User talk:Saseigel

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

I, Saseigel, am a science, math, computer and military community educator having earned a degree in psychology from The University of California at Santa Cruz, and completed additional work in Chemistry and Engineering at Michigan State University and Colorado State University (all universities are in the United States). I have also received extensive linguistic, technical and pedagogical training in a business context. Much of my information comes from unpublished sources; however, I will research and give attribution as I am able. Much of the content entered without attribution is my own work. It's come to my attention that this is contrary to Wikipedia's intent, but my counter-argument is that anything I write that is not otherwise attributed can be attributed to me. We deceive ourselves when we claim a perfectly objective and neutral point of view. Everyone has a position and I've never known anyone to support a contrary position as well as they support their own. It may well be impossible since we are not convinced of contrary positions. Thus, we must have more compelling information (to us anyway) in support of our positions than against them. If anyone wishes to contact me for a more in-depth conversation, you may at my googlemail.com which is tessellationgac (I modified my address this way to avoid automated "bot" email harvesting).

Suggesting "Rant" and "Evaluation" Subpages to Articles

Is there a Wiki where original research and non-neutral points of view are topically arranged?

Perhaps Wikipedia articles could use a rant subpage. This would function much like the existing discussion subpages, but with MUCH more relaxed standard for contributions. Here we could discuss broader philosophical matters, share our biases and personal experiences, and basically just rant. This would really help the editors get some insight about the other people with whom they are creating Wikipedia. This seems like one step toward ameliorating the conflicts caused by the deletion of contributions. That naturally deteriorates into something like a battle far too often.

Another subpage that might be considered (or perhaps added to the more contentious articles) would be a proposal area for contribution evaluations in which any proposed contribution would be voted and/or commented on for a period of time prior to its inclusion or exclusion. Such a method addresses vandalism, bias and power struggles. Perhaps it could be optional. This seems an especially good answer when a single user has become "The Cleaner" as it were--since no one person is totally dispassionate. Saseigel (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Education Initiative" in International Phonetic Alphabet

Hi Saseigel, thanks for adding the section. As you can see, it's been expanded and whatnot. However, it doesn't have any references, and with you being the creator of the section, I figured I'd ask you: are there any references, citations, or external links you can add for the section? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Herrieden wappen.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Herrieden wappen.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem: CONCORDE

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as CONCORDE, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.tsp.gatech.edu/concorde.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:CONCORDE and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:CONCORDE with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:CONCORDE.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:CONCORDE/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:CONCORDE saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — madman bum and angel 16:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Invite to join Aviation WikiProject

Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Aviation WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to aviation. This includes aircraft, airports, airlines and other topics.

As you have shown an interest in Bell ARH-70 we thought you might like to take an interest in this new WikiProject.

You might like to take an extra interest in our Aircraft subproject

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! -Fnlayson (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Politicization of science. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Militair

I felt that Template:Infobox military aviation unit and Template:Infobox military aviation unit/doc were better titles. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution rant

Okay I'll bite, what is the "evidence that demolished the ether"? I would like to add it to the appropriate page. You might consider buying a book on philosophy, it might help keep you from mixing up physics and biology. That's an area best left to Richard Dawkins. Jok2000 (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Michelson-Morely experiment really demolished it I think. I haven't taught physics for about 20 years, so it may take me a while, but I think I can find it in Feynman's lectures (the third blue book). I hope you don't think I'm some weird creationist--YIKES! My point is really about dogma being out of place in science.Saseigel (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The [Michelson-Morley_experiment]] page calls it "strong evidence". A Very Brief Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Oxford University Press had some interesting things to say about it. Didn't seem quite like a "demolition", more like it was a useful model replaced by something better. In philosophy though, what is this better thing? The vacuum? Free space? Just a word? A field emanating from the Higg's Boson? The combination of the permittivity and permeability of free space? How does one word demolish another? Evolution is a great word, it changes in meaning as time goes by. You start with the "preservation" of fit types (to paraphrase Darwin), and you wind up with an intricate theory, all going by the moniker "evolution". Anyway, both are in an area of philosophy concerning meaning. I object to the word "demolition". Jok2000 (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jok2000, do you personally feel that evolution as taught and incorporated into science today is falsifiable? You ask about what is philosophically preferable, and I really think that we are philosophically bound as science educators to avoid INDOCTRINATION in favor of OPEN INQUIRY. A lot of people can't seem to grasp this distinction. Is the "fitness model" superior to the "inquiry model" for conducting science? I think this simplifies to a more fundamental question: "Is probability superior to logic and methodology?" This is an important question! Perhaps it's just the degree to which what was originally "Darwinian fitness" now permeates everything* (from philosophical notions of utility, to computer science's genetic algorithms and on into mathematics, physic's search for the Higg's and acceptance of the Big Bang and black holes, and right back to biological Darwinism itself) that's really at the core of my concern. "Demolition" (and "fitness") are actually both weak, subjective or at best statistical and situational terms. My bad for using "demolition." Such terms remind me of so-called "statistical proofs" (which effectively extrapolate from past events to give probabilities of future outcomes, but which are unable to account for fluctuations in previously stable variables). (*in a non-E/M sense!) Saseigel (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I probably wouldn't do the book (AVSIttPaS) justice here, but it considers the question of logic vs. probability, except framed around the question of where to use inductive reasoning versus deductive (pure logical) reasoning, as well as which theories are non-falsifiable, citing in particular "psychoanalysis". I believe different people would get a different feel from the book as to which areas of which disciplines are not subject to falsifiability, as it did not list many (There was only one other cited).

It looks like I'll be leaving this discussion without my sought-after concrete invalidation of the ether theory [I didn't even get a chance to change the meaning of the word ether to "absolute space" on you, oh well -- see AVSIttPaS), but since you did post to the evolution talk page, perhaps I will return to that topic, I agree with you that evolution is not falsifiable in the sense that they keep changing what the word applies to, however, I think the application of Darwinian evolution to certain other disciplines (some famous failures) *has* been falsified, but of course the "applicability" of evolution to this other areas of study was then dropped (e.g. social darwinism?). So while the meaning is fluid and tends to be unfalsifiable (IMHO) ultimately, I think you could back the theory into a corner and falsify it, but that would probably be years from now from the currently accepted peer-reviewed presentation of the theory as it exists now, and I suspect involve new areas of study in genetics. I will chat more if you want. Jok2000 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I believe the creationists like to use "irreducible complexity" as a tool to attempt to falsify evolution, since it predicts slow change, but I have not seen any creationist examples of it which have not immediately been refuted. You've heard of it? Jok2000 (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I posted comments to your talk area when I thought you'd lost interest in this line. It's 21:07 here in Germany. I know it's much earlier in Canada--my daughter lives in the mountain time zone and I would guess Toronto is in the central time zone. Does Canada share time zones with the U.S.? We can continue this here or there as you prefer. Saseigel (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am watching your page, so for the benefit of those reading the first half on your page here, I am bringing the rest over from my page: Jok2000 (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falsification of Evolution

Yes, I've heard of irreducible complexity and some points have intrigued me enough to study them further--but none convince me of much since this really is a "backed in the corner," black box sort of situation which would have precluded a lot of (already successful) science. I've really enjoyed this conversation and I want to "rant" for a while more. I hope you have the time and patience to indulge me.

A more compelling counter-argument (to me) is the lack of stereo enantiomers among life's molecules. I've read a study explaining how this might have arisen and giving something of a PCR rationale for how a small preferential fraction could have been amplified to utterly dominate over time. It struck me as a bit of a stretch as I think it would strike most any organic chemist who had ever actually tried to selectively produce a pure enatiomer from inorganic starting materials (it's insanely difficult, I've never succeeded after great effort). Another thought (which I haven't ever heard creationists mention) is that self-replication is especially hard at any scale. Self-replication has been messed with for at least 50 years and we're still not much closer to cracking that nut.

Perhaps statistical fitness is actually a subtle, underlying law of thermodynamics. If true (and proven), this would be such an incredible breakthrough--perhaps the pinnacle achievement of science. I've personally applied statistical fitness to a medical setting by roughly designing software that took a simple list of symptoms and suggested treatments (expressly without a diagnostic phase). The software excluded potentially harmful treatments (false positives) at a much lower threshhold than it suggested treatments (i.e. it applied the "first do no harm" rule). We played with it a bit (written in C) the last time I was in school (studying EE). We built a large symptom database (5000 symptoms) and identified the 260 most efficaciously associated treatment for all of the symptoms en masse (eg. NSAIDs, medically superivsed exercise/diet modification/stress reduction, broad-spectrum antibiotics, IV fluids, compression bandaging, etc.). We ignored many thousands of other treatments because they were less common and/or less proven. Sadly, nothing much came of our project. All but one of the roughly 20 doctors with whom we demonstrated it REALLY hated it (mostly on principle I think). What's ironic is that 1) diagnosis is much harder than treatment, and 2) symptom-treatment clustering is a pretty well documented effect (although I'd go nuts trying to give you the documentation as our adviser had access to medical journals and presently I do not).

Coming back to evolution as a central, fundamental theory of science, do you see what I'm saying about it being entrenched? I feel this is mainly a social response to creationist/intelligent design pressures, but such a response is ultimately unscientific and disingenuous. Evolution may be perfectly valid as it now stands, but if it can't be refuted in part or in whole by clear and specific tests, and if no one would believe any such refutation, then hasn't it moved into the realm of religion itself? I find that prospect especially troubling. Within science my "highest faith" remains with the mathematics of syllogistic deduction. After that comes scientific methodology. Then come classical physics and chemistry. My personal preference is for the most generalized and universal phenomena. Moving to special cases, I prefer applied (and thus testable) mathematical modeling to abstract and poorly defined theory. It's good when theories can adapt (inherent in the nature of evolutionary systems as well as evolutionary theory). However, it's very bad when theorists start cherry-picking data or making excuses for things that don't fit (something creationists are also guilty of doing). I've seen doctors choose among symptoms to support pet theories (during the above SymptoRx study--and of course the docs later conceded that they "were on the wrong track," well duh!). I've also seen engineers, physicists and mathematicians do this with disappointing results that violated a design, a model or a favorite theorem; it's just human nature. Am I guilty of it? Sure. I want this to be a predictable, testable universe operating under a strict set of laws and I want to know those laws. My bias is that such laws are fundamentally mathematical (rooted in logic) and not fundementally chaotic (probabalistic).

That's not to say I can't understand or accept Heisenberg's or Schrödinger's principles, but I think those principles mainly apply at uncommon (to us) scales of time and space and in circumstances typically unfamiliar to day-to-day life (unless you're a fiction writer such as Michael Crichton or David Brin). I realize that my friends who do physics back home at SLAC and here at CERN might tell me I've got it backwards. But when their car or computer breaks down, or their kid gets sick, or their finances go haywire logic can fix it! Often the best they can do with their theories is to describe it. Our software took statistical information and made it practical; mea culpa, I'm an engineer wearing a science teacher's hat! Using statistics to solve real-world problems is what all those ugly cars driving themselves for DARPA are doing. Clearly it's not inherently wrong--but it IS clunky and really hard. On the other hand, it may be what our brains are actually doing! However, do such fuzzy methods give us real answers or just good guesses? Salesman and cargo companies can't afford to wait eternally for the perfectly optimized itinerary (TSP) and aircraft loads (Box Packing Problem) respectively; admittedly fuzzy methods have their places. But my great confidence is that a certain deep order underlies our universe. We especially confuse young scientists by 1) implying understanding where we are (at best) theorizing with evolution, or by 2) withholding better established tools for understanding (formal logic and scientific methodology) in favor of advancing ANY beloved conjecture. Saseigel (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read some descriptions of the difficult to explain complexity of biochemical processes from citable books, and we could maybe discuss them later. The principle here on Wikipedia is to come up with citable content for the encyclopaedia, and to avoid WP:OR. You have mentioned some of your own research in the field, and that would probably be better sent to me in an e-mail, and that to we could do at a future date, but it seems like you were just trying to enlighten me on an analogy between statistical matches and inductive reasoning. For the record, the use of inductive reasoning in any part of science, and explicitly for evolution can be found in aVSIttPoS, a citable source, and IMHO the categorization of the theory of evolution in that book is missed on the evolution page, as is the falsification aspect that is part of any scientific theory. It could not be one without it, according to Popper. See Falsification at evowiki.

So where does that leave us? Fortunately, a citable source for the latest falsification elements of the theory of evolution is the April 22, 2008 issue of New Scientist page 26:

 1. Simpler organisms pre-date more complex ones
 2. Hybrids do not exist
 3. Time required for evolution is long
 4. Environmental pressure changes the general characteristics of a population of animals over time.
[and some other less convincing stuff of the sort New Scientist is famous for]

I couldn't immediately find all of these over on evowiki, so there may be some opportunity to improve both wiki's with this information.

As for my beliefs? Yes there is an underlying order to the universe not yet recognized in peer reviewed journals, but a hint of it is available here on wikipedia at Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. There Dawkins' mixes physics and biology and IMHO completely blows the argument.

I believe that for Dawkins and citizens of secular societies, a simplified view of evolution as is usually presented in schools, is used as a way to offer a basis for belief in natural processes (as opposed to supernatural).

So again, the meaning of the word "evolution" changes for these students as they, if they are so inclined, study the more complicated aspects of it. This is also mentioned in aVSIttPoS.

Anyway, it does seem dogmatic to me, but whatever it is, it is more ethical than dogma. Jok2000 (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfamiliar with aVSIttPoS

I live within a world of endless acronyms and abbreviations, but this one confuses me. I hope you can elaborate or provide a link. My apologies if I'm just being dumb or failed to assemble simple contextual clues! THANKS! Saseigel (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Army Aviation

User:BillCJ has created a page Army aviation and has temporarily redirected Army Aviation to that page. He has also suggested here that Army Aviation could redirect to United States Army Aviation Branch with a disambiguation header at the top of that page. I have no preferences to which, but you might want to share your thoughts there. --Born2flie (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BillCJ, Great job! You sure did a lot of good research. I think that a link at the appropriate place for United States to the United States Army Aviation is not only sufficient for our needs, but is absolutely correct. This is not a United States internet or a U.S. Wikipedia only. Thanks for globalizing it. Your approach is WAY better than linking Army Aviation to Military Aviation (which is a supercategory), and also better than linking directly to United States Army Aviation which is properly a subcategory. Again. great work! Saseigel (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military spouse

The article is good, but certainly you will expand it? I will like to know what is the usage of the term, I mean basically who use the term? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally a U.S. military dependent spouse. My sponsor is an Army helicopter pilot. This term is used extensively in the United States military (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps). There are hundreds of pages of (U.S.) military family support, but most presume an understanding of this verbiage. My first order of business with these articles is to establish whether there is global applicability. If these are strictly U.S. terms I plan to make that clear within the articles. As the term "spouse" is used within the U.S. DoD, it is meant to replace the term "wife" which connotes a heterosexual male military member married to a dependent civilian. Spouse allows husbands like me--as well as any potentially accepted partnerships to be included seemlessly. My previous experience leads me to start out cautiously and thoroughly/authoritatively support everything I post.Saseigel (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politicization of science‎

Hi there. I noticed you have contributed to politicization of science article, and considering your experience, when you have time could you drop by to the Talk page to see my proposal for a NPOV leading paragraph and contribute to that discussion. Thanks. Mariordo (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just posted my feelings about what's gone on at Politicization of Science on its talk page. I feel that editor/administrator Hrafn has been especially abusive of and has basically made a one-sded mockery of the page. I regret that school kids will read that page and get a very slanted perspective on this topic.Saseigel (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

As a general rule, talk pages such as Evolution are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Misleading Information post to the Evolution article talk page.

Hi Tim,

Everything I've looked at assumes either a religious or an anti-religious perspective. Can you direct me to a page that is specifically intended to only discuss the scientific merits and flaws of evolution? I assume you read what I posted and found it too limited in its content, however, I did specifically address the various issues I have with both camps and why I find very little in the way of valid published criticism of the actual scientific merit. My point remains (and I gave a reference in support of it) that the page can't honestly make the claim that the debate is not a scientific one. While I'll concede that the social and religious debate is much louder, a fair critique of the actual theory is truly more important and the issue is by no means settled.

Thanks, Scott Saseigel (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, there isn't any debate amongst scientists. Try going to PubMed central and searching for "evolution" and reading some of the scientific literature on the topic. There is a lot of debate and controversy on the details and importance of some of the mechanisms of evolution (neutralism vs selectionism for example), but none at all on the fact that evolution occurs. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, at the risk of writing something quite long, I want to address your suggestion and your assertion. I have now read somewhere between 12 and 20 of the articles you recommended at PubMed. At least one article (NAPLEX) used the term "evolution" in the semantic, rather than the scientific sense--a troubling situation that substantiates one of my points. There was an article regarding A. gambiae and P. falciparum coevolution and gene silencing. I wouldn't go as far as to say this article offers substantial reasoning favoring actual speciation--but the concept is there when discussing other anopheles species. All of the other articles I read concerned organismal adaptation rather than reproductively isolating speciation. I have no problems with adaptation--I think it happens all the time. But as a science teacher and as a citizen, it's speciation that I specifically question (anonymously and privately of course--lest I be fired!)

I have a big problem with your assertion that "evolution" is completely accepted within the scientific community when it is, in fact, an especially broad and imprecise term including (but not limited to) emission of a gas, adaptation, gene expression, speciation and the appearance of self-replicating molecules and systems. You clearly believe that "there isn't any debate amongst scientists," and I would generally agree where the first three items are involved--with a small number of exceptions--but your statement is conceptually too inclusive and presumes to include the entire scientific community which not only contradicts my personal experiences, but is a fallacy of composition as all I must do is give you a single counter-example (I've given you a list of dissenting scientists including a Nobel nominee). In case you didn't see it, it's http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/DarwinAd.pdf. There most certainly are intellectual nonconformist, albeit quiet ones. Some have differences or issues with major points of the theory such as speciation. If you are in American academia I would expect that this reflects your personal experience as well. However, those holding such opinions are effectively required to keep them very private and never publicize them within a hostile academic community. More than with any other theory within academia, publicly denouncing evolution is tantamount to career suicide.

As a student at Michigan State University, Colorado State University, and particularly when I was an undergrad at the University of California at Santa Cruz, I observed quite a lot of suppression of socially unpopular concepts. Such things are not without historical precedent (beyond the suppression of Galileo and Copernicus, the biographies of Semmelweis, Tesla, and W. Reich provide a few more recent examples). Unrecognized genius and silenced dissent are almost clichés within the history of science--and not only at the hands of religion. The point is that a suppressive environment alters the intellectual landscape surrounding some topic without genuinely addressing the substance of a thing. Another area of intellectual silencing is happening with climatologists and atmospheric scientists who dispute anthropogenic climate change. My friends with CSU's dept. of Atmospheric Science are not convinced regarding global warming--a position for which they are professionally belittled and vilified!

Concealment is especially difficult to document because, 1) those who publicize diverging positions are ridiculed and effectively punished, 2) mainstream peer-reviewed journals generally refuse to publish articles contrary to their core beliefs, and 3) publications willing to publish controversial material are generally unknown and partisan (publishing in order to advance an agenda). With that in mind, I find your choice of PubMed to be a particularly ironic. Physicians are perhaps the least evolutionarily convinced of the scientifically trained people I know. Almost a dozen of my former AP chem, biology and/or physics students are doctors today. Maybe half of them stay in touch with me. The hands down most highly educated doctor I've ever known was my roommate as an undergrad. While we were roommates he was accepted to Harvard's Medical Scientist Training Program. He went on to complete the MSTP, receiving an M.D. and a Ph.D. (In case you wonder, he's a staunch atheist.) We met up about ten years ago and I brought up this subject. He said, "evolution is a constant distraction and an enduring myth within science." This absolutely shocked me at the time. He asked that I not go blabbing about his opinion (thus I feel giving his name would be disloyal to him). Since then, with a lot of discreet inquiry, I've discovered that his opinions are by no means unique to him. Specifically regarding PubMed, I have met dozens of other doctors who outright deny speciation, and a few who are willing to go much farther, expressly stating that adaptation and microbial modification are merely matters of gene expression and transfer. That's not to say I don't completely accept adaptation, but it definitely conflicts with your statement.

I took a class in microbial genetics. While the teacher was strongly evolutionary, other professors were willing to disagree pretty sharply with his absolute assertions off the record, citing a lack of evidence. Here again, those who disagreed were careful to confine their comments to informal situations. But why should they be careful? You might make a case for bacterial and viral speciation. Perhaps that's what happening in the case of E. coli O157:H7, but I would counter that we've never observed non-colonizing bacteria speciate into colonizing forms without contacting a colonizing species. When that happens, it's merely inter-species genetic sharing, not adaptation in the sense of finding solutions within a discrete species. When we do observe a monoculture appearing to specialize, it is generally a case of gene activation and silencing, not due to beneficial mutations. Given the rapid rate at which new bacterial generations arise, microbiology should be one of the richest fields in which to find compelling evidence of true speciation. It is not nearly as rich as might be hoped. I believe the problem is that, from a fitness standpoint, prokaryotes are top notch survivalists. I can think of no environmental advantage for a self-sufficient prokaryote to engulf another organism. Even accepting that as an axiom, moving beyond the eukaryotes there's is again no clear benefit to becoming multi-cellular. Instead there is great collective peril!

Personal opinions are irrelevant to scientific questions - both on Wikipedia and as professional scientists, we deal only with the published, peer-reviewed literature. If you are interested in speciation in particular, read the literature on speciation. I'd recommend in particular this review and this paper and PMID 17255503 that discusses this topic in bacteria. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every bit of science began as a personal opinion. To confine ourselves to published, peer-reviewed literature is completely antithetical of the aims of education which should encourage open inquiry and dissent. Furthermore, when highly politicized opinions are included from one side, but omitted from other sides of an issue, this makes the entire project dubious. Therefore, I doubt that I will participate in further Wikipedia contribution as I feel that you are a highly partisan, if informal organization. Please consider carefully re-reading my previous entry. It was NOT principally my own opinion, but a reasoned rebuttal based on substantial observed evidence of suppressed dissent within extremely political, strongly anti-religious academe. 184.166.104.16 (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dependent (military family member)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dependent (military family member), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Whpq (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Herrieden Wappen.gif

The file File:Herrieden Wappen.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]