Talk:Crocoduck

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 March 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Creationism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Evolutionary biology Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Suggest Deletion and Major Rewrite of "Fossils" Section[edit]

This section as currently written is very misleading, because it reinforces the erroneous speculation that there might be an evolutionary link between ducks and crocodiles due to superficial morphology. "Duck bill" is a common name applied to pretty much anything that has an anatomical feature resembling a duck's bill, and contributes nothing to an article which is supposed to fairly define a "crocoduck". The great irony is that there IS an evolutionary link between crocodiles and ducks, but it is to found in the taxonomic clade of Sauropsida. The Wikipedia page on Sauropsida even shows a duck and a turtle together, stating they are both Sauropsids. I suggest renaming this section "Common ancestry of crocodiles and ducks," and including a brief non technical summary of the connection with a link to the Wikipedia page on clades, then including all clades between ducks and crocodiles (including Anatosuchus and Pelagornithids (which are also Sauropsids), Romeriida, Diapsida, Sauria and Archosauromorpha)in the "See Also" section. Anyone coming to the crocoduck page needs to work their way up through clades to evolution. RichardCraft (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Fossils" section[edit]

The section on fossils shows some crocodile-like animals with some features resembling those of ducks, but these are actually irrelevant to the concept being described. In fact, the scientific view is that there is no transitional form between a crocodile and a duck, as misunderstood by creationists, but rather there is some common ancestor with a long line of transitional forms descending to each current species. This should be made more clear in that section, or it should be deleted. 92.20.10.252 (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basal Archosaur[edit]

The Anatosuchus and the Pelagornithids are good examples of convergency and analogous traits but should not we include more examples like Velociraptor that trully demonstrate evolutionary progress from last common ancestor towards the contemporary lineages? Maybe a basal archosaur close to the common ancestor of birds and crocodylians?--94.68.216.184 (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up Language Per Editor[edit]

Agree with editorial comments in second paragraph of "In Creationism" section. Language cleaned up to address comments on this sentence, followed by editorial comments: "Their composite picture of the imaginary "crocoduck" showed the head of a crocodile on a duck's body to show exactly what they thought evolutionists believe, but can't back up through the fossil record." ^{[clarification needed]}^[1] RichardCraft (talk)

References

^ Comfort, Ray (12 February 2009). You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think: Answers to Questions from Angry Skeptics. WND Books. p. 30. ISBN 1-935071-06-8.

REference removed[edit]

This reference doesn't seem to have any relevant information: videos that might have covered the segment have been withdrawn by YouTube –"Atheist Face-Off: National Television Asks, "Does God Exist?" - BSAlert.com 360 - The Fairest and Balancest, Most Trusted Name In News". I've therefore removed the reference. . . dave souza, talk 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Kirk's picture[edit]

It looks decidedly b3tan to me. Is there any sort of confirmation on that? --Kawachan (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously photoshopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.191.131 (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Crocoduck Award[edit]

I think the Golden Crocoduck Awards, created by BBC Journalist Peter Hadfield AKA youtube users Potholer54 / Potholer54debunks also are worth mentioning. Any objections? --Johannes Rohr (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got a reliable source? . . dave souza, talk 09:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, this is very much a web phaenomenon, so the best sources are the original ones, the nomination videos and the announcements of the winners are gathered at http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54debunks

However, Potholer54 recently disclosed his real-life identity in a video entitled who I am. Here on the Guardian web site Peter Hadfield writes about his youtube personality, however he does not talk about the Golden Crocoduck, because he focuses on the other main topic of his channel, climate change, So I do not have a third-party report about the awards from a classical reputable source, but since this is not about creating a new article but about adding some info to the existing ones, the information might be sufficient. The author is, I would say, clearly a noteworthy person. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just reading this article reminded me of this award by potholer54. I agree that it is very relevent and noteworthy. Abhishikt (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking that we need a separate section for the meme. Objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.154.90 (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found![edit]

[University of Chicago paleontologist Paul] Sereno is part of a team of researchers that was finally able to reconstruct Spinosaurus in full using newly discovered fossils and information gathered from the dinosaur’s initial discoverer, a German paleontologist named Ernst Stromer. According to their reconstruction, published today in Science, Spinosaurus aegyptiacus was a gigantic fish-eating, water-paddling marvel; one that, in Sereno’s words, was “a chimera — half duck, half crocodile.”

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/11/6136443/the-largest-predatory-dinosaur-ever-was-half-duck-half-crocodile

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalidesmagia (talk • contribs) 17:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crocoduck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121115010325/http://atheistmovies.blogspot.nl/2009/10/richard-dawkins-on-colbert-report.html to http://atheistmovies.blogspot.nl/2009/10/richard-dawkins-on-colbert-report.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debate vs. denial[edit]

See the spate of edit warring around this. Discuss... Just plain Bill (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP claims "The fact is that creationist don't deny science, they deny certain theories", but to support their dogma denying these "theories" they deny both the basic principles of modern science, and multiple other scientific findings. For example, these are YECs, and beside dismissing geology, they're likely to dispute the speed of light from distant galaxies. The fun never ends. . . dave souza, talk 15:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The skeptics at RationalWiki have conveniently compiled a list of branches of science you have to ignore to believe in a recent creation. Many of the items listed have little or nothing to do with biological evolution. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, IP 32.97.110.61 is now at 6RR, with the goalposts set at "you will need to prove all branches of science have been debated by creationists to claim that we debate 'science'."diff I do not consider that the language of a WP article's lead merits that sort of casuistry. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the wording "proponents of science", would just point out that the two mentioned in the article, Dawkins and Myers, are both scientists. . . dave souza, talk 21:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken; I noticed those two being mentioned, but am not sure to what extent published criticism counts as debate. The only formal debate of which I am aware (not mentioned in the article) was between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, whose training is in engineering, and whose science activity mostly amounts to popular television presentations. My sketchy memory of that debate does not include a crocoduck. As always, I welcome cognizant correction. and thanks for your attention to this article. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the only debate mentioned in the article has Cameron and Comfort discussing the existence of God, I have boldly (and drastically) pruned the distracting part of the intro to reflect the critter's status as a symbol of misunderstanding of how evolution works. Is OK? Just plain Bill (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! . . dave souza, talk 21:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Comfort, Ray (12 February 2009). You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think: Answers to Questions from Angry Skeptics. WND Books. p. 30. ISBN 1-935071-06-8.

[1]