User talk:Fbartolom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Fbartolom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Kukini 15:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Objections to evolution. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. --Filll 12:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Objections to evolution

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Objections to evolution, you will be blocked from editing. Come on, this kind of behavior is ludicrous. You have made many many edits in a very short period of time trying to insert POV material for which you have no consensus. They have all be reverted by other editors. If you do not want to be blocked or banned, try operating in concert with other editors instead of at odds. Discuss changes on the talk pages first and get consensus. Then if you can get it, your changes might be implemented. Otherwise, all you are doing here is edit warring.--Filll 12:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objections to evolution

Hi Fbartolom. Regarding your repeated attempts to add the apparently self-penned concept of Punctual objection to evolution to the Objections to evolution article, you might do better to defend this concept over on its talkpage or, better still, where its deletion is being discussed. Your repeated reversions of Objections to evolution appear to have already put you in jeopardy of 3RR (I, for instance, am already at my 3RR limit on this article reverting your changes; and you've been reverting not just me, but other editors too). You need to establish the notability of your concept, ensure that it is well sourced, and it would a good idea to conform to Wikipedia's style conventions too. That said, based upon the current version of the article, your concept appears unsalvageable to me. I would strongly advise that you carefully consult the article on speciation - you appear to be viewing this as a binary/black-and-white affair, which it quite simply is not. Best regards, --Plumbago 13:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You are the master and so I comply: that said I cannot understand what is wrong in adding a new critic to the evolution theory: if one feels to reject it he may just had the rejection instead of quite stubbornly delete it.
Still no rejection I received but just cancellations. Of course I am having to do with the same Americans that invaded Iraq and so I should not be too surprised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fbartolom (talk • contribs).
The basic objections of myself and other editors is that your concept has problems with notability (is it well-known outside of the Wikipedia?) and verifiability (no sources are cited for it). These objections are independent of the content of your concept, although there are many objections that could be raised against that too. You need to address these deficiencies to avoid your article being deleted. Finally, Wikipedia has a policy for its editors to assume good faith on the part of other editors. You do not appear to be doing this with your comment regarding Americans and Iraq. --Plumbago 14:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

First I would like to apologize if I offended you with the reference to the invasion of Iraq that your government actually did, and that came to my mind quite unconsciously with reference to this small incident. Second: no, it is not well know outside of wikipedia, but, so what? Does wikipedia need a tutor?! As for the comprehensiveness of the concepts in science, at least since Karl Popper, this responsibility falls on people supporting a theory not on those, like myself in this case, that try to refute it. You would need to be much more severe on me if I proposed an alternative theory but I carefully avoided to do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fbartolom (talk • contribs).

Firstly, I'm not offended in the least, but other people might well be by such references (since I didn't invade Iraq, it just seems a silly remark to me). Secondly, regarding Wikipedia needing a tutor, you're completely misunderstanding what it's all about. This is an encyclopedia that documents notable and verifiable information about topics. It is emphatically not somewhere for new ideas. Finally, your article deals with a scientific topic, but (apparently) has no support in the scientific literature. If it's a good idea, you should have no trouble publishing it in a scientific journal and then coming back here to document it. Alternatively, if it's already been carefully scrutinised by other scientists and published, please provide a source. It's all very easy and straightforward. --Plumbago 15:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Please sign your posts (four tildes; ~~~~) in future. Otherwise this gets confusing. --Plumbago 15:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Again I would like to thank everyone for the information they kindly provided: I was really unaware that theory for the hopeful monster was already proposed but I am surprised it was not easily criticized as I did in my post. For what regards gradual evolution I am still left unconvinced: even after having read all the information you were all so kind to point me to. Fbartolom 07:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punctual objection to evolution

I prefer not to digress from discussion of reasons for keeping the article on an AFD, so I am responding to one of your comments right here. No real scientist has ever suggested that new species arise "out of the blue." As Darwinian evolution was first put forward, it is a slow and gradual process, involving gradual changes in a population over time until it is distinct from its origins. Even punctuated equilibrium, a "faster" and "punctual" version of Darwinian evolution still takes place of long time scales (compared to a human life), not a single reproductive event. Someguy1221 02:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that idea of the "real scientist" reminds me of the claim from Napoleon by which "none of his well formed squares were even broken by enemy cavalry" - of course if a square were broken by enemy cavalry it was immediately dismissed as not well formed....
Myself I try to use more objective measures for assessing the scientific nature of a theory - and of people supporting them. First of which any such theory must work right now: as an example apples still fall the same way since Newton and did so also in the recorded past, Mercury has a weird orbit that may still be observed now, neutrinos still manage to reach the earth even if Einstein probably did not even know about neutrinos.
Still no one has ever seen a new species emerge: be it by the hopeful monster theory or the gradual speciation one. Fbartolom 07:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You might like to take our advice and read the speciation article. There is no shortage of examples of speciation to choose from (artificial and natural). Whether one chooses to believe studies of it is neither here nor there, there have been more than enough of them for the scientific community to be satisfied on this point. Anyway, regardless of all of the above, your concept in the Punctual objection to evolution article appears to already be dealt with fairly adequately in the hopeful monster article. You might like to direct your efforts there to improving that article. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I read the speciation article and the example provided: I already spoke in the other section of the possibility of eliciting the garlic eating men in Manhattan species on the ground that women do not easily mate with them. As for the hopeful monster article my point would be directly against this possibility and there are already enough that do the task. On the contrary, if you have no objection against it, I plan to write the garlic eating men in Manhattan page to reference from the speciation page. Fbartolom 10:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article creation

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Garlic eating men in Manhattan, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Pak21 11:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what is inappropriate with that page. Possibilites are that garlic does not stink or people does not care about garlic. The objection cannot be made on the topic of evolution for epistemic reasons. Fbartolom 11:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from articles you have created yourself, as you did with Garlic eating men in Manhattan. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. --Pak21 11:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I did, sorry: I misunderstood the instructions.Fbartolom 11:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I noticed the page was deleted by apparently some priest of the Darwin church and so I am much less sorry.Fbartolom 11:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you create an inappropriate page, such as Darwin church, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Pak21 11:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please then someone tell me clearly what is appropriate and was is not. Otherwise I am left with the feeling that even Wikipedia restricts arbitrarily the free speech of people.Fbartolom 11:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia must be verifiable and not original research. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your thoughts on a subject. I suggest you start by reading our five pillars. --Pak21 11:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) You could reproduce your article freely on your talk page here if you think that would help editors discuss its qualities. I don't know how to access a deleted article, but it sounds to me like it was probably deleted because it was not dissimilar to your Punctual objection to evolution article. Did it contain a notable, verifiable concept that was well-sourced? Or was it just unpublished original research by yourself? --Plumbago 11:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The two articles were just two descriptions of classes of people: "the garlic eating men in Manhattan" and the "Darwin church". Granted that the former definition is mine even if I consider it a nice description of some shortcomings of speciation reports; the latter is often heard in Christian circles when referring to people considering Darwin a sort of Saint of Atheism and had all rights to stay independently of everything. If you allow me to write the articles again I think I will have little problems at remembering the contents and reproducing them.Fbartolom 12:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Descriptions of random things, especially made-up classes of people, without reliable and independent primary and secondary sources, do not belong in Wikpedia, period. Bearian 13:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. So if something cannot be said out of Wikipedia it cannot either be said in Wikipedia. You decide, no problem for me.Fbartolom 13:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the consensus on this matter is clear. Please do not re-add this information unless it has verifiable sources. --Pak21 13:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion and speciation

I'm considering requesting that this article be deleted. As well as being very badly written, it appears to be WP:OR and is unsourced. The argument it tries to articulate also appears to be completely ignorant of mechanisms of speciation. However, as it's a new article, perhaps its author would care to try to address these concerns? At the very least it needs to be demonstrated that it exists outside Wikipedia. And, given that it's a science topic, evidence supporting it from the scientific literature would help too. --Plumbago 10:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur. As speciation has been observed, any objection that would make speciation impossible cannot be valid. This is ignorance of speciation, it has no place here (except maybe as a paragraph in Objections to evolution). --Robert Stevens 11:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Answer: Of course no text proposes this topic: discussions on Evolution tend to be biased between believers of Darwin and believers of God with little room for a calm discussion that tends to avoid both extremes: as it was also seen here. As for the purportedly observed samples of speciation we have always to do with "ex-post" evaluations. I am not aware of a scientist having produced or observed a new species to arise out of the blue. Also, even if that would happen, there would always apply the argument stated in the punctual objection to evolution post that the first member of the new species has no one with whom to mate, otherwise it should still be of the old species, and so that variation would extinguish together with its own life. As for the position of the link it was exactly in the Objections to evolution subject that tried to insert it being even menaced of being banned for doing it. Finally I am not a native English speaker and I need then to apologize for my writing and would strongly appreciate if someone, instead of blindly judging and deleting, would help in improving the style and concepts expressed.

Your argument is bunk. It is based on ignorance of how speciation happens. I'm sorry, but that is a fact. Speciation is a gradual process, it simply does not happen in the manner you describe. I will also add that the argument is not a new one: it's the old "hopeful monsters" argument. Therefore, if it was added to Objections to evolution, then it should not be under this name, or attributed to this author. --Robert Stevens 14:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I already heard those answers when I proposed the same subject on yahoo answer: you may have a look and see if I have already answered your objection too: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmyqS4WYZLvV_CTF4.HuBUfsy6IX?qid=20070716030712AA8frIT I now read the description of the hopeful monster and so i will had the notion to the page: thanks for the information. Still I did not find any explanation on why should it be discarded. As you may see my punctual objection to evolution is in fact based on that concept I was not aware of, but it cannot be matched exactly to that for it very nature.

As used by creationists, it's the (mistaken) notion that a single mutation event will lead to a mutant child of another species who must then hope to find another similar mutant child to breed with: hence, "hopeful monster". It's wrong because ALL children are mutants: each and every one of us has numerous mutated genes that neither of our parents had. Over time, in reproductively-isolated populations, these can accumulate to make interbreeding between the populations increasingly difficult, and eventually impossible (though even interbreeding between different species can occasionally produce hybrids such as lion/tiger and so forth). But, yes, speciation has been observed (and partial-speciation due to insufficient isolation): your lack of awareness of this is not an argument. --Robert Stevens 14:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

All children are mutant but in the framework of a single race: even people set aside for ages like the native australians and americans can mate without any problems with Europeans to have mixed offsprings. To the contrary to your argument it seems the more remote are the parents the more healthful are the children: usually closely related parents produce weak children as it happened in nineteen century royal courts of Europe. As for partial speciation I assume you talk of an experiment by which a number of animals were observed to mate to produce offsprings that could mate among themselves 'better' that with each other's parents. That would be very interesting and I admit I never heard of this observation and so i would appreciate if you could give me a reference to the laboratory having performed it: I now read about the experiment performed in the 1980's with the fruit flies in the speciation page and, of course, if repeatable what would be an answer: of course one could also assume the two different species were already present in the starting set and so they were just selected according to the available food; also if it were so easy to produce new speciations we would see many species regularly appear in the world that is a much more powerful laboratory than the ones used by the researchers.Fbartolom 15:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

One example of 'partial speciation' is that of ring species. Contra to your argument in this article, speciation is known to be a long, ambiguous and statistical process. Hrafn42 15:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the article but it seems to me very wild matter of speculation. The only example they give is the fact that gulls in England do not _often_ breed: two species need not NEVER be able to meet, even in laboratory. Otherwise one would assume that garlic eating men in Manhattan are of a different species as women usually do not like to have sex with them because of their stinky breath. Fbartolom 07:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, another problem with this is that common descent is fact, supported by overwhelming scientific evidence (cladistics, the fossil record, and especially DNA analysis: for instance, humans and chimps are about as closely related to each other as African and Indian elephants are). But how can this be possible if speciation was "impossible"? There is no reason to assume that speciation should be impossible (because it's a gradual process that's totally unlike that portrayed in the article) and asserting its "impossibility" requires ignoring all the evidence that it HAS happened, in addition to the observation that it's STILL happening.

Ok, genes of chimps are similiar to those of humans, so what? Using the famous example of the clock, trying not to hurt myself in the process, we may say that a church clock is similar to a waist watch and so they must be related. As for evidence, you are claiming ,as it were, a reverse of the weight of the proof. It is the critics of a theory that must be looking for clues that would falsify the theory, not people supporting the theory whose results should be evident. Fbartolom 07:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't just the similarity: it's the transitional forms (all those hominid fossils) and the DNA evidence (such as endogenous retroviral insertions, which have nothing to do with physical appearance or form), the "broken" vitamin-C synthesis gene that all apes share, the obvious chromosome-fusion event that joined two chimp chromosomes into one human one, and so on (and on, and on, and on...). Common descent and evolution HAVE been tested, over and over again, and have passed every test: whereas Biblical creationism failed two centuries ago and was discarded as a result. --Robert Stevens 08:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course my argument was not limited to physical appearance or form. One could also say two motor cars have a common ancestor (what could also be true in a different meaning, BTW) as they share the same or similar pistons. Again I am no supporter of the Creationism model not even believing in God. Fbartolom 15:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I hereby propose the "Punctual Objection to Air Travel", which states that humans cannot travel in airliners. This is because an airliner would need to travel at about 200 mph or more to remain airborne, and in the moment of going from 0 to 200, everybody on board would die from the intense acceleration. I hereby choose to ignore all real-time observations of air travel (airliners are either on the ground or flying, take-off is never observed to my satisfaction), and all historical evidence of previous air travel simply does not exist (because air travel is impossible). --Robert Stevens 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You are obviously mistaken about why air travel doesn't work. As we all well know, the plane can't even reach the end of the runway anyway. Someguy1221 04:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply as you can take a man and speed him from 0 to 200 km/h and check that he takes no fatal injury. Fbartolom 07:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But you have chosen to assume (for absolutely no reason whatsoever, and in defiance of everything we know about speciation) that speciation must happen in one generation. If you accelerate a human to 200mph in one instant, he will die. --Robert Stevens 08:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the connection: there is no immediate contradiction in assuming a different species appears in one generation, even if may article opposes the possibility that evolution may be based on that mechanism. As for the "everything we know" notion there is the simile of the man that goes in the wood looking for mushrooms and does not even notice flowers. One flower that evolutionist people do not see is the fact evolution does not happen right now on ANY living species.Fbartolom 10:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a falsehood, not a "fact". Yet again you are attempting to use your personal ignorance as an argument: "I don't want to know about this, therefore it does not happen". --Robert Stevens 11:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please then point me to the evidence of a natural occurring speciation since the times of Darwin when people started noting and would have ringed many bells if they did. Fbartolom 11:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The article speciation which you linked to has no less than four subsections titled "Observed instances" and a whole section named "Artificial Speciation". In addition, from Evidence of evolution: "One example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, also known as the apple maggot fly, which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation". Endomorphic 21:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You might also want to have a look at Observed Instances of Speciation from talk.Origins. ornis (t) 04:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyhow, it looks like no amount of evidence is going to convince Fbartolom. Somehow his keen mind will always find flaws in the evidence that the blinkered, self-serving scientific community either can't or won't see. Clearly we've all been conned into believing that transparent peer review, coupled to the self-correcting scientific method, allows us our best stab at objective evidence. Much better to be an independent thinker, a scourge of progressive/adaptive knowledge bases, and a defender of (pathological) skepticism. I salute you Fbartolom - you're clearly needed outside of Wikipedia to clean up Science's act! --Plumbago 08:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much Plumbago, I strongly appreciate your comment. As for my position, of course I keep under control believes not based on evidence also outside of Wikipedia. It must also be said that I try not to cling to my believes if they are themselves unrooted as I did letting go of the objection to what is now called hopeful monster when I discovered this is not the view people believing in evolution normally hold. As for the "evidences" of speciation those quoted in the different articles do not need my wit to conclude there are perhaps more evidences for the existence of elves. Fbartolom 13:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Dude seriously, you might want to lay off the "naturism" a bit I think all that sun might have addled your wits. ornis (t) 14:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks like you wear your swimming suit in your head: I do not want to say that your head is in the place usually covered by the suit... Fbartolom 14:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Heatstroke isn't caused by exposing you head to the sun, it's a result of your body absorbing more heat than it can dissipate, leading to among other things, confusion and hostility. ornis (t) 14:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I do not see a specific pattern in my mind states between summer and winter and so I am forced to discard your suggestion on the base of my own experience. As for Heatstrokes I remember being a victim to it when I was a child and I felt all but being hostile - on the contrary I fainted on the spot. (UTC) Fbartolom 15:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BartolomucciMoon.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:BartolomucciMoon.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)