Talk:Objections to evolution/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Further clarification regarding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

after that it says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality and Weasel words

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now on to your specific points:

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

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

SÆdon^talk 22:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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