• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution: the Facts.

joobz said:
If there was a "sticky" thread on drug delivery, biomaterials or polymer chemistry, I'd be there instantly. But evolution isn't my field.
Click to expand...
And I, sir, am a mathematician, and I may be the greatest expert in the UK on certain aspects of non-associative algebras, and on absolutely nothing else ... oh, certain aspects of neoclassical economics ... uses of geometry in design ... OK, there are lots of things I'm an expert on ... none of which are relevant to our great struggle between truth and bullcrap.

But when I put together an article summarising the present state of scientific knowledge for popular consumption, emphasising the skeptical point of view, the only requirements placed on me are that I should be honest, diligent, consciencious, and clear.

If you don't think that you can do that, then you shouldn't write about anything at all, even when arguing with whackjobs. If you can, then your articles may be of interest to thousands of people.

In which case, why waste your time on nutters?

Your call.
 
But what we have learned since then is not that people are apathetic... they just don't know if their help is needed and if so, how. They assume it's being handled or that they may be misinterpreting the message... when people are specifically asked to help, they do. The second link shows that someone yelling "help help" in the street is likely to generate confusion... but if someone looks at someone in specific and says, "call the police" or "this is not my dad" etc. then reaction occurs. If you tell which people what you want you will get the help you desire. Don't assume it's apathy. It's not. It's confusion over whom you want to do what.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Most of you are willing to spend any amount of time carefully explaining science to morons who are off their heads and who blank out anything factual you might say to them, and now you're asked to explain it to thousands of sane intelligent people who might actually listen, and you all shut up
Click to expand...

Explaining science is something I'm less than qualified to do

However, as I'm reluctant to sit back and simply watch Kitty/the truth get butchered, I am willing and able to help, but only if my (limited) skill set is welcomed

One thing I am prepared to do is 'proof read', from the perspective of a ignorant yet (somewhat) intelligent reader, what has been written by the experts - or expert

If you want me to do so, let me know

PS I tried PMing this to you Dr A, but your inbox is full
 
Dr Adequate said:
I added a piece on [swiki]Reproducibility[/swiki] to the Principles of Science section, with a link to it from the [swiki]Creationist Arguments[/swiki], icrouse its one of the things creationists tend to get ludicrously wrong. Enjoy.
Click to expand...

I clicked on both of these links and got a park page from Godaddy.com.
 
There is a thread called WTF Has Happened To The SkepticWiki? where the problem has been reported and 2.5 hours ago, the 'server host' said "the nameserver entries have changed at the domain registrar. Once these are restored and point back to the correct server all should be well again."
 
I've added a piece on [swiki]Michael Behe[/swiki].

Also one on [swiki]Rains of Fish[/swiki]. "What's that got to do with evolution?" I hear you cry. Well, technically it's a [swiki]Means of Dispersal[/swiki], although I have found no evidence that it's ever been an important factor in allopatry. Still, it is at least conceivable as a mechanism for the separation of populations, and I'm a completist.
 
Dr Adequate said:
I've added a piece on [swiki]Michael Behe[/swiki].

Also one on [swiki]Rains of Fish[/swiki]. "What's that got to do with evolution?" I hear you cry. Well, technically it's a [swiki]Means of Dispersal[/swiki], although I have found no evidence that it's ever been an important factor in allopatry. Still, it is at least conceivable as a mechanism for the separation of populations, and I'm a completist.
Click to expand...

Brilliant! I take it you found the links for it, good effort. Is that completist or obsessive?
 
Dr Adequate said:
This is not strictly true.

Does anyone want to write an article on lateral gene transfer?
Click to expand...

I just finished reading an article in American Science about gene transfer which seems to have good grounds for explaining why a species of starfish with five-fold, radial symmetry should have a bilaterally symmetrical larvae, and why in some cases a larvae can give rise to and adult with identical genome and then continue living as the two different forms become adults. The idea is that many (or perhaps all) larval forms of the many animals that have them were once two separate species in different classes altogether (like a starfish and a worm) who became merged through such a lateral transfer, and the two forms now get expressed in different growth stages under a single genome. The ability to lead two lives can have tremendous evolutionary advantage (think of a caterpillar "eating machine" which has the ability to fly about in search of a mate and can spread its eggs over a very large area).

A very intriguing idea but one which is not likely to abort evolution, I don't think, any more than punctuated equilibrium did. One effect such a theory would have to to turn Darwin's tree of evolution into a network instead, with some threads merging at times.

The grandfather of such transfers, of course, are the mitochondrial "sub-cells" that live with all current living cells, with their own DNA, and providing energy handling facilities to current cells.

Remember, evolution follows its own pragmatics, not what we think it should do. Would that be suitable for such an article?
 
Last edited:
It's a fascinating idea, but I'd be willing to bet quite a lot of money against it. Do they have any genetic evidence, or is it just speculation?

---

P.S: I've added an article on [swiki]"Looking at the Same Evidence"[/swiki] --- the great Meta-Lie of creationist drivel.
 
Dr Adequate said:
It's a fascinating idea, but I'd be willing to bet quite a lot of money against it. Do they have any genetic evidence, or is it just speculation?
Click to expand...
Are you skeptical of lateral gene transfer being a frequent natural occurrence? ...of the idea of the "tree" actually being more like a free-form network? ...or were you stating skepticism regarding the starfish specifically as it might relate to lateral gene transfer?
 
VonNeumann said:
Are you skeptical of lateral gene transfer being a frequent natural occurrence? ...of the idea of the "tree" actually being more like a free-form network? ...or were you stating skepticism regarding the starfish specifically as it might relate to lateral gene transfer?
Click to expand...
The specific claim.
 
Dr. A, and if you feel a PM would be more appropriate in addressing this since I've never been a participant in a true Wiki site, there are a number of articles I'd like to address regarding better/further/things you're more likely to enounter with Creationists, and an article or two I'd like to see addressed like orthologous ERVs that fit taxonomic/cladistic predictions vs. non-orthologous ERVs... so should I jump in and start editing or should I join the discussions about particular pages first?
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Dr. A, and if you feel a PM would be more appropriate in addressing this since I've never been a participant in a true Wiki site, there are a number of articles I'd like to address regarding better/further/things you're more likely to enounter with Creationists, and an article or two I'd like to see addressed like orthologous ERVs that fit taxonomic/cladistic predictions vs. non-orthologous ERVs... so should I jump in and start editing or should I join the discussions about particular pages first?
Click to expand...
Jump in and start editing. (See the [swiki]Main Page[/swiki] for details of how to get an account.)

If any addition you make needs discussing beforehand, let's discuss it here where everyone can join in and make suggestions.
 
Last edited:
Dr Adequate said:
Jump in and start editing. (See the [swiki]Main Page[/swiki] for details of how to get an account.)

If any addition you make needs discussing beforehand, let's discuss it here where everyone can join in and make suggestions.
Click to expand...

Mail sent. I'm much more pressed for time at work than I was two months ago so I'll try and check the articles I wish to comment on tonight, note them and post on them tomorrow and post here before I jump into the editing.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Jump in and start editing. (See the [swiki]Main Page[/swiki] for details of how to get an account.)

If any addition you make needs discussing beforehand, let's discuss it here where everyone can join in and make suggestions.
Click to expand...

Signed up. I made about 8 recommendations in the discussion areas. If anyone who is signed up wants to discuss them here, please feel free to do so, if any of you lurkers want me to transpose my topics of discussion just ask.
 
(1) A page on ERVs would be excellent. You don't have to explicitly deal with every creationist argument you've heard, just explain so clearly that the mistake can't be made. Only the commonest creationist arguments should be countered explicitly.

(2) Yes, we have as yet nothing at all on human evolution. A look at hominin fossils would be nice.

(3) Ditto Piltdown Man. Yes, it does riase some interesting questions for creationists doesn't it, such as "why didn't creationists spot the hoax", and "so now you believe in fluorine dating?" and "were you there?" Id'd be interested to see your link.

(4) I'd not heard of the Durinipur site. Yes, debunk away.

(5) "Flesh out". Hah. Yes, you're right, the article is almost all about creationist misunderstandings, but gives no clue as to the real significance of the finds. If you can find a creationist calling the preserved tissues "fresh meat", that would be amusing.

(6) I'm not sure about that dinofish site. I find its language unforgivably sloppy, with room in it for several popular misconceptions. I mean: "Eusthenopteron, the fish once credited with growing legs and coming ashore". For pity's sake.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom