Talk:Precambrian rabbit

Dedication

Is it okay to dedicate pages to other wikipedia editors? If so, then this one is dedicated to user:silly rabbit. For putting up with me, more or less, when I was simply unbearable. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Form of Quotation

Since it's an anecdote, the exact wording will vary. A not very reliable looking blog (here) has what's given as a direct quotation from John Maynard Smith with "Cambrian" instead of "Precambrian": "But, as my teacher Haldane pointed out, a single fossil rabbit in Cambrian rocks would falsify evolution." I don't know how one would go about authenticating that. N p holmes (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this particular blog does not look like WP:RS. A search for the words attributed to JMS got me only the blog. -- Philcha (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What is it actually?

Is the term suggesting spurious evidence? Is it sarcasm? As a reader, think it needs some definitive description of its function before the intro goes into the ins and outs. Appreciate the effort for the article, so just saying, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the term itself is meant to suggest (a) the level of evidence that creationists would have to produce to shake the theory of evolution; (b) that, because one can define phyically feasible evidence (i.e. allowed by the laws of physics), evolutionary theory is a science rather than a belief, contrary to claims make by the smarter creationists. If Haldane said it, he probably would have regarded it as both a crushingly logical answer and as sarcasm, because he had a reputation for not suffering fools gladly.

However that's not what the sources actually say - academic sources can be very annoying at times, because they regard as "elementary, my dear Watson" simple but important aspects of a subject. What the sources show is a series of mysteries: second-hand accounts of verbal attribution of the phrase to Haldane (died 1964) by one person, Maynard Smith (died 2004); what Popper actually thought about the theory of evolution; (c) to what extent Precambrian rabbits actually would shake the theory of evolution.

If you or anyone else can find sources that shed light on any of these mysteries, I'd be delighted. -- Philcha (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a bogus argument, that's what it is. First of all a precambrian or cambrian rock having a fossil rabbit won't touch on common ancestry of animals and plants. It only touches on issues of the geologic column and assigning certain species to geologic time. And then all cambrian or precambrian fossils are actually of marine species. So a rabbit just falsify the notion that these layers only contain fossils from animals of marine habitats. --41.17.166.64 (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, moving the entry point of mammals those millions of years into the past would severely shake up our model of common descent as it stands now, possibly beyond a point where we could salvage it. --King Öomie 13:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice Article!

I enjoyed reading this short article. I thought it was clear and to the point, possibly redundant here and there. I do not agree that this topic is of "low" importance. The argument that evolution is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific is a central argument in the creationist repertoire. I would give this article an higher importance rating. I also would give it a higher quality rating than just "good." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eperotao (talk • contribs) 16:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remarks. As the person who re-wrote this article, I think it probably does not meet the good article criteria,as there are too may loose ends, so I'd consider the coverage less thorough than required - e.g. can we trace it back to Haldane, or even back to earlier than about 1990? I'm quite happy that someone has promoted it to B-class.

I enjoyed writing it, because Wikipedia's science articles often omit how much humour there is among scientists - often pretty sarcastic in Haldane's case. If you like a dash of humour in science articles, have a look at Small shelly fauna - Bengtson, who is quoted there, is a Swede who habitually destroys national stereotypes by injecting humour into his academic articles. I also have in my list of sources to be used sometime an article about Proterozoic ocean conditions that begins with a couplet from Byron about "pukin' ... in the Euxine" and if I get half a chance ... --Philcha (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Really?

Somehow, I think even if a rabbit was really discovered to be Precambrian, the vast majority of biological evolutionists would still believe in biological evolution, and most people will continue believing the rabbit is fake regardless of any evidence.173.180.214.13 (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that's a mighty fine Speculation you got there, where'd you find that?

Oh, also, WP:FORUM --King Öomie 18:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical arguments are considered “unsourced” now?

Why is this considered “irrelevant”? Is there some inability to understand the argument? Ldo (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Although in your edit summary, you state "with references," I cannot find any. Any text to Wikipedia needs to be sourced using citations to reliable sources. Simply claiming that something added "with references" when none are added with the text definitely does not make the text properly sourced. Until someone adds appropriate citations, I have added a warning and text to reflect the lack of any suitable citations to sources in the Would anachronistic fossils disprove evolution? section of this article. In addition, Wikipedia does not publish original research. Paul H. (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ldo I have deleted again your added section "Fossil Arrangement Due To Chance" simply because it defies Wikipedia, as explained above. Although your theoretical calculation is admirable in itself, I find it "irrelevant" because:

1. your permutation assumption is based on dinosaurs and mammals, which are not directly linked to any Cambrian story, hence, out of context,
2. your argument is specifically targetted on creationists fallacy, which is against WP:NPOV, and
3. not a piece of supporting evidence is available. Chhandama (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Precambrian rabbit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/133

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)