it was responsible for its formation. If you talk to any Young-Earth Creationist (like me), he will tell you that the Grand Canyon can also be evidence of a massive flood. You can't narrow down science to simply one absolute. All possibilities must be considered carefully and logically before a conclusion is made. This is the nature of science. Salva 18:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I wrote too much, I just had a lot of free time yesterday. I really hope I'm not coming off as a jerk.

• Yes, I'm American (I'm just too paranoid right now to post that openly). I'd hardly call evolutionists Far Left. I would say those on the Far Left tend to be evolutionists, but not all those who go with evolution are on the Far Left. And I wouldn't say that the left is trying to brainwash people. Someone could just as easily say that about Creationists (not a persoal opinion, but people can), and some people do say that about reilgion in general. People like me don't try to force their oinions on others. I'll concede the media does have leftist bias, or at least around where I live, but I wouldn't say that the left has "manipulated" the courtrooms or churches. Judges can hold their beliefs, people don't (or at least shouldn't) try to manipulate them. Also, for the last 25 or so years, the majority of those years a Republican was president, and the president appoints judges to federal courts when positions are open(I know local courts are subject to local votes, I think ). And I would say the majority of churches in the U.S. are still on the right side of the politcal spectrum, although there are some leftist churches. Not to sound rude, but I don't know how open you are if you won't listen to anything the Left has to say. That would be like me saying I support all charities, I just don't give to ones I didn't like before. And, this isn't aimed at you personally I just finally have some way to say it anonymously, I'm tired of being called some godless, un-American, bane of evil just because I lean more to the left side of the political spectrum. Also, I feel that you shouldn't generalize your arguements when people like me don't fit them. I don't care if you say most or 99.9% is whatever, just acknowledge that not everyone is like the picutre you paint.
• I do disagree with your moral arguement. I know a lot of evolutionists who belive in God. They're not going to make up their own rules and shoot someone. I try to live by my morals, and I'm against violence. I mean, I know your arguement was partially exaggeration, partially truth, but I'm trying to say that evolutionists aren't the root of all evil. And I know many atheists/agnostics who hold themselves to high moral codes and wouldn't just randomly shoot/hurt people because he/she feels they can make their own rules.
• Since you accept microevolution, I'll skip that obviously. Abiogenesis is pretty hard to talk about, since science is just going on what seems to be educated guesses. However, putting God into the picutre (evolutionary creationism, basically) makes it work better. And the same goes for marcoevolution. Now of course, more naturalist scientists will reject my arguements because they involve putting supernatural events to make it work. BY the way, I'm not a scientist, but that was my only wording, if that isn't really obvious with my logic already.
• I do think separation of church and state does play into the issue a bit. Those of religions that don't have Abrahamic creationism, or just atheists or some agnostics, will probably not want Abrahamic creationism being taught in public schools. And then there was that Supreme Court case in Texas saying the evolution stickers couldn't be put in the textbooks becasue they violated separation of church and state. Personally, I think that is a bit of a stretch, because first you have to think of ideas besides evolution, then you have to think of Creationism before you actually get to any religious arguements.
• I don't claim to be a physicist or geologist, but shouldn't the Colorado River have been higher than it currently is when the Grand Canyon was being formed? I thought the river was higher than it is now, and over time, it started to dig deeper into the ground, carving the Grand Canyon. I believe the Great Flood happened, but I don't think it was global. The ancestries of Native Americans and other peoples, as well as animals, outside the region appear to be unbroken at the time of the flood. And I read from a Creationist book that the word we translated to mean "Earth," for a planet-wide flood, can also mean region or area.

Thanks for responding. And when you have a chance, try to respond to the other parts of my original postings. I know you probably used a lot of time just answering the ones you did, so when you have a chance (and if you want to) can you reply to the other parts? Thanks. :-) Mred64 00:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. I especially enjoy talking about politics!

It is suprising how many lefties really don't know what they are getting themselves into. I think that's why the Left is most successful in the educational spectrum (e.g. with the younger and more shapeable minds.) Now, consider this: The Left has held the greater amount of influence since the 60's, correct? So look at what we have been seeing in our country since then - an increase in violence, a decrease in average intelligence (based on ACT and SAT scores), an increase in divorce rate, unwed birth rates, STDs - and most notably - an explosion of references to evolution in our public school textbooks (I have the numbers from each of those, let me know and I will take the extra time). That is the measure and the finality of the Left's agenda. I'm listening to Michael Savage as I type - yes he is a fanatic but I find his sense of humor extremely laughable - and he actually just said that the revolution in the 60's mustered the Communists back to life with the intent of breaking America down into a socialist state by destroying her structure from the inside. There is no doubt in my mind that the Second British Invasion (the first being the American Revolution) opened a wound that has continued to bleed until now. And I would love to answer all of your questions, but I think faster than I type, so as of now I can't get to all of them - I promise I'll try later on though!!!! Sorry :-| Salva 02:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yay. I like talking about politics, too. Only I think your evidence would kill my arguements if we were to debate it out. :-) Hmm. Well maybe I'm just a too moderate a "Leftie" to notice what you say. :-O Which could be true, because most things I look at place me as a moderate that leans to the left. But I still think a majority of the left believes in a god (if you can prove me wrong, go ahead). Granted, atheists are more likely to be on the left end of the spectrum than on the right. I have no idea who Michael Savage is, but the name sounds familiar. But if he is a fanatic, better for his listeners to admit it than anyone else. I'll go with most of what you said, but I want the numbers to prove the decrease in intelligence. Everything else I do go along with. Personally, I think people should wait until marriage to have sex, but I don't discriminate against those who don't. I can't tell you who has had the greater influence since the 60's. My knowledge of presidents is already abysmal, so I don't know most of thier political parties. But remember what I said, Republicans have held the presidency for the majority of the last 25 years. These appoint people to federal courts when positions are open. I also think you give the left too much "credit." Divorce is becoming more common in the coutry, but the Left doesn't say "love 'em and leave 'em." And somehow I dopn't think political power has too much power over intelligence, except when making education laws. And I thought most of the left believes in gun control, so they aren't responsible for the violence. I just think we have a more violent society now. It really isn't the fault of the government. I'm not going to deny the Left has somewhat pushed evolution. But it's a scientific theory. And since the 60's it has been legal to teach evolution in schools. So of course it will increase. It was illegal to teach evolution in public shcools at the beginning of the century, hence, no one taught it. However, being an evolutionist doesn't equal being godless. I mean, when I took Biology I, my teacher opened the evolution unit by saying people can believe in evolution and still believe in God. Look forward to talking to you. Mred64 22:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I have the records over the past 55 years or so from the SAT tests taken in the U.S. here in front of me. Now, keep in mind that the College Entrance Exam Board (which is also the official SOURCE of these numbers) has actually made the tests easier (dumber) over this projection of time, and technology, like graphing calculators, has been more readily available as we have advanced through the end of the 20th century. The first website that I found with a chart similar to the one that I have is here [1], although this one only shows the scores until '94.

About the divorce issue - I think that is a reasonable assumption to make, but judging by some of the implications that the Left's mischievious "Social Revolutions" have had, I would say that the core of such rampages seem to all be rife with contempt and hate for things such as traditional Christianity and Family. Yes, the Beatles were extremely talented musicians, but they woke up the monster of American resolve when they influenced so much rebellion within the structure of families in our country. Think about it - we had kids leaving their homes to be groupies and drug whores instead of following the straight and narrow path. I recommend you pick up one of Michael Savage's books - so far I've only read The Enemy Within, but I'm assuming that they are all good. Yes, Savage is voraciously fanatical, but he has a perfect reason to be. He is simply sick of being beaten down by a minority that is trying to blindside the foundations of this country; simultaneously numbing her up for globalization and what will eventually turn into a nightmare reminiscent of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (another recommendation for reading.) Keep in mind, my friend - education, especially reading, is the only medicine to cure intellectual suicide. That is why in America today, it is a mistake to play all of your cards, so to speak. What I'm saying is that to be moderate in your politics is probably the best choice, but make sure that you don't let that moderativity slip into passivity. Read from the extremists on both sides, and then figure out which extreme - paleoconservatism, or extreme liberalism (communism or socialism) - you would prefer if you had a say in the political direction of this great country. Salva 17:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks for pulling up that graph. That's even more disturbing considering that we are making more technological advances since the 60's. However, people like teachers, professors, scientists, etc., tend to be liberal. Without insulting anyone, most people think of the more educated citizens as being on the left. So the left doesn't want to dumb down society, simply because they need the previously mentioned people to stay with the left when they grow up, because typically, people will be very liberal as children and gradually become more conservative as they grow older. That doesn't mean all poeple become conservative, but they gradually adopt more conservative views. Can't say I know about all the changes made since the 60's because I wasn't alive for most of that time. I don't want to give out my age online, but I'll just leave it at I missed most of the "revolutions" you talked about.

I read Brave New World, and it reminds me of your closing arguement. I don't think we will change that much, but the minority of extremists on both sides of the spectrum offer two different "brave new worlds." There is the super technologically advanced society that accepts group sex, drugs, eugenics (ex. euthanasia, radical genetic engineering, abortion), adopts atheism, and abandons what we know as family, etc., perhaps representing ultra-liberalism (revolutionaries). Conversely, there is the primitive society where self-punishment is pleasing the gods, the technology that exists is on a much lower level compared to today's, outsiders are shunned, etc., perhaps representing ultra-conservatism (reactionaries). Huxley makes both extremist views look bad, liberal and conservative. I read he would have preffered to offer John the Savage a more moderate choice, like our current society. Also, you talk about globalization. I'll need to refresh my memory on what globalization is. But the Left favors working with other countries with treaties instead of the Right's "peace through strength." So with liberal globalization, the world wars that destroyed our society in Brave New World probably wouldn't happen. I believe the U.S. needs to work with other countries or in international bodies, but I don't think that all countries (America included) should give up their individuality to work together. Most people on the left have views similar to mine. People who don't like gloabalization paint the picture of the United States not existing to make it seem like the bane of all evil.

Moving on. The Left will sometimes "go against" Christianity because, typically, the Left is more acceptant of other religions and atheism. The Left goes with a more secular view because of its interpretation of the separation of church and state. And the left isn't trying to discriminate against Christians. No matter how I word my next sentence, I lose being neutral, so don't get angry. The left helps keep all religions, and even the lack of religion, equal, in terms of government. And this doesn't equate the left with godlessness and evil, or being against Christianity and the family. You are talking about a small minority that exists in a minority, if even. And remember what I said before, most people on the left I know hold themsleves to high moral codes already, theist or atheist. And don't forget those on teh right who don't share your morals. I know Republican teens (and yes, they are on the right side of the political spectrum, not liberal Republicans) who do drugs and talk about having sex. These aren't the morals (recreationial drugs, pre-marital sex, underage drinking, disrespect to parents) that the majority on both sides of the politcal spectrum wants to uphold.

I always try to expose myself to other views. I read the news and editorials almost every day. I learn information on both sides of an arguement. I debate with others, like how I'm talking with you. This helps me learn other opinions, and gives me a better graps of where I stand. I'll just close saying I'm fairly content with the way the country is now. Some more done to help the environment, better ties with some countries, getting rid of the current deficit, less polarized politics, and maybe a few other tweaks here and there and I'm euphoric. So maybe I'll just be the lone moderate when we are faced with a shift to paleoconservatism or ultra-liberalism. :-) Mred64 20:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome

No problem; it was my pleasure. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Xx01.jpeg

Image deletion warning

The image Image:Xx01.jpeg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Capitalism

Hi Salva,

I'm not sure why patriotic fervor should cause you to raise this question, since, the Cold war notwithstanding, there is nothing inherently capitalist about America. America was founded on the principles of liberty and democracy, not capitalism. The sort of hard-nosed industrial capitalism we enjoy today didn't develop until much later, and the vision of at least some of the "founding fathers" was probably for a rather different nation. Some certainly (e.g. Franklin, Hamilton) wanted a savage dog-eat-dog capitalism, but some (Jefferson) pictured a more pastoral society.

However: to answer your question. Capitalism is short-sighted. That's pretty much all there is to it. And since I was raised as a Hindu, a tradition with a rather longer memory and a very different sense of scale for the individual and society, I detest systems that think only in the short-term.

I am not such an ideologue that I will pretend capitalism is not a system without successes. Its singular success is its ability to produce wealth and technological progress. But it does this without regard for pretty much everything else: community, culture, environment. We've come to inhabit a world with very little memory of its past and very little thought for its future. Only the immediate demands of the market matter. This is not the sort of world I wish to live in.

Furthermore, I think capitalism has grown to the point where its successes can no longer continue unabated. Catastrophic results, are, of course, to be avoided, for the good of us all. So a system that gallops heedlessly towards resource depletion or environmental disaster is clearly undesirable in large and important ways.

That said, I am unambiguously a libertarian. I believe that human freedom is a principle paramount to nearly all else. So I'm not a Marxist or a Stalinist and I never will be. I don't think societies should or can be organized along these lines. And I'm not certain what it is that I want. I'm not content with the freedom offered by "free markets" - the freedom of a moth in a high wind, buffeted this way and that. But liberty can't be delivered by fiat, either. So, for the moment, I think I must be content to speak of tendencies, to pull in the right direction when I see it clearly. I say "overthrow" mostly because I think the outdated Marxist imagery is funny. Graft 4 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)

New Inofrmation on Catholicism and Evolution

Hi Salva! I don't know if you remember me or not, but I found an article you might find very interesting. I remember you were hoping that Pope Benedict would change the church's stance on evolution. You'll probably eat this article up. A cardinal is asking the Pope to make a specific stance that talks about the church's stance on evolution. He says that John Paul II's statement was too vague so the church shouldn't accept evolution. Here's a link:Is the Catholic Church rethinking its view of evolution?. I should tell you that nothing official has happened yet, because the cardinal's statement is not coming from the Vatican. Mred64 19:13, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Submarine Info

Thanks, but I don't really deserve thanks particularly. The people you should really be thanking for the information are the historians at the US Navy Naval Historical Center who wrote the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships where the vast majority of that article is taken from. David Newton 07:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Great standards, etc.

Hi salva. I'm not exactly sure what you mean to imply, but (making the logical assumption) I've never been one to buy the argument that morality must flow from divine decree. It would be wrong to kill other human beings regardless of what some Almighty said about it. Thus I don't see the relevance of neo-Darwinism insofar as it might destroy a Christian outlook.

I'm also not sure what animal standards of behavior you're referring to. Could you clarify? Graft 22:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The idea that we have decayed from some grand old history is really rather flawed. Until the 1960s, we lived in an apartheid society that treated non-whites as second-class citizens (we still do, to a lesser extent). Until the 1860s, we were a slave society that treated non-whites as sub-humans. Is this the "foundations of family and Christianity" you refer to? Is that the "greatest civilization on earth"?

Just an aside: you're wrong about sex, by the way. Indulgent sex, sex for pleasure, is something unique to humankind (almost - the bonobo chimpanzee is also quite sexual). For most animals, sex exists only for procreation, and it is generally not the mutually pleasurable act it is for humans. The "animal standard of behavior", then, would be the strict, procreation-only sort of sex advocated by moralistic religious conservatives.

As to your main point: I've never been a fan of worship, of God or of State. I have no heroes and I don't believe in perfection or ideals. I don't seek out God, but I reject worship of nation or race as well. Yet I've always been a highly moral person. I live according to what I have come to understand to be wrong and right. These beliefs aren't guided by some external diktat, by my belief in some authority (whether God or State). They're based on my own understanding of the world. This is what it means to be an adult - we're all capable of understanding what right and wrong is, without God telling us so. Smoking meth, abandoning your children, rape, murder - these are obvious questions. We're intelligent creatures; we have empathy. We can understand each other. It's not difficult for us to grasp what's right and what's wrong. What's difficult is for us to live according to that understanding, even when there's no parent standing over us making us eat our dinner, make our bed, clean our room. That's the difficult lesson of life: you've got to live it yourself. Nobody else can live it for you. And I think we gain strength from understanding that idea, that there IS no parent who will guide us. Those children who learn that they descended from homo erectus, who come to the understanding that they are nothing more than what they can make of themselves - surely they are stronger than those children who believe they are mere clay for someone else's molding? Graft 17:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Salva31, thank you for your support on the Evolution discussion page. --Nowa 16:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Racism

Don't attack people who differ from you in race and religion and then try to cover your ass by calling them racists. That's despicable behaviour. Guettarda 04:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't play dumb dude. You find yourself debating three Indian biologists and all of a sudden you are attacking people for their religious view, and throwing out "anti-semite" - since you are attacking people based on race, you protect yourself by calling them anti-semites. Standard disinformation techniques, you see them all the time in right-wing smears. As for lying, it's the creationists who make a career of lying, something that pains me all the more because these (liars) call themselves Christians. Which, given their lying and disinformation, strongly suggests to me that they are playing for the other side. And now you have resorted to attacking people on the grounds that they are not of your race and not of your religious tradition. That is despicable behaviour. Not only are you repeating out and out lies of the right wing, repeating stuff by people who lie for a living, first by calling themselves Christians, and then by taking science and twisting things to say what they don't say, and then by just making up lies when it suits them. I have seen these alleged Christians take something and twist it into a lie.

You asked Graft questions, and he answered you in good faith. Now you twist what he said and use it to attack him. What kind of morality is that? Have you no sense of shame, of decency? I took you for a well-intentioned person, if misguided. Obviously I was wrong to assume good faith. I am disgusted. Guettarda 05:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Civility, and please don't remove others' comments

Salva, the comments you made at Talk:Evolution are highly inappropriate. Please treat other editors with civility and respect. We can politely disagree on matters and discuss them rationally. Personal attacks such as the ones you made have no place on Wikipedia. Those attributes are irrelevant; what matters is the content of what people say. Statements such as those will significantly reduce your credibility. Finally, please do not remove others' comments. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

My view of Christianity is twisted? Because I think that it should follow the word and teachings of Jesus rather than preach lies and hatred as many on the right wing of the church do? That is twisted? The churchis precious to ma, and it pains me to see it defiled by liars, warmongers, and politicians. ID is a political agenda masked as religion masked as science. Read what these people say, and then compare it to the reality of the science. It would not be that hard if you wanted to. Read what Johnson has to say - he seems to be saying his faith isn't strong enough to take on a challenge to the ideas of Christianity he was brought up with, so rather than having faith, he chose to challenge reality. ID is a crutch for people who's faith can't handle the challenge of the modern world. But it has no basis in either scientific or religious reality. Guettarda 12:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)