User talk:Richard001/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Geneticist

I saw that you helped edit the geneticist page. I have been working on it for a class and I was wondering if you had any other suggestions or helpful ideas on anything that could be added or changed on the page. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nichschn (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

I was wondering if you could help me add a picture, I am new to wikipedia and I am not sure how to do this. Thanks for all of your help Nichschn 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis Structure

I completely agree with your comment on the lewis structure article; the majority of the information too, doesn't fit with the text -- in the formal charges section, there are partial charges used in the initial example, which generally make it more confusing for those reading the article for the first time. I'm always wary of those who edit in things such as "consider", "imagine" or "suppose" because it's in a tone which some people can't derive meaning. Minestrone Soup 13:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pā (Māori)

Can you please provide references for your change? Thank you. MadMaxDog 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Wikipedia still has way too many claims without references, we should attempt to not add new stuff unless well referenced. Good of you to go to that effort. MadMaxDog 10:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
On a further note, the link you provided to me needs a password. But I think I can assume that what you say is correct. After all, not all references need to be available online. MadMaxDog 10:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I would like to place the text at User:Badgettrg/death into the Medicine subsection of the death article following causes of death / autopsy. Does this seem appropriate? - Badgettrg 00:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To make your day

Jupiter12 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Jupiter12 02:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Erg

Thanks for the Good article rating on Erg (landform). Not to denigrate your efforts, but I feel like I got this one too easily. I mean, I really had to work hard to editing my first GA, Rancho Camulos to GA status and then this one you just come by and declare it good enough. If you have the time, perhaps you can reassess it. See User:IvoShandor/submissions/GA reviews/criteria for some help. After reading this, if you feel that the article still meets GA criteria as-is, I'm more than happy to accept the rating. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] assessment script

"I've just started using your script, and find it quite helpful. I noticed it comes up with the rating on disambiguation pages - would you be able to turn it off for those pages? Richard001 07:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)"

I've implemented this (for the majority of cases; I'm not concerned if it misses some, as it's a "nice to have"). Give it a try. –Outriggr § 08:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detritivores

I think the difference between detritivore and decomposer is just that detritivores are animals and decomposers are microbes. Or at least that's the only difference I can find in how the terms are used by soil ecologists. Elements of Ecology, by Smith & Smith (a pretty good college ecology textbook) is actually explicit about this distinction, but all my other references don't seem to notice how confusingly similar the definitions are. I'll tinker with the two pages a little more. Cheers, Justinleif 04:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Velvet worm

Hi Richard. I found a bit of time over the weekend and I've re-started the translation of the German Stummelfüßer article. So far I've done the anatomy section - you can see my progress to date at User:Yummifruitbat/Velvet worm. It needs wikifying/linking and the German article doesn't have inline references, just a list at the end. Ironically all the references were originally in English, so hopefully my translation won't have lost too much of the original meaning via English-German-English... if there's any hope of an FAC when it's finished, it'll need someone to get hold of the reference works and do the citations properly. I think it's best for me to finish the entire translation first, then do a mass-update of the English article, so I'll do what I can while it's still in my sandbox. Feel free to add wikilinks etc. if you've got some free time. Best wishes, --YFB ¿ 08:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biologist listing

Thanks for putting me on the biologist list. As you probably realise, my main area is native freshwater fish of Australia, but I can also assist in more general aquatic topics.

Good luck finishing the B.Sc!

cheers

Codman 06:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Public domain images

Thank you for the suggestion, I am slowly moving Pd pictures from wikipedia to the commoms. As well as uploading any new pd picture I create to the commons. --ZeWrestler Talk 15:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


I started the transfers with Image:Bobcat sitting.jpg. The image is now on the commons, but it shows up as out of sync, and doesn't awknowledge the fact that it is on the commons through wikipedia. how do i fix that? --ZeWrestler Talk 18:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about the Commons. When I uploaded my image in 2003, the Commons did not exist. I'll have to explore the new way to do things. --Dennis Fernkes 06:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plant defense against herbivory

Hi Richard, I noticed that you nominated this article-which I worked on quite a bit-as a GAC, thank you. Unfortunately the article was not quite ready for such a move, and was failed as unstable. You will be happy to know that several areas of the article have been improved, and the other editors and I feel it may be appropriate to nominate the article again (a few days after any major other changes to fulfill the "stable criteria"). Perhaps you would take a look at the new and improved article, any comments or suggestions you might have would be welcome. Also, I noted that when you rated the article your edit summary said Assessed - a top article! but you actually assessed the article's importance as "high"; this is a bit confusing to me, could you enlighten me? Cheers--DO11.10 17:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:The Theory of Island Biogeography

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:The Theory of Island Biogeography, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:The Theory of Island Biogeography fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

This is the name of a book by E.O. Wilson. It should not redirect to the concept of island biogeography itself.


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:The Theory of Island Biogeography, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Talk:The Theory of Island Biogeography itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Equivalence point and endpoint

Hello, recently you suggested that Equivalence point be merged with a seperate, to be article called Titration curves.[[1]] Don't you think Endpoint (chemistry) is very similar to Equivalence point?Bless sins 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Deer2.jpg

The original image is at Image:Deer.jpg, which is actually already at the Commons. :p TheCoffee 14:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't quite clear about the concept of the Commons at the time, when I uploaded it in 2005. TheCoffee 07:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedian biology students

You may want to join Category:Wikipedians interested in biology instead, as student cateogories by specific subjects are generally merged into 'interested in' categories due to overlap. –Pomte 05:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vacant niche on hold

I just thought that I would remind you that an article you recently contributed to, Vacant niche, has been reviewed and put on hold due to a few issues that don't meet the Good Article requirements. Keep in mind that it was reviewed 4 days ago and will not normally stay on hold for more than 7 days. I just wanted to make sure you knew in case you wanted to make the few changes. Otherwise the article will have to be resubmitted after the improvements are made. Thanks! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 12:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 16 June 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article mobbing behavior, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 09:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Edit to WP:WPVS

It's interesting to read your answers, and you obviously have some experience with this, but couldn't you be a little less offensive in doing so? It's insulting to the whole project to effectively call it 'useless'. Gathering data and researching things is hardly useless; much of the data gathered has been useful already, both for informing debates and helping fight vandalism. Much more needs to be researched, and many of your answers are entirely inadequate for anyone who wants any detailed information on the subject. The research questions is just a rough draft of some possible research topics to stimulate further studies. You may not think it productive, but I certainly think it will be. You may now return to your useless vandal fighting, while we find a more efficient way to go about it :) Richard001 11:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only findings you seem to have presented so far state things that are just as obvious. We know what vandalism is, we know how often it happens, we know why it happens, and we know how to deal with it. How exactly have your findings helped deal with vandalism? Telling us that 3-6% of edits are vandalism when we all know it's about 5% anyway is not awfully helpful – Gurch 13:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
You should also start thinking in terms of much larger sample sizes, rather than quoting results based on a few dozen edits to two decimal places. The sort of thing that used to reside at User:Gurch/Reports/Statistics (as for it to be undeleted if you can't see it) – Gurch 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mobbing behavior/To do

The youtube link was requested right above where I entered it. If no one is interested, at least I tried.--Curtis Clark 13:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Agathis australis" article referencing

Hey ao', I see you've been doing some solid work on the Kauri article- it's looking really good, keep it up. However, wouldn't it be best to change the method of footnoting so that we have the little numbers for each reference after the relavant line of text? The method used at the moment is the proper one used in scientific papaers, I used to do something similar but I think it's better to do it this other way as it makes things easier for the reader - ie: they can just click on the number to be taken to the reference with all its details at the bottom of the page + the inline citations are less obtrusive. Also, this is the type of footnoting featured articles ususally employ. Let me know your thoughts- if you agree to change the footnoting method I'm happy to make the changes.

Cheers, Kotare 10:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sweet I'll go ahead and have a go at whacking in inline references now. Hmm I know what you mean; it's tricky to get references for uni bio notes and it can be frustrating because they are often so useful/have material that would make a valuable contribution to wikipedia - maybe you could e-mail your lecturer and ask him what sources he used(?) Hope it goes well, I think this article will soon be able to be bumped up to A class at this rate.

Cheers, Kotare 10:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Moving images from Wikipedia to Wikimedia

Hi Richard, thanks for your note, I completely agree and am keen to move my pictures to Wikimedia and contribute new ones there. I've tried the Move-to-commons assistant, but it says "This image has no verificable good license, and can thus not be uploaded to commons through this tool.". All my pictures are "public domain"-license, so I would have thought it should be fine. Can you refer me to any easy way of moving existing files? I can see one of my pics has ended up on Wikimedia (Pittosporum crassifolium (foliage & flowers).jpg), so it must work ... somehow? Sorry to bother you with this, but since you left a message :-D, Cheers, Pseudopanax 04:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay, got it to work now - I was missing the .jpg at the end (had just the name typed in). Doh! Thanks for your reply, though, because it made it clear to me that it must be a "user error" ;-)

[edit] Thanks re Vandalism

Much thanks for the vandalism warning template and admin report links. On this side of the learning curve, I may need some help spoon-fed, but I can get the links off of my Talk page any time now. Exactly what I needed. I'm dealing with an anon IP that began "editing" this month on a narrow range of subjects. Got it from here. X ile 18:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC) - Talk

[edit] Thanks for the criticism

Sorry to take so long to respond to you, but I am a military man and my time is not always my own. You sent me a comment about my contributions to death. You reset my contribution to the warfare portion of the article. Warfare is my job, so I think I am more than qualified to provide input to that section. The definition provided was too limiting. War doesn't always take the form of armed conflict, and it isn't always among different groups, to just state examples of what was wrong with that article. Although reading it again, I think I can improve what I said. About my input to natural selection, I stated that it is possible for less "fit" organism to outbreed a more "fit" organism. It is, in theory at least, possible for an organism that is less "fit" for a certain biome to outbreed a more "fit" specie by doing such things as reproducing much faster, choking out resources the more fit specie needs, etc. Thanks again for the criticism. Echo5Joker 00:50, 23 June 2007 (CST)

[edit] Anatomy project banner

Hey there. In response to youre comment on anatomy wikiproject talk page: A project banner with assessment rating and such would be great! I would do it but i have absolutelly no idea about the whole process of changing the plain banner with multiple functiuons...If you would be able to do it somehow (whenever u got time) it would be great! I suppose u dont have rush as wikiproject anatomy is not very active compared to other wikiprojects, but i suppose more functionality wont hurt :)... petze 06:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

SURE thing :) Just tell me what to do and ill do it.What do you mean by set up categories? But yeah just give me instructions and once uve done the talk page template ill do the required changes or fixes...petze 06:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey hey...First of all, ur a legend for making it work. Now ok look at this article talk page Sartorius muscle and tell me if you like what i did on the assessment (i changed {{WikiProject Anatomy}} to {{WikiProject Anatomy|class=Start|importance=mid}}... so all the articles can get rated and assessed now and they will be placed at the appropriate categories on their own wikiprojects correct? I am not sure though what you mean by ur last comment.... so in addition to the above thats already on the talk page you want me to add {{catmore1|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy]]}} and {{Cat importance|topic=Anatomy|importance=High}} underneath???And what do you mean all the articles placed in currently will be ghosts? Do you mean there isint a actual page where the whole assessment can be undertaken for anatomy (such as this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Article_rating in the medicine wikiproject) and i have to create one? Im not complaining but just wanting to make sure i understand what you said....Thanks again. petze 07:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
FINISHED :)... have a look at Category:Anatomy articles by importance & Category:Anatomy articles by quality ... if there is anything else i left out that i need to do, dont hesitate to contact me... may i say on behalf of the anatomy wikiproject, thank you for making all this assessment on anatomy related subjects possible :) Cya later
Ah yeah forgot about that haha. No worries, glad I could help.

[edit] Koala image

The koala photo which you have writen to me about, was taken by myself during a visit to Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary. Please advise me exactly what you consider is the problem with the image. Figaro 07:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image problem

As you have requested I do with images, I have just uploaded three images of Peter Ustinov to the Wikimedia Commons. While the uploading went okay, I do not know the correct procedure for adding Wikimedia Commons images to Wikipedia pages. I tried to add the photos (which I personally took of Peter Ustinov during a book signing session) to Peter Ustinov's page at Wikipedia (without success). Could you please give me help with this (by instructions on how to do so, etc.). Thank you. Figaro 04:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a temporary glitch preventing images from showing up. Wikipedia:Picture tutorial gives a how-to, and the Commons images are treated in the same way as images uploaded to Wikipedeia – just use the image name. dave souza, talk 11:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin's view

Re your comment at Talk:Vestigiality, sometimes an obvious interpretation of writings can seem an unusual inference when it goes against the usual modern expectation. Quite often orthodoxy projects current views back, when in historical fact the original viewpoint was more ambiguous. Example include the common ideas that Darwin didn't learn about Glyptodons being related to Armadillos and birds being unique to islands in the Galapagos before he returned from the Beagle expedition, and that he always insisted that evolution took place at a steady slow page in contrast to the new idea of punctuated equilibrium. Eldredge, Niles (2006), "Confessions of a Darwinist", The Virginia Quarterly Review (no. Spring 2006): 32–53, <http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2006/spring/eldredge-confessions-darwinist/#fn11> discusses how this wasn't strictly the case. .. dave souza, talk 11:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Young-sowthistle.jpg

Thanks Richard! I've discovered Wikimedia Commons in the two years since the photograph was uploaded. ;) --Pjf 23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

Hi Richard, might this be covered by either Habitat (ecology) or Ecological niche? Tim Vickers 03:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps you might add a sourced section to Fitness landscape. WAS 4.250 10:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wisdom teeth

Thanks for the pointers! I really shouldn't have gone and deleted that section without discussing it first. I think I will do some more research, and add it to the section, explaining why wisdom teeth can no longer be considered vestigial.

Thanks again for the help!

Disconformist 00:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mergers

Regarding your request to move: Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology/Assessment to the correct name Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology/Assessment, it seems to me that a merge would be more appropriate: see Help:Merging and moving pages for guidance. (I had to look that up) Have a look and see what the best procedure is, presumably you'd want some but not all of the content of the two pages in the final page. Have a go, and let me know if difficulties arise. The Habitat (ecology) to Habitat move seems to have been the final change as proposed at Talk:Habitat (disambiguation), but no-one's got around to it so I'll have a go at that. Enjoy learning how-to, .. dave souza, talk 18:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Warlordjohncarter#Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology/Assessment, that's it done now. These glitches happen very easily, I'm sure we've all done something of the sort. .. dave souza, talk 13:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of all wikipedia articles

I was wondering if this is possible or not?

[edit] Herbivory

It is fine that you changed it back. Wikipedia sucks, and I tell my students in the General Ecology class that I teach not to use it to start with. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the grazers, herbivory, I can see your point. Parasitic plants are what it says, parasites, and not herbivores. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Rich!

Giggy UCP has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Savaging Improvements

Hi Richard001, thanks for your constructive and well-cited contributions at Savaging. Let me know if you make any changes regarding the page-merge or move; and keep up the good work with cited sources! Nimur 16:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infanticide (zoology)

Great choice for an article, and generally very well done. KP Botany 02:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, hope it doesn't scare anybody if they put it on the main page :) Richard001 02:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably will, Werothegreat studies protists and he objected to it--and algae are complex and scarey. The subject is rather repugnant to most people, so I found out from studying it--my physical anthropology professor studied cultures which practice human sacrifices. The main page gets some censorship, generaly on porn stars, and related issues, but I think this can be written properly and make it through GA and FA and wind up on the main page. There are a few issues, but very few, mostly when you connect it with human infanticide you're not as neutral in tone as you are otherwise. This was my thought, though, that you should be working towards FA with this--it will make it, imo. KP Botany 02:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I just meant DYK, FA is a lot of work. I'd like to bring something to GA at least though, so I might try for this one once I've finished the remaining sections. Re: Human infanticide, a lot of it was just copied from the main article, so if it's not neutral it would be best to address it there too. Richard001 02:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, that's right you mentioned DYK. It's a heck of a lot better already than most articles from which DYKs are pulled. I have no issues with it being in DYK. And, yes, FA is a ton of work, way too much--still this article shows a lot of what it takes, so I think you might move towards it. You're a student, though, so you don't have the time to make a push for it all at once, but with time it can get there. The subject is interesting and largely unknown to many. I did look at the human infanticide article and just cringed in horror. KP Botany 02:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with KP that this is worth pushing towards FA status.-gadfium 03:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On July 17, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Infanticide (zoology), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Excellent comprehensive article. Well done.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I am glad it is on the front page, but how did it get there so quickly? You only started it a week or so ago, didn't you? BrainyBabe 16:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It was just a DYK, in fact if it was any more than 5 days old it wouldn't be eligible. Richard001 23:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fecundity

I changed your rating on importance for this article to high. The article needs major work, but it really needs to be one of our best articles. KP Botany 05:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Tag a Mistake?

Hello! I just happened to be looking at the User Template category page and noticed that a users actual page was on there. Long story short, check out [2]. If I am not mistaken (which is possible, since I am very new) I think you accidently pasted the category tag into this users talk page along with the actual template. I have removed the tag, but wanted to let you know, in case there is something I'm missing, and I'm the one mistaken. Thanks! Drake Maijstral 06:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wildlife of Africa

HI Richard. Thankyou for the new infanticde article -very interesting indeed and an invaluable encyclopedic contribution. Well done! I don't know if you have any knolwedge on African wildlife but I need an expert to write some good articles Wildlife of Tanzania, Wildlife of Kenya for example should be a lovely written article not a list . Would you be interested in helping it? Youd expect wikipedia to have detailed articles on each country with a summary of flora, fauna, conservation national reserves etc ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 11:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello there

Cant believe I run into another university student studying environmental science, cause me too! We should exchange our ideas once in a while. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] HI

Thelordsavenger 02:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC) you make a good point, I do not agree with evolutionary theory but I should not attempt to push my views on anyone. I would like to add that I find it mildly offensive that evolution is considered a wikipedia policy with virtually no contest except to basically say that a bunch of religious crazies disagree because it would violate their belief system. macroevolution is a theory which cannot be truly proven as a result of the inability to travel back 4.5 billion years and observe the process. also, is not expansion or explosion of absolute mass impossible? If that is so then how is the big bang possible? also, how could life come from nothing without the influence of an existing outside source? I appreciate your point though and will be more cautious in the future. Thelordsavenger 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GenieWiki

Just thought you might like to know, there's been somewhat of a revival at GenieWiki (TDA advertised it on AoEH, etc.). So it'd be great to see you around there again! Giggy UCP 08:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Robert Whittaker.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Robert Whittaker.PNG. 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. 11:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] zero point

but how do you explain where the beings or amino acids or cells or bio matter etc. came from! were they there for eternity? well that would not make much sense would it? also what about the lack of what should be billions of transitional fossils? you can belive that the world today exists because of random mutation that has never in recoded history been benificial and has never ever resulted in speciation, but how do you explain how the materials and specific situations necessary to affect this theory came about? maybe almost all important scientists believe in the thory, but THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE!!! especially if that is all they were taught during their academic lives. you may think you can explain the "origin" of the species but how do you explain the origin of the materials necessary for your theory to take place? Thelordsavenger 20:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

i was not asking about the chemical reactants etc. i was asking where did the early freaking earth come from. you know the big hunk of rock just bubbling with possibilities for life? if it came from dust then where did the dust come from. think hard. i was talking about the original first blocks. the big rocks life was supposed to form ON! now where did they come from?