Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Elephant

2008-03-28T03:10:02Z

Igor nz: yeah

The article states that the population of elephants tripled from January to June in 2006. As the gestation period of an elephant is 22 months, it would be impossible for the statement to be true.

: Just revert anything that remotely sounds like "the population of elephants have tripled in the last 6 months", it's clear-cut vandalism. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiality_and_Other_Tripling_Elephants Stephen Colbert's suggestion] for the background. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 14:44, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

This page does not reference any of its statements, and contains several that are patently untrue--a surprisingly large number for such a short article.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the evolution of elephants, not ''from'' sea cows as stated in the article but from a common ancestor.

This should probably be merged with the page on Elephants (pl.) and forward to there, since that article is already longer and cited.

==Debate==

Cut from article:

:Molecular and morphological evidence point to [[hyrax|hyraxes]] and [[Sirenia|sirenians]] (sea cows and manatees) as the closest living relatives of elephants<ref> Hidenori Nishihara et al. A Retroposon Analysis of Afrotherian Phylogeny. ''Molecular Biology and Evolution'' '''22''': 1823-1833,</ref> these groups are hypothesized to have shared a common ancestor approximately 50 million years ago. The three extant species of elephant are sole survivors of a much more diverse Proboscidian fauna with some 170 described [[fossil]] species and including species of [[mammoth]] from [[North America]] and the massive ''Deinotherium'', the second largest land mammal that ever lived, which sported two downward facing tusks.

:According to the young earth creationist view Elephants were created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the earth (Genesis 1:24-25) and survived the [[Great Flood]] on [[Noah's Ark]] (Genesis 7:7-8). Some creationists are incredulous to how species as apparently different as hyraxes and sirenians could be related to elephants. This objection fails to take into account the vast periods of independent evolution taken by each lineage since they last shared a common ancestor - some 50 million years. Additionally evolutionary theory predicts that intermediate forms between related groups are unlikely to be found contemporaneously as more advanced forms will out compete and replace such intermediates (this is an argument first put forward by Darwin himself.) <ref> Darwin, Charles (1859), ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'', London: John Murray</ref>. Some evolutionary biologists suggest elephants may have evolved from water living mammals much like modern hyraxes which developed trunks to use as snorkels (as modern elephants, do when swimming).

:In the past, there were many different types of elephants like [[mammoth|mammoths]] and [[mastodon|mastodons]], but most young earth creation scientists say that these species never made it onto the Ark and that these species. Scientists and scholars agree that Noah could not have trekked all the way to the arctic to collect a pair of mastodons before the earth was flooded, and they all drowned. [[Polar bears|Polar bear]] and [[penguins]] survived because both are excellent swimmers and could have swam to floating glaciers and ridden them through the [[Great Flood]]. This fact presumably means aquatic animals such as [[Polar bears|Polar bear]], [[penguins]] and fish were not destroyed in the great flood and as such are still evil.

This poorly written debate section mars the article. I suspect the motivation for including it was to make the project 'look stupid'.

Having a debate is good, though. Let's just state the positions intelligently. Fish are evil? Be serious.

:I think the fact that it remained unchallenged for about two weeks is what makes the project look foolish. In any case, you've removed a cited peer reviewed journal. Please elaborate as to why '''Molecular Biology and Evolution'' is not acceptable. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:31, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Antiochus was a Greek king, a descendant of Seleucus, not a Persian king.

== "similar species" ==

The term "similar species" previously used in a heading of this article is misleading. The reference cited is a phylogenetic studies and the methods employed in these studies are not about similarity. I know people have trouble with the E-word but claiming these studies are about similarity is just outright wrong. Hence my edit
--[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 22:32, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
: The effect is to make out that evolution is true (it's not the ''word'' that is the problem, but ''claiming the concept as true''). On what basis are they considered to be ''related'' if not on ''similarity''? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
::Related and simlar are just different things. You might say that whales are similar to fish in a lot of ways but they aren't particularly closely related. Phylogentic methods (with a few exceptions) are about modelling the way things have changed within lineages to work backwards to recreate the most likely pattern of branching in a particular group in the light of the characters being studied. That's not the same thing as similarity. --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 00:16, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::: You haven't actually answered the question: On what basis are they considered to be related? To put it more simply, ''why'' do they think they are related? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Because of the peer reviewed journal article that is cited in the text? Or the 20 others that could take that place?--[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 17:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: If you're asking if I'm after the specific reason given in that article, no. I'll restate it again: Why do evolutionists think that elephants are related to sea cows and manatees? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:54, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Because of molecular, morphological and biogeographic evidence that supports the hypothesis --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 19:16, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::: ''How'' does that evidence support the hypothesis? Isn't it because of molecular, morphological, and biogegraphical ''similarities''? If not, then what ''is'' it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: This is really very tiresome. Cladistic studies are not based on 'similarties' that's called phentics. If we studied whales, sirenians and elephants by phenetics using the criteria above we might group whales and sirenians as most similar (thick outer skin, reduced limbs, marine lifestyle, blubber...) but if we use cladistics, which is about shared characters and the change of characters over time then we arrive at the relationships talked about above. And morpholigcal and molecular data arrive at the same position. If you still fail to understand the difference I'd invite you to read an introduction to cladistic methods. {{unsigned|Igor nz}}
::::::::: Yes, it is getting tiresome, but I'm trying my best to be patient and give you an opportunity to defend you pro-evolutionary edit rather than just revert it again. But I will if I don't get a satisfactory answer before my patience runs out. You are still not answering the question. I asked ''why'' evolutionists consider those creatures related, and your answer (dated 19:16, 26th March, above) said, in essence, that it's because that's what the evidence indicates. Which is ''not'' an answer, at least a satisfactory one, to the question! Your latest answer doesn't help either. But to try and get something useful out of it, if cladistics shows (or is based on) them having ''shared characters'', then surely they are, to that extent, ''similar''? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::: They are similar in respect to presencee of lack of the characters being studies. They are '''not''' generically similar. Scientists believe that these animals are realted because the branching pattern described is the most parsimonous (or probable or likely depending on the statistical framework being used) way in which the character states observed in modern elephants sirenians... could have come to be. I know people have a problem with evolution but calling these species similar - which they clearly aren't for a lot of traits, is just mealymouthed weasel words. ---[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 22:21, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: I think we might be finally getting somewhere. You've now (finally) admitted that they ''do have similarities''. For my part, I'm quite happy to admit that the wording you changed could be improved, although it did already describe them as the "most similar" ''according to "Molecular and morphological evidence"''. But even if a bit simplistic, it was ''correct'', as the creatures are ''similar'' in respect to the particular characteristics that are considered evolutionary significant.
::::::::::: But although I think we've reached some common ground, we haven't actually agreed on what the wording should be. The current wording that says that the different creatures ''are'' related is unacceptable, as it presumes the evolutionary view to be true (and by the way, your description ("... the branching pattern described is the most parsimonous...") appears to presume that creatures ''are'' related, and it's just a matter of working out ''which'' relationship is the correct one. As such, it doesn't show that they ''are'' related). So do you want to propose better wording, or shall we revert to what was there, which did at least ''suggest'' that they were similar ''insofar as the molecular and morphological evidence is concerned''?
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::: Well, it's more of a case of saying is it more likely that sea cows where created more or less as they are with exactly bones in their limbs as elephants, only creatly reduced in size and used for a completely different purpose, or could they be descended from a creature that already had these limb bones and in one lineage they've been retooled for swimming and in the other for holding a massive animal. It's even more ridiculous for the cited paper which is talking about retroposons - selfish DNA elements that also support a tree like structure. If you and your sister have a selfish gene inserted in the same location of the genome would you say it was more likely that you inherited from one of your parents or you both got it ''de novo''? That's before we even start talking about methadological naturalism. This page shouldn't be a debate about universal common descent, a scientific fact that any theory of evolution needs to explain, I can see that this really is a waste of time. The admins here are so wedded to their views that there is no way reasoned debate will change them.--[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 18:43, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: So instead of proposing better wording, you instead go off on a tangent and launch an attack on the view that you disagree with. Further, you criticise the admins here for supposedly being unwilling to change their views, when I'd be quite certain that ''you'' are just as unwilling to change ''your'' views. As you are unwilling to discuss the issue further, and have not proposed better neutral wording, I'll revert your pro-evolution wording back to the more neutral wording that was there before. And by the way, universal common descent is a ''hypothesis'', not a ''fact'' that needs explaining. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:26, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: I've further modified the wording to hopefully make clearer just what the similarity is. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::AHHHRGH! The better wording was the first one. Common descent really is a scientific fact, attested to by overwhelming evidence and supported by all biologists and even the ID crowd, in the same way that gravity is. A wording that suggests evidence recovered by methodologies specifically designed to uncover relationships shows anything other than a relationship is somewhere between mealy mouthed an lying. If conservapedia wants to be a YEC wiki then just say it out loud. ATM it purports to be resource for, among others, home schooled kids and if this is what they are served then we are doing them a great disservice.
<- Just thought I'd point out the dangers associated with attesting something to be fact. True science holds no absolutes and as such you can only ever have at most a theory. It's just a case of which theory has more supporting evidence, and then using this to decide which will be the better wording. In this case, however, you'd probably be more productive in tossing a coin and going with whatever comes up, although I don't see what would be wrong with using the phase ''closest in genetic makeup''. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 22:34, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:Obviously, I use the term in the same way the late great SJ Gould did:
Science does not deal in certainty, so "fact" can only mean a
proposition affirmed to such high degree of certainty that it would be
perverse to withhold one's provisional assent.

Talk:Elephant

2008-03-28T02:25:54Z

Igor nz: Banging head on brick wall...

Talk:Elephant

2008-03-27T22:43:53Z

Igor nz: Really the last word from me

The article states that the population of elephants tripled from January to June in 2006. As the gestation period of an elephant is 22 months, it would be impossible for the statement to be true.

: Just revert anything that remotely sounds like "the population of elephants have tripled in the last 6 months", it's clear-cut vandalism. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiality_and_Other_Tripling_Elephants Stephen Colbert's suggestion] for the background. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 14:44, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

This page does not reference any of its statements, and contains several that are patently untrue--a surprisingly large number for such a short article.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the evolution of elephants, not ''from'' sea cows as stated in the article but from a common ancestor.

This should probably be merged with the page on Elephants (pl.) and forward to there, since that article is already longer and cited.

==Debate==

Cut from article:

:Molecular and morphological evidence point to [[hyrax|hyraxes]] and [[Sirenia|sirenians]] (sea cows and manatees) as the closest living relatives of elephants<ref> Hidenori Nishihara et al. A Retroposon Analysis of Afrotherian Phylogeny. ''Molecular Biology and Evolution'' '''22''': 1823-1833,</ref> these groups are hypothesized to have shared a common ancestor approximately 50 million years ago. The three extant species of elephant are sole survivors of a much more diverse Proboscidian fauna with some 170 described [[fossil]] species and including species of [[mammoth]] from [[North America]] and the massive ''Deinotherium'', the second largest land mammal that ever lived, which sported two downward facing tusks.

:According to the young earth creationist view Elephants were created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the earth (Genesis 1:24-25) and survived the [[Great Flood]] on [[Noah's Ark]] (Genesis 7:7-8). Some creationists are incredulous to how species as apparently different as hyraxes and sirenians could be related to elephants. This objection fails to take into account the vast periods of independent evolution taken by each lineage since they last shared a common ancestor - some 50 million years. Additionally evolutionary theory predicts that intermediate forms between related groups are unlikely to be found contemporaneously as more advanced forms will out compete and replace such intermediates (this is an argument first put forward by Darwin himself.) <ref> Darwin, Charles (1859), ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'', London: John Murray</ref>. Some evolutionary biologists suggest elephants may have evolved from water living mammals much like modern hyraxes which developed trunks to use as snorkels (as modern elephants, do when swimming).

:In the past, there were many different types of elephants like [[mammoth|mammoths]] and [[mastodon|mastodons]], but most young earth creation scientists say that these species never made it onto the Ark and that these species. Scientists and scholars agree that Noah could not have trekked all the way to the arctic to collect a pair of mastodons before the earth was flooded, and they all drowned. [[Polar bears|Polar bear]] and [[penguins]] survived because both are excellent swimmers and could have swam to floating glaciers and ridden them through the [[Great Flood]]. This fact presumably means aquatic animals such as [[Polar bears|Polar bear]], [[penguins]] and fish were not destroyed in the great flood and as such are still evil.

This poorly written debate section mars the article. I suspect the motivation for including it was to make the project 'look stupid'.

Having a debate is good, though. Let's just state the positions intelligently. Fish are evil? Be serious.

:I think the fact that it remained unchallenged for about two weeks is what makes the project look foolish. In any case, you've removed a cited peer reviewed journal. Please elaborate as to why '''Molecular Biology and Evolution'' is not acceptable. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:31, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Antiochus was a Greek king, a descendant of Seleucus, not a Persian king.

== "similar species" ==

The term "similar species" previously used in a heading of this article is misleading. The reference cited is a phylogenetic studies and the methods employed in these studies are not about similarity. I know people have trouble with the E-word but claiming these studies are about similarity is just outright wrong. Hence my edit
--[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 22:32, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
: The effect is to make out that evolution is true (it's not the ''word'' that is the problem, but ''claiming the concept as true''). On what basis are they considered to be ''related'' if not on ''similarity''? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
::Related and simlar are just different things. You might say that whales are similar to fish in a lot of ways but they aren't particularly closely related. Phylogentic methods (with a few exceptions) are about modelling the way things have changed within lineages to work backwards to recreate the most likely pattern of branching in a particular group in the light of the characters being studied. That's not the same thing as similarity. --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 00:16, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::: You haven't actually answered the question: On what basis are they considered to be related? To put it more simply, ''why'' do they think they are related? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Because of the peer reviewed journal article that is cited in the text? Or the 20 others that could take that place?--[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 17:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: If you're asking if I'm after the specific reason given in that article, no. I'll restate it again: Why do evolutionists think that elephants are related to sea cows and manatees? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:54, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Because of molecular, morphological and biogeographic evidence that supports the hypothesis --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 19:16, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::: ''How'' does that evidence support the hypothesis? Isn't it because of molecular, morphological, and biogegraphical ''similarities''? If not, then what ''is'' it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: This is really very tiresome. Cladistic studies are not based on 'similarties' that's called phentics. If we studied whales, sirenians and elephants by phenetics using the criteria above we might group whales and sirenians as most similar (thick outer skin, reduced limbs, marine lifestyle, blubber...) but if we use cladistics, which is about shared characters and the change of characters over time then we arrive at the relationships talked about above. And morpholigcal and molecular data arrive at the same position. If you still fail to understand the difference I'd invite you to read an introduction to cladistic methods. {{unsigned|Igor nz}}
::::::::: Yes, it is getting tiresome, but I'm trying my best to be patient and give you an opportunity to defend you pro-evolutionary edit rather than just revert it again. But I will if I don't get a satisfactory answer before my patience runs out. You are still not answering the question. I asked ''why'' evolutionists consider those creatures related, and your answer (dated 19:16, 26th March, above) said, in essence, that it's because that's what the evidence indicates. Which is ''not'' an answer, at least a satisfactory one, to the question! Your latest answer doesn't help either. But to try and get something useful out of it, if cladistics shows (or is based on) them having ''shared characters'', then surely they are, to that extent, ''similar''? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::: They are similar in respect to presencee of lack of the characters being studies. They are '''not''' generically similar. Scientists believe that these animals are realted because the branching pattern described is the most parsimonous (or probable or likely depending on the statistical framework being used) way in which the character states observed in modern elephants sirenians... could have come to be. I know people have a problem with evolution but calling these species similar - which they clearly aren't for a lot of traits, is just mealymouthed weasel words. ---[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 22:21, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: I think we might be finally getting somewhere. You've now (finally) admitted that they ''do have similarities''. For my part, I'm quite happy to admit that the wording you changed could be improved, although it did already describe them as the "most similar" ''according to "Molecular and morphological evidence"''. But even if a bit simplistic, it was ''correct'', as the creatures are ''similar'' in respect to the particular characteristics that are considered evolutionary significant.
::::::::::: But although I think we've reached some common ground, we haven't actually agreed on what the wording should be. The current wording that says that the different creatures ''are'' related is unacceptable, as it presumes the evolutionary view to be true (and by the way, your description ("... the branching pattern described is the most parsimonous...") appears to presume that creatures ''are'' related, and it's just a matter of working out ''which'' relationship is the correct one. As such, it doesn't show that they ''are'' related). So do you want to propose better wording, or shall we revert to what was there, which did at least ''suggest'' that they were similar ''insofar as the molecular and morphological evidence is concerned''?
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::: Well, it's more of a case of saying is it more likely that sea cows where created more or less as they are with exactly bones in their limbs as elephants, only creatly reduced in size and used for a completely different purpose, or could they be descended from a creature that already had these limb bones and in one lineage they've been retooled for swimming and in the other for holding a massive animal. It's even more ridiculous for the cited paper which is talking about retroposons - selfish DNA elements that also support a tree like structure. If you and your sister have a selfish gene inserted in the same location of the genome would you say it was more likely that you inherited from one of your parents or you both got it ''de novo''? That's before we even start talking about methadological naturalism. This page shouldn't be--[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 18:43, 27 March 2008 (EDT)a debate about universal common descent, a scientific fact that any theory of evolution needs to explain, I can see that this really is a waste of time. The admins here are so wedded to their views that there is no way reasoned debate will change them.

Talk:Gorilla

2008-03-27T22:35:11Z

Igor nz:

Why is there an evolutionist link on here? [[User:Ratso|Ratso]] 18:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Um, because Conservapedia claims to be 'unbiased'? And because neither you not [[User:Conservative]] has deleted it yet? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 18:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::I believe he deleted it. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Tell me what you think]] 14:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Not all creationists are young earth. Too many places on this site, evolution and age of the earth are assumed to be the same thing. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:31, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

==Common ancestor?==
The article says "Comparison of DNA sequences of humans and gorillas show them to be 99% identical, but even with these similarities there are so many gaps in the sequence that it is nigh impossible for them to have descended from a common ancestor." I don't get it. Why do you need to analyse the number of gaps in the DNA to conclude that gorillas and people have no common ancestor? Surely the number of gaps would suggest only that any common ancestor must have been ''a long time ago''. The absolute ''rejection'' of common ancestry cannot be based on this, only on a more fundamental rejection of evolutionist theory. It looks like an illogical argument. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:16, 15 February 2008 (EST)
: Yup, the best that can be said for the argument is that is one from personal incredulity - a logical fallacy. Since it is no a rigorous argument against the fact we share a common ancestor I am going to delete it (again). I'm not interested in an edit war so I'd thank any would be reverter to justify the inclusion on an unsupported claim in this article on the talk page before anything else is done --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 22:12, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I'll ask a different question: Is the claim of 99% DNA similarity correct? I can't find a statement on the Internet saying what it is, but what I can find is that (a) chimpanzee/human DNA similarity claims vary between about 98.8% and 95%, and (b) chimpanzees are supposed to be ''closer'' to humans than gorillas. This suggests that the 99% claim for gorillas is incorrect. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:53, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Good point - I think it's actually about 97% (though it depends exactly how you measure it). So I'll correct it (once I have checked). But whether it's 99, 97 or 33% doesn't alter the illogicality of the argument! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:22, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:::What [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] said - I think it will be around 99-97 for gorilla-human (they are very close to humans and chimps) but there is point at which you can say aha! that's too different, they couldn't have ever shared a common ancestor --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 18:35, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Elephant

2008-03-27T02:21:48Z

Igor nz: the final word from me

Gorilla

2008-03-27T02:13:32Z

Igor nz: Explained on talk

{{Taxonomy|image = Gorilla.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Primates|suborder = Hominoidea |family = Hominidae|subfamily = Homininae|tribe = Gorillini|genus = Gorilla|species = gorilla|alt = See article for full list of subspecies}}

The '''gorilla''', the largest of the living [[primate]]s, is a ground-dwelling [[omnivore]] that inhabits the forests of [[Africa]]. Gorillas are divided into two species and either four or five subspecies.<ref>A proposed third subspecies of ''Gorilla beringei'' (which has not yet received a Latin designation) is the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest population of the Mountain Gorilla, called the ''Bwindi Gorilla'' [http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13142 International Fund for Animal Welfare] </ref> Comparison of [[DNA]] sequences of humans and gorillas show them to be 99% identical.

Attempts have been made to teach a gorilla named ''Koko'' a form of [[sign language]], although this is highly questionable.<ref>As part of her research into animal communication in 1972, a young graduate student in developmental psychology volunteered to teach sign language to a 1-year-old female Gorilla named Koko. [http://www.las.uiuc.edu/alumni/news/fall2003/03fall_Patterson.html] </ref>
Some scientists believe that Koko's ability to communicate through ASL is equivalent to a [[parrot]]'s ability to communicate through speech. Some scientists believe that Koko is only trained to make hand gestures but does not actually understand what she is doing. Young earth [[creationist]]s believe that gorillas were [[creation|created]] about 4000 years ago. According to [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary]] thought, humans shared a common ancestor with gorillas as recently as four to seven million years ago.<ref>Hobolth A, Christensen OF, Mailund T, Schierup MH (2007) Genomic Relationships and Speciation Times of Human, Chimpanzee, and Gorilla Inferred from a Coalescent Hidden Markov Model [http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0030007 PLoS Genet 3(2)]</ref>

==Taxonomy==
*G. gorilla (Western gorilla)
**G. g. gorilla (Western Lowland gorilla)
**G. g. diehli (Cross River gorilla)
*G. beringei (Eastern gorilla)
**G. b. beringei (Mountain gorilla)
**G. b. graueri (Eastern Lowland gorilla)

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Primates]]
[[Category:Hominid]]

Talk:Gorilla

2008-03-27T02:12:56Z

Igor nz: explaining my deletion of an logically falicous claim

Talk:Elephant

2008-03-27T01:48:41Z

Igor nz: Claditstics101

Talk:Elephant

2008-03-26T23:16:41Z

Igor nz: this is getting kind of boring...

Gorilla

2008-03-26T22:42:27Z

Igor nz: deleting unsubstantiated claim

Talk:Elephant

2008-03-26T21:10:54Z

Igor nz: that's because it's not a very good question

Talk:Elephant

2008-03-26T04:16:10Z

Igor nz: similar != related

Genome

2008-03-26T03:11:32Z

Igor nz: rewording for clarity

A genome is all the [[hereditary]] information held by an [[organism]], this includes both expressed and non-expressed genetic [[information]].
It is usually stored in [[DNA]] though [[retrovirus]]es store it in [[RNA]].

[[Eukaryotic cell|Eukaryote]]s (including humans) actually have two types of genomic material:
# chromosonal material: Information found inside the nucleus of a cell
# mitochondrial material: Information found inside a cytoplasm of a cell, specifically in the [[mitochondria]]<ref>http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3580</ref> (this separate genome is used as evidence for the [[endosymbiotic hypothesis]], although it can also be explained by the creationary model).

The [[Human Genome Project]] mapped the genome of humans (''Homo sapiens'') in a 13-year study, and is considered one of the marvels of modern human [[medicine]] and [[biology]]. All of the information is stored in a database.<ref>http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml</ref> It is expected that the results of the project will allow scientists to predict how genetics influences drug interaction with the body, and lead to target specific drugs.<ref>Collins, Francis S. and McKusick, Victor A. [http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/285/5/540 Implications of the Human Genome Project for Medical Science] ''JAMA'', 2001;285:540-544, 7th February 2001.</ref>

Genomes of other species have been recorded as well, such as mice,<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/mouse/</ref> chimpanzees<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/chimpgenome/index.html</ref> and yeast.<ref>http://www.yeastgenome.org/</ref> The mouse genome sequence from the C57BL/6J strain has about 30,000 genes, and 99% of them have direct counterparts in humans.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6915/full/420509a.html</ref>

The chimpanzee represented the first non-human primate sequenced. The differences in the chimpanzee and human genomes are small, with 99% of the DNA sequence preserved. <ref>http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2005/nhgri-31.htm</ref> The differences can be classified in terms of differences in local single nucleotide substitutions, insertions, deletions and repetitions of sequences. A relatively large number of difference between the chimpanzee and human genomes are not due to substitutions.<ref>http://207.210.67.162/~striz/docs/chimpc.pdf</ref> When this is taken into account, humans and chimpanzees still share 96% of their sequence, making them considerably more genetically related to each other rats are to mice.<ref>http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2005/nhgri-31.htm</ref>

== Creationist View ==
Instead of seeing DNA as evidence for [[evolution]], creation scientists see DNA as confirming evidence of His divine plan. He has encoded into DNA His blueprints for making life. It is thus no surprise that the DNA of similar animals shares many sequences. DNA can be seen as a successful prediction of creation science.<ref>Matthews, Michael, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0425dna.asp DNA—what does it prove?] Answers in Genesis, 25th April, 2003.</ref>
== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Molecular Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Mallee fowl

2008-03-26T02:59:44Z

Igor nz: Redirecting to real name of bird

#REDIRECT [[Malle fowl]]

Malle fowl

2008-03-26T02:58:10Z

Igor nz: refs

The '''Malleefowl''' ''Leipoa ocellata'', is a large, ground dwelling Australian bird that has an extraordinarily precise method of reproduction.

Malle Fowl spend 9-11 months a year preparing a 3ft by 6ft mound that will act as an incubating nest. The eggs are laid in this nest and covered by sand and vegetation. During the incubation period adult birds check the temperature of the nest using their beaks and alter the composition of the mound to maintain a temperature around 90 degrees Fahrenheit

When the eggs hatch, the chicks break out of their shells, crawl through 2 feet of sand, and then can immediately run into scrub. Within 24 hours of hatching they can fly. Neither the mother nor father '''malleefowl''' give their offspring any more attention or training, yet instinct alone is sufficient for them to behave exactly as their parents did as adults. <ref>http://www.malleefowl.com.au/Malleefowl.htm</ref>

== Creationist views ==
A number of creationist have claimed that the Mallefowl could not have arisen by evolution <ref>http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/malleefowl.html</ref>. These claims appear to be based solely on personal incredulity on and have not assessed whether their are likely routes by which the '''mallefowl's''' unique reproductive strategy may have evolved

==References==
<references/>

Malle fowl

2008-03-26T02:57:03Z

Igor nz: Moved from Malle Bird and edited to confirm wih reality

Talk:Elephant

2008-03-26T02:32:01Z

Igor nz: "similar species"

Elephant

2008-03-26T02:28:54Z

Igor nz: Changes explained on talk page

[[Image:elephant.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Image from http://www.sxc.hu/]]
The '''elephants''' are three species of very large mammals belonging to the family Elephantidae - the only extant family belonging to the order Proboscidea. The three elephant species currently recognized by scientists are the African [[Bush]] Elephant, the African [[Forest]] Elephant (until recently known collectively as the African Elephant), and the Asian Elephant (also known as the Indian Elephant). Centuries of hunting elephants for their ivory has dwindled the population of these animals. Renewed efforts at stewardship have caused a population boom, with the number of elephants in Africa alone tripling in the last decade.

Elephants are the largest land animals alive today. Apart from their massive size their most striking features are a long trunk, or proboscis, a flexible nose strong enough to lift objects, their huge [[ivory]] tusks, and their large flapping ears, used to keep them cool.

Bull elephants, when inclined to mate, enter a frenzied state called ''musth''; they fight with each other for possession of the cow elephants, and become a menace to everything in their path; many humans are killed at this time. Elephants' gestation period, at 22 months, is the longest of any land mammal. At birth it is common for an elephant calf to weigh 120 kg (265 lb). An elephant may live as long as 70 years, sometimes longer.

The largest elephant ever recorded (the Fenykovi elephant, now in the [[Smithsonian Institution]]) was shot in [[Angola]] in 1954. It was male and weighed about 12,000 kg (26,400 lb), with a shoulder height of 4.2m, a meter taller than the average male African elephant.

==Uses of Elephants==
[[Image:Elephant2.jpg|left]]
Elephants (today generally Indian, but historically African elephants also) have been used as beasts of burden and draught animals, as mounts in processions and in war (notably by [[Hannibal]]), playing [[polo]], and as [[circus]] performers.

==Related species==

Molecular and morphological evidence point to [[hyrax|hyraxes]] and [[Sirenia|sirenians]] (sea cows and manatees) as theclosest living relatives of elephants<ref>Hidenori Nishihara et al. A Retroposon Analysis of Afrotherian Phylogeny. ''Molecular Biology and Evolution'' '''22''': 1823-1833,</ref>, and these groups are hypothesized by evolutionists to have shared a common ancestor approximately 50 million years ago. The three extant species of elephant are sole survivors of a much more diverse Proboscidian fauna with some 170 described [[fossil]] species and including species of [[mammoth]] from [[North America]] and the massive ''Deinotherium'', the second largest land mammal that ever lived, which sported two downward facing tusks.

==Trivia==

*A ''white elephant'' (from the historical veneration of such animals in Southeast Asia) is the term for a possession whose upkeep cost exceeds its expense, making it an overall liability.
*An elephant is the symbol of America's [[Republican Party]].
*Elephants are said to never forget
*Elephants are said to be afraid of [[mouse|mice]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Mammals]]
[[Category:Dangerous animals]]

Elephant

2008-03-20T03:29:41Z

Igor nz: removing misleading use of "similar"

[[Image:elephant.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Image from http://www.sxc.hu/]]
The '''elephants''' are three species of very large mammals belonging to the family Elephantidae - the only extant family belonging to the order Proboscidea. The three elephant species currently recognized by scientists are the African [[Bush]] Elephant, the African [[Forest]] Elephant (until recently known collectively as the African Elephant), and the Asian Elephant (also known as the Indian Elephant).

Elephants are the largest land animals alive today. Apart from their massive size their most striking features are a long trunk, or proboscis, a flexible nose strong enough to lift objects, their huge [[ivory]] tusks, and their large flapping ears, used to keep them cool.

Bull elephants, when inclined to mate, enter a frenzied state called ''musth''; they fight with each other for possession of the cow elephants, and become a menace to everything in their path; many humans are killed at this time. Elephants' gestation period, at 22 months, is the longest of any land mammal. At birth it is common for an elephant calf to weigh 120 kg (265 lb). An elephant may live as long as 70 years, sometimes longer.

The largest elephant ever recorded (the Fenykovi elephant, now in the [[Smithsonian Institution]]) was shot in [[Angola]] in 1954. It was male and weighed about 12,000 kg (26,400 lb), with a shoulder height of 4.2m, a meter taller than the average male African elephant.

==Uses of Elephants==
[[Image:Elephant2.jpg|left]]
Elephants (today generally Indian, but historically African elephants also) have been used as beasts of burden and draught animals, as mounts in processions and in war (notably by [[Hannibal]]), playing [[polo]], and as [[circus]] performers.

==Evolution==

Molecular and morphological evidence point to [[hyrax|hyraxes]] and [[Sirenia|sirenians]] (sea cows and manatees) as elephants closest living relatives<ref>Hidenori Nishihara et al. A Retroposon Analysis of Afrotherian Phylogeny. ''Molecular Biology and Evolution'' '''22''': 1823-1833,</ref>, and these groups are hypothesized by evolutionists to have shared a common ancestor approximately 50 million years ago. The three extant species of elephant are sole survivors of a much more diverse Proboscidian fauna with some 170 described [[fossil]] species and including species of [[mammoth]] from [[North America]] and the massive ''Deinotherium'', the second largest land mammal that ever lived, which sported two downward facing tusks.

==Trivia==

*A ''white elephant'' (from the historical veneration of such animals in Southeast Asia) is the term for a possession whose upkeep cost exceeds its expense, making it an overall liability.
*An elephant is the symbol of America's [[Republican Party]].
*Elephants are said to never forget and uphold resolutions relating to genocide.
*Elephants are said to be afraid of [[mouse|mice]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Mammals]]
[[Category:Dangerous animals]]

Sympatric speciation

2008-03-20T03:18:06Z

Igor nz: adding some refs and some reality

'''Sympatric speciation''', unlike [[allopatric speciation]], does not require large-scale geographic distance to reduce gene flow between parts of a population. Merely exploiting a new niche may automatically reduce [[gene]] flow with individuals exploiting the other niche. This may occasionally happen when, for example, herbivorous insects try out a new host plant. The question of whether speciation can occur in sympatry has been among the most contentious in evolutionary biology. In recent years a growing number of studies have provided empirical evidence that it has occurred <ref>
Barluenga, M et al Sympatric speciation in Nicaraguan crater lake cichlid ''Nature''439:719</ref><ref> Savolainen, V. et al. Sympatric speciation in palms on an oceanic island ''Nature''441, 210 - 2130</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]

User talk:Igor nz

2007-10-02T01:58:00Z

Igor nz:

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]}}

== Apology ==

My sincere apology for mistakenly blocking you for a perfectly normal and innocent restoration of ongoing conversations from a article discussion page archive. Also, for my lapse, in not dealing with this when you fist emailed me. Please forgive me. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Apology accepted, I do still think an immediate five year block was a little over the top - I know you must deal with a lot of recidivist vandals but perhaps a quick warning/note would have been better? The process of getting unblocked can be quite involved! --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 21:58, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Evolution is an unproved theory

2007-05-22T01:47:13Z

Igor nz: Do we need this article

This article was just a pile of falsehoods before the last two edits. I've added references to put paid to the arguments presented (common descent is not 'asummed' by scientists) and deleted the bit about unguided/guided evolution which doesn't relate to the topic on this page (add it to the appropriate page if you think conservapedia really needs it) --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 20:38, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

If you would like to improve it try to adopt a more nuteral tone. I realize that there is not a particularly nuteral tone at the moment, but please if you are going to change try to lessen the bias instead of just changing the direction thereof. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 20:49, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:No, the earlier article contains statemetents that are false (breaking the 1st commandment). This article is referenced and based on reality. If people want to edit it they can but surely a well referenced article dealing with these claims is better than one which is simply wrong --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 21:31, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
::You must be new here, or you'd know that Reality has an obviously Liberal bias, which is why nobody here relies on it. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 21:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

This article would probably be better off in the essay section of Conservapedia. --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 21:33, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:The title would certainly fit better with it being an essay, but perhaps something can be salvaged from it. Igor nz's bit about AiG's view is valid, but apart from that I'm not sure that his version is much better than the original. I'll try to remember to come back and have a go at it myself sometime. I've already written some stuff (not in article space) about evolution not being falsifiable, which may be able to go in here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:37, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Spelling and Grammar - Signs of Quality Home-Schooling ==

Ummmmm...should that not read "Evolution is an UNPROVEN theory?" [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 00:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Mischaracterization of source ==

I removed the a statement ("and in fact Popper himself asserted that evolution was a falsifiable hypothesis") and its source (Popper, K (1978). "Natural selection and the emergence of mind". Dialectica (32).) because it is apparantly an inaccurate representation of the source. Specifically, according to this [http://www.geocities.com/criticalrationalist/popperevolution.htm site], Popper stated: "The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established." Also, in 1980, Popper hedged in his letter to New Scientist. The assertion that Popper deemed "evolution a falsifiable hypopthesis" is not backed up by Popper's 1980 works, as well as respected authors like Numbers. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 01:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I don't really care to much now the inane link from the front page of the evolution page is gone but Popper (1978) does say that particular parts of evolutionary theory are falsifiable (which is whats at question, not whether neo-darwinism completely explains evolution which your quote is about). To my mind the interesting bit is evolution is such a broad theory that finding an individual observation that would bring it all down is hard (in fact the sorts of observations that would are going against things that are just taken as facts; some organisms have more offspring that others, there is some mode of inheritence of traits from parent to offspring...). Instead lots of little hypotheses can be proposed and tested for different parts of the theory. We couldn't deal with those sorts of ideas here without introducing Lakatos' and Kuhne's philosophies of science and that becomes a very big task. --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 20:13, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Do we need this article ==

Simple question, does this article have any reason to exist? If it is really going to be about the title then all it needs is a description of why calling a 'theory' 'unproved' betrays a lack of understanding of either word in scientific discourse (which AiG attests to).

If we want a big piece on falsification and whether evolutionary theory is falsifiable then it shouldn't be on this page (it should probably be on the main evolution page but us plebs can't edit that one). Thoughts? --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 21:47, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Evolution is an unproved theory

2007-05-22T00:13:30Z

Igor nz: I mischaracterised nothing ;)

This article was just a pile of falsehoods before the last two edits. I've added references to put paid to the arguments presented (common descent is not 'asummed' by scientists) and deleted the bit about unguided/guided evolution which doesn't relate to the topic on this page (add it to the appropriate page if you think conservapedia really needs it) --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 20:38, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

If you would like to improve it try to adopt a more nuteral tone. I realize that there is not a particularly nuteral tone at the moment, but please if you are going to change try to lessen the bias instead of just changing the direction thereof. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 20:49, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:No, the earlier article contains statemetents that are false (breaking the 1st commandment). This article is referenced and based on reality. If people want to edit it they can but surely a well referenced article dealing with these claims is better than one which is simply wrong --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 21:31, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

This article would probably be better off in the essay section of Conservapedia. --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 21:33, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:The title would certainly fit better with it being an essay, but perhaps something can be salvaged from it. Igor nz's bit about AiG's view is valid, but apart from that I'm not sure that his version is much better than the original. I'll try to remember to come back and have a go at it myself sometime. I've already written some stuff (not in article space) about evolution not being falsifiable, which may be able to go in here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:37, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Spelling and Grammar - Signs of Quality Home-Schooling ==

Ummmmm...should that not read "Evolution is an UNPROVEN theory?" [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 00:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Mischaracterization of source ==

I removed the a statement ("and in fact Popper himself asserted that evolution was a falsifiable hypothesis") and its source (Popper, K (1978). "Natural selection and the emergence of mind". Dialectica (32).) because it is apparantly an inaccurate representation of the source. Specifically, according to this [http://www.geocities.com/criticalrationalist/popperevolution.htm site], Popper stated: "The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established." Also, in 1980, Popper hedged in his letter to New Scientist. The assertion that Popper deemed "evolution a falsifiable hypopthesis" is not backed up by Popper's 1980 works, as well as respected authors like Numbers. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 01:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I don't really care to much now the inane link from the front page of the evolution page is gone but Popper (1978) does say that particular parts of evolutionary theory are falsifiable (which is whats at question, not whether neo-darwinism completely explains evolution which your quote is about). To my mind the interesting bit is evolution is such a broad theory that finding an individual observation that would bring it all down is hard (in fact the sorts of observations that would are going against things that are just taken as facts; some organisms have more offspring that others, there is some mode of inheritence of traits from parent to offspring...). Instead lots of little hypotheses can be proposed and tested for different parts of the theory. We couldn't deal with those sorts of ideas here without introducing Lakatos' and Kuhne's philosophies of science and that becomes a very big task. --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 20:13, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Evolution is an unproved theory

2007-05-21T01:31:15Z

Igor nz:

Essay:Evolution is an unproved theory

2007-05-21T01:28:25Z

Igor nz: reverting back

Opponents of evolutionary biology sometimes claim that evolution is an 'unproved theory'. It is true that the [[hypothesis]] that each species of life in existence now evolved naturally from another species, like any other scientific hypothesis, cannot be definitively proved. However, that hypothesis and the hypothesis that all life on earth descends from one common ancestor is supported by molecular <ref>Brown, J. R. and W. F. Doolittle. 1995. Root of the universal tree of life based on ancient aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase gene duplications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 92:2441-2445.</ref><ref>Caetano-Anolles, G. 2002. Evolved RNA secondary structure and the rooting of the universal tree of life. Journal of Molecular Evolution 54: 333-345.</ref><ref>Gribaldo, S. and P. Cammarano. 1998. The root of the universal tree of life inferred from anciently duplicated genes encoding components of the protein-targeting machinery. Journal of Molecular Evolution 47:508-516.</ref> fossil <ref>Carroll, R. L. (1997) Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref><ref>Sereno, P. C. (1999) "The Evolution of Dinosaurs." Science 284: 2137-2147</ref> geographical <ref>MacFadden, B. J. (1992) Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae. New York, Cambridge University Press.</ref> and morphological <ref>Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, London: John Murray 1st edition.</ref> evidence.

Some creationists also argue that the evolution of all life on earth is not a [[falsification|falsifiable]] hypothesis and as such should be considered a [[pseudoscience]] if the philosophy of science built by [[Karl Popper]] is to be followed. There are however very many facts that have not been observed that would falsify the evolutionary hypothesis. Most famously the English biologist [[JBS Haldane]] said "fossil rabbits in the precambrian" <ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref> would be enough. Many other possible methods of falsification have been proposed<ref> Theobald, Douglas (2004) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html| 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method.] The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-05-12.</ref> and in fact Popper himself asserted that evolution was a falsifiable hypothesis. <ref>Popper, K (1978). "Natural selection and the emergence of mind". Dialectica (32).</ref>

Creationists also sometimes attack evolutionary biology with the argument that evolution is 'just a theory' or an 'unproved theory', a tactic that even creationist group Answers in Genesis suggests not be used as it displays a lack of understanding of what the word theory means in scientific discourse.<ref> Answers in Genesis website [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp| Arguments we think creationists should NOT use] Retrieved on 2007-05-12</ref><ref>Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262</ref>. In fact, well over 99% of trained biologists accept the evolution of life on earth as a fact and neo-darwinian evolutionary theory as the theory best able to exaplain that fact <ref>Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek(26): 23-24</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

Talk:Essay:Evolution is an unproved theory

2007-05-21T00:38:58Z

Igor nz: forgot to sign

Talk:Essay:Evolution is an unproved theory

2007-05-21T00:38:39Z

Igor nz: explaining my (big) edit

Essay:Evolution is an unproved theory

2007-05-21T00:35:56Z

Igor nz: cleaning up refs

Essay:Evolution is an unproved theory

2007-05-21T00:33:43Z

Igor nz:

Opponents of evolutionary biology sometimes claim that evolution is an 'unproved theory'. It is true that the [[hypothesis]] that each species of life in existence now evolved naturally from another species, like any other scientific hypothesis, cannot be definitively proved. However, that hypothesis and the hypothesis that all life on earth descends from one common ancestor is supported by molecular <ref>Brown, J. R. and W. F. Doolittle. 1995. Root of the universal tree of life based on ancient aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase gene duplications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 92:2441-2445.</ref><ref>Caetano-Anolles, G. 2002. Evolved RNA secondary structure and the rooting of the universal tree of life. Journal of Molecular Evolution 54: 333-345.</ref><ref>Gribaldo, S. and P. Cammarano. 1998. The root of the universal tree of life inferred from anciently duplicated genes encoding components of the protein-targeting machinery. Journal of Molecular Evolution 47:508-516.</ref> fossil <ref>Carroll, R. L. (1997) Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref><ref>Sereno, P. C. (1999) "The Evolution of Dinosaurs." Science 284: 2137-2147</ref> geographical <ref>MacFadden, B. J. (1992) Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae. New York, Cambridge University Press.</ref> and morphological <ref>Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, London: John Murray 1st edition.</ref> evidence.

Some creationists also argue that the evolution of all life on earth is not a [[falsification|falsifiable]] hypothesis and as such should be considered a [[pseudoscience]] if the philosophy of science built by [[Karl Popper]] is to be followed. There are however very many facts that have not been observed that would falsify the evolutionary hypothesis. Most famously the English biologist [[JBS Haldane]] said "fossil rabbits in the precambrian"<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref> would be enough. Many other possible methods of falsification have been proposed<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html|Theobald, Douglas (2004). 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method.] The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-05-12.</ref> and in fact Popper himself asserted that evolution was a falsifiable hypothesis. <ref>Popper, K (1978). "Natural selection and the emergence of mind". Dialectica (32).</ref>

Creationists also sometimes attack evolutionary biology with the argument that evolution is 'just a theory' or an 'unproved theory', a tactic that even creationist group Answers in Genesis suggests not be used as it displays a lack of understanding of what the word theory means in scientific discourse.<ref> Answers in Genesis website [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp|Arguments we think creationists should NOT use] Retrieved on 2007-05-12</ref><ref>Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262</ref>. In fact, well over 99% of trained biologists accept the evolution of life on earth as a fact and neo-darwinian evolutionary theory as the theory best able to exaplain that fact <ref>Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek(26): 23-24</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-05-16T04:14:58Z

Igor nz: Proposed cahnge to #23

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5]]

== #1 ==

Again, this isn't bias. If it had been an ''FA'', that would have been one thing, but ''GA'' is not quite the same level of recognition. This list is getting more and more ludicrous. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:00, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow you here, Linus the Turbogeek. But can I call on you if I have technical computer questions? :-) A good Easter to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Um… you can't ''call'' me, but feel free to send me e-mail. A happy Easter to yourself as well. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal bias ==

The list contains still the statement that "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public", which still makes every statistician frown at conservapedia as soon as he looks where we get the data for Wikipedia from. A self-selected sample, with 131 categories, from which respondents can choose as many as they like, is compared to a Harris poll.

The other innovation of this example of Wikipedia bias is the definition of liberal bias; it now even has its own article as [[Liberal_quotient|Liberal Quotient]]. This article will make every mathematician frown, and it demonstrates that LQ is highly confusing. The article defines the LQ as Liberals/Conservatives, which has its own problems, but the illustrative part is that the article does not even once uses the definition of LQ correctly. None of the LQs mentioned in the article for particular groups, such as journalists, uses LQ correctly. It was never correct since it was created by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. And if you look at the [[Talk:Liberal_quotient|talk page]] you'll notice that most editors aren't able to apply the definition correctly either.

My suggestions would be 1) get a solid data base, since it it obviously a violation of good practice in statistics. 2) use a definition of liberal bias that people understand, now that it has been demonstrated, that the current definition is poorly understood. [[User:Order|Order]] 9 April, 18:40 (AEST)

:In addition, 3:1/1:2≠6. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Actually 3/(1/2) is 6. This is the correct part of it. You proabably mean 75%/33%? That is indeed something different and 225%. This just illustrates that the ''Liberal quotient'' is plain confusing. [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 11:00 (AEST)

== The Deluge criticism ==

As a Christian I can understand the criticism in which the Great Flood is treated as a piece of myth, or if you go to the Great Flood it will take you to the Deluge section: but what you have to realise is that the Great Flood can be seen in nearly all mythologies, for example, Dylan in Welsh and Atlantis in Greek. Therefore, the Noah account is part of wider scope, yet, it can be said that the Great Flood in all cultures could be the account of the same flood that Noah escaped in. {{unsigned|James M Hayes}}
:James, have you seen Conservapedia's article on the [[Great Flood]]? It covers the sorts of things you talk about, without using the word "myth" (or any derivative) at all (except in the external links). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hmmm...==
"Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases." OK, but this page cannot be edited. Isn't that just as bad? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 16:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Nooooo. this is entirely different in a way, I'm unable to explain to you. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:A page that has been removed cannot be read, this one can. That's a pretty obvious difference, I would think, and one that I had no difficulty explaining. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wasn't Conservapedia's [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] removed as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmmm, yes there was such an article that was deleted. But it was removed on the grounds that it was a rant with obscenities. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::And then deleted and then protected against further re-creation? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::It was created and deleted twice (with the second version apparently being a copy of the first version), so presumably it was thought prudent to prevent the same thing being done over and over. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:49, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Myk, we allow a great deal of criticism of our site here, far more than Wikipedia allows. I was not involved in the deletion of that particular entry but over time, as this site becomes more stable and secure against vandalism, that page can be reopened just as others have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Wikipedia allows unlimited criticism. It contains an article about Conservapedia that includes many of Conservapedia's criticisms of wikipedia. It even has a 106-source article entitled "Criticism of Wikipedia" that Wikipedia users wrote themselves. I criticized this article on this talk page, and my comment (along with many others) was deleted. If you aren't a liar, Aschlafly, then you are breathtakingly delusional. It would have been just as easy to remove the obscenities then protect the article.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: The "Criticism of Wikipedia" entry is a self-serving joke that censors any real criticism. I put in factual statements of bias in the Wikipedia and my factual, respectful statements were distorted and then censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: How many sources does this page cite? It would appear wikipedia is more exhaustive in criticizing themselves than Conservapedia is at criticizing Wikipedia.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wow, is that the test you're proposing? Simply count the number of citations, no matter what they say? That does seem consistent with Wikipedia's philosophy. As shown by the content page here, Wikipedia makes a factual claim and then provides a citation that actually fails to support the claim at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Which has sometimes occurred at Conservapedia as well, of course... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Hasn't that logic been used before on CP? The Theory of Evolution article is touted as being the best because it gets so many hits and has so many citations, but if you took a second to read the talk page you'd see otherwise. I don't know what "factual" statements Andy added, but if they're anything like the bias listed here, of course they were removed since they don't meet the mainstream definition of bias. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm a specialist in analyzing and remedying bias. Please bring any examples to my attention. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Wikipedia is six times as liberal"==

Isn't it time to do something about this? Whether or not the numbers are correct isn't for me to say, but if there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in the US, but three times as many liberals as conservatives on Wikipedia, then there must be about 2.27 times as many liberals on Wiki as in the US, not 6. The statement as it stands suggests that we don't know basic math, and I for one find that slightly embarrassing. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Quiet you fool! Don't you realize that if you argue with ASchlafly's math that it means you're wrong about everything? If he says that the Wikipedia is 108% liberal then it must be so!--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 15:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's approx. 2.25, and that's not how "liberal bias" is defined. Stop being an idiot, Aschlafly. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 20:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You can think about it this way. If your data is correct, then if you were to walk down the street and grab 6 people, statistically you should get 2 liberals and 4 conservatives. At wikipedia, you should get 1.5 conservatives (statistically speaking) and 4.5 liberals. 1.5 times 3 equals 4.5, and 1.5 plus 4.5 equals 6. Divide 4.5 by 2, and you get 2.25. And Hacker's right, "bias" refers to the articles themselves, not to who wrote them. Being mostly composed of liberals is not an example of bias.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh, I'm going to be really really really sorry I ever mentioned this, but you '''can''' also think of it this way.

::::Accept for argument Andrew Schlafly's assumptions—(which I most bodaciously do ''not'' accept)—that America is conservative, 2:1 and that Wikipedia is liberal, 3:1. Now, imagine conservatives at Wikipedia encircled by and trying to fight off liberals, and ask: for every pair of conservatives, how many liberals on average must they vanquish in order to prevail? The answer is every pair of conservatives needs to subdue '''six''' liberals. Now ask the same question for America. Here, the answer is that every pair of conservatives only needs to dispatch '''one''' liberal. Ergo, at Wikipedia the conservatives would need to work six times as hard. QED. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't read Andy's mind, but I doubt that is how he arrived at his magic number of 6. Creative thinking though!! [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== #47 ==

<blockquote>Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it in [a] story</blockquote>

What does this have to do with any bias on the part of Wikipedia, and more to the point, in what way is any such bias shown, in this case, liberal? --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:52, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Newspapers are known to have a liberal bias also, and hence the copying from the liberal Wikipedia is noteworthy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Um, no. Some newspapers lean left, but there are plenty of newspapers that endorse a conservative position. Quite a few (if not most) of the papers in my area are pretty conservative actually. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What does any liberal bias in the written press (LOL) have to do with whether Wikipedia has a liberal bias or not? Number 47 simply is not an example of bias in wikipedia. You may think it's "noteworthy" but so what? It's listed as an example of bias in Wikipedia. I think that counts as [[deceit]].--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 09:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== #41 ==

That shouldn't be there, surely, as it is simply someone saying Wikipedia is biased, rather than an actual example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 14:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: It quotes an insightful remark by an authority. That's what good encyclopedias do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't dispute this, but the fact remains that it's not actually an example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 11:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== What the heck…? ==

I'm sorry about this, and I'll get to work on [[MediaWiki]] and stay out of trouble for a while after I have my say, but how is criticism of articles without a worldwide viewpoint a "bias"? Wikipedia is a worldwide project, and yes, America is not the only English-speaking country around, so it can't claim ownership of even the English edition. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the criticism means that Wikipedia places an excessive emphasize on the "worldwide viewpoint", often to the exclusion of US views such as conservatism. It's one thing to say what everyone in the world thinks, another to try to homogenize it into one "consensus" view. (See [[pluralism]] vs. [[particularism]] - or until those are written, [[multiculturalism]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested edit ==

Could globalist be linked to [[Globalism]]. Has that anything to do with [[Globalization]]? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 13:16, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:Link added. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules ==
It saddens me to see that people feel that it is OK to criticize a project that they have not even read most of the rules of. Yes, Wikipedia says that it is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit, and is NPOV. Of course it is not NPOV yet, but someday could be. Most of these criticisms (well over 70%) are based on ignorance of Wikipedia rules. There are 42 policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and I doubt most people who are writing these criticisms have bothered to read any of those, except for the introduction. And the unbelievable hypocrisy of ''deleting'' and ''protecting'' a page called [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] is sickening. So yes, if anybody was to go and read the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, they will see that these criticisms are completely unfounded (well, most of 'em). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, the criticisms are based on the results, and the Wikipedia rules really have very little to do with this. The rules themselves encourage bias (e.g., "NPOV" towards terrorists) or the rules may be applied against conservative edits (e.g., initially against the entry on Conservapedia). And then there are the criticisms about the rules don't say, such as the Wikipedia rules do not prohibit obscenity, gossip, or pretending liberal opinion is fact.

: A study of bias doesn't really care what the rules or cause is. The study is about the results. But thanks for your comments and Lord bless you for your efforts on Wikipedia and here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::And, ignorance is bliss ... it's much easier to blindly criticize something instead of trying to study/investigate the reasons. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:04, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Apparently not easy enough, as some people (including Jimmy Wales himself) still pretend that Wikipedia does not have bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Time for my response (sigh); First of all, Jimmy Wales admits that it has a bias; he would be ignorant not to. But it is obvious that articles are much better now than they were a year or two ago. It's clear that great strides have been made towards not having a noticeable bias. And you say criticism is based on results? The stated goals of a project dictate what will be considered "good" and "bad", and most of the criticisms here are empty in their factual backing. Also, the "NPOV" towards terrorists is more neutral than calling them just "terrorists", no? Groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, LTTE, etc. aren't usually referred to as "terrorist", because they are seen as legitimate freedom fighters by huge chunks of the Arabic and Western world.
:::: Groups like al-Qaeda are still described as terrorist organizations in the introduction, since a larger group of legitimate sources consider them to be terrorists.
:::: And "pretending liberal opinion is fact"; Liberal opinion is rarely represented as fact, but liberal reports with ''factual backing'' is reported with more legitimacy. That's what the WP:RS guideline exists, to make sure reliable sources are used. I think you mean liberal ''pontification'' on facts represented as facts; that's what WP:CSB is trying to fix. And may I refer you to look at our very own [[Theory of evolution]] article, where there are 14 blockquotes from sources who have very little authority to be talking about evolution. Let us remember that 99.84% of scientists support the evolutionary theory. How are those 14 blockquotes, along with many, many, many AiG references not "conservative opinion is fact"? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:23, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
: What ''study''? [[User:Order]] May 14.

== Jewish encyclopedia ==

There's no need for scare quotes around the Jewish encyclopedia, it just looks like we're either ignorant or accusing Wikipedia of being anti-semitic. The Jewish encyclopedia is a real work, and often cited for things relating to Judaism. [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ link to the Jewish encyclopedia]. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: The quotation is accurate. The quotation marks inform the reader that the term was expressly used by Wikipedia. I don't see how removing the quotes would be more informative or more accurate. Wikipedia is specifically and expressly complaining about its own use of "the Jewish Encyclopedia."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

You should remove the quote marks. They are not found in the Wikipedia link, and as the earlier poster has already noted, the Jewish Encyclopedia is real. Nor was Wikipedia targeting Judeo-Christian tradition. The passage in question dealt with the wholesale copying of information from works that have entered the public domain--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 13:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:: This new entry seems to imply that American lives are more important than the eyes of anybody else in this world. What is bad about trying to get more coverage on articles which deal with the deaths of many more people? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed cahnge to #23 ==

Can we change #23 to this

"Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. To remove the problem of ias in censorship in Conservapedia edits to the theory of evolution page aren't allowed in the first place."

Or maybe just delete it?

Talk:Speciation

2007-05-16T04:04:06Z

Igor nz: New page: Just did pretty big edit, don't think there should be anything too controversial in it though. I don't think we need the definition of a species on this page, would anyone object if I move...

Just did pretty big edit, don't think there should be anything too controversial in it though. I don't think we need the definition of a species on this page, would anyone object if I moved it to the (rather poor) page for [[species]]?--[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 00:04, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Speciation

2007-05-16T04:02:28Z

Igor nz:

'''Speciation''' is the process by which new species arise. Speciation occurs when gene-flow stops between two sub-populations due to geographic or behavioral isolation. During such isolation the gene pool of each sub-population reacts differently to the processes of [[natural selection]] and [[genetic drift]] and and such evolve divergently. If this evolutionary divergence becomes great enough that crosses between individuals from different sub-populations can no longer produce viable offspring each sub-population is considered to be a new species and speciation is said to have occured.

==Species==
A [[species]] is:

<blockquote>
"a group of [[organisms]], with similar morphological, physiological, biochemical and behavioural features, which can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and are reproductively isolated from other species." - Jones M. & Gregory J., Biology 2, 2001, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-79714-4<ref>Biology 2, Jones M. & Gregory J., 2001, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-79714-4</ref>
</blockquote>

;morphological features
:structural features, such as anatomy
;physiological features
:how the body functions
;biochemical features
:sequence of [[bases]] in [[DNA]]
:sequence of [[amino acids]] in [[proteins]]

For example, all donkeys look alike, have similar physiology and biochemistry and the same genome. Donkeys can successfully interbreed with other donkeys to produce more fertile donkeys. Donkeys can interbreed with a similar species; horses. However, the offspring (called mules) are infertile and cannot reproduce with each other. Therefore donkeys and horses are separate species.

Unfortunately the interbreeding test is often difficult to carry out, especially if the organisms being investigated are rare, take a long time to reproduce or do not breed in captivity.

==Modes of Speciation==
The process of speciation can be conveniently broken into four seperate 'modes' of speciation ( allopatric, peripatric, and sympatric) that differ in the degree of geographical isolation between diverging species. Some authors also propose other names for modes of speciation or argue that all speciation events should considered to occur somehere in a continuum from no geograpical islolation to complete geographical isolation.

=== Allopatric speciation===
'''Allopatric speciation''' occurs due to geographical isolation. This is supported by the fact that many islands have their own unique group of species, for example the separation of the [[Galapagos]] islands from the mainland Americas.

Geographical isolation can occur due to many factors, such as:
*Large bodies of water.
*[[Plate Tectonics|Continental Drift]]
*Deforestation.
*Mountainous areas.
*Smaller-scale barriers for small or immobile organisms.

The individuals in the separated area are exposed to different selection pressures than the rest of their species and, over time, their morphology, physiology and biochemistry change significantly so that they are now unable to produce fertile offspring when interbred with the original population.

===Peripatric Speciation===
'''Peripatric speciation''' occurs when a population is divided into a 'main population' smaller, peripheral isolate which is to some degree seperated from the main population. [[Ernst Mayr]] was the first to propose that peripheral populations my play an important role in speciation and this idea gels well with his ideas about [[genetic revolutions]] and the [[founder effect]]

===Sympatric speciation===

In '''sympatric speciation''' reproductive isolation is achieved by newly diverging species without any geographic barriers to gene flow. Sympatric speciation is certainly the most controversial of the proposed methods with most biologists thinking it plays a minor role and many even questioning if it occurs at all. In recent years examples have of sympatric speciation occuring by host shifting by insects and differnces in flowering time in palms have been presented as strong evidence that multiple species of cichlid fish may have arisen without geographical barriers to gene flow in crater lakes.

The commonest method of sympatric speciation is probably '''[[polyploidy]]'''. Polyploids contain more than two complete sets of chromosomes in each cell. This can occur if there is an error in [[meiosis]] (production of gametes) so that a gamete ends up with two copies of each set of chromosomes instead of one copy. Two of these gametes may fuse to produce an organism that has four sets of each chromosome in their cells, called a '''tetraploid''' organism.

Tetraploids are usually sterile as four pairs of chromosomes attempt to pair up in meiosis (instead of the usual two pairs) and get muddled. Nevertheless, such organisms my be able to reproduce [[asexually]] as [[mitosis]] is not impaired. This is a fairly common occurrance in plants but particularly rare in animals as most do not naturally reproduce asexually.

Occasionally a tetraploid plant can produce gametes, but they will be diploid. Zygotes produced by these gametes fusing with a gamete from a normal, diploid, plant will be '''triploid''' (contain three pairs of each chromosome). Triploids can grow successfully but will be sterile as three sets of chromosomes cannot be shared equally between two daughter cells. As this triploid plant will not be able to reproduce successfully with its parent, tetraploid, plant it is a ''new species''.

Polyploids where their chromosomes originate only from one species are called '''autopolyploids''' ('auto' meaning 'self'). If a polyploid contains chromosomes from two, closely related, species then it is an '''allopolyploid''' ('allo' meaning 'different'). Meiosis occurs easier in allopolyploids than autoployploids as the chromosome pairs from each species seek to pair up together. Allopolyploids may well be fertile. Even so, allopolypoloids will ''not'' be able to interbreed with their parent species and is a new species.

====Example of sympatric speciation through allopolyploidy====
''Spartina anglica'' is a cord grass that grows vigorously in British salt marshes. Before 1830 the species of ''Spartina'' that grew in such marshes was ''S. maritima'' but in 1829 ''S. alterniflora'' was imported to the regions from America. ''S. maritima'' and ''S. alterniflora'' hybridised to produce a new species, ''S. townsendii'', a diploid plant with a set of chromosomes form each of ''S maritima'' and ''S. alterniflora''. As the two sets of chromosomes from ''S. townsendii'''s parents cannot pair up, meiosis cannot occur and ''S. townsendii'' is sterile. However, ''S. townsendii'' can rapidly reproduce asexually via [[rhizomes]].

At a later time a faulty cycle of mitosis, or the fusion of two diploid gametes from ''S. townsendii'', produced a tetraploid plant. This new species, ''S. angelica'', is an allopolyploid as two pairs of chromosomes came from ''S. maritima'' and two from ''S. alterniflora''. Meiosis can now occur and ''S. angelica'' is fertile and grows so vigorously that it has practically replaced the other three species of ''Spartina'' in England.

==Cospeciation==
Cospeciation happens when the association between two species is very close, that they may speciate in parallel. This is especially likely to happen between parasites and their hosts.

Often this type of speciation is found in symbiotic organisms.

Rarely do scientists find hosts and parasites with exactly matching phylogenies. However, sometimes the phylogenies indicate that cospeciation did happen along with some host-switching.

===Examples of Cospeciation===
:*Cospeciation between bacterial endosymbionts. <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10937228</ref>
:*Host-Symbiont Cospeciation. <ref>http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040337</ref>
:*Cospeciation, and Host Switching in Avian Malaria Parasites. <ref>http://striweb.si.edu/publications/PDFs/Bermingham,%20Avian%20malaria%20SysBio04.pdf</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Speciation

2007-05-16T03:38:56Z

Igor nz: making my self clearer

'''Speciation''' is the process by which new species arise. Speciation occurs when gene-flow stops between two sub-populations due to geographic or behavioral isolation. During such isolation the gene pool of each sub-population reacts differently to the processes of [[natural selection]] and [[genetic drift]] and and such evolve divergently. If this evolutionary divergence becomes great enought that crosses between individuals from different sub-populations can no longer produce viable offspring each sub-population is considered to be a new species and speciation is said to have occured.
==Species==
A [[species]] is:

<blockquote>
"a group of [[organisms]], with similar morphological, physiological, biochemical and behavioural features, which can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and are reproductively isolated from other species." - Jones M. & Gregory J., Biology 2, 2001, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-79714-4<ref>Biology 2, Jones M. & Gregory J., 2001, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-79714-4</ref>
</blockquote>

;morphological features
:structural features, such as anatomy
;physiological features
:how the body functions
;biochemical features
:sequence of [[bases]] in [[DNA]]
:sequence of [[amino acids]] in [[proteins]]

For example, all donkeys look alike, have similar physiology and biochemistry and the same genome. Donkeys can successfully interbreed with other donkeys to produce more fertile donkeys. Donkeys can interbreed with a similar species; horses. However, the offspring (called mules) are infertile and cannot reproduce with each other. Therefore donkeys and horses are separate species.

Unfortunately the interbreeding test is often difficult to carry out, especially if the organisms being investigated are rare, take a long time to reproduce or do not breed in captivity.

==Allopatric speciation==
'''Allopatric speciation''' occurs due to geographical isolation. This is supported by the fact that many islands have their own unique group of species, for example the separation of the [[Galapagos]] islands from the mainland Americas.

Geographical isolation can occur due to many factors, such as:
*Large bodies of water.
*Deforestation.
*Mountainous areas.
*Smaller-scale barriers for small or immobile organisms.

The individuals in the separated area are exposed to different selection pressures than the rest of their species and, over time, their morphology, physiology and biochemistry change significantly so that they are now unable to produce fertile offspring when interbred with the original population.

==Sympatric speciation==
The commonest method of '''sympatric speciation''' is probably '''[[polyploidy]]'''. Polyploids contain more than two complete sets of chromosomes in each cell. This can occur if there is an error in [[meiosis]] (production of gametes) so that a gamete ends up with two copies of each set of chromosomes instead of one copy. Two of these gametes may fuse to produce an organism that has four sets of each chromosome in their cells, called a '''tetraploid''' organism.

Tetraploids are usually sterile as four pairs of chromosomes attempt to pair up in meiosis (instead of the usual two pairs) and get muddled. Nevertheless, such organisms my be able to reproduce [[asexually]] as [[mitosis]] is not impaired. This is a fairly common occurrance in plants but particularly rare in animals as most do not naturally reproduce asexually.

Occasionally a tetraploid plant can produce gametes, but they will be diploid. Zygotes produced by these gametes fusing with a gamete from a normal, diploid, plant will be '''triploid''' (contain three pairs of each chromosome). Triploids can grow successfully but will be sterile as three sets of chromosomes cannot be shared equally between two daughter cells. As this triploid plant will not be able to reproduce successfully with its parent, tetraploid, plant it is a ''new species''.

Polyploids where their chromosomes originate only from one species are called '''autopolyploids''' ('auto' meaning 'self'). If a polyploid contains chromosomes from two, closely related, species then it is an '''allopolyploid''' ('allo' meaning 'different'). Meiosis occurs easier in allopolyploids than autoployploids as the chromosome pairs from each species seek to pair up together. Allopolyploids may well be fertile. Even so, allopolypoloids will ''not'' be able to interbreed with their parent species and is a new species.

===Example of speciation through allopolyploidy===
''Spartina anglica'' is a cord grass that grows vigorously in British salt marshes. Before 1830 the species of ''Spartina'' that grew in such marshes was ''S. maritima'' but in 1829 ''S. alterniflora'' was imported to the regions from America. ''S. maritima'' and ''S. alterniflora'' hybridised to produce a new species, ''S. townsendii'', a diploid plant with a set of chromosomes form each of ''S maritima'' and ''S. alterniflora''. As the two sets of chromosomes from ''S. townsendii'''s parents cannot pair up, meiosis cannot occur and ''S. townsendii'' is sterile. However, ''S. townsendii'' can rapidly reproduce asexually via [[rhizomes]].

At a later time a faulty cycle of mitosis, or the fusion of two diploid gametes from ''S. townsendii'', produced a tetraploid plant. This new species, ''S. angelica'', is an allopolyploid as two pairs of chromosomes came from ''S. maritima'' and two from ''S. alterniflora''. Meiosis can now occur and ''S. angelica'' is fertile and grows so vigorously that it has practically replaced the other three species of ''Spartina'' in England.

==Parapatric Speciation==

==Cospeciation==
Cospeciation happens when the association between two species is very close, that they may speciate in parallel. This is especially likely to happen between parasites and their hosts.

Often this type of speciation is found in symbiotic organisms.

Rarely do scientists find hosts and parasites with exactly matching phylogenies. However, sometimes the phylogenies indicate that cospeciation did happen along with some host-switching.

===Examples of Cospeciation===
:*Cospeciation between bacterial endosymbionts. <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10937228</ref>
:*Host-Symbiont Cospeciation. <ref>http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040337</ref>
:*Cospeciation, and Host Switching in Avian Malaria Parasites. <ref>http://striweb.si.edu/publications/PDFs/Bermingham,%20Avian%20malaria%20SysBio04.pdf</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Speciation

2007-05-16T03:34:41Z

Igor nz: removing confusion about ho speciation happens

'''Speciation''' is the process by which new species arise. Speciation occurs when gene-flow stops between two sub-populations due to geographic or behavioral isolation. During such isolation the gene pool of each sub-population reacts differently to the processes of [[natural selection]] and [[genetic drift]]. When such changes accumulate to the extend that crosses between members of each sub-population can no longer produce viable offspring each sub-population is considered to be a new species and speciation is said to have occured.
==Species==
A [[species]] is:

<blockquote>
"a group of [[organisms]], with similar morphological, physiological, biochemical and behavioural features, which can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and are reproductively isolated from other species." - Jones M. & Gregory J., Biology 2, 2001, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-79714-4<ref>Biology 2, Jones M. & Gregory J., 2001, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-79714-4</ref>
</blockquote>

;morphological features
:structural features, such as anatomy
;physiological features
:how the body functions
;biochemical features
:sequence of [[bases]] in [[DNA]]
:sequence of [[amino acids]] in [[proteins]]

For example, all donkeys look alike, have similar physiology and biochemistry and the same genome. Donkeys can successfully interbreed with other donkeys to produce more fertile donkeys. Donkeys can interbreed with a similar species; horses. However, the offspring (called mules) are infertile and cannot reproduce with each other. Therefore donkeys and horses are separate species.

Unfortunately the interbreeding test is often difficult to carry out, especially if the organisms being investigated are rare, take a long time to reproduce or do not breed in captivity.

==Allopatric speciation==
'''Allopatric speciation''' occurs due to geographical isolation. This is supported by the fact that many islands have their own unique group of species, for example the separation of the [[Galapagos]] islands from the mainland Americas.

Geographical isolation can occur due to many factors, such as:
*Large bodies of water.
*Deforestation.
*Mountainous areas.
*Smaller-scale barriers for small or immobile organisms.

The individuals in the separated area are exposed to different selection pressures than the rest of their species and, over time, their morphology, physiology and biochemistry change significantly so that they are now unable to produce fertile offspring when interbred with the original population.

==Sympatric speciation==
The commonest method of '''sympatric speciation''' is probably '''[[polyploidy]]'''. Polyploids contain more than two complete sets of chromosomes in each cell. This can occur if there is an error in [[meiosis]] (production of gametes) so that a gamete ends up with two copies of each set of chromosomes instead of one copy. Two of these gametes may fuse to produce an organism that has four sets of each chromosome in their cells, called a '''tetraploid''' organism.

Tetraploids are usually sterile as four pairs of chromosomes attempt to pair up in meiosis (instead of the usual two pairs) and get muddled. Nevertheless, such organisms my be able to reproduce [[asexually]] as [[mitosis]] is not impaired. This is a fairly common occurrance in plants but particularly rare in animals as most do not naturally reproduce asexually.

Occasionally a tetraploid plant can produce gametes, but they will be diploid. Zygotes produced by these gametes fusing with a gamete from a normal, diploid, plant will be '''triploid''' (contain three pairs of each chromosome). Triploids can grow successfully but will be sterile as three sets of chromosomes cannot be shared equally between two daughter cells. As this triploid plant will not be able to reproduce successfully with its parent, tetraploid, plant it is a ''new species''.

Polyploids where their chromosomes originate only from one species are called '''autopolyploids''' ('auto' meaning 'self'). If a polyploid contains chromosomes from two, closely related, species then it is an '''allopolyploid''' ('allo' meaning 'different'). Meiosis occurs easier in allopolyploids than autoployploids as the chromosome pairs from each species seek to pair up together. Allopolyploids may well be fertile. Even so, allopolypoloids will ''not'' be able to interbreed with their parent species and is a new species.

===Example of speciation through allopolyploidy===
''Spartina anglica'' is a cord grass that grows vigorously in British salt marshes. Before 1830 the species of ''Spartina'' that grew in such marshes was ''S. maritima'' but in 1829 ''S. alterniflora'' was imported to the regions from America. ''S. maritima'' and ''S. alterniflora'' hybridised to produce a new species, ''S. townsendii'', a diploid plant with a set of chromosomes form each of ''S maritima'' and ''S. alterniflora''. As the two sets of chromosomes from ''S. townsendii'''s parents cannot pair up, meiosis cannot occur and ''S. townsendii'' is sterile. However, ''S. townsendii'' can rapidly reproduce asexually via [[rhizomes]].

At a later time a faulty cycle of mitosis, or the fusion of two diploid gametes from ''S. townsendii'', produced a tetraploid plant. This new species, ''S. angelica'', is an allopolyploid as two pairs of chromosomes came from ''S. maritima'' and two from ''S. alterniflora''. Meiosis can now occur and ''S. angelica'' is fertile and grows so vigorously that it has practically replaced the other three species of ''Spartina'' in England.

==Parapatric Speciation==

==Cospeciation==
Cospeciation happens when the association between two species is very close, that they may speciate in parallel. This is especially likely to happen between parasites and their hosts.

Often this type of speciation is found in symbiotic organisms.

Rarely do scientists find hosts and parasites with exactly matching phylogenies. However, sometimes the phylogenies indicate that cospeciation did happen along with some host-switching.

===Examples of Cospeciation===
:*Cospeciation between bacterial endosymbionts. <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10937228</ref>
:*Host-Symbiont Cospeciation. <ref>http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040337</ref>
:*Cospeciation, and Host Switching in Avian Malaria Parasites. <ref>http://striweb.si.edu/publications/PDFs/Bermingham,%20Avian%20malaria%20SysBio04.pdf</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Speciation

2007-05-16T03:28:34Z

Igor nz: removed strange hedging (speciation = new species, no matter how it happens)

'''Speciation''' is the process by which new species arise. possibly by [[Darwin-Wallace evolution]]. It occurs due to [[natural selection]] and separation of populations of the same species, allowing allele frequencies in the two groups to change independently. See [[evolution]] for a detailed dissection of the many problems of this theory.

==Species==
A [[species]] is:

<blockquote>
"a group of [[organisms]], with similar morphological, physiological, biochemical and behavioural features, which can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and are reproductively isolated from other species." - Jones M. & Gregory J., Biology 2, 2001, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-79714-4<ref>Biology 2, Jones M. & Gregory J., 2001, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-79714-4</ref>
</blockquote>

;morphological features
:structural features, such as anatomy
;physiological features
:how the body functions
;biochemical features
:sequence of [[bases]] in [[DNA]]
:sequence of [[amino acids]] in [[proteins]]

For example, all donkeys look alike, have similar physiology and biochemistry and the same genome. Donkeys can successfully interbreed with other donkeys to produce more fertile donkeys. Donkeys can interbreed with a similar species; horses. However, the offspring (called mules) are infertile and cannot reproduce with each other. Therefore donkeys and horses are separate species.

Unfortunately the interbreeding test is often difficult to carry out, especially if the organisms being investigated are rare, take a long time to reproduce or do not breed in captivity.

==Allopatric speciation==
'''Allopatric speciation''' occurs due to geographical isolation. This is supported by the fact that many islands have their own unique group of species, for example the separation of the [[Galapagos]] islands from the mainland Americas.

Geographical isolation can occur due to many factors, such as:
*Large bodies of water.
*Deforestation.
*Mountainous areas.
*Smaller-scale barriers for small or immobile organisms.

The individuals in the separated area are exposed to different selection pressures than the rest of their species and, over time, their morphology, physiology and biochemistry change significantly so that they are now unable to produce fertile offspring when interbred with the original population.

==Sympatric speciation==
The commonest method of '''sympatric speciation''' is probably '''[[polyploidy]]'''. Polyploids contain more than two complete sets of chromosomes in each cell. This can occur if there is an error in [[meiosis]] (production of gametes) so that a gamete ends up with two copies of each set of chromosomes instead of one copy. Two of these gametes may fuse to produce an organism that has four sets of each chromosome in their cells, called a '''tetraploid''' organism.

Tetraploids are usually sterile as four pairs of chromosomes attempt to pair up in meiosis (instead of the usual two pairs) and get muddled. Nevertheless, such organisms my be able to reproduce [[asexually]] as [[mitosis]] is not impaired. This is a fairly common occurrance in plants but particularly rare in animals as most do not naturally reproduce asexually.

Occasionally a tetraploid plant can produce gametes, but they will be diploid. Zygotes produced by these gametes fusing with a gamete from a normal, diploid, plant will be '''triploid''' (contain three pairs of each chromosome). Triploids can grow successfully but will be sterile as three sets of chromosomes cannot be shared equally between two daughter cells. As this triploid plant will not be able to reproduce successfully with its parent, tetraploid, plant it is a ''new species''.

Polyploids where their chromosomes originate only from one species are called '''autopolyploids''' ('auto' meaning 'self'). If a polyploid contains chromosomes from two, closely related, species then it is an '''allopolyploid''' ('allo' meaning 'different'). Meiosis occurs easier in allopolyploids than autoployploids as the chromosome pairs from each species seek to pair up together. Allopolyploids may well be fertile. Even so, allopolypoloids will ''not'' be able to interbreed with their parent species and is a new species.

===Example of speciation through allopolyploidy===
''Spartina anglica'' is a cord grass that grows vigorously in British salt marshes. Before 1830 the species of ''Spartina'' that grew in such marshes was ''S. maritima'' but in 1829 ''S. alterniflora'' was imported to the regions from America. ''S. maritima'' and ''S. alterniflora'' hybridised to produce a new species, ''S. townsendii'', a diploid plant with a set of chromosomes form each of ''S maritima'' and ''S. alterniflora''. As the two sets of chromosomes from ''S. townsendii'''s parents cannot pair up, meiosis cannot occur and ''S. townsendii'' is sterile. However, ''S. townsendii'' can rapidly reproduce asexually via [[rhizomes]].

At a later time a faulty cycle of mitosis, or the fusion of two diploid gametes from ''S. townsendii'', produced a tetraploid plant. This new species, ''S. angelica'', is an allopolyploid as two pairs of chromosomes came from ''S. maritima'' and two from ''S. alterniflora''. Meiosis can now occur and ''S. angelica'' is fertile and grows so vigorously that it has practically replaced the other three species of ''Spartina'' in England.

==Parapatric Speciation==

==Cospeciation==
Cospeciation happens when the association between two species is very close, that they may speciate in parallel. This is especially likely to happen between parasites and their hosts.

Often this type of speciation is found in symbiotic organisms.

Rarely do scientists find hosts and parasites with exactly matching phylogenies. However, sometimes the phylogenies indicate that cospeciation did happen along with some host-switching.

===Examples of Cospeciation===
:*Cospeciation between bacterial endosymbionts. <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10937228</ref>
:*Host-Symbiont Cospeciation. <ref>http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040337</ref>
:*Cospeciation, and Host Switching in Avian Malaria Parasites. <ref>http://striweb.si.edu/publications/PDFs/Bermingham,%20Avian%20malaria%20SysBio04.pdf</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:Convergent evolution

2007-05-01T03:41:46Z

Igor nz: A start

== A start ==

This used to redirect to [[homology]] which is about the opposite of convergent evolution which seemed strange to me. Anyway, its only a start

Talk:Convergent evolution

2007-05-01T03:40:17Z

Igor nz: Removing all content from page

Convergent evolution

2007-05-01T03:39:32Z

Igor nz:

In evolutionary biology convergent evolution is the process by which two [[organisms]] or taxonomic groups share a character due to independently adapting to a similar environment or niche not by [[homology]]

Chimpanzee

2007-05-01T03:33:21Z

Igor nz:

Chimpanzee, often shortened to chimp, is the common name for the two extant species in the genus ''Pan''. The better known chimpanzee is ''Pan troglodytes'', the Common Chimpanzee, living primarily in West, and Central Africa. Its cousin, the [[Bonobo]] or "Pygmy Chimpanzee" as it is known archaically, ''Pan paniscus'', is found in the forests of the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]]. The Congo River forms the boundary between the two species.

Most biologists hold the view that chimpanzees and humans share a close common ancestor due to molecular, morphological, physiological, geographical and behavioural similarities. Although in some cases [[convergent evolution]] makes for such similarities in distantly related organisms the similarities between humans and chimps include neutral genetic markers that could not be subject to convergent evolution <ref> A. Hobolth et al. (2007) Genomic relationships and speciation times of human, chimpanzee, and gorilla inferred from a coalescent hidden Markov model. ''PLOS Genetics'' '''23:'''e7</ref>

==Measurements==
A full grown adult male chimpanzee can weigh from 35-70 kilograms (75-155 pounds) and stand 0.9-1.2 meters (3-4 feet) tall, while females usually weigh 26-50 kg (57-110 pounds) and stand 0.66-1 meters (2.0-3.5 feet) tall.

==Lifespan==
Chimpanzees rarely live past the age of 40 in the wild, but have been known to reach the age of 60 in captivity, and ''Tarzan'' star Cheeta is still alive [[as of 2006]] at the age of 74.

==Chimpanzee differences==
Anatomical differences between Common and Pygmy Chimpanzees are slight, but in [[sex|sexual]] and social behavior there are marked differences. Common Chimpanzees have an [[omnivore|omnivorous]] [[diet (nutrition)|diet]], a troop [[predation|hunting]] culture based on beta males led by an [[alpha male]], and highly complex social relationships; Bonobos, on the other hand, have a mostly [[herbivorous]] diet and an [[egalitarian]], [[matriarchal]], sexually receptive behavior. The exposed skin of the face, hands and feet varies from pink to very dark in both species, but is generally lighter in younger individuals, darkening as maturity is reached. Bonobos have longer arms and tend to walk upright more often than the Common Chimpanzee.{{fact}}

==Taxonomic relationships==
The genus ''Pan'' is now considered to be part of the subfamily [[Homininae]] to which [[human]]s also belong. [[Theory of evolution|Evolutionary]] [[Biology|biologists]] believe that the two species of chimpanzees are the closest living [[evolution|evolutionary]] relatives to [[human]]s. It is thought that humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas as recently as [[Pliocene|four]] to [[Miocene|seven million years ago]]. Groundbreaking research by [[Mary-Claire King]] in 1973 found 99% identical [[DNA]] between human beings and chimpanzees,<ref>Mary-Claire King, ''Protein polymorphisms in chimpanzee and human evolution'', Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley (1973).</ref> although research since has modified that finding to about 94%<ref name=ns>{{cite web | url = http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=9D0DAC2B-E7F2-99DF-3AA795436FEF8039 |date = 2006-12-19 | title = Humans and Chimps: Close But Not That Close | publisher = Scientific American | accessdate = 2006-12-20}}</ref> commonality, with at least some of the difference occurring in 'junk' DNA. It has even been proposed that ''troglodytes'' and ''paniscus'' belong with ''sapiens'' in the genus ''[[Homo (genus)|Homo]]'', rather than in ''Pan''. One argument for this is that other species have been reclassified to belong to the same genus on the basis of less genetic similarity than that between humans and chimpanzees. Indeed cladistic taxonomy, based on both genetic difference and date of likely divergence, is very clear in placing both extant species of ''Pan'' in the genus ''Homo'', mainly because the genus ''Homo'' takes precedence on account of being coined first. It is very important, however, to consider where the differences in the genome appear.<ref>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061219201931.htm</ref>

A study published by Clark and Nielsen of [[Cornell University]] in the December 2003 issue of the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' highlights differences related to one of humankind's defining qualities — the ability to understand [[language]] and to communicate through speech. These macro-phenotypic differences, however, may owe less to physiology than might be assumed given that ''Homo sapiens'' developed modern cultural features long after the modern physiological features were in place and indeed competed averagely against other species of ''Homo'' with regard to tools, etc for many millennia. Differences also exist in the genes for smell, in genes that regulate the metabolism of amino acids and in genes that may affect the ability to digest various proteins.
===Fossils===
Many [[Human evolution|human fossils]] have been found, but chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa do not overlap with the major human fossil sites in East Africa. However, chimpanzee fossils have now been reported from [[Kenya]]. The [[Theory of evolution|evolutionist]] researchers who discovered them asserted: "These fossils, from the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya, show that representatives of ''Pan'' were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene, where they were contemporary with an extinct species of ''Homo''."<ref>McBrearty, S. and N. G. Jablonksi (2005), "First fossil chimpanzee," ''Nature'' '''437'''(7055):105-8. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/ Entrez PubMed], search on PMID: 16136135</ref>.

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Primates]]

Chimpanzee

2007-05-01T03:18:42Z

Igor nz: italisciding specic names

Chimpanzee, often shortened to chimp, is the common name for the two extant species in the genus ''Pan''. The better known chimpanzee is ''Pan troglodytes'', the Common Chimpanzee, living primarily in West, and Central Africa. Its cousin, the [[Bonobo]] or "Pygmy Chimpanzee" as it is known archaically, ''Pan paniscus'', is found in the forests of the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]]. The Congo River forms the boundary between the two species.

Most adherents to the theory of evolution hold the view that chimpanzees and humans share a close common ancestor, due to their similar natures and physiology. However, there are millions of species that are similar, due to the fact that they share a common habitat and must have similar structures and physiology in order to survive.

==Measurements==
A full grown adult male chimpanzee can weigh from 35-70 kilograms (75-155 pounds) and stand 0.9-1.2 meters (3-4 feet) tall, while females usually weigh 26-50 kg (57-110 pounds) and stand 0.66-1 meters (2.0-3.5 feet) tall.

==Lifespan==
Chimpanzees rarely live past the age of 40 in the wild, but have been known to reach the age of 60 in captivity, and ''Tarzan'' star Cheeta is still alive [[as of 2006]] at the age of 74.

==Chimpanzee differences==
Anatomical differences between Common and Pygmy Chimpanzees are slight, but in [[sex|sexual]] and social behavior there are marked differences. Common Chimpanzees have an [[omnivore|omnivorous]] [[diet (nutrition)|diet]], a troop [[predation|hunting]] culture based on beta males led by an [[alpha male]], and highly complex social relationships; Bonobos, on the other hand, have a mostly [[herbivorous]] diet and an [[egalitarian]], [[matriarchal]], sexually receptive behavior. The exposed skin of the face, hands and feet varies from pink to very dark in both species, but is generally lighter in younger individuals, darkening as maturity is reached. Bonobos have longer arms and tend to walk upright more often than the Common Chimpanzee.{{fact}}

==Taxonomic relationships==
The genus ''Pan'' is now considered to be part of the subfamily [[Homininae]] to which [[human]]s also belong. [[Theory of evolution|Evolutionary]] [[Biology|biologists]] believe that the two species of chimpanzees are the closest living [[evolution|evolutionary]] relatives to [[human]]s. It is thought that humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas as recently as [[Pliocene|four]] to [[Miocene|seven million years ago]]. Groundbreaking research by [[Mary-Claire King]] in 1973 found 99% identical [[DNA]] between human beings and chimpanzees,<ref>Mary-Claire King, ''Protein polymorphisms in chimpanzee and human evolution'', Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley (1973).</ref> although research since has modified that finding to about 94%<ref name=ns>{{cite web | url = http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=9D0DAC2B-E7F2-99DF-3AA795436FEF8039 |date = 2006-12-19 | title = Humans and Chimps: Close But Not That Close | publisher = Scientific American | accessdate = 2006-12-20}}</ref> commonality, with at least some of the difference occurring in 'junk' DNA. It has even been proposed that ''troglodytes'' and ''paniscus'' belong with ''sapiens'' in the genus ''[[Homo (genus)|Homo]]'', rather than in ''Pan''. One argument for this is that other species have been reclassified to belong to the same genus on the basis of less genetic similarity than that between humans and chimpanzees. Indeed cladistic taxonomy, based on both genetic difference and date of likely divergence, is very clear in placing both extant species of ''Pan'' in the genus ''Homo'', mainly because the genus ''Homo'' takes precedence on account of being coined first. It is very important, however, to consider where the differences in the genome appear.<ref>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061219201931.htm</ref>

A study published by Clark and Nielsen of [[Cornell University]] in the December 2003 issue of the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' highlights differences related to one of humankind's defining qualities — the ability to understand [[language]] and to communicate through speech. These macro-phenotypic differences, however, may owe less to physiology than might be assumed given that ''Homo sapiens'' developed modern cultural features long after the modern physiological features were in place and indeed competed averagely against other species of ''Homo'' with regard to tools, etc for many millennia. Differences also exist in the genes for smell, in genes that regulate the metabolism of amino acids and in genes that may affect the ability to digest various proteins.
===Fossils===
Many [[Human evolution|human fossils]] have been found, but chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa do not overlap with the major human fossil sites in East Africa. However, chimpanzee fossils have now been reported from [[Kenya]]. The [[Theory of evolution|evolutionist]] researchers who discovered them asserted: "These fossils, from the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya, show that representatives of ''Pan'' were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene, where they were contemporary with an extinct species of ''Homo''."<ref>McBrearty, S. and N. G. Jablonksi (2005), "First fossil chimpanzee," ''Nature'' '''437'''(7055):105-8. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/ Entrez PubMed], search on PMID: 16136135</ref>.

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Primates]]

Elephant

2007-03-30T02:50:22Z

Igor nz: great flood logic

The '''elephants''' are three species of very large mammals belonging to the family Elephantidae - the only extant family belonging to the order Proboscidea. The three elephant species currently recognized by scientists are the African [[Bush]] Elephant, the African [[Forest]] Elephant (until recently known collectively as the African Elephant), and the Asian Elephant (also known as the Indian Elephant).

Elephants are mammals, and the largest land animals alive today. Apart from their massive size their most striking feature is a long trunk, or proboscis, a flexible nose strong enough to lift objects. Elephants' gestation period, at 22 months, is the longest of any land mammal. At birth it is common for an elephant calf to weigh 120 kg (265 lb). An elephant may live as long as 70 years, sometimes longer. The largest elephant ever recorded was shot in Angola in 1956. It was male and weighed about 12,000 kg (26,400 lb), with a shoulder height of 4.2m, a meter taller than the average male African elephant.

==Evolution==

Molecular and morphological evidence point to [[hyrax|hyraxes]] and [[Sirenia|sirenians]] (sea cows and manatees) as the closest living relatives of elephants<ref> Hidenori Nishihara et al. A Retroposon Analysis of Afrotherian Phylogeny. ''Molecular Biology and Evolution'' '''22''': 1823-1833,</ref> these groups are hypothesized to have shared a common ancestor approximately 50 million years ago. The three extant species of elephant are sole survivors of a much more diverse Proboscidian fauna with some 170 described [[fossil]] species and including species of [[mammoth]] from [[North America]] and the massive ''Deinotherium'', the second largest land mammal that ever lived, which sported two downward facing tusks.

===Creationist objections ===

According to the young earth creationist view Elephants were created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the earth (Genesis 1:24-25) and survived the [[Great Flood]] on [[Noah's Ark]] (Genesis 7:7-8). Some creationists are incredulous to how species as apparently different as hyraxes and sirenians could be related to elephants. This objection fails to take into account the vast periods of independent evolution taken by each lineage since they last shared a common ancestor - some 50 million years. Additionally evolutionary theory predicts that intermediate forms between related groups are unlikely to be found contemporaneously as more advanced forms will out compete and replace such intermediates (this is an argument firs put forward by Darwin himself.) <ref> Darwin, Charles (1859), ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'', London: John Murray</ref>. Some evolutionary biologists suggest elephants may have evolved from water living mammals much like modern hryaxes wich developed trunks to use as snorkels (as modern elephants, which are noted swimmers, do).

In the past, there were many different types of elephants like [[mammoth|mammoths]] and [[mastodon|mastodons]], but most young earth creation scientists say that these species never made it onto the Ark and that these species{{fact}}. Scientists and scholars agree that Noah could not have trekked all the way to the arctic to collect a pair of mastodons before the earth was flooded, and they all drowned.{{fact}} [[Polar bears|Polar bear]] and [[penguins]] survived because both are excellent swimmers and could have swam to floating glaciers and ridden them through the [[Great Flood]]. This fact presumably means aquatic animals such as [[Polar bears|Polar bear]], [[penguins]] and fish were not destroyed in the great flood and as such are still evil.

==Elephants in culture==

The Apocryphal book [[1 Maccabees]] mentions thirty-two elephants sent by the Persian king Antiochus to attack [[Judas Machabeus]]. Numerous references are made to [[ivory]], a substance created from their tusks and worth great amounts. In more recent times, domestic elephants have been used for riding, Polo, carrying heavy loads, and [[war]] elephants. An elephant is the symbol of the [[Republican Party]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Mammals]]

Elephant

2007-03-30T02:42:07Z

Igor nz: Evo-creation - now with refs

The '''elephants''' are three species of very large mammals belonging to the family Elephantidae - the only extant family belonging to the order Proboscidea. The three elephant species currently recognized by scientists are the African [[Bush]] Elephant, the African [[Forest]] Elephant (until recently known collectively as the African Elephant), and the Asian Elephant (also known as the Indian Elephant).

Elephants are mammals, and the largest land animals alive today. Apart from their massive size their most striking feature is a long trunk, or proboscis, a flexible nose strong enough to lift objects. Elephants' gestation period, at 22 months, is the longest of any land mammal. At birth it is common for an elephant calf to weigh 120 kg (265 lb). An elephant may live as long as 70 years, sometimes longer. The largest elephant ever recorded was shot in Angola in 1956. It was male and weighed about 12,000 kg (26,400 lb), with a shoulder height of 4.2m, a meter taller than the average male African elephant.

==Evolution==

Molecular and morphological evidence point to [[hyrax|hyraxes]] and [[Sirenia|sirenians]] (sea cows and manatees) as the closest living relatives of elephants<ref> Hidenori Nishihara et al. A Retroposon Analysis of Afrotherian Phylogeny. ''Molecular Biology and Evolution'' '''22''': 1823-1833,</ref> these groups are hypothesized to have shared a common ancestor approximately 50 million years ago. The three extant species of elephant are sole survivors of a much more diverse Proboscidian fauna with some 170 described [[fossil]] species and including species of [[mammoth]] from [[North America]] and the massive ''Deinotherium'', the second largest land mammal that ever lived, which sported two downward facing tusks.

===Creationist objections ===

According to the young earth creationist view Elephants were created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the earth (Genesis 1:24-25) and survived the [[Great Flood]] on [[Noah's Ark]] (Genesis 7:7-8). Some creationists are incredulous to how species as apparently different as hyraxes and sirenians could be related to elephants. This objection fails to take into account the vast periods of independent evolution taken by each lineage since they last shared a common ancestor - some 50 million years. Additionally evolutionary theory predicts that intermediate forms between related groups are unlikely to be found contemporaneously as more advanced forms will out compete and replace such intermediates (this is an argument firs put forward by Darwin himself <ref> Darwin, Charles (1859), ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'', London: John Murray</ref>. Some evolutionary biologists suggest elephants may have evolved from water living mammals much like modern hryaxes wich developed trunks to use as snorkels (as modern elephants, which are noted swimmers, do).

In the past, there were many different types of elephants like [[mammoth|mammoths]] and [[mastodon|mastodons]], but most young earth creation scientists say that these species never made it onto the Ark and that these species{{fact}}. Scientists and scholars agree that Noah could not have trekked all the way to the arctic to collect a pair of mastodons before the earth was flooded, and they all drowned.{{fact}} [[Polar bears]] and [[penguins]] survived because both are excellent swimmers and could have swam to floating glaciers and ridden them through the [[Great Flood]].

==Elephants in culture==

The Apocryphal book [[1 Maccabees]] mentions thirty-two elephants sent by the Persian king Antiochus to attack [[Judas Machabeus]]. Numerous references are made to [[ivory]], a substance created from their tusks and worth great amounts. In more recent times, domestic elephants have been used for riding, Polo, carrying heavy loads, and [[war]] elephants. An elephant is the symbol of the [[Republican Party]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Mammals]]

Elephant

2007-03-30T01:59:23Z

Igor nz: fixing duplication for copying and pasting

Elephant

2007-03-30T01:58:22Z

Igor nz: more pullin together

The '''elephants''' are three species of very large mammals belonging to the family Elephantidae - the only extant family belonging to the order Proboscidea. The three elephant species currently recognized by scientists are the African [[Bush]] Elephant, the African [[Forest]] Elephant (until recently known collectively as the African Elephant), and the Asian Elephant (also known as the Indian Elephant).

Elephants are mammals, and the largest land animals alive today. Apart from their massive size their most striking feature is a long trunk, or proboscis, a flexible nose strong enough to lift objects. Elephants' gestation period, at 22 months, is the longest of any land mammal. At birth it is common for an elephant calf to weigh 120 kg (265 lb). An elephant may live as long as 70 years, sometimes longer. The largest elephant ever recorded was shot in Angola in 1956. It was male and weighed about 12,000 kg (26,400 lb), with a shoulder height of 4.2m, a meter taller than the average male African elephant.

==Elephants in culture==

The Apocryphal book [[1 Maccabees]] mentions thirty-two elephants sent by the Persian king Antiochus to attack [[Judas Machabeus]]. Numerous references are made to [[ivory]], a substance created from their tusks and worth great amounts. In more recent times, domestic elephants have been used for riding, Polo, carrying heavy loads, and [[war]] elephants. An elephant is the symbol of the [[Republican Party]].

Elephants are not mentioned directly in the [[Bible]]. According to the young earth creationist view they were created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the earth (Genesis 1:24-25) and survived the [[Great Flood]] on [[Noah's Ark]] (Genesis 7:7-8). The Apocryphal book [[1 Maccabees]] mentions thirty-two elephants sent by the Persian king Antiochus to attack [[Judas Machabeus]]. Numerous references are made to [[ivory]], a substance created from their tusks and worth great amounts.

== Support for Creationism ==
One of the supposed pieces of evidence against evolution is that scientists cannot decide what elephants could have evolved from. Many scientists point to the idea that elephants share a common ancestor with sea cows and water dwelling hyraxes. Some support for this point of view is that elephants might have used their trunks as snorkels.

In the past, there were many different types of elephants like [[mammoth|mammoths]] and [[mastodon|mastodons]], but most young earth creation scientists say that these species never made it onto the Ark and that these species{{fact}}. Scientists and scholars agree that Noah could not have trekked all the way to the arctic to collect a pair of mastodons before the earth was flooded, and they all drowned.{{fact}} [[Polar bears]] and [[penguins]] survived because both are excellent swimmers and could have swam to floating glaciers and ridden them through the [[Great Flood]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Mammals]]

Elephant

2007-03-30T01:56:18Z

Igor nz: Pulling unlinked facts together a little

Whale

2007-03-27T03:32:22Z

Igor nz: Streamlining

The term whale refers to all [[Cetacean|Cetaceans]] that are not [[dolphin|dolphins]] or [[Poprpoise|porpoises]] or more informally to only the very largest [[Cetacean|Cetaceans]]. Although whales are famed for the massive size reached by some species, like the largest animal to ever live the [[Blue Whale]], others are relatively small like the pygmy right whale which grows to about 20 feet <ref> [http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/PygmyRightWhale.htm]American Cetacean Society website</ref>. Though whales have many traits in common with fish (including fins and tails) they are in fact [[mammal|mammals]] and accordingly breath air and lactate. Whales have a number of remarkable [[adaptation|adaptations]] including:

* they decide when to breathe, rather than breathing unconsciously

* they sleep 8 hours a day, yet need to be conscious to breathe

* they can communicate with each other by making remarkably loud noises

* these extraordinary noises can travel for miles under water

* the females nurse their calves while swimming underwater

* the males have a unique cooling system for their internal reproductive organs

* some have two blow-holes, but others only have one

* the blow-holes pass air above water, yet resist intense pressure underwater

* they have massive brains, much larger than the brains of other mammals

== Evolution and taxonomy ==
The question of how whales and their relatives could have evolved from terrestrial [[mammal|mammals]] has taxed evolutionary biologists since [[Darwin|Darwin's]] suggestion that they may have evolved from ancient bears. In more recent times molecular and fossil evidence has combined to suggest that modern whales and their relatives arose from ancient [[Artiodactyla|artiodactyls]] (even-toed ungulates) with the closest living relative of all whales being hippos<ref>[http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/41080/molecular_clock_divergence_estimates_and_the_fossil_record_of_cetartiodactyla/index.html] Theodore, JM (2004) Molecular Clock Divergence Estimates And The Fossil Record Of Cetartiodactyla The Journal Of Paleontology 78:39-44</ref>. This kinship has been termed the whippo hypothesis. Evolutionary biologists estimate the last ancestor of whales and hippos lived about 25 million years ago <ref> [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml] UCLA Berkley Understanding Evolution for Teachers website</ref>, which is contrast with the [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationist]] position that that whales were [[creation|created]] about 4000 years ago when [[God]] created the [[earth]]. Other creationists are not convinced that the available fossil evidence supports the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary view]] but make no reference to the corroborating molecular evidence. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp</ref>
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp</ref>
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/whale.asp</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mammals]]

Whale

2007-03-27T03:17:06Z

Igor nz: removed "according to evo scientists" - its true or it isn't

The term whale refers to all [[Cetacean|Cetaceans]] that are not [[dolphin|dolphins]] or [[Poprpoise|porpoises]] or more informally to only the very largest [[Cetacean|Cetaceans]]. Although whales are famed for the massive size reached by some species, like the largest animal to ever live the [[Blue Whale]], others are relatively small like the pygmy right whale which grows to about 20 feet <ref> [http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/PygmyRightWhale.htm]American Cetacean Society website</ref>. Though whales have many traits in common with fish (including fins and tails) they are in fact [[mammal|mammals]] and accordingly breath air and lactate. Whales have a number of remarkable [[adaptation|adaptations]] including:

* they decide when to breathe, rather than breathing unconsciously

* they sleep 8 hours a day, yet need to be conscious to breathe

* they can communicate with each other by making remarkably loud noises

* these extraordinary noises can travel for miles under water

* the females nurse their calves while swimming underwater

* the males have a unique cooling system for their internal reproductive organs

* some have two blow-holes, but others only have one

* the blow-holes pass air above water, yet resist intense pressure underwater

* they have massive brains, much larger than the brains of other mammals

== Creationist Scientists View ==
Creationist scientists believe that the available evidence suggest that the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary view]] is not an adequate explanation. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp</ref>
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp</ref>
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/whale.asp</ref>

== Evolution and taxonomy ==
The question of how whales and their relatives could have evolved from terrestial [[mammal|mammals]] has taxed evolutionary biologists since [[Darwin|Darwin's]] suggestion that they may have evolved from ancient bears. In more recent times molecular and fossil evidence has combined to suggest that modern whales and their relatives arose from ancient [[Artiodactyla|artiodactyls]] (even-toed ungulates) with the closest living relative of all whales being hippos<ref>[http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/41080/molecular_clock_divergence_estimates_and_the_fossil_record_of_cetartiodactyla/index.html] Theodore, JM (2004) Molecular Clock Divergence Estimates And The Fossil Record Of Cetartiodactyla The Journal Of Paleontology 78:39-44</ref>. This kinship has been termed the whippo hypothesis. Evolutionary biologists estimate the last ancestor of whales and hippos lived about 25 million years ago <ref> [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml] UCLA Berkley Understanding Evolution for Teachers website</ref>, which is contrast with the [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationist]] position that that whales were [[creation|created]] about 4000 years ago when [[God]] created the [[earth]].

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mammals]]

Whale

2007-03-21T06:12:53Z

Igor nz: last typo I'm gonna bother chasing up

The term whale refers to all [[Cetacean|Cetaceans]] that are not [[dolphin|dolphins]] or [[Poprpoise|porpoises]] or more informally to only the very largest [[Cetacean|Cetaceans]]. Although whales are famed for the massive size reached by some species, like the largest animal to ever live the [[Blue Whale]], others are relatively small like the pygmy right whale which grows to about 20 feet <ref> [http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/PygmyRightWhale.htm]American Cetacean Society website</ref>. Though whales have many traits in common with fish (including fins and tails) they are in fact [[mammal|mammals]] and accordingly breath air and lactate. Whales have a number of remarkable [[adaptation|adaptations]] including:

* they decide when to breathe, rather than breathing unconsciously

* they sleep 8 hours a day, yet need to be conscious to breathe

* they can communicate with each other by making remarkably loud noises

* these extraordinary noises can travel for miles under water

* the females nurse their calves while swimming underwater

* the males have a unique cooling system for their internal reproductive organs

* some have two blow-holes, but others only have one

* the blow-holes pass air above water, yet resist intense pressure underwater

* they have massive brains, much larger than the brains of other mammals

== Evolution and taxonomy ==
The question of how whales and their relatives could have evolved from terrestial [[mammall|mamalls]] has taxed evolutionary biologists since [[Darwin|Darwin's]] suggestion that they may have evolved from ancient bears. In more recent times molecular and fossil evidence has combined to suggest that modern whales and their relatives arose from ancient [[Artiodactyla|artiodactyls]] (even-toed ungulates) with the closest living relative of all whales being hippos<ref>[http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/41080/molecular_clock_divergence_estimates_and_the_fossil_record_of_cetartiodactyla/index.html] Theodore, JM (2004) Molecular Clock Divergence Estimates And The Fossil Record Of Cetartiodactyla The Journal Of Paleontology 78:39-44</ref>. This kinship has been termed the whippo hypothesis. Evolutionary biologists estimate the last ancestor of whales and hippos lived about 25 million years ago <ref> [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml] UCLA Berkley Understanding Evolution for Teachers website</ref>, which is contrast with the [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationist]] position that that whales were [[creation|created]] about 4000 years ago when [[God]] created the [[earth]].

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mammals]]

Talk:Whale

2007-03-21T06:06:12Z

Igor nz: Big change

Some of the features listed seem like they're neat, but I don't see them as being a cause of fascinating in their difference from other mammals. They nurse under water - right, that's neat, but since we've established that they're sea critters how fascinating is that, exactly? A few others are like this. Plus, while there's more text here than in some CP articles, this feels awfully stub-like. Other than being an evolutionary mystery that confounds scientists, what can you tell us about these whale thingies? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 03:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Big change ==

OK, I think included everything that was relevant from the original article and kept the list of 'things that are cool about whales'. I've included a section on the evolution of whales that can be expanded by anyone that wants to include the cool fossils and such like or break down the systematics of whales and dolphins
--[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 02:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Whale

2007-03-21T05:44:38Z

Igor nz: yet more typos

The term whale refers to all [[Cetacean|Cetaceans]] that are not [[dolphin|dolphins]] or [[Poprpoise|porpoises]] or more informally to only the very largest [[Cetacean|Cetaceans]]. Although whales are famed for the massive size reached by some species, like the largest animal to ever live the [[Blue Whale]], others are relatively small like the pygmy right whale which grows to about 20 feet <ref> [http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/PygmyRightWhale.htm]American Cetacean Society website</ref>. Though whales have many traits in common with fish (including fins and tails) they are in fact [[mammal|mammals]] and accordingly breath air and lactate. Whales have a number of remarkable [[adaptation|adaptations]] including:

* they decide when to breathe, rather than breathing unconsciously

* they sleep 8 hours a day, yet need to be conscious to breathe

* they can communicate with each other by making remarkably loud noises

* these extraordinary noises can travel for miles under water

* the females nurse their calves while swimming underwater

* the males have a unique cooling system for their internal reproductive organs

* some have two blow-holes, but others only have one

* the blow-holes pass air above water, yet resist intense pressure underwater

* they have massive brains, much larger than the brains of other mammals

== Evolution and taxonomy ==
The question of how whales and their relatives could have evolved from terrestial [[mammall|mamalls]] has taxed evolutionary biologists since [[Darwin|Darwin's]] suggestion that they may have evolved from ancient bears. In more recent times molecular and fossil evidence has combined to suggest that modern whales and their relatives arose from ancient [[Artiodactyla|artiodactyls]] (even-toed ungulates) with the closest living relative of all whales being hippos<ref>[http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/41080/molecular_clock_divergence_estimates_and_the_fossil_record_of_cetartiodactyla/index.html] Theodore, JM (2004) Molecular Clock Divergence Estimates And The Fossil Record Of Cetartiodactyla The Journal Of Paleontology 78:39-44</ref>. This kinship has been termed the whippo hypothesis. Evolutionary biologists estimate the last American Cetacean Society ancestor of whales and hippos lived about 25 million years ago <ref> [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml] UCLA Berkley Understanding Evolution for Teachers website</ref>, which is contrast with the [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationist]] position that that whales were [[creation|created]] about 4000 years ago when [[God]] created the [[earth]].

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mammals]]