Axel147
Hi Axel147, welcome to wikipedia. I'll include here the standard welcome message, which contains useful pointers to various resources:
Welcome!
Hello, Axel147, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
If you ever have any questions, please feel free to contact me. I'll be happy to help as much as I can. May the Wiki be with you.
Best wishes,
Vote on natural selection intro passage edit
As a contributing editor of the English wikipedia article on natural selection, you are being invited to vote on two different versions of a controversial passage of the introduction. Please see details on the talk page, Talk:Natural selection#Vote on intro passage.
Yours sincerely,
Compromise edit edit
Hi, I liked your "compromise edit". Let's hope we can get it accepted by the rest of the community! Cheers,
Samsara contrib talk 13:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
NatSel edit
The definition of Darwin is irrelevant, and only of interest within the historical context. If we were here to reinforce old or incorrect ideas, we can as well promote Intelligent design and creationism as the way to look at evolution, as that is a view hold by many, if not most people in the US. As such, the criterion is not popular usage, but correct usage. Therefore, my task with the NatSel article is ended unless the focus will be current usage, with a subsection on the discussion of the historical usage. --KimvdLinde 20:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
your email edit
Hi Axel,
I notice you have email disabled for this account. Can you email me so I can send you something by reply? phi1ipp 4T yahoo.com (note digit "one" in phi1ipp).
Thanks,
Request for Arbitration edit
I have filed a request for Arbitration with regard to Marcosantezana here.KimvdLinde 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 18:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Natural selection edit
I am starting to loose track - can you check Marcosantazena's most recent (and extensive) changes and see if any need to be reverted? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Is your comment to the new Marcos ersion, or the proposed version at my talk space? If the later, pleace add it there. Kim van der Linde at venus 20:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Gone live! edit
I just copied the newly developed version of the natural selection page to the main space after it was clear that most editors supported the new version over the current version. Kim van der Linde at venus 20:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Natural Selection Usage.jpg edit
Thanks for uploading Image:Natural Selection Usage.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Hetar 19:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead edit
Axel, I am not going to fight you. You have obviously set your mind on changing the article to fit your own ideas. I think your change is not an improvement, but reduces the quality of the article and introduces more confusion. I would prefer if you would discuss changes at the talk page first before changing the definitions and the controversy surrounding it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I have foolishly tried to start a discussion on Talk:Natural selection concerning the definition of natural selection. If you have time, I'd like you to contribute -- or to tell me I'm a complete whack-o. Thanks. Ted 17:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Natural_Selection_Definition.jpg edit
Thanks for uploading Image:Natural_Selection_Definition.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The Endler image has expired!--Axel147 01:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Axel, thanks for adding the Elizabeth Lloyd article link to the Unit of selection page. -Safay 02:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Fact and Theory edit
Somehow I just feel that we are talking past each other. Maybe if we can come to some sort of understanding, we can work together to make this section clearer, and the corresponding section of the Evolution and Creationism Controversy article. Maybe we should try to discuss this if possible. --Filll 18:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Evolution edit
Axel, I am responding here in the hopes that whatever I am about to write will not initiate further and unnecessary attacks against me by other parties. Anyway, I am glad you like my revision, and appreciate - very much - your saying so. As to your point that Darwin was effectively making two hypotheses or two distinct theories (mechanisms of evolution vs. claim of a common ancestor) I agree with you, at least, i acknowledge that philosophers are debating whether one necessarily requires the other (I think most say yes, but the point is they view them as distinct claims). Also, I accept your point about how a theory can be a fact. in an earlier revision i wrote that facts are parts of theories which another editor took strong issue with. But I think we both agree that "theories" typically use one set of facts to explain orinterpret another set of facts. I think we both agree that these fine points need not go into the article, but if you wanted to pen a discussion on further revising the section along these lines I would not resist or oppose it. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Axel, here is the quote I was referring to from hawking. I happen to think it is clear and one of the best, if not best, short and simple definition of "theory" in the natural sciences and many of the social sciences (it does not apply to "theory" in the humanities and some social sciences) I have encountered. The main definition is:
- ... a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to oversvations that we make.
He then goes on to add an important point, though subtle (and I suspect the source of confusion for people who think 2theory" means "opinion":
- It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality (whatever that means).
And ends with two points that may be necessary to the definition of "theory" -
- A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.
From A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes New York: Bantam Books 1988. I think it might be excessive to qhote this in its entirety in the Evolution article (although there may be another article where it would be appropriate), but I do think it is a useful point of reference for explaining what scientists mean by "theory" to laypeople. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify what I was referring to earlier. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Natural Selection Usage.jpg edit
Thank you for uploading Image:Natural Selection Usage.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you created this image yourself, please look at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators, select one of those tags, and add it to the image. To do that, simply go to Image:Natural Selection Usage.jpg, click "edit this page", and add the appropriate tag. Be sure to remove the current tag indicating a lack of licensing!
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at User talk:Angr or at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —Angr 20:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Evolution lead edit
I've reverted you, because adding in a long list of undefined terms goes against a fairly long-standing consensus for simplicity in the lead. For instance, Genetic drift is basically the effects of random changes, but is a much harder term to understand. Gene flow and the like are methods of moving variation between populations, and should, if they must be included, be described as that, not the difficult (if concise) jargon terms.
In short, we have plenty of space for a longer lead: we can explain in simple terms more or less any aspects of evolution we see fit, and shouldn't just list terms, which is one of the major reasons we lost FA. Adam Cuerden talk 19:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
One and the same claim can be both fact and theory edit
I have had this out with Fill before but a claim can be both fact and theory. They are not mutually exclusive. Consider the hypothesis 'my girlfriend is fat'. This is theory because it explains why she never wears her favourite size 8 dress anymore. But it is also a fact because all of my friends have attested to it.
In other words FACT says something about the degree of certainty of a hypothesis whereas THEORY says something about its explanatory power. One and the same hypothesis can therefore be both fact and theory. (Simililarly LAW is used to describe a hypothesis which makes general predictions about a classs of observations.) — Axel147 (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I just go by the standard definitions in science. Period. And there are lots of references that include these definitions, including the new NAS book that just came out. --Filll (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think Axel147 is missing the point here. Evolution, in either sense of the word is not a "claim", it is a body of evidence ("a fact") and a set of coherent explanations of this evidence ("a theory"). And "my girlfriend is fat" is not an explanation, "my girlfriend no longer wears her size 8 dress anymore because she is fat" would be an explanation based upon that (purported) fact.
HrafnTalkStalk 05:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I had many previous discussions of this with Axel. He prefers to use his own OR and SYN rather than WP:RS for his definitions. So I do not really want to deal with it any more. I tried. And enough is enough.--Filll (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course I am not making up definitions. Evolution — the hypothesis that there is a change in composition of inherited traits from generation to generation — is a fact because it is well established with evidence. But it also a theory because it makes predictions and explains other observations. I will quote the Douglas Futuyama:
- 'Any statement in science, then, should be understood as a HYPOTHESIS—a statement of what might be true. Some hypotheses are poorly supported. Others, such as the hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun, are so well supported that we consider them to be facts. It is a mistake to think of a fact as something that we absolutely know, with complete certainty, to be true, for we do not know this of anything.'
Theory is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary:
- 'A theory is scheme or system of ideas and statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are known to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed'.
The above hypothesis is therefore both theory and fact. — Axel147 (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Futuyama's definition of "fact" appears to be rather sloppy, informal and idiosyncratic. Further, he is a biologist, not a philosopher of science or epistemologist, so his area of expertise is not in such definitions. More problematically... |} ...this whole line of argument seems to be WP:SOAP, unconnected to improvement of this article. I am therefore archiving it. HrafnTalkStalk 15:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- That sounnds like your point of view - at least I am quoting a source. It is not soapboxing and you have no right to archive. Of course it affects the article. One version of events is that 'evolution' must be understood in two different ways for it to be described as both fact and theory. The other version is that one and the same hypothesis can be labelled both fact and theory. — Axel147 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
January 2008 edit
Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Evolution as theory and fact for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. HrafnTalkStalk 02:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
July 2018 edit
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kasper Schmeichel, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Natural Selection Usage.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused, future use unlikely, content better presented using wikitext
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The file File:NatSel.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused, future use unlikely, content better presented using wikitext
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The file File:NatSel Use2.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused, future use unlikely, content better presented using wikitext
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)