Talk:Objections to evolution/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Further clarification regarding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

The section that talks about the criticism of evolution that states that it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics correctly points out that this law is incorrectly applied since the Earth and living beings are not closed systems.
Although the section also clarifies that entropy is "a measure of the dispersal of energy in a physical system so that it is not available to do mechanical work", the wording of the section suggests that the 2nd law of thermodynamics can even be applied to the complexity of living organisms.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics pertains the transfer of heat on closed systems, it happens that this law can also be expressed in terms of entropy. However, here 'entropy' and 'closed system' have precise mathematical and physical meanings and 'entropy' even has a precise physical unit (Joules/Kelvin).
This way of criticizing evolution suggest that the 'entropy' of the 2nd law refers to the "dictionary" definition of 'entropy' that pertains the degree of disorder (wich is a very subjective definition) wich in turn can be related (again, in a very subjective way) to the complexity of some subject, object or system (again, very subjective definitions for the words 'complexity' and 'system').
The main reason why this particular way of criticizing evolution is flawed is not that the earth or living organisms are not closed systems, that only makes sense after you make the concession that you can apply the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the first place, wich I think is not being remarked enough in this particular section.

Plaga701 (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Add. "The section that talks about the criticism of evolution that states that it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics correctly points out that this law is incorrectly applied since the Earth and living beings are not closed systems."

pls. compare with: "… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself." John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980, p. 40"

As for other Qs raised, you could read more about subject if gentlemen here would not consider this article to be a showcase of "Leading scientist" effectivly eradicating any non-compliant opinion. Still, if you're willing to discuss the actual content and you do not mind politically incorrect authorship, this might give you some hints about your topic. I'm not proposing to accept it w/o critisism (after all we are humans capable of making mistakes), but if someone states something is wrong, he should IMHO demonstrate it based on actual content rather than put it on black list based on personal bias. --Stephfo (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Stephto, please see WP:UNDUE, and, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (again). Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

<br\> Where on earth did you get that I had a personal bias? Even though I am an atheist, that has nothing to do with the physical definition of entropy. The source that you provided states:

In this paper, the author will consider the fundamental aspects of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics applied first of all in the traditional definitions used in heat and chemical systems.

after that it says:

Then analogous representations of ‘logical entropy’ will be discussed where for a number of years many scientists (such as Prigogine) have been attempting to simulate in a rational way the idea of functional complexity.<br\>

Prigogine’s work has primarily been seeking to express self organisation in terms of non-equilibrium thermodynamics and the term ‘Prigogine entropy’ has thus been introduced.<br\>

This is an attempt to fit the concept of logical entropy in the framework of the 2lotd, wich is not invalid or preposterous, but failure to do so in a way that encircles every single thing we classify as a system (be it biological, social, mathematical...) does not allow to say that the systems that fail to fit in this new law break the 2lotd. It just allow us to say that the 2lotd cannot be adapted to represent these systems.<br\> It's true that the 2lotd can be applied to closed and open systems, but the issue remains the same, the entropy word is miss-used, because it does not pertain any notion or concept of order or complexity when in the context of the 2lotd, it pertains Joules over Kelvin. In blunt terms (I know biologists and physicist are gonna curse me for what I'm about to do), the entropy change between me and the common ancestor I share would have been to be messured (withing the context of the 2lotd) by taking the average tempeture of the ancestor, every one on it's descendants up until my father and mother while taking the amount of heat introduced in these aforementioned primates, doing the same with me, and the applying the formula deltaS = amount_of_heat_taken/origal_tempeture, and even then it wouldn't make any kind of sense (it doesn't make sense the way it's written now), because the second law of thermodynamics talks about physical entropy, not the perceived complexity of the descendants of an organism over time, wich is a heavily subjective notion that can change from one culture to another and over time.
Plaga701 (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose we add this paragraph (I have to find sources to support this):

However as mentioned above, in the context of the second law of thermodynamics, entropy refers to the physical unit joules per kelvin. This definition of entropy is fundamentally different from the more common definition that pertains the level of perceived disorder or complexity of a subject, object or system. Therefore, the entropy that is used to formulate this law cannot be applied to the perceived complexity of organisms, because it not what it measures.<br\>

Plaga701 (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible sources that I have found for this paragraph:<br\>

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html<br\> http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm<br\> http://academicearth.org/lectures/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-and-entropy<br\> http://academicearth.org/lectures/second-law<br\> http://www.khanacademy.org/video/entropy-intuition<br\> http://www.khanacademy.org/video/reconciling-thermodynamic-and-state-definitions-of-entropy<br\> I'm having a hard time finding sourced sources for basic physical concepts like entropy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaga701 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If nobody disagrees, I'll add the previous paragraph the the section pertaining the 2nd law with the sources that I provided plus this one: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/189035/entropy<br\> Plaga701 (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The Article Looks like a talk page.

Starting in the "Religious Nature" there are several indented lines which are not in the form of encyclopedic information, but instead read like a verbal or personal argument against the previous writing. It may have citations, but it is quite clearly inappropriate wording and styling for Wikipedia. They need extensive re-writing; if that is not possible, then they must be purged, and moved to the Talk page. 96.28.157.126 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The 'indents' you refer to are all block quotes which are formatted quite correctly.Tmol42 (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I was about to post thatTmol42, but you beat me to it... Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and Weasel words

This article reads as if it were written by an expert on the subject who has a strong objection to the nature of this article. After every example of an objection to evolution there are subsequent paragraphs that refute each objection. These paragraphs of refute are more appropriately placed in a "Criticisms" section at or near the end of the article and in a proportion relatively small to that of the main article so that the major written proportion of the page is given to the articles main subject matter 'objections to evolution.' Within the criticisms column and link should be made to a page expanding on the arguments for evolution.

This article also contains numerous weasel words so that a bias is given towards a rebuttal of objections to evolution, for example the following weasel words can be found thought the article and are stared within their respective sentences; 1)Even though biology has long shown that humans are animals, ***some people*** feel that humans should be considered separate from, and/or superior to, animals. 2)Other common objections to evolution ***allege*** that evolution leads to objectionable results, including bad beliefs, behaviors, and events. 3)These objections have been rejected by most scientists, as have ***claims*** that intelligent design, or any other creationist explanation, meets the basic scientific standards that would be required to make them scientific alternatives to evolution. 4)In the years since Behe proposed irreducible complexity, new developments and advances in biology, such as an improved understanding of the evolution of flagella,[132] have already ***undermined*** these arguments.

Other weasel techniques included in this article are use of quotations around words when they are not grammatically needed such as; "Critics of evolution frequently assert that evolution is "just a theory,"..." and "or that certain fossils, such as polystrate fossils, are seemingly "out of place"..."

Lastly while the article does contain many appropriate references there are instances where the writer does not reference material which need research to support their claims, such as

1)In response, creationists have disputed the level of scientific support for evolution. The Discovery Institute has gathered over 600 scientists since 2001 to sign "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" in order to show that there are a number of scientists who dispute what they refer to as "Darwinian evolution". This statement did not profess outright disbelief in evolution, but expressed skepticism as to the ability of "random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." Several counter-petitions have been launched in turn, including A Scientific Support for Darwinism, which gathered over 7,000 signatures in four days, and Project Steve, a tongue-in-cheek petition that has gathered 1,151 (as of January 18, 2011) evolution-supporting scientists named "Steve". 2) Rather, they dispute the occurrence of major evolutionary changes over long periods of time, which by definition cannot be directly observed, only inferred from microevolutionary processes and the traces of macroevolutionary ones. 3)Supporters of evolution dismiss such criticisms as counterfactual, and some argue that the opposite seems to be the case.

This article as a whole tends to speak more about how 'Objections to evolution' can be proven wrong than it speaks about the objections themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbeals123 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 8 August 2011

The article is about objections made to evolution, not about making objections to evolution. Having said that, Wikipedia is obligated to give more credence to the consensus, which shows that Creationism is not a science, and that Creationist objections to evolutionary biology and other sciences are not credible. Furthermore:

1) Very few of the scientists gathered by the Discovery Institute for its "dissent from Darwinism" are biologists, and several of them were tricked by deliberately misleading wording.

2) Creationists quibble vociferously all the time about "differences between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution.'" It's a classic example of the logical fallacy of "moving the goalposts." Creationists claim that there is a great distinction between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution,' but deliberately refuse to explain what that distinction is so that they can automatically disqualify any and all examples of 'macroevolution' brought before them.

3) Supporters of evolution dismiss creationists' criticisms as counter-factual because such criticisms ARE ALWAYS COUNTER-FACTUAL to begin with. In other words, this article is written in an acceptable bias, in the same way the articles about the Hollow Earth, Hollow Moon, Expanding Earth, and Moon Landing Hoax are written with.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr Fink is exactly right. Bbeals123, if you want to understand why this article treats the anti-science claims made against evolution the way it does, please review WP:FRINGE. If you do, you'll see that Wikipedia accepts articles about fringe theories like creationism and intelligent design, so long as they are duly treated as fringe theories, along with an explanation of why scientists almost universally reject them and how they depend on fundamental flaws in reason and logic. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Guidance may also be found in WP:WEIGHT & WP:CSECTION. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Still, I think Bbeals123 has a point regarding the unsourced material and weasel words? Does anybody else feel the same way?? Plaga701 (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Just read through this page and it's different from other objection/criticism pages I've read. It seems bias when it should be factual. Wikipedia is not a pursuasive essay. Daniel (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And I quote, "The article is about objections made to evolution, not about making objections to evolution." Wikipedia is not obligated to remain neutral by giving fringe views equal weight.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Weight doesn't amount to a bias. It's fair to give something lesser weight which is what this article is but the bias isn't needed. wikipedia:fringe theories Daniel (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The real neutrality is to show the scientific consensus. Every single article about unreasonable objections against a massive amount of evidence must show why those objections are rejected by scientists. For exemple, the Holocaust denial page shows why the objections to that event are not taken serious by the vast majority of historians. 189.13.99.162 (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• points* THANK YOU, that is it exactly.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• THANK YOU for proving too much. It has been clearly demonstrated that this page is either titled incorrectly, or has completely incorrect content. The title "Objections to Evolution" indicates that the article would be about the objections, and NOT the criticism of those objections. As is clearly seen with the Holocaust denial page vs the Criticism of Holocaust denial page. The page is clearly a misguided attempt to refute the objections, and the title should be changed. See any other "Objections to ____" page, and you'll notice that the page has been moved or redirected to the main article because those pages purely talk ABOUT the objections, and do not REFUTE the objections. Freakshoww (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly Freakshoww! The page and its reasons should stand on their own (right or wrong) rather than having objections inserted at every turn. A criticisms section is fine, but you don't see this on normal pages. Kind of an apples to oranges comparison, but it would be crazy to see in the plot section on Fellowship of the Ring (Film) a sentence by sentence objection to how Jackson "ruined the book by his mis-interpretation of Tolkein's masterpiece". Wikipedia isn't about proving a point or swaying opinion - and this is what the constant objections on this page are trying to do. The page should either be relabeled to show that it's really not about the Objections to evolution (and is really about the Objections to the Objections to evolution) or it needs a rewrite to move all the objections into a separate section per mult other examples in Wiki. Ckruschke (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Some articles have criticism sections, some have the criticism interwoven into the article. I think the latter is best for this article. As Wikipedia reflects mainstream sources, this article needs to also. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that *some* articles can have constructive criticism interwoven into *some* arguments, however, this page is blatantly refuting every single point. The entire structure of the article is built around categorizing each objection, then systematically dismantling it. IMO, the best solution is to rename the page "Criticism of the Objections to Evolution".Freakshoww (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The article rejects and refutes these fringe views, I see no problem. Yes, 'blatantly' showing the massive scientific consensus. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is properly titled "Objections to evolution." So far, the notable examples of such objections fail to withstand empirical scrutiny, attracting notable refutation, which is appropriate and encyclopedic to mention interwoven with the objections themselves.

If an objection were to turn up, based in verifiable evidence, then it would get a place in the article. Rather than complain about bias, the "best solution" is to go looking for robust evidence-based objections, with reliable sourcing. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So the article is rife with bias and your solution is "go get more data"?!?! Excuse me while I laugh... The existing text is the problem, not the LACK of information (the page is huge and full of arguments against evolution). I'm still in agreement with Freakshoww - the page should be retitled (Criticisms to the objections) to reflect the obvious bias and non-NPOV. Ckruschke (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Debunking is not bias. The page is full of flawed arguments against evolution. You are free to bring reliable sources that show otherwise, if you can find any, __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

AGAIN the lack of sources/information isn't the issue. How the sources/information is treated IS the issue. To prove my point, here is a random section of the text under Creation of information:

Another new, and increasingly common, objection of creationists to evolution is that evolutionary mechanisms such as mutation cannot generate new information. Creationists such as William A. Dembski, Werner Gitt, and Lee Spetner have attempted to use information theory to dispute evolution. Dembski has argued that life demonstrates specified complexity, and that evolution without an intelligent agent cannot account for the generation of information that would be required to produce specified complexity. The Christian apologetics site Answers in Genesis, for example, makes frequent appeals to concepts from information theory in its objections to evolution and affirmations of the Genesis account of Creation; "[I]t should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation."[139] These claims have been widely rejected by the scientific community; new information is regularly generated in evolution, whenever a novel mutation or gene duplication arises. Dramatic examples of entirely new, unique traits arising through mutation have been observed in recent years, such as the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria, which developed new enzymes to efficiently digest a material that never existed before the modern era.[140][141] In fact, when an organism is considered together with the environment it evolved in, there is no need to account for the creation of information. The information in the genome forms a record of how it was possible to survive in a particular environment. It is not created, but rather gathered from the environment through research—by trial and error, as mutating organisms either reproduce or fail.[142] A related argument against evolution is that most mutations are harmful.[143] However, the vast majority of mutations are neutral, and the minority of mutations which are beneficial or harmful are often situational; a mutation that is harmful in one environment may be helpful in another.[144]

Note the tone and inherent bias of the choice of words.

1) "Another new, and increasingly common, objection" - this is a statement that adds nothing to the sentence, obviously implies "here they go again", and has no reference to it being either "new" or "increasingly common".

2) "have attempted" - even before the text "refutes" the information, the non-NPOV wording casts the information in a negative light. The sentence obviously needs to be rewritten to remove the bias. Simply state fact (Creationists use information theory argument) and counterfact (here is why evolutionists think this is false).

3) "makes frequent appeals" - non-NPOV wording casts the Answers in Genesis information as weak and grasping at straws.

4) "These claims have been widely rejected by the scientific community; ew information is regularly generated in evolution, whenever a novel mutation or gene duplication arises." - none of this text is referenced and smacks of original research based on one editors personal beliefs and/or readings. If it was the other way around, say "A majority of people reject evolutionary theory.", the sentence would have been flagged and tossed as soon as an editor put it in as unsourced, original research.

5) "Dramatic examples" - the two references (140 & 141) give one example, the nylon-eating bug, not multiple. In addition, 141 is the only one that talks about this. Ref #140 is a FAQ that "alerts" evolutionists on how to spot evil creationists dogma and thus is an opinion piece and shouldn't really be here. At the very least, it neither talks about nor supports the sentence that is supposed to be targeted to.

6) "However, the vast majority of mutations are neutral..." - this is based on one author so unless others have this opinion, it should be states such as "author Richard Harter argues that the vast majority of mutations..." The argument rfuting the claim is treated as a fact when actually it's based on one author. It MAY BE a fact - I'm not a biologist - but in this case, it isn't corroborated.

These are six examples in just 3 small paragraphs highlighting what I'm am seeing throughout the entire page. THIS is the problem. Ckruschke (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

I think you're under the impression that "neutral" and "unbiased" mean the same thing when on WP they don't. WP is neutral, but it is not unbiased. In fact, we are explicitly biased towards reliable, mainstream sources and scientific consensus, and biased against fringe theories and pseudoscience. Our policy WP:PARITY, for instance, allows us to use less than stellar sources in the case that we need to refute a fringe theory that has no mainstream refutation.

Our policies WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE deal with how we treat the subjects and this page is in line with those policies. It is a common misunderstanding that WP "tells both sides and lets the reader decide" but that is not in fact how we do it. The fact of the matter is that creationist claims are ridiculous and unscientific, and it would be antithetical to the goals of a serious encyclopedia to pretend otherwise.

Now on to your specific points:

1. This can probably be reworded, though I don't read it with the same implication that you do.
2. "have attempted" is fine because it is accurate - no creationist claim has ever been verified and thus any such endeavor will always be merely an attempt.
3. The AIG information is weak and grasping at straws. We don't give equal and WP:UNDUE weight to psuedoscience claims by pretending they have merit. AIG is treated the same way as would be an organization that tried to fit perpetual motion into physics.
4. There is absolutely no doubt that creationism has been rejected by the scientific community and there are dozens of sources used to represented this across dozens of articles on evo on WP. I'm also sure that there are good sources demonstrating "new information" even if that terminology were not used (because it is creationist propaganda and not a phrasing that we would use in biology) because it's a deductive consequence of natural selection and mutation - talk.origins is likely to have tacked this issue though and can be a WP:PARITY source. Also, the reason that a "majority of people" sentence would get removed is because what people think doesn't matter - WP doesn't give weight to the opinions of the masses we go by the experts and the experts in the relevant fields (biology, geology, astronomy, etc) have flatly rejected creationism.
5. Feel free to remove the second ref if it isn't being used to support anything on the page, just make sure it isn't used elsewhere. Note that "opinion" pieces written by experts in their field can be given weight, but I haven't read this source so I have no opinion on it.
6. I am a biologist, or rather working on it, and I can say that this is common knowledge learned in intro to biology or maybe gen bio 2. We could add a text book as a tertiary source but I don't think it's necessary as a non-contentious statement.

Overall it sounds to me that what you want is for this article to treat creationist claims with the same wording and deference as we do evolution, but this is simply not going to happen as it would be against policy and a disservice to our readers. Any psuedoscientific claim we publish has to be treated as a psuedoscientific claim, we can't pretend otherwise.

SÆdon^talk 22:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

SÆdon - Ok. Thanks for the honest and even-handed response. I still disagree that the article is not written with a biased tone, but I can't argue with your points. Creationism isn't the same as the flat-Earthers, alien hunters, and Holocaust deniers and the article clearly paints it in that light when in fact there are millions of people who hold to Creationist beliefs - hardly fringe. However, I am honest enough to realize when a voice in the wilderness is exactly that. Ckruschke (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Just to let you know, Creationism is not a science because it has neither evidence, nor any explanatory power (though many Creationists want to pretend that GODDIDIT is an explanation). Furthermore, Science and the scientific community are not a democracy: they form a meritocracy.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, you need to actually read the thread before commenting. None of this discussion is on Creationism itself or the merits/validity of such. Thanks anyway... Ckruschke (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Revert Explanation

I reverted this addition,

The obvious exception is group of biologists, prominent proponents of ID, such as Jonathan Wells, Scott Minnich and Dean H. Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, co-author of evolutionary book Biochemical Predestination, who claimed to abandon evolutionary position after being challenged by his student with question how could proteins in first living systems assemble without the help of genetic instructions.

because the "prominent proponents of ID" have repeatedly stated that they have religious and not scientific objections to Evolutionary Biology. And that there is no references cited to support suggesting that there is a sizable minority of biologists who support Intelligent Design while rejecting "evolutionary position"--Mr Fink (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, Stephfo, simply because I explained my actions on the ARTICLE TALKPAGE, and that I want to discuss it ON THE ARTICLE TALKPAGE does not mean I have "failed to explain (my) undo" in any way.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your explanation for revert was: "extremely questionable statement"

Pls. explain what is extremely questionable for you at the statement: "The obvious exception is group of biologists, prominent proponents of ID, such as Jonathan Wells, Scott Minnich and Dean H. Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, co-author of evolutionary book Biochemical Predestination, who claimed to abandon evolutionary position after being challenged by his student with question how could proteins in first living systems assemble without the help of genetic instructions."

Do you question:

• 1.That the members of this group are biologists and at the same time proponents of ID?
• 2.Co-authorship of Biochemical evolution?
• 3.Declaration of Kenyon why he abandoned evolutionary view?
• 4.Smt. else? (there is actually nothing else in this sentence)

Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You're ignoring my reasonings: namely, that your edit is falsely implying that there is a sizable minority of biologists who support Intelligent Design, while rejecting "evolutionary position," that those biologists who support Intelligent Design are prominent within the field of Biology, and that the biologists, particularly those who are members of the Discovery Institute, have repeatedly stated that they reject "evolutionary position" for religious reasons, not scientific reasons.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Should I conclude that you do not stand up for your initial reasoning for revert, you do not regard the statement anymore for questionable (that's why you avoid answering above Qs 1 to 4), but you present new reasons, namely:

• "edit is falsely implying that there is a sizable minority of biologists who support Intelligent Design, while rejecting "evolutionary position," that those biologists who support Intelligent Design are prominent within the field of Biology" -> I guess it is possible to verify whether the book "Biological Predestination" had any influence in the field or not, isn't it? The statement is quoting only 3 persons thus it cannot make any false impression of "sizable minority of biologists".
• "the biologists, particularly those who are members of the Discovery Institute, have repeatedly stated that they reject "evolutionary position" for religious reasons, not scientific reasons." -> citation needed!!! (I'm actually aware of quite opposite statement)

? Pls. explain.--Stephfo (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be very happy if our discussion could be continuing in a structured way. So far, I noticed you originally stated against my aforementioned edit the objection:

• Objection#1:"extremely questionable statement" but then you are not continuing discussion on this topic and answering my 4 questions. Thus, I have no choice but regard your objection as invalid.

Later, you have changed your objection to following statements:

• Objection#2:"edit is falsely implying that there is a sizable minority of biologists who support Intelligent Design, while rejecting "evolutionary position," that those biologists who support Intelligent Design are prominent within the field of Biology" -->Contra-argument: On the opposite, the original article is falsely implying as if the objections of ID proponents would be formulated by people without education in biology, which is demonstrably false statement, making a true statement about group of biologists, prominent proponents of ID, such as Jonathan Wells, Scott Minnich and Dean H. Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, does not have any capacity to make any false implication, it is truth that anybody can independently verify.
• Objection#3: "the biologists, particularly those who are members of the Discovery Institute, have repeatedly stated that they reject "evolutionary position" for religious reasons, not scientific reasons." -->Contra-argument: You failed to provide any citation supporting your claim, but if even being able to do so, it has no power to invalidate may aforementioned three propositions that do not contradict that statement anyhow.

As I do not see you reacting on my contra-arguments thus I have to regard your above arguments for invalid as well. I apologize for any inconvenience. --Stephfo (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Do we have reliable third party sourcing for any of this proposed claim? Do we have any indication that this represents more than an ignorable (per WP:DUE) "tiny minority" of the Biological community? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Which particular claim out of following do you question:

• 1.That the members of this group are biologists and at the same time proponents of ID?
• 2.Co-authorship of Biochemical evolution?
• 3.Declaration of Kenyon why he abandoned evolutionary view?

??? Pls. explain. You're starting to use old-fashioned tactic, driving discussion to distraction, is really Mr Fink not able to provide his own reasoning of what he did so that he needs your help? Did you force him to perform the change? So that now he needs to rely on you when it comes to provision of any rationale of what he did?--Stephfo (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

@Stephfo: It is now YOUR responsibility to explain why this addition belongs in the article, providing reliable third-party sources, as Apokryltaros asked you to. You may not turn the situation around and pester him to explain himself further, which he has, and then accuse him of "not standing up for his original reasoning", as you put it.

Provide reliable sources that meet QP policy requirements!!!! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK., pls enlist which particular you have in mind, and demonstrate that any are violated, thanks.--Stephfo (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Finding sources is YOUR responsibility. Read the policies, like I've told you many, many times, and you will know exactly what kinds of sources are good, and what kinds aren't, and also what kind of behavior is allowed on WP, and what kind will get you shunned, blocked or banned. Treating other editors as "the enemy" is not a useful approach to editing at WP. AFTER you read the policies and understand them well enough, I recommend that you find a WP:MENTOR to act as your guide and advisor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not treat other editors as "enemy" but demand the reasoning for their acts, it is quite logical that if someone removes some content, should be able to provide an explanation without the search of help of others, isn't it?--Stephfo (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, if you are not able to demonstrate any particular rule has been violated, it does not make sense to provide the overview of existing portfolio of rules. --Stephfo (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we have to go through this every week or so? Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agreee, I suggest I discuss the objections of Mr Fink at his talk page, as I believe he should be aware of what he did and why he did what he did, and that way we would not bother others. --Stephfo (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, do you ever intend to start editing according to policy, finding sources for your claims, stop disrupting other users' talk pages with repeated reverts, etc., or would it be better for the project if you were simply indefinitely blocked now? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You have failed to notice that the following Q is still waiting for answer:

Which particular claim out of following do you question:

• 1.That the members of this group are biologists and at the same time proponents of ID?
• 2.Co-authorship of Biochemical evolution?
• 3.Declaration of Kenyon why he abandoned evolutionary view?

Pls. explain, or are you not able?--Stephfo (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your edit was unsourced and was appropriately reverted. Your question has now been answered for the third time (at least) that I can count. Do you intend to keep lying and saying that it hasn't been? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pls. explain which of above propositions you regard for lying. It does not take too much literacy to verify that Jonathan Wells, Scott Minnich and Dean H. Kenyon are biologists and at the same time proponents of ID, there are direct hyperlinks in the text, or do you question this propostion? Likewise, co-authorship of Biological Predestination is directly at his (i.e. Dean H. Kenyon's) page, with ISBN number, if you have problems reading it let me know, I may try to help you.--Stephfo (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, pls. remind me what the 3-time answer was: do you question proposition#1, #2 or #3? I apologize for any inconvenience, but I cannot find this already 3-times presented answer.--Stephfo (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I WAS NOT AGREEING WITH STEPHFO, HOWEVER HIS EDIT MADE IT LOOK THAT WAY. [1]. So I was talking about Stephfo's beavhiour that we have to deal with every week or so, not anyone else. This is tiring as hell, and it also is starting to piss me off, learn how things work here, and do not screw with others' edits on the page here, man.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with User:Stephfo's insertion. If he/she can provide a citation that supports the information being inserted, then the material can be inserted in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have three problems with this text:

1. We have as yet no third-party source confirming the factual accuracy of Stephfo's oft-repeated three points.
2. Further, we have no third-party source for Stephfo's claim that this trio constitutes an "exception" to the claim that "Since then, nearly all criticisms of evolution have come from religious sources, rather than from the scientific community." This claim therefore appears to be WP:Synthesis.
3. Even further, we have no third-party source for Stephfo's claim that this "exception" is an "obvious" (i.e. prominent) one. Given that none of this trio have any particular prominence as scientists, some demonstration that they constitute sufficiently important an exception to be WP:DUE any attention is needed.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• 1.That the members of this group are biologists and at the same time proponents of ID?

Yes, it is questioned. Because there are no 3rd party sources to confirm it. As answered by MrFink in the 1st post, and in the 4th, by Hrafn in the 6th, by Dominus Vobisdu in the 8th and again by Hrafn in the 21st. (pardon me if I counted wrong)

• 2.Co-authorship of Biochemical evolution?

Yes, it is questioned. Because there are no 3rd party sources to confirm it. As answered by MrFink in the 1st post, and in the 4th, by Hrafn in the 6th, by Dominus Vobisdu in the 8th and again by Hrafn in the 21st. (pardon me if I counted wrong)

• 3.Declaration of Kenyon why he abandoned evolutionary view?

Yes, it is questioned. Because there are no 3rd party sources to confirm it. As answered by MrFink in the 1st post, and in the 4th, by Hrafn in the 6th, by Dominus Vobisdu in the 8th and again by Hrafn in the 21st. (pardon me if I counted wrong)

• 4.Smt. else? (there is actually nothing else in this sentence)

Yes, it is questioned. Because there are no 3rd party sources to confirm it. As answered by MrFink in the 1st post, and in the 4th, by Hrafn in the 6th, by Dominus Vobisdu in the 8th and again by Hrafn in the 21st. (pardon me if I counted wrong)

• 5. This demonstrates that there is a sizable and important minority of scientists that object evolution based on scientific reasons.

Even with appropriate sources, it would be questioned due to the fact that this only represents 3 people. We do not posses sources that allow us to make the claim that they are particularly important either. As answered by MrFink in the 1st post, and in the 4th, by Hrafn in the 6th, by Dominus Vobisdu in the 8th and again by Hrafn in the 21st. (pardon me if I counted wrong)

• 6. (5 written another way) This demonstrates that there is an exception to the claim 'Since then, nearly all criticisms of evolution have come from religious sources, rather than from the scientific community'.

Even with appropriate sources, it would be questioned due to the fact that this only represents 3 people. We do not posses sources that allow us to make the claim that they are particularly important either. As answered by MrFink in the 1st post, and in the 4th, by Hrafn in the 6th, by Dominus Vobisdu in the 8th and again by Hrafn in the 21st. (pardon me if I counted wrong)

Do you have any other questions? Plaga701 (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• 1. You seem to declare absurdity. If you declare that "Yes, it is questioned" that this group are biologists and at the same time proponents of ID, and you are consistent in your standpoint, you should demand that all these guys would be removed from category "Discovery Institute fellows and advisors" Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors and likewise all following information from their pages should be removed:
• Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) "Wells returned to Berkeley where he completed his studies with a major in geology and physics and a minor in biology Jonathan Wells has received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. He has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California, and he has taught biology at California State University East Bay in Hayward, California."
• Dean H. Kenyon Kenyon received a BSc in physics from the University of Chicago in 1961 and a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University in 1965. In 1965-1966 he was a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow in Chemical Biodynamics at the University of California, Berkeley, a Research Associate at Ames Research Center. In 1966, he started as an Assistant Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University and became Emeritus in 2001. Also: SFSU Department of Biology
• Scott Minnich ...is an associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho, and a fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Minnich's research interests are temperature regulation of Yersinia enterocolitica gene expression and coordinate reciprocal expression of flagellar and virulence genes.

This is very clear evidence beyond any doubt, denying it would require to betray the common sense.

• 2.Co-authorship of Biochemical evolution?

Yes, it is questioned.

-->You should perhaps better look at:

• Dean H. Kenyon Works by Kenyon: Kenyon DH, Steinman G. Biochemical Predestination. McGraw Hill Text (January, 1969) ISBN 0-07-034126-5.

or [2]; maybe this would help you also: [3]

• 3.Declaration of Kenyon why he abandoned evolutionary view?

Yes, it is questioned.

--> If you have problems to believe your own eyes in documentary "Unlocking the mystery of life" [4] (it is available also on u-tube)("I came to contact with powerful contra-argument given by one of my students that I could not refute: He was challenged to explain how first proteins could have been assembled without the help of genetic instructions. DVD: Unlocking the mystery of life 39min:35sec"), maybe this 3rd part resource could help you: [5] ("Although Kenyon was a co-author of Biochemical Predestination, an influential textbook on the chemical origin of life, he later concluded that evolutionary science was not equipped to answer such questions. Subsequently, when teaching the standard evolutionary model in the introductory biology course for non-majors, he would explain his own scepticism about these theories…").

• 4.Smt. else? (there is actually nothing else in this sentence)

Yes, it is questioned. --> Sounds awkward claim, not clear what else is questioned. I apologize for any inconvenience.

• 5. The source is the WP category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors Discovery Institute fellows and advisors and the documents like "Unlocking the mystery of life" as well as their books which clearly demonstrate that they play a prominent role in the ID movement.
• 6. If you do not regard movement ID for important (cf. "The most prominent organization behind this movement [i.e. creationism -note by --Stephfo (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Stephfo] has been the Discovery Institute, the driving force behind the intelligent design movement." in the Level of support for evolution), you should suggest to erase given article dedicated to it. Likewise, you should avoid using the term within this article page then if you stand up for what you claim. Also cf."Although Kenyon was a co-author of Biochemical Predestination, an influential textbook on the chemical origin of life, he later concluded that evolutionary science was not equipped to answer such questions. Subsequently, when teaching the standard evolutionary model in the introductory biology course for non-majors, he would explain his own scepticism about these theories…"--Stephfo (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Stephfo, I understand the logic of your additions. Perhaps, if you add references after the content in the format that I have done in this article (with the title, publisher, original quote, etc.), your edits will not be disputed as much. I hope this helps! With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Add. the lead is not the place to give these views WP:UNDUE weight; poor references; poor grammar and reference formatting

This WP:DEADHORSE issue has been argued to death in #Revert Explanation above. There is no WP:CONSENSUS for this poorly sourced & POV edit. Give it a rest!
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Pls. explain in detail, what exactly you regard for "poor grammar", poor formatting, and what changes you suggest in that respect and also why you refer to University of San Francisco or University of Texas as "poor references". Furthermore, the WP:UNDUE weighgt is contradicting, because if you stand up for what you claim, you should remove the mention of ID from article page as well, should you regard the ID movement and the and its proponents for UNDUE. What exactly do you regard in given sentence removed by you for UNDUE, are you able to support your claim with any demonstration at all? --Stephfo (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution and disruptive editing

There is a clear WP:CONSENSUS against Stephfo's edit on this talkpage. Further attempts to unilaterally impose it on the article is therefore WP:EDITWARring and further attempts to argue it here on article talk are WP:DEADHORSE -- and both are WP:Disruptive editing. I would therefore recommend that if Stephfo wishes to argue this further, that he engage in the WP:DISPUTE resolution process, e.g. by calling a WP:RFC, or making a post on an appropriate noticeboard (e.g. WP:FTN or WP:NPOVN). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to ask again what is the demonstration of claim "poor grammar and reference formatting" of my edit and why it is not possible to fix this alleged grammar deficiencies and formatting. Or was this claim used as kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, why there is no explanation in line with WP policy "Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion"? If there is no supporting evidence of given claim, then I guess it is illegitimate, IMHO. Thanx in advance for your kind explanation what you had in mind. --Stephfo (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is a classic case of WP:TE... The recent blocks apparently haven't done anything to change his editing style. — raekyt 12:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, there was no single "oppose" presented against this proposition: "I do not see any problem with User:Stephfo's insertion. If he/she can provide a citation that supports the information being inserted, then the material can be inserted in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)" hence I do not understand what exact statement you declare to become a "CONSENSUS", you failed to specify who declared it, and when.--Stephfo (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Pls. read the WP:TE you are referring to: "This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.". I do declare that the editors stopped responding at talk page discussion even when being provided time in weeks thus I had all reasons to conclude in line with this policy that "consensus [could] be assumed", i.e. that there is no opposing views against my arguments on edit add-on. Thanx for your understadning.--Stephfo (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

People might not respond to you because of your history of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and your POV pushing, it is getting tiresome and disruptive as hell. Please stop. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience, but I'm sure I'm not an author of any of the claims I added in my edits, if you dispute them, you should contact respective university presses. Thanx for your understanding.--Stephfo (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the article to make a compromise between the two parties here. User:Stephfo, I've reduced your content in the intro. to one sentence, while retaining two of your references. You inserted a reference which stated "first proteins could have been assembled without the help of genetic instructions." You can elaborate more on this topic in a separate section of the article, potentially one of the sections that is already extant. Moreover, I've added another reference to support the assertion that a small group of scientists rejects evolutionary theory on scientific grounds. I hope this helps! With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

And I reverted your "compromise". First, "nearly all" is what the reliable sources say. "Much" is a blatantly dishonest misrepresentation. Second, the other changes you made are your own original synthesis of what the sources say. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dominus Vobisdu, I've changed "much" to "nearly all" per your suggestion. Actually, the changes I've made does not constitute synthesis. The original reference, titled "Scientists confront intelligent design and creationism", states that:

Creation-science and ID proponents constantly repeat the canard that scientists today are questioning whether evolution actually occurred. Of course, the small number of scientists who reject evolution appears to be restricted to supporters of these two movements.

The reference acknowledges the fact that there are a "small number of scientists" who reject evolution and that information is appropriate to insert into the article. Furthermore, the reference that User:Stephfo provided, titled, "Rhetoric and Public Affairs" was legitimate as it states that "Although Kenyon was a co-author of Biochemical Predestination, an influential textbook on the chemical origin of life, he later concluded that evolutionary science was not equipped to answer such questions. Subsequently, when teaching the standard evolutionary model in the introductory biology course for non-majors, he would explain his own scepticism about these theories…." I am a neutral editor to this discussion. However, I do not understand the issue with including verifiable information into the article. It is evident that there is the phenomenon of a small minority of scientists (constituting the ID movement), such as Dean Kenyon, contesting evolutionary theory on scientific grounds. Rather than trying to intimidate User:Stephfo with headings such as "disruptive" editing, I would recommend trying to compromise to find a way to include his edits, as they do seem to come from reliable sources and are well intended. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but "a small group of biologists have abandoned the evolutionary position on scientific grounds" is simply nonsense. Please discuss your proposal here before imposing it on the article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Snalwibma, in reference to your claim: "Please do not accuse me of edit-warring. I revert to the consensus version" pls. note WP:TE declares that "This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." If you investigate the discussion in more detail, you would find out that there is no reaction on my arguments presented at 15:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC) 445676721, thus it is difficult to understand what CONSENSUS you refer to, who has declared it in your opinion and when? Thanx in advance for your clarification.--Stephfo (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Please also be aware that consensus may not be assumed if other editors are shunning you for constantly annoying and attacking them with your nonstop tendentious editing and edit-warring.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello User:Snalwibma, I discussed the issue above. I really wasn't trying to start a new debate here but was trying to help solve a previous one with a compromise. The statement, however, was buttressed by reliable sources as indicated in my previous comment. Nevertheless, I apologize if I came off as being rude in my edit summary. Perhaps you can address the issue here instead. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 19:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll address the issue here. The problem with your edit (which should be fairly obvious) is that you wrote that a small group of scientists "have abandoned the evolutionary position on scientific grounds." Unfortunately, the sources you are using do not say that. Clear enough? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the article to make a compromise between the two parties here.

— Anupam

• No you did not. You unilaterally elected to attempt to impose a watered down version of an edit promoted by a single editor and rejected by a strong consensus (i.e. this was NOT a dispute between just "two parties"). Given that this purported compromise suffered the same deficiency as the original, in that it failed to provide sources for key claims and gives WP:UNDUE to a "tiny minority", it was rejected. As Stephfo has now been indef-blocked for WP:DE, I would suggest that we declare this long-WP:DEADHORSE topic closed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

yes, dead horse indeed. Let us move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

First, I agree that this is a dead horse, but, second, Anupam, you've been here for how long? Since 2006? And you have how many thousands of edits? Surely you don't think you can claim a license to falsify the contents of sources in the name of compromise. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm adding to the consensus that the addition is a bad idea. Intelligent design is a religiously-motivated political tactic that has been rejected as worthless by the scientific community. Intelligent design is not a "threat" to the theory of evolution. The "compromise" is still objectionable because of the inappropriate weight it gives to intelligent design. Intelligent design is recognized by the scientific and judicial community as an updated version of the religiously-motivated argument from design discredited during Darwin's lifetime. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Pitman's notions

I've stumbled upon these interesting concerns while searching:

The problem for evolution comes when more than a single point mutation is needed to achieve a given function - such as appears to be the case with the evolution of the penicillinase and other such relatively simple single-protein enzymatic-type functions. [..] For all cellular functions there is a minimum part requirement consisting of amino acids in specific sequences. [...] Despite the fact that many genes and proteins are quite flexible in their sequencing, all of them have a limit beyond which all beneficial function is lost. [...] As the level of functional complexity increases, the average neutral gaps between potentially beneficial proteins also increase. With the increase in neutral gaps comes a decrease in functional overlap between various sequences. At this point, multiple neutral mutations are required before a new beneficial function can be realized. These multiple mutations are invisible to the powers of natural selection. [...] They are neutral with respect to functional change and this makes them neutral with respect to any selective advantage that nature might provide. So, the traversing of such a gap requires a truly random walk. [...] Walking along a random curvy path will take a whole lot longer. This is what happens with evolution when the pathway is neutral with regard to any sequentially selective advantages. The evolution of new functions at such levels requires exponentially greater amounts of time. Clearly then, these neutral gaps present insurmountable blockades to the evolution of new functions beyond the lowest levels of functional complexity - even for such large populations and such rapid generation turnovers as are realized in bacterial colonies (and we are talking trillions upon trillions of years for the crossing of neutral gaps averaging no more than a couple dozen residue changes wide).

Pitman specifically notes an antibiotic resistance prior to penicillin appearance, referring to R. McQuire, "Eerie: human Arctic fossils yield resistant bacteria", Medical Tribune, 12/29/1988, pp. 1, 23:

In 1988 bacteria were recovered from the colons (intestines) of Arctic explorers who froze where they died in 1845. Many decades later, these explorers where found and various studies where done on their bodies. Bacteria from their intestines were actually grown and subjected to various modern antibiotic medications. Many of the bacterial colonies grown were found to be resistant to many modern antibiotics, proving that this resistance did not evolve over just the past 60 years or so since the antibiotic age began, but where already present before humans started using antibiotics to fight bacterial infections.

Looks sensible enough for addition, although the latter example, given the article's size, fits better to antibiotic resistance, theistic evolution or related stuff. Brandmeister t 23:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is yet another WP:SPS -- of which we have thousands on the internet. Lacking some demonstration of prominence and/or reliable third party assessment of them, I see no reason for their inclusion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've verified the latter claim in New Scientist, seems quite interesting. Brandmeister t 09:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

My point was not that it was not possible that some bacteria had a serendipitous pre-existing resistance to antibiotics (I would expect a wide range of resistance levels pre-antibiotics, with a far tighter range post-antibiotics), but that the claim that this in some way disproves evolution requires "reliable third party assessment". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: But you have not verified that this is a commonly used objection to evolution. That's what prominent means. Actually, as it's stated in both the Medical Tribune and the New Scientist articles, it is not an objection to evolution whatsoever. Quite the opposite, in fact. That is merely Pitman's personal assessment, and does not come from his sources. You have to demonstrate that Pitman's opinion, or similar opinions, have been used widely enough in the Creationism/evolution debate according to third-party independent sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Without a specific statement that this violates the theory of evolution, it's merely an interesting observation. No reason to include it on the page as is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Cambrian explosion

Obviously there should be some mention of the Cambrian explosion (of which Darwin wrote himself), which is not there so far (excluding "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era"). Brandmeister t 17:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's trivial at best, of minor historical significance. Can't really see what it has to do with the subject of this article, or why it should be mentioned at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Dominus, I'm usually a fan of your work, but I'm having trouble getting what you mean when you say the Cambrian Explosion is trivial. Perhaps I'm missing the context of your remarks somehow. Having said that, Brandmeister, if you want it in, source it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Late night brain-fart. Didn't connect this with current creationist objections at the time. Withdraw my comment. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• The Cambrian Explosion argument appears to be a variant of the 'Complexity argument'. It's been made by Henry M. Morris (see for example this TOA writeup) and Stephen C. Meyer in his notorious 'Hopeless Monster' paper (which was the focus of the Sternberg peer review controversy) -- so it's at least moderately prominent. I'd give it a single paragraph subsection within the complexity section if/when somebody feels like writing one (but don't feel any urgency over it). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am with you on that, seems sensible. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Added it to the 'To do' list above. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I once saw a YouTube video of Ken Miller responding to this one. The video was quite a number of years old and I must say that Professor Ken looked quite young and handsome at the time. He mentioned that creationists are quite right that the Cambrian Explosion is a problem for evolution, but, of course, it's a much bigger problem for creationists, whose "theory" says that the Cambrian Explosion couldn't have happened at all, because, of course, they believe everything was created simultaneously a few thousand years ago. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Excluding those who believe in theistic evolution :) Brandmeister t 18:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think those are less creationists than they are people who accept evolution as a robust, predictive, valid, scientific theory and happen also to believe in a god. At least I would apply that description to Miller. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent addition which seemed to imply that both Darwin and Gould thought the Cambrian Explosion was an argument against evolution - as supporters of evolution, it seems rather, how shall I say, unlikely, that either thought they were true objections. Yobol (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I left Gould's opinion: whether he is a supporter of evolution or not, he nonetheless points out a shortcoming in the theory. Brandmeister t 21:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No he doesn't. There os nothing in that quote that can be considered to be an objection to evolution. What "shortcoming" is he pointing out? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a fairly common anti-science canard that seeks to pretend that Stephen Jay Gould was in some way an opponent of evolution. There's not a word of truth or honesty in it, mind, but creationists do promote it, nonetheless. I hope that's not what you're trying to do here, Brandmeister. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

But at least Gould was honest about the the lack of explanation for the Cambrian Explosion that indeed is kept out of the article while being a major controversial point between evolutionists. Classifying the Cambrian Explosion as trivial is besides reality. It still today is a question mark as it was for Darwin. Another omission in the article is the discussion on what the term evolution actually means. Besides the small definition of 'genetic mutations', the post-darwinist movement with people like Dawkins redefined the meaning of evolution with the clear notion that the process is not producing higher forms of life or 'climbing up' or necessarily produce more complex forms. With this reviewed definition of evolution one can question the falsifiability on reasonable grounds as no prediction can be made anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.216.111 (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

More like a guide?

This is obviously a good article, well-written and well-structured. But is it really appropriate for an encyclopedia? It reads more like guide to debating creationists, and obviously Wikipedia is not a guide. I would have thought that an article on such a topic would be more along the lines of, say, a brief history of evolutionary thought, who initially objected to it and why, what the responses to these objections were, who currently objects to it and why, what their reasons for objecting are, who disagrees with them, etc. I'm aware that the article already does a lot of these things, but the way that it's currently structured makes it look more like "When a creationist gives you this argument, here's what you can say back to them!" Just my two cents... 138.38.60.24 (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

One way to make the article more encyclopedic would be to replace Wikipedia's rebuttals of criticisms with third-party rebuttals, appropriately cited. Consider, for example, "Most commonly, it is argued that Darwin "recanted" on his deathbed, a false anecdote originating from the Lady Hope Story.[48] These objections are generally rejected as appeals to authority. Even if this myth were true, it would hold no bearing on the merit of the theory itself." Now, everything that occurs here is true, but the tone is not encyclopedic; 'generally rejected' is weasel words, and 'it would hold no bearing on the merit of the theory itself' has an apologetic tone to it, unlike, e.g., 'Even if this myth were substantiated, it does not address the merit of evolutionary theory itself' or, even better (though not completely necessary), 'Reputable Source X notes that this myth has not been substantiated, and that its truth or falsehood does not relate to the merit of evolutionary theory itself.' This is just an example. -Silence (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I think the only reason this page looks like a 'how-to' guide is that when it simply corrects misconceptions of specific creationists, that's perceived as an argumentative strategy rather than as a simple statement about the record. Compare List of common misconceptions, which has the same format. (Of course, the analogy only holds for creationist arguments that are premised on objective falsehoods, i.e., are 'misconceptions.') -Silence (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that that's a good example of how this article somewhat unencyclopedic in tone. Like you say, we really need more third-party sources that respond to these claims; as it is, the article seems to be full of improper synthesis. P.S. Thanks for bringing the List of common misconceptions article to my attention - there goes my afternoon! 138.38.60.32 (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is against Wikipedia policy at WP:NPOV: "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion." Where the assertion is uncontested, there is no need to frame them as the opinion merely of some particular third party. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Citing sources to preserve encyclopedic tone doesn't mean reducing a fact to an opinion. Compare my suggested phrasing ("Reputable Source X notes that this myth has not been substantiated") to an actual 'opinion-y' phrasing, like "Reputable Source X thinks/believes/asserts/claims that this myth has not been substantiated". Phrasings like "notes" or "points out" or "demonstrates" etc. allow us to put 'argumentative'-sounding (and therefore unencyclopedic-sounding) text into the mouths of sources, without thereby suggesting that the claim isn't factual. -Silence (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• The policy I quoted above goes on to explicitly state: "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." No reliable source contests these rebuttals, they are backed by the scientific community and a mountain of evidence, so there is no reason not to put them "in Wikipedia's voice." As WP:SAY points out "point out" implies truth, and if we're going to accept it as the truth, then we may as well say it in Wikipedia's voice. The "citing sources" bit is a red herring, as nobody was suggesting that material need not be sourced. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But it is. You've reduced the consensus of the entirety of the scientific community to the notation only of "Source X". Compare this, for example, to the following: "The Flat Earth Society wrote a book detailing that the Earth is a flat disc. Source X notes that the Earth is actually round". We have now created a controversy between "The Flat Earth society" and "Source X" by giving them equal weight, and by reducing the entire body of scientific knowledge about the Earth down to a single note by one source. That's not in line with WP policy, and it's precisely what Hrafn's quote at WP:NPOV warns against. Uncontested assertions can and must be presented in wikipedia's voice as such, not attributed as the opinion of a single source.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be possible to cite AiG as as source for what creationists do/think

Content has been chopped from this article recently because of a general effort to chop out all citations of sources from the AiG website. This is a problem for articles covering the creation-evolution controversy and I have made this point in a discussion over at WP:RSN. Opinions from other interested parties would be welcome. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why are AiG citations being chopped? I don't see why citing the site as a source for creationist claims would be a copyright violation. Unless it's out of fear that AiG is eager to file lawsuits over even the smallest threat of copyright violation?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe the allegation is that the AiG site itself infringes on copyrights by reproducing the work of others without permission. However, I don't think that should be an insurmountable obstacle for us as long as we don't quote anything that wouldn't be consistent with fair use. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I wish people would stop removing AiG citations and instead discuss here on this talk page. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The website is not reliable at all, not to describe views of creationists, nor to describe the state of the debate. The website is an activist website, with activist essays. It is not a neutral observer. Better sources must be found, ones from scholarly sources. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

An activist website can be a fine and reliable source to use for the opinions of the activists who write it - if they are notable enough for their views to merit inclusion. They are clearly not a good source for summaries or evaluations of other peoples ideas or research.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Better yet is to find secondary works that tell us the state of mind of the people at Answers in Genesis. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Manus is correct it is well established that you can use a fringe source as a reference for what holders of a fringe viewpoint actually think. As to the notability of Answers in Genesis, it has been established by reliable sources such as: the National Center for Science Education, New Mexicans for Science and Reason, and TalkOrigins Archive, that have named it when they rebutted arguments posted on its website. I agree that Young Earth Creationist (YEC) sites like AiG and Creation Ministries International, don't represent the views of all creationists. You have lots of kinds of creationism, including multiple flavors of Old Earth creationism as well as intelligent design, and even within these broad categories there is disagreement as to what arguments should be made against biological evolution. The purpose of this article is to summarize common arguments made against evolution and the responses of the main stream scientific community to them. In that context it is perfectly reasonable to cite AiG as a source for the content of some of these objections. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations needed?

I had a question about the section, "Unexplained aspects of the natural world." I'll paste it here:

In addition to complex structures and systems, among the phenomena that critics variously claim evolution cannot explain are... Most of these, such as homosexuality, hominid intelligence, instinct, emotion, photosynthesis, language, and altruism, have been well-explained by evolution, while others remain mysterious, or only have preliminary explanations. However, supporters of evolution contend that no alternative explanation has been able to adequately explain the biological origin of these phenomena either.

Why aren't there any citations for articles that "explain" the phenomena? I'm curious about what they actually found in these studies. Also, when it says evolution supporters see no alternative, why don't they consider intelligent design? This whole article is basically creationism vs. evolutionism, so wouldn't an alternative explanation for the biological origin of things like intelligence and emotion be that people were created that way? I'm neutral on the issue, I just wanted to point that out and see if that should be added or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.101.210 (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hominid intelligence links to Evolution of human intelligence, so (as that article is well-cited) isn't a problem. Free will is a philosophical concept rather than a scientific 'phenomenon', so probably shouldn't be there in the first place. For the rest, I suspect that they can cited if anybody can be bothered challenging them -- but doing so would be rather tedious and cumbersome. E.g. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL should yield some usable citations for the first on the list. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"Neutrality" itself a weasel word?

Some of the comments above to the effect that, "neutrality is defending the consensus" raise larger issues about Wikipedia editorial policy in general. The fact is, academia is not "neutral" or objective relative to general populace. My understanding is that academics are generally not anywhere close to having a similar ratio of political, religious, philosophical or other ideological leanings when compared to general populace. Does "neutrality" mean being a shill for academic elitism or does neutrality mean trying to cover the diversity of opinions that exist in the world non-judgementally? In common usage, neutrality means the latter, while the former is called "propoganda." --BenMcLean (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality for wikipedia means for a scientific claim, we represent the general views of the scientific community. An argumentum ad populum, that you're trying to make with neutrality, is a fallacious argument. The general population believes all kinds of things that are not true, just look at all the e-mail forwards and the need for sites like snopes.com. When it comes to science, belief and personal thoughts, ideas and observations give way to empirical unobjectionable facts. Theres a reason why in science scientists don't just go by their senses to make observations, they use things that thermometers, computers, data loggers, and other equipment to get empirical data that isn't subject to observational bias. (review observation). — raekyt 05:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You might also want to consider that "neutrality" as defined in Wikipedia documentation does not mean "we treat all views as equally valid", which would fall under the balance fallacy. Articles are generally based on the works of recognized experts in whatever field the article discusses - this means that articles about scientific topics are almost always going to be biased towards current scientific consensus. Articles about non-scientific topics generally do not rely as heavily on academia.

I'd also note that the term "general populace" is highly geographically specific - in my community, the views of the "general populace" are very similar to the views of the "academic community". The differences of opinions are covered, yes, but we wouldn't cite a sports commentator on an article dealing with computer programming because their opinion is largely irrelevant, just as we wouldn't cite a computer programmer in an article on the World Series (barring some unusual circumstances in both cases). The same goes for scientific topics. eldamorie (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of turning this into a POV contest/argument, I would have to respectfully disagree with your statement that the "general populace" has very similar view as the "academic community". Not sure what part of the US/world you live in, but this statement doesn't hold true (at least in the US) for the discussion of either Evolution or other equally hotly debated topics such as Man-Made Global Warming. Every national poll has shown that a pretty significant percentage of the population (it isn't a 50% split, but last poll I saw it was maybe 33%) believes in creation and/or creation science where as in the academic world, I think you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful at any location that believe in creation. There is an even bigger difference in thought in the area of man-made global warming where a plurality of the US population sees it as a myth whereas a plurality of the academic community sees it as a basic, proven fact. So I'd have to disagree with your example on the World Series - for this topic at least, the viewpoint of the public is germaine since it largely differs with the published academics (from whom a large part of the content for science-based Wiki articles comes).Ckruschke (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

That's just going to boil down to lack of science education in the american public, Wikipedia isn't for just the United States, and in much of Europe the percentage that accept evolution is extremely high. Again the population may believe whatever they want, but when it's just plain wrong and provable wrong, then obviously we're going to represent what is true. — raekyt 16:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I was in a similar argument in Wikipedia a few years ago, and the topic of "Wikipedia represents what's true" came up, and I was told/had heard that Wikipedia does not, technically speaking, "represents what is true," Wikipedia represents what can be verified with reliable sources. Of course, that evolution is true/repeatedly occurs in nature, and that its opponents' objects are based on ignorance, appeals to ignorance, and blatant falsehoods are verified with literal mountains of reliable sources makes this technicality moot.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Evolution and common descent

The following comment was left on my talk page. I have moved it here since it is part of a discussion on a major change made to this article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like you to provide a source that says that pre-Darwinian theories evolution. Lamarckian evolution also include common descent otherwise it couldn't be a theory of evolution but would be a theory of metamorphosis or multiple creations. IF there is inheritance then there is common descent by definition - Lamarckian evolution is inheritance of acquired traits, but it still presupposes that traits are passed along lines of descent. Darwinian evolution is different from Lamarckian in that it specifies the mode of inheritance as being descent with modification, and by including the principle of natural selection not simply common descent. Even anaximander's theory of evolution from fishes includes common descent. Please provide a source that calls Darwinian evolution "evolution through common descent" I know of none. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"evolution through common descent" gets 10 (!) hits on google scholar.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Common descent means that different organisms are descended from a common ancestor, and that all organisms are descended from one or a very few ancestors. As Darwin rather floridly put it near the end of On The Origin of Species "...with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved". The emphasis on this branching form of evolution was new with Darwin. As [[Edward J. Larson}} says in Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory (2004) p. 69: "... species would not evolve in a linear, Lamarckian fasion. Rather Darwin envisioned a branching process ... with various daughter species evolving in different directions from a common ancestor." As Larson and other historians (including Peter J. Bowler have pointed out Larmarck's theory of the transmutation of species did not involve branching. Rather Lamarck believed that simple living things arose through spontaneous generation and that they then evolved toward greater complexity in linear parallel paths. Now as to the commonness of "common descent" - I googled common descent with modification and got over 5 million hits. Here are a few from the first page of search results: [Darwin and Common Descent], [What was Darwin's Common Descent with modification theory?], and a [UC Berkely site] that says "We’ve defined evolution as descent with modification from a common ancestor". So I am going to revert the article back to using the terminology it has been using for a very long time, and ask that you not change the terminology until you can get some consensus on this talk page that you are justified in doing so. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

PS. If you want to see more on the differences between Larmarck's theory and Darwin's see History of evolutionary thought, or On the Origin of Species and/or the sources cited by those articles. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If I wanted to "see more" wikipedia would be the last place I'd look. In Structure of Evolutionary Theory Gould gives a very good description of Lamarck's theory in relation to Darwin - and guess what he doesn't say anything about "common descent" being the difference. Incidentally "transmutation of species" is also not a good description of Lamarck's theory as opposed to Darwin's since Darwin used that phrase in his notebooks to refer to his own theory prior to the publication of origin of species.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Maunus does sort of have a point, as does Rusty. It would be helpful if "evolution though common descent" were replaced by "universal common descent", without the "evolution through". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Even Erasmus Darwin proposed evolution by common descent in Zoonomia, that is not what is new about Charles Darwin's theory and also not what separates it from Lamarck whatyour own link defines it as is common descent with modification'. I will remove your changes again (though not inserting my own) and please don't reinstate them before you have a source that actually supports "common descent" as the defining aspect of Darwinian evolution.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Common descent did indeed exist as a scientific concept before Darwin, and there was indeed speculation about UNIVERSAL common descent before Darwin, but Darwin moved UNIVERSAL common descent from the world of speculation to the world of sound science. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That is correct, but all of the sources I have looked at which compare Darwinian evolution with previous evolutionary theories focus on 1. the principle of natural selection as a mechanism and 2. the principle of (common) descent with modification (which Darwin got from linguistics) as the principle through which new life forms can emerge from one. These are the distinguishing features of Darwinian evolution not just Universal common descent. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've found one source that seems to support Rusty's argument: Ernest Mayr wrote in The Philosophical Foundations of Darwinism that "Darwin's theory of common descent was so rapidly accepted because it supplied an explanation for the Linnaean hierarchy of kinds..." (this however, shows that Darwin's innovation was not to propose universal common descent but to explain it). Mayr's next sentence goes on to contradict what the article currently says - it says that it was exactly the implications of "common descent" (not natural selection) that were unpalatable to the religious establishment. I.e. common descent was only accepted by scientists - who were reluctant to accept natural selection, but religious groups might accept natural selection, but not common descent. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This is also supported by this article[6] in which Bowler writes that: "Ernst Mayr argued that the theory of common descent was one of Darwin’s greatest achievements, in addition to natural selection itself (14). So it was, but I think Mayr overestimated the rapidity with which other naturalists were converted to the theory. Many of the non-Darwinian theories of evolution proposed during the “eclipse of Darwinism” in the late 19th century were introduced with the aim of subverting the implications of the principle of common descent".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The idea of a branching pattern of divergence and common descent for species was central concept of Darwin's theory, and it was something missing from (or at least not explicit in) the most prominent pre-Darwinian evolutionary ideas. Numerous historians and Darwin biographers have made that point. I agree that the wording "evolution through common descent" was not good, and I will try and find a compromise wording that will still include the concept of a branching pattern of evolution with descent from a common ancestor, but will be more clear. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

How about "descent with modification" which is what your own sources use? I agree that the branching tree of life was central to the Darwinian theory and distinguished it from Lamarckian evolution, but the true innovation was to provide an explanation for it by adopting the philological principle of "descent with modification".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I took a stab at a compromise I consider keeping "common descent" essential, for one thing I want the link to that article, and for another I think that divergence with a branching pattern of evolution was an essential part of what the scientific community came to accept after the publication of Origin. I think other parts of this article make it clear enough that some people objected to common descent, in particular to the concept that humans shared a common ancestor with other animals. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that was a compromise - it was more of a clarification of your own view. The branching pattern is implied by saying descent with modification (which is clearly the most common description of Darwinian evolution together with Evolution by natural selection) because it is the modification that creates different diverging lineages. I've written [[common descent|descent with modification]] as a true attempt at a compromise - the link to the common descent article is kept but the more common and more descriptive wording "with modification" is included.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The edits you just made on top of mine do not work as a compromise because "descent with modification" does NOT imply a branching pattern of divergence the way that "common descent" does. As we just got through arguing many pre-Darwin evolutionary theories postulated descent with modification without branching divergence. I will try again. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well that is nonsense - that is what descent with modification means. The term comes from linguistics and is defined as describing a branching pattern formed by descent from a single common ancestor through modification of characteristics across generations. Lamarckian evolution is not described as descent with modification but as descent of acquired characteristics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Inheritence of acquired characteristics is only a secondary part of Larmarck's theories. The largest part was evolution driven by an innate drive for complexity. As far as I can read the English language, descent with modification merely means that things change over time. It does not directly imply that one ancestor produces multiple progeny. Lamarck's evolutionary lineages were parallel, not branching. Organisms changed over time but evolutionary lines did not necessarily split into multiple paths. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never seen "desacent with modification" used to describe Lamarckian evolution - exactly because his evolution didn't see modification as part of the process of descent, but as a process of inheritance of acquired characteristics. The teleological aspect of his theory is irrelevant in that regard. Also it is not "secondary" - Lamarck's theory is a two factor theory one factor is the drive towards complexity and the other the process of adaptation through "need". The substantial difference is to Darwin's single factor theory (the single factor being natural selection working on heritable variation)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

For a short description of Lamarck's views see: Edward J. Larson's Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory (2004) p. 40. For a more detailed view about how various historians have interpreted Lamarck's work see: Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea (3rd ed.) pp. 86-95. Both agree that Larmarck did not claim that different species shared a common ancestor. As Bowler puts it, Lamarck believed that: "...humans passed through an apelike stage in their development, but were not related to the living apes. The apes belonged to a parallel line of evolution that stepped into our shoes as we advanced to the next stage." Remembered that Larmarck believed that new lineages of simple organisms were arising all the time through spontaneous generation. Lamarck certainly believed in modfication in that he believed that the descendants of simple species were growing more complex over time. There were some 18th centery naturalists that believed that some species might share a common ancestor, Buffon thought that horeses and asses might share a common ancestor, and lions, tigers and other cats as well. However, for him this was a very limited principle, different cat species might share a common ancestor, but not cats and dogs. Pierre Louis Maupertuis also speculated about species diverging under differing conditions, but most transmutational theories focused on linear paths of transformation related to the old great chain of being idea. The idea that the diversity of life was produced by a constant branching process of divergence from common ancestors pretty well originated with Darwin and Wallace. I hope my last attempt at compromise can satisfy everyone.Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar with Lamarck's theory and I have not suggested that he saw a common ancestor for life forms or that he saw evolution as branching. In fact I am saying the opposite - because his theory is not descent with modification and is never called descent with modification. I have already written several times at this point that yes the branching pattern was particular to Darwin's theory but this model is not usually called "common descent" but "descent with modification".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of Language

Dead thread that doesn't have much to do with improving the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Statements regarding creationist and intelligent design advocacy as "mediaeval" in nature, and rendering the argument as totally ignorant is hardly neutral. If one believes another conception is false, such should be proven with facts, not subjective ad-hominem statements. The best way to prove a point is with cordiality and factuality, not ambiguos terminology and explanations. Nor reducing a belief regarded by many intellectual minds as veritable, to triviality and barbarism. Same with creationists / intelligent design advocates countering Neo-Darwinian Evolution. Wikipedia, if I understand correctly is not intended for heated debates, but objective information. --Tatoranaki (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Uhhm, "Medieval" is used correctly, neutrally and non-pejoratively here in a very literal sense. I'm sorry, but you misunderstood. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Ah, but the great chain of being is a classical conception, devised by Plato and Aristotle (Moral Implications - Humans as Animals). I apologize if I misunderstand, however, the language of the article appears to belittle the opposition. For example: "The scientific community, however, does not accept such objections as having any validity, citing detractors' misinterpretations of scientific method, evidence, and basic physical laws." Many prominent evolutionists, such as Dawkins, have stated that some form of intelligent design had to be implemented. Prominent scientists have become proponents of Intelligent Design, well aware of the scientific method and basic physical laws. I say this not to promote Creationism or Intelligent Design, but to identify what I believe to be a breach of objectivity and civility. --Tatoranaki (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC) "Many prominent evolutionists, such as Dawkins, have stated that some form of intelligent design had to be implemented." i would like to see that quote.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC) "If you look at the details of our chemistry [or] molecular biology. You might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process." -Dawkins --Tatoranaki (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC) That's a hypothetical. Examine the definition of the word "might" carefully when considering the meaning of that sentence.—Kww(talk) 03:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC) It's hypothetical and the point is clearly to show that even if this was the case it wouldn't explain anything. His point id not to suggest that creationism makes sense. That is a clear misinterpretation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC) It's not a misinterpretation, it's a misrepresentation, and unscrupulous quote-mine. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC) The producers of "Expelled" deliberately mislead Dawkins, claiming that Stein was interviewing him for a different movie, "Crossroads," then edited the footage of the interview in order to falsely portray Dawkins as a hypocritical, malevolent fop who hates religion, and seeks to persecute Intelligent Design proponents, yet, is secretly one, himself.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Do you have proof of this statement or is this your original research that you've gotten off the grape vine? Maybe he really is a hypocritical, malevolent fop - I don't think any of us know him personally. And if it were true, it wouldn't be any worse than the sneak attack interviews or hack job editting that are so commonly done by reporters on both the left and the right. In fact, Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC just did it to Mitt Romney by implying that he's an out-of-touch fool when the full text of the video (which I've seen) clearly shows different. Ckruschke (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke Did you ever watch the movie, "Expelled"? Did you ever read about how the producers of "Expelled" lied to many of the scientists they interviewed, claiming they were making a movie called "Crossroads"? Did you even bother to read the wikipedia article on "Expelled"? Did Andrea Mitchell lie to Mitt Romney, claiming she was from FoxNews? Or, do you just like attacking me whenever I say something you dislike?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC) The thing about Romney is not even tangential to this discussion anyway. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC) I'll check his other statement for a hypothetical, and post it if you're interested. --Tatoranaki (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Kww is correct. The quote occurred during an interview for the movie Expelled, where he was asked (repeatedly) if some form of "intelligent design" could have possibly occurred under any circumstances. He went out of his way to conjure up some possibility, and was subsequently misrepresented by Stein in order to make a point in the movie. Dawkins has since discussed it in depth; see here, for example. Ultimately, this comes down to reliable sources. We need sources to discuss changes to the article in any depth. The current article is sourced extensively.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Among other things, this and other related articles actually do explain why the mindsets and concepts of Creationism and Intelligent Design and other topics (i.e., "the great chain of being") are "mediaeval" in nature: that, and "neutrality" does not always mean giving both sides of a topic/conflict equal weight. Please see WP:UNDUE--Mr Fink (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Neutrality also does not mean not offending someone. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC) IF offended means upset over having your bronze age beliefs proven wrong by methodological science mountains of evidence, then sure neutrality means that. — raekyt 14:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Moral implications" section

I oppose having this material in (and I think it should have its own article) and would like to lead the effort to get it out.

The entire section is nonsense: All this section boils down to is (1) 'it is bad because it leads to X, like doing/believing bad things, so let's not actually evaluate this theory for what it is on the question of whether or not its a theory based on, like, good evidence' (2) 'hey, if humans came from monkeys, I guess we're not superior to them' (3) 'everything bad is caused by this theory' (4) 'this is condusive to bad thing, so it's bad, even though you could totally believe in this and not do bad thing'

Now, of course, someone is going to point out "But these ARE common objections to evolution". Yes, but someone can say "I object to you having ice cream because the moon is made of sand". That doesn't mean we should actually treat it as an appropriate objection, as in one which is intellectually honest, as in one that is not a cookie-cutter objection that can be used against, seriously, anything.

The theory of evolution is a theory and should be evaluated on its merits. All this section is is "I object for a reason that has nothing to do with it". I don't see how that belongs on this page. I would like us to stick with legitimate and plausible objections. Byelf2007 (talk) 2 January 2012

This whole page is nonsense and shouldn't exist, but because a buch of fairly vocal nutcases don't accept reality and instead think the wisdom and traditions of bronze age goat herders is all that is relevant we need this page. The moral objections to evolution is well documentable and prevalent in these people's arguments. Do you not think it's a common argument among the evolution deniers? — raekyt 17:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If I received a penny for every time I heard or was told by a religious rightwinged pundits For Jesus, or one of their braindead fans or creationist troll about how Evolutionism/Darwinism is so evil, just on Wikipedia, alone, I would accrue enough money to bribe the government of mainland China to buy Wikipedia for me. Seriously, as much as all three of us would like otherwise, we can not ignore the fact that many evolution-deniers deny evolution because they were taught that learning evolution magically makes one evil and or magically hurts Jesus' feelings.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The objections are ludicrous, but, notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding mechanisms to "Creation of information" section

I think the "creation of information" section could use some more information on the mechanisms involved in producing additional genetic information. I'm not particularly well-versed in this area, and I know evolution-creationism articles can be a hot bed of controversy, so I'm reluctant to make the edit outright.

If I recall some of these mechanisms include transposable elements and insertions, but also chromosomal crossover in some rare cases? If someone who's a bit sharper on the subject could clarify, I'd be happy to make the edits. Cheers! Scientific29 (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking about more information on the mechanisms from the Creationist side or the Evolutionary side? Because, again at the risk of controversy, I see a clear lacking in Creationist view point here as the "you can't create information from evolution" argument is much deeper than the one sentence shown and this section and much of the article, though listed as "Objections to evolution" are really presented as "ways that Creationism is wrong". I can't comment on the Evolutionary side. Ckruschke (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I was asking for mechanisms that produce additional genetic information, to address the concern that modern evolutionary synthesis does not provide these mechanisms. Although, if there are additional notable creationist arguments to be made on this subject, I'd say they should probably be included in the article while we're at it.Scientific29 (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Nagel

Dbrodbeck has reverted my addition of material related to Thomas Nagel's objection to Neo-Darwinism, questioning whether the material is notable. The material is notable, having received responses by Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, and a large host of other writers, see Mind and Cosmos#External links. — goethean 16:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerry Fodor's argument against Darwinism (What Darwin Got Wrong) should also be included in the article. — goethean 16:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What sort of responses? I don't mean content wise, I mean like where and when were these responses made? Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussed at nauseating length in the talk page archives at Intelligent Design. Consensus was that Nagel's self-admittedly non-specialist opinion generated very little if any interest and support or interest, and was soundly criticized by more qualified philosophers of science. As an extreme minority position, it shouldn't be assigned any weight. While Nagel is a serious philosopher, his knowledge about science and the philosphy of science leaves a lot to be desired, as he himself admits. Nevertheless, he's a darling of creationists because he's an atheist who disagrees with naturalistic science, which they interpret as supporting their cause. Naturally, tehy misrepresent his arguments. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The external links at Mind and Cosmos, which could easily be expanded, show that Nagel's book has been widely discussed; none of the links are to creationists. Intelligent design is not the right place for a discussion of Nagel, since he doesn't actually, you know, believe in intelligent design. Nagel thinks that some law seems to tilt the universe towards complexity or consciousness. This has really nothing to do with intelligent design, apart from the fact that creationists want to misuse his arguments for their own ends. — goethean 15:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me to where this was discussed? — goethean 15:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC) found it

Also, it is hard for me to understand why Alvin Plantinga's argument is considered appropriate here, but Nagel's isn't. Plantinga isn't a philosopher of science either. He's kind of an epistemologist and philosopher of religion. Maybe Plantinga, Fodor, and Nagel's recent philosophical objections could all be mentioned in a brief statement with links to each of their arguments. — goethean 15:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Major?

In the sentence: "In 1999, a new major objection to evolution appeared in Kansas: it argues that evolution is controversial or contentious", is the word major intended to be sarcasm? Which reliable sources get to accurately classify what counts as a major objection anyways? How is the use of the word "major" defined in this sentence? Can we not just remove the word "major"? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, I just removed the word 'major'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The sentence isn't great anyway. It appears to discuss an objection to the teaching of evolution, not evolution itself, which explains why Kansas seems to be randomly mentioned. I've done a quick copyedit. CMD (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Too much weight on Creationism

The majority of arguments in this article focus on how Creationists object to Evolution, and most paragraphs are along the lines of "Creationists say this..., but they are wrong because of this..., therefore this argument is invalidated".

Well, no – the argument is only invalidated if you believe in evolution. This is cyclical reasoning that hinges on unfalsifiability. Two important things are needed to improve this article –

1. There are other anti-evolution theories apart from Creationist ones.

2. This article reads like a "Let's prove evolution exists" textbook.

An encyclopaedia article shouldn't have a mini-conclusion at the end of every paragraph that proves/disproves every point made (as this article does), but should merely list the arguments and allow readers to make up their minds. Hence why the article is called "Objections to Evolution", and not "The Cr*pness of Objections to Evolution". See what I'm saying? BigSteve (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

From my reading the article does a nice job summarizing the overwhelming scientific consensus. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Um...that's what the Evolution article is for... BigSteve (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your suggestion. Let's take a specific example, the Objections_to_evolution#Unreliable_or_inconsistent_evidence section. How would you improve that while staying within the constraints of WP:PSCI ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well first off, the editor who wrote this section has attempted to prove that questioning radiocarbon dating is nonsense because "one source" says its been proved and independently verifies eachother. However, I can point to a recent article within a peer-reviewed, non-Christian, magazine that states that multiple radiocarbon testing by multiple sources had done just the opposite - given multiple dates and the authors are mystified as to why. So can I swap out the citation and change the text? Which one is right - the one that backs up my truth or yours? My non-NPOV source has much more extensive citations (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/radiocarbon-ages-for-ammonites-wood and http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible as only two sources) than the existing non-NPOV citation shown so is it better? The point is that the editor has chosen one source - a webpage that is set up with a single focus, to debunk creationism and is thus a non-NPOV source - as the end all, beat all source. Going beyond this one section, I agree with BigSteve's overall comment that the article is clearly written as "Point 1 - Proof that Point 1 is Crap. Point 2 - Proof that Point 2 is Crap. etc, etc". I can think of no other pages on Wiki that are written this way (other than basically All the other Christian pages). Ckruschke (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Present your source? How are we to evaluate it otherwise? I will be astonished if it's a reputable journal that in anyway insinuates the researchers are "mystified." My guess is that it's a paper dealing with statistical confidence. Secondly, there is no such thing as a non-POV source; every source has a POV, it's just that some POVs (e.g. those of experts) outweigh others (e.g. those of non-experts). And no, not all or basically all Christianity related pages are written like this, not even close. The only pages of which I'm aware that follow a similar structure are those where the facts are well established and modern religious movements create social controversy that encyclopedias unfortunately have to explain. Needless to say, this is one of those articles but let's be clear here: there aren't substantial non-religious objections to evolution as a whole. There are aspects of evolution which are contentious - such as the question of whether human ancestors had some sort of aquatic lineage - but not evolution itself, except among the scientifically ignorant or those with a religious agenda. N^oformation ^Talk 22:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I still can't understand this suggestion given the constraints of policy and the obligations placed on editors. The example you provide involves a false equivalence. The scenario you describe would violate WP:PSCI because editors are required to "not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community". Sean.hoyland - talk 06:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What are the other theories of speciation besides evolution that aren't based on creationism? N^oformation ^Talk 11:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure WP:PSCI, it supports your point. "NO ONE" is asking you to check your brain at the door and write things you don't agree with. In the same vein, however, the OBJECTIONS to evolution should be clearly stated w/o the "one, two, three, kick" handling which I noted above. Considering the "Objections to Evolution" almost completely hinge on the popularly labelled "pseudo-scientists" basis for their objecting being on religeous grounds, one could suggest that this page be treated as more of a religeous page and WP:PSCI has clear guidelines on these pages which I completely support as fair and reasonable. Thus I have no problem with the "Objections to the Objections to Evolution" being stated on this page. Again that is fair and reasonable. However, I think that these should instead be captured in a single section. Thus the content could be treated in a NPOV WHILE CONTINUING to call into question the scientific basis as non-mainstream. This seems to be more than fair. I would hold up the referenced page that is listed in WP:PSCI (Moon landing conspiracy theories) as a perfect model for both stating the beliefs of these people in a fair manner while also debunking them. And if these far far fringe folks can be treated in a fair manner, I struggle to see why the much much larger group of Evolution objectors cannot be treated in a similar manner. Ckruschke (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Quick note: Moon landing conspiracy theories is a C-class article. Objections to evolution is a good article. As a general rule, we probably shouldn't be modeling good articles after C-class ones.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, confining the mainstrean view to a "ghetto" and burying it down in the article is considered bad form. The mainstream view should be presented in the body of the article together with the fringe statement. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We would be doing our readers a great disservice to present these views uncritically, whether that be by not explaining problems with specific objections or relegating the scientific explanations to an area away from the objections themselves. These objections, though aberrations of logic, can sound convincing to a scientifically uneducated person or to an uncritical mind and as an encyclopedia our job is to make sure people leaving the page have a good understanding of the topic. There's simply no reason to allow the psuedoscientific view to go unchecked, point by point. N^oformation ^Talk 23:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well put by both DV and Noformation, I agree completely. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Jess: My point was not that we should bastardize the page by modeling it on a poorer page - simply that it was unfortunate that a loony position like Moon landing conspiracy theories is given stronger relevance than the much more wildly held view of Creationism both on the page itself and within the Talk page. Maybe I should have said Rush Limbaugh - this page has in the past been on the "good pages" list and I think it faithfully and truthfully relates the facets of Rush's career. An editor doesn't have to agree with his success/personality/views to be able to faithfully edit it.

Dominus Vobisdu: I am not stating that the mainstream view (i.e. evolution) should be relegated to the ghetto. Far from it. My point is that the article is ABOUT Objections to Creation while the article actually reads as "Objections to" Objections to Evolution. This may be the impossible dream considering the subject matter and the overall views of Wiki at large, but it just seems to me that a Wiki page should be about the subject at hand - not about what everyone else thinks about what that Wiki page is about. The information should stand on itself, whether people agree with it or not, and should be fairly related. This is journalism 101 and although Wiki isn't news, it should at least somewhat adhere to some writing conventions.

N^oformation: Not poking or trying to start something, but your strawman is part of the problem. So what you are saying is that it's Wiki's "job" to prevent someone from happening upon this page, forever going down the uneducated path of thinking Evolution isn't fact, and being ruined for life - really?!?! Whether someone will (obviously wrongly) agree with the views of large percentage of Christians?!?! The truth is that the lede (which I have no problem with) clearly states that Evolution is taught as mainstream and objections to it come almost exclusively from the Christian crowd - this is all true and stated without a non-NPOV. The job of Wiki is not to try and prove to someone how wonderful Coca-Cola, or Boeing, or The Eagles, or the United States of America is - or how infallible Evolution is. The job of Wikipedia is to plainly, objectively, and truthfully relate information on the subject at hand and having a page that clearly and without bias states the view of the "Objections to Creation" by no means weakens this goal. Whether you or any other editor agrees with these "aberrations of logic" is immaterial. Ckruschke (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Depends on what part of the story you are talking about. For instance, there are at least three variations of just "Biblical" creationism: Straight traditional "10K yr Creation" and "Godly creation of the first cells and then millions of years of evolution", and finally "traditional garden of Eden creation followed by (smaller) millions of years of Evolution". Obviously the latter two is a form of evolution but is still unaccepted by either the Evolutionary concensus or the conservative Creation crowd. This doesn't even count the creation stories of the other religeons - some of which are still held by their more devouts aspirants. So then is the root of the question is the actual "creation of life" point? Well if it is, there are many different camps even within the evolutionary crowd with even reputable sources espousing an extra-worldly source for life. My 2 cents. Ckruschke (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

What are the other theories of speciation besides evolution that aren't based on creationism? The latter part of your paragraph deals with biogenesis, not evolution. Additionally, anything but abiogenesis is on the far fringes of scientific thought but still is not at all incompatible (i.e. does not object to) with evolution. N^oformation ^Talk 21:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies! To NoFormation – I don't think we need to qualify by name any theory that objects to evolution (i.e. it doesn't need to be "creationism vs. evolution"), therefore it doesn't need to fall foul of WP:PSCI. Rather, it's possible to simply name valid scientific research that questions separate points - e.g. valid research that questions radiocarbon dating; valid research that points out apparent inconsistencies of fossils in rock strata; valid research that supports microevolution but not macroevolution, etc. After all, the article is not called "Theories that attempt to disprove Evolution", but "Objections to evolution". This allows for separate scientific inconsistencies to be listed and discussed, but without need for POV commentary or mini-conclusions about how right or wrong they are. We can let the facts (both pro- facts and against- facts, obviously) speak for themselves in each section. BigSteve (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about, there is no valid research (by valid I presume you mean published in peer reviewed scientific journals), that contradicts these things. Please provide sources if you think there is. — raekyt 04:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't our article be more neutral, or at least nearly neutral? . . dave souza, talk 04:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this entire entry is so incredibly biased - it should be totally neutral as all encyclopedia entries should be - it shouldn't be written by people with a vested interest in demolishing every point against evolution, because that's not what an encyclopedia is for. It should have far more scientific doubt listed, rather than focusing on creationism, because many scientists do doubt aspects of evolution and I wonder whether when someone adds such information to this entry that it is removed by the evolution-zealots who evidently patrol this page, so that only weak theistic counterpoints to evolution are permitted to remain. Please let us have an entry worthy of Wikipedia that states the facts of the matter i.e. all those points that are against aspects of evolution and please remove all the criticism and sarcasm in this entry, because it's innapropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.55.41 (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

references please. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the "incredibly biased" view of this page, particularly since the "Junkyard Tornado" is flagged as "unbalanced" and that's a paragon of even-handedness compared to this screed. There is no sentence that belongs in any encyclopedia that begins with "Creationists say...", nor for that matter any intellectually-honest sentence. No, -people- say X, the argument is what the argument is, and can be made by anyone, and it is solely the counterpoint -to the argument- that is germane to an encyclopedia on a scientific topic. Address the argument, don't engage in argument by aspersions and stereotypes. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Empiric (talk • contribs) 07:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is far from neutral and balanced. I made some minor tweaks but they got reverted. As such, I have no choice but to add the NPOV tag. First of all, the article selectively quotes Popper. When a more complete quote was included, it got eliminated. Second, the article disagrees with what has been said at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit and attempts to introduce the opinion of the expert quoted on that page were eliminated. I believe that encyclopedias should agree with themselves. Finally, the existence of claims such as "[Evolution] has met extremely high standards of scientific evidence" are inappropriate. There is no such thing as "extremely high" standards of scientific evidence. 190.81.202.250 (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Just because your edits were reverted doesn't mean the article is not balanced? Can you suggest a better wording for "Evolution has met extremely high standards of scientific evidence" please, so we have something to discuss? Theroadislong (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not exactly sure what POV you think is underrepresented. The most generous part of Precambrian rabbit says "such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process", which for our purposes in this article means it would falsify ToE. We can't discuss every single nuance here in excruciating detail. We also can't litter the article with large multi-paragraph quotes. Not only does would that pose concerns with respect to copyright, but wikipedia is not a collection of quotes; our job is to summarize the sources. The comment about high standards of evidence is intended to show that there is an overwhelmingly large amount of evidence for ToE (which is demanded by the predictions it makes); it is not a theory in the colloquial sense.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It's very simple. The article implies that Popper recanted about the testability of evolution. This is untrue for several reasons. First of all, Popper only commented on natural selection, which properly understood has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is merely the theory that there is a change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation. In this matter there is no disagreement. Even Christians agree that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation; they just bog down over whether the change is "micro" or "macro" evolution. In reality, natural selection is not about evolution but about the Modern evolutionary synthesis. Second, although it's true that Popper partially recanted, his statement was thus: "...the theory of natural selection would assert that all organisms...and, in addition, all forms of animal behavior, have evolved as the result of natural selection.... If formulated in this sweeping way, the theory is not only refutable, but actually refuted." (see http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/popper/natural_selection_and_the_emergence_of_mind.html ) This is a far cry from what we see quoted in the article, which is not surprising considering that the quote comes from a second-hand source that apparently has no qualms about quoting Popper out of context. Next, according to Peter Godfrey-Smith, who is a philosopher not only of science but also of biology and therefore a quotable expert on the matter, even if the "Precambrian rabbits" turned out to be genuine, they would not instantly refute the theory of evolution. This is what it says on the Precambrian rabbit page and so I don't see anything wrong with including that information on this page as well. Finally, there is no such thing as "extremely high standards of scientific evidence" there is, in fact, only one standard of scientific evidence and it is neither high nor low; it is just the standard. Evidence either meets the standard or doesn't.190.81.202.250 (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Quoting from Popper: "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation." Nonetheless, his quote is unnecessary here, and I've removed it. The article already covers the micro vs macro debacle elsewhere.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Nylonase is not a "new enzyme"

Dramatic examples of entirely new, unique traits arising through mutation have been observed in recent years, such as the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria, which developed new enzymes to efficiently digest a material that never existed before the modern era.

Instead of saying a mutation created a "new enzyme", it would be more accurate (and less misleading) to say a mutation affected the function of an existing enzyme in the nylon-eating bacteria. Negoro's study, which is referenced on the nylonase wiki page, goes into more detail on this.

How the article is currently written, you are giving the impression that a mutation led to the development of an entirely novel enzyme, which is false. There is enough misinformation already surrounding "what mutations did", so accuracy should probably be more of a priority. 72.95.102.154 (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What concerns me more is that the sentence as written implies an intention on the part of the bacteria.--Charles (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"Cross-species"

I'd like to see a subsection on an anti-evolution argument I've heard of (the existence of but no details) out in the everyday world (the source was fundamentalist Christian groups) ... something about the impossibility of "cross-species" reproduction (or something). (Does it ring a bell for anyone? Am having trouble finding that argument doing Google searches, etc. Any help is appreciated.) Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Species arising through hybridization are rare among animals, rare among plants in the wild, but extremely common in the commercial breeding of plants, especially among orchid hybrids. Examples of the former include the Lonicera fly, the middle being the sunflower Helianthus anomalus, and domesticated wheat, and the last includes, um, 20,000+ orchid hybrid lineages produced in the last two centuries.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Somehow the argument is being used to object to evolution, I'm not sure exactly how, something like ... "How can all the different species be accounted for then, when hybridization doesn't allow for that?" (But again, am not sure that's the specific objection. I heard this coming from fundamentalist Christian day camps, and education tapes, reported by others. I'd like to understand the argument-objection and response. [Would it belong in the article? Is it already there but I'm overlooking it?]) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if it's in the article yet, but, this argument is fallacious on two points: 1) it does occur naturally, and 2) hybridization is not the primary form of speciation/diversification.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

That's helpful. Thanks for the responses. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Does this help: The first individual of a new species would not find a mate? Sjö (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes! (Thanks.) So is "allopatric" speciation the primary form of speciation, then? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Allopatric speciation is the most obvious to observe and probably the easiest to understand. I'd put a bet on it being the most common too, but that's just a guess. CMD (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

To IHardlyThinkSo - sounds like discussions in reactions to orgin of species, particularly those of noted Harvard biologist Louis Aggassiz rejections regarding species as distinct from variation within species. (Perhaps somewhat in reaction to interdepartment trespass of Harvard botanist Asa Grey endorsing his friend Darwin -- and Yale of course had to go in an direction other than either party.) I think Agassiz was criticizing that mutations are infertile or that interbreeding of species is typically not productive or results in a "mule" infertile mix. You could look for the historical texts or more recent summaries of what Darwin got wrong. Markbassett (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like Agassiz at all. Do you have a cite handy? Garamond Lethet
c 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I was giving him the pointer about species from memory of reading commentaries about the 19th century events from places like darwin online for a (now defunct) article set in 19th century, and seeing mentions about Agassiz views of species. (And also about the intercollege squabbles.) One example is here Louis Agassiz and the Species Question

Markbassett (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I was more curious about "mutations are infertile or that interbreeding of species is typically not productive", but not a big deal. Garamond Lethet
c 01:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

He was looking for leads about cross-species fertility, so I was describing what I recall of the earliest source and summary for species issue. Some further on the content at SPECIES A History of the Idea or A Wrangle over Darwin, Harvard magazine Markbassett (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have Wilkins' book on my desk and enjoy any excuse to reread it. Will check it out shortly. Thanks! Garamond Lethet
c 19:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you had attributed the ideas of James Dana to Agassiz. As his section immediately follows the Agassiz section in Wilkins, I think this is just an eyeskip error. Thanks for tracking down the cite, though; I appreciate that. If you're into history of biology, you might enjoy Parable of the Sunfish. Garamond Lethet
c 21:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

As an addendum -- some cross-breeds are mentioned at 10 Farm Animal Hybrids You Didn't Know Existed Markbassett (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Random quotes pasted in

Not sure how big an issue is, but an anon editor seems to be determined to paste in a couple quotes. I rightfully reverted them a couple days ago as they were not germain to the sections he pasted them into and appeared, to me, to be of the non-NPOV variety. He then restored his edit stating I deleted his text because of disgraceful IDONTLIKEIT which of course has nothing to do with my revert as I state above and is in my edit note. I have now reverted his efit again and suggested if he wants the quotes, he needs to defend them in talk rather than build another strawman that I have a bias against his insertion.

I'm happy to be wrong, but the way to edit Wiki is NOT to just throw text into random places and call it good... Ckruschke (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

It looks like off-thread is as far as you need go; if they are not quotes that present to the article topic an objection to evolution then skip further issues as no need to go there. Markbassett (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Have a tendency to over-explain - especially since the anon editor reacted so negatively. Ckruschke (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

New title or new sectioning ?

Seeing talk about too much creationism or wanting to see cross-species section, I then noted that title does not quite match content -- the first cite to And Still We Evolve provides some of this: Evolution that things change over time was around before Darwin and widely accepted, prominently from Cuvier, Lemarck and Owen. (Owen putting reassembled dinosaurs in the British museums made for kind of an obvious pulic impression that things had changed.) This is not the same as discussion over what the history was or points of mechanism the mentioned single origin or natural selection, which was seminal in starting research but scientists including Darwin moved away from and did not return until the modern synthesis in the 1930s.

So I'm wondering should we change title (perhaps 'Objections to Darwinism') or should we add/change sections to categorize content for the title ? Markbassett (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Objections to Darwinism" is a nonstarter for several reasons, but mostly because it's a non-neutral term in this context. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're asking for. The article as it stands is a pretty decent catalog of creationist objections to evolution. We could certainly use a History of evolutionary theory article, but the mileposts there are the theories, not the objections that led to the theories (and you'd need to be pretty well versed in population genetics in order to pull that off). I'm not sure I've understood what you're proposing, though. Would you mind restating it? Thanks! Garamond Lethet
c 23:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The focus on creationst objections and the lack of cross-species mention is an example -- if it's to be only the creationist focus the title should match or it's to match the title the cross-species section should be adeded in, so it seems a discussion which way to go is in order. The term Darwinism is used in the article already, emphasizing the points:

* (1) That the article focused to covering objections to the Darwinian mechanism Natural Selection and proposal of descent with modification from a single ancestor rather than about evolution so maybe 'objections to Darwinism' is the more appropriate title for this article content;

* (2) That most is attributed to creationists rather than all sources so maybe 'creationist objections to' should be in the title. There is side mention under religious nature that "of Darwin's theory that have been rejected or revised by scientists" but that's just a mention that other sources exist it is not conveying what those objections to Darwinism were.

* (3) It seems the type of objections is to existence or completeness of the Darwinian mechanisms rather than all types of objections -- such as to legal type objections of venue or basic evidentiary to procedure and form, or doctrinal and philosphical type objections, or sales type objections, or outcome objections...

I'm just trying to describe what the box this is in rather than suggesting it include others, but whether it is to have a specific focus for kind of objections seems to need clarification. Markbassett (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Markbassett - I must be dense. You now have explained your point twice and I've gotten lost both times in the jargon and your sentence structure and I'm failing to see your points. What are the non-Creationist objections that you don't see here? Also your earlier point that "change was roundly accepted prior to Darwin" is debatable, but it depends on what you actually mean. The Bible depicts that there has been variation in animals within their kind (an example would be the wide range of canines or felines that can all "theoretically" inter-breed because they all have a common ancester, per the Bible, from the time of Noah's Ark). So if this is what you are referring to, well then yes, change over time is roundly accepted even in religeous circles. I also agree that Darwin broke little new ground in his works, but just because these ideas existed didn't mean that they were universally or even partially accepted (something that Garamond Lethet
c alludes to).

Not trying to be a obtuse - I want to helpful - I'm just failing to understand your points. Ckruschke (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

OK then -- the question is looking for preference on (a) should include sections like the cross-species topic, which is not similar to current content but does go to the title; or (b) should adjust the title to describe the scope of what the content is to be ? Markbassett (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Objections to evolution" is the preferable name, because it encapsulates the entire topic. "Creationist objections to evolution" implies there are non-creationist objections. "Objections to Darwinism" uses imprecise wording, and again implies a limited scope. If you think there are objections to evolution which we have not covered in the article, specific proposals and sources would help clarify your ideas.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll read this as keep the title and can add cross-species or other objections that are not related to Darwinian monogenesis or natural selection. Markbassett (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Markbassett, what is the "cross-species topic"? As to this list: "legal type objections of venue or basic evidentiary to procedure and form, or doctrinal and philosphical type objections, or sales type objections, or outcome objections...". The legal objections are to the teaching of evolution in public schools, which doesn't seem to be a good fit for this article (at least in my opinion). I'm not aware of any philosophical objections to evolution, nor would I expect to see any: philosophers (at least successful ones) don't comment on individual theories, instead focusing on the underlying assumptions. (Philosophers do have a great deal to say about methodological naturalism, for example.) Doctrinal objections might be interesting and I'd be happy to take a look at any sources you have. I'm not sure what you mean by "sales type objections" or "outcome objections". There are several folks who don't like evolution and its implications (e.g., the Wedge Document) but I don't think that the parade of horribles raised rise to the level of an actual objection. Garamond Lethet
c 17:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Garamond -- Doesn't seem an opinion on the question of whether scope should move or title should match it, but in explanations back: The "cross-species topic" was said earlier in this Talk section, it is refers to the Talk section 2 before this, titled "Cross-species", looking to add a section to the article. The word "type" in "legal type objections" is because you asked for clarification above and so what types of objections in the question of should the article remain just creationist based objections to evolution -- my then asking do we change the title to say so, by showing you some viewpoints other than that given here. If the article is to be other kinds of objections it might include problems cited with evidence supporting Evolution, a basis familiar and well structured from judicial settings. The question is of direction, to Talk on if the article is a specific kind of "Objections" as the content basically is, or if the article should include any kind of objections since the title is not specifically saying and there is no hat defining a limit -- the title says one thing and the content says another, let's hear which it should be. I was not speaking of the education trials although Educational could be another basis or category for objections if things go the way of put in all objections and any 'educational objections to evolution' are out there. I did mention Philosophy would be another basis that objections can come from -- specifically logic, demarcation, and valuation seem relevant and yes they do speak to material naturalism. I also mentioned sales-type objections because salesmen are familiar with objection and so there are that 'kinds of objections' in findable documentation. Markbassett (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Markbassett. Take a look at the talk.origins index of creationist claims (aka objections). Historical scientific objections would be a much smaller list. All of that information may be worth putting into an article, but that's going to be a pretty significant undertaking. As to "cross-species", as we discussed above, that particular wording hasn't been sourced. Garamond Lethet
c 18:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Garamond -- been there, and suppose could use that as discovery for Philosophy objections to Evolution though just cause an anti-creationist site says creationists say philosophers say it would need a more direct cite from philosophy. Markbassett (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Mark. At this point, I agree with the sentiments of both Garamond & Jess. The title is unwieldy (although I've contended in the past that because of the way the content is written, it really should be titled Objections to the Objections to Evolution), but none of your suggestions are really workable for the reasons expressed by Jess.

I'd be happy to comment on any textual changes/improvements/additions if you develope them beyond your general "points" above. Ckruschke (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I'll read this as wanting to keep the title, accepting no fit is perfect, and no menion about direction for the content. Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

General conclusion seems to be keep the title and feel free to add other kinds of objection. Will see if folks want to add or find cites to larger categories of viewpoint objections (philosophical objections, evidentiary objections, etcetera) or sales type position objections (for example a taxonomy: "I do not know it", "I do not understand it", "I do not believe it", "I do not need it", "I do not like it", "I have conflicting X"). Note that 'I don't like it' valid in list of objections is not the same as Wikipedia basis of edits, it would just be reporting (w cites) on that folks do not like it. (My guess is creationists are within 'I have conflicting X', many others are within "I do not need it" just do not care, but I've only gotten the answer to whether to narrow the subject title vs add to match the title clarity that things like this are OK, not that I actually have a cite exactly for "I do not need this". Markbassett (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Mark, I'm sure I've said this before, but it's a waste of time to discuss new content without sources. We look for sources first, then summarize those sources, not the other way around. This is especially true when you're making extremely vague statements about what sort of content you want to add. Bring some sources, and then we can have a conversation.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Jess -- already had content at "Cross-species", the question I had was really if the article scope is to be as broad as the title says so that fit or whether the title should shift or hatnote added to make scope something less encompassing -- "evolution" and "objections" are are broad areas. If you want you can presume that I changed the title to "Creationist Objections to Darwinism and Responses" and you changed it back and that next a new section for objections will be coming. Thanks all for the clarification. Markbassett (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Evolution is understood to be biological evolution. The mention or darwinism is unnecessary, and potentially inaccurate, given at his time many of the basics understood now, such as DNA, were not known at his time. As for objections, yes it's broad, what's missing here? CMD (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, what's missing is mostly a clarity of article scope, since the content did not match all the title would. Darwinism is the proper grammatical term for things relating to the concepts of Darwin about evolution, see Darwinism, and generally would mean the article was about objections to natural selection rather than modern synthesis or freedom of religion. Asking it in talk and proposing it as part of the title seemed possible since the article content seems largely a repeat of TalkOrigins who have excellently organized index of objections from creationists including the TalkOrigin rebuttal. Not NPOV obviously, sometimes a bit of Straw man argument, but their website is clear and comprehensive and is easily citeable so the question was if focusing on Darwinism part of modern synthesis was intended. What's missing here is somewhat up to you as an editor to run across, but obviously when I see Objections to Evolution I'm expecting it could easily have a rich history of the scientific debate and recent points of debate, or the logical philosophy of science and practical challenges when evidence is being dug up so can only be circumstantial and how/when that becomes substantial. That tends to wrap back into terminology and that objections to modern synthesis seems the scope. Markbassett (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Violation of the second law of thermodynamics

Proposed addition immediately following “The fact is that natural forces routinely lead to decreases in entropy. Water freezes into ice and fertilised eggs turn into babies. Plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugar and oxygen, but [we do] not invoke divine intervention to explain the process [...] thermodynamics offers nothing to dampen our confidence in Darwinism.[129]”:

It should be noted however, Nobel Laureate Erwin Schrödinger reasoned rather than being routine, “An organism’s astonishing gift of concentrating a ‘stream of order’ on itself and thus escaping the decay into atomic chaos – of ‘drinking orderliness’ from a suitable environment – seems to be connected with the presence of the ‘aperiodic solids’ the chromosome molecules, which doubtless represent the highest degree of well-ordered atomic association we know of – much higher than the ordinary crystal…” What Is Life? Subsequently,the “aperiodic solids” have been identified with DNA. LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Working biologists tend to consider What is Life? as not particularly helpful (see reviews by Gould and Symonds; for a more candid view, ask a biologist.) The work is not a reliable source for biology, and Schrödinger's accolades in one field did not translate into competence in others. Garamond Lethet
c 16:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition following the paragraph on open systems: "This claim is based on a manifestation of the law only applicable to isolated systems, which do not exchange matter or energy with their surroundings. Organisms, in contrast, are open systems, as they constantly exchange energy and matter with their environment: for example animals eat food and excrete waste, and radiate and absorb heat. Similarly, the Earth absorbs energy from the Sun and emits energy back into space. The Sun-Earth-space system does not violate the second law, because the enormous increase in entropy due to the Sun and Earth radiating into space dwarfs the local decrease in entropy caused by the existence and evolution of self-organizing life.[15][126]"

However, this application of the open system concept is inadequate in that it does not account for the different thermodynamic reactions of living and nonliving open systems. “There is a subtle but significant difference between biological and non-living open (not isolated) systems. For example, a fence post is an open system. A metal post will expand when warmed by external factors (sunlight or ambient air) but retains its structure and does not grow in complexity.” Using a thermodynamic model of a gas filled piston to represent the two cases, it is seen that biological open systems behave as if internally controlled, not reacting to external variables in the way of nonliving systems. With a nonliving open system, energy in the form of heat and sunlight warm gas in a piston cylinder causing expansion of the gas and displacing the sliding piston rod outward. This is as a metal post will expand. Cells and organisms act upon their surroundings, even foraging, taking in and rejecting nutrients, controlling quantity and variety. It is as if the sliding piston rod moves outward first, the expanded gas cools and energy is extracted from the surroundings.

“Some internal mechanism suggestive of information processing seems to be in control.” ^

LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)LEBOLTZMANN2

It doesn't really matter how living and non-living systems systems differ in this context. Adding more text to refute the already refuted claim would only confuse the reader. Sjö (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

New text to be added: However, these arguments are inadequate to answer the objections to evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics. While living systems can be open systems, there are inanimate or nonliving open systems as well. If it is significant that the enormous increase in entropy in the Sun-Earth-space system dwarfs the local decrease in entropy caused by existence and evolution in living open systems, then should not nonliving open systems be affected similarly? Disorder and entropy can increase over time in nonliving open systems. This is a reflection of the second law. As stated, the second law applies to all systems. It is a universal law, just as is the first law. The argument presented does not explain why in the Sun-Earth-space system inanimate systems behave as expected and living systems as anomalies.

A living organism open system, solar energy in and chemical energy out.

A solar panel open system, solar energy in and chemical energy out.

A solar panel open system, solar energy in and chemical energy out.

A solar panel open system, solar energy in and chemical energy out“There are striking similarities between the responses to sunlight by a sunflower and by a solar panel. A sunflower will take in solar energy and by photosynthesis convert the energy captured from the sun into chemical energy.... A solar panel will also take in the sun’s radiation and, by the photovoltaic effect, produce electrical energy. However, an inanimate solar panel will continually deteriorate and produce less and less electrical energy.” whereas a sunflower is able to grow and produce more energy. “There is a subtle but significant difference between biological and nonliving open (not isolated) systems. For example, a fence post is an open system. A metal post will thermally expand when warmed by external factors (sunlight or ambient air) but retains its structure and does not grow in complexity.” Using a thermodynamic model of gas filled pistons to represent the two cases, it is seen that with the nonliving open system, energy from the surroundings, in the form of heat and sunlight, warms gas in the piston cylinder and causes expansion of the gas. The expanding gas displaces the sliding piston rod, pushing it outward. This is as a metal post will expand when warmed. Biological open systems behave as if internally controlled, not reacting to external variables in the way of nonliving systems. Cells and organisms act on their surroundings, even foraging, taking in and rejecting nutrients, controlling quantity and variety. The presence of food does not compel an animal to consume it. It is as if the sliding piston rod moves outward first, the expanded gas cools and then energy is extracted from the surroundings. “Some internal mechanism suggestive of information processing seems to be in control.” With both open systems, living and nonliving, being in the same Sun-Earth-space system, a difference in response indicates that something other than excess entropy is the deciding factor. Therefore, the answer appears to lie in “self-organization.” This was addressed by Nobel Laureate Erwin Schrödinger: “An organism’s astonishing gift of concentrating a ‘stream of order’ on itself and thus escaping the decay into atomic chaos – of ‘drinking orderliness’ from a suitable environment – seems to be connected with the presence of the ‘aperiodic solids’ the chromosome molecules, which doubtless represent the highest degree of well-ordered atomic association we know of – much higher than the ordinary crystal…” What is Life Subsequently the “aperiodic solids,” has been identified as DNA, and this is insight into why there are these different thermodynamic responses in the open systems. And while quantitative estimates of increasing entropy involved in evolution can be made, increases in energy unavailable for work or for driving chemical reactions, i.e. entropy, can be a necessary condition but is not sufficient to account for significant increases in order and complexity attributed to evolution. Consider the classic “example of a glass of ice water in air at room temperature, the difference in temperature between a warm room (the surroundings) and cold glass of ice and water (the system and not part of the room), begins to be equalized as portions of the thermal energy from the warm surroundings spread to the cooler system of ice and water… the entropy of the system of ice and water has increased more than the entropy of the surrounding room has decreased.” Entropy, This example of a net increase in entropy does not cause any observed increase in complexity or size. To the contrary, the ordered ice crystals become more random as liquid water. The processes of the nonliving world increase entropy but do not produce the kind of increases in size and complexity as those attributed to biological evolution. A demonstration of increased entropy in an open system does not dismiss the second law from being in play for evolutionary processes. The Mathematical Intelligencer statement should be considered circumspectly. The comparison of water freezing into ice crystals and “fertilized” eggs turning into babies, seen as routine, seems simplistic given the Schrödinger description “An organism’s astonishing gift of concentrating a ‘stream of order’ on itself and thus escaping the decay into atomic chaos” …and “represent the highest degree of well-ordered atomic association we know of – much higher than the ordinary crystal.” (v.s. Schrödinger) Dobzhansky, the author of the dictum: “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” also must think that evolution surpasses the routine as divine involvement is alleged: “The organic diversity becomes, however, reasonable and understandable if the Creator has created the living world not by caprice but by evolution propelled by natural selection. It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s method of creation.” LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)LEBOLTZMANN2

Hi Leboltz. Your proposals are getting bigger and bigger. Unfortunately, I don't see them incorporating any input you've received (such as avoiding protracted discussion about the difference between living and non-living systems). Your most recent edit, here, is massive. Much of it is written as an argument, much of it is off topic. In all the 7000+ bytes of content added, no new "objections to evolution" are listed. What goal are you trying to accomplish with all this text? For instance, do you think our coverage of the thermodynamics objection is lacking? If so, in what way?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jess. You are correct. There are no new objections listed. To the contrary, the intent is to show that second law objection is not negated by the arguments that are being presented. I understand these arguments have been long standing and this is the reason for more of an explanation. This is new insight, note the reference. The thermodynamic analysis should be straightforward, although the subject seems not to be well understood generally. I also tried to add some balance to comments made in the section. I trust on review, you will find my presentation convincing and worthy of inclusion. Editing help to make this more readable and understandable would be appreciated. LEBOLTZMANN2

Hi again, Jess . I should explain my proposal more fully. The section entitled Violation of the second law of thermodynamics does not provide an answer to the objections to evolution that are based on the second law. The second law is universal and applies to all thermodynamic systems, including all open systems in the Sun-Earth-space system. There are countless inanimate or nonliving open systems that demonstrate decline and disorder, as expected from the second law. It is the usual case. Even organisms at some point mature, age, and decline as expected from the second law. By contrast, living open systems usually display growth in size and complexity. Evolution exhibits many cases of progression from the simple to the complex, smaller to larger. There is agreement that this is an anomaly. The Sun-Earth-space system with excess entropy is essentially constant and is the same for inanimate and for living open systems. Excess entropy or being an open system in the Sun-Earth-space system cannot be the reason for a difference of decline in one and growth in another. Something else must be involved. Therefore, the explanations are not adequate to reconcile the second law with life in general and evolution in particular. This is the reason why it matters that there is a difference in response by living and nonliving systems subject to the second law in the same overall system. Biology does not have different thermodynamics than physics. The coverage in the section is not lacking in extent but in adequacy. My proposal is written in a form of argument to challenge readers to reexamine their understanding of this matter and arrive at a new conclusion. As to Schrödinger's What is Life? not being a reliable work, note: “In retrospect, Schrödinger's aperiodic crystal can be viewed as a well-reasoned theoretical prediction of what biologists should have been looking for during their search for genetic material. Both James D. Watson, and independently Francis Crick, co-discoverers of the structure of DNA, credited Schrödinger's book with presenting an early theoretical description of how the storage of genetic information would work, and each respectively acknowledged the book as a source of inspiration for their initial researches.” What Is Life? Schrödinger's perspective rather than his “nuts and bolts” biology contribution is important. The piston illustration is not for biologists but for physical chemists and physicists. I hope the questions that have been raised are answered and the proposed edit will be published. LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid the point of this section is unclear as the above is far too long and hard to follow. Unless a succinct statement with a reliable source can be proposed, I do not think there is material here that is suitable for this article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

New proposal:While these explanations seem to explain the anomaly of evolution and the second law, they are inadequate. If the enormous increase in entropy in the Sun-Earth-space system dwarfs the local decrease in entropy and affects existence and evolution in living open systems, then nonliving open systems must be affected as well. As stated, the second law applies to all systems. It is a universal law.

A living organism open system, solar energy in and chemical energy out.

A solar panel open system, solar energy in and chemical energy out.

A solar panel open system, solar energy in and chemical energy out.

               A solar panel open system,
                 solar energy in and
                 electrical energy out.

An inconsistency can be seen in: “There are striking similarities between the responses to sunlight by a sunflower and by a solar panel. A sunflower will take in solar energy and by photosynthesis convert the energy captured from the sun into chemical energy.... A solar panel will also take in the sun’s radiation and, by the photovoltaic effect, produce electrical energy. However, an inanimate solar panel will continually deteriorate and produce less and less electrical energy.” whereas a sunflower is able to grow and produce more energy.

With both open systems, living and nonliving, being in the same Sun-Earth-space system, a difference in response indicates that something other than excess entropy is the deciding factor. Therefore, the answer appears to lie in “self-organization.” This was addressed by Nobel Laureate Erwin Schrödinger: “An organism’s astonishing gift of concentrating a ‘stream of order’ on itself and thus escaping the decay into atomic chaos – of ‘drinking orderliness’ from a suitable environment – seems to be connected with the presence of the ‘aperiodic solids’ the chromosome molecules, which doubtless represent the highest degree of well-ordered atomic association we know of – much higher than the ordinary crystal…” What is Life Subsequently the “aperiodic solids,” has been identified as DNA, and this is insight into why there are these different thermodynamic responses in the open systems.

And while quantitative estimates of increasing entropy involved in evolution can be made, increases in energy unavailable for work or for driving chemical reactions, i.e. entropy, can be a necessary condition but is not sufficient to account for significant increases in order and complexity attributed to evolution.

The Mathematical Intelligencer statement should be considered circumspectly. The comparison of water freezing into ice crystals and “fertilized” eggs turning into babies, seen as routine, seems simplistic given the Schrödinger description “An organism’s astonishing gift of concentrating a ‘stream of order’ on itself and thus escaping the decay into atomic chaos” …and “represent the highest degree of well-ordered atomic association we know of – much higher than the ordinary crystal.” (v.s. Schrödinger) Dobzhansky, the author of the dictum: “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” also must think that evolution surpasses the routine as divine involvement is alleged: “The organic diversity becomes, however, reasonable and understandable if the Creator has created the living world not by caprice but by evolution propelled by natural selection. It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s method of creation.” LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything here which will help the reader better understand the topic. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering the current justification is inadequate to explain the anomaly of evolution and the second law, there is need for a correction. To appreciate the deficiency is to begin to understand the topic. LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality

I have removed the claim that homosexuality is "well-explained" by evolution. I don't know how to break it to whoever added that, but homosexuality, and sexual orientation in general, remain controversial subjects, and it's certainly not true that they have been "well-explained", either by evolution or by anything else. There are plenty of theories, but there is no generally accepted explanation. In any case, the "well-explained by evolution" claim did not seem to have a proper source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Creationists, creationists everywhere.

This article seems to express that in many cases these views are exclusively held by creationists. While this is mostly true it is a generalization, these points aren't held true by solely creationists. My point being the use of the word creationists is in place where "some" or "many" will suffice and fits better. Essentially this article needs a minor tidy up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.85 (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Please suggest where you think word changes should be made or feel free to WP:BE BOLD and make the changes yourself if you think they are not controversial. Ckruschke (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

The Talk seems to want discussion over edits to remove the word in 38 locations of 'creationist' outside of the cite titles. For example:

- -

• Creationist sources frequently define evolution according to a colloquial, rather than scientific, meaning.

Many sources frequently define evolution according to a colloquial, rather than scientific, meaning

• Creationists have argued for over a century that evolution is "a theory in crisis"

Some have argued for over a century that evolution is "a theory in crisis"

• creationist explanations involving the direct intervention of the supernatural in the physical world are not falsifiable

explanations involving the direct intervention of the supernatural in the physical world are not falsifiable

- -

I think that some of them would be simple and ways to better show the objection, and some of them are more embedded. Suggest mechanically better to go ahead and do in chunks, starting with several of the more clearly removable ones. Markbassett (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

178.167.254.85 - I think I can explain the 'creationist' everywhere as from two things

• Dichotomy / partisan language - I finally finished reading Numbers book The Creationists, and basically anything creationist is just the term for anything that disagrees. This dichotomy of language is an oversimplification in that it does not reflect actual diversity of discussions nor that real folks have a not absolute stance but rather a mix or undecided or simply do not care on many points. This seems partly to label which side a point is on rather than the statement actually being one about creationism or the beliefs of the person sourced. Unfortunately it is also that people pursuing partisan ends want oversimplification word games oversimplification or confusion for points where putting things accurately or in proportion would not be in their favor. The article recently had a talk discussion over whether the title should just change to reflect content or vice-versa expand content to match the title and conclusion was to keep the title and include non-creationist objections. (We'll see what happens when I actually try that ;-) )
• Sourcing and direction of article - the language of objections began with more neutral wording[7], but rapidly shifted to [8]. In today's article the sourcing and content structure is largely from an anti-ID advocacy group using 'creationist'. Of the 179 cites, I think 21 are Index to Creationist Claims, 14 are Talk Origins, and 4 NCSE directly. So the article seems not doing well on NPOV, and slightly so on Copyright or Sockpuppet concerns.

Hope that helps Markbassett (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mark, due WP:WEIGHT requires that we show majority mainstream expert views, and the Index, TOA and NCSE are all good sources for that majority viewpoint. Perhaps you should refresh your memory of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. . dave souza, talk 15:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave those sources are from an self-proclaimed biased source -- anti-ID advocacy group. For explaining where the 'creationists everywhere' comes from, they in following their core mission speak with that language and where the article is honestly conveying from the cite it will too. Their Index is an excellently organized structure and extensive content of responses but it is not an NPOV source for neutral wording and adds their own wording twists because their job is anti-ID advocacy. Ultimately they are experts on the topic but with an agenda so an article that pulls so heavily on it naturally suffers in NPOV. Markbassett (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean we do fair and balanced. Please refer to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck - this Talk thread topic is about use of wording "creationists" so much, explained by me in part from it's drawing heavily on NCSE wording. If you want to Talk balance please start a different thread and spell out what and where in the article your concern is, thanks. Markbassett (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Redo Evidence subsection titles ?

I suggest redoing the title to match content here. Under "Instability of evidence" the material dopes not seem to be instability -- it starts by saying "A related objection is that evolution is based on unreliable evidence.", and goes on into the frauds such as Piltdown man. Under "Unreliable or inconsistent evidence" the material seems to be more about the methods for determining dates of events, radiology and geology. So how about these changes:

• "Instability of evidence" to "Unreliable evidence"
• "Unreliable or inconsistent evidence" to "Chronology evidence"

Markbassett (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sound logic - I agree. Ckruschke (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Done -- After a week wait, I've made the titles "Unreliable evidence" and "Unreliable chronology" to better fit the content and to be in the form of an objection. Markbassett (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)