Talk:Patterns of biological evolution

Still working on fleshing this out.--TimS 10:14, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

That's one of the biggest articles to appear in one hit that I've seen! Pity it's mostly fiction. But as it is very popular fiction, I guess it needs to be documented. And critiqued, of course. Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I invite you to submit your thesis to peer review, Phil. Nematocyte 11:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Any article I put on Conservapedia is effectively open to peer review, as is TimS' contribution here, which I hope to peer-review. Philip J. Rayment 11:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I welcome the peer review, consider the number of biologists that have already reviewed the information I have presented. I will be adding links to the examples and please look at the existing research publications I cited. PubMed is where most of the research articles are from.--TimS 11:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Back to work on Gene expression--TimS 11:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

This sounds like breaking news to me. The journal article is less than 3 years old, which means it's either a new theory or it's the first time anyone has found evidence for an old theory. (Or maybe we need to do a little more digging and write the article better.) --Ed Poor 08:19, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

The first recorded instance of work of this kind is 1878. That probably is breaking news to the our up-to-the-minute-science creationists ;). Nematocyte 09:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Let's have less sarcasm and more useful information, okay? What the article needs is proof that 'divergent evolution' has ever appeared. If there's nothing online you can point to, perhaps you can type in a journal article? --Ed Poor 10:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I cited three peer reviewed articles. Nematocyte 10:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Good. Now summarize them. Do not act as the Kyoto Protocol supporters do, and claim that something is "supported" by scientists. Actually show the scientific evidence, if any, those scientists have offered which support the theory in question. --Ed Poor 10:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

The summary is that divergant environmental conditions leads to divergant evolution. The evidence is within the papers. You can check the abstracts if you wish (they summarise the entire paper). Nematocyte 10:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed, did you look at the 7 research papers I gave on your talk page about scientific findings of divergent evolution? I hope you are not misunderstanding the term divergent with macroevolution. If so then it is understandable why you are refusing to address the evidence. Look at my description of divergent evolution and then look at my description on the macroevolution page. You will see that there is a fundamental difference in the two terms. Divergent evolution can be applied as what happens when a bacterium mutates to have an antibiotic resistance and its progeny have the same resistance.--TimS 10:29, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I saw no evidence in the article of the first claim made, so I cut the rest of it. If you had submitted that to me as a science teacher, you'd have gotten an F. Although maybe your school has different standards, here we are building a trustworthy encyclopedia.

If you've read something which convinces you of divergent evolution or macroevolution or natural selection or anything like that, I hope you will summarize it in terms our readers can understand. Then they can look up any references you give which back up your summary. --Ed Poor 10:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I did summarize it. Divergant environment conditions causes populations to diverge. It's done virtually every day with bacteria, and very commonly with mice. Nematocyte 10:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

For all of this talk we still have not addressed the issue of the other two types of evolution being removed from this article.--TimS 10:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)