User talk:Stephen Ewen

*Category:Help requests

Stephen Ewen

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11

 Where Steve lives it is approximately: 14:55

Thanks

Thanks muchly Steve, nice to pop my head 'round the door! John Stephenson 21:15, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Follow-up

Thanks Stephen. I really appreciate your effort. I'll get started on the uploading tomorrow and start adding more to the article subpages as well. The sound files idea sounds excellent. Meg Ireland 03:11, 15 February 2008 (CST)

Please delete an image I uploaded

Stephen, I uploaded earlier today Image:Perkins Triangle Distillation Setup.png. The I found that the image had a flaw as well is being mis-named (it should be Perkin ... not Perkins). So I uploaded this corrected, re-named version Image:Perkin Triangle Distillation Setup.png.

I drew both of the above versions myself and licensed both of them as PD-new. They are similar (but far from being exactly the same) to the image we tried to upload from Commons but could not, because the Wikipedian who drew it declined to give his real name.

Could you please delete Image:Perkins Triangle Distillation Setup.png, which is the flawed and misnamed version? Thanks in advance. - Milton Beychok 02:03, 16 February 2008 (CST)

Done. I've had in the back of my mind to create a really nice 3-D image of that, but am not sure I will find the time but hope to. If you have a really large version of that image, send it to me by email so I don't have to strain as much should I find time to give it a go. You are a pretty amazin' fellow, by the way.  :-) Stephen Ewen 02:11, 16 February 2008 (CST)

Stephen, thanks for being so prompt. That image is 311 x 471px and if my 85-year old eyes can see it easily, your eyes should have no problem. In any event, the image as it now stands is perfectly adequate. Thanks again, - Milton Beychok 12:36, 16 February 2008 (CST)

Symbols image

Hey Stephen. There was a discussion about this on Wikipedia. Apparently the symbols are considered public domain because the symbols have existed for some considerable centuries before they were reused by members of Led Zeppelin. The exact authorship is unknown. Meg Ireland 16:48, 17 February 2008 (CST)

Well, look at it from two angles. Angle one: let's assume the individual symbols are PD. However, in that combination, a derivative work of PD materials, they may be trademarked, just as is the combination of symbols that make up "Led Zeppelin" (each letter of that name is PD, no?). Angle two, let's assume the individual characters are not copyrightable. That still does not mean the combination, the derivative work, is not copyrightable.

Anyone can take public domain materials and create a derivative work from them, and that work is copyrightable if it has sufficient originality. The severable PD items would remain PD, but not the creative derivative work that uses them. Which is the case here? Beats me! And I don't think its worth researching and asking Atlantic. Hence, I don't think it wise to assert it as "public domain".

I added some more clarifications in the notes section of the image.

Stephen Ewen 19:12, 17 February 2008 (CST)

Would appreciate your comments

Stephen, if you have the time or the inclination, please take a look at the list of articles created on my user page. Am I overdoing it? Or does CZ think "the more, the merrier"? I would appreciate any comments you care to offer. - Milton Beychok 00:16, 18 February 2008 (CST)

Have a ball, Milton. Stephen Ewen 00:20, 18 February 2008 (CST)

Time cover

I see that Prof. Jensen has put a Time cover into the 2008 Presidential article with a justification that reads: "fair use Category Five: Book, periodical, and disc covers, and promotional posters, comic strips, editorial cartoons, and closely similar". (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election) I wasn't aware that CZ had authorized this sort of usage. I'm all for it, of course, as I have a bunch of Time covers that I would like to use in some of the articles I've worked on. As I recall, some time ago you nixed my use of a Time cover until we tried to get authorization from Time mag. They sent us an email saying we could use it for $1000 or some such. You resent an explanation and, I think, we never got a reply. So, what is your take on the present use? Hayford Peirce 10:20, 18 February 2008 (CST)

Jumping the gun, is he? See CZ:Proposals/Non-comprehensive_fair_use_policy. Stephen Ewen 13:04, 18 February 2008 (CST)

I dunno. You tell *me* -- I've got a bunch of Time covers just waiting to be used.... Hayford Peirce 13:10, 18 February 2008 (CST)

If it were me, I'd go get after him for jumping the gun. Stephen Ewen 13:18, 18 February 2008 (CST)

I'm just an innocent bystander seeking elucidation.... Hayford Peirce 13:25, 18 February 2008 (CST)

Stephen, I too would appreciate knowing whether I may use magazine and/or book cover images in articles, without seeking authorization from publisher. Also: If I request permission for a scientific journal article or book illustration, can I offer that it cannot be re-used by others but will only be used for the article specified. And if so, how do I protect the illustration from re-use in an otherwise CC-by-sa article? --Anthony.Sebastian 14:06, 18 February 2008 (CST)

See CZ:Proposals/Non-comprehensive_fair_use_policy. On the other matter, check out CZ:Upload-Wizard, the section "From a copyright holder who has given me written permission to use his or her work". Maybe test it out by uploading . Things get really well labeled to avoid CC-by-sa confusion there.  :-) Stephen Ewen 14:34, 18 February 2008 (CST)

Re Life/Draft

Stephen, thanks for tidying up the images in Life/Draft. Gareth Leng happy with my responses to his long list of critiques and prepared to approve replacing Life with the draft version (see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Life/Draft#Thanks_Anthony). I've asked Chris Day to set up the draft version for approval if he agrees with Gareth. If so, will you look in and consider adding your approval. Thanks. --Anthony.Sebastian 13:55, 18 February 2008 (CST)

I can look in and add my encouragement as an author. :-) Stephen Ewen 13:57, 18 February 2008 (CST)

CZ:Recipe

Please have a look at: CZ:Proposals/Ad_hoc (CZ:Proposals/How_should_we_classify_and_index_recipes?) and please give your comments. Today is supposed to be the last day before it goes to the next step. However, there hasn't been any discussions on it. What do I do next? Supten Sarbadhikari 02:43, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Supten, you might use discretion and increase the period for length of discussion. At the time that proposal was initially made, no one really knew how to work the system, least of all the proposer. A lot still aren't sure. :-) Stephen Ewen 02:48, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Second. Definitely. That's only fair. That was one of the very first proposals, and I for one still don't have my head completely around this. Aleta Curry 14:44, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Hobbies

"My hobbies are...", or, "I enjoy da-da-da and ta-ta-ta as hobbies..." or "As a hobby, I do this." ;) --Robert W King 15:10, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Driving manual

Steve, why don't you propose (and drive) another proposal on Driving proposals? :-) Supten Sarbadhikari 01:06, 20 February 2008 (CST)

Can you make a proposal for that first? :-) Stephen Ewen 03:59, 20 February 2008 (CST)

Deleting an article and renaming another

Stephen: The following too technical for me.

I wish to delete http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:How_to_submit_articles_in_word_processor_format.

And I wish to rename http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Email_us_an_article_in_word_processor_format using the proper naming convention for CZ: type articles.

Will you do those for me. Those involved have no disagreement. Thanks in advance.

I may have to change the link on Main Page after renaming http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Email_us_an_article_in_word_processor_format. --Anthony.Sebastian 19:34, 20 February 2008 (CST)

Well, we can't please 'em all

Think maybe this fellow is having a bad day? Aleta Curry 04:10, 22 February 2008 (CST)

Problem with Daniel Mietchen entry on Editors list

Hi Stephen, User:Daniel Mietchen is incorrectly listed on the page of Editors under the "U" category and I can't seem to edit that particular page. He tried to email the editors but was rejected when his name was not found. Is this something you can fix and correspond with Daniel regarding the fix afterwards? Many thanks. David E. Volk

You can see the fix here - not sure how to ever automate that. Stephen Ewen 13:11, 22 February 2008 (CST)

Thanks Stephen! David E. Volk 13:47, 22 February 2008 (CST)

BTW, one can always search for someone's last name. Stephen Ewen 14:43, 22 February 2008 (CST)

I had no problem finding him on the list, but apparently the moderator of the Editor email list did. :) David E. Volk

Buck Owens

Can you check out this article - Draft:Buck Owens. I have no idea what's going on there. --Todd Coles 22:25, 23 February 2008 (CST)

It was a strange, fannish article, with many strange features that we didn't know what to do with (the original author disappeared) and we moved it into the discussion area to wait while we waited to see if anything else would happen to it. Hayford Peirce 23:13, 23 February 2008 (CST)

Sounds like a reasonable move. Stephen Ewen 23:14, 23 February 2008 (CST)

Did I do this one right?

The process for uploading such images seems to have become awfully complicated... Image:Bessemer_process_1889.gif --Joe Quick 13:03, 25 February 2008 (CST)

That's because that category of image lacks a section at the Upload Wizard, where its very easy. :-) Stephen Ewen 13:33, 25 February 2008 (CST)

Well, the upload wizard and associated process actually made the whole process much harder because it doesn't address such cases. Will it be an option there sometime in the future? I hope so.

Anyway, thanks for touching things up. Did you read the permission email? They asked for the credit line to read a very specific way. Are you sure we shouldn't follow their instructions? --Joe Quick 14:25, 26 February 2008 (CST)

Seems like they confused a credit line with a full citation; the latter is at the image page and can be cited int he article. And yes, plans are for a section for that upload type. It will have the same level of automation as this (you might try an dummy upload with it using Image:Testing_-_1,_2,_3,4.jpg to check it out). Stephen Ewen 15:10, 26 February 2008 (CST)

Talk links in signatures

Well, I was going to ask you how to do this, but I see from a posting further up the page that this has been disabled. Sigh. Why, if you don't mind my asking - was it because people were getting excessively 'cute' with their signatures? I find that talk link very useful (as do many), so is there any chance that someday the software could be mod'd to allow just that option (as a checkbox, like "Raw signatures) - "Add link to talk page in signature", or something like that? J. Noel Chiappa 16:24, 25 February 2008 (CST)

I was going to do something fancy too; guess the kibosh is on it. --Robert W King 16:25, 25 February 2008 (CST)

Sounds like a neat idea.... Feature requests can be addressed to bugs@citizendium.org and to https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org. Stephen Ewen 16:28, 25 February 2008 (CST)

Approval nomination process?

Hi, could you do me a favour and take a really quick look at CZ_Talk:Approval_Process#Updated nomination instructions - hopefully correctly! (and maybeCZ:Approval_Process too) and tell me if I have correctly worked out (and documented) how the Approval nomination process works now? What was there before didn't seem to match what I was seeing out in the Wiki, so I Was Bold and went ahead and updated the instructions (thinking that if they were wrong, they'd be confusing as all getout to less technical editors). Thanks! J. Noel Chiappa 19:05, 25 February 2008 (CST)

CZ:RBI

Could you restore that? It's a guideline that was under construction. I guess I should've said something. THX! --Greg Pass 20:08, 25 February 2008 (CST)

I can give you the text, but CZ:Proposals is where you would craft such a page, or else in userspace. You might wish to get a good handle on the current system before doing something like that, however. For example, Citizendium does not have Wikipedia-styled "guideline" pages like that, has a rules against shortcut acronyms as was posted there, the constabulary already has clear blocking and vandalism procedures, and the latter has been so negligible as to be not worth mentioning. Stephen Ewen 20:17, 25 February 2008 (CST)

Eduzendium

Hi Stephen, I haven't been participating much as of late due to the demands on new faculty. However, I am going to have my microbiology class participate in eduzendium. [CZ:Biol_201:_General_Microbiology]. I tried contacting various constables about facilitating the registration of my students, but received no reply. Most of the students (~55) will be registering in the next two weeks. I just want to make sure the registration process goes smoothly and that they are registered in a timely manner in order to finish the assignment by the end of april. These students will be registering with emails ending in @qc.cuny.edu I was hoping to touch base with you about this.--John J. Dennehy 15:44, 27 February 2008 (CST)

Great, John, I will let all constables know. Also, for your students' articles, do you wish them to be editable by anyone or only to the assigned student? There ought be some notice atop the article in the case of the former. Stephen Ewen 17:35, 27 February 2008 (CST)

good point. Only student should edit at least until the assignment is over. I'll add a notice to the template. BTW I will be suggesting this template: Biggius microbia --John J. Dennehy 19:25, 27 February 2008 (CST)

Re nominating Life/Draft for approval

Stephen, the approval process (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Approval_Process) allows that three "involved" editors of an article can together nominate a draft version to replace an approved version, without an "uninvolved" editor:

The editorial procedures remain the same as for the original approval. Either one uninvolved editor or three involved editors can call for an article to be approved. They do this by returning to the XYZ/metadata page and fill out the To-Approve section of the template again.

Gareth has indicated he's prepared to approve. If you agree, I'll see if I can figure out how to set the 'to approve' banner with our three usernames.

I'll check back here for your reesponse. --Anthony.Sebastian 17:48, 27 February 2008 (CST)

Remember, I'm not an editor but a constable. I can only encourage as an author. Stephen Ewen 18:23, 27 February 2008 (CST)

Recipes again

Please have a look at CZ:Proposals/Recipes_Subpage_and_Accompanying_Usage_Policy#Next_steps.3F. Supten Sarbadhikari 23:34, 27 February 2008 (CST)

Bonita de Klerk

My student User:Bonita de Klerk says she doesn't have a password yet so can't log in. Is that possible after two weeks? I needed access to her account to upload part of a jointly authored article that was done by her and me - Palau so that the system will give her authorship (by the way an interesting point is that when uploading an original article if two authors have contributed to it the only way I can see to ensure this is noted is by splitting the article and letting each one upload part). Is there any other way you can think of? This is obviously in anticipation that some of us glory mongering credit focused academics can convince Larry to allow credit and citation :-)

Thanks in advance!

Lee R. Berger 06:34, 29 February 2008 (CST)

P.S. there are a few problems with the anthro author page - bonita's name is there twice and we seem to have an abundance of people with the surname "user" ;-)

Lee R. Berger 06:39, 29 February 2008 (CST)

Oh Recipes!

Please have a look at CZ:Proposals/Recipes_Subpage_and_Accompanying_Usage_Policy#Concrete_Steps_Ahead and kindly do the needful. Supten Sarbadhikari 22:24, 2 March 2008 (CST)

Your fair-use proposal

Hello. The proposal record for "Non-comprehensive fair use policy", for which you are listed as driver, says that the next step (community input) was due to be completed 23 February. Could you please update the proposal record on CZ:Proposals/Executive, changing your self-imposed deadline and perhaps the next step? If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. Your newly-appointed Proposals Manager, Jitse Niesen 16:24, 3 March 2008 (CST)

Led Zeppelin

Stephen, I just want to thank you for voting for Led Zeppelin in the Draft of the Week. I never expected anyone to vote for it but I do appreciate it :) Thanks! Meg Ireland 17:03, 4 March 2008 (CST)

Authorship and Citation

Hi Stephen,

Will you take a look at this [1]

Lee R. Berger 01:55, 5 March 2008 (CST)

Nah. There has to be an authoritative decision about authorship for it to have, well, authority and thus meaning. We won't know if there will really be ownership issues unless the idea is tested under a scheme traditionally noting authorship. We should not be afraid to run that sort of pilot, I think. I suspect that knol will push CZ to this in the longer run, particularly if the authoring students - the resume-builders themselves - are given choice of where they write. This issue may ultimately boil down to a choice between having contributions chiefly from those for whom attribution is important or those for whom it is not. In any regards, given the real names policy and the practical need to credibly publish to advance careers (coupled with the limited time people have to write), I personally don't see this issue as going away. I myself worry that being cited as "an entry [ Stravenue ] on a user-generated online encyclopedia, Citizendium",[2] will not lend the project to the sort of trustworthiness that will come from, say in this case, naming a geography editor from the Univ of Arizona first and then, again say in this case, Hayford Peirce. Stephen Ewen 02:14, 5 March 2008 (CST)

Naw, it was actually my cat, Leonetta (see portrait at [3]), who did the Stravenue article. She's very good with a computer keyboard but diffident and self-effacing and wanted me to take the credit for her work. I don't know how this will effect my on-going quest for a PhD. at Harvard, however.... Hayford Peirce 09:14, 5 March 2008 (CST)

Meow. Stephen Ewen 13:47, 6 March 2008 (CST)

CZ:Upload-Wizard

I have to say, this looks pretty spiffy. Nice job on that :) Aaron Schulz 10:31, 5 March 2008 (CST)

Thanks! Robert King has helped some. Stephen Ewen 10:10, 6 March 2008 (CST)

I'm actually thinking of changing the format again; possibly with larger icons and smaller text. Maybe we need more, or custom icons? Right now it still looks very "thrown together" or "web 1.0" if you will. --Robert W King 10:16, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Stephen do you think you can find icons that represent the abstractions of

• "I (as in myself)" - perhaps a silouette pointing to himself, or something like that
• "Someone else" - maybe a silouette pointing to something else
• "Reuse with few or no restrictions" - not sure on this one
• "Professional work" - not sure either.

I'm working on an improved "icon-friendly" version of the upload wizard. --Robert W King 12:35, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Lookin' good! One idea for the ...wish people to reuse my work with few or no restrictions and ...wish to upload a work of professional quality or rarity is to create a graphic for the one saying "Free!" and another saying "Less Free". I'll have to think about ideas for the others.... Stephen Ewen 13:45, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Check it out now. All I gotta do now is add more icons, put the borders right, and figure out that imagemap deal, unless you already know how to execute it? --Robert W King 14:37, 6 March 2008 (CST)

I like it! The borders and centering needs to be made consistent, though. Also, it might be even more clear if each major section has a viewable border. Stephen Ewen 15:24, 6 March 2008 (CST)

I'm not sure how to change the color of that middle line; haven't figured that out yet. Also, what do you mean by centering? None of the text is centered. (Fixed). And when you mean each major section, do you mean the left-right, or each icon? --Robert W King 15:27, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Imagemap isn't working when I try to use [{{fullurl:Special:Upload|uselang=pd-old}}] --Robert W King 17:53, 6 March 2008 (CST)

I mean each icon/text unit when I say major section. This icon could be adapted by changing what appears in the textbox for the two types of self-released uploads. I'm not sure how to deal with Imagemap, perhaps just use the raw URL? Stephen Ewen 17:57, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Using the raw url doesn't work either!!

This might be adapted for the own release upload type. For one you make the green bright, for the less free you make the yellow bright. If need be, images of the icons with the text can be made and imagemap used that way. Stephen Ewen 18:02, 6 March 2008 (CST)

see http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:ImageMap#Special_chars_in_external_url and https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11504 They say fixed, but I claim either we have an outdated version of imagemap or it's B.S. --Robert W King 18:33, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Do the URL's work if you substitute unicode? See this. Stephen Ewen 18:47, 6 March 2008 (CST)

I tried %26 which is & but it wouldn't take it. You give it a shot, maybe I'm trying something wrong.--Robert W King 18:54, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Sounds like you've done everything right and have just run up against that bug. We should probably pester bugs to apply this patch. That'll fix it. Stephen Ewen 20:01, 6 March 2008 (CST)

See http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Short_URL#Ampersand_.28.26.29_problem Stephen Ewen 20:25, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Who do we yell at? --Robert W King 21:15, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Our own bugs people to apply that patch/update to the ImageMap extension. Stephen Ewen 22:04, 6 March 2008 (CST)

I emailed the bugs people, and CC'd you on it. I wonder if I should have cc'd Larry also. --Robert W King 11:13, 7 March 2008 (CST)

Meanwhile, could {{Plainlink}} serve as a workaround? Stephen Ewen 01:06, 8 March 2008 (CST)

{{Plainlink}} just provides a link in curly braces, doesn't it? I'm not sure how you would apply it? --Robert W King 07:44, 8 March 2008 (CST)

On the plus side

My long-wished timeline template is shaping up! --Robert W King 16:05, 9 March 2008 (CDT)

You need to look at it in Firefox. let me know if you need a screenshot of the display issue I am seeing. Stephen Ewen 17:35, 9 March 2008 (CDT)

Are you seeing the stem just in the wrong place? If that's all, then I'm not as worried as I was seconds ago before I looked.. --Robert W King 17:36, 9 March 2008 (CDT)

I can fix that, but hungry first. --Robert W King 17:45, 9 March 2008 (CDT)

I think I done fix 'er upped! --Robert W King 19:12, 9 March 2008 (CDT)

Indeed! Looks good in IE, too. Stephen Ewen 19:21, 9 March 2008 (CDT)

FYI: feedback proposal

It just occurred to me that I should point you to [| feedback proposal] in case you haven't noticed it and want to fill in why you think feedback should be on approved articles only. Warren Schudy 00:52, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

Credit for adapted diagrams--question

Hi Stephen, in my book you're one of the go-to guys on images and citations but I'm not sure if you check the forums anymore.

If I wanted to create a diagram or illustration in Illustrator that was an adaptation of a well-known diagram (for example, Maslow's hierarchy of needs--basically a needs pyramid), how would I go about citing the original image? My work would be a derivative, but clearly I did not come up with the concept of the hierarchy of needs myself. Would an 'adapted from (reference)' suffice?

Thanks, appreciate your help. Louise Valmoria 02:49, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

Just cite the original work and note your creation is a derivative, as you note. However, this is already available and can be imported without problem, if specifically the Maslow thing is what your are after. Stephen Ewen 04:03, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for the advice, and also for your assistance with finding an available Maslow diagram. I am intending to fill out the rest of the motivation article with diagrams explaining the processes and the Maslow diagram is probably the easiest to find, but it does save quite a bit of time knowing that there is already something out there. Some of the other processes are newer or lesser known, so I also needed to know how to go about citing the correct theory originators should I need to make new diagrams. Much appreciated! Louise Valmoria 01:36, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

Your fair-use proposal, again

Hi Steve. May I please remind you of my earlier message, dated 3 March, on your proposal "Non-comprehensive fair use policy". As far as I can see, you haven't yet updated the proposal record on CZ:Proposals/Executive, nor have I seen any sign of activity on the proposal page. If nothing happens within a week, I'll have to assume that you are no longer interested in the proposal and thus remove you as its driver, which will render the proposal inactive. That would be a pity given the amount of work that you've put into it. Cheers, Jitse Niesen 09:47, 10 March 2008 (CDT) (Proposals Manager)

DNA/RNA

I'm not sure either, but there is such a thing as RNA! That's as much as I know. --Robert W King 16:14, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

Also, change your clock to reflect DST. I forgot to do mine also. --Robert W King 16:15, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

What would you gentlemen like to know about RNA or DNA? David E. Volk 16:20, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

With regard to a revert at Intelligent design. In the context of that paragraph DNA is definitely correct, however, in the context of first life RNA may well be correct. Intelligent design tends to use modern definitions of life, hence they invoke the impossability of a cell appearing from nowhere. But first life does not have to be cellular. This is the basis of the RNA world hypothesis and probably the reason for the edit you reverted. Chris Day (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

FYI: I added an new image to the RNA page showing the primary difference between RNA and DNA. I see now this whole conversation started with a similar switch of words, to the correct one I might add. David E. Volk 16:57, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

I have an undergrad handle on DNA/RNA and have read about the RNA hypothesis in the past (I think its pretty interesting, like most of these things) and have studied the Out of Africa theory (which I find pretty convincing), er, Out of Africa Theory (hint-hint) in some depth. My reversion to DNA seemed correct because of what was stated in the immediately surrounding context. I'll let ya'll hammer it out, though. :-) Stephen Ewen 20:05, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

The simplest organisms don't have DNA. Either the sentence has to be changed by removing the word "simplest" or the word has to be RNA instead of DNA. While the step from organisms with RNA to organisms with also have DNA is certainly interesting and probably challenged by ID-people I think the intent of the sentence is: The genetic information of the simplest (or first) organisms was too complex, to have evolved at random. Those organisms didn't store their genetic information in DNA according to the established scientific worldview that is challenged by intelligent design. Christian Kleineidam 17:21, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

With respect to science there is definitely a consensus that RNA pre-existed DNA, however, whether the first cell existed before DNA is not known as far as I'm aware. The ID article appears to be talking about cells and probably bacteria-like cells. Do ID creationists acknowledge a pre-DNA world? The article cited can be seen here and the minimal set of genes they talk about is definitely for a DNA cell. Chris Day (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2008 (CDT)