Talk:Objections to evolution/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Macroevolution

This article unfairly implies that all these critisms are levied against "evolution" when really, the majority of them are only objections against Macroevolution. I suggest renaming the article "Objections to macroevolution" and to at least state what the objections are in neutral / objective langauge before trying to cover how macroevolutionists respond to them. --BenMcLean (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Claim CB902? Gabbe (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The technical definition of microevolution is change that we can observe in living creatures today, referred to from ancient times as "heredity". Macroevolution refers to changes that certain philosophical assumptions imply from the fossil record and from arguing backwards from there. The charge is that by using the word "Evolution" to denote all change in animals whatsoever, Darwinists have created a logocracy (a Newspeak-ish framing of the debate) in which the contraversial and debatable parts of their idea can no longer be separated from the plain and obvious parts which even the most staunch seven-day Creationist really agrees with. Making the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is meant to correct this, and re-separate "evolution" from basic heredity. --BenMcLean (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ben, you're drawing a distinction that antievolutionists usually fail to make unless they're trying to weasel out of having to accept evidence of evolution. Sources cited here such as "Evolution Is Religion—Not Science" and "The Lie: Evolution" may mention macroevolution in the fine print, but their basic stance is opposition to evolution. Also note the rarity in science of the term "macroevolutionists", by which you presumably mean biologists or scientists. . . dave souza, talk 20:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason they fail to make it is because they're more interested in convincing stupid people and in selling books than in making sure they always say exactly what they mean. It's vital to their case, however, that the language be such that they can refer to those parts of the theory they disagree with as distinct from those parts that, as I said, even the most staunch seven-day Creationist agrees with. --BenMcLean (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Without macroevolution there is no common descent from a common ancestor, a core principle of evolution, that made Darwin so hesitant to publish until he had "overwhelming" evidence for it. I think he was trying to wait until the DNA sequencing appeared. :"D - RoyBoy 17:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. But we're not debating Darwinism anymore, we're debating Neo-Darwinism in which the meaning of "evolution" has changed. --BenMcLean (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Diversity or Microevolution is observed variance within a fertile kind. Evolution or Macroevolution is change from one kind to another. While the former has been observed and accepted by Darwinism and opponents, the latter has never been shown to conclusively happen. It seems that the proponents of Evolution should be more accurately called Macroevolutionists. Why the reluctance on the part of Darwinists to include both sides in the debate?--Gniniv (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to repeat myself, have you read Claim CB902 and the Macroevolution FAQ? Gabbe (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked your source and found it to be from a non-neutral propaganda source. The Wikidictionary defines Microevolution ([1]) and Macroevolution ([2]) similar to how I stated them above-see links for reference.--Gniniv (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well then, which sourced improvements to the article would you like to make and/or discuss? Gabbe (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking forwards to reading the scientific papers on the "other side" of this purported debate. Clearly my own reading is too narrow, since none of the science journals that I routinely read publish anything on evolutionary biology remotely as contrary as that suggested by Gniniv. In passing, not all biologists make as big a song and dance about macroevolution as a separate and distinct process from microevolution. Speaking personally, I just see a lot (admittedly to the nth degree) of microevolution, plus a number of additional bells and whistles (e.g. reproductive isolation, horizontal gene transfer, endosymbiotic theory). --PLUMBAGO 11:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a good point there; none of the mainstream scientific journals publish that Macroevolution has never been observed, only Microevolution and the extrapolation of that into capital "E" Evolution.--Gniniv (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that the observed "evolutionary" changes that have been cited in the article are actually examples of Microevolution and not Macroevolution. I think this will improve the neutrality of this article. Any thoughts?--Gniniv (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you mean. If you take the "Evolution has never been observed" section, for example, it discusses whether macroevolution has been observed. Which specific changes would you make and what sources would you use for those changes? Gabbe (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So, what sort of examples of so-called macroevolution do you have in mind? The link you cite above suggests "large-scale patterns or processes in the history of life, including the origins of novel organismal designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiations and extinctions" as examples. Of which, evidence for novel designs has been found in evodevo investigations of the genome, and there is no shortage of evidence of evolutionary trends (e.g. adaptiveness to land-living by plants and animals), adaptive radiations (e.g. Darwin's finches) and extinctions (e.g. various extinction events) in the fossil record. And if you're looking for the creation of separate species then it's been done already. All of which have been scrupulously documented in the mainstream literature. So, what are you after? --PLUMBAGO 08:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think that the examples you cited above (eg. Darwin's Finches, etc..) qualify more as examples of Microevolution (inter-special or familial level diversity, with continued maintenance of fertility between different populations-an example would be that the finches are still finches.... ) than Macroevolution (Reptiles to Mammals etc..). What do you think? Maybe pop another look at the Wikidictionary and see if I am making a mountain out of a molehill....If you think that I am maybe raising a reasonable point we can talk about how we could possibly implement the terms and if we need to use more technical synonyms for them....--Gniniv (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary is an open wiki (ie. that anyone can edit), and therefore not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. See WP:IRS. Gabbe (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I have an actual dictionary in front of me (Webster's New World College Dictionary; Fourth Edition; ISBN 0-02-863119-6) and it defines the terms as follows (and I quote):

Microevolution-n. small scale hereditary changes in organisms through mutations and recombinations, resulting in the formation of slightly differing new varieties.

Macroevolution-n. large scale and long range evolution involving the appearance of new genera, families, etc. of organisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gniniv (talk • contribs) 22:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we still need to consider the points I've raised.....--Gniniv (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

True, Webster's is a decent source and those words are acceptably defined as such. Now, what specific changes would you like to make to the article, and which sources would you use? Gabbe (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether "macroevolution" is defined in a manner that suggests additional processes or as simply "microevolution + lots-of-time", there is no shortage of evidence for it from the fossil record. And on the specific point about reptile → mammal evolution, and leaving aside the abundant fossil evidence, there are even extant organisms that display intermediate characteristics consistent with this major branching. Are you (Gniniv) suggesting that just because we haven't watched a so-called "macroevolutionary event" take place right in front of us it, there is no evidence for such "events"? The period of time over which they occur (especially cf. the reptile/mammal division) would mean that no one scientist, or even many generations of them, could observe them in this way. As Dobzhansky noted, "Experience seems to show ... that there is no way toward an understanding of the mechanisms of macro-evolutionary changes ... other than through a full comprehension of the micro-evolutionary processes observable within the span of a human lifetime".

In passing, on the particular point of definition, the OED tends to the latter definition above with "Major evolutionary change, usually over a long period; the evolution of genera or higher taxa", but I would be reluctant to trust a dictionary on a matter of science anyway (cf. this recent gem). --PLUMBAGO 08:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(Can't trust a dictionary on a definition?-even if it is a science definition. What's the world coming to?)

Honestly...

Now, what do you guys think? I mean, I agree that most of mainstream science thinks that Macroevolution is simply Microevolution plus a few million years; but, I think my point (due to the Microevolution extrapolation assumption, Macroevolution can never really be actually observed real time) should be put in the article. I also think that Macroevolution is not simply Microevolution for a long time, that seems a little to convenient for a valid scientific theory to work. Try reading the definitions above (or find your own and compare them if you think that Websters is now a tool of the anti-science crowd) and we could discuss furthur ideas and see if there is actually a debate on this issue amongst mainstream scientists...We may also want to bring up the debate on punctuated equilibrium and the evidence (or lack thereof) for this alternative view on Macroevolution. Any thoughts?--Gniniv (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We may want to clarify (as a start) that at least for a short period of time (pending more debate) Macroevolution/Evolution is (with a capital "E") not the exact same thing as Microevolution/Natural Selection/Genetic Diversity (Take your pick). Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gniniv (talk • contribs) 23:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC) --Gniniv (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The policy governing this on Wikipedia is WP:DUE (as well as WP:GEVAL, WP:MNA and WP:PSCI). It basically says that articles should feature prominent arguments by mainstream experts, while non-mainstream arguments are typically excluded. Your argument that "macroevolution is not the same as microevolution plus a few million years" can only be included if it can be sourced to mainstream biologists. It isn't sufficient that you (or anyone else here for that matter) simply feel that it should be included. Do you have such a source? Gabbe (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv: Gabbe is right. You seriously need to provide some sources for your contention (you even note above that it is your contention). And you need to be sure that they satisfy the guidance notes that Gabbe cites. Finding disagreement between scientists on how exactly macroevolution is defined, or how important different scientists think it is, is not enough — there is always disagreement between scientists, but it is only infrequently fundamental and therefore relevant for an encyclopaedia reader. For instance, there is no serious debate over punctuated equilibria, and certainly nothing that could be construed (except via mischief) as an "objection to evolution". Creationists 30 years ago tried that particular trick and it got them nowhere — though it probably did make biologists somewhat more aware of a vaguely interesting discussion in palaeontology.

And I've not the first idea what you mean about microevolution being "a little too convenient". Too convenient for what? And what do you mean when you say that "at least for a short period of time" macroevolution ≠ microevolution? That makes no sense. Similarly, conflating microevolution, natural selection and genetic diversity is unhelpful and confusing. What are you trying to get at? Microevolution is the generation by generation change (by natural or artificial selection; or simply by genetic drift) in organisms (i.e. short timescales, so easily observable); natural selection is the unguided process of differential survival and reproduction between organisms; and genetic diversity is simply the observation that organisms are not genetically identical. Anyway, I think some clarity on your part would be helpful before we worry about whether scientists have any serious issues with so-called macroevolution (which, from my reading of sources, they don't). --PLUMBAGO 16:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha! I agree that my point doesn't belong until I can source it properly. I appreciate that you guys are helping out.--Gniniv (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Information that we could include that I have found a source for is simply the proper technical definition of Microevolution and Macroevolution...--Gniniv (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

@Gniniv Those terms should not be explicitly defined here, as there are separate articles for each: Microevolution, Macroevolution. Further, I'm not totally sure what adding explicit defs would accomplish. Are the defs themselves objections to the theory? Lastly, this appears to have been covered in the Evolution has never been observed section of the article; Links to the two terms and a discussion of the primary context they're referenced is within the first couple paragraphs. Jess ^talk _cs 03:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is a reference for a definition of Macroevolution and Microevolution, but the link is from a discussion website, not a peer reviewed Secondary source. Is there any other reference that has a little bit more credibility for the definitions?--Gniniv (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

@Gniniv I'd suggest checking out the Microevolution and Macroevolution articles, as both cite a plethora of sources, including physical books. Further, AFAIK, talkorigins is considered a reliable source on WP. You said earlier that you had a source for "the proper technical definition" of the terms. Is this a source you'd care to share? Part of my point above is that the full definition and discussion of the terms should be partitioned to the individual articles on each topic. Discussion on this page should only concern objections to evolution. Do you feel that changing the info regarding micro/macroevolution would improve the article to that end? On an unrelated note, please indent the discussion... as it's really hard to follow long threads without proper indentation; Text just goes everywhere. Thanks :) Jess ^talk _cs 06:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the formatting help and I agree...--Gniniv (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

New Objection Proposal.

There is an objection not listed on here, and though I can't find any support, it raises a valid question and to dismiss it because of no major scientific support is Ad Vericundum anyway.

If I have a computer, and that computer can make a more complicated computer, and that computer can make an even more complicated computer, then it would reach infinite complexity. That is impossible.

That is what evolution is.

I have a life form that can make a more complicated life form that can make a more complicated life form. The end result must be an infinitely complicated life form. That is impossible.

Therefore evolution is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnderWiggin1 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If I have a computer, and that computer can make a more complicated computer, .. <then it will>. Obviously the conclusion is not necessarily true. Nevertheless, you just need to present some reliable sources that discuss this objection and we can start trying to work it into the article. Cheers, Ben (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Like most objections to evolution, this is one big misstep in logic. Just because an element of a system something cannot be be infinitely complex doesn't mean the system cannot approach infinite complexity; it's simple chaos theory. Notwithstanding that the argument is predicated upon a purely fictional example. Please find a reliable source for this theory and it might be added with due consideration to weight. DKqwerty (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Complexity isn't favoured by evolution but adaptability is. Computers are designed --like in "intended for a purpose"-- machines (and can indeed be complicated) but they only produce more complicated computers when/if told to do so. In all its complexity nature is different. Species don't evolve all by themselves just because they can, but because some changes are occasionally favoured by some circumstances. Machines told to produce increasingly complicated machines will certainly end up with something that ceases to be operational (or becomes 'impossible'), but such a process wouldn't be favoured by natural selection. And, as Ben said, unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas are not favoured on Wikipedia. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

To wit, can anyone name an infinitely complex creature? The atomic theory of matter would seem to preclude such a level of complexity in ANY situation. --King Öomie 13:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

EnderWiggin1: "Complexity" is a vague concept in biology, but "entropy" is less so. Have you read the entire Objections to evolution's possibility section? As well as the Entropy and life article? Gabbe (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

EnderWiggin1: Thinking that dismissing your thought experiment would be an argument from authority rendering the dismissal invalid, is a fallacy fallacy. Please read Wikipedia:No original research, that's where the problem lies. (The logical errors in your argument have already been adressed.) - Soulkeeper (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the other comments here, please be aware -- this is very important! -- that evolution in no way implies an increase in complexity. Complexity can be beneficial (in the sense that it provides an organism with a greater probability that it will live to pass on its genes) but by its nature it is also costly (in a more complex process, more can go wrong, as it were, and by definition more energy is required to build a complex system developmentally). So we have a trade-off, and evolutionary pressures will tend to push complexity when its benefits outweigh its costs and push simplification when the benefits are no longer worth it.

While we as humans tend to measure "success" based on human-like traits -- intelligence, maybe, or our social nature, or whatever -- but remember that biology doesn't care in the least about these things. All that matters is that an organism live to pass on its genetic material. By this metric, many of the world's most successful organisms are very simple when compared to humans. Bacteria, nematodes, etc. And there are numerous extant examples of organisms developing a feature (a tail, for example) and then later losing it because it no longer conferred an advantage.

In sum, evolution is not a staircase of complexity, with each step necessarily being more complex than the next. Once you understand this, your thought-experiment breaks down, even without broaching the question of what "infinite complexity" even means. Cheers, 72.42.168.134 (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing, unrelated to evolution, but related to your thought experiment. Suppose that each time your computer builds its newer, more complex version, it is only able to improve upon itself by half as much as it did in the previous step. So, for example, let the complexity of the first computer in the series be represented by a complexity of 0, and suppose in the first iteration it increases its complexity by one, and then by one half, and then by one fourth, and so on. This process can continue forever, with each computer in the series being strictly more complex than its parent, and yet it will never attain "infinite complexity" (the series of improvements will asymptotically approach a complexity of 2). There are many examples from mathematics of series that are strictly increasing in this way but that fail to diverge. So really, without even getting into the evolution, your thought experiment is an appeal to human intuition, which lamentably turns out to be wrong about a great many things. 72.42.168.134 (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Evolutionary theory has NOTHING to do with this "infinite complexity" term you've clearly fabricated. It isn't scientific - in terminology, or argumentation. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Evolution Versus YEC Debate

Come to my talk page to participate in a ongoing Evolution versus YEC debate sourced from points raised by Dr. Werner Gitt...--Gniniv (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Is not Was

There IS continued resistance to his views, not was. See chart at bottom of article, referencing [157]. If you still contest, that's fine, but that table and some other information will have to be removed as well, because you are contesting that information too. Using the word was does not satisfy the condition of verifiability.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavengen (talk • contribs) 12:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The caption to the Darwin portrait should be read in context. It is a part of the section History of objections, more exactly it is connected to the first paragraph of the section, which is about the 19th century views of Darwin's ideas. I think that the caption is a good summary of the paragraph and that you can’t take it to mean that there are no objections to the concept of natural selection today. (After all, there’s a whole article about objections to evolution here.) Also, it would be misleading to change ”was” to ”is” because it could be taken to mean that creationists today accept the idea of common descent but reject the idea of natural selection. Sjö (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is hardly an article about the objections to evolution. I see what you mean about how that wording could imply that creationists accept the idea of common descent, as that wording isolates the two clauses. However, the way it is now is misleading as it could be taken to mean that there is no longer resistance to his views about natural selection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavengen (talk • contribs) 08:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No longer resistance in academic, educated circles. Similarly, there is significant resistance to the foundations of Calculus amongst middle-school students. This is not a notable viewpoint. --King Öomie 15:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Check this out. There is no need to insult people. Go look up the word "opinion" I don't think you know what it means. This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about with this article. The authors want to word everything to imply that people that object to the idea of evolution are not intelligent, lack comprehension, are uneducated, or ignorant. There is no need for that. By the way, according to the dictionary, and my college biology book ("The Living World. Sixth Edition. George Johnson, Jonathon Losos.) evolution is an opinion. To quote the book (pg. 14) "There is no absolute truth in science, however, only varying degrees of uncertainty." To quote the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion): "o·pin·ion   [uh-pin-yuhn] –noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty." Tavengen (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And for the rebuttal: the text of WP:DUE. --King Öomie 03:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the idea of the best-supported scientific theory in the history of our species being labeled an opinion is more than slightly off-putting. --King Öomie 03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Still missing the point. That is not what I am talking about. Let me give you an example: I could write: "The stupid, uneducated, amateur wikipedia member named King Oomie referred to the page WP:DUE to allege that he was correct, after misinterpreting Tavengen's state-of-the-art information." Or I could write: "A member of the wikipedia community King Oomie referenced the page WP:DUE to explain his reasoning." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavengen (talk • contribs) 03:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

State-of-the-art information on pseudoscience and denialism, perhaps. Read the page, you'll see what I'm talking about. --King Öomie 03:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also regarding what you said: "Also, the idea of the..." ""Please, if you want to discuss the validity of evolution, Wikipedia is not the venue to do so (see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK). Might I suggest talk.origins instead?" Tavengen (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop using it as a weapon, and start following it. It's not a free license to say whatever the hell you want and then go "AH HAH" when people respond. That's called trolling. --King Öomie 04:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You didn't mean this offensively?: "No longer resistance in academic, educated circles. Similarly, there is significant resistance to the foundations of Calculus amongst middle-school students. This is not a notable viewpoint. --King Öomie 15:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)"

I haven't discussed anything about the validity of information in the article. I have discussed it from an editorial viewpoint. However, just because this is an evolution article and you support evolution, doesn't give you free license to say "whatever the hell you want" and insult people. Tavengen (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my analogy offended you. I couldn't think of a better example of a group of people, outside of a field of science, vehemently disagreeing with that field's conclusion. You said "Evolution is an opinion". I said "No, it isn't". And then you said "DON'T DISCUSS THAT HERE". --King Öomie 04:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just stop. Tavengen (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This article in general

"The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints."

Every section of this article disparages the subject. Throughout the article, the objectors are written about using negative language. For example, in the first section: "some members still reject it"- rejecting is a negative action "objections to evolution have frequently attempted to blur"- blurring is a negative action. "Such objections have often centered on undermining evolution's scientific basis, with the intent of combating the teaching of evolution as fact and opposing the spread of "atheistic materialism"- undermining is negative, combating is negative, opposing is negative. "citing detractors' misinterpretations"- detractors is negative, misinterpretations is negative.

Throughout the article, proponents are written about using positive language. For example, in the first section: "his theory of evolution by natural selection initially met opposition from alternate scientific theories, but came to be universally accepted by the scientific community."- universally accepted is a positive description. "The observation, or fact, of evolutionary processes occurring, as well as the current theory explaining that fact, have been uncontroversial among biologists for nearly a century."- uncontroversial is a positive description. "accept the occurrence of evolution,"-accept is a positive action. "to evolution's evidence, methodology, plausibility, morality, and scientific acceptance."-5 positive values attributed to evolution.

That's just the first section. At best, this article is in need of a complete re-write to present the information in a unbiased point of view.

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."

Although the article presents some information about some of the "objections to evolution", the main idea expressed by the article is arguments against the objections to evolution. If reading the article alone doesn't convince someone of it's biased nature, they only needs to look at the citations. Are any of the 157 works cited in the article not written by a proponent of evolution? This article was very poorly written in terms of bias and npov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavengen (talk • contribs) 07:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with your opinion about the use of the words you pointed out. If a group or movement opposes something, how can using the word violate NPOV? And yes, evolution is universally accepted by biologists. So I don't see your issue with the wording, if it's accurate. The scientific acceptance of evolution means that our policy on neutral pov requires us to give due weight to objections, which is very little. From the policy:

Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the main views. Any mention should be proportionate, representing the scientific view as the majority view and the pseudoscientific view as the minority view, including explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all part of describing differing views fairly."

Also, please note the section on due weight regarding articles on minority views:

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

NPOV does not mean all views are treated equally. It means all views are treated fairly as reliable sources dictate. Auntie E. (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Aunt Entropy, Tavengen has a point. Take for example the section on falsifiability:

A statement is considered falsifiable if there is an observation or a test that could be made that would demonstrate that the statement is false. Evolution is considered falsifiable because it makes predictions that, if they were contradicted by the evidence, would falsify evolution. In contrast, many religious beliefs are not falsifiable, because no testable prediction has been made about the supernatural.

All this before the objection is even stated? And not merely a defense of evolution before the objection to it is even stated, but a spontaneous attack on "many religious beliefs" from the assumed philosophical ground of evidentialism, which said beliefs don't accept to begin with, and which is totally and completely irrelevant? The whole article drips with this kind of intellectually dishonest behavior. And you're telling me this is neutral and objective? I think it's evident that the editors here have been so afraid that someone might actually think that any of these arguments MIGHT POSSIBLY HAVE SOME MERIT that they can't even state them without attempting to refute them before, during and after so that it becomes almost impossible to tell what the objectors are really saying, which is really the point here. At the very least, each objection needs to be divided into sections that argue for and against the objection and not have the article constantly tripping over itself in an attempt to defend macroevolution from any perception of doubt. --BenMcLean (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with what Ben said. A non point-of-view article should have a "consistently impartial tone", the tone is NOT impartial at ANY point in the article. In good, editorially non point-of-view writing, it should NOT be clear what the editors point-of-view is. This article is COMPLETELY about disputing the validity of objections to evolution. Again "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavengen (talk • contribs) 23:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

On the specifics of falsifiability, I have edited the first two paragraphs of this section such that the anti-evolution argument is outlined first, prior to the response from scientists. Previously it was a bit cart-before-the-horse, but hopefully this clears things up a bit. In passing, if the arguments ostensibly disputing evolution are erroneous then the WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE approach is to make this clear. Unfortunately (well, for creationists et al.), all objections to date are erroneous (which, of course, doesn't stop them being endlessly recycled), and we would be misrepresenting the state of the art of biological knowledge to imply otherwise by giving "equal word count" to both sides. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tavengen is still right that the overall article is heavily biased. Certainly there are alot of fallacious arguments against evolution but back up and reflect for a second how much time and effort has been spent similarly "debunking" articles about MAGIC or the Greek gods on Wikipedia compared to the "debunking" of objectors in this article. --BenMcLean (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the efforts Plumbago, you kind of entirely missed the point of what I said. I don't really care what information biology wants to present in a biology article. The point is, the TONE of the article is defamatory of people that object to evolution and glorifies evolutionists. It's not WHAT is being said, it's HOW it's being said, or more specifically the choice of words. Tavengen (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a thought: how many protesters have you encountered advocating for respect of the Greek Gods or for the inclusion of magic in the science curriculum? The answer to this question may illuminate why objections to evolution are considered so carefully. In passing, when you say there are "alot of fallacious arguments against evolution", are you implying that there are some that are not fallacious? --PLUMBAGO 08:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am. There are both blatantly fallacious and somewhat reasonable arguments on both sides. An example of a blatantly fallacious argument would be the one I've heard most often in favor of macroevolution: that anyone who doesn't believe in it is stupid or dishonest. --BenMcLean (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you've chosen a fallacious misquote as an example – the original was "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." which Dawkins wrote in 1989 and has been much used against him since. You forgot ignorance, and as Dawkins wrote in retrospect, Ignorance Is No Crime. However, that's a comment on antievolutionists, not an argument in favour of the existence of evolution or of evolutionary theory. . . dave souza, talk 09:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you see that one in the article, feel free to remove it. --King Öomie 05:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And if there are some that are not fallacious, all you need do is add reliable sources to this effect. It's that simple. Incidentally, some biologists, of whom I am one, do not distinguish macroevolution - it's simply what happens with microevolution if you wait around longer. --PLUMBAGO 14:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

They're the exact same process, so most do not. "Micro" and "Macro" evolution are also unacademic terms. Arguing that microevolution will not lead to macroevolution is nearly indentical to saying 1+x=2, and it could POSSIBLE equal 3, but there is NO WAY that it can make it to 10. It is, indeed, quite dishonest, as they do not even assert any sort of mechanism that would stop microevolution from inevitably culminating in macroevolution. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Pleease look up WP:FRINGE98.168.192.162 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Academic elitism

An argument I have heard repeated loud and often is that the philosophy of macro-evolution is propped up by academic elitism and so we'd expect the same behavior and arguments from academia whether the idea is true or not. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed made this argument. --BenMcLean (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Also, those that are biologists and oppose the ideas of evolution will automatically be classified as pseudoscientific. So if evolution is universally accepted by biologists, anyone (including those wishing to become biologists) who disagrees with it, is automatically prevented from being one. Isn't that unfalsifiable then? hahahah. Anyone who studies biology and finds evidence opposing evolution is categorically discredited right? It's kind of like saying "Biologists universally accept that evolution is true, therefore, anyone that does not accept evolution is not a biologist." So in essence it's really an empty statement to say "Biologists universally accept evolution." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavengen (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't confuse academic elitism with refusing to prove a negative or otherwise engage in unscientific debates about scientific subjects. You can't on one hand take an Anti-intellectualism standpoint and then with the other hand try to use some sort of science to prove your point. If you think there's some broad scientific conspiracy out there to supress valid evidence of ID or creationism please feel free spread the word to the Flat Earth Society, I'm sure they'll be glad to hear the news. Nefariousski (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The charge of academic elitism is not necessarily anti-intellectual. It is merely critical of the current academic establishment. Whether elitism equates to a "conspiracy" is a further question. --BenMcLean (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you call the theory of evolution, probably the most supported theory of science next to germ theory, "the philsophy of macroevolution" means I can't take what you say seriously. And for any biologist to ignore the vast amounts of evidence which supports evolution is veering into denialism. There is no evidence which disproves evolution. In fact, we find new evidence to support it every day. It's not a matter of opinion here. I mean you are just as well off saying evil spirits cause disease instead of viruses and bacteria and getting mad because people who believe such things don't get degrees in medicine. They don't, and I for one am glad for that bit of meritocracy. Auntie E. (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Please, if you want to discuss the validity of evolution, Wikipedia is not the venue to do so (see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK). Might I suggest talk.origins instead?" Tavengen (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You will of course find new "evidence" to support it every day because you hold a philosophy which excludes any other possibility before you begin. This isn't inductive reasoning, it's deductive. --BenMcLean (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, Ben didn't seem to be saying that the argument was a valid one, merely that it seemed to be a prevalent one. If it is a prominent argument, it would seem to be appropriate to mention it in the article. Now—regarding the question of its prominence—since Expelled is not a reliable source, are there any reliable sources that discusses this argument? Gabbe (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I do think there is some validity to this argument, especially considering the grand sweeping assertions on the part of macro-evolution apologists that anyone who disagrees with them is dishonest or stupid. --BenMcLean (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, if you want to discuss the validity of evolution, Wikipedia is not the venue to do so (see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK). Might I suggest talk.origins instead? If you want to discuss reliably sourced edits to this article, then feel free to make a suggestion. Gabbe (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The very fact that you (BenMcLean) refer to people as "macro-evolution apologists" speaks volumes (what happened to "evolution apologists"? did the evidence get too uncomfortable?). As Gabbe says, this is not the place. --PLUMBAGO 08:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, well let's be consistent and cut out the parting shots then, shall we? --BenMcLean (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit BenMcLean - you should read WP:TALKO. --PLUMBAGO 09:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Unfortunately (well, for creationists et al.), all objections to date are erroneous (which, of course, doesn't stop them being endlessly recycled), and we would be misrepresenting the state of the art of biological knowledge" "Please, if you want to discuss the validity of evolution, Wikipedia is not the venue to do so (see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK). Might I suggest talk.origins instead?" Tavengen (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between explaining something to address your concerns about the article, and explaining something to rail against the status quo. The breakdown of WP:DUE was warranted. --King Öomie 03:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ben was discussing the article editorially, as is the purpose of the talk page. Plumbago was discussing the validity of the information. Tavengen (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So it's okay to say "This article is wrong because of A, B, and C", but it becomes off-topic to say "Actually, you're wrong about that"? --King Öomie 05:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, check this out. Don't reply to my topics. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavengen (talk • contribs) 05:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't he reply? This is a discussion after all. Gabbe (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

oomie shouldn't reply because he is trolling. 173.87.185.55 (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Tavengen - I was merely pointing out the obvious: that there are no scientifically accepted objections at the present time to evolution. And that, despite this, the same tired objections come back time and time again. Which, in part, is the rationale for this article: to collect together such objections and explain the mainstream science viewpoint on them. That said viewpoint does not find in favour of them has nothing to do with WP or editors here. If you disagree, just show us your reliable sources. --PLUMBAGO 09:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have said time and again. I'm not arguing the information in the article. It's HOW it says it. Obviously there is no grounds to keep the article's wording offensive, so you all keep changing the subject by saying "wp:undue" "wp:___". Again, it's not what information is in the article, it's HOW it is said. It would be fine to link a "wp:___". If it was relevant to what is being discussed.

"Impartial tone Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." THIS part of wp:neutral is relevant to what i was saying. wp:undue is NOT.

"Sorts of terms to avoid

Words and expressions should be avoided if they are: ambiguous, uninformative, or non-specific. derogatory or offensive. ones that imply that Wikipedia itself, rather than the sources, supports or doubts a viewpoint. condescending toward the reader. clichéd. unnecessarily flattering or positive. "

Article Rename

This article needs to be renamed. "Objections to evolution" does not describe the content of this article. What about "Objections to evidence against evolution"? I think this succinctly describes the content of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavengen (talk • contribs) 04:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been brought up time and time again. As per WP:DUE and WP:PSCI, it would be intellectually dishonest to present the various objections to evolution, flawed as they are, without some background and a discussion of the relevant sourced refutation. We're not in the business of presenting pseudoscientific claims without challenge. Feel free to remove your own comments, Tav, but don't touch mine. If referencing current scientific views is all it takes to insult you, perhaps a harder look at what you believe is warranted. The article IS about objections to evolution. But under about half a dozen policies, and per Gabbe below, these views can't be presented absent their scientific counterpart, even if that counterpart is a summary refutation. We're not going to present this stuff as factual, because it's not. --King Öomie 14:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oomie, this is not the place to debate the validity of evolution. I am talking about the tone of the article not the information. There should be an auto-reply function for talk pages. IGNORING THE VALIDITY OF EITHER STATEMENT WHICH IS BETTER WORDED? "Only uneducated, ignorant people believe in evolution."

Evolution is widely accepted among biologists, therefore it would be misleading of us to promote alternatives to evolution as if they were as widely accepted by biologists. See WP:GEVAL and WP:MNA. Gabbe (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, "Objections to evolution" is a concise and accurate description of this article content. That the article contains rebuttals to these objections is only natural, as every article on Wikipedia should give due weight to the consensus view among mainstream experts in the field (in this case, biologists and other scientists). "Objections to evidence against evolution" would be imprecise, first of all by implying that there exists "evidence against evolution". Gabbe (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Tavengen meant "Objections to evidence for (of?) evolution"? But that would sort-of defeat the line of argument being pursued (that there are valid objections to evolution), since it would imply that there is only evidence for (or of) evolution. I agree with Gabbe that "Objections to evolution" is the most concise and accurate title for this article. --PLUMBAGO 09:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, guys, this is another article that has problems. You can't weigh an article titled "objections to evolution" in favor of proofs of evolution. Now, I favor the scientific theories of human origins as much as you do, but the article title is illogical. Off the top of my head... "Objections to Evolution and their refutations" would be infinitely better. By all means, push evolution! It's true! But, uh, admit it while you're doing it. Don't be ashamed of it. Admit it. Be proud.EGMichaels (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC) This is exactly what I mean, EGMichaels proposed title is much better than the current article title, and it is not misleading. 173.87.185.55 (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "Misconceptions about evolution" would be a more accurate title, but that would surely stop those who need it the most from reading it. Is there any use in preaching to the choir, even in an encyclopedia? - Soulkeeper (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We aren't trying to prove or disprove anything. We are simply here to report notable and verifiable views -- and use logical titles.EGMichaels (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This. 173.87.185.55 (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Objections is the better word. The objections may be based on misconceptions, but who cares. We simply outline the objections according to WP:WEIGHT; thus an outline of an objection will likely include the debunking of any misconceptions introduced as the basis of that objection. Ben (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you use debunking in a similar manner to "Objections to Creation in Genesis"? No, you'd let the objections stand without debunking. And that's fine. The PROBLEM (again) is the title. "Objections to Evolution and their refutations" honestly tells the reader what the article is about.EGMichaels (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This. 173.87.185.55 (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Your first few sentences hardly make sense to me and make no mention of reliable sources. My preference remains with the current title for the reasons I listed above. Ben (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ben, what the heck are you talking about? When something doesn't make sense to you, read it again.EGMichaels (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, infinite loops are fun! Here, I wouldn't want you to miss out: Good trains make objections into beer, but only on yellow notepads without cashews. Have fun applying your own advice! Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Cute, but you have yet to consider my point. I can't guess what you are talking about if you won't say it. Your point about reliable sources had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I said. I supported the CONTENT of the article and the WEIGHT it was giving. I merely commented that the title did not reflect it. And then you said there was something you didn't understand. Well, WHAT didn't you understand? I can't explain something to you in a vaccuum.EGMichaels (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm considering these sentences:

I supported the CONTENT of the article and the WEIGHT it was giving. I merely commented that the title did not reflect it.

Ok, so the title does not reflect it, where it must be one of "content" or "weight". Weight is constant across all articles (ideally) so article titles need not hint at it. So you must mean that the article title does not accurately reflect the contents of the article. Before I continue, can I ask you you to confirm my understanding of your words? Let's not worry about consequences of my understanding just yet, a simple yes or no, please, so we can work through this. Ben (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Put simply, the title should unambiguously agree with the article. It is unencyclopedic to merely discuss objections to evolution without answering those objections. You and I are agreed on the content. We are not agreed that the title clearly gives that impression. This, again, is where you build consensus by dismissing people's concerns rather than considering them.EGMichaels (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit mate. I just very carefully considered what you wrote and even stopped mid-analysis to make sure I understood. Asking you if I had understood you correctly gets me the reply: you build consensus by dismissing people's concerns rather than considering them. You're either an idiot or a troll, possibly both in light of the diff you've just created. Ben (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ben -- as I said, YOU build consensus by dismissing other people. Your comment about me being an idiot or a troll is merely another demonstration of that habit. It's not a good consensus builder. Consensus is built by collaboration, not conquest.EGMichaels (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Again you're missing the fact that the article is written in line with POLICY. Please read WP:WEIGHT particularly the balance section, the impartial tone section, the third paragraph of the "Undue weight" section etc.... Tons of specific direction that support the article in its current state. Nefariousski (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nef, once again you are laboring under a poor title. I did not propose that the article weigh in favor of the objections. I merely proposed that the title admit it.EGMichaels (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been given more links to help you educate yourself about Wikipedia's policies than I care to count now. I know you've read them so I don't feel it is a waste of time, and I feel it prudent, to point you to WP:COMPETENCE and ask you to carefully consider it. Ben (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nefar you should read the part about impartial tone, and also wp:avoid.

173.87.185.55 (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Ben, I carefully consider competence every time I try to get you to use functional English in a title. But I still have to work with you nevertheless.EGMichaels (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't actually. This is a volunteer project after all. Ben (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and you keep volunteering those titles, don't you?EGMichaels (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what, EGM- instead of taking another cause under your wing, read through the archives of this talk. This isn't new, and neither are any of the arguments here. --King Öomie 23:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

King -- why keep fighting? Why not just say what you mean in the title? I don't get these baits and switches in the titles.EGMichaels (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OMG, not another article title war! Anyway, yes EGM, "Objections to Evolution and their refutations" is a somewhat more accurate description since the current article documents both objections to evolution and why these particular objections are wrong. But it's hardly concise, and it's not likely to be one that people will come looking for (though I admit that WP:TITLE leaves things a little vague). Furthermore, since we are talking about science here, it remains perfectly possible that an objection to evolution will one day arise that cannot be refuted. At which point your suggested title will become redundant. Keeping the article with the current, somewhat unsatisfactory title leaves the door open for this, uses a title that's likely to be found by those looking for objections to evolution and keeps things simple. However, I would not like to stifle people suggesting alternatives, but I seriously doubt that any of the alternative titles suggested so far (or straightforward variants) are likely to be adopted here. --PLUMBAGO 12:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Plum, that was exactly my reaction when (out of morbid curiosity) I wanted to know if it was just me or Ben constantly getting into title conflicts. Imagine my surprise when I saw this. I'm sure you're just as shocked at him! (No, not him... you didn't NOTICE a title conflict until I pointed it out?) I agree about concision. "Evolution: objections and answers" would be easier to find in a search (people don't start typing "objections to..." to see what controversy they want to get into). At the very least the article title should lead off with the subject matter. In any case, evolution and human origins is something interesting to me, but I'm confortable enough with the information here to not need to do any editing. My main interests are stocks and mythology. So, no real push back from me here. But just as YOU were shocked enough at another title war to point it out... I was shocked enough at another title war to point it out. I was, just like you, merely pointing out a recurring problem. How about have a talk to Ben about this weird habit of his?EGMichaels (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, irrefutable because it's grounded in fact? Or because it's unfalsifiable? Because there's already a whole bunch of the latter :P --King Öomie 14:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

King, I think Plum was being hypothetical. ANYTHING is hypothetically possible.EGMichaels (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

But realistically speaking, some things are so unlikely to occur that they can be safely disregarded. Not that I'm saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE for evolution to be overturned- but it's survived continuous attack for a few centuries now. --King Öomie 14:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of research into this article's past issues, I've collated these links. Article name decided, second discussion, third discussion. First complaint of bias, second complaint, complaint specifically about article name, bias, complaints, ad, infinitum. I realize this appears to be a large spread, but the first thread was started three years ago, back when the article was "Misunderstandings about evolution". --King Öomie 14:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, and... do you want to keep winning battles or stop the war? The problem is that editors on both sides are arguing about absolute truth. If, instead, they kept the argument on the grounds of historical differences and documentation the editors themselves could get a break. For instance, Jews and Christians will disagree about Jesus being the Messiah. However, they could work peacefully together in an article documenting who has had various views in history. The people arguing stops being the editors themselves and becomes historical (and mostly dead) people. Jews and Christians will both agree that Peter thought Jesus was, and Maimonides thought Jesus wasn't -- for example. Here, both pro and anti evolution folks can agree that Darwin was pro, and Dawkins, while that guy who wrote "The Origin of Species Revisited" was at least a skeptic. We need to merely list all the notable views from reliable sources and call it a day. But this article... is not a hot button for me. As I said, I just wanted to see if Ben was doing this title fighting in other places, and saw that he was. For what it's worth, "Objections to evolution" is infinitely better than "Misunderstandings about evolution." The old title would imply weird things like Lamarkianism, etc. where the MECHANISM of evolution is misunderstood.EGMichaels (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article was structured significantly differently then as well. It wasn't this one with a different name. It was simply abandoned in favor of this new one. There is no absolute truth argument here. Side A presents objection to evolution, side B points out that the objection has no basis in science (or fact). Several policies (see above) would be violated if we dropped side B's input and presented side A unchallenged and implicitly as fact. There is a reason the article Chemtrail conspiracy theory includes scientific information about contrails without needing to be called Refutation of the chemtrail conspiracy theory- intellectually honest, unbiased reporting debunks it on its own. --King Öomie 14:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

King, as I said a few times, I have no problem with the content of the article. "Evolution controversy" would be a fantastic title. Short, encyclopdic, and clearly named to express two sides of an argument.EGMichaels (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I know you don't care about the content, I'm saying that content fits the title fine. There is no scientific controversy over the theory of evolution, but a manufactured one pushed with the intent of presenting creationism as a serious subject to students, so I'd say that title is as misleading as you think the current one to be. As I said several sections above- there is significant opposition to the foundations of Calculus amongst middle-schoolers. This does not a controversy make. --King Öomie 16:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I just checked and saw that there IS an Evolution controversy article. I'll have to look at the differences between the two. While I agree that there is no scientific controversy, there's definitely a cultural one. Even this article deals with those contested points.EGMichaels (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed Content

WP:TALK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following quote has been removed: "An example of this is the claim that geological strata are dated through the fossils they hold, but that fossils are in turn dated by the strata they are in. However, in most cases strata are not dated by their fossils, but by their position relative to other strata and by radiometric dating, and most strata were dated before the theory of evolution was formulated." I am removing this quote because it is not a correct example of claim being made. It's just flat incorrect anyway. Although uniformitarianism is relatively old with respect to evolution, the actual dates that we have now post date the atomic age.EGMichaels (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC) I removed this quote and someone saw fit to restore it where it doesn't belong. It's not a proper example of the circular reasoning used in this argument. It's a complete misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.86.44 (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Have you read the sources (specifically, [3]) linked in the paragraph? Gabbe (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC) The following paragraph has been removed: {"This view is thus invariably justified with arguments from analogy. The basic idea of this argument for a designer is the teleological argument, an argument for the existence of God based on the perceived order or purposefulness of the universe. A common way of using this as an objection to evolution is by appealing to the 18th-century philosopher William Paley's watchmaker analogy, which argues that certain natural phenomena are analogical to a watch (in that they are ordered, or complex, or purposeful), which means that, like a watch, they must have been designed by a "watchmaker"—an intelligent agent. This argument forms the core of intelligent design, a neocreationist movement seeking to establish certain variants of the design argument as legitimate science, rather than as philosophy or theology, and have them be taught alongside evolution.[22][35]"} I am removing this entire section as it states, and continues to rationalize, that the argument is "invariably justified . . . from analogy." Sir Fred Hoyle's argument is not based on "analogy" but rather on a statistical unlikelihood which he addressed during a lecture at the California Institute of Technology, "When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link, it's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2,000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. Rather then accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act." The writer of the removed paragraph is clearly biased and intentionally attacks religion to divert attention away from the real objection which is mathematical likelihood. The following paragraph has been removed: {"This objection is fundamentally an argument by lack of imagination, or argument from incredulity: a certain explanation is seen as being counter-intuitive, and therefore an alternate, more intuitive explanation is appealed to instead. Supporters of evolution generally respond by arguing that evolution is not based on "chance", but on predictable chemical interactions: natural processes, rather than supernatural beings, are the "designer". Although the process involves some random elements, it is the non-random selection of survival-enhancing genes that drives evolution along an ordered trajectory. The fact that the results are ordered and seem "designed" is no more evidence for a supernatural intelligence than the appearance of complex natural phenomenon (ie. snowflakes).[101] It is also argued that there is insufficient evidence to make statements about the plausibility or implausibility of abiogenesis, that certain structures demonstrate poor design, and that the implausibility of life evolving exactly as it did is no more evidence for an intelligence than the implausibility of a deck of cards being shuffled and dealt in a certain random order.[35][98]"} This objection does not come from an "argument by lack of imagination" but rather from the inability of the writer of the removed paragraph to articulate the opposing sides argument. Regarding the notion of "chance" the objection comes from the efforts of Stanley L. Miller, who, in 1953, formed amino acids in his laboratory in a "prebiotic soup." Shortly after he attempted to turn the amino acids into proteins and nucleic acids, the necessary building blocks for life, but had no success in doing so. After almost sixty years of continual testing by the scientific community there has been uniform failure in every experiment. Regarding these experiments the Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University said, "It is fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems." and, ". . . there is a fundamental flaw in all current theories of the chemical origins of life." The argument here is not that "we don't know what happened therefore it didn't happen" but rather, "the scientific communities inability to explain, agree, or recreate life from nothing simply means that it should not be taught as science." Klous Dose of the Institute of Biochemistry in Mainz, Germany, said, "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field end either in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." In closing, this article seems quite biased and often resorts to using Straw Man Fallacies. Please help clean up this article by making sure both sides of the issue are addressed from a neutral stand point. The article was neutral, but your changes would seem to push it towards pro-creationism. This article isn't intended as a Creationist resource for how to 'win' arguments. As you can see in the article itself, every single argument has been answered and disproven (and it would be a violation of WP:N to NOT point that out after every single one. We can't just allow incorrect information to sit by itself to be mistaken for fact). And there's no strawman- I've heard the majority of those arguments from real people, almost verbatim. --King Öomie 12:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC) -You are correct. This article isn't intended as a Creationist resource for how to 'win' arguments. This article is a list of objections regarding evolution. One such objection is the statistical unlikelihood of events, which this particular section of the article is supposed to address. However, instead of exploring statistics or probabilities it states the argument is only based on "analogy" and "lack of imagination." This simply not true. Hoyle's analogy comes from his line of mathematical reasoning which he commented on during a lecture at the California Institute of Technology, "When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link, it's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2,000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes." It is more then appropriate for Hoyle's mathematical line of thinking to be explored in this article. One might also wish to explore the odds of enzymes forming into nucleic acids and proteins, how many proteins it takes to support a single cell, and also how nucleic acids and proteins are able to bond. I would like to see these objections addressed not because I'm "pro-creationism" but because many people look to this article to see if the arguments for or against evolution are sound. Only by sticking to the objection and considering it in its entirety will we present a "neutral" stand point and allow the reader to make up their mind for themselves. To use your own words against you "As you can see in the article itself, every single argument has been answered and disproven." I think you should reconsider your motives. The point of this article is not to prove or "disprove" anything, it's to state the criticisms, belief and science based, that people have with evolution and to explore the logic/facts that both support and discredit such an objection. In closing, this section of objections "Evolution Cannot Create Complex Structures" needs to develop the objection, present statistical likelihoods, and include quotes from distinguished persons who have argued for or against evolution in a mathematical context. Sign your posts with ~~~~, please. I agree that the article isn't intended to 'disprove' anything. It will, however, point out that things ARE disproven. To speak specifically to your example of statistical probability, Hoyle's incredulity is based on his lack of imagination, and failure to understand that while rolling a group of 400,000 dice and getting the exact same result TWICE is extraordinary, rolling that group ONCE and getting A result is not. He's speaking from the standpoint that because we are here, the dice roll was preordained ("Oh, how unbelievably unlikely!"). On the contrary; in any arbitrarily-large group of chemical reactions, over an arbitrarily-large amount of time, there will be A result. If not us, something else. Any one of an unimaginably enormous amount of possible universes could exist instead of the one we occupy now, but it was inevitable that it would be one of those. It just happened to be this one. Random is random is random- we aren't an exception, but rather one of a nearly infinite amount of possibilities. The dice were not rolled to fit a template or a prediction- our senses and instinctual understanding of the universe have drawn that template in our heads ("We are amazing, because we fit the definition of perfection that exists only in our own minds!"). Lack of imagination. --King Öomie 18:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC) -This is an interesting line of logic you follow. I remember hearing something similar in a lecture once, in a slightly different context but the line of reasoning was the same, "Today, out in the parking lot, I saw a car with the license plate 5B2771K. And I got to thinking to myself, out of the hundred-million cars in the USA what are the odds I would happen to see the one with the license plate number 5B2771K? The odds are a hundred-million to one, absolutely amazing!" During this lecture he used this analogy to try and prove that improbable things happen all the time. This line of reasoning did not sit well with me and it took me some time to figure out what was wrong with his conclusion. The fact is, the odds of him seeing a license plate number on a license plate is not a hundred-million to one. Rather the odds are 100%(assuming all license plates have license plate numbers). However, if I sent you out to pick a random license plate number while I also went out and picked a random license plate number and later on when we met up we realized we'd both picked 5B2771K then the odds of us both picking the same license plate number would be a hundred-million to one. The same is true of proteins. There's nearly an endless possible amount of ways for enzymes to form together. However, there are only about a thousand combinations that create proteins - and out of those proteins there are only a handful of them that can support a single celled life form. So while "rolling the dice" will yield a result, the odds that-that particular roll will produce the correct protein is absolutely mind bogglingly small. Since 1953 Stanley Miller and others have been trying to create proteins out of enzymes in a lab but they haven't been successful. The reason is the odds are are just too low. And then, even after you do get your protein, you still need nucleic acid, another complex molecular structure consisting of a phosphate group, a purine/pyrimidine, and a pentose sugar. Of course, if you want your cell to have the ability to reproduce (mitosis) your going to need two very specific and complicated kinds of nucleic acid (DNA and RNA) as well as cytoplasm, organelles and a cell membrane. As Professor Maciej Giertych, a noted geneticist from the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, once said, "The very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. . . There is no known way to science how that information could arise spontaneously." Another problem brought to my attention came from an article in Scientific America by John Horgan, "Ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere. Such an atmosphere [carbon dioxide and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life." So, based upon the specific kinds of proteins that are required to support a single celled organism, the information that needs to be stored in the complicated molecular strands of DNA and RNA to support mitosis, and the hostile environment which the first organism appeared in, we find ourselves looking at a very unlikely (what I would call statistically improbable) set of circumstances.98.165.237.38 (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC) How do you know that there are only about a thousand combinations of enzymes that create proteins? Have you tried all the other combinations, and found them not to create proteins? How do you know that only a handful of these proteins can support a single celled life form? Do you have access to all the possible single celled life forms (as opposed to all single celled life forms that are available to us), and observed that they contain only said handful of proteins? The "correct protein" you're talking about, implies that the life we see today is the only possible "correct life". You don't have any basis for such an assumption. Please read the article Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations at talkorigins.org, and try to understand it, before posting more transparent ID diversions here. - Soulkeeper (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 98, your line of logic is again based on a failure of imagination. Our blueprint is not the ONLY way life can form. Who says you need a nucleic acid? Who decides what a "correct" enzyme is? And, really? The failure of scientists to synthesize something in a decade is indicative that nature couldn't do it over a billion years? We can't turn hydrogen into plutonium, either, so I guess God must have pooped that out. I was very specific with what I said, as was the speaker you saw. The dice weren't rolled twice. They were rolled hundreds of millions of times, until a workable result was achieved- ONCE. And if not on this planet, then elsewhere. How many millions of Goldilocks planets do you think there are just in the Orion arm? --King Öomie 13:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC) No, wait, WP:TALK. Stop removing sourced content without explanations beyond "this isn't right" and we'll have no problems. --King Öomie 13:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk Origins

Hello there. I was reading this article and I was wondering why it makes heavy use of citations from talk origins, a Usenet group. It seems that a Usenet group would not be a reliable source as per Wikipedia policy. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The archives linked are not discussion boards, and make heavy use of external cites that meet our own requirements. --King Öomie 18:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

To see the previous discussions that establish reliability, you can visit WP:RSN and enter "talkorigins" in the search archives box at the top. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent revert

I've reverted recent edits by Gniniv (talk · contribs) to the article with the following rationale:

1. There's no reason to bring up YEC specifically in the lead.
2. There's no reason to capitalise section title into "Objections to Evolution's Status", see MOS:CAPS.
3. The section "Evolution has never been observed" is aptly named as is.

Any objections? Gabbe (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion. The change in the lead is incomprehensible: YEC is not relevant in the paragraph where it was introduced, and the sentence seems grammatically incorrect. The heading changes are particularly unjustified. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I accept the revision, I've tried to think about this from a more objective position, and saying creationism versus saying YEC probably is a tad more coherent.....--Gniniv (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)