Talk:Level of support for evolution/Archive 2

[The author misread the article, and said something unintelligible.] Washod 10:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rm - "However, more of the general public in some countries ^[

] finds creationism a more convincing explanation than evolution."

Reasons for removal

• Hinges on weasel words.
  WP:WEASEL
• Unreferenced. The paragraph is referenced but these references do not apply to the removed content:

1. For example, in the US Presidential Race in 2000, both George W. Bush and Al Gore's initial political platforms included advocating the teaching of both evolution and creationism in science classes (George W. Bush, The Last Relativist, Timothy Noah, Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics, Slate, Oct. 31, 2000).
2. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair appears to have been supporting efforts to establish schools teaching creationism in the UK (Revealed: Tony Blair's Link to Schools that Take the Creation Literally, Nicholas Pyke, The Independent, 2004-06-13)
3. In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi wanted to retire evolution from schools in the middle level; after one week of massive protests, he reversed his opinion.(We put the clock back a 1000 years, Peer Meinert, dpa -German language).

WP:V

Thanks, Monkeyblue 12:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like some serious weasel words going on here. Particularily this line: "It is also important to remember, as Guy Woods writes, "It is dangerous to follow the multitude because the majority is almost always on the wrong side in this world."" 75.153.231.20 06:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to include this sort of material is that otherwise the article was in danger of deletion for being too POV.--Filll 13:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a coatrack tag because in the opening sentence the scope of the article is modified away from discussing the levels of support for evolution towards a description of the evolution controversy debate in the United States.

]

I have reread it. What are you talking about?--Filll 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section isn't really about "Level of support for evolution", it's about "Use of the term "level of support for evolution" in the US creationism-evolution controversy".

Addhoc 17:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Um, what? The article is about the level of support for evolution. Not surprisingly that has a heck of a lot to do with the creationism-evolution controversy. I'm afraid I don't see the coatracking issue here. JoshuaZ 17:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has a lot of information about the US because that is where the controversy is most fierce, and therefore the most statistics and other information are available. It does include information from other countries and it will slowly add more and more from foreign countries as it becomes available or is uncovered.--Filll 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I agree that an article that mostly concerns the creationism-evolution controvery should focus on the US. I'm not entirely convinced that an article with the title "Level of support for evolution" should focus on the US to the same extent. Overall, I mostly agree with comments by ScienceApologist in

Addhoc 17:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

When this was examined repeatedly by the community, the community did not agree with ScienceApologist's point of view.--Filll 19:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without wading into the many controversies above, I think that this article should be renamed to reflect that it is pretty much a US-only issue. I note that non-US opinion and the like are treated peremptorily (since out here in ROW it isn't an issue) so I think the name should reflect that this is about a US debate. As it stands the article title makes an implicit argument that looks ridiculous outside the US. Eusebeus 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree that it is only a US issue (although I admit that fundamentalist Christians do yell louder here than outside of the US)--Britain has a nascent Creationist movement starting up. Of course Muslim Fundamentalism equals Christian Fundamentalism in strict inerrant understanding of religious documents. So, maybe it is a lot US-centric, but it's not a problem exclusive to the US. Orangemarlin 06:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Living as I do in Britain, I think you would be hard-pressed to make that case and, at any event, the nature of the article addresses the debate pretty much exclusively as it has been framed within the US. There is no - absolutely no - debate about evolution in the school-curriculum, for example. This is not a US encyclopedia; article titles should reflect such specifically national-centred debates. Eusebeus 18:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would beg to differ, and direct you to

Truth in science and [1] to start with, for example. However, the UK and the US are not the only places dealing with this. I would suggest you read [2] and [3] and Mustafa Akyol and Adnan Oktar to get an idea of what is going on in Turkey. There are many other examples in other places, however, such as Poland and Holland and Australia, among others.--Filll 18:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, fair enough. I am not convinced, but your point is well-taken. Eusebeus 00:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that attacks on evolution are dying down in the US and other places. Obviously, there has been some efforts to promote anti-evolution in the UK, sometimes with the encouragement or tacit approval of your administration. Attacks on evolution appear to be increasing in Turkey. Many Islamic countries outlaw the teaching of evolution, even in universities. In many Islamic countries, evolution is presented as an evil crusader plot to destroy the piety of young Muslims. Also, in the US, I suspect that the Discovery Institute and other organizations are far from giving up, as you can see by surveying the articles here in WP. So what should be a non-issue, really is just bubbling below the surface I am afraid.--Filll 00:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you support Evolution does NOT mean you can flame Creationists. I've seen a lot of that. Saying that Creationists are stupid is FLAME. Saying that they are wrong is not. Because I have seen some very untrue assumptions, like that creationists lie to get away with saying what they want. Is it a lie to tell you that the words you are reading have never been written? No. Is it a lie to tell you that there is absolutely no evidence supporting creation or anyting other than Evolution? ABSOLUTELY! And that's pretty much what I've seen around here. However, I believe they are right. I am a Creationist. A Christain. Please don't flame me.

Do you know the odds for a SINGLE protien molocule to "occur" by random chance? It's a number so large we can't get our minds or hearts around it. So I'll give an analogy: There is an ant. This is a very slow ant and can only move one inch at a time. He is also a weak ant; he can carry only one atom at a time. In the time it would take for a SINGLE protien to "occur" by random chance, that ant could have carried over THREE HUNDRED BILLION universes.

And if you want an entire SCIENTIFICALLY oriented, BALANCED discussion on Creation and Evolution, Creation Facts of Life is one among many other good books and TV series.

Just because you believe one thing doesn't mean you can randomly insult the other with no evidence whatsoverer. I'm a Creationist and I'm not insulting Evolution. I'm just saying it's wrong.

Every single Creation/Evolution discussion I've ever read, heard, or seen has come out with creation on top, and used perfecty legetiment scientific evidence and perfectly legitement logic.

Did you know that Darwin had a chapter in his book called "Difficulties With The Theory?" Maybe you should read it. Here's a quote: "To think that the human eye appeared by random chance is absurd in the highest degree." The Sword of the Heart 02:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of the eye and Argument from ignorance --Mr Fink 03:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puhlease. Orangemarlin 03:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding a Non-Neutral Point of View tag to this article. Most of it attacks Creation rather than maintaining fair and balanced. Certain statements, such as "Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987, representing about 0.158% of relevant scientists," really stand out, as there are several problems with that assumption. It assumes that every single creationist in the US responded and that if they didn't respond, they don't support creation. This then inflates the evolutionary number. Many of the sources fall for this same trap and state a 99% support rate for evolution, which is both false, as I've mentioned, and dated (goes back to 1987). Global Warming skeptics get blamed for using articles from 2002. Why is this false and dated number still in this article? --Twipie 08:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, the only NPOV statements were added by you. ornis 08:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is verifiable. It is in a major publication. That is what is needed for WP, and that is what we do. This article include many recent statistics, and many historical statistics. It contains so much material on the creationist side that it has been accused of being biased to creationism and unfairly favorable to creationists. So please, take your rants someplace else.--Filll 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that the majority of scientists accept evolution as the leading scientific theory, but is this 99.84% figure verifiably accurate? Did the original article merely state that there were an estimated 700 creation scientists, or did the article claim a 99.84% figure based on the assumption that all other scientists at the time were evolution scientists? --Jonathan Drain 08:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's properly sourced, I suspect that the study wouldn't stand up to criticism of its methods. For instance, were there 480,000 replies of which 700 were creationists, or were there 480,000 scientists polled of which 700 replies (out of an unspecified total) were creationists? Personal experience suggests that very few working scientists have creationist views, but I'd prefer a much more solid source ahead of the 99.84% figure cited here. And it may depend on how you slice up scientists - do mathematicians count for instance? Again from personal experience, as a group they do appear to have a noticeable background of creationists (or, more accurately, creationist sympathisers) in their number. Of course, having now said all that, I'm not offering any better sources! --Plumbago 08:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not for WP to judge. It is in a major publication (Newsweek), and so we report it. It also happens to agree with the published numbers in an NIH journal, quoting an expert in the field. It also agrees with estimates produced from published lists like A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Also, the 99.84% figure is for the 480,000 scientists in the relevant sciences of biology and earth sciences. As noted in the article, if scientists as a whole are polled, the figure is closer to 95%. Mathematicians and engineers are not usually classified as scientists.--Filll 13:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "99.9%" is often used colloqially to mean "all but a tiny minority", and there's no indication whether Dr. Brian Alters intended to convey actual statistics he had researched or to use the number colloquially as a rough estimate. I also had a librarian check the 1987 Newsweek article, and it does not cite any reference for the figure of 700 creation scientists. The numbers are also twenty years old, and even if they were accurate back then, they may not precisely reflect the current scientific climate. Furthermore, it does not necessarily follow that the other 479,300 scientists automatically favour evolution over creation; surely some small number will be undecided, hold the two in equal stead, support an unpopular third option, or otherwise fall into some category except "evolutionist". The only verifiable, reliable figures are the Gallup polls, which suggest a 5% rate of creationists among scientists. --Jonathan Drain 15:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to you or me to speculate what Brian Alters meant. It is verifiable, and that is all we need. Alters is of course a well known expert witness and scholar in this area. And all we need is to quote him as an authority in a published reliable source, which we do. I also had a librarian check the 1987 Newsweek article, and also copied the 1987 article myself. The 700 figure is indeed not referenced, and I was considering contacting the authors, but we are not supposed to do OR here on WP, and I was cautioned against doing it by senior editors here on WP, so I did not. OR is not includable on WP. Even if I had interviewed the authors of the Newsweek article and learned something interesting, I probably could not include it here on WP and expect it to be retained. However, information only has to be verifiable according to WP:V which it is, and all we need to put it here. Yes the article is 20 years old, but as near as we can tell, this figure of 99.84% is an underestimate, and acceptance of evolution among scientists in biology has been increasing with time, not decreasing as some extremists and malcontents claim, and therefore the current figure is probably more than 99.984%, using the petition from A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism as data. If I correct this figure for the number of foreigners on the Dissent list (using the front page of the Dissent petition as a sample, which might be biased of course), the corrected figure is 99.992%. This is in the US, and the level of acceptance of evolution among foreigners in the western industrialized countries (not scientifically backwards places like Muslim countries where religion has a huge influence) is generally higher than it is in the USA. So I would expect that the worldwide figure of biologists is actually much greater than it is in the US. Also, as scientific and educational achievement increases, fewer and fewer people have a problem with evolution. That is, the figures for support of evolution among National Academy of Science members is greater than it is for regular scientists (see [http://beyondbelief2006.org/ for information). The Gallup poll has no error bars on it, and no more information associated with it for us to judge its accuracy than any of the other claimed figures. It might include engineers or mathematicians or sociologists or optometrists or philosophers of science or any number of others who choose to call themselves "scientists". None of these are from RELEVANT FIELDS, and that is what the article notes.--Filll 16:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<undent> To reduce the sample bias, I also looked at the last Dissent page. The "scientists" listed there are 25% foreign. On the front page they are 50% foreign. So I would conjecture that the members of the list are 25%-50% foreign, increasing substantially the number of people who signed the list. If I want an estimate for the US alone, I have to correct for this. Also, I am certain that the number of biologists in the US has increased in the last 8 years. Using a 3.37% per year growth rate, which is probably an understimate (but same as in years 1987 to 2001), there are 30.4% more biologists in the US today than there were in 1999. If I estimate that the Dissent list has (25%+50%)/2=37.5% foreigners on it, and that there are 30.4% more biologists in the US today:

• The present 700 Dissenters includes about 700/4=175 biologists, of which about 109 are expected to be American.
• The number of biologists presently in the US is roughly (955,000)x1.304=1, 245,320
• Therefore, the number of biologists in the US who have not stated their Dissent to evolution is about 99.9912%
• However, even this is an underestimate because some of the people on the Dissent list are deceased, or not working as biologists any longer, or were tricked into signing the list by its misleading wording and have been unable to have their names removed from the list. So in fact, I would expect the actual figure to be greater than 99.991% in the US, and even greater in foreign Western industrialized countries.--Filll 16:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I assume that there are 5 independent lists of "Dissenters", with no overlap, all as big as the largest list from, the Discovery Institute, from the 5 organizations that I know that maintain lists of scientists that support creationism:

• Discovery Institute
• Institute for Creation Research
• Answers in Genesis
• Creation Ministries International
• Christian Answers

this comes to no more than 109*5=545 American biologists AT MOST who are creationists and do not support evolution. This gives a level of support for evolution of about 99.96% among American biologists. Any reasonable way I look at these numbers, I see no way to make it come out the way you would like. Sorry.--Filll 16:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it's not our place to speculate on what Alters meant. The article should reflect what he did mean, not what he can be mistakenly interpreted to have meant. Still, how can the Newsweek be considered credible or relevant with regard its statistics if it cites no sources and is twenty years out of date? Do you accept as fact the unsourced statistic of 700 creation scientists in 1987, or suppose that this figure is relevant today? Or are you in favour of blindly repeating an ancient statistic on the grounds that Wikipedia policy permits it? Furthermore, do you suppose that the lists maintained by the Discovery Institute et al miraculously contain the names of every single scientist, or at least biologist, who rejects the theory evolution? --Jonathan Drain 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are having trouble understanding this:

1. The rules on WP state that we report what Alters said. Period. And that is what was done.
2. Newsweek is a credible source. And the information is verifiable. That is all we need to do, is to report what it said, not second guess it. And that is what was done. The reader is free to interpret the information as they see fit.
3. The figure of 99.84% is a historical figure. A more accurate figure TODAY is probably closer to 99.991% (which is still an underestimate-see above), for the USA (and probably larger figures overseas in western industrialized countries).
4. The figure of 99.84% is verifiable, and therefore is eligible for inclusion in WP. Which it is. Period.
5. The article updates this figure with more current figures as well. The article includes historical information as well as current information.
6. It is not up to WP to determine if the DI or the other creationist organizations have done a good job in listing scientists who believe in creationism or not. WP just reports what they say, and what the critics say about their lists.
7. Show me a verifiable publication in a peer-reviewed journal or even a Time magazine or Newsweek or New York Times article with a survey of all 1.3 million US professional biologists about creationism, including error bars, efforts to reduce survey errors, etc, and then we will talk. Until then...--Filll 18:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, with regard to point #7, I do not offer you the choice to pick the grounds upon which I argue your work. The idea that anyone should expend the vast resources necessary to contact every single biologist in the United States simply to determine whether the proportion of evolutionists is ninety-nine percent or 'merely' ninety-eight is ludicrous. --Jonathan Drain 21:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth? If you have nothing constructive to offer, then there is not much more to say. We are involved in the enterprise of writing an encyclopedia, not in debating. This is not a debate club. You are the one complaining. I have found what I could find in the literature, and I presented the information I found. If you want to contribute to the encyclopedia, do your part and spend a few hours/days/weeks/months looking for other sources, if you feel the ones I have are inadequate. If you do not want to do so, and do not want to contribute to the encyclopedia, then this is not the place for you. Sorry.--Filll 21:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indenting) Very well, here are points you may find to be more solid:

• This article disagrees with your theory that support for evolution over creation has grown since the 1987 figures. Quote: "Bishop notes that these figures have remained remarkably stable over time. These questions were first asked about 15 years ago, and the percentages in each category are almost identical."
• I note that you argue against the veracity of the poll citing fully 5% of scientists as Creationists: "The Gallup poll has no error bars on it, and no more information associated with it for us to judge its accuracy than any of the other claimed figures", but are willing to accept an uncited figure as equal to a scientifically performed poll, simply because it's in print?
• I fear that the figure of 99.84% may constitute original research, on the grounds that it is deriving new information based on incomplete original source facts.
• Nobody will ever interview every scientist, and at best a representative sample can be taken and a verifiable poll taken. The 'accuracy' of this poll may be in doubt if the methods are not known, but certainly the results will more reliably reflect reality than guesswork and estimation. The only poll I am aware of which has ever specifically collected data on scientists is the one that covers all fields of science and gives creationists at 5%. To the best of my knowledge, no such poll has ever been conducted among biologists.

At any rate, you seem steadfast in guarding the place of these figures in Wikipedia; I have sent an e-mail to the fellow who gives us the 99.9% figure to ask if he meant it formally or informally and could provide statistics, which may clear up some confusion. As for the figure of 99.84%, I seem unable to argue as long as Wikipedia's policy is to accept as canon anything that's been in print. --Jonathan Drain 22:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The religious tolerance website does not discuss any trend in the level of expressed belief by biologists between 1987 and 2007, but might have some relevance for trends in level of expressed belief by scientists of all flavors (vaguely defined, and if you can find the original study experimental design I would be glad to look at it; I have looked a little but have not found it) between 1982 and 1997. However, the main point of the work of Bishop is Just as when these questions were first asked 15 years ago, creationists continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal (among other things. It does not help to compare apples to oranges, we have to compare apples to apples, and oranges to oranges.
• I have nothing against the Gallup poll with a figure of 5%. That is why I cited it. I just feel I would like to know more about it and wonder how reliable it is, but not enough for me to not include it. Nonscientists like philosophers and engineers are more likely to taken in by scientific charlatans like creationists, clearly. These figures are all in print, more or less. However, I have no verification that the Gallup poll was real, aside from that religious tolerance website. It is not really verifiable, frankly.
• Show me where dividing two numbers for the purposes of presentation and comparison constitutes OR in the WP procedures and rules. I would be very interested.
• Never say never about what polls will or will not be done and their accuracy. If this interests you so much, get a PhD in sampling statistics and survey methods and get back to me. This is pure speculation and I have no time for this foolish debate. You are welcome to find another website to debate if you wish.
• If Professor Brian Alters publishes a retraction or a clarification someplace, then I will be pleased to reference that publication and add it to the citations we already have. However, I do not put much stock in an putative email reply to a query from a Dungeons and Dragons enthusiast to a McGill faculty member. Just not verifiable, you know? Of course you know, since you have been here a long time, right?

--Filll 23:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, precisely what is your point? That the 99.84% is inaccurate? Too old? There's data that supersedes the 1987 data? There just aren't that many biologists, chemists, physicists or other natural scientists (including geologists, paleontologists, etc) that ascribe to a Creationist belief set. Whether the number is 99.84%, 99.85% or 99.97% is kind of irrelevant. And 20 year old data isn't that bad, because in the last 20 years, there hasn't been any publication in a peer-reviewed journal that indicates that Evolution is not supported. In fact, I dare say more research confirms many aspects of Evolution. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangemarlin: I don't imagine for a second that the number of creationists in science is at all high, especially so in fields like biology. Evolution is by far the leading scientific theory, and while any scientist must accept that theories can later be disproven, I am of the popular opinion that the hypothesis of Intelligent Design is merely Biblical Creationism with the names filed off. Nonetheless, I'm wondering if the figure 99.84%—which I'm sure is within a few percent of the true figure at worst—can be considered precise. Strictly, the article quoted does not give this figure directly; it is derived by a Wikipedia editor. In other words—and perhaps it's nitpicking here, because the true figure is no doubt in the general vicinity of the one quoted—my complaint is that we have no idea where the article gets its figure of 700 creationists, and that the article does not state that the entire remainder of scientists must support the theory of evolution; logically, there must at very least be some small percentage of "undecided". --Jonathan Drain 09:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Filll: Very well. I shall return when I have my doctorate in sampling statistics and survey methods. I do not consider myself sufficiently qualified to argue statistics without at least that level of expertise in that field. Until then, perhaps I should stick to editing articles on Dungeons & Dragons? --Jonathan Drain 10:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find another reliable, verifiable reference, bring it. Otherwise, what can be done here? All that we can do is report what is in the literature, right or wrong, good or bad. Some claim that there are a substantial number of scientists that subscribe to creationism, and I have references to that effect. Some claim there are not a substantial number of scientists that subscribe to creationism, and I have references to that effect. I cannot do much more without more references.--Filll 10:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. You guys are pretty smart. Why haven't you been able to figure out where Newsweek got these numbers? The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but a Wikipedia editor (engaging in

]

Simple arithmetics isn't against

WP:SYN, it's just representing a fraction in percents. It's also verifiable by anyone with a calculator. You might as well claim that converting between measurement units is OR. Reinis^talk 19:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Reinis, you're not responding to the actual edit at all, but taking issue with one small bracketed comment on the Talk page. The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but a Wikipedia editor then made the illogical claim that every other scientist must support evolution; he "did the math," and came up with "99.84%". It doesn't matter that he used a calculator to arrive at a number that has no bearing on reality; under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him. How about we let stand my original note that it's disputed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profg (talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from the source says that it's 700 out of 480,000 relevant scientists, which is a fraction, and can also be expressed as percentage. If there is a problem here, it's that we only have the quote, which comes from (I believe) the OCRT article on origin beliefs. I basically agree with Jonathan Drain. However, citing Conservapedia is not acceptable, except in some limited cases when the subject is Conservapedia itself, so I was completely justified in reverting your edit. Reinis^talk 20:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get it. We don't have anyone that can actually verify that there really WAS this quote from Newsweek in 1987 that's being cited? I can tell you precisely where the "700" number comes from -- but it's NOT from 1987, it's from no earlier than 2001! Check out "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", where it reads: "Since Discovery Institute launched this list [of scientists questioning Darwin's theory of evolution] in 2001 over 700 scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names." So how is it possible that this "1987" article miraculously predicted the "700" number?

Look, this is silly. Yes, we're all agreed that the vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory; but why rely on unsubstantiated (and, it is beginning to appear, false) citations to back that up? Don't the other cites (Gallup, etc.) support it enough? Let's delete this ridiculous "99.84%" quote once and for all, and act like we're editing an actual encyclopedia here. --profg 21:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>If you want to argue this point, you have to argue it with me, since I am the main person involved here. Have you read the Newsweek article? I have. I have a copy of it. You can get a copy at your neighborhood library probably. You might be able to buy a copy from Newsweek if you want. I strongly suggest you get yourself a copy and read it carefully.

I and a creationist editor together worked on this part of this article, and the exact wording of what we would state about the Newsweek article, and agreed that what we quote in this article is exactly what the text in Newsweek said, independently (he subsequently got himself blocked, unfortunately, but you can see his edits in the history here and at intelligent design). And yes, Newsweek really did report the "700" figure in an article they published in 1987. This figure has NOTHING to do with the subsequent petition called "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" or the Answers in Genesis list or any other of the roughly 10 or so petitions and lists that have been compiled since the mid-1960s, by both sides in this political dispute.

Did you not read the article itself? I think this article makes this point quite clearly. However, if it does not, never fear, since this entire article will be rewritten with the inclusion of several tables to make the petitions, the lists, the polls and the numerous declarations clear.

Newsweek reported the figure of 700. This is completely in line with the recent NIH article. This is also confirmed by other polls. Also, as shown by the section at the end of this article, similar figures still hold true, even if we add together ALL the "Darwin Dissenters" from all known lists and petitions from all creationist and intelligent design organizations (assuming no overlap between lists). There is NO and I mean NO, absolutely NO reason to doubt the Newsweek figure, given that other reliable sources have given similar figures, and back of the envelope arithmetic gives similar results, or even larger figures than 99.84%. So I have no idea what you are complaining about, except for the fact that this reliable, verifiable source quotes a figure that you find objectionable for some reason. Sorry.--Filll 21:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I note that this editor has not read the material I posted above answering Drain. Read it a few times if you are having trouble. Read it carefully. I think it answers all your questions and objections. There really is nothing here for you to complain about, frankly.--Filll 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm "complaining" about (in reality, what I'm simply trying to include an actual NPOV encyclopedic edit about) is simple: the original "reverse math" (do you really want to claim authorship?) is ridiculous. 700 scientists are somehow (we're never told exactly how) counted as rejecting evolution, but a Wikipedia editor (you?) then makes the illogical claim that, ipso facto, every other scientist must support evolution; said editor "did the math," and came up with "99.84%". Simply put, this is a number that has no bearing on reality; under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him. Surely you wouldn't agree to posting that "99.99967% of Americans support George W. Bush" based on this "evidence," would you? Seriously, Filll, you long ago let your POV get the best of you on this matter. --profg 21:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember

. You seem to be a bit confused about what the Newsweek article says and how the 99.84% figure was achieved. I would respectfully ask you to get a copy from your library if you do not believe the quote given, or believe it was misquoted, or there is a typographic error involved, or if you do not understand it and the context in which it was presented by Newsweek.

The creationist co-editor who helped with this is no longer with us, unfortunately or you could query him as well. It was the two of us that did this part of the article (is that a problem to admit that?). We divided the two numbers to come up with "99.84%" as a different way to present the "700 out of 480,000" statistic from the Newsweek article. As I understand, this is not a problem in WP and does not constitute

]

No, I'm not confused about anything, "Filll", but thanks for thinking of me, especially in good faith. I can read "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science" just fine, and division was that one part of math I was actually able to comprehend, believe it or not. But whoever the "creationist co-editor" was -- golly, what a shame we can't ask him directly -- and whatever the Newsweek article actually said -- golly, what a shame we don't have a readily-accessible copy to read right here online -- you and he really missed the boat on this one, and for some reason, you really aren't getting what I'm saying here. So I'll say it again: 700 scientists are "counted" as rejecting evolution, and the illogical claim is then made that, ipso facto, every other scientist must support evolution; you divided 700/480k and came up with "99.84%" (by the way, the actual result would be 99.99854% -- see, I can do math!). But again, I have to repeat for your benefit, this is a number that has no bearing on reality; under the reasoning that you and "Creationist Co-Editor Mr. X" used, if 1000 people signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him. Surely you wouldn't agree to posting that "99.99967% of Americans support George W. Bush" based on this "evidence," would you?

And no, this is not

WP:NPA. Remember, "when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack." Your insistence on keeping this baseless and self-evidently POV content with absolutely no qualms at all is simply your presuppositional POV bias coming through. Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing you of some sort of evil intent or anything; I'm sure you mean to apply that POV bias in good faith. It just makes no sense, is all, and it ought to be changed if Wikipedia is going to continue to claim to be "encyclopedic". --profg 02:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

As I have said several times, you are free to verify the quote yourself. There is no requirement for all references and citations to be online. Also, you did find a typo; it is really 99.854166667%. I know how it happened, but now it is fixed. You can easily locate the creationist co-editor if you want. Look in the history and track him down. According to the source, there were 700 scientists who subscribe to creation science out of 480,000 earth scientists and biologists in the US. And I guess you didn't read what I wrote several times. Let me make it more clear for you. THE 700 MENTIONED IN NEWSWEEK DID NOT SIGN A PETITION. Got it? There was no petition at that time with 700 signatures. This was a different kind of estimate. Read above CAREFULLY and try to absorb what I wrote.

So suppose 1000 people total (and no others) opposed the president out of 300 million. And therefore 300 million - 1000 support the president, or 299999000 support him, or 99.9996667%.

If the 1000 are only a few of the group of 100,000 that secretly oppose the president, then this estimate is incorrect. Similarly, if the 700 are only a few of the 200,000 that secretly support creation science, then the figure of 99.85% is a bad estimate. However, that is not what Newsweek says. And that is not what the NIH publication says. And that is not what the lists compiled by the five major creationist organizations that suggest, even if there was no overlap among their lists. And if you can find some other

]

Well, let's see: you also cite the Gallup poll with a figure of 5%, above. That seems pretty far off from 0.15% to me. But even with the excuse I'm sure you have for that (which scientists we're talking about, etc.), here's the problem: it's obvious that you won't consider any non-evolution-supporting source to be

WP:RS

, so it's useless to try. I get it. In fact, I find it pretty funny that the only change you're willing to agree to is to make that "99.84%" figure higher than it was (funny also that it took me to find that, since as Reinis states, it's "verifiable by anyone with a calculator").

So, Filll, if "the 700 mentioned in Newsweek did not sign a petition;" if there "was no petition at that time with 700 signatures;" if this "was a different kind of estimate;" then WHAT EXACTLY KIND OF ESTIMATE WAS IT??? Read above CAREFULLY and try to absorb what I wrote. You say you have a copy of the article; super, then scan it so we can read the PDF. If that's not WP allowable, then give us ALL of the relevant quotes that say exactly what "kind of estimate" this was, so we can see if Newsweek used a reliable source or just quoted someone's biased POV (or worse, made it up, Dan Rather-style).

I'm sure you're happy to do this, in good faith. We're all just trying to make a better Wikipedia here. --profg 14:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to understand the 5% Gallup figure, which I have explained numerous times in the text and in the discussion above, I would ask you to read. You obviously are not reading carefully enough or absorbing something. I think the 5% figure is also valid, but the references are not as good as I would like; however, they are the best of their kind we have at the moment. When I find better and more references, they will be included as well.

I would ask you again to mind your P's and Q's, and avoid

. Thanks.

I will not scan the article; you are perfectly capable of going to the library. Are you claiming you are unable? I am under NO OBLIGATION to scan this for you. I directly quoted it. Several people have verified that the quote is correct, myself included. You are free to do it as well if you choose. If you do not choose to do so, then so be it.

I do not have deep knowledge of the Newsweek statistic, just as I do not have deep knowledge of the 5% Gallup figure. I would like to know more about both, but there is a limit to how much effort I will expend on researching this information and second-guessing these

sources, although the 5% figure is in a less reliable source, unfortunately. As I have asked numerous times here and above, get me another source. Get me more sources.

None of the information in any of these and other sources appears to be contradictory. The 0.15% and 5% figures are only as large as they are in the US; other western industrialized countries probably would have much lower statistics. The only countries in which these figures would be larger would be Islamic countries and other third world countries, from all that we know.--Filll 14:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, for example, can't get any back issues of Newsweek because of my geographical location. I'm not trying to put the burden of having to scan anything on you, though; it's good enough that its verified by other editors. Reinis^talk 15:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am sure Newsweek might sell you a copy online then. Or you can order a copy. --Filll 18:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, I would ask you also to mind your P's and Q's, and avoid

WP:NPA

. Thanks.

Yes, you directly quoted the article. You say you have a copy, so all I'm asking for -- in order for this to be a good encyclopedic reference -- is that you read the article more carefully, so that you can tell us (and include in the WP article) what exactly kind of estimate this was, since you stated that it "was a different kind of estimate". I don't know what that means, and I don't think anyone else here knows what that means. I'm not claiming you have "deep knowledge" of the article -- but you claim to have it, and you quoted it, so you are under obligation to clarify it.

Look, this may seem like it's nit-picking, but if you do a Google search on "support for evolution", this article comes up first, and if you search further, you see that this Newsweek quote, along with its claim of "99.84%", is referenced back to this article THOUSANDS of times, and is referenced nowhere else; it seems to me that you (and I and we) DO HAVE AN OBLIGATION to clarify this attempt at an encylopedic citation in an encyclopedic article. So let's do the right thing, shall we? --profg 15:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you revealing the motive of your pov campaign. Your objections here are baseless and have already been sufficiently addressed. Furthermore your edits here and elsewhere are often demonstrably not neutral. I suggest you slow down and stop ranting against others here and at other creationism related articles. FeloniousMonk 15:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect that this figure is found nowhere else on the internet, and that all the sources originate with this article. You might want to improve your internet skills so you do not fallaciously make this claim again. I am also under no obligation to do anything more for you than I have done already, which is already too much. You have the direct relevant quote. Others have checked it. You have the source information. I decline to bother to hold your hand through this exercise since you seem to be engaged in a

]

As humans, we all have

]

"Creation-evolution controversy"

]

SA, it has been made clear. Go away with your contentious counter-productive edits and your sock puppets, please.--Filll 04:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is SA and what is your thing with sock puppets? I have edited the article to use neutral language to clarify the term, I hope it will be suitable to both of us. Wikipediatoperfection 04:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a political term, creation-evolution controversy is still creationist. It is meant to invoke the

]

I'd have to agree with Wikipediatoperfection on this point. And it seems Filll is being most uncivil. Please cease the accusations and discuss the content. Further incivility will not be tolerated. Vsmith 01:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness. Please, this is uncalled for. What is your problem with the phrase "creation-evolution controversy"? Certainly that page, many editors seem to have no problem with it. It is not a scientific controversy, but a social controversy. Do you have a problem with acknowledging a social controversy, and using the standard terminology that is common in public discourse?--Filll 01:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just what is uncalled for? I simply stated that I happen to agree with a statement. The term has gained widespread use in the press, but seems to originally have been a ploy pushed by the creationists to push their religion. Note, I am not putting my personal feelings in an article - just agreeing with another editor on a talk page. As well as cautioning against incivility and a personal attack. Vsmith 02:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While certainly a part of the wedge strategy, the term has currency in political, and popular discourse, Wikipediatoperfection's edits were attempting to deny this, by suggesting that the term is used only by creationists. ornis (t) 02:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is clearly wrong. Indeed, I think I've heard Ken Miller use the term (although don't quote me on that, since I could be wrong). Use of the term is about as npov as we are going to be able to get and any other term would probably be awkward and have additional problems. JoshuaZ 02:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>Perhaps, all appearance to the contrary, this is not what it seems. Ok, for the sake of argument, I will assume that at the moment. Please be good enough therefore to produce a verifiable reliable source, preferably as part of a peer-reviewed academic study demonstrating that creationists have invented the term "creation-evolution controversy" as a means to deceive the public.--Filll 02:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been kicked back and forth on the

]

I'm in agreement with you that it is not a scientific dispute, since one side relies on science and the other on magic. But it is NOT a political dispute, and even it was, it's only so in the US. It's essentially a religious and philosophical debate. That is, one side believes in supernatural rantings, and one side accepts scientific methodologies to understand the natural world. Being an American, I do vote against anyone with a religious agenda (and I'll even ask them about it in private or public meetings), but I don't vote for fundamentalists (of any stripe), and Creationism is just a byproduct of anti-education, pro-Christian, right wingers. Rarely do any politics center on Creationism itself, but on a whole range of Christian fundamentalist propaganda. But if everyone wants to use politics as the center of the argument, go for it, I just think it's wrong. It's a religious attack on freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and whatever else that defines us vs. say Yemen. Of course, that leads to my theory that fundamentalists of any stripe (Christian, Moslem, Nazi, Communists) act in exactly the same way, but I really digress. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In many ways I agree with you. My main thing is that in this article it be made clear from the get go that it is not a scientific debate. If you have a better way to make this clear I'm all ears. If you want to change the intro on

creation-evolution controversy page by all means hit the talk page. Wikipediatoperfection 18:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

New Table

I have prepared a new table at User talk:Filll/supportsummary2 which could be used to

1. augment this article
2. replace some of this article
3. create a new article, possibly with new material added

What should I do?--Filll 16:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cohn/Coyne

I corrected reference 92: It's Jerry Coyne, not Cohn. Looked it up on nature.com. this guy: http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ceb/faculty/coyne.html , whom most people might believe to be the author does not post it in his list of publications. strange... however, the cited passage and citing it as "... Nature 442,983-984" make it look kind of to be taken seriously and general, where actually it is just a response to an overly evolution-enthusiasic book by somebody with the name of an evolution biologist.

Gospel citation at the end

I edited this in probably not the best way, maybe somebody else could correct that. But when reading it i thought: "What?" This person believes scientists should choose their theory based on how many people believe in it? And at the same time saying, they should choose the one less people believe in because: "..almost always the majority is wrong.." If you take all possible statements you can think of, i guess there might be a few persons to believe in pink cows, or mass suicide. The majority is right in most cases. On the other hand: it doesn't really matter if the majority believed in the theory of relativity (i guess most people don't believe there is a connection between gravity, speed and time if you put it in everyday words), you can't build satellite tv, GPS or nuclear bombs without it. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.18.6 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 3 August 2007

The reason that stuff is there is to keep the article from being deleted. Articles have to be

WP:NPOV and this one had a very rough time.--Filll 11:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge "Examining the level of public support" section

I suggest moving the first half of this section, including the first table, into the

]

If you examine the article, you will see that there are strong arguments made on all sides. Some of the facts cited favor evolution. Some of the facts favor creationism. These are not OR. They are balancing the two sides in an effort to be NPOV, as required by WP rules. The article must include both kinds of statements. And it does. So one finds material that claims evolution is important for industry. And material that claims the opposite. And material that claims almost no scientists believe in creationism. And material that demonstrates that this is not true. And material that claims most churches agree with evolution. And material that makes the opposite claim. And material that claims the public favors creationism. And material that makes the opposite claim. It is up to the reader to sort through this and come to their own conclusions. Those firmly committed to an evolution viewpoint will probably retain it after reading this. Those firmly committed to a creationist viewpoint will probably retain that after reading this. And that is the goal that is sought here. One cannot present material from one side only without presenting the balancing material. Of course, the article does not draw any conclusions from this contradictory material and viewpoints. That is up to the reader.--Filll 20:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is all somewhat moot anyway, since the plan is to rewrite this entire article significantly, discarding a large fraction of the present material and organizing it completely differently. The new rewritten article will replace this article. So any changes are basically a waste of effort at this time, since the entire article will be replaced fairly soon.--Filll 20:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I don't have a problem with most of the article, just the first half of this section, where it discussess reincarnation, UFOs, etc., as if levels of belief in these things necessarily has anything to do with belief in evolution. If you look at the references cited in this section, you'll see the original sources had nothing to do with evolution, so making this connection is OR. Djcastel 20:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If conclusions were drawn, that would be OR. The article as a whole has to be read as NPOV. And therefore, some individual pieces will not be NPOV. But as a whole, it has to be NPOV. To cut out material from one side or the other will unbalance it. Of course, this section can be bolstered with more references. And that is a good idea. But cutting it out will not help, and in fact will hurt the NPOV status of the article.--Filll 20:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're conflating original research with POV. I'm not challenging the POV. It's original research because it is taking material completely unrelated to the question of the level of support of evolution and sticking it into an article about the level of support for evolution. The mere act of including this material in this article implies a declaration of relevance not at all established by the cited sources.

To be plain, what difference does it make how many Americans believe in UFOs, witches, etc.? Why does this belong in an article on the level of support for evolution? Are you saying that there is some correlation between such beliefs and one's opinion on evolution? If so, that's original research, since no such correlation can be extracted from the polls (in fact Farha and Steward concluded that belief in the supernatural was positively correlated to education level). If you are not claiming any correlation, why include this material at all? Djcastel 02:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer is obvious. Since creationism is pseudoscience, this helps gauge what a given level of belief means, by comparing it to belief by the public in a range of other pseudosciences. So one can understand what a level of X in evolution or creationism means. Otherwise, there is no basis to understand what the statistics mean. Just as in the other sections, especially after they are rewritten. What does it mean to say 100 "scientists" signed a pro-creationist petition or a pro-evolution petition? What if some are engineers, or doctors, or astronomers etc? One has to know what a scientist means to know the value of their signature. So what does it mean to say the level of support by a poll among scientists is 99.84%, or 99.9% or 95% ? How does one understand this? What does it mean to say 800 scientists signed the Dissent from Darwinism petition? What does it mean if there is a list of 200 scientists who were creationists, but 198 of them lived before Darwin? These are all facts that are needed to interpret the data. And the same is true here. Without the ancillary information, you will end up with a completely POV article, and an article that is not worth a hill of beans. You might as well delete the article. And it has been challenged for deletion twice already, and survived comfortably both times, by many many people who examined it, including the section you are objecting to, and who found no problem with it. Including people who have many more edits than you. But do not get too worked up about it. The section will be gone or drastically altered when the article is rewritten.--Filll 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should contextualize any statistics presented, such as by specifying what types of scientists were polled, etc. However, I'm not convinced that introducing statistics about astrology, witches, etc. accomplishes that aim, as it is not at all clear how these things should be correlated to a belief in creationism, notwithstanding your lumping them into the broad category "pseudoscience." My point is not so much that your argument is invalid, but that it is not our job to make any arguments. You need to find a source that argues that these statistics have relevance to the question of evolution, otherwise it's OR by

WP:SYN

, since you are using sources to construct an argument unintended by the sources themselves.

As you say, it's not much use debating if the article is going to be rewritten, but I think that to avoid these kinds of problems on the rewrite, we should simply describe the statistics drily and thoroughly, and avoid inserting any subtle back-and-forth arguments. If we describe each data set as precisely as possible, it should not be necessary to introduce potential non sequiturs such as the table that I find irrelevant. The facts should speak for themselves. Djcastel 13:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The facts do speak for themselves. You might not like what the facts say, but they do. And it is common for creationists to not want to put the facts in context. So frankly, your arguments do not carry much weight here.

By your argument, the only way to write an article on wikipedia is to summarize one already published elsewhere on the same topic. This is not reasonable and is definitely not what is intended by WP. And the subtle back and forth arguments ARE what WP is about. It is also criticized for this in the outside media, but that is the result of NPOV. These subtle back and forth arguments were introduced to KEEP THE ARTICLE FROM BEING DELETED, since POV warriors on both sides wanted to delete it. Given that this is the result of consensus of dozens of people, you with your couple of hundred edits really has nothing relevant to say on the matter.--Filll 13:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By your argument, the only way to write an article on wikipedia is to summarize one already published elsewhere on the same topic.

This does not follow at all. You can compile various secondary sources, but not in a way that makes an argument not found in any source. I accept that there is room for disagreement on whether the table of various supernatural beliefs is relevant. I have no objection to the facts contained in the table itself, which is why I recommended it be moved to the Scientific literacy article, which badly needs improvement.

I understand that a common interpretation of NPOV, even among experienced editors, is to do a lot of back and forth arguing. While it does achieve some level of balance, it makes for horrible, choppy writing. It would be better if both sides refrained from overtly stating their views, and kept to a dry, descriptive account of facts, rather than trying to tell the reader what the facts mean. I accept that there are differing views on the implementation of NPOV, and I've also been around here long enough to know better than to make appeals to the supposed authority of people with high edit counts. Djcastel 14:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common complaint about WP, caused by its NPOV policy, and has been noted repeatedly, such as in[4]. And if it produces choppy writing, that is just too bad. You are free to go to another wiki which does not have the NPOV policy and you will find more consistent articles with a single POV. The thing you are claiming is that somehow your opinion and wishes are more important than the consensus opinion. But that is not how things are done on Wikipedia. Sorry. You have many other options of other places go to if you do not like it. For example, you might consider:

• CreationWiki
• Research ID Wiki
• Conservapedia
• Iron Chariots

--Filll 15:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: I made a simple edit with brand new poll results from ChristiaNet; when removed by

]

Note: I had already notified FM that I had reverted his undo, because the fact is that ChristiaNet is the world's largest Christian portal with twelve million monthly page loads; there were 500 Christians surveyed; and its press release is posted on some of the most notable news sites there are, including Yahoo!News, LexisNexis, UPI, GoogleNews, MSNBC, and others. This is both

]

Well, here are some points:

1. ChristiaNet is not a
   reliable source
   . In fact, press releases are good for primary information, and not secondary information. A press release by a website, about a poll they nebulously ran is not reliable information for anything save the fact that they ran a poll.
2. More importantly, since ChristiaNet is a website, and not a reputable pollster, we have no idea how their poll was conducted. This, in terms of polling data, makes it totally useless — especially if it was an internet poll.
3. Thus, it basically comes down to the fact that this is a non-reputable poll, with dubious scientific (or any) merit, and should not be included.

All we can verify with this press release is that a poll with no discernable statistical, or scientific merit was conducted, and what the results were. Without some

reliable sources attesting to the methodological quality and accuracy of the poll, it's useless as encyclopedic content. --Haemo 20:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

"Twenty-seven percent of pollers who took the survey claimed to know the difference. 'Micro evolution is variations within the kind while macro evolution is changes from one kind to another,' was one's knowledgeable response." Another survey found that 98% of ChristiaNet readers had no idea where to put apostrophes. "President of ChristiaNet, Bill Cooper, stated, 'In order for Christian's to combat the theory of evolution taught in our schools, they must understand the different meanings.' Being able to recognize the difference will allow Christians to have a more intelligent conversation with those that support the theory." His hopes were conclusively dashed as the results clearly showed that 100% of those surveyed did not believe in something, without having a clue about what it was that they didn't believe in. ... dave souza, talk 20:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) It is worse than that; 500 is statistically insignificant, even if the methods and demographics are perfect, the pool is simply too small to be worth anything outside the site itself. RS isn't going to change that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be pedantic, but 500 is a statistically valid survey size. Less-important surveys are routinely run with same sizes ranging from 400-600. For instance, the University of Wisconsin Survey Center runs polls of around 500 people to track local issues. --Haemo 22:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local issues indeed, but the pool here seems to be "site visitors of CristiaNet who have spare time to take a survey" with no other demographics applied. As this is the Level of support for evolution article, not teh CristiaNet article, it is statistically insignificant since the base demographics are not a) World population or b) World Christian population, or anything remotely useable. If someone wants to take that survey to the CristiaNet article for some sort of section on Scientific ignorance of CristiaNet visitors, I... well, actually if I were editing that article I'd probably object, because it is questionable and would need stronger sourcing than that one release. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local meaning "Wisconsin". Statistical significance of a survey is actually not closely related to the number of users, beyond a certain point. So, for instance, a survey of 500 people is relatively just as good for the entire United States, as it is for Wisconsin. However, the other points you bring up are largely unrelated to this issue, and are dead on -- internet surveys, like the one this (presumably) is are notoriously unreliable, since they're self-selecting, and very biased. Heck, if you went by internet surveys Ron Paul would be the next Republican primary candidate -- when, in reality, he's polling at or near 3%. Anyways, the "number of people" discussion is pretty pointless, since the survey would is invalid, statistically speaking, for other (better) reasons. --Haemo 22:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked that link earlier. In addition to the reasons already stated, it appears that the poll was conducted by people who did not themselves know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. The "knowledgeable response" is incorrect, and the links on that page clearly indicate that the authors don't have a clue about the subject. They are not qualified to determine who does or does not understand. --Robert Stevens 23:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the people who deleted this poll from the article, and as somebody with some background in statistics I would like to weigh in. As I said in my Edit Summary, this poll is problematical on a number of levels. The root cause however is the fact that it was run by a portal and not a polling company, university researcher or similar expert. Running a poll meaningfully has a long list of 'do's and 'don't's, the subject of which is a major subject, called Sampling Theory, in the field of Statistics. As far as I can tell, this portal pretty much ignored it all. Specific problems:

• Small sample size. The smaller the sample size, the larger the margin of error, and 500 is a very small sample. This would not mean that the results are meaningless, just that there would be a fairly large margin of error, even in an otherwise well-conducted poll. A well-chosen sample of 500 can however be better than a poorly chosen sample of 5,000 or even 50,000. However, as I will explain below, this sample wasn't well-chosen.
• Self-selection
  bias:
  • the portal appears to be aimed at fundamentalist/evangelical Christians rather than Christians generally, so the sample will have a higher proportion of these than the general population;
  • the portal would get a larger number of people who have at least a minimal level of computer/internet usage; but may under-represent people with sufficient sophistication in search-engine usage to search for what they are after directly;
  • it self-selects those who habitually fill in online polls (I will not even attempt to work out what straits that might self-select for).
• The question of whether there is a fundamental difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution, and what that differences are (beyond the trivial definitional difference) is a complex question, beyond the scope of any simple poll.

]

There's another issue too - the poll results lack a margin of error. Without a margin of error, the results are uninterpretable. A poll is a sample - and even a biased sample tells something about the population sampled. While the problems that Hrafn pointed out make the population sampled difficult to identify, the lack of a margin of error makes it impossible to interpret the results, even if we were able to identify the population sampled. So not only is the poll non-notable, it's also useless. Guettarda 19:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:Evolution Tim Vickers 01:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But where does the Theory of Evolution drive research in medicine? Can you give me an example. I have heard many scientists say that it does not. Imbrella 14:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is the burgeoning field of Darwinian medicine. The prevalence and distribution of mutations related to sickle cell anemia, the relation of sickle cell to malaria and changes in geoclimate, human behavior, and disease vector species have been driven by evolution theory and makes sense in light of evolution. It is a naive question because my mind gambols at the number of elements it touches on especially genetic, structure-function associations, disease mutations, biomechanics and physiology, immunology, cell signalling, etc. It is bewildering. GetAgrippa 15:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to take a specific example, ERV about study of the evolution of HIV over the course of time in HIV+ patients, and how changes to the HIV genome affect fitness (replicative capacity) of HIV within a patient. There are lots of other interesting discussions on her home page, and the page includes a "My 'debate' with an HIV Denier" link to an audio debate. By the way, good point by the original anon that Jonathan Wells is a prophesier – perhaps Old Testament, but more likely the Church of Moon in Wells's case. .. dave souza, talk 15:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An excerpt that might answer some of your questions on the value of evolution in medicine:

Evolution is being put to practical use in medicine, genetics and industry.^[1][2][3][4] Corporations such as pharmaceutical companies utilize biological evolution in their development of new products.^[2]

Because of the perceived value of evolution in applications, there have been some expressions of support for evolution on the part of

Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combating cancer relied heavily the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of evolutionary theory.^[7]

However, there is a lot more than this. Do some investigation.--Filll 15:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Excellent posit Fill. Like I said the applications are bewildering. GetAgrippa 17:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to open those links and several were not working. But the main point is I do not see how believing or not believing humans descended from bacteria mainly through natural selection makes a difference. If you believe humans were created that does not mean that genetics does not happen. Or the traits are inherited. If I believe that there can be intra-speicies changes but believe there cannot be inter-species changes does not change any research in aids or anything that you have mentioned. Are these quotes out of context or quote mined? Imbrella 14:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page to discuss how to improve the Wikipedia article on evolution. Did you have any specific suggestions for the article. Tim Vickers 15:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to have some computer skills to be able to go to those links. This is just meant as an example of what can be done with a minimum of effort. This article is not "

quote mined

". I wrote this material and any quotes of scientists I took explicitly. If you cannot go to the originals because of your skills, I am sorry.

You can do anything in science if you are willing to stand on your head and ignore the dominant theories. For example, you can explain everything with a flat earth model or a geocentric model or a theory without atoms or plate tectonics or quantum mechanics or any number of other accepted scientific theories. However, to do real science it becomes increasingly difficult to not have the standard tools and models that your competitors are able to use. And it might be almost impossible to keep up and produce new science at the same rate as other scientists since they have a model that is better able to predict reality and explains more of the evidence in a more parsimonious fashion. But feel free to believe whatever worthless nonsense you want. However, you are not free to use coercion to force anyone else to adopt your own pesonal myths and fantasies and delusions. And that is what this about; nothing else.--Filll 15:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly group here. Try the links. They are not working. And my suggestion for the article is to have links that work. And what in the world are you talking about? What is this nonsense I believe? What is this coercion I am using? What delusions? Are you all right? Competitors? Are you mixing me up with someone. Your comments did not make sense. What dominant theory am I ignoring? Imbrella 23:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to appear rude but if you wish to discuss evolutionary theory please try websites like TalkOrigins. This is the page to discuss specific suggestions to improve a Wikipedia article, not a forum for general discussion. Tim Vickers 23:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried those links and they do not work. I think some might have expired. Can you try them? I think there is a misunderstand here about medicine and evolution. Would want this article to be accurate and NPOV. Seem like filll in startin with ' you can do anything was 'discussing'. I just want to see the links work and accurate info in the article. Imbrella 00:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which links didn't work-links in this article or links from Fill paragraph from another evolution related article? I think you will find this article follows NPOV in describing biological evolution. The debate concerning creationism and intelligent design vs evolution is mentioned. If the links don't work we can replace them with other and/or more recent articles. I remember reading some excellent articles on evolution and its value in understanding the mutations and variants of influenza virus and being able to predict strains for vaccine development.GetAgrippa 03:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not for this kind of discussion. You have been given more than enough. Please now go to some other website to discuss this material if you feel you want to. This it also not an article page, but a talk page. If you cannot use the links above, ask the assistance of a friend who knows how to use a computer.--Filll 06:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is being put to practical use in medicine, genetics and industry.[1][2][3][4] Corporations such as pharmaceutical companies utilize biological evolution in their development of new products.[2] Because of the perceived value of evolution in applications, there have been some expressions of support for evolution on the part of corporations. In Kansas, there has been some widespread concern in the corporate and academic communities that a move to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools will hurt the state's ability to recruit the best talent, particularly in the biotech industry.[5] Paul Hanle of the Biotechnology Institute warned that the US risks falling behind in the biotechnology race with other nations if it does not do a better job of teaching evolution.[6] James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combating cancer relied heavily the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of evolutionary theory.[7]

The above links are not working. And it the unkind comments about my 'not knowing to work a computer' are uncivil. I not see why Filll is allowed to pontificate and insult here while I am not allowed to ask a reasonable question. Imbrella 13:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked a question which has nothing to do with the purpose of this page. Nevertheless, it was answered, although this is not the purpose of this page. You are unable or unwilling to absorb or comprehened the answer for one or more reasons. This is not a computer help desk. This is not the purpose of this page. You asked a question, it was answered, now please go elsewhere because this page is for improving the article, not for answering your questions or debating. If this continues, further posts by you might be summarily removed. Thank you.--Filll 13:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to follow the links in the section itself: Level of support for evolution#Support for evolution in medicine and industry. Three of the four references that gave a URL were still working:[5][6][7]
([8] appears to take you to a site that doesn't give access to an article). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my point the links did not work as presented and I have been treated uncivilly by FILLL. And are quotes allowed in the article that present the other point of view by scienctist or are the owners of the article allowed to cherry pick quotes out of context that support their POV? Am I allowed to argue here that the sources are biased and incomplete? Imbrella 19:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to appear rude but if you wish to discuss evolutionary theory please try websites like TalkOrigins. This is the page to discuss specific suggestions to improve a Wikipedia article, not a forum for general discussion.--Filll 19:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have been more than accomodating. Three of the four links work and I am sure the broken one will be fixed accordingly. A comment like the sources are biased and incomplete is a red flag you are a POV pusher as this article is the product of dozens of editors reaching consensus. Some are card carrying evolutionary biologist and other biology realms so the article is a fair representation. Several editors have explained the purpose of this Talk page (it is not a forum)and we have been patient and offered a suitable forum for your purpose. If you have specific peer-reviewed articles to suggest then make a cogent argument. Intelligent Design is mostly an American phenomena and the American courts have ruled it is not science so we cannot entertain non-science articles. Regards GetAgrippa 22:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So simply questioning sources means I am POV? And do you not think that FILLL was uncivil with me? And the links did not work as presented to me. Check them Imbrella 23:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I opened those links and found one was a link to the website 'talkorigins' and the other 2 were editorial personal opinions posted in newspapers. Are these really valid and reliable sources. I can find websites that say the opposite and personal opinions of people who say the opposite. Who determines which sources are legit. I hardly think a website is to be relied on as a good source. Imbrella 23:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ Myers, PZ. "Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?", Pharyngula, scienceblogs.com, 2006-06-18. Retrieved on 2006-11-18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imbrella (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to [9],

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

In this case,

]

How is talkorgins determined to be a reliable source? Imbrella 21:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What reason do you have to suggest it isn't? Guettarda 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also - context? Guettarda 22:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article TalkOrigins Archive and it is pretty obvious. Any article in there I have seen is full of peer-reviewed references as well. So it looks pretty reliable to me.--Filll 22:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Rather, they have been commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.origins newsgroup. While many of the participants in talk.origins are well regarded scientists, this informal procedure is not as demanding as the process a scientist goes through to publish a paper in a scientific journal. It is important to keep this fact in mind when reading the contents of this archive. Because most of the essays have not undergone rigorous peer review, some of them may contain errors or misstatements of fact."

This is talkorigins own words. They admit the info cannot be trusted so why does wiki? Bias? Imbrella 14:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an honest disclaimer, but since all the entries contain references to not just the scientific claims, but the creationist claims that spawned the comment, full context is available. Talk origins is fine with all the contributors to date, and if you have a problem, I suggest you bring it up at

WP:RFC. It must be grating to creationists that their arguments are so thoroughly taken apart, but fortunately all the points are referenced so people can check the sources for themselves. It's also more compact; realistically, if we removed the talk origins links, we'll just replace every single point with the scientific references from the talk origins page itself. WLU 15:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

(moved discussion to User talk:Imbrella#Discussion from T:Losfe) WLU 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talkorigins is not a reliable source. The site itself says so. Yes it would be a good idea to replace talkorigins cites with valid cites. If anything is frustrating it is that people are thinking talkorigins is anything more than a website. Yes please quote valid peer reviewed articles. It is absurd that many say ID is not valid because there are no peer reviewed articles then go right ahead and use non-peer reviewed source to back up their claims. Please cite me the peer-reviewed article that shows that small changes can accumulated into species changing changes. It does not exist. And implying that is does is dishonest. Imbrella 20:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must have a problem with computers. There is an immense amount of peer-reviewed material about this from

. A small sample of what exists includes:

Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.

Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.

Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.

Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710.

Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.

Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.

de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.

de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.

de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.

del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.

Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.

Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392.

Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88:172-181.

Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.

Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.

Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.

Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.

Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.

Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.

Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.

Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.

Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.

Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.

Hurd, L. E., and R. M. Eisenberg. 1975. Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. The American Naturalist. 109:353-358.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.

Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737.

Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.

Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148.

Lee, R. E. 1989. Phycology (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.

Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials. In: J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.

Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.

Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.

Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78.

McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.

Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant. 1991. Mating propensity and courtship behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 45:293-306.

Mishler, B. D. 1985. The morphological, developmental and phylogenetic basis of species concepts in the bryophytes. Bryologist. 88:207-214.

Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: a case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology. 31:491-503.

Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.

Nelson, G. 1989. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics. 5:275-289.

Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.

Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.

Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.

Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.

Prokopy, R. J., S. R. Diehl, and S. H. Cooley. 1988. Oecologia. 76:138.

Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.

Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.

Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

Smith, D. C. 1988. Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony. Nature. 336:66-67.

Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.

Sokal, R. R. and T. J. Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept: a critical evaluation. The American Naturalist. 104:127-153.

Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.

Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.

Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.

Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish: Model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:71-96.

Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655.

Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Wood, A. M. and T. Leatham. 1992. The species concept in phytoplankton ecology. Journal of Phycology. 28:723-729.

Yen, J. H. and A. R. Barr. 1971. New hypotheses of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatability in Culex pipiens L

Take a look at [10] and [11] and [12] and [13] and [14] and many many other pages with many many peer-reviewed references. Please do not bother us with further silly questions. If you need help with computer skills, please ask someone else to assist you. We are not a computer help desk and this is not a debating society. This is to improve the articles, not for fighting. Thank you.--Filll 22:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The

civil, read policy. Talkorigins is not just a website, it's a website that cites scientific research in every single article - by citing the website, we are also citing the reasoning that has gone into the replies to common objections and the peer-reviewed articles that support them. A citation to the main arguments on talk origins is so helpful because each page contains multiple citations. And speciation? The claim that speciation has not happened is a blatant falsehood. Wanna talk dishonest? That would be changing the definition of species, not examining evidence and citing the same arguments after they've been demolished, repeatedly, by scientists. Here's some links. They're from talkorigins. 1 2

.

• • • • • Shapiro M. D., M. E. Marks, C. L. Peichel, B. K. Blackman, K. S. Nereng, B. Jónsson, D. Schluter and D. M. Kingsley, 2004. Genetic and developmental basis of evolutionary pelvic reduction in threespine sticklebacks. Nature 428: 717-723.
        • Shubin, N. H. and R. D. Dahn, 2004. Evolutionary biology: Lost and found. Nature 428: 703.
        • Theobald, Douglas, 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
        • Beheregaray, L. B. and P. Sunnucks, 2001. Fine-scale genetic structure, estuarine colonization and incipient speciation in the marine silverside fish Odontesthes argentinensis. Molecular Ecology 10(12): 2849-2866.
        • Bordenstein, Seth R. and John H. Werren. 1997. Effection of An and B Wolbachia and host genotype on interspecies cytoplasmic incompatibility in Nasonia. Genetics 148: 1833-1844.
        • Brown, Charles W., n.d. Ensatina eschscholtzi Speciation in progress: A classic example of Darwinian evolution. http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm
        • Byrne, K. and R. A. Nichols, 1999. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity 82: 7-15.
        • de Wet, J. M. J., 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon 20: 29-35.
        • Fanello, C. et al., 2003. The pyrethroid knock-down resistance gene in the Anopheles gambiae complex in Mali and further indication of incipient speciation within An. gambiae s.s. Insect Molecular Biology 12(3): 241-245.
        • Filchak, Kenneth E., Joseph B. Roethele and Jeffrey L. Feder, 2000. Natural selection and sympatric divergence in the apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature 407: 739-742.
        • Irwin, Darren E., Staffan Bensch and Trevor D. Price, 2001. Speciation in a ring. Nature 409: 333-337.
        • Irwin, Darren E., Staffan Bensch, Jessica H. Irwin and Trevor D. Price. 2005. Speciation by distance in a ring species. Science 307: 414-416.
        • Lehmann, T., M. Licht, N. Elissa, et al., 2003. Population structure of Anopheles gambiae in Africa. Journal of Heredity 94(2): 133-147.
        • Macnair, M. R., 1989. A new species of Mimulus endemic to copper mines in California. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 100: 1-14.
        • Mayr, E., 1942. Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.
        • Mayr, E., 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
        • Murgia, Claudio et al. 2006. Clonal origin and evolution of a transmissible cancer. Cell 126: 477-487.
        • Nevo, Eviatar, 1999. Mosaic Evolution of Subterranean Mammals: Regression, Progression and Global Convergence. Oxford University Press.
        • Newton, W. C. F. and Caroline Pellew, 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. Journal of Genetics 20(3): 405-467.
        • Nuttall, Nick, 1998. Stand clear of the Tube's 100-year-old super-bug. Times (London), 26 Aug. 1998, 1. http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html
        • Schilthuizen, M., 2001. (see below)
        • Van Valen, Leigh M. and Virginia C. Maiorana, 1991. HeLa, a new microbial species. Evolutionary Theory 10: 71-74.
        • Wake, David B., 1997. Incipient species formation in salamanders of the Ensatina complex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 7761-7767.
        • Whitehouse, David, 2001. Songbird shows how evolution works. BBC News Online, 18 Jan. 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1123973.stm
        • Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study, El Cajon, CA: ICR.
        • Zimmer, Carl. 2006. A dead dog lives on (inside new dogs). http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/09/an_old_dog_lives_on_inside_new.php

I think I understand Filll a bit better now. WLU 22:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was a waste of space. You say one of these peer-reviewed articles show that small accumulations over a long period of time can demonstrate that major morphological changes can occur. Pick out the study which you believe shows that. These studies show that very small changes are possible and everyone knows that. It is proof of large changes that is in dispute and there is no evidence. Go ahead pick the best one. Imbrella 22:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to do your work for you. Try reading and maybe you will learn something. You seem to want to engage in

WP:POINT. If this continues, your comments will be summarily removed from the talk pages, and/or administrative actions might be taken against you.--Filll 22:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Stop it. I have read much of this more than you most likely. I am saying the sources used in many cases are not reliable. Talkorigins is not reliabel they say so themselves. Where are the peer reviewed articles? There is a tremendous amount of uncited erroneous claims in these articles. Imbrella 23:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to be as nice as possible to you. And you just refused to cooperate. Look, if you cannot tell what is peer-reviewed and what is not peer-reviewed, you should try editing something else. You do not belong on these articles.--Filll 23:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. With Filll. You've run through my patience, probably Filll's also, and now appear to be just trolling. Suggest a change, cite a source, or go bring this up on

WP:DR. Stop clogging the page. There are over a dozen peer-reviewed journal articles in my list alone. Stop bluffing, and suggest a change or just leave. WLU 23:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

From talkorigins:

Small changes do imply large changes under some common circumstances. If there is some selective pressure for the changes to go in one direction, the changes will add up. Such a condition can happen, for example, under a gradual climate change or in evolutionary arms races. Even if there is no selective pressure at all, the changes will tend to diverge further and further from the starting point. Small changes will not lead to large changes only if there is stabilizing selection for organisms to remain as they are, or if there is too little time for much to happen, or if there are genetic mechanisms limiting change.

Look at the word 'imply'. Imply does not mean it is proven. That is a priori. That is not science. A lot of theories have been intuitively 'implied' but after experimentation were found not to be true. Science is not based on implications, sorry. There is no experimentation that has shown that large morphological changes can result from and accumulation of small ones. None. Go ahead show me. And this should be stated in at least one of the articles so kids know the truth. Now you can say we assume but you cannot say there are mountains of evidence etc. That is total bull. Imbrella 23:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I thought talk origins wasn't a reliable source? You appear to be unaware of the tone of scientific contributions. Scientists will never be certain in print, because they are aware that all conclusions are tentative. Despite this, firm conclusions, and firm scientific work, is done all the time. Perhaps you should consider an undergraduate degree in biology, when you will come to realize that the tone of scientific entries are always much softer than the convenient, confident, fallacious rhetoric found in creationism. There's bull alright. WLU 23:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is you say TO is reliable except when they admit they are not reliable and they admit they we can only imply that the changes will accumulate. Maybe you should get a HS diploma. I think there you should have learned the difference between when something is implied or scientically validated. Validated and implied are 2 different things. No where in even TO do they say that this concept is validated, a fact or backed up by experimentation. They say it is IMPLIED. Please, drug studies say this drug is safe because from the anecdotal evidence we see IMPLIES it is safe. Bull. total Bull. Science relies on experimentation not whims of implications Imbrella 23:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly do not understand science or evolution or speciation or peer-review or scientific evidence or scientific data or very much of anything in this area. Please edit something else because you are wasting everyone's time here. You have been shown to be wrong; very wrong. You do not even understand you have been shown to be wrong. So go away please. I am doing my best to warn you away before you get yourself in trouble here. --Filll 23:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOU clearly do not understand science. Science is not based on 'implications' or anecdotes or wive's tales, or folklore. It is based on experimentation. If you do not understand that you should go away and edit articles on soap operas. You have so little understanding of the basics of science you feel that your intuition means something is correct. That is fine for channeling but not for science. Go back to you quija board. Imbrella 23:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! That's funny. Drug trials are different from evolutionary biology research. Of course they're going to be different. Please be

WP:CIVIL. WLU 23:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

HA! They both SHOULD use the scientific method. Or maybe you are correct. Are you saying evolutionary biology research does not use the scientific method. It does not have to have quantitive analysis of data:

Form wiki

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning,[1] the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

note the word MEASURABLE. which really means able to be translated into quantitaitve concepts.

Think more about that whole GED HS diploma think. I think they will teach about all of this there. Imbrella 23:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please grace some other website with this ungrammatical, poorly spelled incomprehensible juvenile spew. You are doing nothing but embarassing yourself here. This is not a page for debates. It is a place to discuss the articles. You have suggested no concrete changes nor have you provided any WP:RS sources for any of your views.--00:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs)

Please edit some non science articles where your lack of knowledge of science will not hurt them. This not a page to insult people. I have suggested several changes and was shot down on them. Edit something on seances something like that that does not involve science. Imbrella 00:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move on. I have so much more science background than you it is not even funny. Please leave before your ability to edit WP is restricted.--Filll 00:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filll - how 'bout we don't feed the troll? We're not getting anywhere and Imbrella isn't going away. All this

original research is just soaking up space on the wikimedia servers, and we both know it's not going on the page itself. Why waste the time? WLU 00:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You sound like you have very little. And see I can prove it: you are making an assumpition without proof. You have no idea who I am or how much education I have. I do know that we should use quantitative analysis which you seem to be against. No real scientist would argue against QA. Go edit channeling. No science needed there. Imbrella 00:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DNFTT.--Filll 00:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]