The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Thanks to a commendable rewrite and expansion by Philcha (talk · contribs).  Sandstein  19:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precambrian rabbit[edit]

Precambrian rabbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No evidence that (1) phrase represents a popularly perceived canned argument or that (2) "Precambrian rabbit" would be the correct and recognized title for canned argument even if the argument were recognized. Loodog (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Rabbits in the Precambrian" is the form in which I've come across the Haldane anecdote and gets 1580 google hits to the 830 for "Precambrian rabbit". N p holmes (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the phrasing (I am the original editor for this article)
    • "Precambrian rabbit" is the exact phrase as found on pages 72 and 73 of Harvard University professor of philosophy Peter Godfrey-Smith's Theory and Reality (University of Chicago Press, 2003). My understanding from serveral Math/Science Wikipedia editors comments on talk pages and Afd's is that a singular phrasing of a term is greatly preferred to a plural one in the title of a wikipedia article. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is discussed in other articles. It's not used that much, usually in evolution vs. creationist arguments. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a legitimate argument to delete. Because: First, mention in other articles merely strengthens and confirms claims of WP:NOTABILITY. Second, it's use in an undergraduate/popular Harvard University course and textbook is certainly evidence of mainstream WP:NOTABILITY. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirect. Fossil rabbits in the precambrian already redirects to Objections to evolution#Evolution is unfalsifiable, and inclusion of the phrase in that article is more than adequate. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why should the answer for this article be different to the answer for that article? Uncle G (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncle asks an excellent question. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - and thanks to Philcha for making it so eminently worth keeping! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTE - as noted above, including lack of google hits, and already covered in other articles. Verbal chat 19:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not because of arguments below, but because the page now passes WP:NOTE due to a massive rewrite. It is no longer the page I thought should be deleted for good reasons. Verbal chat 13:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (interposting) This is not a legitimate argument to delete. Because: First, the article already has two WP:RELIABLE/WP:NOTABLE/WP:VERIFIABLE sources. And second, again nmention in other articles merely strengthens and confirms claims of WP:NOTABILITY. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If something is a duplicate article, covering a subject already covered in another article, then the correct course of action is article merger. If you are going to base your rationale on Wikipedia:Notability, then I suggest that you read the part where it talks about merging into articles with broader contexts. Uncle G (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable and in another form already covered. And don't interrogate me. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a legitimate argument to delete. Because: Again, mention in other articles merely strengthens and confirms claims of WP:NOTABILITY. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to one of the destinations listed above . The article describes this as a "routine one-line reply", and even famous one-line replies rate only a mention in an article about the person who uttered them. Notwithstanding that a one-liner isn't much of a response to any argument, the article itself does little to explain what Haldane was talking about. Suffice to say that the "fossil record" does not indicate that mammals came along until well after the Precambrian era of 540,000,000 years ago, and that the "higher" forms of life are found in the more relatively recent fossils. There are no Precambrian rabbits, and if a fossil of anything rabbit-like from that era were found, it would require a rethinking of current theory. So would finding an IPod in a sarcophagus, I guess. Mandsford (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTE. A redirect is not unreasonable, and Snalwibma's suggestion of Objections to evolution#Evolution is unfalsifiable seems appropriate. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. I guess there is enough coverage of the term and its history to write an encyclopedic article that is not just a WP:COATRACK for recapitulating evolution arguments better treated elsewhere. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is one one of several paleontological concepts that are important but can be described adequately by a stub-sized article. The fact that it has a catchy title is a bonus, as it's memorable and counter-acts Wikipedia's tendency to over-solemnity. Part of Haldane's brilliance was his ability to come up with such snappy but theoretically deep observations (e.g. "No, but I might give up my life for 2 brothers or ..."). The first 2 pages of a quick Google for "precambrian rabbit" (w/o quotes) gave me The Evolution Wars, "Theory and Reality" by Peter Godfrey-Smith (already cited, but the Google Books link shows how much more can be extracted), "Evolution" by Mark Ridley (ditto), [doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401131 EMBO reports 8, 12, 1107–1109 (2007) "Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?"] (also accessible via Nature if you have access). These are high-quality sources so it's notable, and a quick skim through their content satisfied me that there's enough to justify a Wikipedia article, which I could write in half an hour if the artcile is not deleted.. -- Philcha (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Note: I am the original editor of this article The title of the article is the exact phrase that both the eminent Oxford University zoologist Mark Ridley and the well-respected Harvard University philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith use in their respective textbooks (as cited in the article and as pointed out and linked to by the almost certainly Paleontologist-expert editor User:Philcha.) Note: I believe it's my civil duty to point out here what I believe is corruption within the wikipedia system. Several of the !not votes and reasonings above are almost certainly being deliberatley disingenuous. For example, User:Orangemarlin has also initiated three AFD's [1], [2], [3] against other articles I created. Two of these have already been closed per WP:SNOW. And the third is well on its way to having a very similar result. Besides these three AFD's by OM, several other of my edits have also been frequently targeted by OR. Marlin reverted and wrote a lot of patently untrue comments about a summary of an Oxbridge theologian Lord John Habgood's work on a particular aspect of the demarcation problem: [4]. Similar issues extenuating circumstances exist with the editor Eldereft (see Talk:Issues in Science and Religion) and the editor User:Verbal (see [5]). Perhaps stating that these editors are WP:TROLLing me is too harsh, but I do believe that they are targeting my contributions and efforts and make comments about them are obviously disingenuous that do not add value to the wikipedia project, instead, at least in my interactions with them, subtract value from it. </ref>
  • I'm afraid that this is not about you. Before you start talking about "corruption", I hasten to point out that everybody has a right to comment about a contribution to Wikipedia, and nobody should take such comments personally. It is the contribution, rather than any of the contributors, that we find wanting. The entire text is as follows: "Precambrian rabbit or fossil rabbits in the Precambrian is a routine one-line reply to a question asked of evolutionary biologists along the lines of 'What observations would disprove evolutionary biology?' [1] Its origins are attributed to John Burdon Sanderson Haldane. [2]". The article itself does not add to anyone's knowledge about what Professor Haldane was talking about, nor does it demonstrate that the phrase is the basis of an academic debate. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For those interested, here is a link to the Wikiquette alerts discussion that FireFly alludes to above. Please note the conclusions. Thanks, Verbal chat 15:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good faith comment: I nominated this article for deletion. The decision had no regard for who created the article.--Loodog (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a catchy phrase, and reasonably frequently cited, but we do not need a WP article on every phrase used by every author. GNUSMAS : TALK 13:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not about having "a WP article on every phrase used by every author". But some phrases have a lot of thinking behind them (Haldane was very prolific in this) and some, such as "Small shelly fossils" or "Cambrian explosion" start or focus major scientific debates. My impression, after skimming the sources I mentioned, is that enough can be extracted from these and follow-ups to produce an above-average article, to which others with wider scope can link so that they can get on with the rest of their subject matter rather than getting bogged down in details. -- Philcha (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I suggest that those who favour retention of the article would spend their time more profitably doing some work on the article to bring it up to standard and demonstrate how it is worthy of inclusion, rather than attacking the motives of those who disagree with them. My judgement is that the phrase "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" (which is surely the original and best version), unlike (e.g.) "Cambrian explosion", is not worth an article in its own right (I think Snalwibma has it about right, above). But if you can demonstrate otherwise, please go ahead. I would be happy to be persuaded. GNUSMAS : TALK 13:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentGNUSMAS's "I suggest that those who favour retention of the article would spend their time more profitably doing some work on the article to bring it up to standard and demonstrate how it is worthy of inclusion" is not a great motivator when all but 2 participants in this discussion have already voted for deletion. If all those who have voted for deletion indicate that they will reverse their votes if it can be made into an above-average article I'll do it within a week - I can't promise to do it faster because of other commitments, some of them on Wikipedia. -- Philcha (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if all of us would reverse their votes, but I can say that I would be in favor of keeping if (a) an explanation can be provided about what Precambrian rabbit means and, equally important (b) it can be shown by reference to any academic source or Creationist literature that "Precambrian rabbit" is the accepted name for the concept of something that would, if it were found to exist, call into question conventional belief about evolution. I would point out that even the more common phrase "missing link" goes to a redirect page that leads to Transitional fossil, but if this particular phrase can be shown to be-notable (some sources have been provided), an informatively-written article would probably be a keeper. Mandsford (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with Mandsford. If the article is just "Rabbits in the Precambian period would contradict evolution", there's no article to make. If, however, you could talk about notable people who've made this argument, the argument's history, etc... and can show this is the proper title, I'd change my vote to keep.--Loodog (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some research and revised the article. Summary:

• I could find no pre-1990s sources for the attribution to Haldane (died 1964), although the "Haldane's Precambrian rabbits" meme becomes very common in WP:RS from the mid-1990s onwards. IMO (not included in the article as the rest of this bullet is blatant WP:OR) this cannot be explained away by the fact that the Web appeared in the early 1990s, since I've found plenty of earlier paleontology articles in JSTOR and various other collections, and I think we may be looking at a scientific urban myth. Hopefully in the course of time someone will find some citations that clarify the origins of the phrase.
• Most of the sources focus on whether the theory of evolution is empirically falsifiable, as Popper said a scientific theory had to be. Popper's lectures and writings on the scientific status of evolution created quite a lot of confusion, which has been exploited by creationists.
• Although Dawkins said Precambrian rabbits would demolish the theory of evolution, a philosopher of science wrote that it would not, although (if the fossils were genuine) they would demonstrate errors in current understanding of evolution, and Benton pointed out that scientists constantly live with conflicting hypotheses.

My impression is the philosphers and evolutionary biologists quite often misunderstand each other.

I suggest we keep the article for now. During my initial search I found a few other potential citations which of course I can't re-find, e.g. another reference to John Maynard Smith as the one who attributed "Precambrian rabbits" to Haldane and one that said the discovery of Precambrian rabbits would not lead to the abandonment of the theory of evolution but to the creation of a more comprehensive theory that incorporates Darwin's, just as Einstein's Theory of Relativity does not refute Newtonian mechanics but incorporates it as a set of special cases where velocities and accelerations are low.

Longer term it might be sensible to review articles on evolution, philosophy of science, memes, etc. to decide what goes where and what wikilinks to what. -- Philcha (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Objections to evolution#Evolution is unfalsifiable, where the subject is currently better covered. (change to keep, see below) There might be room for an article on the subject; but this isn't it. If someone wants to do the work, they would need to discuss the various forms in which Haldane's comment is given – I think you'll find (as often with anecdotes) that there are several different wordings, more than the two mentioned so far. I suspect that any article would have some difficulty dealing with the subject: Haldane's comment says more and less than one thinks at first glance, and we can't read his mind. N p holmes (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in the light of changes: I don't think the article's ideal, but a redirect doesn't now seem appropriate. N p holmes (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge per User:Uncle G. The concept is notable and so deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have crossed through my previous redirect comment. Vast improvements have been made to the article to explain the nature of the argument, and putting in sources. It is a legitimate search term, and it's clear that Haldane and the term "precambrian rabbit" come up in debates about evolution. This would be the natural place to look to find out what the argument is. Mandsford (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it's a catch phrase encompassing a full reasoning and is apparently received shorthand for a history of debate. I'm fascinated to find it substantiated here in the pedia. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Philcha and SNALWIBMA. The (expanded, I presume) article describes a famous riposte to the "unfalsifiable" charge. --PLUMBAGO 13:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.