This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 2009. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I found this strange writing from Yahya that basically says that Evolution theory is related to secret societies. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.65.192 ( talk) 20:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I was just reading through this and it seems to have a huge pro-evolution slant. There are so many examples that I cannot list them all, so I'll give a couple.
There's one overarching problem with this article, and it's a problem located in every single section. Basically, it seems as if pro-evolution sources are fact from the article's point of view, and anti-evolution sources are necessarily false. A common theme is the four-bullet-point article from talk.origins that somehow refutes an entire theory.
One particular use of this is in the section entitled "Life is too unlikely to arise by chance". The article states: "...a claim attributed to astrophysicist Fred Hoyle and known as Hoyle's fallacy". For one, the term "Hoyle's fallacy" does not occur anywhere in the given cite. It does discuss fallacies, but it seems academically dishonest to present this as if it were some commonly-used term. Simply saying "known as" implies that this is the widely accepted term for it, but this is absolutely not the case. In fact, in searching for "Hoyle's fallacy" (because I have honestly never heard this term used until viewing this page), I came up with only 261 results. Not counting Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors, I'll bet that's less than 100. If you discard youtube, blogs and web forums, I could count the amount of serious sources on my fingers and toes.
Another problem is the countless straw-man arguments. It seems as if there's a tendency in this article to characterize the objections in a particular manner, so that they are more easily refuted. Take, for example, Cite 68. The preceding text explains what Creationists allege, but the cite is what anti-creationists say that creationists are alleging, which is then refuted. This is essentially letting Side A define Side B, refute Side B, and then be accepted as fact.
Yet another issue are the large, unsourced sources of text that read more like a response essay than an encyclopedia article. Take, for example, the text between Cite 74 and 75. Cite 75 is the only cite for the paragraph, and that cite is only to show how relativity replaced an older theory. Cite 75 does not back up the rationale provided in the paragraph whatsoever. In this piece of text, several points are made in rebuttal to the objections without actually providing a source for these statements.
The last issue I cited is just a facet of a larger problem: this article doesn't just present objections, it attempts to refute those objections in detail. It would be acceptable to simply say, "It has been stated that X. However, Dr. Y's theories contradict this based on his work on Z." However, the article goes into long justifications with often unsourced facts to fill the gaps.
In reading this, you might say, "So what if it goes on and on about the refutations?" To that I say, think about neutrality. It appears that in this article, anti-evolutionists get a short presentation of their statement, then several paragraphs ensue about why they're wrong. Just for an example, take the "Evolution has never been observed" section. In this section, anti-evolutionists have their positions summed up in just a couple sentences. The pro-evolutionist responses are paragraphs long. If there was any semblance of neutrality here, then the anti-evolutionists would have a similarly long response. By denying them this, it makes it seem as if they have NO response. This seems akin to sending someone into the boxing ring with both hands tied behind their back. You may think that evolution is absolutely 100% true and that any response is absurd, but they are responses all the same.
So what do I suggest? Cut out the straw-men arguments: let anti-evolutionist statements be defined by anti-evolutionists, not by pro-evolutionists. Cut out the lengthy pro-evolutionist argumentation: much of it is unsourced synthesis and would demand lengthy anti-evolutionist responses to have this be considered neutral.
Finally, I'd like to say one disturbing trend I noticed: this is framed in the perspective of evolutionist vs. creationist. This is inherently a biased way of presenting the situation, as it implies that only people with religious objections can be against evolution. This is absolutely not the case, and while many anti-evolutions are creationists, there are still quite a few people out there who do not accept evolution OR creation. It's not a black-or-white, us vs. them situation. This isn't a place for partisanship. There IS a moderate middle ground of skepticism regarding evolutionary theory. After all, isn't that what science is about? Skepticism?
I hope this wasn't too long. I don't comment on Wikipedia articles but I figured that I should say something. Thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.132.64.2 ( talk) 00:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I read over your policies on "due weight" and "reliable sources" and I do not understand how either of these justifies the article in its current state. In your WP:DUE page, it states: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." Describing a dispute would be saying, "Person X believes this, Person Y believes that, due to his research on Z." Engaging in a dispute is, well, this article. This article consists of a point-counterpoint that reads more like an essay on why these objections are false.
As I read through your policy, I see a distinction here. That Wikipedia must remain neutral (as in, not take a side) by presenting facts (which must be backed up by reliable sources.) Argumentation about why these points are incorrect does not serve to advance this goal. If you would like an example, then please see the paragraph which ends in cites 99 and 100. There's a sentence:
"In the recent years since Behe proposed irreducible complexity, new developments and advances in biology, such as an improved understanding of the evolution of flagella, have already undermined many of his arguments."
There are many problems with this. First off, there is no source to this statement. Secondly, the use of the language "have already undermined his arguments" is making a judgment call. Is it Wikipedia's place to declare unequivocally that an argument has been destroyed? As I was reading your policy, it seems like the acceptable course of action would be to present Behe's argument, present the argument against it, and leave the decision to the reader as to whether or not the argument was undermined. This is precisely the "disputing" that I described before, and is proof of bias: it assumed that the evolution argument is correct, and the anti-evolution argument is incorrect.
As for which arguments I feel are misrepresented, take, for example, the "Evolution is controversial" section. At no point is there any statement that this is actually an objection. The "teach the controversy" campaign is NOT saying that evolution is wrong by being controversial; it's attempting to have creationism taught alongside evolution. The evolution debate is never cited as a reason that evolution should be rejected.
I would posit that you can close your eyes, hit your down arrow key a random number of times, and be able to point to a serious flaw in this article. Unsourced statements, judgment calls, and unreliable sources are all par for the course.
I looked at your WP:RS and it seems to me that the TalkOrigins archive, which is cited many times in this article, could hardly be considered reliable. "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process." How is a self-published Usenet group considered "credible published materials"? It's an indicator of bias - if there was an anti-evolution Usenet group, I have a feeling that its posts wouldn't be as well-received.
Another issue with sourcing and due weight is that certain sources are given disproportionate weight. For example, you will often find the language: "Creationists often believe..." or "Creationists commonly argue..." accompanied by one or two citations. Case in point, citations 61 and 62. How is it that commonality can be determined from one or two individual sources that do not address the prevalence of the article? If one anti-evolution blog believes a certain way, how can that be used to generalize it as a common argument? Sometimes, these don't even have cites. The claim is made "It is commonly claimed that all proponents of evolutionary theory are "materialistic atheists". No cite, no justification, yet it is claimed to be "common". This is misrepresentation, pure and simple.
To be honest, this article needs an intense re-write and trimming down. The article is probably twice as long as it needs to be. All the sections need to do is describe the objection, say that "evolutionary biologists disagree with this because of blahblahblah" and leave the argumentation out of it. The reader can click the link and review the material for themselves.
If you need another example of bias, take a look at this.
"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." (Right after Cite 30)
This article proclaims an anti-evolution argument to be a logical fallacy despite not having any citation to that effect. I understand that due weight must be given, but does that excuse making judgments about arguments without citations? It seems to me that Wikipedia is being done a grave disservice by this article.
Sorry about the late reply, but things have been busy. 192.132.64.2 ( talk) 21:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Weight is the least of my points. It seems that common sense and Wikipedia policy would agree with the idea that an article called "objections to evolution" should give more than one or two sentences to the objections, but this is hardly the worst problem with this article. As I have cited numerous times so far, this article makes a variety of unsourced statements. Furthermore, it makes a great deal of judgments, many of them unsourced. It also has the issue of misrepresenting sources: for example, taking one source and then using that source to generalize (as I described in my last post, regarding the issue of "commonality".) If you want me to give even more examples of this, I can, although I have posted several examples in my previous posts. This is not an issue of weight. While weight is certainly a concern in this article, it is definitely not the chief concern.
Is it that, because evolution is favored by a great deal of scientists, pro-evolution statements do not require sources? This is baffling to me. (And if a subject has no reliable sources, as you claim, why is there an article about it?) 192.132.64.2 ( talk) 18:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Arguments made against evolution have not been debunked, merely addressed. Debunking would suggests that they have been proven to be erroneous. As there are still missing transitional species, this has not been debunked. As the precambrian explosion has not yet been explained, this has not been debunked. As the steps to form irreducibly complex organs have been hypothesized, but not found, this has not been debunked. Further, it would be impossible to prove that only creationists find difficulties with evolution. It would improve the article if it were modified to address these issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 18:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
If you start with the premise that all objections to evolution are false just as all objections to Einstein's theory of relativity are false, can you possibly claim a scientific detachment? It seems to be not very scientifically honest. For every evolutionist answer to an objection, there exists a contradictory point made to their answer, and then an answer to that, etc. Is it not one-sided to assume evolution is correct? Is it not one-sided to stop at the evolutionists rebuke and call it true? If we really assume all objections to Einstein's theory are false, are we being scientifically honest in testing it? I don't have an answer of how to make the article perfect, but one does not have to read very far for it to seem one-sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 18:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you agree then that something thaat had not been firmly decided should have both sides fairly represented? Then the main question would be if Evolution is holding up to scientific scrutiny? The only portion of science I have found to be wrong since I started learning about it 25 years ago are evolutionists idea. The premordial soup probably never existed, fetuses never have gills, there are no vestigial organs, neaderthals have as large of a brain cavity as we do, so it is nearly impossible to conclude that they were less intelligent. These are all verifiable facts yet the opposite conjectures were used to support evolution and have since fallen by the waist-side. GR has been tested and has never used false evidence in its support. Can you truly conclude that this article has been written in hindsight? There are 750 scientists who doubt the claims made by evolutionists. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ Most people in Briton don't firmly believe it to be true cited at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism. The idea that this is already a decided topic does not seem to be the case. How many Scientists do you think would sign a statement saying they don't believe GR? How many people do you think would say they don't believe GR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 19:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Clearly I am not saying nor have I said that evolution is false. Nor am I incorrect about its status in science. I know what it means to be a theory in science and that the curent scientific thought is that it is true, but that is not the same as saying that the arguments against it are false or have been shown false. Prior to GR there were recognized problems with theories that GR addressed. These problems were not false, nor did they make the other theories false, simply incomplete (for example the TOG). There are problems with evolution that need to be addressed. These do not necessarily make evolution false, simply incomplete. I am suggesting that not all of the problems mentioned in the article have been debunked. Further study needs to be done in order to make evolution more complete. Sweeping aside the problems and suggesting that only religious fanatics would bring up these problems do not help in the understanding of evolution. Instead they will hinder the theory by stopping the methods that would be normally used to improve theories, that being critique. This history is still being written, like it or not evolution is at the very minimum incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 20:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
First peer review is only done on the facts stated, not the opinion stated. The idea that the evolutionists counter-arguments demonstrate a "debunking" is in all scientific circles an opinion and considered as such by peer review. This is the difference between being able to read articles for facts and opinions. Most scientists who read these articles can do this. Most observers, however, misintrepret what is generally accepted as opinion as fact in scientific journals. Also, if you insist on calling evolution a fact (another opinion) would you please define fact for me. I work in the field of science and we do not use the word fact to describe anything. I know what article you are referring to, and that was clearly an opinion article written in a dumbed-down fashion to talk to the masses. The truth is that Evolution is a theory and all of the hypotheses stemming from evolution are hypotheses. We as scientists would not call the statement "energy can neither be created nor destroyed" a fact. It is a scientific law. We as scientists hold theories to a high degree of certainty, but this does not obviate the fact that counter arguments against them are not debunk, prove false, until they are truly proven false. Do not casually acceptance opinions as facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 17:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC) |}
I decided to check in here again to see how the article has changed since I last posted. It seems it hasn't changed very much. But my question is, how is asking for sources considered "soapboxing"? Is any stance that disagrees with the article in its current form considered soapboxing? 192.132.64.2 ( talk) 23:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to list a couple of concerns I had. First, WP:WEIGHT says that "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space." I believe that this is the case in this article, since the entire subject of objections to evolution is a minority viewpoint. I, and probably others out there, are interested in this page because we want to be able to read about both sides of the arguments in order to help us make better informed decisions. We cannot do that if the articles about minority viewpoints have very little in them about those actual viewpoints. Second, I cannot speak for how other people determine what a page is supposed to be about, but I usually determine that fact by the title of the page. The title of this page seems to me to be misleading, and perhaps needs to be changed to "Creationist's Objections to Evolution." Honestly, I was expecting to see theories presented here from ALL other viewpoints other than evolutionists, but all I'm seeing is creation vs. evolution. And just a quick note: I see above where someone is complaining that more citations are needed, and the reply is to edit those areas to let everyone know to "hey, please put a citation here." So I will probably do that when I can find the time. Thanks. Astrohm ( talk) 15:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I can understand the mention in the beginning that evolution is most commonly opposed by creationists, but this starts every argument against the theory of evolution with "creationists say" or "those wily creationists..". There are many people who are not creationsts who do not agree with the modern thory of evolution as it is proposed. It seems that the article is trying to say that if you do not agree with every aspect of evolution, you are a creationist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.45.165 ( talk) 03:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
If my questions and statements are inflamatory enough to be taken off then could I ask that HRAFN provide some form of proof for "No, you are dead wrong. There is almost nobody "who are not creationsts who do not agree with the modern thory of evolution" -- and particularly there is almost nobody other than creationists repeating these long debunked 'objections'." As I have stated that I do believe in a form of evolution, but do raise those objections as at least considerations. One-sidedness is taking intelligent contentions and hiding them. Congrats you have just accomplished that. And if "Acknowledge the portions that have not been truly debunked as areas of further research and refrain from pontificating about the reasons people have for pointing out possible weaknesses in the theory. This would improve the article immensely. Further, the article would be improved if it more clearly stated science has not and cannot make any claims as to religion. Science and religion need to be entirely seperate because their initial assumption are such as to make them incompatible. " is not a recommendation then perhaps you would unlighten me as to what constitutes a recommendation. If it is specificity, then that has been shown in my previous statements of what has not been debunked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 16:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Banal, old, and defective. That funny. This is what I was stating. You have failed to debunk my comments, only marginally addressed them and then had to revert to insults and hiding the comments. You see this is how science is done. I made a hypothesis stating that questions are usually handled by only marginally addressing them, hiding them, and then reverting to insults. I tested my hypothesis by asking questions of evolution and you have demonstrated my hypothesis at least in this one case. I absolutely love it when someone makes my point for me. It seems I no longer need to demonstrate that playing field is not even. BTW how would you prove or demonstrate that a person who questions evolution is not a creationist? Can you prove a negative? 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 17:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |}
[Material userfied to User talk:198.178.190.1 as "not relevant to improving the article" Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC) ]
Lengthy discussion lacking specific suggestions backed by reliable sources |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The methods of falisifiability that evolutionists claim are incorrect 1.) a static fossil record; Darwin knew the fossil record was not entirely static prior to the creation of the TOE. A fact that is already known can not be used as a method of falsifiability. 2.) true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together; The playpus could easily fall under this category as a mammal that lays eggs. Evolutionists have said that there has been little escavation in Australia so the fossil record is limited. This is a scientific answer and the platypus does not necessarily prove evolution false, but this does demonstrate that finding a chimera would not mean that evolution is false, simply that we currently do not know enough about that species. If a mermaid were found then one would easily be able to claim that the fossil record from the sea is far from complete. Therefore, a chimera cannot be used as a method of falsiability. 3.) a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating; One mechanism that prevents the accumulation of mutations is death. Hit something with radiation, you will see progeny with many mutations, you will also see them die. This attempt was made by scientists to speed up the evolutionary process. What they found was that organisms died because too many bad mutations, such as growing legs on eyes, made them less fit and lead to a quicker death. Finding a mechanism is not a way of disproving evolution unless one can show that the mechanism would work within timeframes of millions of years, the timeframe necessary for natural selection. Since we will all be dead a million years from now, it is unscientific to use this as a method of falsifiability. 4.) observations of organisms being created; The supernatural is not allowed into science. This is the reason creationism is not allowed into science. If the supernatural is not allowed into science, then it is also not allowed into science as method of falsifiability. The portion that discusses DNA as a method of falsifiablity, is scientific. Good job there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 14:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Falsifiability is important in science see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability. I'm not saying that evolution is not falsifiable, simply that these are not valid methods of falsfiability. The valid methods are what Darwin suggested: no changes which are irreducibly complex and no abundance of missing transitional species in the fossil record. You may also added some methods of falsifiability in DNA, though these have not been clearly innumerated. These are true methods that follow the scientific standard of falsifiability. The methods listed in the article are scientifically without merit. First, in Darwin's day, it was known that there were different species in differing layers of the fossil record. To say that the fossil record has to be entirely static, when it is already known that it is not entirely static is not a scientifically acceptable method of falsifiability, because it necessitates only one change in the fossil records, which has already been determined. Second, if you want to use this "chimera" definition as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics), then your method for falsifiability is so limited as to be laughable. A much better theory would state that true chimeras cannot be found in nature. This statement is entirely falsifiable, while TOE makes much broader claims. Further, if one of these "true chimeras" were to be found, it could still be hypothesized that they were two individual species living in symbiosis and that they evolved into what you see. In the case of a platypus, it is clearly a species that has the characteristics of two different classes, and falls under a broader definition of chimera, parts of differing type of animals, and some have theorized that this should not be seen in nature today. It may be hypothesized that a cross between a mammal and reptile would have existed at the time when mammals evolved, but TOE would not make any prediction that one of these cross-class species would be around today, nor does TOE make any prediction about the exact nature of the cross-class species. It does predict, however, that in the fossil record you should be able to entirely trace that species lineage. We currently cannot do this, because we do not have enough information about the fossil record. In both cases, it can be traced back to a lack of knowledge about the fossil record, thus making it a poor method falsifiability. Third, in the example I gave of death, radiation killed the whole population, not just one individual. The reason the population died off quickly were the harmful mutations. For natural selection to work, the rate of mutations must be small and the time frame must be large, otherwise the relatively small percentage of beneficial mutations would be overcome by the larger percentage of harmful mutations. This is the evolutionist's answer as to why the erradiated species died out. As seen in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability "Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically." Giving enough time for natural selection to work is not practically falsifiable. Fourth, a deity creating life, is not a purely logical argument, it is a philosophical one. No scientist in any other field in science would use the "Show me a God" logic for falsifiability. They would quite literally be laughed out of their field of study. You can only make philosophical arguments for falsifiability if you are talking about a theory in philosophy not a theory in science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 18:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC) As far as I can see, you have cited no WP:RS to support your contention that "The methods of falisifiability that evolutionists claim are incorrect", just a lot of (highly suspect) WP:OR WP:SOAP-boxing. Unless you come up with a specific suggestion for improvement to the article, substantiated by reliable sources, this thread will shortly be archived per WP:TALK. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC) As far as I can see you have provided no justification that I have broken any rules. Your debating skills consist of deleting what you do not have the mental capacity to argue and my contention is that if you want to list those methods of falsifiability, you need to at the very minimum provide a peer-reviewed journal article that lists them, not something you found on talkorigins.org. Without that peer-reviewed journal article, my contention back with the facts that I have mentioned is more credible. Further, while I think evolution is true, it needs to be done in a scientific manner. Your methods of deletion are the most unscientific I have ever seen. What I find most entertaining though is that you have no problem arguing the contentions I have made, but when you are shown in error, that is when you must delete. GOOD JOB HRAFN!!! You may just have the makings a true evolutionary scientist.
Where is the reference for falsifiability? I've seen this on Talkorigins.org, but is there a peer-reviewed article I can read? Why are you flaming Anon? Is scientific discussion not allowed? He is saying evolution is falsifiable and that it is true. Anon, I don't get what you mean when you wrote "4. is philosophical and cannot be argued" etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.7.228 ( talk) 23:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion is that either you find a peer-reviewed journal article to back the methods of falsifiability that you have listed or you delete the section about falsifiability. I have been following the WIKI guidance of dicussiong these changes prior to making changes to the article, but if you cannot give clear justification and you only delete the discussion, then it is within my rights to make changes to the article without a discussion. In other words, I would suggest playing fair. You don't have to follow my suggestion, but then I don't have to play fair either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 15:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Something as necessary to a scientific theory as falsifiability (i.e. it is not a theory unless it is falsifiable), absolutely needs a peer-reviewed journal article. There are articles that cite other methods of falsifiability, these are not the methods those article cite, so what am I missing? Allow fair discussion and I won't "vandalize". In fact as long as you stop deleting portions of our discussion, I won't touch the article at all. If it is consensus that the article can be improved as suggested, then someone else can fix the article, but I won't touch it. This is a discussion page, so allow fair discussion. If it is a consensus on Wiki that my concerns are invalid, then I will accept that consensus. In fact if there is a arbitrator for discussion employed by Wiki, I will accept their verdict, but I will not accept arbitrary deletion based off of an invalid reading of the rules. That is not in keeping with the spirit of Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 16:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
|
I am sick to death of your continual WP:SOAPboxing on this talkpage and will simply delete or revert (rather than archiving -- as you simply remove the archive templates) any further irrelevant material. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I hold a PhD in statistics, what is your degree? I've been published in two scientific journals (working on more), have you? I've asked you on your site to at least allow time respond to the rule violations I have been accused of before you archive. Is this unreasonable? You are saying you are going to simply delete discussion. Is this not the same vandalism?
Here is the statement on WP:SOAP
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not:
Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1]
Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.
Scandal mongering or gossip. Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.
Clearly I have not tried to recruit, sell, gossip or self-promote. The opinion peices are clearly talking about article and not discussion pages and are stated as such. The opinion I have stated are backed up with facts and hence on the discussion page. Please enlighten me with what definiton of WP:SOAP you are using. You are deleting with cause, harassing with provocation, and stating opinion with out any basis in facts. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
198.178.190.1 (
talk) 19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Johnuniq and Quietmark,
This is my last response. I do not have a problem with how you handled the discussion page and I appreciate the polite responses. I brought up my PhD in statistics because a contributor thought it would be appropriate to just delete my discussion, so I wanted to know why they felt that was within their purview. Do they hold some higher degree or happen to be an expert in evolutionary theory to whom I should defer? I am not a creationist trying to tear apart evolution, but a scientist trying to scientifically discuss the article. As such, my comments should not be quickly dismissed, but should be answered.
I made the suggestion that there are many verified methods of falsifiability, which have been in either peer-reviewed journal articles or stated by Darwin himself, you've listed many of them, but I beleive I can find more. You have many which are good, but you have one sentence that appears to be not nearly as justifiable.
I don’t want creationism taught in school. One of the methods of falsifiability this article mentions requires a deity. This opens up Pandora’s box. How easily could a creationist say “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander?” If a deity can be used for falsifiability (the cornerstone of a scientific theory), then obviously it is allowed into science. If it is allowed into science, then keeping creationism and ID out is not justifiable. Do not give creationists such an easy target.
Other methods mentioned in the article, I easily disputed using only the definition of falsifiability found at wiki, among other places. While you (in general) have dismissed my claims as being SYN, you could not break the logic used nor provide an argument as to why I might be wrong. This is like shooting fish in a barrel and you are giving creationists the ammo to do so. How much ammo do you want to give them?
Royboy, first the definition of chimera they are using has change from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics) so the definition has already changed, because these exist. Beyond that, evolution does not inherently predict that there are no chimeras as long as the lineage can be traced back and it was advantageous to have say a lion’s head and a horse’s body. And as for the genetic variation being easily verified, how would this be done? Our knowledge of genetic coding is very limited, and is certainly not to the point of finding the small changes that would appear relatively quickly in a population as you are suggesting. The number of microarrays involved would be cost prohibitive and lead large error rates that would only find very large genetic anomalies. Beyond that, reason would dictate that mankind as been relatively the same for a million years, thus these are very slow processes. In fact, I think you could be the first evolutionist I have ever heard, that is suggesting that these are quick processes. Also I have worked with microarrays, we cannot do what you are suggesting yet.
I am playing devil’s advocate, because I have found that it is the best way to truly test the validity of what is being stated and this is the scientific way. Look again at my previous posts (at least the posts that have not been deleted), not only do I say what section needs to be changed and why, but I have “quoted reliable sources that throw doubt on some aspects of the article”. I have no peer-reviewed journal article stating that these methods of falsifiability are wrong because nobody has a peer-reviewed journal article stating that they are correct, so why would anybody argue against a point that hasn’t been made? I may be able to find some creationist webpage, but I don’t want that in the article either. You may be right that I am committing SYN, but these are relatively simple arguments that can easily be made by others. I’m not trying to denigrate evolution, so there would be no point to making an article called “Are objections to evolution valid”. I just want science to prevail. Make arguments strong and scientifically justifiable or they will be used as weapons to attack evolution.
I believe that this sentence needs to be carefully reconsidered, this is the wiki wringer you are mentioning Quietmark, my posts are part of that. I’m not asking it to be overhauled right now, but I think it does need to happen. This, however, I leave to your (collective) judgment. If you would like me to review or help out, I am willing to do so, but only by email or talk. I will not be editing this site or discussion page again. It is my opinion that fair scientific discussion is not prevailing here, as nearly all of my material have been deleted or archived. Sorry it took so long to post this response, a user within this article had me blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 13:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't this userfied? Is it appropriate for a talk page? — raeky ( talk | edits) 00:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I am just a little unclear about this article in terms of the stance on abiogenesis. Are you saying that it is completely irrelevant to the discussion on evolution or that probabilities have not been correctly attached to abiogenesis because it is posteriori? If it is the former, then I would think you would want to drop the latter as it would be extraneous or irrelevant. If it is the latter, I would think you would want to beef up this section. I guess what I am saying is that putting any defense makes it sound as if it is not irrelevant to the discussion on evolution. Jaydstats ( talk) 12:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
So I have heard an argument and I want to broach it here to get your take on it. The argument goes:
Now of course the argument does not address the evidence seen in the fossil records. It also doesn't address a cause to stop mutations from accumulating. Whatelse is wrong with this argument? Should this be addressed in the article? Jaydstats ( talk) 16:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
http://creationwiki.org/Many_scientists_find_problems_with_evolution Sort of makes the argument, but I know I have heard it in other locations. I'll try to find some better references. Jaydstats ( talk) 19:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/is_evolution_a_theory_or_fact_2.html Sorry hear it is. Normally I don't like to place these type of websites on wiki pages, but you were asking where I had heard this argument. So I will add the caviat that I don't agree with this website, I am just providing one of the arguments that I have heard creationists use. Jaydstats ( talk) 20:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have semantic issue with the way "scientific fact" is defined, but I wanted to toss this out before making the changes to the article itself. The article states, "In science, a fact is a verified empirical observation". I would prefer the words "well established" in place of "verified". Here is the reason. Back in the late 80's, Fleischmann and Pons announced their finding of "cold fusion" (as in nuclear reactions). About two weeks later a Russian group claimed to have VERIFIED this new finding. However, many more groups could not reproduce Fleischmann's and Pons' results and then the entire legitimacy of cold fusion was brought into question due to experimental errors. Using the article's definition of scientific fact, I would maintqain that cold fusion was initially a fact (it was verified by that Russian group) and later not a fact (since the legitamacy of the intial experiment and "verification" were brought into quesiton). A briefly lived "scientific fact" would only further confuse the general public over the use of the term. Using "well established" in place of "verified" avoids much of this problem as "cold fusion" was never a well established empirical observation. By my thinking, the use of "well established" in the defintion would allow time and critical study of new empirical observations before we proclaim them as facts. What do other people think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.141.202 ( talk) 01:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the "Objections to evolution's morality" section, specifically the "Evolution leads to Atheism" subsection should be edited. When reading the section on atheism, the reader is seemingly forced to accept or assume that atheists are immoral. It should be spelled out in the section that creationists believe 1) belief in evolution leads to atheism and 2) atheism is by definition an immoral belief. In fact, the entire subsection "Evolution leads to Atheism" should really be made its own section...As it stands, it doesn't really discuss anything having to do with morality at all (unless you presuppose "2" above). Perhaps it should have it's own section "Evolution and Atheism", or generally "Evolution and Religious Belief". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.179.229.47 ( talk) 17:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This might be more relevant to the preceding section, though there are a number of research papers investigating the biological seat of morality in humans (and other animals). This idea will perhaps provoke more animus towards the field of evolution, since it is apparent that natural selection has deemed cohesive "moral" communities/societies of animals more fit than less cohesive ones. Ultimately, there is an irony to the position that belief in evolution erodes the belief in a god, in that the theory of evolution can show how morality developed. If a religious person has the precept that belief in god is the foundation for morality, then knowing the facts about how morality developed would indeed erode that religious belief. Similarly any foundation for belief that rests upon an idea that the evidence for evolution contradicts is going to be possibly weakened by that evidence. The logical step at that point is to change the foundations upon which the religion is founded. I'm sure there is an appropriate word for such a process of adaption. Ninahexan ( talk) 08:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
In the subsection "Objections to evolution's moral implications" titled "Evolution says that humans are animals", a reference to the Bible is stated (specifically a reference to Ecclesiastes). I do not believe such a reference is appropriate in the context of the article as it implies the article's only audience is Bible-believing creationists. I suggest that the Biblicial reference either be reworded to a more general audience or removed entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.101.248 ( talk) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to spark a little discussion on the concept of falsifiability. It seems like we confuse evidential falsifiability with boolean falsifiability. One is part of methodology and I don't think anyone in either camp is consciously guilty of making claims that their evidence is 100% reliable and that they have interpreted it 100% correctly. I don't think any intelligent person is unaware of the implications of the known evidence for their particular theory. When I say boolean falsifiability I mean whether or not there even exists a "True" and a "False" for ideas that are central to the given theory.
Creationists are accused of not admitting the possibility that the universe and life came into being without divine intervention. That idea, that creationism is not logically falsifiable, has been the basis for several court decisions. When we amateur arguers say that requiring a naturalistic explanation for everything means that God cannot possibly exist, cannot possibly have created anything, we are slipping into the same error. The accusation that creationism is and can only be a religious idea means that it's OK to say "Evolution is a fact" but it's heresy to say "Evolution is not a fact." There is a T but there is no F.
No amount of evidence can falsify an idea that does not allow the possibility of an alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfarero ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
After checking reference 147 http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm I noticed the table makes this point "The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, psychology, business administration, etc."
I would like this to be included into this wiki page as I believe the table to be misleading without it. Also a survey of "scientists" that presumes things suggests they did little checking to see if the people surveyed where actually scientists.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwinftw ( talk • contribs) 23:26, 12 November 2009
Would it not be prudent to point out that amongst leading scientists the statistics are very different?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Or what about the limits of only using American scientists in the table? 131.111.1.66 ( talk) 04:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the "Evolution cannot create complex structures" section seems to exclusively attribute evolution to natural selection, omitting the influence of genetic drift. While a major change such as from "a fin to a leg" would require a certain degree of natural selection, minor incremental changes are possibly attributable to genetic drift. See for example [2] and [3]. Would anyone object to a slight rewrite to reflect this? Gabbe ( talk) 15:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I've implemented most of the changes listed in the recent Peer Review. I need help or consensus on the following.
Shortening the Headings and Sub-Headings per the MOS. So "Objections to evolution's scientific acceptance" would be "Scientific acceptance". Admittedly this may not apply to this article as we want clarity.
I think it is relevant, since there needs to be an explanation as to why his son took over.
Original source possibly Corbis Images which has rights to another photo in the same series.
I've clarified with a PDF from a journal the copy was created/published in 1892.
Could not verify.
Does the TODO need to be done? Consider other major objections as possible sections, such as "evolution presupposes..." arguments (currently discussed briefly under "Evolution is unfalsifiable"). Discuss possible alternative section schemes, particularly to remedy ambiguity in "Objections to evolution's plausibility" and "Objections to evolution's possibility" oversections.
Unrelated to the peer review, I created Talk:Objections_to_evolution/Archive_4 but it did not show up in the Archive listing. Will a bot eventually take care of that? - Roy Boy 04:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 2009. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I found this strange writing from Yahya that basically says that Evolution theory is related to secret societies. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.65.192 ( talk) 20:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I was just reading through this and it seems to have a huge pro-evolution slant. There are so many examples that I cannot list them all, so I'll give a couple.
There's one overarching problem with this article, and it's a problem located in every single section. Basically, it seems as if pro-evolution sources are fact from the article's point of view, and anti-evolution sources are necessarily false. A common theme is the four-bullet-point article from talk.origins that somehow refutes an entire theory.
One particular use of this is in the section entitled "Life is too unlikely to arise by chance". The article states: "...a claim attributed to astrophysicist Fred Hoyle and known as Hoyle's fallacy". For one, the term "Hoyle's fallacy" does not occur anywhere in the given cite. It does discuss fallacies, but it seems academically dishonest to present this as if it were some commonly-used term. Simply saying "known as" implies that this is the widely accepted term for it, but this is absolutely not the case. In fact, in searching for "Hoyle's fallacy" (because I have honestly never heard this term used until viewing this page), I came up with only 261 results. Not counting Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors, I'll bet that's less than 100. If you discard youtube, blogs and web forums, I could count the amount of serious sources on my fingers and toes.
Another problem is the countless straw-man arguments. It seems as if there's a tendency in this article to characterize the objections in a particular manner, so that they are more easily refuted. Take, for example, Cite 68. The preceding text explains what Creationists allege, but the cite is what anti-creationists say that creationists are alleging, which is then refuted. This is essentially letting Side A define Side B, refute Side B, and then be accepted as fact.
Yet another issue are the large, unsourced sources of text that read more like a response essay than an encyclopedia article. Take, for example, the text between Cite 74 and 75. Cite 75 is the only cite for the paragraph, and that cite is only to show how relativity replaced an older theory. Cite 75 does not back up the rationale provided in the paragraph whatsoever. In this piece of text, several points are made in rebuttal to the objections without actually providing a source for these statements.
The last issue I cited is just a facet of a larger problem: this article doesn't just present objections, it attempts to refute those objections in detail. It would be acceptable to simply say, "It has been stated that X. However, Dr. Y's theories contradict this based on his work on Z." However, the article goes into long justifications with often unsourced facts to fill the gaps.
In reading this, you might say, "So what if it goes on and on about the refutations?" To that I say, think about neutrality. It appears that in this article, anti-evolutionists get a short presentation of their statement, then several paragraphs ensue about why they're wrong. Just for an example, take the "Evolution has never been observed" section. In this section, anti-evolutionists have their positions summed up in just a couple sentences. The pro-evolutionist responses are paragraphs long. If there was any semblance of neutrality here, then the anti-evolutionists would have a similarly long response. By denying them this, it makes it seem as if they have NO response. This seems akin to sending someone into the boxing ring with both hands tied behind their back. You may think that evolution is absolutely 100% true and that any response is absurd, but they are responses all the same.
So what do I suggest? Cut out the straw-men arguments: let anti-evolutionist statements be defined by anti-evolutionists, not by pro-evolutionists. Cut out the lengthy pro-evolutionist argumentation: much of it is unsourced synthesis and would demand lengthy anti-evolutionist responses to have this be considered neutral.
Finally, I'd like to say one disturbing trend I noticed: this is framed in the perspective of evolutionist vs. creationist. This is inherently a biased way of presenting the situation, as it implies that only people with religious objections can be against evolution. This is absolutely not the case, and while many anti-evolutions are creationists, there are still quite a few people out there who do not accept evolution OR creation. It's not a black-or-white, us vs. them situation. This isn't a place for partisanship. There IS a moderate middle ground of skepticism regarding evolutionary theory. After all, isn't that what science is about? Skepticism?
I hope this wasn't too long. I don't comment on Wikipedia articles but I figured that I should say something. Thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.132.64.2 ( talk) 00:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I read over your policies on "due weight" and "reliable sources" and I do not understand how either of these justifies the article in its current state. In your WP:DUE page, it states: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." Describing a dispute would be saying, "Person X believes this, Person Y believes that, due to his research on Z." Engaging in a dispute is, well, this article. This article consists of a point-counterpoint that reads more like an essay on why these objections are false.
As I read through your policy, I see a distinction here. That Wikipedia must remain neutral (as in, not take a side) by presenting facts (which must be backed up by reliable sources.) Argumentation about why these points are incorrect does not serve to advance this goal. If you would like an example, then please see the paragraph which ends in cites 99 and 100. There's a sentence:
"In the recent years since Behe proposed irreducible complexity, new developments and advances in biology, such as an improved understanding of the evolution of flagella, have already undermined many of his arguments."
There are many problems with this. First off, there is no source to this statement. Secondly, the use of the language "have already undermined his arguments" is making a judgment call. Is it Wikipedia's place to declare unequivocally that an argument has been destroyed? As I was reading your policy, it seems like the acceptable course of action would be to present Behe's argument, present the argument against it, and leave the decision to the reader as to whether or not the argument was undermined. This is precisely the "disputing" that I described before, and is proof of bias: it assumed that the evolution argument is correct, and the anti-evolution argument is incorrect.
As for which arguments I feel are misrepresented, take, for example, the "Evolution is controversial" section. At no point is there any statement that this is actually an objection. The "teach the controversy" campaign is NOT saying that evolution is wrong by being controversial; it's attempting to have creationism taught alongside evolution. The evolution debate is never cited as a reason that evolution should be rejected.
I would posit that you can close your eyes, hit your down arrow key a random number of times, and be able to point to a serious flaw in this article. Unsourced statements, judgment calls, and unreliable sources are all par for the course.
I looked at your WP:RS and it seems to me that the TalkOrigins archive, which is cited many times in this article, could hardly be considered reliable. "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process." How is a self-published Usenet group considered "credible published materials"? It's an indicator of bias - if there was an anti-evolution Usenet group, I have a feeling that its posts wouldn't be as well-received.
Another issue with sourcing and due weight is that certain sources are given disproportionate weight. For example, you will often find the language: "Creationists often believe..." or "Creationists commonly argue..." accompanied by one or two citations. Case in point, citations 61 and 62. How is it that commonality can be determined from one or two individual sources that do not address the prevalence of the article? If one anti-evolution blog believes a certain way, how can that be used to generalize it as a common argument? Sometimes, these don't even have cites. The claim is made "It is commonly claimed that all proponents of evolutionary theory are "materialistic atheists". No cite, no justification, yet it is claimed to be "common". This is misrepresentation, pure and simple.
To be honest, this article needs an intense re-write and trimming down. The article is probably twice as long as it needs to be. All the sections need to do is describe the objection, say that "evolutionary biologists disagree with this because of blahblahblah" and leave the argumentation out of it. The reader can click the link and review the material for themselves.
If you need another example of bias, take a look at this.
"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." (Right after Cite 30)
This article proclaims an anti-evolution argument to be a logical fallacy despite not having any citation to that effect. I understand that due weight must be given, but does that excuse making judgments about arguments without citations? It seems to me that Wikipedia is being done a grave disservice by this article.
Sorry about the late reply, but things have been busy. 192.132.64.2 ( talk) 21:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Weight is the least of my points. It seems that common sense and Wikipedia policy would agree with the idea that an article called "objections to evolution" should give more than one or two sentences to the objections, but this is hardly the worst problem with this article. As I have cited numerous times so far, this article makes a variety of unsourced statements. Furthermore, it makes a great deal of judgments, many of them unsourced. It also has the issue of misrepresenting sources: for example, taking one source and then using that source to generalize (as I described in my last post, regarding the issue of "commonality".) If you want me to give even more examples of this, I can, although I have posted several examples in my previous posts. This is not an issue of weight. While weight is certainly a concern in this article, it is definitely not the chief concern.
Is it that, because evolution is favored by a great deal of scientists, pro-evolution statements do not require sources? This is baffling to me. (And if a subject has no reliable sources, as you claim, why is there an article about it?) 192.132.64.2 ( talk) 18:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Arguments made against evolution have not been debunked, merely addressed. Debunking would suggests that they have been proven to be erroneous. As there are still missing transitional species, this has not been debunked. As the precambrian explosion has not yet been explained, this has not been debunked. As the steps to form irreducibly complex organs have been hypothesized, but not found, this has not been debunked. Further, it would be impossible to prove that only creationists find difficulties with evolution. It would improve the article if it were modified to address these issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 18:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
If you start with the premise that all objections to evolution are false just as all objections to Einstein's theory of relativity are false, can you possibly claim a scientific detachment? It seems to be not very scientifically honest. For every evolutionist answer to an objection, there exists a contradictory point made to their answer, and then an answer to that, etc. Is it not one-sided to assume evolution is correct? Is it not one-sided to stop at the evolutionists rebuke and call it true? If we really assume all objections to Einstein's theory are false, are we being scientifically honest in testing it? I don't have an answer of how to make the article perfect, but one does not have to read very far for it to seem one-sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 18:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you agree then that something thaat had not been firmly decided should have both sides fairly represented? Then the main question would be if Evolution is holding up to scientific scrutiny? The only portion of science I have found to be wrong since I started learning about it 25 years ago are evolutionists idea. The premordial soup probably never existed, fetuses never have gills, there are no vestigial organs, neaderthals have as large of a brain cavity as we do, so it is nearly impossible to conclude that they were less intelligent. These are all verifiable facts yet the opposite conjectures were used to support evolution and have since fallen by the waist-side. GR has been tested and has never used false evidence in its support. Can you truly conclude that this article has been written in hindsight? There are 750 scientists who doubt the claims made by evolutionists. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ Most people in Briton don't firmly believe it to be true cited at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism. The idea that this is already a decided topic does not seem to be the case. How many Scientists do you think would sign a statement saying they don't believe GR? How many people do you think would say they don't believe GR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 19:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Clearly I am not saying nor have I said that evolution is false. Nor am I incorrect about its status in science. I know what it means to be a theory in science and that the curent scientific thought is that it is true, but that is not the same as saying that the arguments against it are false or have been shown false. Prior to GR there were recognized problems with theories that GR addressed. These problems were not false, nor did they make the other theories false, simply incomplete (for example the TOG). There are problems with evolution that need to be addressed. These do not necessarily make evolution false, simply incomplete. I am suggesting that not all of the problems mentioned in the article have been debunked. Further study needs to be done in order to make evolution more complete. Sweeping aside the problems and suggesting that only religious fanatics would bring up these problems do not help in the understanding of evolution. Instead they will hinder the theory by stopping the methods that would be normally used to improve theories, that being critique. This history is still being written, like it or not evolution is at the very minimum incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 20:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
First peer review is only done on the facts stated, not the opinion stated. The idea that the evolutionists counter-arguments demonstrate a "debunking" is in all scientific circles an opinion and considered as such by peer review. This is the difference between being able to read articles for facts and opinions. Most scientists who read these articles can do this. Most observers, however, misintrepret what is generally accepted as opinion as fact in scientific journals. Also, if you insist on calling evolution a fact (another opinion) would you please define fact for me. I work in the field of science and we do not use the word fact to describe anything. I know what article you are referring to, and that was clearly an opinion article written in a dumbed-down fashion to talk to the masses. The truth is that Evolution is a theory and all of the hypotheses stemming from evolution are hypotheses. We as scientists would not call the statement "energy can neither be created nor destroyed" a fact. It is a scientific law. We as scientists hold theories to a high degree of certainty, but this does not obviate the fact that counter arguments against them are not debunk, prove false, until they are truly proven false. Do not casually acceptance opinions as facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 17:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC) |}
I decided to check in here again to see how the article has changed since I last posted. It seems it hasn't changed very much. But my question is, how is asking for sources considered "soapboxing"? Is any stance that disagrees with the article in its current form considered soapboxing? 192.132.64.2 ( talk) 23:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to list a couple of concerns I had. First, WP:WEIGHT says that "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space." I believe that this is the case in this article, since the entire subject of objections to evolution is a minority viewpoint. I, and probably others out there, are interested in this page because we want to be able to read about both sides of the arguments in order to help us make better informed decisions. We cannot do that if the articles about minority viewpoints have very little in them about those actual viewpoints. Second, I cannot speak for how other people determine what a page is supposed to be about, but I usually determine that fact by the title of the page. The title of this page seems to me to be misleading, and perhaps needs to be changed to "Creationist's Objections to Evolution." Honestly, I was expecting to see theories presented here from ALL other viewpoints other than evolutionists, but all I'm seeing is creation vs. evolution. And just a quick note: I see above where someone is complaining that more citations are needed, and the reply is to edit those areas to let everyone know to "hey, please put a citation here." So I will probably do that when I can find the time. Thanks. Astrohm ( talk) 15:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I can understand the mention in the beginning that evolution is most commonly opposed by creationists, but this starts every argument against the theory of evolution with "creationists say" or "those wily creationists..". There are many people who are not creationsts who do not agree with the modern thory of evolution as it is proposed. It seems that the article is trying to say that if you do not agree with every aspect of evolution, you are a creationist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.45.165 ( talk) 03:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
If my questions and statements are inflamatory enough to be taken off then could I ask that HRAFN provide some form of proof for "No, you are dead wrong. There is almost nobody "who are not creationsts who do not agree with the modern thory of evolution" -- and particularly there is almost nobody other than creationists repeating these long debunked 'objections'." As I have stated that I do believe in a form of evolution, but do raise those objections as at least considerations. One-sidedness is taking intelligent contentions and hiding them. Congrats you have just accomplished that. And if "Acknowledge the portions that have not been truly debunked as areas of further research and refrain from pontificating about the reasons people have for pointing out possible weaknesses in the theory. This would improve the article immensely. Further, the article would be improved if it more clearly stated science has not and cannot make any claims as to religion. Science and religion need to be entirely seperate because their initial assumption are such as to make them incompatible. " is not a recommendation then perhaps you would unlighten me as to what constitutes a recommendation. If it is specificity, then that has been shown in my previous statements of what has not been debunked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 16:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Banal, old, and defective. That funny. This is what I was stating. You have failed to debunk my comments, only marginally addressed them and then had to revert to insults and hiding the comments. You see this is how science is done. I made a hypothesis stating that questions are usually handled by only marginally addressing them, hiding them, and then reverting to insults. I tested my hypothesis by asking questions of evolution and you have demonstrated my hypothesis at least in this one case. I absolutely love it when someone makes my point for me. It seems I no longer need to demonstrate that playing field is not even. BTW how would you prove or demonstrate that a person who questions evolution is not a creationist? Can you prove a negative? 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 17:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |}
[Material userfied to User talk:198.178.190.1 as "not relevant to improving the article" Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC) ]
Lengthy discussion lacking specific suggestions backed by reliable sources |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The methods of falisifiability that evolutionists claim are incorrect 1.) a static fossil record; Darwin knew the fossil record was not entirely static prior to the creation of the TOE. A fact that is already known can not be used as a method of falsifiability. 2.) true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together; The playpus could easily fall under this category as a mammal that lays eggs. Evolutionists have said that there has been little escavation in Australia so the fossil record is limited. This is a scientific answer and the platypus does not necessarily prove evolution false, but this does demonstrate that finding a chimera would not mean that evolution is false, simply that we currently do not know enough about that species. If a mermaid were found then one would easily be able to claim that the fossil record from the sea is far from complete. Therefore, a chimera cannot be used as a method of falsiability. 3.) a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating; One mechanism that prevents the accumulation of mutations is death. Hit something with radiation, you will see progeny with many mutations, you will also see them die. This attempt was made by scientists to speed up the evolutionary process. What they found was that organisms died because too many bad mutations, such as growing legs on eyes, made them less fit and lead to a quicker death. Finding a mechanism is not a way of disproving evolution unless one can show that the mechanism would work within timeframes of millions of years, the timeframe necessary for natural selection. Since we will all be dead a million years from now, it is unscientific to use this as a method of falsifiability. 4.) observations of organisms being created; The supernatural is not allowed into science. This is the reason creationism is not allowed into science. If the supernatural is not allowed into science, then it is also not allowed into science as method of falsifiability. The portion that discusses DNA as a method of falsifiablity, is scientific. Good job there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 14:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Falsifiability is important in science see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability. I'm not saying that evolution is not falsifiable, simply that these are not valid methods of falsfiability. The valid methods are what Darwin suggested: no changes which are irreducibly complex and no abundance of missing transitional species in the fossil record. You may also added some methods of falsifiability in DNA, though these have not been clearly innumerated. These are true methods that follow the scientific standard of falsifiability. The methods listed in the article are scientifically without merit. First, in Darwin's day, it was known that there were different species in differing layers of the fossil record. To say that the fossil record has to be entirely static, when it is already known that it is not entirely static is not a scientifically acceptable method of falsifiability, because it necessitates only one change in the fossil records, which has already been determined. Second, if you want to use this "chimera" definition as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics), then your method for falsifiability is so limited as to be laughable. A much better theory would state that true chimeras cannot be found in nature. This statement is entirely falsifiable, while TOE makes much broader claims. Further, if one of these "true chimeras" were to be found, it could still be hypothesized that they were two individual species living in symbiosis and that they evolved into what you see. In the case of a platypus, it is clearly a species that has the characteristics of two different classes, and falls under a broader definition of chimera, parts of differing type of animals, and some have theorized that this should not be seen in nature today. It may be hypothesized that a cross between a mammal and reptile would have existed at the time when mammals evolved, but TOE would not make any prediction that one of these cross-class species would be around today, nor does TOE make any prediction about the exact nature of the cross-class species. It does predict, however, that in the fossil record you should be able to entirely trace that species lineage. We currently cannot do this, because we do not have enough information about the fossil record. In both cases, it can be traced back to a lack of knowledge about the fossil record, thus making it a poor method falsifiability. Third, in the example I gave of death, radiation killed the whole population, not just one individual. The reason the population died off quickly were the harmful mutations. For natural selection to work, the rate of mutations must be small and the time frame must be large, otherwise the relatively small percentage of beneficial mutations would be overcome by the larger percentage of harmful mutations. This is the evolutionist's answer as to why the erradiated species died out. As seen in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability "Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically." Giving enough time for natural selection to work is not practically falsifiable. Fourth, a deity creating life, is not a purely logical argument, it is a philosophical one. No scientist in any other field in science would use the "Show me a God" logic for falsifiability. They would quite literally be laughed out of their field of study. You can only make philosophical arguments for falsifiability if you are talking about a theory in philosophy not a theory in science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 18:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC) As far as I can see, you have cited no WP:RS to support your contention that "The methods of falisifiability that evolutionists claim are incorrect", just a lot of (highly suspect) WP:OR WP:SOAP-boxing. Unless you come up with a specific suggestion for improvement to the article, substantiated by reliable sources, this thread will shortly be archived per WP:TALK. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC) As far as I can see you have provided no justification that I have broken any rules. Your debating skills consist of deleting what you do not have the mental capacity to argue and my contention is that if you want to list those methods of falsifiability, you need to at the very minimum provide a peer-reviewed journal article that lists them, not something you found on talkorigins.org. Without that peer-reviewed journal article, my contention back with the facts that I have mentioned is more credible. Further, while I think evolution is true, it needs to be done in a scientific manner. Your methods of deletion are the most unscientific I have ever seen. What I find most entertaining though is that you have no problem arguing the contentions I have made, but when you are shown in error, that is when you must delete. GOOD JOB HRAFN!!! You may just have the makings a true evolutionary scientist.
Where is the reference for falsifiability? I've seen this on Talkorigins.org, but is there a peer-reviewed article I can read? Why are you flaming Anon? Is scientific discussion not allowed? He is saying evolution is falsifiable and that it is true. Anon, I don't get what you mean when you wrote "4. is philosophical and cannot be argued" etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.7.228 ( talk) 23:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion is that either you find a peer-reviewed journal article to back the methods of falsifiability that you have listed or you delete the section about falsifiability. I have been following the WIKI guidance of dicussiong these changes prior to making changes to the article, but if you cannot give clear justification and you only delete the discussion, then it is within my rights to make changes to the article without a discussion. In other words, I would suggest playing fair. You don't have to follow my suggestion, but then I don't have to play fair either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 15:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Something as necessary to a scientific theory as falsifiability (i.e. it is not a theory unless it is falsifiable), absolutely needs a peer-reviewed journal article. There are articles that cite other methods of falsifiability, these are not the methods those article cite, so what am I missing? Allow fair discussion and I won't "vandalize". In fact as long as you stop deleting portions of our discussion, I won't touch the article at all. If it is consensus that the article can be improved as suggested, then someone else can fix the article, but I won't touch it. This is a discussion page, so allow fair discussion. If it is a consensus on Wiki that my concerns are invalid, then I will accept that consensus. In fact if there is a arbitrator for discussion employed by Wiki, I will accept their verdict, but I will not accept arbitrary deletion based off of an invalid reading of the rules. That is not in keeping with the spirit of Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 16:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
|
I am sick to death of your continual WP:SOAPboxing on this talkpage and will simply delete or revert (rather than archiving -- as you simply remove the archive templates) any further irrelevant material. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I hold a PhD in statistics, what is your degree? I've been published in two scientific journals (working on more), have you? I've asked you on your site to at least allow time respond to the rule violations I have been accused of before you archive. Is this unreasonable? You are saying you are going to simply delete discussion. Is this not the same vandalism?
Here is the statement on WP:SOAP
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not:
Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1]
Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.
Scandal mongering or gossip. Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.
Clearly I have not tried to recruit, sell, gossip or self-promote. The opinion peices are clearly talking about article and not discussion pages and are stated as such. The opinion I have stated are backed up with facts and hence on the discussion page. Please enlighten me with what definiton of WP:SOAP you are using. You are deleting with cause, harassing with provocation, and stating opinion with out any basis in facts. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
198.178.190.1 (
talk) 19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Johnuniq and Quietmark,
This is my last response. I do not have a problem with how you handled the discussion page and I appreciate the polite responses. I brought up my PhD in statistics because a contributor thought it would be appropriate to just delete my discussion, so I wanted to know why they felt that was within their purview. Do they hold some higher degree or happen to be an expert in evolutionary theory to whom I should defer? I am not a creationist trying to tear apart evolution, but a scientist trying to scientifically discuss the article. As such, my comments should not be quickly dismissed, but should be answered.
I made the suggestion that there are many verified methods of falsifiability, which have been in either peer-reviewed journal articles or stated by Darwin himself, you've listed many of them, but I beleive I can find more. You have many which are good, but you have one sentence that appears to be not nearly as justifiable.
I don’t want creationism taught in school. One of the methods of falsifiability this article mentions requires a deity. This opens up Pandora’s box. How easily could a creationist say “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander?” If a deity can be used for falsifiability (the cornerstone of a scientific theory), then obviously it is allowed into science. If it is allowed into science, then keeping creationism and ID out is not justifiable. Do not give creationists such an easy target.
Other methods mentioned in the article, I easily disputed using only the definition of falsifiability found at wiki, among other places. While you (in general) have dismissed my claims as being SYN, you could not break the logic used nor provide an argument as to why I might be wrong. This is like shooting fish in a barrel and you are giving creationists the ammo to do so. How much ammo do you want to give them?
Royboy, first the definition of chimera they are using has change from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics) so the definition has already changed, because these exist. Beyond that, evolution does not inherently predict that there are no chimeras as long as the lineage can be traced back and it was advantageous to have say a lion’s head and a horse’s body. And as for the genetic variation being easily verified, how would this be done? Our knowledge of genetic coding is very limited, and is certainly not to the point of finding the small changes that would appear relatively quickly in a population as you are suggesting. The number of microarrays involved would be cost prohibitive and lead large error rates that would only find very large genetic anomalies. Beyond that, reason would dictate that mankind as been relatively the same for a million years, thus these are very slow processes. In fact, I think you could be the first evolutionist I have ever heard, that is suggesting that these are quick processes. Also I have worked with microarrays, we cannot do what you are suggesting yet.
I am playing devil’s advocate, because I have found that it is the best way to truly test the validity of what is being stated and this is the scientific way. Look again at my previous posts (at least the posts that have not been deleted), not only do I say what section needs to be changed and why, but I have “quoted reliable sources that throw doubt on some aspects of the article”. I have no peer-reviewed journal article stating that these methods of falsifiability are wrong because nobody has a peer-reviewed journal article stating that they are correct, so why would anybody argue against a point that hasn’t been made? I may be able to find some creationist webpage, but I don’t want that in the article either. You may be right that I am committing SYN, but these are relatively simple arguments that can easily be made by others. I’m not trying to denigrate evolution, so there would be no point to making an article called “Are objections to evolution valid”. I just want science to prevail. Make arguments strong and scientifically justifiable or they will be used as weapons to attack evolution.
I believe that this sentence needs to be carefully reconsidered, this is the wiki wringer you are mentioning Quietmark, my posts are part of that. I’m not asking it to be overhauled right now, but I think it does need to happen. This, however, I leave to your (collective) judgment. If you would like me to review or help out, I am willing to do so, but only by email or talk. I will not be editing this site or discussion page again. It is my opinion that fair scientific discussion is not prevailing here, as nearly all of my material have been deleted or archived. Sorry it took so long to post this response, a user within this article had me blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 ( talk) 13:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't this userfied? Is it appropriate for a talk page? — raeky ( talk | edits) 00:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I am just a little unclear about this article in terms of the stance on abiogenesis. Are you saying that it is completely irrelevant to the discussion on evolution or that probabilities have not been correctly attached to abiogenesis because it is posteriori? If it is the former, then I would think you would want to drop the latter as it would be extraneous or irrelevant. If it is the latter, I would think you would want to beef up this section. I guess what I am saying is that putting any defense makes it sound as if it is not irrelevant to the discussion on evolution. Jaydstats ( talk) 12:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
So I have heard an argument and I want to broach it here to get your take on it. The argument goes:
Now of course the argument does not address the evidence seen in the fossil records. It also doesn't address a cause to stop mutations from accumulating. Whatelse is wrong with this argument? Should this be addressed in the article? Jaydstats ( talk) 16:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
http://creationwiki.org/Many_scientists_find_problems_with_evolution Sort of makes the argument, but I know I have heard it in other locations. I'll try to find some better references. Jaydstats ( talk) 19:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/is_evolution_a_theory_or_fact_2.html Sorry hear it is. Normally I don't like to place these type of websites on wiki pages, but you were asking where I had heard this argument. So I will add the caviat that I don't agree with this website, I am just providing one of the arguments that I have heard creationists use. Jaydstats ( talk) 20:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have semantic issue with the way "scientific fact" is defined, but I wanted to toss this out before making the changes to the article itself. The article states, "In science, a fact is a verified empirical observation". I would prefer the words "well established" in place of "verified". Here is the reason. Back in the late 80's, Fleischmann and Pons announced their finding of "cold fusion" (as in nuclear reactions). About two weeks later a Russian group claimed to have VERIFIED this new finding. However, many more groups could not reproduce Fleischmann's and Pons' results and then the entire legitimacy of cold fusion was brought into question due to experimental errors. Using the article's definition of scientific fact, I would maintqain that cold fusion was initially a fact (it was verified by that Russian group) and later not a fact (since the legitamacy of the intial experiment and "verification" were brought into quesiton). A briefly lived "scientific fact" would only further confuse the general public over the use of the term. Using "well established" in place of "verified" avoids much of this problem as "cold fusion" was never a well established empirical observation. By my thinking, the use of "well established" in the defintion would allow time and critical study of new empirical observations before we proclaim them as facts. What do other people think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.141.202 ( talk) 01:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the "Objections to evolution's morality" section, specifically the "Evolution leads to Atheism" subsection should be edited. When reading the section on atheism, the reader is seemingly forced to accept or assume that atheists are immoral. It should be spelled out in the section that creationists believe 1) belief in evolution leads to atheism and 2) atheism is by definition an immoral belief. In fact, the entire subsection "Evolution leads to Atheism" should really be made its own section...As it stands, it doesn't really discuss anything having to do with morality at all (unless you presuppose "2" above). Perhaps it should have it's own section "Evolution and Atheism", or generally "Evolution and Religious Belief". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.179.229.47 ( talk) 17:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This might be more relevant to the preceding section, though there are a number of research papers investigating the biological seat of morality in humans (and other animals). This idea will perhaps provoke more animus towards the field of evolution, since it is apparent that natural selection has deemed cohesive "moral" communities/societies of animals more fit than less cohesive ones. Ultimately, there is an irony to the position that belief in evolution erodes the belief in a god, in that the theory of evolution can show how morality developed. If a religious person has the precept that belief in god is the foundation for morality, then knowing the facts about how morality developed would indeed erode that religious belief. Similarly any foundation for belief that rests upon an idea that the evidence for evolution contradicts is going to be possibly weakened by that evidence. The logical step at that point is to change the foundations upon which the religion is founded. I'm sure there is an appropriate word for such a process of adaption. Ninahexan ( talk) 08:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
In the subsection "Objections to evolution's moral implications" titled "Evolution says that humans are animals", a reference to the Bible is stated (specifically a reference to Ecclesiastes). I do not believe such a reference is appropriate in the context of the article as it implies the article's only audience is Bible-believing creationists. I suggest that the Biblicial reference either be reworded to a more general audience or removed entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.101.248 ( talk) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to spark a little discussion on the concept of falsifiability. It seems like we confuse evidential falsifiability with boolean falsifiability. One is part of methodology and I don't think anyone in either camp is consciously guilty of making claims that their evidence is 100% reliable and that they have interpreted it 100% correctly. I don't think any intelligent person is unaware of the implications of the known evidence for their particular theory. When I say boolean falsifiability I mean whether or not there even exists a "True" and a "False" for ideas that are central to the given theory.
Creationists are accused of not admitting the possibility that the universe and life came into being without divine intervention. That idea, that creationism is not logically falsifiable, has been the basis for several court decisions. When we amateur arguers say that requiring a naturalistic explanation for everything means that God cannot possibly exist, cannot possibly have created anything, we are slipping into the same error. The accusation that creationism is and can only be a religious idea means that it's OK to say "Evolution is a fact" but it's heresy to say "Evolution is not a fact." There is a T but there is no F.
No amount of evidence can falsify an idea that does not allow the possibility of an alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfarero ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
After checking reference 147 http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm I noticed the table makes this point "The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, psychology, business administration, etc."
I would like this to be included into this wiki page as I believe the table to be misleading without it. Also a survey of "scientists" that presumes things suggests they did little checking to see if the people surveyed where actually scientists.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwinftw ( talk • contribs) 23:26, 12 November 2009
Would it not be prudent to point out that amongst leading scientists the statistics are very different?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Or what about the limits of only using American scientists in the table? 131.111.1.66 ( talk) 04:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the "Evolution cannot create complex structures" section seems to exclusively attribute evolution to natural selection, omitting the influence of genetic drift. While a major change such as from "a fin to a leg" would require a certain degree of natural selection, minor incremental changes are possibly attributable to genetic drift. See for example [2] and [3]. Would anyone object to a slight rewrite to reflect this? Gabbe ( talk) 15:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I've implemented most of the changes listed in the recent Peer Review. I need help or consensus on the following.
Shortening the Headings and Sub-Headings per the MOS. So "Objections to evolution's scientific acceptance" would be "Scientific acceptance". Admittedly this may not apply to this article as we want clarity.
I think it is relevant, since there needs to be an explanation as to why his son took over.
Original source possibly Corbis Images which has rights to another photo in the same series.
I've clarified with a PDF from a journal the copy was created/published in 1892.
Could not verify.
Does the TODO need to be done? Consider other major objections as possible sections, such as "evolution presupposes..." arguments (currently discussed briefly under "Evolution is unfalsifiable"). Discuss possible alternative section schemes, particularly to remedy ambiguity in "Objections to evolution's plausibility" and "Objections to evolution's possibility" oversections.
Unrelated to the peer review, I created Talk:Objections_to_evolution/Archive_4 but it did not show up in the Archive listing. Will a bot eventually take care of that? - Roy Boy 04:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)