Talk:Hopeful Monster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] NPOV error

I removed the last paragraph of the text:

The "Hopeful Monster" theory is used by creationists today to show that evolution can't work when they trot it out as necessary for evolution. Creationists who rely on this for support often ignore the fact that "Hopeful Monster" is not a basis of evolution theory.

I'm deleting this because of the POV "trot it out" and especially for "often ignore the fact". Maybe if this stub ever got worked into a more complete article, it would be appropriate to summarize the role of this term in religious debate.

[edit] Creationist viewpoint on Hopeful monsters

Three times now I have reverted to remove approximately the same changes to the article. The text is here. I have reverted this since I don't believe that the statements it makes are accurate or NPOV. Specifically,

  • (i) It is not punctuated equilibria, but a particularly unlikely means of genetic change (there is no need in punk eek for the change to be near-instantanous, only fast relative to the resolution of the fossil record).
  • (ii) Hopeful mosters theory has not been gaining ground among scientists: ISI web of science finds only five articles mentioning hopeful monsters (compare with 334 for puncuated equlibrium).
  • (iii) The David Kitt quote is radically out of context, and is a traditional quote mine [1].
  • (iv) The article on a whole misrepresents the scientific viewpoint on hopeful monsters,
  • (v) the edits delete useful material.

Thoughts? --Hansnesse 12:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creationists have mangled the Wikipedia entry on Goldschmidt's "Hopeful Monsters"

The entry on "Hopeful Monsters" that I'm looking at (May 8, 2006) is a classic creationist misrepresentation of punctuated equilibrium (PE is not, and never was, based on Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" idea for a mechanism).

The entry also displays the long-discredited creationist claim that "examples of intermediate forms linking separate species have not been found in the fossil record." That statement is just plain false.

This entry is highly inaccurate, and has clearly been sabotaged by a creationist promoting scientific misinformation. It should be edited immediately.

I have restored an older version, which I think represents a more scientific view. Of course, further work may be needed. Cheers, --TeaDrinker 00:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/p/Talk%7EHopeful_Monster_9251.html"