User talk:Pro bug catcher/archive1

The following text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Pro bug catcher. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Pro bug catcher. No further edits should be made to this page.

Welcome!

Hello, Pro bug catcher/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation of White Admiral

I have added a line at the start of the (Old world) White Admiral article. You can now go on and add info on the other subspecies and other common names into the Red-spotted Purple article. In general it not a good idea to start sub-species page articles since they have very little difference in information apart from their appearance and geographic ranges. Shyamal 03:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll remember that. Thank you Pro bug catcher 11:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

degree of certainty

Your comment on "heavily biased due to the majority of evolutionist users" is probably due to the overwhelming evidence evolution has, and the overwhelming fun creationism is (also in the same line of thought see the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is just as likely or even more likely depending on the POV). I am a little sorry to say so but creationism is considered “dogmacy”, and not evolution. Your problem is (well problem is a big word… you can live properly and be a creationist, just as well as being a Jedi or an agnostic), the issue is that you believe in creationism, in the same way that you believe in God. What powers the real scientific mind is not belief as it makes one subjective. You clearly believe in what you say, which in itself isn’t usually a problem. But on Wikipedia, belief is often considered WP:POV, and as such doesn’t have it’s place here. Especially if your belief is against general knowledge (general knowledge yes, not general belief). Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of knowledge, in 2006 the knowledge is that creationism is false, and evolution is true. Wikipedia is not the place for you to liberate the world from its deceived state in which Satan has put it. You should go to university, study, get a Ph.d in the subject (if that’s already done, start over), and then change the view of evolution most of the scientific community has today. Prove to the scientific community that creationism is true. And then, only then, change (with proof) what people think. To beat them you have to play their game. But chances are, once you get rid of you beliefs (which you might not be able to achieve, and that would be sad), you’ll just see how logical evolution is, and how very logical and plausible creationism is (as much as the Flying Spaghetti Monster). You are permitted to believe whatever you like, but please, don’t let it get it the way of reason, (nor get in the way of Wikipedia).-Pro Bug Catcher

If there's anyone who's letting their belief get in the way of reason, it's you and all the other blockheads on this site. I could stay on here all year and list the overwhelming evidence for creationism and against evolution and it wouldn't convince you one bit. I don't care about your definition of "knowledge"; you think that knowledge is that creationism is false and evolution is true. Well, it's the opposite. Evolution is absolutely false and creationism is absolutely true. I'm not going to try to liberate any of you from Satan's deception; I can see it's not going to work. He has much of the population enslaved with his false religions. At any rate, it's not going to be me who liberates anybody; only God can do that, and I can see that you have hardened your heart and mind against all sound judgement and reasoning in favor of evolutionism, which "liberates" you from all moral laws and allows you to do whatever you crap well please. It wouldn't matter if I did have a Ph.d in anything, because you won't listen to those who do have them. You call them pseudoscientists. Well, the biggest pseudoscience that I'm aware of is evolution, regardless of how many people are led astray by it. So, since you have chosen to believe this lie, I am not going to try to break you out of your mental block. If you want to talk to some actual creationist scientists (yes, there are scientists who are creationists and who are relevant in their fields), go to Answersingenesis or some such site and throw your "knowledge" at them. You can also try reading the Bible and see how it describes people like you (willfully ignorant). See yuh. Ratso 20:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this : [2]. I am sorry to say so, but I think the one in a mental block is you. You are quite impolite, and (no offense) but also a little ignorant. (But you seem to know the Bible and God more than me). I did look at Answersingenesis, it says we all have the same evidence and the difference is in interpretation. How I usderstand their view is this: They start by believing in God and the Bible, I, as most scientists, don't. By the way, vandalizing the Flying Spaghetti Monster page doesn't help your cause. Nor adding speculations to the Albus Dumbledore article. Be more serious, and please stay calm and be polite. Pro bug catcher 17:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why additions to the Albus Dumbledore article even has anything to do with this. No, I am not the one in a mental block. I believe the truth, you and the other evolutionists believe a lie. AiG starts by believing in God which is the absolute best place to start. You start by believing in a god called Random Chance, which is the worst and stupidest place to start. Now come on, who's ignorant here?! I sure am not; I've studied biology and I'm studying it in-depth right now, and I just got finished with the section on evolution vs. creationism, and the only conclusion I can come to is that evolution is a failing theory and that evidence, as well as logical reasoning, suggests that it was God, not a big explosion or a mutation, that created the world and life. I'll admit I've been rather impolite and I'm sorry if I've used any offensive language or words, but most of the evolutionists that have left comments here haven't exactly been that courteous, either. Ratso 17:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. The scurrious little site that you linked me to doesn't really have any evidence supporting its claims, either.

I admit I don’t understand the Big Bang, nor have the time to try and understand right now. But I can tell you I don’t believe in a god called Random Chance. A "mutation that would turn gills into lungs isn't possible, because that would require new information which gene mutations can't produce." A radical example like that would be hard to prove. But what if I told you antenea in insects are actually modified legs. With the "help" of many mutations, a leg appeared on the head, then it’s structure was modified, up to the point where antenea are used as sensory organs and not for movement (the source I have for this is the entomology teacher at UQAM, the university I study at, also, in a few seconds I found this on google ; [3] and [4]). I am curious : How do you understand selection, be it natural selection or artificial selection? (As we both know, dog breeds were "made" by artficial selection, and many breeds have "new" mutations, which other breeds don’t have). Once I have an idea of your thoughts on selection, I’ll have a better comprehension of how you see mutation, and by extension evolution. It is true that the site I linked doesn’t cite sources, I’ll try not to link unsourced documents in the future. I would have a lot more to say, but first I’d like to understand how you understand selection. ttyl.-Pro bug catcher 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Selection occurs, I realize, but as you should understand, the fittest don't always reproduce, therefore it's not always "survival of the fittest". As for mutations, I think I've made it quite clear how I view them. Since when are antennae modified legs? So your professor believes this, as well as a couple of sites on Google. That means virtually nothing. Antennae are for sensory purposes only, not former legs that mutated into little sensory organs that were now useless for anything but feeling. You keep insisting that mutations produce new information, but I have yet to see a good example of this. All the other examples such as polyploidy and gene duplication fail to meet the criteria for "new" information; either they are simply reorganizations of already existing information or they are duplications of that information. What is your idea of "new" information? Give me your definition, and then we can talk sensibly. Ratso 21:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

An example easy to understand would be writing ; imagine letters make up DNA, words code for certain things, and once the words are put together they give something bigger (the text, analog to the organism). It would be stupid to “invent” new letters, they work as they are and can be changed to take virtually any meaning. Simply by adding letters or reorganizing them. So “new” doesn’t exist in the sense you use. New information is for example this: eternity becomes entirety (where the words are analog to structures). There is no new information, just a rearrangement that changes the structure. With accumulation these can lead to big changes. “With accumulation these can lead to big changes” becomes “Let a mechanical coin shut a cab we dig nest tough”. And that’s just reorganisation, not duplication. Now imagine what both can do. And selection, as you said is not only reproduction of the fittest. Only it is a very big process, and in total, the fittest has more chances of reproducing, and does so more, exceptions exist, but in total, the fittest does reproduce more. The one who isn’t fit enough dies, and with it its DNA and the change it would hold. In that way, with many, many, little “reorganizations of already existing information or duplications of that information” there is something new. For example the “new” between eohippus and Equus stenonis (see Evolution of the horse), or between dinosaurs and birds, or between the first bacteria and man. It’s practically impossible to give an example of a single mutation making big changes, to acknowledge “new” information you have to acknowledge evolution. They key to the understanding it to understand how the plan for life works. By the way discrediting my references, and teacher, they way you did is even more absurd, you give no reference at all for your claim (three is better than none), especially with one from the government of Canada, and another from the International Journal of Developmental Biology. Denying it is absurd, give me better references and I’ll believe your denial. As for “Since when are antennae modified legs? So your professor believes this, as well as a couple of sites on Google. That means virtually nothing.” : Since antennae exist. My professor and university and governmental sources know so. If that means nothing… what has meaning? Pro bug catcher 02:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't know how many times we've been through this. You finally admit that there is no such thing as new information. You said yourself that all organisms need is a reorganization of the existing information. You can't say, however, that the fittest reproduce more, because a lot of times they don't. Since they are in not much danger of being eaten, they will have few or no offspring a lot of times and the less fit will reproduce more. You claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that man evolved from bacteria? How can you be sure? You can't. There is more than just a little difference between them; there is a big difference, so big that it would be impossible to bridge the two. And you (as well as your professor) claim that antennae are modified legs, and that I was stupid and foolish to discredit them. Give me some proof that they are modified legs, and I will take it back. At any rate, you now realize that there is no "new" information, that this "new" information is a reorganization and duplication of the "letters" in the code of DNA. I never said that one single mutation could introduce big changes; it would take billions of the same mutation happening over and over again to introduce such changes as you suggest. Few mutations are actually beneficial, many are neutral but most are harmful. Now, seeing as how it takes beneficial mutations to cause an organism to become more complex, it would require that these rare beneficial mutations be occuring at a consistent rate billions of times over. That's not only improbable, it's impossible. If you think not then prove to me that it could happen. Otherwise, you've said enough. Ratso 14:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we are finally at the point where our information diverges. You seem to understand mutations well, “few mutations are actually beneficial, many are neutral but most are harmful” and “it would require that these rare beneficial mutations be occur[r]ing at a consistent rate billions of times over”, and that’s what happens, that’s evolution! Using the principle you don’t understand of natural selection. “You can't say, however, that the fittest reproduce more, because a lot of times they don't. Since they are in not much danger of being eaten, they will have few or no offspring a lot of times and the less fit will reproduce more.” That is, I am sorry to say, plain wrong… give me reputable sources for your false claim, and I might reconsider it, (acknowledge it isn’t false, but as we both know you can’t discredit natural selection that easily). It may be true that “a lot of times they don’t” but a lot more, (I mean a majority of cases, not multiple isolated cases) they do. As for “And you (as well as your professor) claim that antennae are modified legs, and that I was stupid and foolish to discredit them. Give me some proof that they are modified legs, and I will take it back.” I gave you a source from the International Journal of Developmental Biology, and you just ignore it. You gave no sources at all. It is true there is no new information in YOUR sense of the term, in my sense there is, I thought I was clear on that. It is also true, that I Pro_bug_catcher can’t give you proof of evolution, but science can, science has given it. For conclusion I think you are right about the fact this conversation is over. If you don’t either discredit (with proof) or acknowledge: 1. Natural selection 2. The International Journal of Developmental Biology. 3. That antennae are modified legs. 4. That evolution doesn’t exist (that birds haven’t evolved from dinosaurs, and that life hasn’t evolved from unicellular simple life forms). 5. That mutations don’t bring new information (with accumulation). Then yes indeed you do not understand evolution, (don’t know what you’re talking about) and should (since you do not understand, not because of what you think) keep your pseudoscience for yourself. Once you do understand (or have proof that I am the one misinformed) then we can continue. I may have a little time to searche for reputable sources in my christmas break, until then I am a little to busy. By the way thank you for your time and for defending your point of view- Pro bug catcher 15:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You make all these great, wild claims, but you fail to give examples for them. You claim that the fittest always reproduce the most, but you don't give me any examples of this occurring in real life. And about the antennae: I gave you a source from the International Journal of Developmental Biology, and you just ignore it. Snort! I am not; but it is not proof that antennae are modified legs. You claim I can't give you proof of evolution, but science can, science has given it. You fail to understand that science cannot be used to prove anything, and what you said is downright false. Science has never, ever proven evolution; at least, not the evolution you're talking about. Sure, we know that bacteria can mutate (reorganize their information) to render certain antibiotics useless, and we know that animals like finches can change to adapt to their environment (this happened in a matter of one or two generations). But it doesn't take billions of years, nor does it change the organism into a totally different type of organism (for instance, a fish into a frog, a reptile into a bird (Archaopteryx was a bird), or a blob of cytoplasm into a human being. You can take these words of mine and twist them and put them in italics to refute them but it's still going to be true.

I do understand evolution, I understand that it is the belief that organisms are changing to become more complex. Right? Yes. You obviously don't understand that evolution has not been proven and will never be proven. I could throw all sorts of examples at you, but you fail to see because you are blinded. There, that's proof that you are misinformed. Earlier, you claimed that you do not belief in a god called Random Chance. Well, believe it or not, you do. If there's no intelligent designer out there, then it must have been Random Chance, the Blind Watchmaker, that created everything. If not, then it must have been an intelligent Creator. One more thing about the modified "legs": why do you believe this? Do you believe it simply because your professor does and the people at your "scientific" journal do, or have you weighed the evidence carefully and come to the conclusion? Anyway, even if they are (which is unlikely), it certainly wouldn't prove evolution. They lost their ability to walk and climb, but they're still genetically similar, obviously. Your arguments are not in the least bit convincing; all you're doing is beating a dead horse, one that has been dead for a while (DO NOT PUT THIS IN ITALICS; THAT DRIVES ME NUTS). Ratso 02:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you have not discredited (with proof) or acknowledged the points above. And you have just kept the same information. When you know more about science (and what is it's purpose), about natural selection, about population mechanics, about probability. Then we may continue the conversation. If that is not done, I cannot do anything for you (and until then you can't do anything for me). But I ask you, why can't I be angostic, why am I obliged to believe in a god? You are the one who is blinded, I have tried to give you the key to removing your blindfold. It is now up to you to take it, or leave it. You could also try to take my blindfold off, with solid proof, solid sources. I have understood you points of view (you have not understood mine), I have given you soucres (not many, but more than none), you have given none.-Pro bug catcher 04:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Now you've degenerated into stupid, blanket statements without any sources. I'll give you mine: the Answers in Genesis website, the CreationWiki website, my own observations, my biology textbook, among others. I have hesitated before because I know what your response is going to be to them. Your sources have been few and far between, but I suppose it's better than none, and now you have mine. I'm never, ever going to be able to take your blindfold off unless you're willing to have it taken off. How can you say I have one? Because I don't believe in your deception? The Bible is full of verses describing people like you, but I'm not going to give you any because you'll just make a mockery of them rather than listening to them. All I'll say is that God will eventually show the "wise" of this world just how stupid they really are. Your "key" to removing my "blindfold" is really a method of placing the blindfold on, and I'm going to leave it, thank you very much. You can't be totally agnostic; someone or something is going to be the object of your worship. Believe it or not, you can be your own god. Many people are. You can't just believe in nothing; there will always be something. Either it's you, it's chance, it's a historical figure, or it's a divine, omnipotent, omnipresent omniscient being. Now, since you seem to be through, I guess I will be too. see yuh. Ratso 15:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Before I stop, I'd just like to say that I do understand evolution and its basics: the change from simple to complex. Okay? That good enough? Good. Now I'm through, so have a nice life (can't say you'll have a nice afterlife unless you listen to someone besides evolutionists). Ratso 15:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what I say, you won't listen because you are in a mental block, and refuse to look at anything without your "evolutionist glasses". See yuh. Ratso 03:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.

Just to let you know that I reverted your redirecting of Wikiproject to Wikipedia:WikiProject. Cross-namespace redirects aren't too good for the encyclopedia. OK? oTHErONE_(Contribs) 07:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on User Talk:Otherone.Pro bug catcher 14:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin name

Having seen your User:Pengo/Latin subpage, I wonder if your could help me on finding the meaning of Chrysiridia rhipheus. It would be even better if you would teach me how to do it myself.Pro bug catcher 03:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started that page in a hope that people would add more speciesish Latin entries to Wiktionary (it hasn't really happened yet). I know of no systematic way to find out what the Latin means, and the best I've been able to come up with is searching Google with, for example, Chrysiridia latin, and hoping one of those blurbs has the answer. It didn't work for that example, but a search for Urania latin tells me Urania means "heavenly", although the Wiktionary entry would have more-or-less told you that too. You can also try online Latin-English dictionaries (rarely successful). So basically, my (not so helpful) answer is to encourage people with understanding of Latin to contribute to Wiktionary.. or ask on the science help desk. —Pengo 11:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Ditrysia; Castniidae; Leptocircini; Green-veined White; Acrylic fiber; Pieter Cramer; Red Admiral; Ocellus; Tineidae; Zebra Swallowtail Butterfly; Brimstone (butterfly); Silver-spotted Skipper; Microlepidoptera; Instar; Jake Burns; Papilioninae; Emerald Swallowtail; Dingy Skipper; Two-tailed Swallowtail

Cleanup: Misfiring behavior; Gia Carangi; Liping Zhang
Merge: Thin-film optics; Soggy biscuit; Contact tension
Add Sources: Wasp; Pawpaw; Vignale
Wikify: Lindane; Egg (biology); Smoking fetishism
Expand: Flea; Blomer's Rivulet; Praying mantis

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fender's blue butterfly

I noticed that you had made an edit to Fender's blue butterfly, to which I had added an image. From your knowledge, can you confirm that the image is indeed a picture of a Fender's blue butterfly? I had downloaded the image from a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers website and it was identified as a Fender's, but I have occasionally found errors in the USACE websites. I would like to make sure that it is correct. I am not an entomologist, amateur or professional. ●DanMS • Talk 00:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am an amateur entomologist, I'll probably be a professional two years from now, but all I can say is : I don't know. I found this one which look a little more like the other results from Google : [1] (or yours [2]). To really identify the butterfly one has to check an identification key, and know a good deal of entomological vocabulary, then look at the information visible on the photo (which much of the time isn't enough to really identify a species). I'm sorry I couldn't be of any more help. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 14:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. The picture that I posted certainly looks like the samples on the links you sent, so I feel fairly confident that the picture is indeed a Fender's blue. ●DanMS • Talk 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo chenille monarque.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Logo chenille monarque.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

On 11 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Urania sloanus, 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.

--Allen3 ^talk 12:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]