Talk:Discredited hypotheses for the Cambrian explosion

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am wondering: Why isn't religion on this page? Granted that it is not mentioned on the main page of the Cambrian Explosion itself, shouldn't it figure here, on the Discounted Theses page, or is it a feature of Wikipedia keeping science and religion apart? Just curious. Frost of Egarath (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HOX

Why are Hox gene explanations listed as discredited when the explanation yields no criticism of the idea, and even an endorsing statement at the end? Molecular dating is not especially accurate, and in any case dating before the Cambrian Explosion is entirely consistent with it playing a role and simultaneity is not required, as again noted in the subsection. --128.146.245.219 (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General

This page isn't particularly good. The HOX genes are hardly discredited - but more generally, the idea that basic genetic networks forming at some point created new generative potential is NOT discredited by any means. The fact that they may have preceded the event - even by hundreds of millions of years - doesn't say anything of the matter. All that says is that it wasn't the TRIGGER of the event. The same with entrenchment. What does it have to do with anything that major changes occurred later? Previously it was believed that major changes happened the whole time, that the genome had been rewritten time and again and that humans probably had 500,000-2,000,000 genes. When the data came in it confirmed the entrenchment theory and SMASHED the former ideas about these things - nobody (that counts) believes in those things any longer. Construing it (on the basis of paper from the mid 90's!) to be the other way around is simply bad scholarship. The feeling I get here is that the author tries to make that case that EvoDevo is discredited on the basis of papers from before the time when EvoDevo even took off... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.11.179 (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing orphaned header "Changes in orbital parameters"

I removed the orphaned header, but the introductory paragraph mentions "vast changes in plate tectonic rates or orbital motion". This theory well belongs in this article and it would be a better article if it were addressed as the original author intended. I, however, don't fully grok it myself to post any meaningful information. Mseanbrown (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the late physicist Walter Russell's material addresses how the orbital motion/position would most certainly affect the plate tectonics, as any movement away from a sun will cause a planet to expand due to the decrease in pressure caused by the gravity of the sun. He discusses this in great detail in "The Universal One" as well as a number of his other incredible documents. Mseanbrown (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin's Doubt

While it might not be appropriate to include ephemera like Stephen C. Meyer (2013). Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. New York: HarperOne. ISBN 978-0062071477., perhaps it would be appropriate to include Intelligent design as a discredited hypothesis for the Cambrian explosion? TomS TDotO (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]