Talk:Evolution as fact and theory

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Evolution FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about evolution. If you are interested in discussing or debating evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins.

Big Problem

The article defines a fact as an observation. So... when did we observe the evolution of a species? Saksjn (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been observed many times in many ways. I've added a link to Talk:Evolution/FAQ up top, and this topic is addressed specifically here. — Scientizzle 20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We have observed speciation in the laboratory numerous times, as well as in the field. For example, the plants on the opposite sides of the Great Wall of China are different species. Several nylon eating species of bacteria have appeared in the last few decades, and this has been repeatedly observed and is well established. Some are less direct, but there is a special species of mosquito that has evolved to live only in the London Underground. And there appears to be a special species of bug in Hawaii that has evolved special mouths to eat bananas. There is a ton more on TalkOrigins [1] and in our own speciation article. That should get you started, but it is obviously an immense field with thousands if not tens of thousands of examples. And of course, that does not include the less direct examples of speciation evident in the genetic code (the fingerprints left on our DNA by endogenous retroviruses and the teleomere in the middle of our 2nd chromosome, for example) and in the fossil record (which has many examples as well).--Filll (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We've dealt with this before. Read the archives, read talk origins, don't bother with anything similar unless you've a reliable source - that is to say, a scientific journal, not a creationist mouthpiece. WLU (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps "adaptation" has been observed, evolution if it is happning is a string of adaptations and a very slow process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.253.64 (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you seem to be a new user. This page isn't for discussion of the subject of the article but for improving the article. If you have reliable sources for your opinions you want to discuss, great. Doug Weller (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

National Academy of Sciences

I dropped in to read this discussion because I thought it might be amusing. It was just incredibly frustrating ;). Anyway, I thought I would drop in one "fact" to this discussion. Instead of "theories" about the position of the NAS, here's a quote from their publication "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science". You can find it online here: http://www.nap.edu/html/evolution98/, or you can buy a copy for yourself: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0309063647/.

Sum up: The NAS says evolution is a theory and a fact. End of discussion. You can still disagree with them. You can argue about their definition of fact. You can say that they all idiots who are descended from apes and we shouldn't listen to them anyway. But hopefully we can at least stop arguing about what their position is.

Actually, that publication is pretty good on making all these differences very clear. It might be worth including a reference to it in the article. Not that this is going to convince anyone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSKNuDnh8Kw). Chaleur (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Is evolution a fact or a theory?

The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

In what was going to be the revised version of this article, I was going to feature NAS material and definitions far more prominently. However, since this article has been defined as a war zone by a substantial number of Wikipedia editors, I have decided for time being to not edit it or improve it any longer. The threats and vendettas being waged for things as simple as quoting the NAS are just too much to take. I would suggest that you also stay away from such dangerous sources as the NAS because you will probably receive death threats or worse for even daring to suggest that the National Academy of Sciences publications are a good source for Wikipedia. Sad, but true. Every editor who let things get to this point should be ashamed of themselves. It is an embarassment. But the condition of these articles is not worth dying over.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Pointed noted, and agreed. Though it is a pretty sad state. I think the world will probably have to wait another generation (or more) before the ridiculousness of this is accepted.Chaleur (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Two points: first, the original article opens with a definition of 'fact' which says two things: facts are observable (meanining if I dispute it as a 'fact' you can show it to me) and facts are statements which have become so well believed that they are taken as facts. Specifically you say "a fact is an observation or a piece of data." Thus, if I observe something I assume it's a fact -- and if you too observe it -- it's a fact. From what I observe in the ongoing discussion here, some people want to make a distinction between that which can be directly sensed (i.e. observed) -- the changes in the genetic structure of organisms as they adapt to new environments, for instance, and the conclusion that such a mechanism (or mechanisms) are sufficient to account for speciation. The first is a narrow reading of 'fact.' The second is a statement about the general consensus of the technicians working with the observations made in the field. If you get a group of Western doctors together and present a patient with a certain list of symptoms they would proceed on the assumptions of modern Western medicine. They would not need to demonstrate that some microorganisms can cause a fever because it is assumed to be a fact. If therefore, the patient has a fever, the doctors assume infection by those microorganisms. They take the presence of those organisms as a fact.

Now, in the same manner, those who see evolution as a fact (in the second sense) want to treat it as a fact of the first sense -- they want to claim that they have observed it. And those who want to reject evolutionary theory (which is what they see it to be if it is only 'fact' in the second sense) insist that the evolutionist proove that the theory is a 'fact' of the first sense. But, as you at least implied, since evolutionary theory cannot be directly observed (partly because of the time scale needed, and partly because there is a lot of fuzziness as to what exactly constitutes a truely evolutionary change), it can only be taken as a fact in the second sense, and because that sense is socially mediated it is a fact to those who are in agreement, and a 'mere' theory to those who are not in agreement.

Thus, to improve the article I suggest you delineate between socially constructed facts and observational facts. You do so, indirectly, and because of the fuzziness of the distinction, the discussion of evolution as 'fact and theory' is inadvertantly muddied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccsi99 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gravity and Evolution ????

Why are two contrasting fields of science being compared?122.104.137.25 (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been verified that notable sources use the comparison, and they're not as contrasting as you might think. dave souza, talk 13:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a long long history of comparing these two, since at least Darwin. It is a comparison that has been used over and over and over in the scientific literature. Sorry.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to be sorry, many scientist are committed to naturalism. 122.104.137.25 (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

All scientists are committed to naturalism as a method of working, irrespective as to whether or not they believe in metaphysical naturalism. Of course pseudoscience commonly rejects naturalism. . dave souza, talk 12:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not all scientist are committed to working under the ambiguous "laws of nature". One basic tenet of science was that nothing can propagate faster than the speed of light. The bell inequality shattered this law. 122.104.137.25 (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This was not a "basic tenet of science" -- merely a part of the Theory of Relativity, which was itself a refinement of Newtonian mechanics. It is perfectly conceivable that somebody will further refine Relativity to harmonise it with quantum mechanics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

At least as determined by repeated court rulings and as declared by every major scientific body in the world, methodological naturalism is a requirement of anything called "science" and this has been accepted at least since the scientific revolution, at least in mainstream Western science. It is true that Islamic science rejected methodological naturalism around 1100 CE (it was accepted as part of Islamic science before that) and only relatively recently has methodological naturalism been reaccepted as a requirement by scientists in Muslim countries (in the last century or so maybe?). Perhaps at some time in the future methodological naturalism will be rejected again by mainstream science; we will have to see. But for now, methodological naturalism is important for anything called science. One should however be very careful not to confuse methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism, as Dave souza suggests.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dave did provide a great link to pseudoscience, the definition was interesting, it went on about preconceived bias and what constitutes "scientific method". 122.104.137.25 (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

<undent> And science requires scientific method. Whooda thunkit! . . dave souza, talk 08:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that this article isn't "science"? Whooda thunkit! 122.104.137.25 (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you sitting comfortably? This is an article about science, and as such NPOV: Making necessary assumptions applies. . . dave souza, talk 11:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link about writing for the enemy and a bit more about pseudoscience. 122.104.137.25 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't about science, it's about a group of people trying to impel their ideology into mainstream. 122.104.137.25 (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You're the editor who changed the urls within references so that they were not just wrong, they led to Creationist websites. Please don't lecture anyone about 'trying to impel their ideology'. This article is about what mainstream science says. Doug Weller (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant to say "mainstream dogma". It doesn't fit into scientific method so its not science. 122.104.137.25 (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a talk page for the article, not at SOAPBOX for this sort of argument. Doug Weller (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, it's agreed then we'll nominate the page for deletion. 122.104.137.25 (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Want me to do it ? I am not sure anons can vote in AfDs, and if they do, I am not sure their votes count to be honest.--Filll (talk | wpc) 12:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Fill. 122.104.137.25 (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fill, I hope you are joking. And I'm sure you know that AfDs are not votes (and IP editors are welcome to put forwards cases based on policy and guidelines for Deletion or retention. Doug Weller (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is a rant

This article has one purpose, and one purpose only. It is to call anybody who calls evolution a theory, a nincompoop. All the sources brought have the same purpose which is why they are irrelevant. In any case it, totally ignores the issue. People who are calling evolution a theory are not talking about micro-evolution. They are talking about common descent. This article as all virulently pro-evolution articles do, is undoubtedly deliberately not making that point clear. --Ezra Wax (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Hi again to all those of you who I haven't butted heads against in a while.

This article has one purpose...to call anybody who calls evolution a theory, a nincompoop.

The theory of evolution is a theory. However, a "theory" in scientific terms differs substantially from the colloquial usage. This issue of nomenclature is regularly misused by those ideologically against and/or ignorant of the well-established scientific evidence and theoretical foundations. One who argues that "evolution is just a theory", an all-too-common refrain from creationists, makes a strong case for acute ignorance at best and chronic nincompooposity at worst. — Scientizzle 19:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There might be a difference, between scientific usage and regular usage, but it's not that significant. The fact is that Science uses the word theory about things that cannot be absolutely proven. It is impossible to absolutely prove a theory. It can only be strengthened or weakened. It cannot even be disproven, because as soon as it is, the theory is altered to take into account the disproofs. --Ezra Wax (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The page is not intended to debate the reality or level of support for evolution. The mis-use of 'theory' by creationists to portray the theory of evolution as weaker than it is has been well documented in the literature discussing the controversy. The page could be re-written to demonstrate this more clearly for certain but the I believe the mis-use of theory is sufficiently notable that the page is appropriate. The various mis-uses of the term and corrections have been documented and should be referenced. The issue then becomes how to best discuss it. Were there any suggestions to address how the page should better represent its subject? WLU (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The diference is quite significant. The colloquial usage is more akin to an idea or hypothesis, while the scientific term requires an explicit framework that incorporates known evidence and provides predicitive power. As for disproven theories, the history of science is littered with the corpses of long-discarded theories that could not stand up to scientfic scrutiny. — Scientizzle 20:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You have not shown that creationists are misusing the word theory. It is called a theory because it is unprovable. Evolution is a postulate. It is believed on faith or rather the lack of it. --Ezra Wax (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to show that creationists are misusing the word theory, we can cite multitudinous sources that do. The assertion that evolution "is believed on faith or rather the lack of it" is clearly only your opinion and of no use to the improvement of the article. Do you have any concrete suggestion that would improve this article? — Scientizzle 20:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There should be sources quoting the rebuttals of creationists to the claims of the evolutionists. --Ezra Wax (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE limits the application of nonscientific criticisms towards well-established scientific theories. Creationist sources make very poor reliable sources in regard to evolutionary biology, notoriously so. As asked before, please provide any relevant reliable sources. — Scientizzle 21:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The example given there is the Flat Earth Society. That is much less significant than the opposition to Evolution. --Ezra Wax (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There might be a difference, between scientific usage and regular usage, but it's not that significant. Funny that this has been the root of repeated court cases, including at least one in front of the US Supreme Court, and the creationist willfull misrepresentation of this difference has been the cause of creationists losing over and over and over and over. Millions of dollars flushed down the toilet. Creationists embarassed over and over and over for decades. Yeah, you are right, I guess it is not that significant.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's your view of things, but it doesn't make it so. In any case, in an article whose sole purpose is to attack creationists, the creationist point of view should be mentioned as well. --Ezra Wax (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I will no longer be editing this article since it generates such hostility from people such as yourself. However, if you want to have some viewpoint presented, then provide reliable sources.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not an accident. You created it in order to move the outcry against the evolution article over here. The fact is that most of Wikipedia assumes the views of the evolutionists in opposition to its policy of not assuming a position on any controversial issues. --Ezra Wax (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It has a policy position on the use of reliable sources, which perhaps you haven't read. So in one sense it has a bias towards a scientific point of view. Doug Weller (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia tends to disregard religious sources as reliable when it comes to things that science has an opinion on that are based on axioms that have not been proven. If a religion is of the opinion that each species was specially created, then the fact that Science looks for a naturalistic method of creation as an axiom cannot disprove the religious opinion and no science article should be allowed to state as an absolute that species were created through evolution. Scientists are not the only "reliable" source that should be permitted. --Ezra Wax (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with your implicit characterisation of the entirety of science as a mere "opinion on that are based on axioms that have not been proven" -- the axiom of methodological naturalism underlies all modern science. Likewise if we are to give 'reliable' status to the religious "opinion that each species was specially created", where do we stop? The religious view that demons cause disease and mental illness? Penis theft by sorcerers? Scientists are the only reliable source on factual issues within the purview of science. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You said it yourself. Science is based on an axiom, that of methodological naturalism. That axiom cannot be proven valid. Assuming that axiom as valid, Science has the best answers. But there are notable, reliable sources that disagree with that axiom, and have stated their logically sound reasons for doing so. If the "ridiculous" religious views you are mentioning are notable then they cannot be discounted just because Science believes otherwise. You state the opinions of Science and the opinions that are not supported by Science. Science is not unassailable. It is a faith just like any other faith, and there is no reason it should be given primacy. --Ezra Wax (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is not a rant, but this thread in the talk page is. I suggest that Ezra Wax should read and try to understand the article, and that it is time to close this discussion topic. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is most certainly a rant. Don't blind yourself. It weakens your point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sculptus.Poe (talk • contribs) 16:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There you go as soon as you feel you are losing the argument, you decide it is time to censor the person making it. I know how this goes. In another few minutes you will decide to remove the discussion from the page so that nobody else can see it. You cannot unilaterally archive a talk page or stop a discussion in the middle. --Ezra Wax (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt, Ezra, you appear to be "losing the argument". You have yet to provide a relevant, reliable source worth vetting on this page. Instead, you have only treated us with your interpretation of science ("It is a faith just like any other faith"). As such, because talk pages are meant to improve articles, not debate the topic, please provide something actually worth discussing. — Scientizzle 17:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm holding my own quite well, thank you. Is there any point in me adding "reliable sources" if in your view a reliable source is by definition one who supports evolution? In any case, I've found plenty of statements where the sources cited don't support the statement. Even here, all of the sources, I'm certain are themselves rants by evolutionists against creationists and therefore cannot be considered reliable. --Ezra Wax (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're not going to provide anything to work with, then there's no reason to continue this, is there? — Scientizzle 18:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I first wanted to establish that there is no cogent argument against my intentions. As I believe I have. --Ezra Wax (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's quite impossible to cogently argue against rambling nonsense. — Scientizzle 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The observed changes in populations

The point of this statement is to differentiate the concept of the "fact of evolution", namely the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, from the "theory of evolution", namely the current scientific explanation of how those changes came about.

I think stating that the observed changes in populations is a fact is false. That is in itself a theory much of the time. Certainly in laboratory situations and historically corroborated situations it is a fact, but when it comes to fossil records, it is only a theory in the layman's sense of the word. --Ezra Wax (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your thought is unsupported by verification from reliable sources. This page is not for unsupported speculation. . .dave souza, talk 07:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not my thought that is unsupported, it is the one in the article. It needs a source stating there is a "Fact" of evolution. --Ezra Wax (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As a rebuttal to evolutionists creationists

My addition of the above words might read poorly, but it is important, because that is the point of the article and the article completely ignores it. If you have a better suggestion of how to say it, please speak up, or I'll try again with different wording. The random stuff was the result of a conflict between wiked and lookitup2 that messes me up sometimes. --Ezra Wax (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So where are your reliable sources? Also, you have misunderstood the meaning of scientific fact, clearly. And also please note that the use of the term "evolutionist" is frequently offensive.--Filll (talk | wpc) 03:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the sources you are using are themselves in support of saying that the term is a rebuttal against creationists. I am not sure what you are getting at with the term scientific fact, but any time you decide that something is true based on deduction, you have to be certain that all agree that your deductions are sound. I don't disagree that "evolutionists" is somewhat offensive, but so is creationist, and it is used all over Wikipedia, and it is not less offensive than evolutionist, but in any case it was a typo I meant to write creationist, and meant to say that the phrase this article is about is used by "evolutionists" against "creationists". --Ezra Wax (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Creationist" is widely used in scholarly commentary on the issue (see especially Numbers' The Creationists), and is invited by Creationists' own self-descriptions: the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Science Movement (formerly the Evolution Protest Movement) and 'creation science'. The other side by contrast tend to identify themselves merely with 'science', as in the National Center for Science Education, Kansas Citizens for Science, etc, etc. Their point being that they're not only defending evolutionary biology, but all science (and especially palaeontology, geology and cosmology, in addition to evolutionary biology). This renders the term 'evolutionist' inaccurate -- in addition to reducing science to a mere '-ism'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Creation and Creationist are equivalent. Besides even if a term is used by those whom it's deriding is not a proof they don't find it offensive, it could still be convenient. The "all" of science that you are talking about has the same agenda as the evolution part. It is all in support of a naturalistic view of the universe. But there is plenty of valid science whose agenda is neutral. Calling that subsection of science evolutionists is no less inaccurate than calling them Scientists. And the point IS to reduce Science to a mere is -ism, because in this context that is exactly what it is. --Ezra Wax (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(i) I didn't say that "Creation and Creationist are equivalent" -- but the two concepts are clearly related. (ii) Whether they find it offensive or not is irrelevant, as we have WP:RSs that state that it is the proper term. (iii) It is not an "agenda", it is a necessary and utilitarian starting point -- if you add the supernatural into the mix, you end up with a jumble of unfalsifiable, conflicting (was it God, Odin or the Invisible Pink Unicorn that was responsible) claims. (iv) There is no science that does not rely on methodological naturalism -- just some science whose conclusions don't conflict with your religious ideas (but may well conflict with someone else's). (v) It is when the derided science in question (e.g. palaeontology, geology and cosmology, as stated above) often has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. (vi) Your claim that it's an '-ism' is mere proof by assertion, most probably because it contradicts your cherished sacred cows, so must be discredited. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy of Wikipedia is to use the sources which are relevant to a given topic found in the scholarly literature of the relevant academic discipline. If you are addressing evolution, it is part of a biology, which is a science. And well over 99 percent of all professional biologists accept evolution as the most viable theory for the facts observed. If you are discussing Jesus, the vast majority of the academic community believe that Jesus existed, and so the Wikipedia articles reflect that. We do not write the Jesus articles from the scientific viewpoint, or the Catholic articles from the scientific viewpoint, and we do not write the biology articles from the religious viewpoint. That is the way it is. If you do not like it, there are many many other wikis which do not follow these same principles, such as Conservapedia. You are welcome to go to a wiki which is more closely aligned with your preconceived notions about what "truth" is, or how a wiki should be organized and run.

As for your questions about "scientific fact", it either shows you have not read this article and the linked references, or you did not understand it. There are facts, and there are scientific facts. They are different. Learn the difference. There are theories and there are scientific theories. They are different. Learn the difference. When you understand these basic points, then you can actually discuss this intelligently.--Filll (talk | wpc) 12:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You are smoothing over the nuances of Wikipedia policy. In any case Evolution is not just a Science article, it is a religion article as well. It makes assertions about areas that are validly within the domain of religion, and as such it disingenuous to disallow sources from religious authorities. --Ezra Wax (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ezra, you think science is religion? Hahaha.

No original Research

This page breaks the rule against original research. The opening paragraph has nine sources for one statement. That is by definition original research. You should be able to find one or at most two sources that definitively state the point. --Ezra Wax (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So, the more people who say the same thing, the more it is original research if we put it in Wikipedia? Whereas if we had no sources, it would clearly not be OR? Is this building up to an argument that any article about evolution that uses more than one source is original research? Doug Weller (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that it's original research. The reason why there are so many sources is because nobody says what is asserted so that the only way to prove it is to bring multiple sources, which is by definition research. --Ezra Wax (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

? WP:OR says nothing about too many sources being against policy. Rather than a Gish Gallop of proof by assertion, allegations of attempted censorship, philosophical ramblings, misreadings of policy, and claims of sources you refuse to present, why not nominate the article for deletion and be done with it. If you're only here to stonewall or soapbox, you are, by by definition, being disruptive. — Scientizzle 18:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not against policy, but it is a strong indication that it is original research, and that is against policy. I looked up your Gish Gallop link, and that implies that there is no opportunity given for answering objections, but that of course didn't happen. The attempted censorship allegation is quite valid, as it has happened to me before that a discussion I was in the middle of was deleted, and I took your statement as a threat to do the same. The philosophical ramblings and misreadings of policy are of course a matter of opinion. I haven't done the research for sources yet. I didn't see any point in making substantive modifications to the article if they would just be reverted, until I covered the groundwork. I took up your suggestion, and nominated the article for deletion. --Ezra Wax (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain how you could come to that conclusion? If I could find 25 reliable references that state the camel urine cures male pattern baldness, I'm going to be a lot less skeptical (and run down to my local camel farm for a jar) than if I see one reference from a much less reliable location. I'm kind of confused by your logic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The article states 'Evolution is often said to be both theory and fact.' There is no source that says often so in order to prove it, the article has to bring multiple sources that say that it is both theory and fact. The word often is based on original research. Since that word is the only thing that justifies the existence of the article, and there is no reputable source that uses it, the whole article is original research. --Ezra Wax (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ezra appears to totally misunderstand what constitutes "original research" when he says that nine sources for one statement "is by definition original research". Only by Ezra's personal definition, perhaps, but certainly not by the definition on the OR page, or by any common meaning of the phrase. He also appears confused when he claims, "The reason why there are so many sources is because nobody says what is asserted". Um, no -- the reason why there are so many sources is because so *many* reliable souces say what is asserted that a) it's does a disservice to the reader to narrow it down to only one or two, and b) there is such voluminous evidence for the statement that it's useful to refer the reader to a great many diverse sources which cover the topic from varying lines of evidence. Another good reason for including many sources instead of one or two, especially in an article like this, is c) argumentative creationists often like to incorrectly claim that there's little or no support for some aspect of evolutionary biology, or try to handwave away a given source in order to attempt to undermine a claim, and thus it is useful to provide many sources for a claim in order to make the vacuousness of these creationist attacks apparent to a reader who might otherwise fall for these "evolution is an empty shell" attacks by propagandizing creationists.

Ezra, if you have an actual suggestion for improving the article, feel free to make it, but so far I've seen nothing in your edits to this page which rise above pointless contentiousness or naysaying. This latest attempt to dismiss a well-sourced claim as "original research" because it's "too" well sourced just descends into complete silliness. If you can't discuss the science on it own terms -- and simply namecalling it as "dogma" or (gasp) "naturalism" doesn't rise to the level of discussing the *content* of the science itself -- then ultimately you're just wasting your own time and ours on this talk page. --Ichneumon (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

His attempt to use AfD to delete the article on the basis it is OR (with, he says, only 2 statements sourced) is yet more time-wasting. Doug Weller (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside the issue of whether this page is original research, I do agree that the list of 10 sources after the "frequently seen" phrase is excessive. The first source, from a webpage of "Moran, Laurence" contains mostly quotes from other sources that are listed as sources already on this page (from Gould, Lewontin, etc.) I would say this first source is unnecessary; all of its material is from sources that are already listed on this page.Davidstromberg (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)\

I will admit that the ten references presented that way is a bit ugly. I am in the middle of rewriting this article to make it a bit more pleasing aesthetically. Please bear with me in the meantime.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If I could offer briefly, under the "Scientific terminology applied to evolution" heading, the mention of fossils as facts is brought up, but doesn't seem to be linked to any other points. Not sure if this is meant as an example of scientific fact that is not necessarily related, or if it is being used as a fact of the argument of Evolution as fact. If the latter is the case, those statements would need to be fleshed out with examples and sources (obviously). I appreciate everyone's work on this! Davidstromberg (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Some hits from "the other side"

In the process of preparing my response for the AfD discussion, I came across the following article by Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute: part 1, part 2. Given the source, it may or may not be useful in the article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, since it agrees with the central theme of the article itself, it might be useful in a "even a prominent creationist agrees" sort of way. --Ichneumon (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag WAS recommended by AFD closure

The following was pasted on my talk page by the person who closed the AFD:--Ezra Wax (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Evolution as theory and fact

I hope you don't mind me speedy-closing the AfD on this article. You nominated it for deletion because it was PoV. While I agree with your reasoning, keep in mind that PoV per se is not a reason to delete, but rather a reason to clean up, except in extreme cases where the article is hopeless. I don't think the article is hopeless, so I would recommend placing {{POV}} on the article instead, as a means of informing other editors that it needs work. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not believe that this personal opinion of TenPoundHammer means much.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There are at least three independent editors whose view this as POV. --Ezra Wax (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see no neutrality problems with this article whatsoever? Can you be more specific... you appear to be the only editor with concerns. Teapotgeorge (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ezra - please put together an exact list of what you find POV. This needs to be succinct and in relative detail such that editors can fix the POVness that you have identified. If you cannot put together such a list, or if you just say "the whole document is POV" (or some variation thereof) then the addition of the NPOV tag can be just viewed as a form of WP:TE and removed by editors without further discussion. Shot info (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the whole article, but for starters look at the next section where I try to change the opening paragraph and it is rejected. The claim that there is no reliable source for the views of creationists is baseless. There are countless reputably creationist sites out there that make the claim I have sourced, namely that macroevolution is not a fact. Since that is the crux of the article, and the point it is trying to prove, if the fact that it is the opinion of creationists that macroevolution is unproven remains unmentioned in all places where it is pertinent, the article is NOT neutral. --Ezra Wax (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Websites do not qualify as reliable sources. Creationist religious dogma can be discussed at Creation science for starters. Creationists can make "claims" but they cannot be validated scientifically, especially since they cannot be falsified. That is, a Creationist starts with the assumption that some deity created life as it is. That's impossible to test and research. Ezra, I really think there are other articles you could edit that would benefit from your knowledge, like Creationism or creation science. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A reliable website is a reliable source. Scientists' dogmatic beliefs should not be allowed to go unchallenged. Whether Creationists' claims are valid or not, is besides the point. It is whether there is a notable group that makes the claims that matters, not whether they are correct for doing so. Besides a Scientist starts with the assumption that everything just happened and he has no basis for that assumption. Once again, it is not relevant whether the claims of Creationists are valid, only whether they make them. I don't appreciate the condescension and I care specifically about the articles that drown out the critics of evolution, and that is why I'm here. --Ezra Wax (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:VERIFY, all of which are the foundation of WP:NPOV. It is absolutely not relevant that Creationists espouse fringe theories. This encyclopedia does not have to state all viewpoints equally, and should represent those viewpoints that are verified with reliable sources. Critics of evolution are drowned out, not because of dogma (which is relevant to religion), but because the criticism lacks any credence or weight. No one is condescending to you, only that your tendentious editing may not be very useful here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ezra, please focus. If you cannot supply a list, then you have no reasons for the tag, as you cannot identify the problem. If you cannot ID the problem, then editors are quite correct in removing the tag. Shot info (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

View of those opposed to evolution

I added the following to the opening paragraph. This is in accordance with the recommendation that I find sourced opposing views. It was predictably removed. Pray tell how you can honestly say that this statement or something similar does not belong in the article. --Ezra Wax (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

However, those who disagree with the theory of common descent maintain that only microevolution is a fact, while macroevolution has not yet been established.

Such an addition (I don't see it - I guess you have not in fact added it) would be totally inappropriate in the lead. Apart from the POV-pushy nature of it, it is simply confusing to complicate the relatively simple "story-line" of the article by getting bogged down in "macro" vs. "micro" evolution at such an early stage. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is unfortunate the AfD wasn't an Admin closing, and that it was suggested to him that he put a POV tag on the article. This is not the Theory of evolution article and for this article, an opposing view would presumably be that the theory and fact of evolution are the same thing, or something like that. A discussion about the theory of evolution is not appropriate here. Doug Weller (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It is that storyline that is the problem. --Ezra Wax (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Your failure to comply with WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Making necessary assumptions is the problem, exarbated by your tendentious disruptive editing. You've been asked to comply with WP:TALK and have repeatedly failed to do so. Not good behaviour. . . dave souza, talk 21:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand we have heavyweights such as Stephen Jay Gould, Nobel prize winners, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, etc, etc. On the other side we have an Michael Denton, an undistinguished biochemist whose "later book Nature's Destiny contradicts many of the points of" the cited book, and the work of some previously-unheard-of biology PhD, originally published in the St. Louis MetroVoice, a Christian newspaper, not a scientific journal. Guess where the WP:DUE weight lies in questions of science? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC Religion regarding adding viewpoint of creationists

RFC comment. Hello, I've never seen this article before, nor do I edit much in evolution, nor do I have strong passions on the subject (I certainly believe in evolution, but I don't think that creationism is somehow morally wrong). Having said that, I have two comments:

1. You proposed lead sentence appears to utterly miss the point of the article's topic and should be excluded. The article is about the phenomena of evolution being denigrated as "theory." Using reliable source, this article shows that "theory" and "fact" are refer to different things in science. Your proposed addition muddies the terms and should be excluded. Scientist's positions on these theories is discussed in other articles.
2. The lead's absurd 10-footnote string cite is ugly and unhelpful. Pick perhaps the best three.

This is a useful article. Kudos to those who compiled it. Cool Hand Luke 04:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thge purpose of the article is to explain that Evolution can be used to mean the fact of evolution or the theory of evolution, 2 different things. What exactly is the creationist viewpoint on this? AFAIK it agrees completely, ie the fact of evolution has been observed in many animals, but the Theory of evolution is not the correct explanation for why this happens.

Isn't this a major creationist argument when the fact of evolution in bacteria is shown? Hence the creationist viewpoint on this issue already is included. We could add a cite saying this: "changes observed (fact) in bacteria over time does not prove that the theory of evolution is true", hence immplying the fact and theory must be seperate. But for one more cite to the 9 already there, which will just agree, what is the point?

The disagreement over whether the theory is true belongs on a different page - it has nothing to do with the difference between the scientific fact and the scientific theory.Yobmod (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming that this RFCSci is about adding the following quote to the first paragraph of the article:

'However, those who disagree with the theory of common descent maintain that only microevolution is a fact, while macroevolution has not yet been established.'

(If this is true can someone edit the RFCSci to better reflect what this RFCSci purpose is.)

The above statement does not belong for a number of reasons. The most important argument for this is that even if it was true (scientifically) it is not relevant to the purpose of the article. If the article was 'Gravity as theory and fact' it would not be relevant to include in the article that the Newtownian theory of gravity is only an approximation to GR unless the article discusses the theories of gravity in detail. The purpose of the article is to distinguish between two scientific terms not to explain the details about which version of the theory is considered most correct. Second, even if we accepted that the proposed sentence was the scientific consensus (which it is most definitely not) and we accept the idea that because the article mentions the word theory is must discuss which version of theory is most scientifically accepted (which is stretching the purpose of the article) it most definitely does not belong in the first paragraph which summarizes the content. The statement is too tangential to the purpose of the article even if it was true.

TStein (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well said. I'm not 100% certain if this was the RFC topic myself, but I assumed it was because of the section immediately above. Cool Hand Luke 02:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please return the NPOV tag

The consensus has been that NPOV tag belongs at the top of the page. The NPOV tag itself says that it may not be removed until the issue has been resolved. In order that I not violate the three revert rule, I ask that somebody else please return it. --Ezra Wax (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As explained above, since it is clear that there is no "issue" other than you don't like it then the tag can, and has been removed. Until you clearly articulate the sections and areas you have a problem, then you are just engaging in a bit of constuctive editing. Shot info (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? Doug Weller (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a consensus of one. Ezra Wax agrees with himself. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to Ezra, the non-admin who closed the AfD, TenPoundHammer, indicated that he should put the POV tag on it. I'll have to remember this when he goes for his next RfA. Nevertheless, a consensus of 1 hardly qualifies as a consensus. This article is completely NPOV. Can we move on? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously ... If the core of EzraWax's objection is (as it seems from a couple of his comments above) to do with "macro" vs. "micro" evolution, perhaps he would do better to go and fight that battle over at Macroevolution. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

He has no business fighting over the theory of evolution here. Orangemarlin, I was annoyed at the non-admin closure as I had hoped the closing Admin might comment at least on what I see as a tendentious AfD. He certainly shouldn't have given that advice to EzraWax. Doug Weller (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this what Ten wrote? The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. PoV is a fixable problem, to which deletion is not the answer. If you have a problem with the article's PoV, I would recommend requests for comment. Non-admin closure. [2]. Dunno about anybody else, but I'm not seeing where Ten recommended the inclusion of a tag. RfC yes. Shot info (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, he actually took a stance on the article. On Ezrawax's talk page he has written "You nominated it for deletion because it was PoV. While I agree with your reasoning, keep in mind that PoV per se is not a reason to delete, but rather a reason to clean up, except in extreme cases where the article is hopeless. I don't think the article is hopeless, so I would recommend placing {{POV}} on the article instead, as a means of informing other editors that it needs work." As I said, I'm unhappy with it not having gone to a regular Admin closing, although Ten I think had a right to close it. I am not convinced we should grant good faith to the AfD nomination. Doug Weller (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see 2 theoretical possible POVs here:

1. Fact and theory of evolution are different things that need explaining.

2. Scientific fact and theory are the same.

The article shows why the first is true. No reliable sourse holds the second view, whether scientific or creationist, so it should not be included, and the article is already NPOV. Hence tag not needed.Yobmod (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the article clearly states that the usage of the word "theory" is due to a laymen's definition.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

'Theory' should not be in contradistinction to 'fact'

The gist of this article is to attempt to explain how evolution may be both fact and theory. The answer, according to a rather unhelpful and unrepresentative Gouldian viewpoint adopted by the authors, is that since fact and theory are different we must be using the word 'evolution' in 2 different ways; firstly to refer to experimental observations and secondly to describe an explanatory framework in which all the observations fit together.

I contend that while this view is out there, it is not the widely understood and proper solution to this conundrum. The answer instead should be that it is perfectly correct for one and the same hypothesis to be simultaneously refered to as both fact and theory. 'Fact' says something about the degree of certainty we have in a hypothesis. 'Theory' is a different way of classifying a hypothesis and is applied on account of its complexity, explanatory and predictive power. Statements therefore such as 'humans and monkeys have a common ancestor', 'dinosaurs existed' and 'gene frequencies change over generations' may well be fact as well as theory, even though it may not be possible to observe any of these things directly.

Those who insist that 'fact' must be observable should consider the following sequence. Looking at something with the naked eye, looking at something through strong glasses, binoculars, an electron microscope, a particle detector etc. At what point along this continuum does fact turn into theory? Is for example the statement 'electrons exist' a fact? There is of course always the possibility that the measuring device is faulty (or that our own senses are deceiving us). Consider this from Douglas Futuyma:

Any statement in science, then, should be understood as a HYPOTHESIS—a statement of what might be true. Some hypotheses are poorly supported. Others, such as the hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun, or that DNA is the genetic material, are so well supported that we consider them to be facts. It is a mistake to think of a fact as something that we absolutely know, with complete certainty, to be true, for we do not know this of anything. (According to some philosophers, we cannot even be certain that anything exists, including ourselves; how could we prove that the world is not a self-consistent dream in the mind of God?) Rather, a fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true.

I am convinced that to limit 'fact' to observations is an abuse of the way fact is used both in common parlance and by the scientific community, and that the article as it stands is misleading. I have reluctantly added POV to the article for scientific rather than creationist reasons. — Axel147 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your conviction is interesting, and there's the welcome possibility of adding this aspect to the article. However, you're quoting a source that doesn't seem to mention evolution, and is more about the generic issue of the relationship of fact and theory in science. You don't give a reference – where did this quote come from? It would be ideal to show this viewpoint alongside Gould's view, if it can be properly sourced and related to the subject without synthesis. Have you some ideas about how this can be done? . . dave souza, talk 20:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

One source for this is on the Stephen Jay Gould archive 1 — ironic because I think Gould has unwittingly caused some of this confusion. But to be fair to Gould I think he's being misrepresented as he gives an excellent definition of fact as [something] 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' To define fact as an observation or piece of data in this article is massively confusing. This seems to be denying that any generalization is a fact such as 'fire is hot', 'lead balls sink in water' or 'grasshoppers are smaller than whales' as it is not possible to observe all cases. Maybe events such as meteors striking the earth can never be facts as they are difficult to observe directly. It even suggests that 'my brother shot my wife' can only be fact if someone witnessed it — CCTV plus other evidence is not enough?

Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology 3rd edition goes on to say 'the hypothesis of descent with modification from common ancestors has long held the status of a scientific fact'. Difficult to argue with this. Two professors of biology say evolution is a fact just as the 'helio centric solar system' is a fact 2 . No one can directly observe that the sun is at the centre of the solar system, but of course it doesn't stop these hypotheses being facts. Unfortunately putting two different perspectives in the article gives the creationists a field day, but it simply won't do to sweep one of them (especially the most widely held one) under the carpet. — Axel147 (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm really confused. What you just wrote sounds like an endorsement that Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Yet you put an POV tag on the article. Please explain, and maybe I'll throw the POV tag back on the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Axel147 feels that regarding facts as mere observations is unnecessarily limiting. One can make statements of fact about specific events about which one has never made any observation. However, calling this {{POV}} has a tendentious and WP:POINTy feel to it. I think it is better to fix the problem, if any, rather than tag the page and try to convince others that there is one. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to lift POV and try to improve the article. - Axel147 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the point he's trying to make is that many "facts" are in fact (partially at least) "theories" that have become so commonplace that we overlook their 'theoretical' component. It is not a "fact" that voltmeters measure potential difference -- the only "fact" is that the needle moves/digital display changes. Based on this factual observation, and a whole heap of circuit theory, we establish that something called voltage is measured. Likewise heliocentricity is not directly observable, so is still actually a theory (just one that is so heavily supported & accepted that the theoretical aspect can be overlooked). At the very basic level, if you woke up with amnesia, you might conceivably not know that the ruler you used today would be of the same length tomorrow -- so even direct measurement would require postulating a 'theory' of ruler-length-invariance. I'm not sure that this point really belongs in the article (I suspect it might end up only confusing the issue), but it is not an absurd point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So, still being flummoxed, why is the article in opposition to that statement? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not just a pedantic philosophical point, it's really important. I think most scientist would agree 'jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system' is a fact. But this cannot be observed by itself. Saying facts must be observations is too limiting. — Axel147 (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreover the references given do not all support the definition of fact used in the article. Is it misunderstanding, deliberate bias or an attempt to provide a simple unified view for creationists? Consider reference 13.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact.'

This is clearly saying there are two uses of the word fact but evolution is fact in the second sense NOT the observational sense. This has been totally misrepresented. — Axel147 (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Who considers what fact?

What is meant by evolution is a fact? Are you including common descent in the fact of evolution? Has the theory that there are beneficial mutations been proven to the level that it is considered a fact? The fact that is claimed in the opening sentence is a very weak fact. It is simply that the characteristics of populations change, but not any of the more controversial claims. It should be clearly stated in the article which parts of evolution are considered fact and probably by whom as well. --Ezra Wax (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think for most people the fact of evolution means we know beyond reasonable doubt that "the traits of organisms have changed gradually over the generations" (supported by fossils etc.). Additional hypotheses such as "all organisms living today have evolved from a common ancestor" and "natural selection is a cause of evolution" are often added but I don't think they are strictly what we mean when we say evolution is a fact. — Axel147 (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading the very first line in the artical on theory of evolution provides a simple outline of the principle under which the theory is subsumed, which is what is credited with being a fact - namely that allele frequencies change in generations of a population often resulting in inheritable phenotypic changes. This is widely observable and testable, and is hence correctly attested as scientific fact.