This wiki is a XML full dump clone of "Heroes Wiki", the main wiki about the Heroes saga that has been shut down permanently since June 1, 2020. The purpose of this wiki is to keep online an exhaustive and accurate database about the franchise.
Talk:Evolution
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Stub?
What can this page use to not be stubby? --Frantik (Talk) 23:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- It looks pretty good to me. I guess it could use a pretty good "About" section that explains the background of evolution ... but it seems pretty complete to me. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Opening sentence
I think we should change the phrse 'the scientific theory' in the opening paragraph to 'the theory', because there's nothing remotely scientific about the theory.--Yamawhata? 18:51, 22 November 2007 (EST)
- Um.....yeeeeeeaaaahhhhh. --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 19:06, 22 November 2007 (EST)
- A Pandora's box is about to open... I'd say go ahead and change it. A theory is a theory, and, the theory of evolution, like any other theory, is merely a theory. Classifying it as scientific is an opinion.--Ice Vision 21:30, 22 November 2007 (EST)
- Weather you agree to it or not, it IS a "Scientific theory" because it is a theory in which there is scientific evidence to back it. That's what makes it "scientific." :|--Riddler 21:33, 22 November 2007 (EST)
- I really shouldn't be feeding the fire. Oh, well... Although this theory has scientific evidence, it can be disproved by science. That's what I hear, anyway.--Ice Vision 21:41, 22 November 2007 (EST)
- Doesn't make it any less of a "Scientific Theory." Just means it has a "Scientific Theory" to go against it.--Riddler 21:44, 22 November 2007 (EST)
- I guess you're right. It should stay, then.--Ice Vision 22:09, 22 November 2007 (EST)
- Doesn't make it any less of a "Scientific Theory." Just means it has a "Scientific Theory" to go against it.--Riddler 21:44, 22 November 2007 (EST)
- I really shouldn't be feeding the fire. Oh, well... Although this theory has scientific evidence, it can be disproved by science. That's what I hear, anyway.--Ice Vision 21:41, 22 November 2007 (EST)
- The special relativity theory can be considered a "scientific theory" because it pertains to science. The reasoning behind it being "scientific" versus simply being "theory" is because of its relevance to real life versus the show. We don't call most of these theories "scientific" because they don't pertain to real life.--Bob (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2007 (EST)
- Weather you agree to it or not, it IS a "Scientific theory" because it is a theory in which there is scientific evidence to back it. That's what makes it "scientific." :|--Riddler 21:33, 22 November 2007 (EST)
- A Pandora's box is about to open... I'd say go ahead and change it. A theory is a theory, and, the theory of evolution, like any other theory, is merely a theory. Classifying it as scientific is an opinion.--Ice Vision 21:30, 22 November 2007 (EST)
- Evolution= scietific fact. That is all I have to say about this subject. --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 23:51, 23 November 2007 (EST)
- How can you call it a scientific fact when most other scientific facts disprove it? I cite for examples the first and second laws of thermodynamics. These are LAWS, therefore they outrank THEORIES, yet according to these laws, macroevolution could not have happened. So why is evolution considered a 'scientific' theory? BTW, have they ever found real scientific evidence to support it? From what I've heard, they've proved in labs that life could not have spontaneously begun from primordeal soup.--Yamawhata? 18:53, 25 November 2007 (EST)
- Whether you agree or disagree with the theory of evolution, it's still a scientific theory. Regardless, we don't need to worry about whether it's a proved, valid, or even plausible theory--on Heroes it's a scientific theory, and that's all that matters. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2007 (EST)
- My belief was that on this site, we strove for accuracy wherever possible. If we argue about such things as if Zane Taylor's power can be called melting because no heat is added, I think this is a valid arguement.
- We do strive for accuracy, and things that are one way in the world of Heroes are not necessarily the same in the world we live in. We strive for accuracy in the world of Heroes, not in the real world. On Heroes, Mohinder and Chandra are both scientists (geneticists, to be exact), and they both subscribe to the theory of evolution. In fact, it is the basis for all of their research. Whether you believe it is a scientific theory or not in the real world, it certainly is a scientific theory in Heroes. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2007 (EST)
- So we can argue all we want about making scientifically accurate names for the powers exhibited (which have no basis in real life for comparison), but we let the accuracy of our other pages be swayed by the personal beliefs or the characters in the show (who are not real people)?
- Yes, absolutely. This is not an article about evolution in the real world. This is an article about evolution as it appears on Heroes. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2007 (EST)
- So we can argue all we want about making scientifically accurate names for the powers exhibited (which have no basis in real life for comparison), but we let the accuracy of our other pages be swayed by the personal beliefs or the characters in the show (who are not real people)?
- We do strive for accuracy, and things that are one way in the world of Heroes are not necessarily the same in the world we live in. We strive for accuracy in the world of Heroes, not in the real world. On Heroes, Mohinder and Chandra are both scientists (geneticists, to be exact), and they both subscribe to the theory of evolution. In fact, it is the basis for all of their research. Whether you believe it is a scientific theory or not in the real world, it certainly is a scientific theory in Heroes. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2007 (EST)
- My belief was that on this site, we strove for accuracy wherever possible. If we argue about such things as if Zane Taylor's power can be called melting because no heat is added, I think this is a valid arguement.
- Whether you agree or disagree with the theory of evolution, it's still a scientific theory. Regardless, we don't need to worry about whether it's a proved, valid, or even plausible theory--on Heroes it's a scientific theory, and that's all that matters. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2007 (EST)
- How can you call it a scientific fact when most other scientific facts disprove it? I cite for examples the first and second laws of thermodynamics. These are LAWS, therefore they outrank THEORIES, yet according to these laws, macroevolution could not have happened. So why is evolution considered a 'scientific' theory? BTW, have they ever found real scientific evidence to support it? From what I've heard, they've proved in labs that life could not have spontaneously begun from primordeal soup.--Yamawhata? 18:53, 25 November 2007 (EST)
- A scientific theory is not the same thing as a theory. Evolution is a scientific theory. - Hive 19:23, 25 November 2007 (EST)
- According to that link, 'a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable.' Evolution is not testable, nor is it predictive, nor is it logical. Therefore, I'd say it doesn't qualify as a scientific theory. I'll grant this concession though: it is 'scientific' in the sense that it relates to science, but not in the sense that it can be scientifically proved, or that it follows the laws of science.
Took it upon myself, if you guys don't mind.
If you don't like the lead image feel free to revert.--Riddler 19:51, 23 November 2007 (EST)
- I don't like it. It's a funny image and all, but I don't think it's right for this page. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2007 (EST)