1193:-- I am not sure it belongs, an if it does, I am not sure how to improve it. And while Quote mining is interesting, I am not sure it belongs, as I have not come accross this in my studies (which have intentionally avoided internet sites run by participants in the controversy, and which is probably why I have not run into much to contribute here). The Debates section could (and should) be expanded in my opinion, but again, I have not found material yet. I'll go back and check the changes to falsifiability in a few days, and revert as I think is justified based on my understanding of the references.
1225:, et. al., and without regard to my own reservations (which are not binding, but might merit consideration). The partitioning may or may not be logical/warranted(as opposed OR) partitions, and other partitions may be more logical and justified by similar partitions made by disinterested commentators. The partitions were most certainly drastic--and the partitions should have been handled differently, in my opinion, by using an approach similar to the approach filll uses when he proposes drastic changes or drastic additions.
1307:
836:. Your time lines are and reverts to my vandelism warnings were unappropriate. The post you claim I posted *after* you "warned" me was posted at 5:03, 3 minutes after your "warning" was posted. However, I started editing the vandel warning *Before* your warning was received. I did not see your inapproriate warning until after I posted the vandel warning, and frankly, your lack of participation in the
1170:
impossible to get the same mutations every time, and hence it being impossible to ever get the same results. This seems to be why he classifies it as a metaphysical research program. He does, however, in several of the quotes - as far as I can read through the very literal Popper chopping, say that it's a better explanation than any other suggestion known, which is probably relevant.
1300:
1421:
453:
that is not possible, I try not to add anything to the article no matter how important I think it is. And this is tough, because I from time to time find cases that should be included in my opinion, but it would probably fall under original research or soapboxing. I'll have to take a look at the article in more detail in the future.
878:
been seen for months by very strong evolution people like dave, filll, and orangemarlin on the opinion of somebody who makes a simple assertion without doing research is not vandelism, I don't know what is. Simply moving it to a talk page doesn't clean up the hole created by the vandelism on the articles page.
1097:'s biography is the way in which beliefs in divine creation of every individual species had developed and become very controversial around the start of the 19th century, so that he grew up at a time when ideas of evolution were a dangerous blasphemy promoted by radicals and street revolutionaries. This
1173:
I'm satisfied enough with the current revision. If you're satisfied with it, we could probably drop the subject for now, and work on other sections. I am sorry if I was unduly upset, but the section did feel like it was drawing conclusions from Popper in contrast to what the later quote from Popper's
1253:
is an essential part of keeping main articles to an easily readable length while keeping detail readily available. The summary can readily be reviewed to ensure that a good explanation is kept in the original article. However full discussion in advance makes this much easier, and is much better than
1117:
exercise to the reader). I'll take a look at it in more detail later. I don't assume I have any authority, just opinions. I am glad you respect mine, though. Perhaps the book it is based on is better (I try to work up the chain as far as possible, but of course I cannot do this on every source.
1004:
Vandelism can be done without ill intent. It is not false. See the discussion. I am backing them up. Please take further discussion to the disputed articles talk page. I am specifically addressing Adam's demonstrably false assertions there, the assertions he used to justify the vandelism. I am
452:
I just took a look. I don't have time right now because I am neck deep in the creation/evolution controversy article. In general, I try to quote disinterested parties whenever possible (e.g., historians). If that is not possible, I try to cite opposing parties who come to the same conclusion. If
1169:
My best guess at assembling the quotes - this could be completely wrong - is that Popper argues that since natural selection isn't rigorously testable, and cannot be isolated, thus is no way to falsify it. There also seems to be comments about its predictive power, which probably refers to it being
1116:
Dave, I'll have to spend more time on this latter. In general, I don't have a problem if it is a reliable source. If it is an active participant to the controversy, I think anything it says about its opponents should be suitably disclosed in the text of the article (as opposed to leaving it as an
877:
Listen, 5:03 and 5:00. You are spending a lot of time doing shoddy police work when you could instead comment on the talk page of the vandelized article. And it is vandelism, as I explained. You have a different opinion, it appears. If you think wholesale deleting a section that has existed and
624:
I've explained what I was trying to say in an addendum to your comment on my motives, and, after reading it, you might want to discuss it with me, or possibly even modify it on the talk page. (I consider myself as one of the more temperate and non-POV pushy evolutionists there, & my motive was
1280:
I should note that there was much to trim from the article before the fork, but this trimming was not done (I did not do it in sections that I thought might be controversial, but I often did bring up sections on the discussion page). A consequence of this is that inferior material made it appear
1101:
is the best overview I've found given my limited resources, though essentially it's an evangelical
Catholic blog article based on a book by a protestant evangelical. However, it seemed to me to be fully consistent with the various other histories I've come across. Do you have any problems with it
720:
Reverting vandelism and trying to get others who hold views that are sympathetic to the vandel (unintentional or otherwise) is not a personal attack. How did you become aware of this? Also, warning a vandel that his edits are vandalism is not a personal attack. Also, what makes you think I saw
641:
Please be careful - you replaced the new section with a version of the old that was missing words everywhere, and, frankly, had some bits that barely made sense from being chopped and repasted so much - the phrase about evangelising for Darwin, particularly, had gotten so awkward and out-of place
497:
Well, asserting notability here was as simple a matter as saying the rapper won that contest. Now, I don't know anything about the contest, but it's an assertion. The reason speedy delete exists is for cases where the article basically describes the person as normal with no extra reason to be in
143:
No worries, thanks for the heads up. My background leads me to check things, especially putting numbers to things to do a "sanity check". My main aim with the numbers is to make sure that we are thinking about what is in the article, and what the implications are. The implications are there,
305:
As reported in
Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science...".(Keeping God out of the Classroom, Larry Martz, and Ann
1174:
letter to New
Scientist justified giving to him. Also, if, as per the cite I found, common descent is the part creationists were attacking most as unfalsifiable, the Dawkins and Haldane quotes make much more sense, as they seem oddly fixated on common descent outside of that context.
652:
I apologize for screwing things up. I also hope you understand that I am not trying to lambast you, I am trying to keep NPOV in the article, and keep it informative. Larson and
Numbers are two great sources in my opinion, and I don't presume to second guess them too often.
485:
Glad it was done, for I myself am totally unable to judge
Notability in this subject area, though by the standards of other areas the article is a little on the thin side. :) . However, I'll be glad to look at anything about evolution or creationism. even just to give an
642:
from all the changes so as to be meaningless and, well, frankly, unreadable. If we're going to describe the period at all, we need to describe the culture on both sides, not just the general populace, as the increasing divide between them is the very heart of the matter.
1177:
I'm afraid we probably both over-reacted a bit: Perhaps I'd have been best off not removing the section, just marking it and challenging on the talk pageany conclusions and juxtapositions that seemed to be saying more than evidence justified. Ah, well. Live and learn.
1188:
Yes, thanks, I've added a few more comments there, but yes, in general, there are other sections that need a lot of work in my opinion. I have been reluctant to remove them or even change them because I have not done the research in those aspects. For example,
1130:
Thanks for that, your opinions are much appreciated and I'll value any further comments if you can find time. Unfortunately getting access to books is a bit difficult for me, so I'll try to take care in using this source and include disclosure as you suggest. ..
26:
306:
McDaniel, Newsweek, June 29, 1987, p. 23-24). I am waiting for the library to send me a copy of the article from their archives. I have it on order at the moment. I have not yet been able to find the article online.--Filll 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
162:, biologist and professor at Oxford University, explains that "If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found." Similarly, the evolutionary biologist
788:- um, you accused Adam of vandalism in your edit summary at the evo-creo talk page. You made accusations of vandalism in your edit summary on Filll's talk page. Please stop making these false allegations and remove the ones you have made.
738:
The post was done at 5:03. Your first "warning" was at 5:00. I started editing the page before 5:00. See how this works? Please slow down on your accusations. I had to spend some time looking up how to do the vandelism 1 warning.
1029:
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at
Knowledge
565:
describe other biologists of that period with the language suited to Huxley, as it would be misleading. However, you should be able to find lots of sources to make your comments on Julian Huxley as arbitrarily strong as you wish.
840:
article leads me to think you're jumping the gun and being over protective. I would really rather have you comment on the creation-evolution talk page about the vandelized section, (e.g., if you think it was not vandelism).
180:", a period more than 540 million years ago, a time when life on Earth consisted largely of bacteria, algae, and plankton. The absence of such evidence against evolution serves as one of the primary criticisms of creationism.
468:
Only because it does assert notability, and you are not allowed to remove it yourself of course. It's something I would probably prod or AfD, but I'll let the other editor take that route if they feel it's necessary.
1235:
As a rough look over, the splits look ok to me (although yes, more discussion before forking is generally a good thing). If you think there are serious problems with them, why not just address it on the talk page?
330:
By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared
863:- you are the one who is violating policy; it's far more important to deal with your behaviour then it is to jump into an edit war. Before anything else can be done you need to start acting in a civil manner.
1258:
is probably a pretty good idea. Us addicts will try to get things sorted out, though I must admit trying to sort two crises at once just now, and tending to skitter about rather than getting on with them..
205:
Thanks filll. Turns out I found one of the connections you point out, the Time magazine article. Do you have page numbers for the
Dawkins or Ridley books? I'd hate to cite whole books for a simple quote.
576:
I've temporarily reverted your change back to evangelising for
Darwinism, because Larson's description of Huxley, for the reasons I explained, shouldn't be applied to all biologists of his time. He was
581:, so it's not a justified extension. However, the more I think about it, the more I realise how apt that description is, as long as it's only applied to Huxley alone. Can we rephrase it appropriately?
607:
I've reworked the section heavily. I had to add some of the history in to explain the mood of the time - I would have added the discovery of DNA as well, and some of the other discoveries, but...
1152:
You do realise that I didn't intend it to be gone permanently, just thought the talk page was a better place to revise it, so we could have these discussions without affecting the main article.
610:
I'm... not sure if you'll like it. It removes entirely the quote you liked, but it does quote Huxley, which is possibly better. And I think the whole thing holds together better than it did.
540:
you pointed out. As for the table, there were only a few items on it, so I thought it would be better in a list. I know there's a two columns thing somewhere, if it's still too long. --
1249:
It's a good point that discussion could have saved some puzzlement and annoyance. While "forking" is discouraged if it leads to different articles having unbalanced POV, splitting as
554:
I'm going tohave to give you a very important warning for
Creation-evolution controversy: Julian Huxley literally turned science into a religion, and became a strong advocate of
817:
page after I did. Anyway, you made accusations of vandalism when you posted in response to my post. Are you saying that you responded to my post without being aware of it?
340:
It does not mention the source of the data, the 700 or 480,000. However, I believe that McDaniel and Martz still work for
Newsweek and we could contact them. Comments?--
1438:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
1435:
438:? I had some trouble adding similar material in the past and wanted to make sure it was encyclopedic. I also think some of the information can help in writing the
102:
61:
1384:
337:, Larry Martz with Ann McDaniel, in Washington and bureau reports, Volume CIX, No. 26, June 29, 1987, ISSN 0028-9604 Newsweek Inc., NY, NY,p. 23-24).
933:, you knew that it was unacceptable to characterise the actions as vandalism by the time you replied here. And yet you continued to do so.
65:
1281:
that the article needed a fork, when in fact it needing a trimming first. Consider this a wikibreak from contributing to articles than:)
1388:
537:
383:
1346:
72:
1409:
276:
256:
1078:"How can you claim that the policy states the opposite of what it states?" The AGF tone of vandalism 1 warning covers this base.
973:
Your are violating policy by making unjustified attacks. Your continued characterisation of the edits as "vandalism" (a) violates
1005:
not arguing that Adam is evil or has ill intent. He has vandelized, though, and I am attempting to communicate this to him.
1190:
858:
833:
351:
41:
1342:
963:
Assume good faith. Besides, reverting ^vandalism^ and dealing with sections being deleted is not a violation of policy.
956:
950:
861:. Your time lines are and reverts to my vandelism warnings were unappropriate...I did not see your inapproriate warning
1431:
1325:
533:
196:
837:
1381:"All your edits have been reverted." LOL. You wish you had the courage to revert StudyAndBeWise's contributions.
1332:
1250:
1434:. I do not think that this article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at
314:
I have now gone to a library and looked at the physical copy of the article from 1987. Here is what it says:
1392:
184:
559:
673:
498:
Knowledge (XXG), but borderline notability needs to be discussed not erased without community consensus.
1179:
1153:
643:
611:
582:
567:
107:
1350:
1264:
1136:
1107:
811:
The post was done at 5:03. Your first "warning" was at 5:00. I started editing the page before 5:00
268:
1364:
1282:
1226:
1194:
1118:
1079:
1006:
964:
879:
842:
740:
722:
654:
591:
514:
454:
416:
387:
382:
It is in the already cited (and misquoted) Matsumura|1998 reference. I am adding something to the
355:
239:
206:
89:
1427:
1413:
1102:
being used as a source, where possible substantiated with references from the books I have? ...
978:
791:
Accusing someone of vandalism when they did nothing of the sort is unacceptable. Don't do it!
1255:
1446:
1306:
1166:
I've added a series of quotes found with amazon.com's search inside feature on Unended Quest.
505:
476:
430:
Would you mind reviewing the content related to creation-evolution which was added to article
273:
253:
248:
127:
721:
your warnings? I can barely get a response in on my own talk page you're posting so fast.
982:
974:
690:
1260:
1222:
1132:
1103:
263:
243:
192:
159:
925:
to characterise Adam's edits in your responses here and on my talk page, which were made
775:
I warned you. So it's false to say that you made them before you were aware of my edits.
1360:
1094:
1069:
1049:
1036:
992:
934:
864:
818:
792:
708:
694:
677:
435:
431:
163:
672:
edit summary - it is unacceptable to characterise good faith edits as vandalism. See
1048:"warning" again. If you continue this behaviour you may be blocked for disruption.
555:
177:
1442:
1237:
1209:
541:
499:
470:
443:
402:
373:
71:
In this regard, you might find some of the information I have collected so far at
1345:. You can also email the blocking administrator or any active administrator from
1299:
1208:
Could you explain in more detail which content forks you think are problematic?
174:
145:
25:
1420:
1450:
1396:
1368:
1354:
1285:
1267:
1240:
1229:
1218:
1212:
1197:
1182:
1156:
1139:
1121:
1110:
1082:
1072:
1052:
1039:
1009:
995:
967:
937:
882:
867:
845:
821:
795:
743:
725:
711:
697:
680:
657:
646:
631:
614:
594:
585:
570:
544:
517:
508:
492:
479:
457:
446:
419:
405:
390:
376:
358:
344:
341:
209:
188:
148:
133:
130:
110:
92:
79:
76:
47:
44:
1098:
289:
1217:
I think drastic changes were made by some without comments from others like
232:
1035:
How can you claim that the policy states the opposite of what it states?
105:. Harvard references should be inline, and should not use the <ref: -->
627:
488:
318:
166:
when asked what hypothetical evidence would disprove evolution replied "
75:
to be of interest. It is not anywhere closed to finished yet, however.--
322:
170:
412:
167:
1254:
having to sort it out afterwards. Sorry to hear about the strike, a
1441:
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.
857:
Please spend your energy commenting on the disputed edits in the
832:
Please spend your energy commenting on the disputed edits in the
386:
discussion. Stay tuned. Matsumura herself questioned the SBC.
1020:. No, it cannot. The policy (to which I provided a link in my
513:
I understand both of you, and will try to improve the article.
325:
235:
60:
I am creating a page to save research on types of creationists.
947:
106:
tag. The ref tag is footnote style references. Good luck! :)--
771:
page before you posted to Adam's and Filll's talk pages, but
1305:
1298:
1099:
History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth
900:, so obviously you would have "received" my message. You
372:
do you have a citation that the SBC position has changed?
1335:
of a banned or blocked user. As a blocked or banned user
1294:
536:. I've tried to provide some sort of explanation at the
1061:
1057:
1045:
908:
905:
898:
891:
704:
686:
669:
625:
to try to restrain some of my less temperate friends).
370:
121:
1064:
are no better. You are abusing warning tags, which
1436:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lucca Brazzi
1341:Details of how to appeal a block can be found at:
707:is even worse, especially after you were warned.
350:Good job tracking this down. I'll comment on the
227:As quoted by Wallis, Claudia. The Evolution Wars.
103:Knowledge (XXG):Harvard_citation_template_examples
401:I don't see the upload when I click on the link.
689:is also unacceptable. Please see our policy on
1068:vandalism. Consider this your last warning.
415:it. Let me know if you still have problems.
40:For a selfless and impressive performance on
17:For service above and beyond the call of duty
8:
1337:you are not entitled to edit Knowledge (XXG)
216:References to fill's falsifiability citation
62:User_talk:StudyAndBeWise/TypesOfCreationists
310:Newsweek quote, as copied by me personally
23:
1018:Vandelism can be done without ill intent
954:you are the one who is violating policy
782:. Did you look at the links I provided?
767:I posted to your talk page. You edited
761:hat makes you think I saw your warnings?
293:, Mark Ridley, Blackwell Science, 2003
220:
215:
778:As I explained, the edits in question
1339:. All your edits have been reverted.
66:User_talk:StudyAndBeWise/HarvardHowTo
7:
1430:, an article that you created, for
384:Talk:Level_of_support_for_evolution
272:. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
1191:Religion and historical scientists
528:Re: creation-evolution controversy
411:I don't know what happened, but I
73:Talk:Evolution/controversyarticles
14:
1349:. Please be sure to include your
1343:Knowledge (XXG):Appealing a block
786:How did you become aware of this?
101:You might want to take a look at
1419:
335:Keeping God out of the Classroom
24:
907:at :03 and Filll's page at :04
859:creation-evolution controversy
838:creation-evoltuion controversy
834:creation-evolution controversy
637:Creation-evolution controversy
603:Creation-evolution controversy
440:creation-evolution controversy
436:Common descent and Creationism
352:creation-evolution controversy
42:Creation-evolution controversy
1:
1451:01:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
1286:19:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
1268:18:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
1251:Knowledge (XXG):Summary style
1241:03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
1230:03:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
1213:03:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
1198:21:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
1183:18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
1157:09:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
1140:20:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
1122:01:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
1111:15:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
1083:01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
1073:05:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
1053:05:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
1040:05:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
1010:05:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
996:05:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
968:05:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
938:05:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
883:05:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
868:05:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
846:05:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
822:05:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
796:05:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
744:05:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
726:05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
712:05:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
698:05:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
681:05:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
658:20:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
647:04:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
632:21:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
615:09:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
595:08:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
586:08:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
571:08:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
545:10:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
590:Let me take one more stab.
518:01:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
509:01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
493:01:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
480:00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
458:01:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
447:01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
420:06:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
406:01:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
391:21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
377:21:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
359:03:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
345:01:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
210:03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
149:11:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
134:04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
93:05:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
80:04:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
48:23:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
929:. Even if you didn't know
1466:
1397:21:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
1321:
1297:
981:and (c) probably violates
927:in response to my warnings
890:I edited this page at :00
199:) 02:44, Feb 1, 2007 (UTC)
126:For archiving, please see
1369:22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
1093:An interesting aspect of
1089:Creationism before Darwin
674:Knowledge (XXG):Vandalism
111:07:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
30:
918:you got to Filll's page.
904:edited Adam's talk page
763:You posted the warnings
532:Thanks for your message
291:Evolution, Third Edition
1317:Blocked as a sockpuppet
1353:(if you have one) and
1310:
1303:
1148:Falsifiability section
914:"new message" banners
1410:Articles for deletion
1387:comment was added by
1309:
1302:
813:Come on - you edited
34:The Original Barnstar
538:bit of the talk page
269:The Blind Watchmaker
426:Creationist Orchard
1311:
1304:
985:. You are making
434:under the section
139:Creation-evolution
122:01-27-2007 archive
1426:I have nominated
1400:
1374:
1373:
988:false accusations
961:
960:
780:are not vandalism
507:
478:
249:River Out of Eden
201:
187:comment added by
53:
52:
1457:
1423:
1382:
1295:
948:
691:personal attacks
504:
475:
295:
287:
281:
280:
264:Dawkins, Richard
260:
244:Dawkins, Richard
225:
200:
181:
108:Andrew Robertson
28:
21:
20:
1465:
1464:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1424:
1417:
1383:—The preceding
1320:
1206:
1164:
1150:
1091:
991:of vandalism.
977:, (b) violates
666:
639:
622:
605:
552:
530:
466:
428:
399:
367:
317:As reported in
312:
303:
298:
288:
284:
262:
252:. Basic Books.
242:
226:
222:
218:
182:
160:Richard Dawkins
156:
141:
119:
58:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1463:
1461:
1418:
1416:
1412:nomination of
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1372:
1371:
1358:
1357:in your email.
1324:You have been
1319:
1315:
1312:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1283:StudyAndBeWise
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1244:
1243:
1227:StudyAndBeWise
1205:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1195:StudyAndBeWise
1163:
1160:
1149:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1125:
1124:
1119:StudyAndBeWise
1095:Charles Darwin
1090:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1080:StudyAndBeWise
1044:Do not repost
1033:
1032:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1007:StudyAndBeWise
999:
998:
965:StudyAndBeWise
959:
958:
955:
952:
945:
943:
942:
941:
940:
919:
910:. So you got
893:. You edited
880:StudyAndBeWise
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
849:
848:
843:StudyAndBeWise
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
789:
783:
776:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
741:StudyAndBeWise
731:
730:
729:
728:
723:StudyAndBeWise
715:
714:
701:
700:
665:
662:
661:
660:
655:StudyAndBeWise
638:
635:
621:
618:
604:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
592:StudyAndBeWise
551:
548:
529:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
515:StudyAndBeWise
465:
462:
461:
460:
455:StudyAndBeWise
432:common descent
427:
424:
423:
422:
417:StudyAndBeWise
398:
395:
394:
393:
388:StudyAndBeWise
366:
363:
362:
361:
356:StudyAndBeWise
311:
308:
302:
299:
297:
296:
282:
219:
217:
214:
213:
212:
207:StudyAndBeWise
164:J.B.S. Haldane
155:
154:falsifiability
152:
144:numbers or no.
140:
137:
118:
115:
114:
113:
98:
97:
96:
95:
90:StudyAndBeWise
88:Thanks filll.
83:
82:
57:
54:
51:
50:
37:
36:
31:
29:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1462:
1453:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1439:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1422:
1415:
1411:
1408:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1389:170.215.17.61
1386:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1329:
1327:
1318:
1313:
1308:
1301:
1296:
1287:
1284:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1269:
1266:
1262:
1257:
1252:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1242:
1239:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1215:
1214:
1211:
1203:
1199:
1196:
1192:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1181:
1180:Vanished user
1175:
1171:
1167:
1161:
1159:
1158:
1155:
1154:Vanished user
1147:
1141:
1138:
1134:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1123:
1120:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1109:
1105:
1100:
1096:
1088:
1084:
1081:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1054:
1051:
1047:
1042:
1041:
1038:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1023:
1022:first message
1019:
1011:
1008:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
997:
994:
990:
989:
984:
980:
976:
972:
971:
970:
969:
966:
953:
949:
946:
939:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
917:
913:
909:
906:
903:
899:
896:
892:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
881:
869:
866:
862:
860:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
847:
844:
839:
835:
831:
830:
823:
820:
816:
812:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
797:
794:
790:
787:
784:
781:
777:
774:
770:
766:
762:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
745:
742:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
727:
724:
719:
718:
717:
716:
713:
710:
706:
703:
702:
699:
696:
692:
688:
685:
684:
683:
682:
679:
675:
671:
663:
659:
656:
651:
650:
649:
648:
645:
644:Vanished user
636:
634:
633:
630:
629:
619:
617:
616:
613:
612:Vanished user
608:
602:
596:
593:
589:
588:
587:
584:
583:Vanished user
580:
575:
574:
573:
572:
569:
568:Vanished user
564:
560:
557:
556:transhumanism
550:Julian Huxley
549:
547:
546:
543:
539:
535:
527:
519:
516:
512:
511:
510:
506:
503:
502:
496:
495:
494:
491:
490:
484:
483:
482:
481:
477:
474:
473:
463:
459:
456:
451:
450:
449:
448:
445:
441:
437:
433:
425:
421:
418:
414:
410:
409:
408:
407:
404:
396:
392:
389:
385:
381:
380:
379:
378:
375:
371:
364:
360:
357:
353:
349:
348:
347:
346:
343:
338:
336:
332:
327:
324:
320:
315:
309:
307:
300:
294:
292:
286:
283:
278:
277:0-393-31570-3
275:
271:
270:
265:
258:
257:0-465-06990-8
255:
251:
250:
245:
240:
237:
234:
230:
229:Time Magazine
224:
221:
211:
208:
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
179:
176:
172:
169:
165:
161:
158:For example,
153:
151:
150:
147:
138:
136:
135:
132:
128:
124:
123:
116:
112:
109:
104:
100:
99:
94:
91:
87:
86:
85:
84:
81:
78:
74:
70:
69:
68:
67:
63:
55:
49:
46:
43:
39:
38:
35:
32:
27:
22:
16:
1440:
1428:Lucca Brazzi
1425:
1414:Lucca Brazzi
1336:
1328:indefinitely
1323:
1322:
1316:
1314:
1216:
1207:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1165:
1151:
1092:
1065:
1056:
1043:
1034:
1028:
1021:
1017:
1016:
987:
986:
962:
944:
930:
926:
922:
915:
911:
901:
894:
876:
856:
814:
810:
785:
779:
772:
768:
764:
760:
752:
667:
640:
626:
623:
620:ID talk page
609:
606:
578:
562:
553:
531:
500:
487:
471:
467:
464:I removed it
439:
429:
400:
368:
365:SBC position
339:
334:
329:
328:, Page 23: "
316:
313:
304:
290:
285:
267:
247:
228:
223:
183:— Preceding
157:
142:
125:
120:
59:
33:
1361:--Akhilleus
331:'abruptly'.
241:. Also see
175:Precambrian
1355:IP address
1333:sockpuppet
1261:dave souza
1223:Dave Souza
1133:dave souza
1104:dave souza
931:beforehand
668:Regarding
369:Regarding
354:talk page
321:magazine,
238:, page 32
1347:this list
1256:wikibreak
1070:Guettarda
1050:Guettarda
1037:Guettarda
993:Guettarda
935:Guettarda
923:continued
895:this page
865:Guettarda
819:Guettarda
793:Guettarda
709:Guettarda
695:Guettarda
678:Guettarda
664:Vandalism
233:15 August
56:Reminders
1432:deletion
1385:unsigned
1351:username
1024:) says:
979:WP:CIVIL
563:must not
486:opinion.
319:Newsweek
301:Newsweek
266:(1986).
246:(1995).
197:contribs
185:unsigned
117:Archives
1443:Phil153
1326:blocked
1238:JoshuaZ
1210:JoshuaZ
897:at :02
579:extreme
542:h2g2bob
444:Pbarnes
403:JoshuaZ
374:JoshuaZ
323:29 June
173:in the
171:rabbits
1204:Strike
1162:Quotes
1030:(XXG).
983:WP:NPA
975:WP:AGF
916:before
442:page.
397:Upload
168:fossil
146:Trishm
1331:as a
1219:Filll
773:after
765:after
501:Leebo
472:Leebo
413:fixed
342:Filll
189:Filll
131:Filll
77:Filll
45:Filll
1447:talk
1393:talk
1365:talk
1265:talk
1137:talk
1108:talk
1062:this
1060:and
1058:This
1046:this
921:You
902:then
815:this
769:this
705:This
687:This
670:this
534:here
326:1987
274:ISBN
261:and
254:ISBN
236:2005
193:talk
64:and
912:two
693:.
676:.
628:DGG
561:We
489:DGG
333:" (
178:era
1449:)
1395:)
1367:)
1359:--
1263:,
1221:,
1135:,
1106:,
1066:is
957:”
951:“
558:.
231:,
195:•
129:--
1445:(
1399:.
1391:(
1363:(
279:.
259:.
191:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
