Universal Common Descent
T.Downs
to Evolution vs Creation appears to be over Universal Common Descent
What is the strongest evidence for Universal Common Descent?
Is there any serious doubt of Universal Common Descent based on
evidence?
For the Wiki-inclined, http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?UniversalCommonDescent
is page which would be suitable for discussion on this subject.
Thanks.
Tim Downs
Mark VandeWettering
> Coming from a creationist old-earth background, the argument central
> to Evolution vs Creation appears to be over Universal Common Descent
Actually, they really don't care that other critters are descended from
one another, except for the fact that it might mean that they have to
pick a different literal interpretation of Genesis. The problem is really
just whether mankind shares descendants from all other living things.
> What is the strongest evidence for Universal Common Descent?
The multiple nested hierarchies.
> Is there any serious doubt of Universal Common Descent based on
> evidence?
None whatsoever.
TomS
<slrnbic76b.e...@keck.vandewettering.net>, Mark stated..."
>
>In article <cd936cd0.03072...@posting.google.com>, T.Downs wrote:
>
>> Coming from a creationist old-earth background, the argument central
>> to Evolution vs Creation appears to be over Universal Common Descent
>
>Actually, they really don't care that other critters are descended from
>one another, except for the fact that it might mean that they have to
>pick a different literal interpretation of Genesis. The problem is really
>just whether mankind shares descendants from all other living things.
>
>> What is the strongest evidence for Universal Common Descent?
>
>The multiple nested hierarchies.
I agree, but I'd also mention the (nearly universal) genetic code.
That is, the fixed translation scheme between triplets of nucleic acid
and amino acids. (Look up on the net for "genetic code" and you'll
find the standard table of codons-to-amino acids. Does anyone have
a handy reference for the exceptions?)
As far as I know (and I'm no scientist, I warn you) there is no
plausible suggestion as to why a particular triplet should code for
a particular amino acid, other than it just being a chance event in
early life which just happened once and then was inherited.
No, perhaps the best evidence is that there are so many different
lines of evidence which all converge on the same result. The parallel
nested hierarchies (plural), the genetic code, and so on.
Alan Wright
"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bg5ka...@drn.newsguy.com...
> "On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 07:07:25 +0000 (UTC), in article
> <slrnbic76b.e...@keck.vandewettering.net>, Mark stated..."
> >
> plausible suggestion as to why a particular triplet should code for
> a particular amino acid, other than it just being a chance event in
> early life which just happened once and then was inherited.
>
Actually there is a pretty good efficiency argument (based on what
is called "load minimization", or avoidance of translation errors),
coupled with quite plausible reasons for the code to have been
frozen at some point. There are apparently many papers on the
subject, e.g. by Szathmary, Woese, Orgel, and others I can't
remember, but my memory of this mainly comes from having
read a summary on the topic in the "...Transitions..." book by
Maynard Smith and Szathmary. They analyzed the code both
from the perspective of the resultant code (top down) as well as
working from the bottom up to analyze what sort of code might
be expected to have evolved. The arguments are both chemical
and mathematical, and apparently simulations back up the idea
that the code is close to optimal in certain respects.
Alan
Harlequin
news:cd936cd0.03072...@posting.google.com:
You should check out "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution:
The Scientific Case for Common Descent" by Douglas Theobald
( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ ) which
is probably the strongest section in The Talk.Origins
Archive for being very up to date, having good writing,
having many links to the peer-reviewed literature, being
well illustrated, and being very user friendly. Spend
some time there, check out some of the references,
and then come back to this newsgroup and talk.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"...Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all
told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to
his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not
entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our _informed_ opinions.
Without research, without background, without understanding, it's
nothing. It's just bibble-babble...."
- Harlan Ellison
Frank J
> <slrnbic76b.e...@keck.vandewettering.net>, Mark stated..."
> >
> >In article <cd936cd0.03072...@posting.google.com>, T.Downs wrote:
> >
> >> Coming from a creationist old-earth background, the argument central
> >> to Evolution vs Creation appears to be over Universal Common Descent
> >
> >Actually, they really don't care that other critters are descended from
> >one another, except for the fact that it might mean that they have to
> >pick a different literal interpretation of Genesis. The problem is really
> >just whether mankind shares descendants from all other living things.
> >
> >> What is the strongest evidence for Universal Common Descent?
> >
> >The multiple nested hierarchies.
>
> I agree, but I'd also mention the (nearly universal) genetic code.
> That is, the fixed translation scheme between triplets of nucleic acid
> and amino acids. (Look up on the net for "genetic code" and you'll
> find the standard table of codons-to-amino acids. Does anyone have
> a handy reference for the exceptions?)
I'm too lazy to type it all out, but Table 1.3, p. 23 of "Molecular
Evolution" by Wen-Hsiung Li outlines it. Unless I'm missing something
the operative thing for evolution misrepresenters is the fact that
humans do not have a species-unique code. Although IDers made a big
deal about it a while back (with their typical "you can't get there
from here" arguments) they conveniently omitted the fact that this is
no help whatsoever to those seeking to support an independednt origin
for H. sapiens. But, as much as they try to hide it nowadays, ID
officially endorsed common descent in 1996 when Michael Behe admitted
it.
>
> As far as I know (and I'm no scientist, I warn you) there is no
> plausible suggestion as to why a particular triplet should code for
> a particular amino acid, other than it just being a chance event in
> early life which just happened once and then was inherited.
Maybe, maybe not. See "The Origins of Order" by Stuart Kauffman. The
section on "hypercycles and coding" has some interesting ideas on how
codes may have originated.
>
> No, perhaps the best evidence is that there are so many different
> lines of evidence which all converge on the same result. The parallel
> nested hierarchies (plural), the genetic code, and so on.
The convergence is a mixed blessing. It provides misrepresenters ample
opportunity to take evidence out of context and mislead their
audience.
zosdad
Hey, has anyone ever thought that having an Evolution Education Wiki
would be a good idea? There are so many half-finished protoFAQs, and
independent quote databases etc, and independent webpages in the
world, if there was a semi-open content wiki (the classic wikipedia
allows anyone to edit and contribute, which wouldn't obviously work,
we'd need accounts or something), we'd truly have the most devastating
anti-creo tool in the world. Lists of e.g. transitional fossils would
be easy to maintain, whenever someone came across one they could just
edit the relevant page...
There is already something like this out there for propaganda:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml
And here is the original wikipedia:
http://www.wikipedia.org/
Perhaps I'm just crazy (say so if that's what you think), but I think
it would be a revolutionary kind of resource.
nic
Harlequin
news:74227462.0307...@posting.google.com:
[snip]
> Hey, has anyone ever thought that having an Evolution Education Wiki
> would be a good idea? There are so many half-finished protoFAQs, and
> independent quote databases etc, and independent webpages in the
> world, if there was a semi-open content wiki (the classic wikipedia
> allows anyone to edit and contribute, which wouldn't obviously work,
> we'd need accounts or something), we'd truly have the most devastating
> anti-creo tool in the world. Lists of e.g. transitional fossils would
> be easy to maintain, whenever someone came across one they could just
> edit the relevant page...
>
> There is already something like this out there for propaganda:
> http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml
>
> And here is the original wikipedia:
> http://www.wikipedia.org/
>
> Perhaps I'm just crazy (say so if that's what you think), but I think
> it would be a revolutionary kind of resource.
I might direct people to
"If you are knowledgable about vertebrate evolution and are
interested in taking on the job, get in touch with me about
doing the next FAQ update yourself."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/email.html
Any takers? Someone very knowledgeable about vertebrate evolution,
and who knows HTML, and is willing to do a _lot_ of work could
volunteer to edit new information into the FAQ.
Of course, there the Archive has requested FAQs on any
good transitional forms.
Also many of the older FAQs could use some work. What it takes is
for someone to volunteer to do them.
I might also point out that several FAQs are edited from
multiple t.o. posts:
New Redshift Interpretation FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/nri.html
Jury-Rigged Design FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
This particular FAQ could an editor willing to
clean it up and add more contributions. Actually a rewrite
might be in order since this one clearly shows its pre-Web
origins.
zosdad
> Hey, has anyone ever thought that having an Evolution Education Wiki
> would be a good idea?
God I love the 'net.
Hey, well, I just discovered that there is a free wiki-creator service
for nonprofit uses that allows anyone to set up their own Wiki. So I
did, as an experiment. I'm calling it EvoWiki. I did it just now,
its really easy.
Here's the link:
http://www.seedwiki.com/index.cfm?doc=EvoWiki&wikiid=2710
Feel free to add stuff. E.g., I began a page on the Peppered Moth as
(a) there needs to be a FAQ on that and (b) I know of, like, four
people with desires to create a FAQ or with quarter-written articles
and (c) if they all contributed to this page we'd have a supberb
article in no time.
Peppered moth page:
http://www.seedwiki.com/page.cfm?doc=PepperedMoth&wikiid=2710&wpid=0
I wrote up a little introduction to EvoWiki to give people ideas on
how it might be used:
===============
EvoWiki is a Wiki about evolution and origins. The focus is on
evolution education, particularly addressing the arguments of the
Creationism Movement and Intelligent Design from the perspective of
mainstream science. It is inspired by webpages such as
talkorigins.org and talkdesign.org, and the goal of EvoWiki is to
complement rather than duplicate these online resources.
Some possible things that EvoWiki can be used for that are otherwise
difficult or tedious:
- collaborative writing of a FAQ or article (say, on the Peppered
Moth)
- accumulation of links or references on a topic (e.g., transitional
fossils)
- archiving good posts from newsgroups or bulletin boards, so that you
or someone else will be inspired to edit them into a more
comprehensive article later on (e.g., there are many great t.o. posts
that deserve FAQdom, but often it takes a long time for an author to
revisit a topic and develop a FAQ)
- a place for developing and editing FAQs for hosting at e.g.
talkorigins.org
- whatever other creative uses you come up with
A few guidelines:
- EvoWiki is intended to present mainstream science.
Antievolutionists who wish to present their views on a Wiki are
encouraged to create their own Wiki via Seed Wiki?.
- If you contribute to a developing article, please include your name
or pseudonym and a brief note about your contribution, so that you get
acknowledged.
- If you have a particular plan/format/goal in mind for a particular
page, please describe it at the top of the page in e.g. italics. For
example, "This page is an annotated bibliography on immune system
evolution."
- The main purpose of Wiki is to allow collaboration. So, if you
think that something you read here can be improved, go right ahead and
improve it. It's OK, you don't need to ask permission or anything.
That's the point of a Wiki. On the other hand, if you are very
protective of your work and don't want others to edit it, then don't
post it here in the first place
- I understand that "vandalism" (abuse of Wiki to damage/delete
articles) is quite rare, but if it occurs here, contact me and we will
restore the archived, pre-vandalism version.
Thanks, have fun, and spread the word!
-- Nic Tamzek
===============
John Wilkins
> "On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 07:07:25 +0000 (UTC), in article
> <slrnbic76b.e...@keck.vandewettering.net>, Mark stated..."
> >
> >In article <cd936cd0.03072...@posting.google.com>, T.Downs wrote:
> >
> >> Coming from a creationist old-earth background, the argument central
> >> to Evolution vs Creation appears to be over Universal Common Descent
> >
> >Actually, they really don't care that other critters are descended from
> >one another, except for the fact that it might mean that they have to
> >pick a different literal interpretation of Genesis. The problem is really
> >just whether mankind shares descendants from all other living things.
> >
> >> What is the strongest evidence for Universal Common Descent?
> >
> >The multiple nested hierarchies.
>
> I agree, but I'd also mention the (nearly universal) genetic code.
> That is, the fixed translation scheme between triplets of nucleic acid
> and amino acids. (Look up on the net for "genetic code" and you'll
> find the standard table of codons-to-amino acids. Does anyone have
> a handy reference for the exceptions?)
Caron, F. 1986. Deviations from the 'universal' genetic code.
Microbiological Sciences 3 (2):36-40.
Di Giulio, M. 1997. The origin of the genetic code. Trends in
Biochemical Sciences 22 (2):49-50.
Fox, T. D. 1985. Diverged genetic codes in protozoans and a bacterium.
Nature 314 (6007):132-133.
Friedberg, E. C., and W. A. Weiss. 1987. Divergent genetic codes. Nature
325 (6102):306.
Himeno, H., H. Masaki, T. Kawai, T. Ohta, I. Kumagai, K. Miura, and K.
Watanabe. 1987. Unusual genetic codes and a novel gene structure for
tRNA(AGYSer) in starfish mitochondrial DNA. Gene 56 (2-3):219-230.
Inagaki, Y., and W. F. Doolittle. 2001. Class I release factors in
ciliates with variant genetic codes. Nucleic Acids Research 29
(4):921-927.
Keeling, PJ, and WF Doolittle. 1996. A non-canonical genetic code in an
early diverging eukaryotic lineage. Vol. 15: Mol Biol Evol.
---. 1997. Widespread and ancient distribution of a noncanonical genetic
code in diplomonads. 14 (9):895-901.
Maeshiro, Tetsuya, and Masayuki Kimura. 1998. The role of robustness and
changeability on the origin and evolution of genetic codes. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
95:5088-5093.
Morchio, R., A. Redaelli, and S. Traverso. 2001. Proteins, nucleic acids
and genetic codes. Rivista di Biologia 94 (1):37-57.
Rusconi, C. P., and T. R. Cech. 1996. Mitochondrial import of only one
of three nuclear-encoded glutamine tRNAs in Tetrahymena thermophila.
EMBO Journal 15 (13):3286-3295.
Santos, M. A., C. Cheesman, V. Costa, P. Moradas-Ferreira, and M. F.
Tuite. 1999. Selective advantages created by codon ambiguity allowed for
the evolution of an alternative genetic code in Candida spp. Molecular
Microbiology 31 (3):937-947.
Schultz, Dennis W., and Michael Yarus. 1996. On malleability in the
genetic code. Journal of Molecular Evolution 42:597-601.
Schultz and Yarus list them all, I think.
>
> As far as I know (and I'm no scientist, I warn you) there is no
> plausible suggestion as to why a particular triplet should code for
> a particular amino acid, other than it just being a chance event in
> early life which just happened once and then was inherited.
>
> No, perhaps the best evidence is that there are so many different
> lines of evidence which all converge on the same result. The parallel
> nested hierarchies (plural), the genetic code, and so on.
>
> <
> >
> >> Is there any serious doubt of Universal Common Descent based on
> >> evidence?
> >
> >None whatsoever.
> >
> >> For the Wiki-inclined, http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?UniversalCommonDescent
> >> is page which would be suitable for discussion on this subject.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Tim Downs
> >>
> >
--
John Wilkins
"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
Frank Reichenbacher
"T.Downs" <timd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd936cd0.03072...@posting.google.com...
> Coming from a creationist old-earth background, the argument central
> to Evolution vs Creation appears to be over Universal Common Descent
>
> What is the strongest evidence for Universal Common Descent?
The fact that all living organisms use DNA to transmit heritable information
from one generation to the next.
> Is there any serious doubt of Universal Common Descent based on
> evidence?
Creationists seriously doubt it, but in order to do so they have to deny the
known facts of biological and physical sciences.
Frank
R. Baldwin
On-line reference:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi?mode=c
Click on "Click here to change format" to see it in tabular form.
[snip]
Gavin Parry
is - I don't know who else might be reading this) might have a common
ancestor - dear old mitochondrial Eve say - but her individual contribution
to our overall genetic make-up, mitochondria apart, could be large or small.
Easy enough to construct a model either way. So does concept relate to an
actual individual common ancestor or something a bit fuzzier - a common
founder population or something? If so, how fuzzy? Idea seems reasonable
enough when you're talking about well behaved creatures like animals that,
by and large, go around by species, two by two as it were, and evolve neatly
and tidily into brothers & sisters, cousins (like, er, rabbits & primates
........ OK the principle still holds we'll just have to iron out a few
details) and so on but wherever else you look gene-swapping seems to be
rife. In this light a strong-m-n-h theory doesn't seem all that much more
tenable than the great chain of being, or indeed Noah's Ark. But does a
weak-m-n-h theory do the business?
"Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbic76b.e...@keck.vandewettering.net...
Andrew Arensburger
> Hey, has anyone ever thought that having an Evolution Education Wiki
> would be a good idea?
Yes, actually.
I don't think that it should replace www.talkorigins.org, but
a wiki could complement it.
The advantage of a wiki is that it's easy to change it,
whether to add information, correct mistakes, or even just to ask
questions (e.g., "XXX - Need a rebuttal to MichaelBehe's
CanyonJumpingArgument"). However, I wonder whether this might not
allow the wiki equivalent of a troll to take over, and introduce all
sorts of misinformation.
It's much harder to get an article in www.talkorigins.org, but
that's a feature: this tends to weed out the nonsense, so what's there
is probably more reliable.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Every time I find out the meaning of life, they change it.
zosdad
> zosdad <niiic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hey, has anyone ever thought that having an Evolution Education Wiki
> > would be a good idea?
>
> Yes, actually.
> I don't think that it should replace www.talkorigins.org, but
> a wiki could complement it.
IMO if/when a wiki article reached the t.o. level it could be
submitted to t.o.
> The advantage of a wiki is that it's easy to change it,
> whether to add information, correct mistakes, or even just to ask
> questions (e.g., "XXX - Need a rebuttal to MichaelBehe's
> CanyonJumpingArgument"). However, I wonder whether this might not
> allow the wiki equivalent of a troll to take over, and introduce all
> sorts of misinformation.
It's possible with a standard wiki, but evidently wiki "vandalism" is
not common and is easy to fix as all modifications are tracked and its
easy to restore an older version. Wikipedia for instance appears to
work well with a completely open philosophy, and in the rare occasion
when a vandal arrives they just ban his IP address/account and/or
protect the page until he loses interest.
And of course, if one is running one's own wiki (like the many here:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PublicWikiForums ) then one can allow only
those with password access to change things, or give people various
levels of editting control, allow different levels of access to
different pages ("I'm working on this page, don't touch it..."), etc.
However, much of the power of wiki is making editting and additions
**easy** and relatively open, so IMO pages in the "building" phase
would be best left in a more open access stage, until either the page
is relatively complete, or there are enough people with password
accounts to have a "critical mass".
> It's much harder to get an article in www.talkorigins.org, but
> that's a feature: this tends to weed out the nonsense, so what's there
> is probably more reliable.
I agree completely. However, there is also a *ton* of good material
that gets lost in cyberspace because it never quite makes it to
submittable-FAQ status. Creationist objections on a topic are often
so diverse and so tenditious that it takes a major effort for an
individual to collate a vaguely comprehensive list of the relevant
material: think Kathleen Hunt's fossils FAQ, or Doug Theobald's common
descent FAQ -- amazing efforts, but the number of people who have the
knowledge/determination/time to put something like that together
themselves is minimal. This is IMO the primary reason we don't have
FAQs on things like the cambrian explosion, peppered moths &
Kettlewell, recent transitional fossils, etc., etc.
I wish I had a server because I would set it up myself. (I think Wes
was playing with some Wiki software, but he's a very busy guy) I
would certainly volunteer to administrate such a wiki if it were set
up (the wiki software is free, I dunno how tough setup is) and
contribute to the bandwidth costs. IMO all that would be required to
get something like this to "work" would be to get a critical mass of
people contributing to it, and IMO this would probably require:
(1) An evotee-owned wiki not on a free site
(2) An evotee admin to watch for vandals and generally organize things
(3) The ability to set up editor "levels" from e.g. "guy off the
street" to "t.o. regular who we trust well" to "editor" to "admin".
IMO whoever starts a particular page could identify whether they want
anyone to contribute, only regulars, etc.
(4) A bit of promotion and a few successful informative articles/FAQs
produced.
After that the sky is the limit IMO. Imagine if each time you refuted
some "new" creo argument, in addition to posting it to a newsgroup or
UBB, you also added it to the wiki. Next time it comes up, you just
give the link. Ditto for new transitional fossil discoveries -- add
it to the top of a "New Transitional Fossils" page. Pretty soon you
have a list as long as your arm. One could have pages on Dembski,
irreducibly complexity, anything. A page "Irreducible complexity in
the peer-reviewed literature" could give the pitiful list of
publications using the term and list whether the cites are positive or
negative, and new articles added whenever someone discovered them.
I'm telling you, it would be grrreat!
[/sermon]
Anyhow, if anyone is inspired, here is a list of some of the available
software, it's all free:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_software
IMO the wikipedia software is the best out there in terms of making
nice looking pages and being the easiest for newbies to use, but there
are a lot of options.
zosdad
> > Hey, has anyone ever thought that having an Evolution Education Wiki
> > would be a good idea?
>
> Yes, actually.
Actually I just discovered:
Darwin Wiki
http://129.219.245.62/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?HomePage
...but its some guy's course page, not alot there.
Andrew Arensburger
> Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message news:<bh0cve$jgb$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>...
>> zosdad <niiic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Hey, has anyone ever thought that having an Evolution Education Wiki
>> > would be a good idea?
>>
>> Yes, actually.
>> I don't think that it should replace www.talkorigins.org, but
>> a wiki could complement it.
> IMO if/when a wiki article reached the t.o. level it could be
> submitted to t.o.
True. In other words, the wiki could be a "breeding farm" for
talkorigins.org. The wiki could provide mutations, recombinations, and
general diversity, and the talkorigins.org maintainers could provide
the selection.
Naah. When has diversity+selection ever produced anything
interesting? :-)
If you're talking about writing custom software, would it be
useful to allow people to rate pages according to completeness,
correctness, and general bogosity or absence thereof. And then rate
the raters. Mix together the ratings, the (rated) reliability of the
raters, and come up with a final score.
>> I wonder whether this might not
>> allow the wiki equivalent of a troll to take over, and introduce all
>> sorts of misinformation.
> It's possible with a standard wiki, but evidently wiki "vandalism" is
> not common
So it would seem. And as a naturally suspicious problem who
deals with computer security for a living, I find this surprising.
Perhaps open wikis aren't seen as enough of a challenge by 31337
craX0rz?
[...]
> there is also a *ton* of good material
> that gets lost in cyberspace because it never quite makes it to
> submittable-FAQ status. Creationist objections on a topic are often
> so diverse and so tenditious that it takes a major effort for an
> individual to collate a vaguely comprehensive list of the relevant
> material:
It might be a good idea to start with Mark Isaak's canonical
list of creationist arguments. Rebuttals can be filled in as time
allows.
[...]
> IMO the wikipedia software is the best out there in terms of making
> nice looking pages and being the easiest for newbies to use, but there
> are a lot of options.
My main complaint against most wikis that I've seen is that
StudlyCapsAreUgly. I much prefer Wikipedia's style, which allows you
to have arbitrary text linking to a page.
Of course, to edit a Wikipedia page, you have to use the web
interface. I'd much rather use Emacs. I guess I'm just hard to please.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Where am I? Who are these people?
Bobby D. Bryant
> zosdad <niiic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> It's possible with a standard wiki, but evidently wiki "vandalism" is
>> not common
>
> So it would seem. And as a naturally suspicious problem who
> deals with computer security for a living, I find this surprising.
> Perhaps open wikis aren't seen as enough of a challenge by 31337
> craX0rz?
I started to chip in with an observation that the rate is pretty low at
Wikipedia, but then it occurred to me that the problem would be
creationist crusaders rather than bored kids. I think an evo-wiki would
have *enormous* problems, since lots of people would think they could help
save their souls by "correcting" it.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
zosdad
> zosdad <niiic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message news:<bh0cve$jgb$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>...
> >> zosdad <niiic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Hey, has anyone ever thought that having an Evolution Education Wiki
> >> > would be a good idea?
> >>
> >> Yes, actually.
> >> I don't think that it should replace www.talkorigins.org, but
> >> a wiki could complement it.
>
> > IMO if/when a wiki article reached the t.o. level it could be
> > submitted to t.o.
>
> True. In other words, the wiki could be a "breeding farm" for
> talkorigins.org. The wiki could provide mutations, recombinations, and
> general diversity, and the talkorigins.org maintainers could provide
> the selection.
> Naah. When has diversity+selection ever produced anything
> interesting? :-)
A meme factory, in other words...
>
> If you're talking about writing custom software, would it be
> useful to allow people to rate pages according to completeness,
> correctness, and general bogosity or absence thereof. And then rate
> the raters. Mix together the ratings, the (rated) reliability of the
> raters, and come up with a final score.
This would be cool, but the odds of getting someone to write software
are about nil. This may exist in some software, or the idea could be
implemented with wikipedia-ware by having a comments page for each
page (or use the talk page) or some such. Or by having editors who
highlight the good stuff and put it on a "favorites" list or
something.
>
> >> I wonder whether this might not
> >> allow the wiki equivalent of a troll to take over, and introduce all
> >> sorts of misinformation.
>
> > It's possible with a standard wiki, but evidently wiki "vandalism" is
> > not common
>
> So it would seem. And as a naturally suspicious problem who
> deals with computer security for a living, I find this surprising.
> Perhaps open wikis aren't seen as enough of a challenge by 31337
> craX0rz?
I'm not sure why, I think that vandalism is mostly pointless since
anyone can "revert" the page to a previous version if vandalism
occurs. Here's the wikipedia page on how they deal with it:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dealing_with_vandalism
Evidently their software allows IPs to be banned and pages to be
protected, they just minimize its use because of their open content
philosophy. There's no reason we would have to be so "open".
>
> [...]
> > there is also a *ton* of good material
> > that gets lost in cyberspace because it never quite makes it to
> > submittable-FAQ status. Creationist objections on a topic are often
> > so diverse and so tenditious that it takes a major effort for an
> > individual to collate a vaguely comprehensive list of the relevant
> > material:
>
> It might be a good idea to start with Mark Isaak's canonical
> list of creationist arguments. Rebuttals can be filled in as time
> allows.
Yeah, this would be cool. I think Mark has a database, I dunno how it
is set up though. If its in a database presumably moving it into a
wiki wouldn't be impossible (dunno for sure though).
>
> [...]
> > IMO the wikipedia software is the best out there in terms of making
> > nice looking pages and being the easiest for newbies to use, but there
> > are a lot of options.
>
> My main complaint against most wikis that I've seen is that
> StudlyCapsAreUgly. I much prefer Wikipedia's style, which allows you
> to have arbitrary text linking to a page.
I agree that the StandardWikiLinkThingiesWithCaps are dumb, and
wikipedia-style is better. Plus, wikipedia allows for tables,
t.o.-like outline and links boxes, graphics, etc., all pretty easily.
> Of course, to edit a Wikipedia page, you have to use the web
> interface. I'd much rather use Emacs. I guess I'm just hard to please.
I know people who still prefer VI, which I think was originally
designed for use when typing was output to tickertape rather than
computer screens.
But realistically, for this to work we'd have to have the right
balance of (a) usability and accessibility and (b) vandal protection.
IMO it would probably work just fine to make any contributor register
with a username/email/password, and then ban troublemakers. This
would limit random vandalism, and any that did occur could be easily
fixed. Hackers etc. are a different problem that any website might be
a victim of.
Also IMO, requiring something like pre-approval for new users would be
counterproductive, as this creates a bottleneck where an admin has to
review every new potential contributor, the delay is hours to days,
etc., whereas someone will usually decide to contribute for the first
time on the spur of the moment when they've just looked up information
on a particular issue. Most of the point of a wiki is to make content
editing open, easy and multi-author.
Other however may have different suggestions about how a Wiki.Origins
might work best, the more people that are interested in the idea, the
better...
nic
PS: A bit on "CamelCase" and the wikipedia alternative:
================================
(excerpted from:
How can I build a Wiki of my own
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiWiki )
Linking and creating pages
Wikis are a true hypertext medium, with non-linear navigational
structures. Each page typically contains a large number of links to
other pages; hierarchical navigation pages often exist in larger
wikis, but do not have to be used. Links are created using a specific
syntax, the so-called "link pattern".
Originally most wikis used CamelCase as a link pattern, produced by
capitalizing words in a phrase and removing the spaces between them
(the word "CamelCase" is itself an example of CamelCase). While
CamelCase makes linking very easy, it also leads to links which are
written in a form that deviates from the standard spelling.
CamelCase-based wikis are instantly recognizable from the large number
of links with names such as "TableOfContents" and "BeginnerQuestions".
CamelCase has many critics, and it was the switch of the large
Wikipedia wiki to so-called "free links", words that are put in
[[double square brackets]], which encouraged wiki developers to look
for alternative solutions. Various wiki engines use single brackets,
curly brackets, underscores, slashes or other characters as a link
pattern. Links across different wiki communities are possible using a
special link pattern called InterWiki.
Creating a new page in a wiki is usually done strictly through the
same process as linking to it: a link is created on a topically
related page; if the link does not exist, it is in some way emphasized
as a "broken" link. Following that link opens an editor window, which
then allows the user to enter the text for the new page. This
mechanism ensures that so-called "orphan" pages (which have no links
pointing to them) are rarely created, and a generally high level of
connectedness is retained.
================================
Mark Isaak
(zosdad) wrote:
>Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message news:<bh3kf8$p3t$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>...
>> It might be a good idea to start with Mark Isaak's canonical
>> list of creationist arguments. Rebuttals can be filled in as time
>> allows.
>
>Yeah, this would be cool. I think Mark has a database, I dunno how it
>is set up though. If its in a database presumably moving it into a
>wiki wouldn't be impossible (dunno for sure though).
My Index is kept as a collection of text files with names like
"CB303.txt". I have a perl script which turns the text into web
pages. Links to other pages in the Index can be done simply in the
text with something like <CB303>this>, which gets turned into
<a href="../CB/CB303.html">this</a>
Other text which start with "http://" get turned into links
automatically, too.
I like the idea of many people being able to modify the pages. I keep
adding references or other amendments to some page or another almost
every day as I come across new stuff, and I'm sure new stuff will
continuously be generated.
One caution I have is that my Index is intended as an index. It gives
only summary arguments and pointers to where to find more. When I go
into more detail, it is only because I don't know of another place
that does so. The Wiki concept appears more adapted for creating
in-depth articles.
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Andrew Arensburger
> My Index is kept as a collection of text files with names like
> "CB303.txt". I have a perl script which turns the text into web
> pages. Links to other pages in the Index can be done simply in the
> text with something like <CB303>this>, which gets turned into
> <a href="../CB/CB303.html">this</a>
> Other text which start with "http://" get turned into links
> automatically, too.
Congratulations! You've written half of a wiki! (Or else
you've written all of a secure wiki, one that can only be modified by
people who have a shell on your web server.)
[...]
> One caution I have is that my Index is intended as an index. It gives
> only summary arguments and pointers to where to find more. When I go
> into more detail, it is only because I don't know of another place
> that does so. The Wiki concept appears more adapted for creating
> in-depth articles.
Not necessarily. It's perfectly sensible to have the topmost
page be a table of contents or index. Depending on the implementation,
you could also have it be generated automatically.
The wiki concept, such as it is, is a) to allow people to
easily update a web page, and b) "smart" links that automatically
start working the moment the relevant page is written.
This can be either noble, like wikipedia.org, or prosaic. I
have a wiki at home, that I use basically as a collection of PostIt
notes: phone numbers, a reminder of when trash gets picked up, book
reviews, a description of what I did to fix that printer problem that
one time, and so forth.
IMHO your argument list is ideally suited to a wiki.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Warning: I was raised by humans.
Steinsky
Sorry I haven't replied sooner (only just caught up with the week's
postings)! I'm too busy to custom build a wiki at the moment, but I
don't mind adapting the wikipedia code for this purpose if people want
it, wouldn't take long to set up...
zosdad
What kind of modifications do you think it would need? Or would we
pretty much be able to use the current wikipedia software
off-the-shelf?
It seems that we would mostly just need to set the right options for
editing permissions, etc.
Steinsky
> stei...@cotch.net (Steinsky) wrote in message news:<9815dc14.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > niiic...@yahoo.com (zosdad) wrote in message news:<74227462.0307...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > would be a good idea?
> > postings)! I'm too busy to custom build a wiki at the moment, but I
> > don't mind adapting the wikipedia code for this purpose if people want
> > it, wouldn't take long to set up...
>
> What kind of modifications do you think it would need? Or would we
> pretty much be able to use the current wikipedia software
> off-the-shelf?
>
> It seems that we would mostly just need to set the right options for
> editing permissions, etc.
Well, it's just a case of modifying the default text things so it
doesn't keep mentioning Wikipedia, playing with the stylesheet and
changing the default image:
It's all set up and ready to use, all I need is a good image for it,
but it works, which is what matters!
zosdad
Are you saying you just set it up? Wow, that sounds pretty simple.
I'm sure you could a Darwin pic:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=darwin
...or something from talk.origins.
(BTW, I just clicked on your link and got nada...perhaps some reader
access permissions or something?)
zosdad
> stei...@cotch.net (Steinsky) wrote in message news:<9815dc14.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > niiic...@yahoo.com (zosdad) wrote in message news:<74227462.0308...@posting.google.com>...
> > > stei...@cotch.net (Steinsky) wrote in message news:<9815dc14.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > niiic...@yahoo.com (zosdad) wrote in message news:<74227462.0307...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey, has anyone ever thought that having an Evolution Education Wiki
> > > > > would be a good idea?
> > > > Sorry I haven't replied sooner (only just caught up with the week's
> > > > postings)! I'm too busy to custom build a wiki at the moment, but I
> > > > don't mind adapting the wikipedia code for this purpose if people want
> > > > it, wouldn't take long to set up...
> > >
> > > What kind of modifications do you think it would need? Or would we
> > > pretty much be able to use the current wikipedia software
> > > off-the-shelf?
> > >
> > > It seems that we would mostly just need to set the right options for
> > > editing permissions, etc.
> >
> > Well, it's just a case of modifying the default text things so it
> > doesn't keep mentioning Wikipedia, playing with the stylesheet and
> > changing the default image:
> >
> > http://wiki.cotch.net/
> >
> > It's all set up and ready to use, all I need is a good image for it,
> > but it works, which is what matters!
I just checked again, it's working and looks quite cool! I added a
few things to try it out. I'll move over the peppered moth stuff from
the WikiFarm EvoWiki that a little bit has been done with.
Those who are inspired should add stuff as well.
John Wilkins
> niiic...@yahoo.com (zosdad) wrote:
> > stei...@cotch.net (Steinsky) wrote:
> > > niiic...@yahoo.com (zosdad) wrote:
> > > > stei...@cotch.net (Steinsky) wrote:
> > > > > niiic...@yahoo.com (zosdad) wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey, has anyone ever thought that having an Evolution Education
> > > > > > Wiki would be a good idea?
> > > > > Sorry I haven't replied sooner (only just caught up with the
> > > > > week's postings)! I'm too busy to custom build a wiki at the
> > > > > moment, but I don't mind adapting the wikipedia code for this
> > > > > purpose if people want it, wouldn't take long to set up...
> > > >
> > > > What kind of modifications do you think it would need? Or would we
> > > > pretty much be able to use the current wikipedia software
> > > > off-the-shelf?
> > > >
> > > > It seems that we would mostly just need to set the right options for
> > > > editing permissions, etc.
> > >
> > > Well, it's just a case of modifying the default text things so it
> > > doesn't keep mentioning Wikipedia, playing with the stylesheet and
> > > changing the default image:
> > >
> > > http://wiki.cotch.net/
> > >
> > > It's all set up and ready to use, all I need is a good image for it,
> > > but it works, which is what matters!
>
> I just checked again, it's working and looks quite cool! I added a
> few things to try it out. I'll move over the peppered moth stuff from
> the WikiFarm EvoWiki that a little bit has been done with.
>
> Those who are inspired should add stuff as well.
I'll check it out. We should add a link to it from talkorigins.org.
--
John Wilkins - wilkins.id.au
[I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "...interesting
hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? ...
must have been made to have me in it." Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
zosdad
I just added my flagellum page, ill-fated at wikipedia, and still
needing much editing here:
http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Flagella
http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Evolution_of_flagella
(those inspired to improve this may edit)
zosdad
created EvoWiki:
Anyone can contribute with or without registering, although
registering is free and makes it easier to tell who did what
(otherwise its the IP address that is listed as making change X).
There are already pages on several topics (peppered moths, flagella,
etc.) and discussions on several options for editorial philosophy etc.
The whole thing should be thought of as kind of an experiment, to see
if people find it useful. But if you've been building a list on (say)
articles documenting the evolution of new genes or whatever, and want
others to add their examples, just go ahead and start a page by
editing an extant page and adding a link like this:
[[Evolution of novel genes]]
Tim Starling
Cool. Do you like the date format user preference? :) I have added
this to
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sites_using_MediaWiki
I see you have decided not to use the GNU Free Documentation License.
That's your choice, but note that any material you copy from Wikipedia
must be licensed under GFDL, so it must be accompanied by a message
like this:
This article is licensed under the <a
href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">GNU Free Documentation
License</a>. It uses material from the <a
href="http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo">Wikipedia article "Foo"</a>.
BTW you still need to change the text underneath the edit box.
-- Tim Starling (random Wikipedian with nothing better to do than
search the google archives for Wikipedia-related talk).
Joe Dunckley
wrote:
> niiic...@yahoo.com (zosdad) wrote in message
> news:<74227462.03081...@posting.google.com>...
>> stei...@cotch.net (Steinsky) wrote in message
>> news:<9815dc14.03081...@posting.google.com>...
>> > > Well, it's just a case of modifying the default text things so it
>> > doesn't keep mentioning Wikipedia, playing with the stylesheet and
>> > changing the default image:
>> > > http://wiki.cotch.net/
>> > > It's all set up and ready to use, all I need is a good image for it,
>> > but it works, which is what matters!
>
> I just checked again, it's working and looks quite cool! I added a
> few things to try it out. I'll move over the peppered moth stuff from
> the WikiFarm EvoWiki that a little bit has been done with.
>
> Those who are inspired should add stuff as well.
Seems to working nicely so far. If we get enough people using it maybee it
could be used to build up documents from the best posts of recent threads?
I discovered a DarwinWiki earlier, but it turned out there was nothing much
there, and nothing had been doing to it for a couple of years.
--
Joe Dunckley <m...@steinsky.me.uk>
www.cotch.net - wiki.cotch.net - www.steinsky.me.uk
Check out the MooIRCd network: irc.mooircd.org