Talk:Evolution

I disagree with the statement that this page needs to be merged with "Creationism and Evolution." After looking at that page I feel strongly that "Creationism" and "Evolution" should be seperate pages. To put them together implies that they have no worth except in the context of the other, and that is just not true. Tetoyasha 07:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Almost all quotations here, however, talk about evolution in the context of creationism. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Merger
Evolution and creation should not be merged. Mergers should be used for similar topics; these are not. Evolution is a scientific principle that is central to modern biology. Creation is a myth (i.e., a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society).

Putting Evolution and Creationism on the same footing by referring to them side by side is misleading. Clearly these are two separate topics, one originating in religion and the other in science.

Soapbox
this article is nothing more than pushy SOB's trying to force their ideas onto us.


 * Perhaps you could introduce some quotes from the 'other view', whatever that may be (I'm guessing you're saying the article is pushing a 'pro-evolution' view?) Unlike the Wikipedia article, which must assert what is overwhelmingly held to be the truth, this page is just for quotes so can only have POV problems in terms of what is included and omitted. Quotes from those who oppose evolution are most welcome, though they should not take up too much of the page, just as the controversy of the evolution article on 'pedia is kept small. If there are enough, a creation-evolution controversy quote page can also be split off. 130.216.191.182 08:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * While somewhat sympathetic to the original poster's point of view, I agree with the response. Evolution is a controversial subject; that does not mean it should be censored. Rather, a balanced array of pertinent quotes should be encouraged. (I see the Heinlein quote as not pertinent, and impertinent.) –Cúthalion (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant quote
I resisted the urge to delete the Heinlein quote. Can anyone explain what it's doing in a page on evolution? –Cúthalion (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Verbosity
Could the Gould quote perhaps be abridged? –Cúthalion (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced
Wikiquote no longer allows unsourced quotations, and they are in process of being removed from our pages (see Wikiquote:Limits on quotations); but if you can provide a reliable and precise source for any quote on this list please move it to.


 * When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.
 * Laurence Moran


 * The 3 1/2" floppy drive came first, and then evolution kicked in, thus creating a chicken who laid an egg.
 * Louise Barros


 * Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books.
 * Francis Bacon


 * Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.
 * Ashley Montagu


 * The whole point of Evolution is that random things just happened, and the useful ones hung around.
 * Dara Ó Briain


 * Some creationists suggest that Noah took not dogs, wolves, and foxes on the ark with him, but only one animal which after the flood generated all the species of canines. This is actually stupider than simply saying "God just did it; don't ask questions." It seems to come from a worry that, after all, canines do seem to be genetically related; but then it sweeps away the genetic relationship to felines, primates, birds, chordates, etc.
 * Mark Rosenfelder