Talk:Objections to evolution

Overstatements about falsifiability

From the Unfalsifiability section:

human DNA should be far more similar to chimpanzees and other great apes, than to other mammals. If not, then common descent is falsified.

"If not" would not falsify anything here. If DNA is part of the construction code for organisms then morphological similarity should correlate with DNA similarity, whether or not the DNA has arrived in its current state through evolution.

DNA analysis has shown that humans and chimpanzees share a large percentage of their DNA (between 95% to 99.4% depending on the measure).[62]

We would not reject evolution if the similarity to chimps were only 89 percent. The 95-99 figure is confirmation of evolution, but not the result of a falsifiable test. The falsifiable prediction is much weaker: that similarity will be higher with chimpanzees than with animals of clearly bigger morphological distance from us, such as elephants or reptiles. Estimates of the expected amount of similarity can be made within particular models of how morphology and DNA co-evolve, but if the predicted numbers are wrong, that only disconfirms the model used, not evolution.

Also, the evolution of chimpanzees and humans from a common ancestor predicts a (geologically) recent common ancestor. Numerous transitional fossils have since been found.[63] Hence, human evolution has passed several falsifiable tests.

This probably falsifies "no evolution at all", i.e., an unchanging set of species, but it does not falsify "limited morphological random walk (or extinction) within each species, but no genuine speciation". It is, after all, believed that modern humans interbred with many of the earlier forms so an anti-evolutionist could just say that the nature of humans changed over time but no real speciation happened.

Even if the transitional fossils falsify all nonevolutionary accounts of human-chimpanzee origins, that doesn't mean evolution has passed another falsifiable test. For falsifiability, it would have to be true that if numerous transitional fossils had not been found over time, evolutionary theory would have been modified or discredited. What would probably have happened in that case is to continue searching, based on confidence in evolution and a lack of competing explanations. So the quoted passage is confusing confirmation of evolution and disconfirmation of alternatives, with a falsifiable test.

The current wording in the article is overstated. Rather than BRD this I am posting on the talk page first, as this subject is prone to edit wars. Sesquivalent (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• "DNA should be far more similar" - it does not matter that one can construct other models which predict the same thing as evolution does. This is one possible falsification of evolution.
• "humans and chimpanzees share a large percentage" - We would indeed not reject evolution if the similarity to chimps were only 89 percent, but 89 percent are still "a large percentage". Try 10%. This is one possible falsification of evolution.
• "(geologically) recent common ancestor" - Again, one can construct other models which predict the same thing as evolution does. This is one possible falsification of evolution.

More to the point, those refutations of creationist poppycock come from reliable sources, and your original research trying to find fault with them is 100% irrelevant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding transitional fossils, the concept of Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian is relevant. Kauri0.o (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

False balance issues

I might try to eventually improve this but in case someone can before I do, examples are "Supporters of evolution have argued in response that [...]", "Supporters of evolution have argued in response [...]", etc. Since apologetic and scientific views don't work with the same standards of evidence, the latter can be presented in Wikipedia's voice instead of as only arguments or opinions, to better comply with WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL. —PaleoNeonate – 13:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. XOR'easter (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed all instances where "supporters of evolution" were used like that. There may still be other wordings of false balance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no need to attempt to support something when it is already scientifically proven and universally accepted. Thank you for removing them. Wretchskull (alt) (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I just audited the recent changes and thank you all for the improvements, —PaleoNeonate – 06:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Hob Gadling - I just reverted one of those. A quote cited to talkorigins.org arguing in their CA611 Response section has WP:VERIFY support for "Supporters of evolution have argued in response [...]". It is inappropriate to rephrase that into wikivoice as “actuality”. Cheers Mark bassett (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The second one I let be, though it is now grammatically confused, and you might revisit that. Changing “Evolutionary supporters point out” to “But” ... at “But evolution is neither dogmatic nor based on faith, and they accuse creationists of [...]” leaves it confused — who are the “they” making accusations, and what cite supports that? They nearest cite is for the next line about a court decision. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The third one I reverted to revised phrasings. The cite to talkorigins CI100 can be attributed as “Supporters of evolution generally respond by arguing that” ... but that cite does not WP:VERIFY give support for “Actually” in wikivoice and no attribution. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You do not need to notify me, I have a watchlist. Your changes are not unreasonable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Objection to calling "Evolution " proven science.

To prove that an otter slipped into the water and became a dolphin who then had a sexual desire for his similar mate has been proven scientifically? How would you design a double blind experiment that would prove such an hypothesis? Would it not involve radioactive tracers observed over thousands of years? I object to "scientists " trying to pass off "ologies" for science. Tormarquis (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

A starting point may be evidence of common descent. The above sounds like a voluntarily unrealistic parody, not a representation of what happened or how. Animals don't evolve in a lifetime, it's more complex than that. —PaleoNeonate – 06:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, nobody says dolphins are decended from otters. Creationists probably hold the record for cramming most falsities per sentence into a text. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Dolphins are even-toed ungulates, so pretty distant from Mustelidae including otters. Unsurprisingly. Sounds like the crocoduck fallacy, think it's a tie? Oh, and proof is for whisky and maths, not so much science. . . dave souza, talk 10:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Tormarquis - is this about something in the article ? This article has a section on the Status as theory, which seems the only place where ‘proven’ is discussed. That says evolution is unproven, as any theory is ‘just a theory’, but that in colloquial meaning ‘proven’ of having compelling evidence it has been ‘proven’. (p.s. Evidence being what has been found so far — there were fossil duckocrocs found but so far no crocoducks found.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

A scientific theory is not "just a theory" and also not a hypothesis, you may want to read the linked article... —PaleoNeonate – 03:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

User:PaleoNeonate The article has a section that says evolution is unproven, as any theory is ‘just a theory’, but that in colloquial meaning ‘proven’ of having compelling evidence it has been ‘proven’. If you don’t feel what the article states is correctly phrasing the cite, feel free to make your proposals for rewording it; if you don’t feel the OP was referring to that then feel free to make your own proposal or question subthread. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Evolution itself is a proven fact, there are multiple examples of evolution. Obviously the theory isn't a fact. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Rampant Censorship problems

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article is supposed to be for objections to the theory of evolutions. The article establishes early on that the majority of these objections are raised by religious groups. Despite this, the article's edit history shows repeated examples of new objections being removed for citing a creationist-biased source for the objection. This defeats the entire purpose of the article. What's the point of an article on objections to evolution that can't cite objections to evolution? Furthermore, considering Charles Darwin was a member of the Plinian Society, a radical democratic group with an established agenda against the accepted consensus of the time, isn't it hypocritical to exclude articles from members of creationist organizations? --ATimeTravelingCaveman (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@ATimeTravelingCaveman Says the editor who had never edited an article and whose first talk page edit was an anti-Catholic commment, correctly deleted. Anyway, as this article has barely been edited this year, please provide some links to specific examples. Without those no one really knows what you are complaining about. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Creationist sources are among the most unreliable sources there are. It would be crazy to allow them as sources except for their own opinions, and they typically word even their own opinions in a way that distorts the facts they reject. It is far better to use reliable sources talking about them. It's the same principle as that of the sewage plant.

And you seem to misunderstand the purpose of the article. Its purpose is not to help creationists propagate bullshit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding radical democrats: The reason why we do not allow creationist sources is not that creationists disagree with the majority, as Darwin did, but that they are unreliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

State the fringe source with attribution. As a general practice, trying to portray fringe views by third-hand comments of their opponents is not a reliable sourcing. In an article with a mainstream topic one can and should use scholarly second-party sources and avoid even mentioning UNDUE views that are not mainstream and hence also OFFTOPIC. But in an article whose topic is fringe views one should directly convey fringe views while being clear that they are not mainstream, and neutral second-party sources are probably just not available. To relate what fringe views say, it’s better to actually relate what they say and directly cite to where they say it. Any proponent pieces and opposing pieces should be treated as WP:BIASED sources by stating attribution. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY disagrees with you: primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them

Creationist publishers are not reliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, that agrees with me in that WP:SECONDARY sources are preferable, repeated at WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and those reliable secondary sources should be the source for any article statement of evaluation and synthesis. Opposing advocates are not disinterested secondary sources in this context of articles on fringe topics. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Everybody who understands the subject of evolution is an Opposing advocate, so your criterion leaves only ignoramuses as reliable sources. Creationism is just like other pseudosciences and is treated as such. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, this provides an example why the context of non-consensus views needs directs cites to unusual sources. Distinguishing factually what was said versus what is consensus views requires avoiding sources that do not separate fact from denunciation, so the scholastic honesty of stating the non-consensus view may need to go to the PRIMARY. Whether it is ‘what the Daily Mail said’ or ‘what John Doe blogged about himself’ or what some evolution objection was ... for WP:RS “the policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability”.

On a side note, are there any biologists having enough hubris to claim complete understanding of evolution or referring to those lacking such as “ignoramuses”? Such claims would appear to have gone too far and hurt their own credibility. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be unprofessional for true professional biologist to use such unprofessional language. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Biologists don't engage with creationism in a professional capacity, because they are scientists, and there's no science to be found in creationism. Happy (Slap me) 22:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too sure about that. See sections 6 and 7. I agree that to have a consistent article you need to use the primary sources. Subuey (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Neither of the authors of that paper are biologists. Thorvaldsen has a degree in bioinformatics, but that's not biology, but the development of tools and mathematical methods for use by biologists. The other is a mathematician.

Also, they're both creationists who used deceptive tactics to get their paper published. See the publisher's disclaimer. Happy (Slap me) 19:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the only thing they had added to was the keyword section. The words "intelligent design" and other "design" references are still in the article, so that they used "deceptive tactics" doesn't make sense to me. In any case, biologists - yes, bioligists - respond to Behe's work at various times. It's possible to have a conversation here without hurling an insult like "ignoramous". It just gets the conversation off track. Subuey (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Only if people keep harping about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The disclaimer by the journal explains it all quite clearly, so if you don't understand, there isn't much I can do to fix that. Your new link is a book review. I promise you that not one experiment was run, not one culture grown, not one beaker sterilized in the writing of that review. Honestly, it's rather odd that you seem to think you've a leg to stand on here: You're arguing that biologists take creationism seriously, when the fact that they don't is widely acknowledged, even by creationists. Happy (Slap me) 15:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The source I cited challenging Behe was published in an academic journal; not everything is an experiment. And the disclaimer is no surprise, the predictable uproar is consistent with being cancelled these days. But the peer-reviewed article is still there. NOW, if we could get back to the topic of this section which is how are you supposed to write an unconventional article like this if you don't use unconventional sources. Subuey (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

"Peer-reviewed" is not enough. See WP:RS.

how are you supposed to write an unconventional article like this if you don't use unconventional sources You won't get around WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Book reviews are not normally peer reviewed. Your assertion to the contrary requires evidence.

I'm going to stop discussing this with you now, because explaining why creationist POVs do not belong on this project is tantamount to explaining why water is wet: If it actually requires explanation, then no amount of explanation will be sufficient to foster understanding. Happy (Slap me) 05:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

When I said "peer-review" I was referring to the article with the disclaimer...the point here is that you said biologists do not engage with IDers in any professional way, but the review in a scholarly journal by biologists proves otherwise...a mistake you made but everyone makes them. But I agree, enough of this. Subuey (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

QED. Happy (Slap me) 19:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Nah. Subuey (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

requires avoiding sources that do not separate fact from denunciation This excludes creationist sources.

I have discussed creationists for several years. Ignoramus is the correct word. You don't need a lot of knowledge to discern that, let alone complete understanding of evolution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you but that’s ‘avoiding sources that do not separate fact from denunciation’ about the article topic. Anti-creationists just are not RS about objections, any more than creationists should be allowed as cites in the Evolution article. It is a matter of journalistic ethics and credible content about objections to state the fringe source with attribution. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Since creationists typically manage to cram about three rookie mistakes into one sentence on average, if we used their wording, we would have to explain in detail all the things that are wrong with the way they are wording it. That would be too much detail, so, paraphrasing by actual experts is better.

Of course you would regard scientific sources (what you call "anti-creationist") as non-RS, but you have no consensus for that. Scientific sources are fine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

What are "three rookie mistakes" in this example of an objection to evolution from a prominent Ider? (I am giving you the benefit of a paragraph and not a sentence): "As I have laid out in various publications (e.g., Bechly & Meyer 2017) and lectures, the fossil record demonstrates that the history of life was not a series of gradual transformations by an accumulation of small changes over long periods of time. Instead of conforming to this gradualist prediction of Darwin’s theory of evolution, the fossil record consistently documents a series of saltational transitions with abrupt appearances of new body plans within very short windows of time. This implies a fatal problem for Darwinism called the waiting time problem, because population genetic calculations and simulations show that the windows of time established by the fossil record are orders of magnitude too short to accommodate the required genetic changes for these body plan transformations." Subuey (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

very short windows of time—what is this: creative writing or science? That very short time, e.g. the Cambrian explosion, meant in reality millions of years. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

"Millions of years" is very short in terms of the age of earth and the fossil record. This is common speech in science. Common. Subuey (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You would be right if speaking of geology, biology is however another science and it is not written in the stars that many species cannot appear during some millions of years.

And if you're speaking of https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution , that's a controversy within mainstream science; ID is a controversy outside of science. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

We're not doing journalism, we are writing a mainstream encyclopedia, just like Britannica and Larousse. So, obviously, we have no reason to obey the ethics of journalism. See https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/sciencetoolkit_04 tgeorgescu (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

NPOV issues 2023

Can I give an opinion on what I am reading? B/c I might be an editor but I also use Wikipedia to learn stuff. An on controversial issues I like to read NPOV to get a balanced reading of the conflicts. am... I am not getting that here. Someone mentioned "Wikipedia's voice"? It is like A and B have a debate and both parties have conflicting beliefs. Yet only B (pro-Darwin) gets to invoke Wikipedia's authoritive Voice over what A said. And that is what this article reads like. To the point where me (no horse in this race) reading this knows 100% that this article was controlled by subject B in the debate. I have seen others raise this objection and been closed down. So what hope do I have? But let the record reflect the tone of this article is not a NPOV position unlike other articles where there is a conflict of views. (Israel-Palestine) for example. Every device has been used to dismiss position A (against evolution). Start with the slant in the lede. Hausa warrior (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Evolution is consensus within science. This is not a conflict between two equally valid standpoints. It is a conflict between science on one side and religious ignoramuses, nutcases and liars on the other.

See WP:CHARLATANS and WP:FRINGE. Also WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree, to me this article feels like it should be called "Refuting Objections to Evolution". 2601:547:E01:1DC0:12D8:FE21:840E:90E6 (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course it does. Those objections are all stupid and ignorant, and it is not Wikipedia's job to spread anti-science propaganda. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Accurately representing an opposing viewpoint is not spreading anti-science propaganda. 2601:547:E01:1DC0:1C34:FFF1:FA7C:EC11 (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

We do represent it. Just we don't represent it as valid/true. It is a conflict between mainstream science and scientifically inane views. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it fair to include Plantinga on this page?

From what I've read, his 'evolutionary argument against naturalism' is not an objection to evolution, but an argument against metaphysical naturalism. I've never read anything that suggests he intended to disprove evolution, or even to critique it as unviable in the light of humans' reasoning capacities. Phil of rel (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Since he says, a God would be expected to create beings with reliable reasoning faculties and people are very obviously very fallible, it sounds rather like an argument for atheism.

I think he is mentioned because creationists use everything that can get, including non-creationist Fred Hoyle. Of course, none of it makes any sense, including Plantinga. I have no objection to deleting him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It's fair to include him; as shown at Alvin Plantinga#View on naturalism and evolution he supported ID for a decade, eventually backing off a bit in 2010 – five years after Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District . . . dave souza, talk 08:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

" Young Earth creationist Kent Hovind blames communism, socialism, World War I, World War II, racism, the Holocaust, Stalin's war crimes, the Vietnam War, and Pol Pot's Killing Fields on evolution, as well as the increase in crime, unwed mothers, and other social ills."

Blames them on what or for what?

Young Earth creationist Kent Hovind blames communism, socialism, World War I, World War II, racism, the Holocaust, Stalin's war crimes, the Vietnam War, and Pol Pot's Killing Fields on evolution, as well as the increase in crime, unwed mothers, and other social ill" 86.191.214.39 (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)