h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This seems to be a hotly debated issue on h2g2, so I decided to gather up some scientific information and put together a guide entry on it. It started as a big project and got bigger really fast, but I think it's worth it whether it makes the Edited guide or not.

Hi,

I think you need to put the link in so that we can access it!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A655805

This article is well structured and uses a very fluent language. However, I think it's message is misguiding. (By the way, it doesn't contain an antithesis.)

It's a good thing to encourage people to put every theory in question, but this entry suggests that evolution stands on quite weak legs. This is not right. It has all features we expect from a scientific theory: It's highly plausible, it's simple and it has no serious alternatives.

Of course it's not proven. Nothing is proven in natural sciences. There are no proofs outside mathematics. The so-called counter arguments mentioned in the article (missing links etc) are well known and well explained -- within evolution theory.

Try to rethink the article under the aspect of 'problems in evolution theory' and add not only open questions but also possible evolutionary explanations. Just try to find a better balance, it shouldn't change too much. I found the text pretty inspiring.

Oh yes and -- evolution is not God. You can't pray to it.

I think that considering the consensus on the complete lack of credibility of each strand of this creationist diatribe, the editors should pop this into the guide as an example of why certain states in the bible belt of america are producing worthless degrees.

This is basically a restatement of the devout's position that any teaching that does not agree with their interpretation of the bible is to be reduced by "popular belief" to a similar or lesser level of credibility with their own belief. Unfortunately for them, democracy has little to do with good science. either the data agrees with the theory, or it doesn't.

considering the tracing of a genetically blind family back to the couple who produced the initial fault, the proof that it didn't exist before them, and the ability to detect, and thus select against this mutation, I think this single case proves most of the evolutionary claims.

It demonstrates evolutionary damage, followed by the propogation of the fault, followed by the gradual elimination of the fault.

nothing in the article effects this case, but this case by itself almost totally demolishes the article.

I think the above and the other comments below the entry itself say what I want to say and more.

However, two other minor points - you may know where the Badlands are - I don't. I assume they're somewhere in America?

You have not explained 'prokariotic' and I think it needs explanation.

Yes, where is the antithesis?

The section headed 'Prebiological Evolution' is deeply confused and confusing. Some of the words present would only be expected to be used by someone quite familiar with cell biology, but the structure of the section and some obvious fundamental errors indicate quite the opposite, and are not merely a result of a complex topic being overly compressed to fill a short space.

Errors include :
DNA is copied from DNA, not RNA, and so errors in RNA synthesis far from being necessary for evolution, have no effect on the genome of offspring.

In transcription, mRNA is constructed base-by-base using DNA as a template, it does not 'drape itself along', since it does not exist beforehand, neither does it 'rearrange itself whenever it contacts certain DNA molecules'.

mRNA doesn't carry a message to tRNA. tRNAs are simple coded strings of RNA, which can become bonded to an specific amino acid (rather like a biological barcoded wrapper), resulting in a molecule of aminoacyl-tRNA. When the code on the mRNA is 'read' inside the ribosome, (with the assistance of rRNA), the appropriately coded aminoacyl-tRNA is used to add the correct amino acid in the protein being produced.

tRNAs are made of the same 4 bases as other RNAs, they are very short strings, and the various different tRNAs have huge similarities with each other. Each tRNA can each be linked with a specific amino acid of the 20 available, but that's not the same thing as saying that tRNAs are made of 20 smaller molecules.

I would go on, but I'm getting rather tired.


While the chemical origin of life is a source of debate both within evolution, and between evolutionists and creationists, this section of the article doesn't help anyone's understanding of the issue.

Most of the rest of the problems of the article have already been covered in the conversations attached to it. The intense selectivity and the number of errors in both fact and logic, and the omission of inconvenient data preclude the article being described as scientific by any reasonable interpretation of the word. There's certainly opinion there, but there is little attempt to provide rational argument.

I think this article is a very long way from being approved guide material quality.

Go here to see the Writing Guidelines: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/Writing-Guidelines

Let's see how this entry stacks up.

"1. Write About Reality

h2g2 is a guide to life on Earth, not a work of fiction. Feel free to write fiction, but please don't ask us to edit it. "

Whatever this entry is about, it is demonstrably not about reality. Fail.

2. Be Original

I don't think anyone else has written anything like this, and it appears to be the work of the credited author. Pass.

3. Fill in the Gaps

Pretty sure there's nothing in the Edited Guide like this. Pass.

4. Be Instructive, Informative and Factual

Nope, nope, and emphatically nope. Fail with honours. Two apiece so far.

5. Don't Try too Hard to be Funny

This had me in fits of laughter, and I'm certain the author wasn't trying. Pass.

6. Write in Your Own Style

I assume it's the author's own style. It isn't obviously anyone else's, and these are clearly his beliefs. Pass.

7. Write About What You Know

Ouch. Demonstrably wrong in all sorts of ways, you clearly don't know what you're on about. Fail.

8. Research Your Entry Thoroughly

Massive gaps in research here. Fail. Four apiece so far.

9. Try to be Well-balanced

This is clearly aimed at discrediting a widely accepted theory, with hardly any consideration for the plus points of that theory. Fail.

10. Plan Your Entry

Seems reasonably well planned, could be better but not bad for a first entry. Pass.

Five out of ten. Edited Guide? Don't think so. But DON'T give up. This material *could* make the edited guide, I think, but only if you take a long look at the guidelines, and reality, and do some serious rewriting. Best of luck!

H.

After some hard months in the rough fields of Usenet I returned to h2g2 and immediately earned one author's deep hate by criticising his article quite thoroughly. So I thought to myself 'well Cefpret, relax and cool down to sissy temperature.'

Then I was -- sorry -- very amused by this evolution article of an probably Jevoha's witness, but tried to write a careful balanced comment. Now I feel overtaken by all others, who tore the article apart to a thousand pieces.

I feel surprised -- and impressed.

Josh:

I hope you didn't think my point by point thing was over the top. But if you want to get into the Edited Guide, especially with a subject this contentious, you'd better be 100% on top of your facts and research. I *have* heard Creationist arguments which *sounded* plausible - but none of them are in your entry. I have heard Creationists dispute the theory of evolution by quoting counter examples - but none of those are in your entry either. It can be done.

There *is* room for debate here. Personally, I think you'll lose. I stress, my opinion only. I'm not sure whether something like this, which seems to me to be so much a matter of belief, rather than incontrovertible, provable fact, has any place in the Edited Guide. That's a matter for the Editors, ultimately. You can, of course, keep it unedited, link to it from your userspace, and people will still find it on the list when they search for "Evolution".

Don't be disheartened by negative responses, and don't take them personally. My second attempt at an Edited entry got absolutely slated in Peer Review, there was a long running row, and eventually it got in. I've exchanged messages just today with one of the people who slated that entry the most. Note: he was criticising the stuff I'd written, not me. Same here, in every case above.

This is your first time in Peer Review. Welcome to the cut and thrust. Give as good as you get, but if you want to get in, make sure you listen, too. I'll be interested to see where this goes.

H.

I think that one of the reasons for the speed, quantity and amount of criticism is that the article follows on from a long conversation thread, and some critics had already gone through the initial 'cautious politeness' phase before the article was written, so to an extent, comments here on the article itself have elements of being the middle of an argument.

I don't think anyone is trying to be personally offensive, but since opinions and judgements on h2g2 can only really be made on the quality of arguments and facts presented, it's possible things may seem that way when it isn't always the case.

I'm sure that most or all critics are well aware that when it comes to creationism, there is a large body of information out there which seems entirely credible to many people, and it can be desperately difficult for anyone without wide experience to separate truth from half-truth.

As I've mentioned before on h2g2 in similar discussions, even in the field of real science, especially in areas where data is incomplete, there are some people who do speculate too much. Particularly when filtered through a media that is sometimes lacking in scientific education, there are things that can be presented as facts that are on more or less shaky ground. For someone with sufficient knowledge and skepticism, it is possible to know how much credence to give any particular statement, and so to learn more without picking up incorrect information, but that position is not easy to attain for anyone.

Hoovooloo - were you talking about me? Hello there!

Before I read the entry: A minor comment...

For the sake of politeness I think comments going in the lines of 'obviously by a Jehova's Witness' or 'that's the reason for miserable degrees in the Corn and Bible belt' should be left out of the discussion...

1 - Darwinism is not equal to Evolution Theory. Disproving Darwin does not disprove Evolution or prove Creationism. (This is not exactly what the author states in his last paragraph, but it comes close to that)

2 - The last paragraph is in 1st person and is personal oppinion. Could be left out.

3 - The DNA-RNA-Protein part is really totally messed up, but it's just a small part and out of context. Could be left out.

4 - The entry should be renamed to something in the lines of : 'Darwin's missing links' or 'Things the Evolution Theory can't yet explain.' Or something like that.

---------

Apart from that I cannot detect anything absurdly wrong in this entry. Nor can I find a bias towards Creationism (see my point # 1) For this reason (except for 2,3 and 4 above) I see no problem with it entering the edited guide. Maybe it's because I was not involved in the discussions and can see the things from a distant neutrality? Or maybe just because I like discussing with Hoovooloo?

Don't know... I really do not understand the hassle.

Bye,

HELL

Hiya!

Nice one Hell


OK, I want to make it perfectly clear that:

a- I'm not an ACE or anything like that, so it's not my job to do this...
b- I don't take sides (hey, I'm a medic - I can't help it)

So, as advice to all those who want to comment on this thread, don't get personal. This is Peer Review, and we are peers who help to mould and advise on tips and style for the edited guide. Don't make assumptions, and measure your critisism carefully.

So, keep measured temperament and a cool head. Please.


What about the Post? I think that this entry might be worthy of the post - a few improvements suggested by others notwithstanding, I feel that it could be good for the Post, as it does provide much discussion... as we can all see

Stay ,
WD

The article, apparently a collection of creationist arguments, seems very one-sided, and while attacking evolution/Darwinism, sheds no light on the flaws in any alternative theory.

There is huge variation observable in fossils from the Cambrian explosion, but many/most of those organisms don't have living analogues now. If they *were* created by some omniscient designer, are all the ones who didn't make it just failed experiments?

There *is* debate about the degree of scientific validity of Kettlewell's work (does the UV vision of birds render the colour difference less important that we might think, where do the moths generally hang out during the day, etc), but given that Kettlewell worked in the second half of the twentieth century, blaming whatever problems there may be on Darwin is unjustified.
Whatever the state of the Kettlewell's experiments, it seems there is clear evidence that before the industrial revolution, the dark forms were rare, their numbers increased as polluting activity did, and declined when the air got cleaner. Sticking a moth to a tree is a reasonable way of obtaining a photograph of a moth on a tree. What one then makes of the photograph may be a different matter.

The Javan fossils example is misquoted - it was a skullcap and femur, not just a tooth, there are better fossils from the same area, and oriental fossils are of marginal importance crucial to the theories of human descent, and again postdate Darwin.

In the case of the peacock, there has been a great deal of work done on sexual selection. The tail *is* of great purpose to the peacock - posessing a good one enables the owner to breed.

The eye argument is an oft-quoted bogus creationist one (covered in a reply to the article.) A similar retort can be made to the wing example - there are numerous living creatures who can't fly as such, but who use gliding aerodynamics to great effect.

The conclusion about evolution==GOD is clearly flawed (also covered elsewhere), and I'm unsure what the intention of that piece is supposed to be anyway.

What's the point of focussing on Darwin anyway - he's long dead, he predates the discovery of DNA and much other evidence, and his theory is simple and scientific enough that it doesn't stand of fall on the prestige of one (or more) human beings.

Bad editing there - should have been "...marginal importance, *and not* crucial to..."
I should proofread more thoroughly, especially at 3am.

Honestly, sometimes I feel as if I'm talking to myself...

I don't like repeating myself, so I won't bother.

Whether the entry is right or wrong - critisise away. But even in the House of Commons they calm down when 'Order!' is shouted.

Just look at my signature and take heed.

Stay ,
WD

I am not familiar with the forum where the ongoing discussion happened, I came to this entry cold, and found no factual content to speek of, lots of creationist propaganda, and a general unscientificness to the whole thing.

If this article gets the same response to it's detractors that the intelligence thread got, then this thread will be just as bad (but without the excuse, as it has happened before). If people who know the subject are ignored because they don't happen to support the author about something that they know he has got wrong, they will keep commenting on it.

please don't let this parody of a theory in with the blatant errors intact. having said that, if you remove all of the blatant errors, what do you have left.

Hello,

I have been one of the people arguing for evolution in the "creationism vs evolution" thread (where this article sprang from). My views have been made clear elsewhere, so I'll keep it short to save repeating myself.

The main problem to me was that the author clearly does not understand evolution, every single sentence is riddled with factual errors and misconceptions. Before criticising a theory you have to comprehend it in the first place.

Ste

Hi Hell! Yeah, that was you!

I'd like to point something out, and make an appeal.

Pointing out that so far not a single person has posted *here* with any kind of serious defence of this entry. This thread *looks* like what people have come to call "synchronised jumping" - everyone here who has broadly similar views turns up and expresses them all more or less at once in the same place, so it looks like a mob scene. It's very intimidating for the person being jumped on, no matter how right/wrong they happen to be.

So, an appeal. I fully expect this to be ignored, but it's worth a try. If you've read the entry and have something, anything, NEGATIVE to say about it, please wait. I'm appealing to anyone who agrees with the majority of people who've posted here to *please* bite your tongue until there's at least ONE alternative viewpoint in here that agrees with the author (i.e. the author doesn't count). Peer Review is a great place for debate, but we so far only seem to have one side here, and even though I'm on that side, I'd feel better about this entry being rejected if there'd been *some* attempt at reasoned defence of it. If, as reported, this is a result of a long argument going on somewhere else, there should in theory be plenty of disputants available to defend this stuff.

I'm appealing to the people on my side to please go find someone we can actually *discuss* this with and get them to post here. The alternative is the author gets ganged up on (it looks like), gets discouraged, and goes away. That would be a shame. He clearly has deeply held beliefs, and could probably contribute to the Edited Guide with informative articles about the areas of his belief which are not (in my and most people here's) opinion in conflict with reality.

H.
Looking forward to hearing the other side. If there is one.

There always is one.

Changing the entry's title would completely change the whole picture.

This entry is not an attempt to _explain_ evolution - that is the capital difference between this one and the famous 'Intelligence' entry, where the discussion got out of hands. This entry is IMO about some problems that are not satisfactorily explained by the conventional evolution theory (at least for some people). It is also not a plea for creationism - and I think you all are interpreting too much into the authors words. (Drop the Evolution = GOD part and it becomes totally different).

I have little knowledge on the subject itself I'm just someone with a little bit of scientific education. So if the story about the Java Man is completely wrong - I cannot tell (Were it pig's bones and skull-caps after all? If so, the effect is the same to me.) In these cases I have no other choice than to believe what the author writes. (And to be honest it all sounded quite plausible to me - except for the RNA-DNA part which is obviosly totally messed up...)

----------

Changing subject: Reality/Fiction/personal opinion. Have you read the entry entitled 'The Goatee - a critique'? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A622478)

It is not factual and it has a personal oppinion as a BASIS (The word critique says it all) - Nevertheless the peers thought it was OK to let it go into the edited guide.

OK, you might think, what's the point?

Since this entry is not about EXPLAINING evolution, but just about commonly found doubts and evidence that (apparently) seems to support doubters... You could actually have a title 'Evolution - A critique' and it would be totally OK.

HELL
(free-lance advocatus diavoli)