Talk:Level of support for evolution

3506:

doing so alienated themselves and their future offspring from God’s universal family. In doing so they became imperfect and subject to death. To counteract this situation, God provided his only begotten son to come to earth as a human and through his sacrificial death, provide a ransom that would eventually restore humans to perfection along with associated blessings including eternal life (not immortality) on an earth restored to paradise conditions. Thus no one can claim to be a Jehovah’s Witness whilst at the same time believing in evolution which they claim is a pseudo scientific theory with no foundation. All the above information is readily available at jw.org. To claim that 8% of Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in evolution is the same as claiming that 8% of scientists believe that the earth is at the centre of the solar system with the sun and planets orbiting. Clearly ridiculous. I would advise that the chart reference to Jehovah’s Witnesses be removed as it amounts to what they would view as libel.

1742:" is just explanation why argumentum ad populum is not acceptable, but does not provide any prove of given alleged claim by creationists. My conclusion: There is no violation of any WP policy. 2. Add. "This study is outdated, has admitted problems, and is being used to advance a POV on education." contra-argument: The WP does not ban to present historical data (it provides more balanced NPOV if contradicting opinions are presented, contrary to your claim, and better historical insight) and problems are with every study depending which side interprets them (it is strange you have not specified what particular "problem" should breach any WP policy). The article on survey was published by SciDivNet, Science and Development Network, and the title of the article "Few in Brazil accept 610:

of the Internet, until this debate post), and the membership director of the Creation Research Society was contacted. As a result, the source of the "count of 700" has been identified. There was no "estimate," no "count," no "poll," no "survey." The count very evidently was the number of members of the young-earth CRS group. That's as incorrect as a source for determining a PERCENT (99.86% as often cited) or as an ESTIMATE or a COUNT, as it would be to claim that only two-hundredths of one percent of U.S. adults are atheists, if we calculate using one count of atheists, namely, the membership of the Skeptics Society. See all this at

2709:

overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution", and the "the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution" that he refers to is specifically that "evolutionary theory cannot account for life’s complexity" because of "real gaps in scientific knowledge". In addition, Judge Jones did not say that these societies had "issued statements rejecting" anything. Furthermore, Judge Jones did not refer to "nearly every scientific society" but only to "every scientific association that has spoken on the matter ".

1025:

without saying, but I hardly see how the purpose of an encyclopedic article can shift from reporting factual information to cautioning readers as to what sort of judgements they should make based on the provided information. As I see it, if the article is to be truly objective, then it should do nothing to intentionally guide the reader's thought processes. In addition, it seemed that the Appeal to Authority bit kind of encouraged misconception regarding scientific consensus. But still, regardless, of what it encourages, the point is that it shouldn't encourage anything. So I removed the section, as I said.

2616:

in the Catholic Church. The bit from the Catechism of Trent included here merely quotes from Genesis to describe the reasoning for the seventh day of rest; it does not signify that Genesis must be taken literally. In any case there has been a great deal of writing related to evolution and Genesis since the Catechism of Trent that not only allows for but encourages a figurative interpretation of Genesis, including in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2402:

Their avoidance to participate in "worldly politics" also means that they will indeed not generally participate to movements like the Intelligent Design one, although they will hire lawyers to fight for tax-free status, to influence their national status as a religion (versus cult or sect) or to push for sanctions to apply if blood transfusions are administrated without consent by medical personnel; aspects which the reference alone is not enough to demonstrate.

3784:. We do not need two duplicated articles. Also, evolution is a theory, not a fact, which means it is only the best explanation, and not the unwavering reality for the origin of life by scientists. Since it is a controversial topic, not a fact, and has another article that already discusses the supports of common descent, it is necessary for this article to be neutral. I have put up a banner talking about the article needing some work to achieve neutrality, yet 21: 459: 344: 323: 1771:

source's focus on education levels, yet you chose to summarize it by saying that few educated people accepted evolution. That's inappropriate. The author of the article also admits to problems within the source study, and quotes outside criticism. That isn't the quality study we should be holding up as representative, unless properly contextualized, nor does it apparently deserve that much

2092:"support for evolution" is to vague. The title implies a general acceptance of the evolutionary process as if that is yes or no question like the classic "are you going to stop beating your wife?". The title should be changed to reflect this differentiation: "Level of support for micro- and macro-evolution". The section should be subdivided into the two subcategories of micro and macro. 214: 416: 152: 204: 183: 1587: 517: 1775:. Further, it's been superseded by a better, more recent study which we're already using. If you can show that the previous study has received notable coverage, we can contextualize the study, and properly detail its conclusions in a way relevant to our article, but as it stands, there are too many problems with your addition to include it. — 3835:"many of the editors" who do want this and other pages in Knowledge rewritten as Anti-Science Propaganda For Jesus, I strongly recommend against repeating verbatim what Young Earth Creationists and other Anti-Science Folk For Jesus state, like word-mincing and word-lawyering about "evolution is a theory, not a fact," 1161:

with their acceptance of the extant evidence for evolution. The current article conflates belief with acceptance, which doesn't seem right to me. How about prising the current article into 2 separate articles - "level of scientific acceptance of evolution as fact" and "level of popular support of evolution"?

1316:, would. Not like an encyclopedia article. I see that it has been AfDed twice so I won't nominate it again. I also think "Level of support for motorcycle helmet laws" is just as notable. Among people I know this comes up as a topic of conversation more often then "Level of support for evolution." :-) 3505:

The chart states that 8% of Jehovah’s Witnesses accept evolution. The reference that is used to create the chart doesn’t even mention Jehovah’s Witnesses. Central to Jehovah’s Witnesses belief system is that the first man Adam, along with his wife Eve, both created by God, rebelled against God and in

2635:

While double-checking, I noticed a disproportionate number of citations from the book "Galileo Goes to Jail". I have obviously not read the entire book, but I can't say that I find the book neutral and objective, and I question whether it is reliable as a source for this Knowledge article. Take for

2401:

Wouldn't it be more accurate to specify that they consider the "creationism" label to only apply to Young Earth Creationists, and that they claim to not be creationists on this basis? The article at the same time affirms their creationist beliefs (although indeed not a Young Earth Creationist one).

1905:

You failed to address the basic reason for CN tag - the citation you are referring to does not prove anyhow the given claim: "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory". May you please explicitly quote what exactly you regard from "an

1573:

Awesome, that's much better! Also, as regards the question of creationist articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, I think we can do better than what we currently have. Right now we say that, "To date however, there are no scientifically peer-reviewed research articles that disclaim evolution

1418:

Dr. Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and highschool biology textbooks used prominently throughout the nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by

3834:

I'm not personally attacking you, I am merely stating a brutal truth I've seen repeat over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again the course of the decade and a half I've been editing at Knowledge. And if you really, honestly want people to not assume you are among the

2225:

I would object to removing it because the lede makes a true statement: that creationism is widespread in India. This doesn't contradict the high level of support among the educated, it just points out that a plurality of Indians believe in creationism. Being that you added a section clarifying the

2210:

Yeah, one cannot support something that one has never heard about. We have enough evidence to prove that Indians who have heard about evolution overwhelmingly (77%) support it. Naming India in lead gives totally the opposite impression. What do you say about removing "India" from the lead (4th para)

574:

Wanting to use this figure, I looked up the article. The part in question said "By one count there are some 700 scientists...". But the article does not provide any source for these numbers. I don't think "by one count" in a news magazine is reliable. It would be great if someone found the origin of

2716:

Both Judge Jones and his source appear to believe that statements issued by scientific societies are binding on all of their members, and/or that their official opinions represent those of their members, and/or that any member of a scientific society who disagrees with an official statement by said

2647:

to warning that “the core values of modern science are under serious threat from fundamentalism.”" That is not true. His farewell address was titled "Threats to tomorrow's world", and he devoted less than a minute to creationism, intelligent design and fundamentalism. The phrase "the core values

2615:

There is no evidence presented that there are "still many Catholics who believe that Genesis is meant to be taken literally," and the notion that this belief would be "well justified" is a minority point of view offered by the center linked to at the end of the paragraph, which has no official role

1160:

Since this article is strictly considering the personal beliefs or opinions of evolution as distinct from evidence for/against, i'd contend this is still "popular support". Scientists are still a subset of the population and may hold personal convictions that stem from faith that do or do not agree

609:

This matter was authoritatively resolved in a high-profile 2012 debate (blogged about by PZ Myers) between a popular evolutionist, AronRa, and a creationist. McDaniels, the author of the Newsweek article was contacted, the article itself now appears online (it hadn't been online through the history

1480:

It is more accurate, as there are no "movements" that oppose evolution, the opposition is entirely from adherents of a creationist belief, and the term "many countries" is vague and possibly misleading. Further, these religious opponent of evolution do not "Back the claim" of such a conflict, they

1196:

Even if I were to accept your characterisation that these are the "personal beliefs" (as opposed to the 'professional opinions') of the scientists discussed, "personal" is not equivalent to "popular". Further, "popular" has a strong connotation of 'lowest common denominator' mass culture, which is

3884:

policy applies: "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the

2658:

when it announced the results of a poll showing that “four out of 10 people in the UK think that religious alternatives to Darwin’s theory of evolution should be taught as science in schools.”" No, the "nation" was not "shocked" by this announcement. The truth is "The findings prompted surprise

2091:

It might also improve the article to differentiate between macro- and micro-evolution. One can believe that micro-evolution occurs, and thereby find the concept useful in microbiology, but still reject macro-evolution, which purports to demonstrate the development of new species. My point is that

1746:" suggest that the site is not favouring creationism at all, thus the claim the author of article used this study "to advance a POV on education" is clearly irrational. Articles that you favour present lots of outdated data and you seem have no objections to it: just try to follow the citation by 1727:

1. Add. "Reverted 3 edits": One of the edit is not related to the given survey at all, but points out that the sentence "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory" has no sources and thus a template "citation needed" is legitimate

726:

Yes, they should be distinguished in some way, especially given the wide disparity between the last to columns on what % of Republicans believe in evolution. Maybe it should be divided into two charts, or just mentioned in the texts that different polls have shown conflicting data. Or maybe the

2354:

I am not sure how to add my two cents so please bear with me. This article needs a major overhaul. It reads like a partisan pamphlet rather than an encyclopedia article. The tone and point of view is very partisan. It should be rewritten to be more objective. Thank you for your efforts though.

1985:

to refer only to the views of YECs. They seem to overlook the existence of OECs (almost on purpose). Yet there have been polls with suggested statements like, "God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms" (35% to 40% of Americans, 1982-2010

1098:

support for evolution/creationism, not really about the level of support for evolution per se. The level of support for evolution, objectively speaking, consists of hundreds of thousands of scientific publications, the contents of which are largely dealt with in several other WP articles such as

1024:

I've removed this section, as it seems to be more of an unnecessary disclaimer than anything else. That is to say, the purpose of the article is to cover the levels of support for evolution from various groups. Not only is the fact that a majority view is not the same as proof so obvious it goes

2158:

Given that India is a country with very poor level of education, one can easily see to it that the majority of Indians have not heard of evolution or Darwin or his theories. But, As a matter of fact Evolution have huge support among those who have heard about it. This article is about "Level of

2044:

I should point out that anyone who believes that god "guides" evolution doesn't actually believe in evolution, because evolution is not guided. I rather suspect that the claim is inaccurate and that most of those people believe in Evolution but believe it was initiated by god. I find it hard to

2545:

Drilling down from that Public and Scientists Views on Science and Society, by clicking on the barchart I get to 'related' items, including their summary over time. I also got Pew in googling for 'public opinion of evolution' other items more recent than the 2009, 2007, and 2005 cited ones in

1770:

1) I have no problem with your CN tag. That was just a part of your other edits which were reverted. Feel free to put that back in if you want. 2) I was not saying the author of the article was advancing a POV. I was saying you were. Our article was not discussing education levels, nor was the

1507:

edits to the last sentence of the paragraph on the 1986 amicus curiae brief, I believe that the current wording should be changed. In the sentence, "The amicus curiae brief also clearly described why evolution was science, not religion, and why creationism is not science," the phrase "clearly

2142:

In the lead section of the article, India is mentioned as a nation with widespread belief in creationism. When i checked the cited reference, it led to a small write-up that says a British Council poll of 10,000 people in 10 countries found that creationism is strong in India among some other

2380:

given as how we're constantly bombarded with people making vague but vociferous complaints about tone and point of view, and who make it tortuously obvious, but can not spit out that these complaints are because the article is not an explicit Creationist propaganda piece For Jesus that casts

1627:

I'm fairly sure I've seen that claim (or one very similar to it) made in a source -- but I have not got time, right at this very moment, to track it down. So I've tagged the claim & will attempt to track down a source for it later (assuming somebody hasn't beaten me to the punch). No, we

2708:

The sentence "Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design" is not a fair representation of the cited reference. Judge Jones wrote in his opinion in the Kitzmiller trial that he "initially note that an

1818:

Also, please learn heading levels and indenting. See how I've fixed it here? That's how it should be. Don't create new sections as subheadings of previous unrelated sections like this, or start a section already indented, etc. It makes your comments and intentions hard to parse. Thanks. —

2712:

I was unable to discover the source of Judge Jones' statement, but I suspect it is testimony by Kenneth Miller. I'm presently unable to determine what Dr Miller's source is (i.e. whether he literally meant "nearly every scientific society" or was simply generalising). I'm sure it's true,

1071:

Yes indeed, this article is a mess. It gives food for Creationists sites to make fun of Knowledge - for no good reason at all. Instead of fake arguments there are sufficient good (scientific) arguments, there is certainly no need for pseudo-scientific statistics and one-sided comparisons!

3788:

removed it. Might I add, this article was almost deleted because of its non-neutrality, so this issue should be fixed as soon as possible. Also, this article was almost listed as a Good Article, but it failed because of non-neutrality. I think this article is unquestionably non-neutral.

684:

Yeah it looks like a mistake. In my defense, I did not add that table. I have been slowly rewriting the entire article, so most of what you currently see will be replaced when I get finished. I just have not been as careful in keeping track of the changes others make I guess for that

3636:

that the concept of evolution has implications for biochemical, cell biological and genetic research, but the details of the involvement of evolution in biochemical-genetical hypotheses formulation is lacking. It is useful that someone who can mention some details add such info to

3804:

Then there's also the problem of how many of the editors claiming that this and other evolutionary biology themed articles "need(s) to be more neutral in tone" always want this and other articles rewritten as Anti-Science Propaganda For Jesus, or as a mirror of Answers In

2526:

The latest data is very interesting, since it includes questions not only about public vs scientific beliefs, but the public's opinion about the degree of consensus among scientists, the public thinking there are differing scientific opinions when there are none.

3759:

No. Adding "theory" would be a bad idea. Firstly, there are actually people who deny evolution an sich. Secondly, it would help pseudoscientists who frame evolution as "just a theory". Thirdly, "evolution" is the common term for the thing those people oppose.

2438:

If you intend to discuss improvements to the article, it would help if you did not confuse other editors with personal commentary grousing about how your own proposal possibly being also invalid in the first place, thereby making the discussion's purpose more

981:

OK, so that doesn't work. Is there anything else I can research for you as a biophysicist / creationist? I will gladly argue either for or against Creation and Evolution. The molecular mechanism of Darwinian Evolution is something that interests me. Also,

3740:

This has probably been discussed before, but shouldn't the title be "Support for evolution theory"? Maybe there are people wo object to evolution an sich, but that would be akin to objecting to the sun rising in the morning, and living beings growing old.

647:

I have added the data results from the pew report to allow the reader to decide if the chart/study results are subjective. eg only 116 muslems and 215 jehovahs wittnesses could be argued as a too small spectum of these faiths to give an accurate picture.

1937:

Polls about Americans are plagued with differences that come up due to the variable wording of questions. Possibly there are sides in the C-E conflict that want to inflate support for "their" side. I'm not interested supported any side, but in describing

1887:

1. Add. "Reverted 3 edits": One of the edit ... points out that the sentence "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory" has no sources and thus a template "citation needed" is legitimate

908:

Nothing relating to the "physics of time asymmetry" will ever be relevant to this artice. This article is about the degree of acceptance of evolution. It is not, and never will be, about the physics of time asymmetry. Is this sufficiently clear now?

1343:

finds that 46% of Evangelical theologians (i.e. those from the denomination generally considered most vocal in its opposition to evolution) "can accept the theory of theistic evolution." Would there be any problem with including this in the article?

2327:

This article wrongly puts India in the list of countries where belief in creationism is widespread. Personally I have not come across any person including of Abrahamic faiths who said they believe creationism is true. So India needs to be removed.

2594:

But despite all of this, there are still many Catholics who believe that Genesis is meant to be taken literally and are well justified by what all the Church Fathers and Doctors have stated in the past, for example in the Catechism of Trent or

3819:

Please do not personally attack me. I am not trying for this article to become "Anti-Science Propaganda For Jesus, or as a mirror of Answers In Genesis". On the contrary, I would hate for that to happen since it would not be neutral either.

2601:"We now come to the meaning of the word sabbath. Sabbath is a Hebrew word which signifies cessation. To keep the Sabbath, therefore, means to cease from labor and to rest. In this sense the seventh day was called the Sabbath, because God, 3879:

In fairness, the page shows the level of support for evolution science in contrast to opposing views, such as religious views including ID which proponents falsely claim to be science. These are minority views in the scientific context,

2271:). I assume it could be connected to religious groups' attempts to concealing themselves as scientific institutes (Discovery Institute), taking over school boards and inducing the "teach the controversy" idea into schools' curriculums. 1201:

of the views of the masses versus the scientifically literate that provides this article with any point -- if split into two articles, it would simply be regurgitating the polling statistics for the respective groups (and wikipedia is

1114:

s perception of evolution/creationism, and should be (re-)named as such. To this end, I would propose renaming the article to "Level of popular support for evolution", which serves to disambiguate the intent of this article from

2155:. Incidentally, this is also the highest among all countries surveyed. Also the survey says that 85% of God believing Indians who know about evolution agree that life on earth evolved over time as a result of natural selection. 2306:

is supposed to have all the scientific evidence, and among scientists evolution is unequivocal. There is always a fringe who doesn't agree for whatever (poorly) supported reasons, but in most cases that fringe can be ignored.

1890:"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable." 1730:"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable." 3672:

Is there any chance of a page being created featuring the evidence against evolution? There is a section addressing dissent from religious groups, but also many in the scientific community disagree with theory (see here:

1363:

If the methodology of the polling is sound, large enough sample, et al. then I don't see why not. I'm not surprised by the number, but I'm sure many antievolutionists would disagree with the (in their minds) high number.

1801:

with its own explanation: "There is no source of such claim by any creationist provided, but just general explanation why argumentum ad populum is not acceptable". On the rest I will react later, Thanks for allowing for

1255:

is also a controversial issue in the USA. What if we took a survey of brain trama experts, then one of professional motorcycle racers, then one of the general public and put all three together to create an article:

2566:

Think I'll also have to find commentary about the Pew results to convey re what most interpret the data to mean. (e.g. is it read as 'distrust of scientists' generally or 'evolution convincing folks', or something

2405:

But perhaps that we're already doing original research or synthesis based on a first-level source anyway with the current sentence, and that my proposal is also invalid, that we need more reliable sources? Thanks,

2152:

when the question was posed to those who had heard of Charles Darwin and knew something about the theory of evolution 77% in India agree that enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin’s Theory of

1961:

So in one major poll around 1/3 of Americans are said to believe this. Yet I have seen other polls which attributed up to 85% of Americans believing in either of the two major schools of thought on Creationism:

1209:

I tend to agree wtih Mjharrison. This article really puts lots of different things together to make something new. "Support for evolution" is not even defined. Why does a scientific fact need support anyway?

2045:

credit that only 15% of Americans actually accept evolution, which is the implication of these stats. The stats you give raise more questions than answers, so I don't think it should be included in the article.

3905:

for your personal opinions or beliefs. Please make specific detailed proposals for article improvement, showing reliable sources to support the text, and make sure these proposals comply with the entirety of

837:

for evolution solely or substantially on that point? (If not, it's irrelevant.) Are they speaking on behalf of a significant proportion of scientists on this point? (If not, to mention them would violate

2846: 3371: 2457:

Here is a first reformulation suggestion, although there still is the problem of the primary source, and of my interpretation of their doctrine (which I am familiar with, although being a non-believer):

1040:

Personally, I'd like to know if the rest of the 480,000 were even asked their opinion, or if it was just assumed that they supported evolution. Maybe they supported neither evolution or creationism.

571:"Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987, representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists." using a June 29th, 1987 Newsweek article as reference. 122: 2195:. We should balance your point with the results regarding the uneducated though. As you pointed out, the majority of Indians haven't heard of evolution and support is poor among the uneducated. 1902:" is just explanation why argumentum ad populum is not acceptable, but does not provide any prove of given alleged claim by creationists. My conclusion: There is no violation of any WP policy . 811:

I was planning to give quotes from notable scientists who believe the Boltzmann H-theorem is true, thus providing (again, quoted) a forward time period for biological evolution to have occured.

1476:"There are religious sects and denominations in several countries for whom the theory of evolution is in conflict with creationism that is central to their dogma, and who therefore reject it" 1312:

I like the article, and I learned some things reading it. My problem with it is that it puts together various different things to create something new -- like a magazine article, say in the

986:

was my first Ph.D. mentor at Berkeley, and I can dig up his publications that were used to combat Creationists in the California Public Schools, ca. 40 years ago. He had a monthly line into

3780:

This article does not seem neutral to me. It is heavily biased towards evolution. As this is a controversial topic, it should be neutral. Whether or not evolution is true or not belongs on

2768: 1913:

You failed to notice: "I have no problem with your CN tag. That was just a part of your other edits which were reverted. Feel free to put that back in if you want." in previous section. --

3571:

directly rather than summarized (and the material is not a quote). This could be considered a copyright violation and may be removed if you don't rewrite it in your own words. Thanks, —

2659:

from the scientific community. Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, said...", and Rees was the only person from the "scientific community" interviewed by the BBC on that.

1138:

as well as among the general public. "Popular" does not cover this aspect. The "hundreds of thousands of scientific publications" ambiguity is already covered by a dab-tag at the top.

592:

I fully agree, something untraceable as that by some reporter cannot be called a reliable source. Certainly it wasn't an opinion poll of 480'000 scientist, contrary to the suggestion.

3597:" in the section on Support for evolution by religious bodies. But is this correct? I thought abiogenesis is different than evolution? Or am I reading this sentence too literally? 2115:". By using "support for evolution" rather than "support for macroevolution", we are simply using the common name without suggesting that macroevolution is not the same process at a 1755:

article, section "Conflict". Thus, outdated stuff seems no problem whatsoever at WP, let alone reason to remove the content. My conclusion: There is no violation of any WP policy.--

3942: 305: 295: 84: 2267:

I wonder whether there's research why the level of support is differing in the USA in comparison to many other countries (it was triggered by Tony Spiro's chart on the subject (

3947: 669:

In the second chart in the section on public support in the United States, the two final columns have identical headings. But the data are different. Is this an error?

2847:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140621050711/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

3372:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160305194947/https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/poll-darwin-survey-shows-international-consensus-on-acceptance-of-evolution.pdf

3839:

Furthermore, if you really want to be helpful, I also strongly second dave souza's urging for you to make specific, detailed proposals for article improvements, and

2549: 3361: 3937: 3447: 3443: 3429: 3199: 3195: 3181: 3089: 3085: 3071: 2902: 2898: 2884: 2159:

support for evolution"; and saying that those people who have never heard of evolution do not support the evolution theory is a kind of linguistic contradiction.

3957: 2850: 485: 480: 475: 384: 3375: 2022:

Has anyone else found sources which agree with this? Or do all sources disagree? Please enlighten me, so we can improve the accuracy of the present article. --

2732:

Mark it as citation needed, if you think it need to be sourced. People will respond pretty quickly on this article, a couple of days at most I would guess.

394: 3521:

The content is reliably sourced. Your comment "The reference that is used to create the chart doesn’t even mention Jehovah’s Witnesses" is clearly wrong.

3167: 850:

for evolution" -- not 'all things that even remotely underlie evolution' -- if it were it'd need a a section on Quantum Mechanics and who knows what else.

1397: 272: 227: 188: 3569: 2686:. I moved one sentence back into the lead, btw. I am open to rewording as it has a focus on ID as written, but I didn't want to be too controversial. 1551:

Actually the claim of clarity comes from a secondary source describing the brief. I've reworded the text to reflect what each source explicitly states.

1236:

It's an interesting article. However It really reads more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia article to me. BTW I fully support evolution.

3962: 3287: 1752: 3415: 2496: 2430: 2415: 32: 3321: 1481:

make the claim. The previous wording implies that other, non-religious sources have "made the claim" and that they then simply "back" such claims.

2836: 2816: 1704:

Add. "Reverted 3 edits: This study is outdated, has admitted problems, and is being used to advance a POV on education. Please discuss on talk."

945:

for evolution solely or substantially on ". But like Robert says, this is irrelevant, so you will not be able to find sources making this leap.

1531:

evolution was science, not religion, and that creationism is not science" would be more appropriate, as this can be considered expert opinion.

360: 3952: 3932: 3311: 2147: 2559: 2119:. It may be possible to specify in the lead that this is about mainstream scientific evolution, which includes macroevolution... Thanks, — 3638: 2683: 2284: 2240: 2177: 2163: 2107:

It is generally understood that accepting microevolution but rejecting macroevolution is not accepting evolution, but supporting a type of

1512:

evolution was science, not religion, and that creationism is not science"? Other possible words choices: claimed that, indicated that. --

655: 3277: 2856: 2528: 1508:

described" seems to be a subjective judgement on the brief's contents. Can we change it to something like, "The amicus curiae brief also

1884:

I believe you have no problem to read the reason why the tag was placed, it is discussed in the section above, if being so, I can repeat:

941:

It should be blindingly obvious: examples that are "speaking on behalf of a significant proportion of scientists" where they "base their

3395: 2505: 2488: 2422: 2407: 2362: 2335: 2212: 1574:

listed in the scientific and medical journal search engine Pubmed." This is borderline original research (although it might fall under

47: 2649: 2826: 256: 252: 42: 3351: 2421:@Apokryltaros: please do not delete discussion points to improve the article, especially without specifying a valid reason. Thanks, 3511: 3425:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

3177:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

3067:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2880:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2472: 1582:, we would have to read every article in Pubmed - by just using as search engine, after all, we could be missing something). Would 791:) of scientists base their support (or lack thereof) of evolution on the "Physics of Time Asymmetry". Otherwise, this discussion is 351: 328: 3341: 3331: 1451:

Did you? If so, please explain the methodology for estimating the 99.9% - and don't forget to add the 99% confidence interval. ;-)

3405: 3035: 2001:

would serve; the former was based on material found in the NCSE website, but it was taken down and the VWP article was deleted.

1257: 1177: 436: 41:

at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be

3362:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130511125301/http://www.fasts.org/images/News2010/science%20literacy%20report%20final%20270710.pdf

3907: 3602: 1827: 1797:

I apologize for any inconvenience, but contrary to your claim, my CN tag was demonstrably part of stand-alone distinctive edit

1783: 423: 38: 2484: 1981:

One distinction that often gets lost is between the two variants of creationism. Creationism's opponents tend to use the term

1681:

and I believe it was the correct move, however it might be possible to find a source that actually makes a similar statement

1197:

quite antithetical to the articles' coverage of the views of scientists (whether personal or professional). I think it is the

3261: 3151: 3019: 2851:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

2800: 2750:

The old sentence was recently removed; I added a new sentence in its place that is hopefully closer to the source. Thanks, —

2191:

I'm not surprised by this. When I lived in India I discussed evolution thoroughly and only found opposition from members of

1412: 440: 432: 428: 3376:

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/poll-darwin-survey-shows-international-consensus-on-acceptance-of-evolution.pdf

2004:

If evolution means that new species have appeared in a period of over 100 million years, and if creationism means that God

3535: 3681:

be more focused on supporting evolution, not offering both perspectives, so the dissent might be better fitted elsewhere.

3051: 878:

Could you restate your last comment in the positive, so I can restrict my search to what is acceptable for this article?

3507: 3490: 3365: 3242: 3168:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060622031856/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php

3132: 2945: 1862: 1282:

provided the topic is notable. That is, there would need to be a significant number of reliable sources indicating that

163: 3685: 1977:- God made everything, but it took around as long as modern scientists say it did, i.e., hundreds of millions of years 1872: 1649: 1558: 1538: 1470:"There are movements in many countries backing the claim that the theory of evolution is in conflict with creationism" 1351: 1145: 1056: 951: 856: 801: 715: 219: 20: 2280: 1910:

is clearly breached, because the "inline citation" does not provide any prove of given alleged claim by creationists.

2960:

The title of this article seems to actually be a euphemism to avoid saying what it is really about... the fact that

1590:

book be considered reliable sources? We should also consider presenting the Creationist point of view as expressed

1393: 3781: 3598: 3288:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110212053541/http://www.nsta.org/main/news/stories/nsta_story.php?news_story_ID=50792

1987: 268: 3416:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060929135233/http://srsstats.sbe.nsf.gov/preformatted-tables/1999/tables/TableC1.pdf

1906:

inline citation" as evidence for given claim? General pondering over argumentum ad populum is hardly one and thus

3748: 2999: 1094:

I feel the title of this article does not really reflect its contents; this article is really about the level of

633: 3446:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3322:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070224164219/http://www.errantskeptics.org/Quotes_Regarding_Creation_Evolution.htm

3198:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3171: 3088:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2901:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1134:

I disagree -- both in the lead and in the article body the article discusses the level of support for evolution

497: 1851: 1389: 1321: 1265: 1241: 1215: 914: 659: 444: 3841:

not waste everyone's time by pontificating about how terrible and awful this page's alleged non-neutrality is.

3642: 2837:

https://web.archive.org/web/20081122022815/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm

2817:

https://web.archive.org/web/20081122022815/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm

2767:

Note: if questioning that many societies did this, assuming that the source contained an erroneous claim, see

2244: 2181: 2167: 1998: 2216: 3825: 3794: 3695: 3526: 3481: 3291: 3269: 3233: 3159: 3123: 3027: 2936: 2808: 2608: 2509: 2492: 2476: 2426: 2411: 2366: 2339: 2144: 1967: 1907: 3862: 3848: 3810: 3682: 3577: 3544: 3419: 3312:

https://web.archive.org/web/20061213221402/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/few_biologists.html

3265: 2992:

Yep. As a smart person said: "It's about belief, not about facts. Facts won't persuade those who belief."

2777: 2756: 2535: 2444: 2386: 2125: 1994: 1365: 1252: 1116: 1100: 732: 674: 629: 549: 542: 2018:

Around 40% of Americans (a) accept evolution, in the limited sense that (b) God guided this process (OEC)

709:

between them -- first ('Creationist') & last columns are from one poll, middle two are from another.

3870: 3821: 3790: 3765: 3725: 3657: 3617: 3465:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3453: 3325: 3217:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3205: 3107:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3095: 2920:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2908: 2575: 2554: 1974: 1950: 1898: 1738: 1696: 1438: 240: 169: 3278:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071014224931/http://onnachrichten.t-online.de/dyn/c/19/01/33/1901336.html

3268:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3158:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3026:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2857:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130323080822/http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

2807:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2840: 2820: 2571: 2504:

As there was no objection to this suggestion, I reformulated the sentence of the article accordingly.

2464: 1425: 439:. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 3915: 3890: 3742: 3703: 3396:

https://web.archive.org/web/20051217080148/http://harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581

2993: 2621: 2617: 2358: 2331: 2097: 2093: 2050: 2038:"Around 40% of Americans (a) accept evolution, in the limited sense that (b) God guided this process" 1603: 1517: 1486: 1385: 1173: 1165: 1124: 1104: 1052: 1044: 651: 580: 576: 232: 3281: 2650:

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/about-us/history/Anniversary_Address_2005.pdf

151: 3902: 2827:

https://web.archive.org/web/20061209120655/http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf

2733: 2687: 2468: 2312: 2292: 1830: 1786: 1747: 1638: 1579: 1317: 1261: 1237: 1211: 910: 619: 557: 244: 236: 3352:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060921030214/http://www.emporia.edu/biosci/schrock/docs/Eagle-25.pdf

3315: 1340: 359:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3595:

Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth

3522: 3399: 3383: 3299: 2982: 2868: 2737: 2691: 2605:, rested on that day from all the work which He had done. Thus it is called by the Lord in Exodus 1946: 1622: 1456: 1295: 1077: 611: 597: 503: 264: 3450:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3342:

https://web.archive.org/web/20061021232820/http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/21soc03.htm

3332:

https://web.archive.org/web/20061021232820/http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/21soc03.htm

3305: 3202:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3092:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3061: 2905:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1048: 3466: 3406:

https://web.archive.org/web/20061109070632/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf04311/pdf/tab42.pdf

3218: 3108: 3036:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070928001636/http://susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=2579

2921: 2860: 3844: 3840: 3806: 3572: 3539: 2772: 2751: 2531: 2440: 2382: 2120: 2082: 2027: 1918: 1893: 1807: 1760: 1733: 1633: 1030: 728: 670: 556:

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |

2648:

of modern science are under serious threat from fundamentalism" never occurs in his address.

1636:, "unduly self-serving" claims (for example, at least one of the claimed 'peer reviewers' of 3918: 3893: 3874: 3866: 3852: 3829: 3814: 3798: 3769: 3761: 3753: 3729: 3721: 3707: 3688: 3661: 3653: 3646: 3621: 3613: 3606: 3583: 3550: 3530: 3515: 3495: 3247: 3137: 3004: 2986: 2950: 2783: 2762: 2741: 2726: 2695: 2674: 2625: 2579: 2546:

article, will try and update the article content re Pew because 10 years old is a bit much.

2539: 2513: 2448: 2390: 2370: 2343: 2316: 2296: 2248: 2234: 2232: 2220: 2203: 2201: 2185: 2171: 2131: 2101: 2086: 2054: 2031: 1922: 1878: 1834: 1811: 1790: 1772: 1764: 1698: 1682: 1655: 1607: 1564: 1544: 1521: 1490: 1460: 1442: 1434: 1401: 1370: 1357: 1325: 1299: 1269: 1245: 1219: 1181: 1151: 1128: 1081: 1060: 1034: 999: 956: 918: 887: 861: 820: 806: 774: 736: 720: 694: 678: 663: 637: 623: 601: 584: 529: 499: 458: 3473: 3225: 3115: 2928: 2830: 3911: 3886: 3881: 3785: 3699: 3355: 2722: 2670: 2596: 2226:

Indian demographic, a reader should walk away from the article understanding both points.

2069:

of evolution"? What does support for evolution even mean? Wouldn't that be something like

2046: 1599: 1595: 1513: 1482: 1169: 1120: 995: 883: 839: 816: 770: 690: 501: 2643:

that the retiring president of the Royal Society, Britain’s national academy of science,

2015:

Around 45% of Americans (a) reject evolution completely and (b) embrace creationism (YEC)

3345: 3335: 2660: 267:. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also 3432:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3409: 3184:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3074:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3039: 2887:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2308: 2288: 2116: 2108: 1820: 1776: 1381:

The references do not give any indication as to the extent of the claimed consensus.

615: 3472:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3224:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3114:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3052:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090207173612/http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

2927:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

343: 322: 3926: 3366:

http://www.fasts.org/images/News2010/science%20literacy%20report%20final%20270710.pdf

2969: 2070: 1674: 1670: 1583: 1452: 1291: 1203: 1073: 788: 593: 248: 2874: 3717: 2704:

On "very scientific society ... has issued statements rejecting intelligent design"

2268: 2112: 2078: 2023: 1914: 1803: 1756: 1678: 1575: 1026: 784: 2771:. It is also common to find statements about this on U.S. University websites. — 575:

these numbers. If not, I think it should be removed from this Knowledge article.

3439: 3191: 3081: 2894: 2227: 2196: 2143:

countries. I decided to go deep in to the survey results and i found this link (

356: 260: 2378:

Please be more specific when you say that the "article needs a major overhaul,"

3563: 3438:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3389: 3190:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3080:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3055: 2893:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2718: 2666: 2639:

The books says "By late 2005 antievolutionism in the United Kingdom had grown

1868: 1645: 1554: 1534: 1347: 1141: 991: 947: 879: 852: 812: 797: 766: 711: 686: 209: 3172:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php

2303: 1419:

the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees.

983: 2012:

Around 15% of Americans (a) believe in evolution but (b) reject creationism

3837:

even though even "the theory of evolution" describes biological evolution.

213: 3292:

http://www3.nsta.org/main/news/stories/nsta_story.php?news_story_ID=50792

2609:

http://www.kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/

2176:

Also, i have added these stats to the country subsection in the article.

2074: 1957:

that biological evolution is simply a natural process within ... creation

2475:), reject the "creationist" label, which they consider to only apply to 3420:

http://srsstats.sbe.nsf.gov/preformatted-tables/1999/tables/TableC1.pdf

1090:

Regarding the topic heading of this article; specifically, changing it.

537:

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

3045: 259:

in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than

203: 182: 3326:

http://www.errantskeptics.org/Quotes_Regarding_Creation_Evolution.htm

2396: 2192: 1993:

Another problem is the definition of "evolution". We used to have an

2841:

http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm

2821:

http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm

2162:

Therefore, i convey my opinion that India be deleted from the list.

1949:" is defined in our own Knowledge article as asserting a belief in 1206:

simply a repository for polling data). 17:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

1591: 3674: 3628:

Claim of use in biochemical and genetic research - absent details

3282:

http://www2.onnachrichten.t-online.de/dyn/c/19/01/33/1901336.html

1119:, and more accurately reflects the article's content and intent. 3316:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/few_biologists.html

1578:), and is basically unverifiable (for us to provide definitive 3400:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581

2487:

also points to other related creationist material of the JWs.

2485:

List_of_Watch_Tower_Society_publications#Evolution_vs_creation

612:

http://www.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=143278#p143278

511: 504: 452: 410: 145: 3612:"Origin of human life" is different from "origin of life". -- 3306:

http://orsted.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=R1

3062:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060608-111826-4947r.htm

2599:, (which is a very authoritative book for pastors), it says, 3568:

Please note that several sentences appear to be copied from

2861:

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

2397:"Jehovah's Witnesses reject both evolution and creationism" 1896:). The remark "No scientific issue is ever decided by such 1736:). The remark "No scientific issue is ever decided by such 705:

polls -- the trouble is that the table makes no attempt to

614:. So, how then do we correct the statement in the article? 3272:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3162:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3030:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2811:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2769:

List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design

2473:

Life - How Did It Get Here - By Evolution or by Creation?

3652:

I think this is obsolete. I cannot find that "claim". --

2831:

http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf

3356:

http://www.emporia.edu/biosci/schrock/docs/Eagle-25.pdf

3155: 3023: 2804: 1798: 1504: 1501: 1428:, states: "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" 115: 96: 77: 1997:

article which clarified the three main parts; perhaps

1970:- God made everything less than 10,000 years ago; and, 3716:

is one of the many false rumors from the creationist

3714:

many in the scientific community disagree with theory

3346:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/21soc03.htm

3336:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/21soc03.htm

2661:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm

231:, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on 3410:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf04311/pdf/tab42.pdf

3040:

http://susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=2579

2654:

The book then continues with "Within months the BBC

2302:

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The page on

1110:

This article, i believe, is fundamentally about the

355:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 51:

of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

3442:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3194:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3084:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2897:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3677:). And in any case, it seems to me that this page 541:] The anchor (#Day and night of Brahma) has been 2875:http://www.hup.harvard.edu/pdf/NUMCRX_excerpt.pdf 1953:(I don't know why this should be an empty page): 1286:is something that is widely discussed. The topic 3910:policy which you don't seem to be following. . 2269:http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=559 3428:This message was posted before February 2018. 3180:This message was posted before February 2018. 3070:This message was posted before February 2018. 2883:This message was posted before February 2018. 2636:example the section on creationism in the UK: 2323:No widespread support for creationism in India 2717:society would cancel their membership :-) -- 2586:Disclaimer re: Catholic support for evolution 1020:Argumentum ad populum and Appeal to authority 727:older poll should be deleted. I don't know. 8: 3943:Mid-importance Evolutionary biology articles 2968:) reject scientific facts about evolution.-- 1942:how much support the various POVs have had. 1496:Contents of amicus curiae - citation needed? 1336:Level of support among Evangelical theogians 3390:http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?CI=14107 3056:http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm 1258:Level of support for motorcycle helmet laws 3865:so creationism has no place on this page. 3260:I have just modified 12 external links on 3150:I have just modified one external link on 1716:The following discussion has been closed. 1707: 787:that state that a significant number (per 754:The following discussion has been closed. 745: 317: 280:Knowledge:WikiProject Evolutionary biology 177: 56: 15: 3948:WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles 3018:I have just modified 4 external links on 2799:I have just modified 5 external links on 2603:having finished the creation of the world 2111:which allows some adaptation "within its 1753:Relationship between religion and science 283:Template:WikiProject Evolutionary biology 2590:I think this section should be removed: 2239:Well then, i am adding a explaining it. 749:Irrelevant discussion of time asymmetry 2631:On objectivity of Galileo Goes to Jail 2279:I suggest a fork of related content to 1598:argument. What do you folks think? -- 319: 179: 149: 3713: 3253:External links modified (January 2018) 2550:PEW: Trends on Beliefs about Evolution 1673:took out the Project Steve numbers as 1278:You're welcome to start an article on 3938:C-Class Evolutionary biology articles 2471:literature to refute evolution (like 2148:National Center for Science Education 1433:Did you actually read the sources? — 616:Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV 235:and its associated subfields such as 7: 3958:High-importance Creationism articles 2555:PEW: Public views on evolution, 2013 2285:Scientific opinion on climate change 765:Should we move the discussion here? 349:This article is within the scope of 3046:http://www.nsta.org/159%26psid%3D10 2964:(further semantically disguised as 1377:The extent of the claimed consensus 168:It is of interest to the following 1744:scientific view of human evolution 253:evolutionary developmental biology 14: 3861:No, Knowledge does not engage in 3264:. Please take a moment to review 3154:. Please take a moment to review 3022:. Please take a moment to review 2803:. Please take a moment to review 2560:PEW: Beyond the red vs blue, 2014 2263:reason for development in the US? 628:So why is that part still there? 369:Knowledge:WikiProject Creationism 3963:WikiProject Creationism articles 2381:unreasonable doubt on science.-- 515: 457: 414: 372:Template:WikiProject Creationism 342: 321: 273:WikiProject Evolutionary biology 228:WikiProject Evolutionary biology 212: 202: 181: 150: 19: 3908:Knowledge:Neutral point of view 3593:The article currently states, " 3589:"origin of human life on earth" 3060:Corrected formatting/usage for 3044:Corrected formatting/usage for 2287:. Any thoughts? Betters title? 2281:Scientific opinion on evolution 2275:Scientific opinion on evolution 1642:had never even read the book). 795:off-topic and will be removed. 389:This article has been rated as 300:This article has been rated as 271:for more information) or visit 3675:https://dissentfromdarwin.org/ 3262:Level of support for evolution 3248:18:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC) 3152:Level of support for evolution 3020:Level of support for evolution 2801:Level of support for evolution 1527:"The amicus curiae brief also 1288:Level of support for evolution 783:Unless of course you can cite 624:04:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC) 441:Level of support for evolution 429:Level of support for evolution 37:nominee, but did not meet the 33:Natural sciences good articles 27:Level of support for evolution 1: 3607:17:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC) 3034:Replaced archive link x with 2580:17:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC) 2514:00:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC) 2497:06:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC) 2449:16:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC) 2431:06:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC) 2416:01:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC) 2032:17:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC) 1923:21:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC) 1879:11:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC) 1835:05:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC) 1812:11:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC) 1791:05:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC) 1765:20:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 1656:18:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 1608:18:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 1565:09:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 1545:08:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 1522:06:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 1326:11:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC) 1300:04:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC) 1270:03:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC) 1246:16:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 1220:16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 664:23:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 585:21:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 427:for general discussion about 363:and see a list of open tasks. 286:Evolutionary biology articles 3953:C-Class Creationism articles 3933:Former good article nominees 3919:20:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC) 3903:this talk page isn't a forum 3894:20:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC) 3875:18:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC) 3853:04:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC) 3830:04:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC) 3815:01:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC) 3799:00:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC) 3770:08:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC) 3730:08:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC) 3708:04:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC) 3689:17:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC) 3662:08:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC) 3496:21:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC) 2987:05:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC) 2966:intelligent design advocates 2682:Great book on how to create 2645:devoted his farewell address 2540:19:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC) 2467:, although having published 2344:14:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 1371:18:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC) 1358:09:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC) 3647:14:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC) 3584:19:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC) 2951:08:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC) 2132:21:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC) 2102:13:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC) 2055:00:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC) 1491:18:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 1182:17:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 1152:14:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 1129:14:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 1061:16:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC) 842:.) This article is on the " 220:Evolutionary biology portal 139:Former good article nominee 3979: 3782:Evidence of common descent 3459:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3257:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3211:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3147:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3101:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3015:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2914:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2796:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2087:20:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 1594:, although that invites a 1576:WP:OR#Routine calculations 1103:and other articles in the 1000:17:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 957:07:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 919:07:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 888:06:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 862:19:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 821:18:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 807:02:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 775:01:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 737:02:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 721:02:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 695:01:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 679:00:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 395:project's importance scale 306:project's importance scale 269:Knowledge:Contributing FAQ 255:. It is distinct from the 45:. Editors may also seek a 3776:Non-neutrality of article 3551:10:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC) 3531:08:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC) 3516:07:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC) 2784:01:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC) 2763:01:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC) 2742:17:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC) 2727:16:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC) 2297:17:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC) 1940:as accurately as possible 1933:Problems with definitions 1474:I have amended this to : 1461:13:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 1251:How about this example? 1082:13:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 1035:14:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 742:Physics of Time Asymmetry 638:14:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC) 602:13:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 388: 337: 299: 197: 176: 136: 59: 55: 3754:14:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC) 3138:19:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC) 3005:14:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC) 2696:21:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC) 2675:20:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC) 2391:02:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC) 2371:01:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC) 2249:16:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC) 2235:21:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC) 2221:20:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC) 2204:20:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC) 2186:19:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC) 2172:19:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC) 1999:Definitions of evolution 1719:Please do not modify it. 1699:09:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC) 1443:23:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 1402:23:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 757:Please do not modify it. 548:] The anchor (Science) 257:WikiProject Tree of Life 225:This article is part of 3696:Objections to evolution 3622:14:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC) 3508:Wisdom In Understanding 3143:External links modified 3011:External links modified 2792:External links modified 2626:23:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC) 2477:Young Earth Creationism 2350:Problem with article II 2317:00:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC) 1968:Young Earth Creationism 352:WikiProject Creationism 3863:Knowledge:FALSEBALANCE 2684:historical negationism 2613: 2150:website. It says that 1861:an inline citation is 1500:Hey there! Following 1421: 1284:Level of support for X 1280:Level of support for X 1253:Motorcycle helmet laws 1117:evidence for evolution 1101:evidence for evolution 543:deleted by other users 158:This article is rated 3668:Dissent of Evolution? 3599:A Quest For Knowledge 2592: 1975:Old Earth Creationism 1899:argumentum ad populum 1863:WP:Disruptive editing 1739:argumentum ad populum 1586:talk.origins page or 1416: 241:quantitative genetics 123:Articles for deletion 85:Articles for deletion 39:good article criteria 3440:regular verification 3192:regular verification 3082:regular verification 2895:regular verification 2117:different time scale 1995:Aspects of evolution 1711:User indef blocked. 1390:Alex Andrew Richards 1232:Problem with article 1105:evolutionary biology 431:. Any such comments 375:Creationism articles 277:Evolutionary biology 233:evolutionary biology 189:Evolutionary biology 104:Good article nominee 3501:Jehovah’s Witnesses 3430:After February 2018 3182:After February 2018 3072:After February 2018 2885:After February 2018 2641:to such proportions 2469:Day-age creationism 2465:Jehovah's Witnesses 2065:Shouldn't this be " 2047:Tarquin Q. Zanzibar 1748:Neil Degrasse Tyson 1666:Project Steve synth 1580:evidence of absence 1483:Tarquin Q. Zanzibar 833:Do they base their 245:molecular evolution 237:population genetics 3484:InternetArchiveBot 3435:InternetArchiveBot 3236:InternetArchiveBot 3187:InternetArchiveBot 3126:InternetArchiveBot 3077:InternetArchiveBot 2939:InternetArchiveBot 2890:InternetArchiveBot 2656:shocked the nation 1951:unguided evolution 1947:theistic evolution 1843:Disruptive editing 1639:Darwin's Black Box 567:Newsweek reference 426: 164:content assessment 60:Article milestones 3901:@ Zacharycmango, 3885:minority view." 3683:AKA Casey Rollins 3538:is the source. — 3460: 3212: 3102: 2915: 2361:comment added by 2334:comment added by 1930: 1929: 1632:include the DI's 1626: 1405: 1388:comment added by 1185: 1168:comment added by 1064: 1047:comment added by 1017: 1016: 654:comment added by 564: 563: 532:in most browsers. 510: 509: 491: 490: 451: 450: 422: 409: 408: 405: 404: 401: 400: 316: 315: 312: 311: 144: 143: 132: 131: 116:February 21, 2007 3970: 3751: 3745: 3580: 3575: 3567: 3547: 3542: 3494: 3485: 3458: 3457: 3436: 3387: 3303: 3246: 3237: 3210: 3209: 3188: 3136: 3127: 3100: 3099: 3078: 3002: 2996: 2979: 2974: 2949: 2940: 2913: 2912: 2891: 2872: 2780: 2775: 2759: 2754: 2480: 2373: 2346: 2230: 2199: 2128: 2123: 1908:WP:Verifiability 1877: 1856: 1850: 1833: 1789: 1721: 1708: 1694: 1691: 1688: 1685: 1654: 1620: 1563: 1543: 1404: 1382: 1368: 1356: 1184: 1162: 1150: 1136:among scientists 1063: 1041: 955: 860: 805: 759: 746: 719: 666: 558:Reporting errors 550:has been deleted 519: 518: 512: 505: 472: 471: 461: 453: 418: 417: 411: 377: 376: 373: 370: 367: 346: 339: 338: 333: 325: 318: 288: 287: 284: 281: 278: 222: 217: 216: 206: 199: 198: 193: 185: 178: 161: 155: 154: 146: 137:Current status: 118: 99: 97:January 21, 2007 80: 78:January 12, 2007 57: 23: 16: 3978: 3977: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3923: 3922: 3786:User:Dave souza 3778: 3749: 3744:Joshua Jonathan 3743: 3738: 3686:Talk With Casey 3670: 3630: 3591: 3578: 3573: 3561: 3559: 3545: 3540: 3503: 3488: 3483: 3451: 3444:have permission 3434: 3381: 3297: 3270:this simple FaQ 3255: 3240: 3235: 3203: 3196:have permission 3186: 3160:this simple FaQ 3145: 3130: 3125: 3093: 3086:have permission 3076: 3028:this simple FaQ 3013: 3000: 2995:Joshua Jonathan 2994: 2975: 2970: 2958: 2943: 2938: 2906: 2899:have permission 2889: 2866: 2809:this simple FaQ 2794: 2778: 2773: 2757: 2752: 2706: 2633: 2597:Roman Catechism 2588: 2524: 2462: 2399: 2356: 2352: 2329: 2325: 2277: 2265: 2228: 2197: 2140: 2126: 2121: 2063: 2008:species, then: 1973:45% believe in 1966:40% believe in 1935: 1875: 1866: 1859:directly before 1854: 1852:citation needed 1848: 1845: 1825: 1781: 1717: 1706: 1692: 1689: 1686: 1683: 1668: 1652: 1643: 1561: 1552: 1541: 1532: 1498: 1383: 1379: 1366: 1354: 1345: 1338: 1234: 1163: 1148: 1139: 1092: 1042: 1022: 954: 946: 859: 851: 804: 796: 755: 744: 718: 710: 649: 645: 630:Adnan.Saadeddin 569: 560: 535: 534: 533: 516: 506: 500: 466: 415: 391:High-importance 374: 371: 368: 365: 364: 332:High‑importance 331: 285: 282: 279: 276: 275: 218: 211: 191: 162:on Knowledge's 159: 114: 95: 76: 12: 11: 5: 3976: 3974: 3966: 3965: 3960: 3955: 3950: 3945: 3940: 3935: 3925: 3924: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3777: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3737: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3710: 3669: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3639:185.53.198.166 3629: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3590: 3587: 3558: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3533: 3502: 3499: 3478: 3477: 3470: 3423: 3422: 3414:Added archive 3412: 3404:Added archive 3402: 3394:Added archive 3392: 3378: 3370:Added archive 3368: 3360:Added archive 3358: 3350:Added archive 3348: 3340:Added archive 3338: 3330:Added archive 3328: 3320:Added archive 3318: 3310:Added archive 3308: 3294: 3286:Added archive 3284: 3276:Added archive 3254: 3251: 3230: 3229: 3222: 3175: 3174: 3166:Added archive 3144: 3141: 3120: 3119: 3112: 3065: 3064: 3058: 3050:Added archive 3048: 3042: 3012: 3009: 3008: 3007: 2957: 2954: 2933: 2932: 2925: 2878: 2877: 2863: 2855:Added archive 2853: 2845:Added archive 2843: 2835:Added archive 2833: 2825:Added archive 2823: 2815:Added archive 2793: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2765: 2745: 2744: 2705: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2632: 2629: 2587: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2568: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2557: 2552: 2523: 2522:New PEW survey 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2482: 2481: 2459: 2458: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2420: 2398: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2351: 2348: 2324: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2276: 2273: 2264: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2241:117.204.84.245 2178:117.204.91.158 2164:117.204.91.158 2139: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2062: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2041: 2040: 2020: 2019: 2016: 2013: 1979: 1978: 1971: 1959: 1958: 1934: 1931: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1911: 1903: 1885: 1871: 1844: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1723: 1722: 1713: 1712: 1705: 1702: 1667: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1648: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1568: 1567: 1557: 1548: 1547: 1537: 1497: 1494: 1468: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1446: 1445: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1422: 1378: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1350: 1337: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1318:Northwestgnome 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1290:is notable. -- 1273: 1272: 1262:Northwestgnome 1238:Northwestgnome 1233: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1212:Northwestgnome 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1155: 1154: 1144: 1091: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1066: 1065: 1021: 1018: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 950: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 911:Robert Stevens 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 855: 826: 825: 824: 823: 800: 761: 760: 751: 750: 743: 740: 724: 723: 714: 698: 697: 656:81.132.237.174 644: 643:Error in chart 641: 607: 606: 605: 604: 568: 565: 562: 561: 555: 554: 553: 546: 530:case-sensitive 524: 523: 522: 520: 508: 507: 502: 498: 496: 493: 492: 489: 488: 483: 478: 468: 467: 462: 456: 449: 448: 445:Reference desk 433:may be removed 419: 407: 406: 403: 402: 399: 398: 387: 381: 380: 378: 361:the discussion 347: 335: 334: 326: 314: 313: 310: 309: 302:Mid-importance 298: 292: 291: 289: 224: 223: 207: 195: 194: 192:Mid‑importance 186: 174: 173: 167: 156: 142: 141: 134: 133: 130: 129: 126: 119: 111: 110: 107: 100: 92: 91: 88: 81: 73: 72: 69: 66: 62: 61: 53: 52: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3975: 3964: 3961: 3959: 3956: 3954: 3951: 3949: 3946: 3944: 3941: 3939: 3936: 3934: 3931: 3930: 3928: 3921: 3920: 3917: 3913: 3909: 3904: 3895: 3892: 3888: 3883: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3872: 3868: 3864: 3860: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3838: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3827: 3823: 3822:Zacharycmango 3818: 3817: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3796: 3792: 3791:Zacharycmango 3787: 3783: 3775: 3771: 3767: 3763: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3752: 3746: 3736:Article title 3735: 3731: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3709: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3687: 3684: 3680: 3676: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3644: 3640: 3635: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3588: 3586: 3585: 3581: 3576: 3570: 3565: 3556: 3552: 3548: 3543: 3537: 3534: 3532: 3528: 3524: 3523:Theroadislong 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3500: 3498: 3497: 3492: 3487: 3486: 3475: 3471: 3468: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3455: 3449: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3431: 3426: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3391: 3385: 3379: 3377: 3373: 3369: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3337: 3333: 3329: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3307: 3301: 3295: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3283: 3279: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3258: 3252: 3250: 3249: 3244: 3239: 3238: 3227: 3223: 3220: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3207: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3183: 3178: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3148: 3142: 3140: 3139: 3134: 3129: 3128: 3117: 3113: 3110: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3097: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3073: 3068: 3063: 3059: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3047: 3043: 3041: 3037: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3016: 3010: 3006: 3003: 2997: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2978: 2973: 2967: 2963: 2956:Article title 2955: 2953: 2952: 2947: 2942: 2941: 2930: 2926: 2923: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2910: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2886: 2881: 2876: 2870: 2864: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2797: 2791: 2785: 2781: 2776: 2770: 2766: 2764: 2760: 2755: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2714: 2710: 2703: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2663: 2662: 2657: 2652: 2651: 2646: 2642: 2637: 2630: 2628: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2612: 2610: 2606: 2604: 2598: 2591: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2558: 2556: 2553: 2551: 2548: 2547: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2530: 2521: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2506:76.10.128.192 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2489:76.10.128.192 2486: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2461: 2460: 2456: 2455: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2423:76.10.128.192 2418: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2408:76.10.128.192 2403: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2379: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2363:71.164.184.30 2360: 2349: 2347: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2336:123.236.62.36 2333: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2305: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2274: 2272: 2270: 2262: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2233: 2231: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2213:117.204.89.62 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2202: 2200: 2194: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2174: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2160: 2156: 2154: 2149: 2145: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2124: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2089: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2071:transhumanism 2068: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2043: 2042: 2039: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2017: 2014: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2007: 2002: 2000: 1996: 1991: 1989: 1984: 1976: 1972: 1969: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1952: 1948: 1943: 1941: 1932: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1909: 1904: 1901: 1900: 1895: 1891: 1886: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1876: 1874: 1870: 1864: 1860: 1853: 1842: 1836: 1832: 1829: 1824: 1823: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1800: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1788: 1785: 1780: 1779: 1774: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1740: 1735: 1731: 1725: 1724: 1720: 1715: 1714: 1710: 1709: 1703: 1701: 1700: 1697: 1695: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1671:User:The ed17 1665: 1657: 1653: 1651: 1647: 1641: 1640: 1635: 1631: 1624: 1623:edit conflict 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1566: 1562: 1560: 1556: 1550: 1549: 1546: 1542: 1540: 1536: 1530: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1510:asserted that 1506: 1503: 1495: 1493: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1478: 1477: 1472: 1471: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1444: 1441: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1427: 1423: 1420: 1414: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1376: 1372: 1369: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1355: 1353: 1349: 1342: 1335: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1254: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1231: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1208: 1207: 1205: 1200: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1153: 1149: 1147: 1143: 1137: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1113: 1108: 1106: 1102: 1097: 1089: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1019: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 985: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 958: 953: 949: 944: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 920: 916: 912: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 889: 885: 881: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 863: 858: 854: 849: 845: 841: 836: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 822: 818: 814: 810: 809: 808: 803: 799: 794: 790: 786: 782: 779: 778: 777: 776: 772: 768: 763: 762: 758: 753: 752: 748: 747: 741: 739: 738: 734: 730: 722: 717: 713: 708: 704: 700: 699: 696: 692: 688: 683: 682: 681: 680: 676: 672: 667: 665: 661: 657: 653: 642: 640: 639: 635: 631: 626: 625: 621: 617: 613: 603: 599: 595: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 582: 578: 572: 566: 559: 551: 547: 544: 540: 539: 538: 531: 527: 521: 514: 513: 495: 494: 487: 484: 482: 479: 477: 474: 473: 470: 469: 465: 460: 455: 454: 446: 442: 438: 434: 430: 425: 421:This page is 420: 413: 412: 396: 392: 386: 383: 382: 379: 362: 358: 354: 353: 348: 345: 341: 340: 336: 330: 327: 324: 320: 307: 303: 297: 294: 293: 290: 274: 270: 266: 262: 258: 254: 250: 249:phylogenetics 246: 242: 238: 234: 230: 229: 221: 215: 210: 208: 205: 201: 200: 196: 190: 187: 184: 180: 175: 171: 165: 157: 153: 148: 147: 140: 135: 127: 125: 124: 120: 117: 113: 112: 108: 106: 105: 101: 98: 94: 93: 89: 87: 86: 82: 79: 75: 74: 70: 67: 64: 63: 58: 54: 50: 49: 44: 40: 36: 35: 34: 28: 25: 22: 18: 17: 3900: 3836: 3779: 3739: 3718:echo chamber 3678: 3671: 3633: 3632:The article 3631: 3594: 3592: 3560: 3504: 3482: 3479: 3454:source check 3433: 3427: 3424: 3259: 3256: 3234: 3231: 3206:source check 3185: 3179: 3176: 3149: 3146: 3124: 3121: 3096:source check 3075: 3069: 3066: 3017: 3014: 2976: 2971: 2965: 2962:creationists 2961: 2959: 2937: 2934: 2909:source check 2888: 2882: 2879: 2798: 2795: 2715: 2713:regardless. 2711: 2707: 2664: 2655: 2653: 2644: 2640: 2638: 2634: 2614: 2602: 2600: 2593: 2589: 2532:FriendlyFred 2525: 2483: 2419: 2404: 2400: 2377: 2357:— Preceding 2353: 2330:— Preceding 2326: 2283:, to mirror 2278: 2266: 2175: 2161: 2157: 2151: 2141: 2090: 2066: 2064: 2037: 2021: 2005: 2003: 1992: 1982: 1980: 1960: 1944: 1939: 1936: 1897: 1889: 1867: 1858: 1846: 1821: 1777: 1743: 1737: 1729: 1726: 1718: 1669: 1644: 1637: 1629: 1553: 1533: 1528: 1509: 1499: 1479: 1475: 1473: 1469: 1467: 1437: 1417: 1380: 1346: 1339: 1313: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1235: 1198: 1140: 1135: 1111: 1109: 1095: 1093: 1023: 987: 942: 847: 843: 834: 792: 780: 764: 756: 729:JBFrenchhorn 725: 706: 702: 671:JBFrenchhorn 668: 650:— Preceding 646: 627: 608: 573: 570: 536: 528:Anchors are 525: 463: 390: 350: 301: 226: 170:WikiProjects 138: 121: 103: 102: 90:No consensus 83: 48:reassessment 46: 31: 30: 26: 3867:GliderMaven 3762:Hob Gadling 3750:Let's talk! 3722:Hob Gadling 3712:Of course, 3654:Hob Gadling 3614:Hob Gadling 3001:Let's talk! 2572:Markbassett 2146:) from the 2109:creationism 1983:creationism 1384:—Preceding 1341:This report 1164:—Preceding 1043:—Preceding 992:Doug Youvan 880:Doug Youvan 813:Doug Youvan 767:Doug Youvan 707:distinguish 424:not a forum 366:Creationism 357:Creationism 329:Creationism 261:systematics 43:renominated 3927:Categories 3912:dave souza 3887:dave souza 3805:Genesis.-- 3700:Editor2020 3637:article.-- 3491:Report bug 3243:Report bug 3133:Report bug 2946:Report bug 2618:Siragitkey 2094:Elgingreen 2067:Acceptance 1945:The term " 1894:wp:sources 1847:Placing a 1734:wp:sources 1634:WP:SELFPUB 1630:should not 1600:Cerebellum 1514:Cerebellum 1314:New Yorker 1170:Mjharrison 1121:Mjharrison 793:completely 577:The Cake 2 437:refactored 109:Not listed 3474:this tool 3467:this tool 3384:dead link 3300:dead link 3226:this tool 3219:this tool 3116:this tool 3109:this tool 2929:this tool 2922:this tool 2869:dead link 2309:Peteruetz 2304:evolution 2289:IRWolfie- 2153:Evolution 1799:448084723 1751:] in the 1367:Auntie E. 1107:series. 984:Tom Jukes 701:It's two 685:reason.-- 486:Archive 3 481:Archive 2 476:Archive 1 3882:WP:UNDUE 3480:Cheers.— 3232:Cheers.— 3122:Cheers.— 2935:Cheers.— 2734:Lipsquid 2688:Lipsquid 2529:PEW 2015 2439:clear.-- 2359:unsigned 2332:unsigned 2075:eugenics 2024:Uncle Ed 1596:WP:UNDUE 1453:Harald88 1424:, found 1415:, reads: 1411:, found 1398:contribs 1386:unsigned 1292:Johnuniq 1199:contrast 1178:contribs 1166:unsigned 1074:Harald88 1057:contribs 1045:unsigned 840:WP:UNDUE 703:separate 652:unsigned 594:Harald88 464:Archives 265:taxonomy 3845:Mr Fink 3807:Mr Fink 3579:Neonate 3546:Neonate 3388:tag to 3304:tag to 3266:my edit 3156:my edit 3024:my edit 2873:tag to 2805:my edit 2779:Neonate 2758:Neonate 2570:cheers 2441:Mr Fink 2383:Mr Fink 2127:Neonate 2079:Abyssal 1915:Stephfo 1804:Stephfo 1757:Stephfo 1693:rmation 1112:public' 1096:popular 1027:Calgary 943:support 848:support 835:support 545:before. 443:at the 393:on the 304:on the 160:C-class 68:Process 3679:should 3634:claims 3380:Added 3296:Added 2972:Jeffro 2865:Added 2567:else.) 2193:ISKCON 1988:Gallup 1773:weight 1675:WP:SYN 1529:states 1439:tizzle 1204:WP:NOT 988:Nature 789:WP:DUE 785:WP:RSs 251:, and 166:scale. 71:Result 29:was a 3574:Paleo 3564:Iflex 3557:India 3541:Paleo 2774:Paleo 2753:Paleo 2719:leuce 2667:leuce 2611:: --> 2607:.< 2229:Sædon 2198:Sædon 2138:India 2122:Paleo 2061:Title 2006:makes 1873:Stalk 1869:Hrafn 1802:CN.-- 1679:WP:OR 1650:Stalk 1646:Hrafn 1559:Stalk 1555:Hrafn 1539:Stalk 1535:Hrafn 1502:these 1435:Scien 1352:Stalk 1348:Hrafn 1146:Stalk 1142:Hrafn 1049:Ronar 952:Stalk 948:Hrafn 857:Stalk 853:Hrafn 844:level 802:Stalk 798:Hrafn 716:Stalk 712:Hrafn 687:Filll 3916:talk 3891:talk 3871:talk 3849:talk 3826:talk 3811:talk 3795:talk 3766:talk 3726:talk 3720:. -- 3704:talk 3694:See 3658:talk 3643:talk 3618:talk 3603:talk 3536:This 3527:talk 3512:talk 2983:talk 2738:talk 2723:talk 2692:talk 2671:talk 2622:talk 2576:talk 2536:talk 2510:talk 2493:talk 2463:The 2445:talk 2427:talk 2412:talk 2387:talk 2367:talk 2340:talk 2313:talk 2293:talk 2245:talk 2217:talk 2182:talk 2168:talk 2113:kind 2098:talk 2083:talk 2051:talk 2028:talk 1919:talk 1888:(cf. 1857:tag 1822:Jess 1808:talk 1778:Jess 1761:talk 1728:(cf. 1677:and 1604:talk 1592:here 1588:this 1584:this 1518:talk 1487:talk 1457:talk 1426:here 1413:here 1394:talk 1322:talk 1296:talk 1266:talk 1242:talk 1216:talk 1174:talk 1125:talk 1078:talk 1053:talk 1031:talk 996:talk 915:talk 884:talk 817:talk 771:talk 733:talk 691:talk 675:talk 660:talk 634:talk 620:talk 598:talk 581:talk 526:Tip: 385:High 263:and 128:Kept 65:Date 3448:RfC 3418:to 3408:to 3398:to 3374:to 3364:to 3354:to 3344:to 3334:to 3324:to 3314:to 3290:to 3280:to 3200:RfC 3170:to 3090:RfC 3054:to 3038:on 2903:RfC 2859:to 2849:to 2839:to 2829:to 2819:to 2073:or 1990:). 1892:in 1732:in 1505:two 846:of 781:No! 435:or 296:Mid 3929:: 3914:, 3889:, 3873:) 3851:) 3843:-- 3828:) 3813:) 3797:) 3768:) 3760:-- 3728:) 3706:) 3698:. 3660:) 3645:) 3620:) 3605:) 3582:– 3549:– 3529:) 3514:) 3461:. 3456:}} 3452:{{ 3386:}} 3382:{{ 3302:}} 3298:{{ 3213:. 3208:}} 3204:{{ 3103:. 3098:}} 3094:{{ 2985:) 2977:77 2916:. 2911:}} 2907:{{ 2871:}} 2867:{{ 2782:- 2761:- 2740:) 2725:) 2694:) 2673:) 2665:-- 2624:) 2578:) 2538:) 2512:) 2495:) 2447:) 2429:) 2414:) 2389:) 2369:) 2342:) 2315:) 2295:) 2247:) 2219:) 2184:) 2170:) 2130:– 2100:) 2085:) 2077:? 2053:) 2030:) 1921:) 1865:. 1855:}} 1849:{{ 1826:· 1810:) 1782:· 1763:) 1606:) 1520:) 1489:) 1459:) 1400:) 1396:• 1324:) 1298:) 1268:) 1260:? 1244:) 1218:) 1180:) 1176:• 1127:) 1080:) 1059:) 1055:• 1033:) 998:) 990:. 917:) 909:-- 886:) 819:) 773:) 735:) 693:) 677:) 662:) 636:) 622:) 600:) 583:) 247:, 243:, 239:, 3869:( 3847:( 3824:( 3809:( 3793:( 3764:( 3747:- 3724:( 3702:( 3656:( 3641:( 3616:( 3601:( 3566:: 3562:@ 3525:( 3510:( 3493:) 3489:( 3476:. 3469:. 3245:) 3241:( 3228:. 3221:. 3135:) 3131:( 3118:. 3111:. 2998:- 2981:( 2948:) 2944:( 2931:. 2924:. 2736:( 2721:( 2690:( 2669:( 2620:( 2574:( 2534:( 2508:( 2491:( 2479:. 2443:( 2425:( 2410:( 2385:( 2365:( 2338:( 2311:( 2291:( 2243:( 2215:( 2180:( 2166:( 2096:( 2081:( 2049:( 2026:( 1917:( 1831:♥ 1828:Δ 1806:( 1787:♥ 1784:Δ 1759:( 1690:o 1687:f 1684:N 1625:) 1621:( 1602:( 1516:( 1485:( 1455:( 1392:( 1320:( 1294:( 1264:( 1240:( 1214:( 1172:( 1123:( 1076:( 1051:( 1029:( 994:( 913:( 882:( 815:( 769:( 731:( 689:( 673:( 658:( 632:( 618:( 596:( 579:( 552:. 447:. 397:. 308:. 172::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index