Talk:Objections to evolution/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Harun Yahya and Freemasonry

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)

WP:Fringe theories, WP:Reliable sources Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 21:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a very biased article.

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 completely agree. Whether one believes in evolutionism, creationism or scepticism, one must agree that each of the sections in this article is written in the following form:

• Point raised against evolution.
• Legitimate point (or at least idea held by a significant number of people) rebutted and "proven" to be false by source X.

That means that this article, which is supposed to describe the criticisms against evolution objectively, is instead mostly criticism of the points made. Since when is an article mostly criticism of the subject? Even Adolph Hitler doesn't have such a high percentage of criticism! Jchthys (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow you. I do think the article could use a good trimming. However, what does "Legitimate point (or at least idea held by a significant number of people)" have to do with the existence of counter-points? This being an article about objections towards evolution, it makes some sense to include objections to those objections, else the article swings away from the verifiable and into the fringe. Just because some people believe something doesn't make it any more verifiable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that all scientific objections to evolution (e.g. unfalsifiability, complexity) are false for the same reaeon that all scientific objections to Einstein's gravity are false. That being said, non-scientific questions such as "Evolution leads to immorality/atheism" or "Evolution says we are animals", though are all Appeal to consequences, are very open to debate from either side.

As for your concern that straw man arguments are being set up and to "let anti-evolutionist statements be defined by anti-evolutionists", I don't see what you mean by that. Which arguments in particular do you feel are being misrepresented?--Loodog (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend that both 192.132.64.2 & Jchthys read WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles ... will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." (It does not state that we should give any particular weight to ideas "held by a significant number of people".) The overwhelming majority of WP:RSs on the science of evolutionary biology dissect, debunk and dismiss these 'objections' -- therefore this is the view that the article gives overwhelming weight to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, when someone throws around the terms "evolutionist" or "evolutionism", my brain tells the eyes to ignore all further comments. Furthermore, I personally don't "believe" in evolution. Evolution is a fact, much like gravity, and it doesn't require any leap of faith, that is, a "belief". The scientific proof of the theory of evolution is overwhelming, and as Hrafn says, we just can't give weight to the viability of these objections. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:17, 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)

This article is by definition objections to a scientific theory. All the objections are from a non-scientific standpoint with no reliable resources (in terms of what is a reliable resource for a scientific article). It's not proper to give equal weight to the pro-creation (or anti-evolution) argument since there is no reliable sources to quote from. There is no debate within the scientific community, thus no evidence against evolution published in reliable scientific sources. This article presents what the scientific community's general responses to the objections to the fact of evolution. You're argument is that the article isn't giving equal weight to the anti-evolution crowed, but that isn't the purpose of this article. Theres pro-creationist articles on wikipedia, this article isn't one of those by scope. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

More accurately, there are articles that discuss Creationism as a religious or theological view, where its validity is a matter of debate, and articles like this one that deal with its pseudoscientific claims. In terms of science, creationism is a tiny minority fringe view, and NPOV requires us to give due WP:WEIGHT to the overwhelming majority scientific view of these arguments. We give due and proportionate weight to creationist arguments, while taking care not to give them "equal validity" as science. . . dave souza, talk 22:08, 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)

If you think anything is unsourced or undersourced, feel free to add tag in the article. Everything that I can see is sourced, which it had to be to get promoted to GA anyway.--Loodog (talk) 19:10, 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)

You're not starting with it as a logical or scientific premise. You're starting with it as a SUMMARY of what's been found already. This article has been written in hindsight, just as any article about alchemy already knows alchemy is wrong and unscientific, and any article about General Relativity already knows that GR has held up to scientific scrutiny.--Loodog (talk) 18:48, 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)

I'm afraid you're operating on mistaken assumptions about evolution's status in science. This article has been presented with the same viewpoint as that of any scientifically substantiated theory. Your suggestions would be inappropriate as per WP:FRINGE considering the consensus in science.--Loodog (talk) 19:32, 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)

LOL! Of course all science is incomplete, good so far and keep on looking. As for the "arguments against it", well "There are 750 scientists" is false for a start. They're not all scientists, many are in irrelevant disciplines and some are dead. Not that that should inconvenience the supernaturalists..... dave souza, talk 22:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not Problems with modern evolutionary synthesis, which would be about unresolved issues with the most widely accepted theory explaining evolution. This is about objections to the fact of evolution, which are all refutable. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 23:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For an objection to the fact that evolution has occurred to be considered valid it would have to survive peer review, be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, and not be totally refuted by any other such articles published in response to it. So far none has come close to meeting this threshold and until one does it doesn't matter what petition is signed by 750 or 7500 people claiming to be scientists. It is papers in peer reviewed scientific journals that establish validity in the scientific community, not the AIG website, or the Discovery Institute, and certainly not a Wikipedia talk page. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:22, 26 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)

The definition of soapboxing is linked to from the header, but no, hat term isn't used because you disagree with anyone. If I were to venture a guess, it would be because several editors patiently responded to your concerns, but you kept bringing up that issue to the detriment of the article. All of your issues with this article and evolution as fact and theory (there's even a wiki article about that) have been brought up before, several times, and it's a drain to expect numerous editors to have to repeat themselves, when those discussions are all in the archives and/or the evoultion FAQ. Quietmarc (talk) 23:55, 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'm not aware of any objections to evolution that are anything other than creationist in origin. That's just what happens when the science of a subject is settled. Unless, that is, you're referring to competing mechanisms for evolution, in which case look over here. --PLUMBAGO 19:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

constant reference to creationism?

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)

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'. If you want to demonstrate a groundswell of opposition outside creationism, you'll need to cite reliable sources demonstrating this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:39, 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)

No, your questions are not "inflamatory" -- they are simply involve the banal repetition of a bunch of very old, defective and much-repeated creationist talking points. The "proof" of my assertion can be found in the hundreds of creationist websites, books, DVDs, etc, etc, making anti-evolution claims, and the dearth of non-creationists doing likewise. And if you don't present any specific suggestions for improving the article, supported by WP:RSs then this thread will likewise be archived as more unhelpful soapboxing on your part. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:19, 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) |}

Falsifiability

[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) ]

Falsifiability

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) 1. Yes it can. Having prior knowledge of it does not change the fact the fossil record supports evolution, which is the point. 2. A platypus isn't a chimera, as it does not have "two or more different populations of genetically distinct cells that originated in different zygotes". It is a unique species and is genetically consistent. Meaning its egg laying was not suddenly inserted/grafted from a "different population". 3. As evolution presumes "life/being alive" in order to proceed, death isn't an option. Further, death stops mutations to an individual, not the population. Any mechanism to stop genetic change would be observable nearly in real time, millions of years isn't required to confirm no genetic changes in a population over X time period. Be it weeks, years or decades depending on the lifespan of the species. 4. You seem to forget what article this is. An objection to evolution does not need to be scientific. The context of the paragraph permits logical, not just scientific, falsification. Creation of organisms would logically falsify one of evolution's core requirements, that the origins of all life is a slow process of common ancestry. -RoyBoy 04:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Platypus aren't chimera, they are a transitional form between egg-laying reptiles & placental mammals. It is an obvious prediction of the ToE that either an egg-laying mammal or a placental reptile would exist (either currently or historically). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Falsifiability is important in science see http://wiki.riteme.site/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://wiki.riteme.site/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://wiki.riteme.site/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. HrafnTalkStalk(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. The example I gave for radiation can be found at http://books.google.com/books?id=JjLWYKqehRsC&pg=PA157&lpg=%20PA157&dq=Drosophila+Fruit+fly+mutations&source=web&ots=%20V5yPPBPE6h&sig=fOkUS_qLsARelWNDqpe5uhq70mI&hl=en. For my contention that a fact cannot be used as a method of falsifiability, "Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment." http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Falsifiability No amount of observations can show something is always static, thus 1. is no method for falsifiability. 4. is philosophical and cannot be argued by any amount of facts, but necessitates logic. For the chimera example, if you have any debate of a statement I've said about the platypus or other statements, let me know and I will find references for those. Hopefully you are not questioning whether the platypus is the only mammal known that lays eggs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Anon, thou art a WP:SYNner. Go thou, and find verification that someone has published the argument you're putting forward, or this shalt be archived. . dave souza, talk 20:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Further, the platypus is not the only egglaying mammal: see echidna. But that's beside the point. I have a hard time reading your posts, anon, and your point tends to get lost deep in your solid blocks of text, but I'm pretty sure that Hrafn and Dave souza are on track with their comments... Quietmarc (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 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) Hi everyone! Has anon got a suggestion for how to improve the article, or we are just passing the time? Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 8 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) The 'Evolution is unfalsifiable' section cites numerous sources. There is no requirement that all material be cited to a "peer-reviewed journal article" (though such sources are preferred where available). If you have a specific complaint about the reliability of any of these sources then please make it, citing how the source in question fails WP:RS. If you do not have specific complaints to make, with basis in policy, then your long-winded soapboxing may be legitimately removed, per WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" Please STOP VANDALISING the article, as you did here, here & here. HrafnTalkStalk(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) "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." This demand has no basis in policy -- thus it is worthless. Nothing you have said has been "relevant to improving the article" so can be archived, userfied or deleted at other users' discretion. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM -- so there is no basis for demanding to be allowed to continue discussions that (due to lack of basis in policy or source) do not serve this purpose. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice to 198.178.190.1

• DO NOT make claims that are not contained in reliable sources. They are "not relevant to improving the article", and will be deleted (per WP:TALK).
• DO NOT make demands that have no basis in policy. They are "not relevant to improving the article", and will be deleted (per WP:TALK).

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)

It doesn't matter if your opinions are based on "facts". Your opinions must be based on Reliable Sources. You could be 100% correct with everything you say, but until you provide a reliable source to back it up, it's of no use in improving this article. Note that wikipedia articles themselves are not usually reliable sources.

To be honest, though, I think that the reason this is so difficult is that your interpretation of the sources is different than the interpretation of many of us here. This article states that Creationists use the objection that "Evolution is not falsifiable". This article further states that evolution is, indeed, falsifiable, and provides several citations from many sources to back this up. To have this changed, you would need to provide a reliable source to back you up, and even then it will still have to go through the wikipedia wringer before people settle on an appropriate way to integrate it into this article.Quietmarc (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to lengthen this discussion, but since everyone is being so polite I feel that I should give some notice of my intentions. The following is addressed to 198.178.190.1: This talk page is to discuss what might be done to improve the article (you obviously know your way around, so I'm not going to be condescending with links). It's quite simple: despite your undoubted qualifications, we are all peers here. It's not the size of your degree that counts, it's the weight of your relevant arguments. Note that the place to argue about the topic "are objections to evolution valid" is not here (instead, please publish an article in a reliable source). On a talk page, anyone is welcome to quote a reliable source that throws doubt on some aspect of the article. Then we can discuss what to do. Since I have commented, it seems reasonable that you might want to respond. However, after any response, I believe that the only way to avoid this time-wasting and repetitive battle is to revert any changes that are not helpful for the development of the article. In conclusion, my opinion on whether this article is WP:SOAP is not relevant, and neither is yours. Please do not repeat your opinion unless you provide some evidence. That is, specify a particular piece of the article that you believe to be wrong or inappropriate, and give a reference to a reliable source that clearly supports your view. Other comments that merely rehash your opinions should be removed because it is distracting to the development of the article, and it makes it too hard to see whether there are any useful comments on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Facts? No, incorrect arguments is more accurate. Mammal and reptile are defined by humans to broadly categorize life. Biology is not obligated to rigorously follow our gross simplifications. And no, you can't redefine "broaden" chimera to suit an argument that has no basis. To put very very simply and politely, mammals can be seen as reptiles that have simply evolved to be better on land. Absolutely nothing stops mammals from keeping and/or even falling back to mechanisms/body types suited for water.

As previously explained halting genetic changes to a population could be verified quickly. Evolution requires ongoing changes to genetic code in order to be a viable scientific theory. Ongoing means you don't have to wait long to get a biologist/geneticist to say: "wait a second here, something strange is going on". Understanding the facts of genetic variation would make that obvious. - RoyBoy 06:57, 13 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://wiki.riteme.site/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)

Your patience is appreciated. Genetic variation has been observed in various species already, for example fruit flies. This knowledge and rules of thumb help estimate the age of everything from HIV/Flu strains to our mitochondrial DNA and human ancestry. To say our observation is faulty and/or little understanding makes no sense, given the E. coli long-term evolution experiment confirm genetic variation, and sex is known to increase variation. Humans like sex, or so I've heard, read and observed. :"D

Evolution is indeed slow, humans even more so, but to confirm genetic variation (or lack thereof) need not rest on humans. But if that is indeed your focus, everything from bones to Italians, from light skin to dark skin, little/lots of hair shows continued variation, even during, this recent period of relative calm on Earth. I confess, I fail to see "genetic variation being easily verified" being a problem in the least.

As to the platypus. Your position: "cross between a mammal and reptile" is wrong, no "cross" is needed. More likely, aspects evolved that fit mammals, but other aspects REMAINED from reptiles. To think these needed to be Crossed is indeed biologically unsound. As to it still being a around, if a species does well and can adapt then it continues to exist. Such as with sharks etc. Are you proposing "strange" species have an expiration date? I've never come across anything that says so.

"It does predict, however, that in the fossil record you should be able to entirely trace that species lineage." Excuse me? That's a creationist argument, not a devil's advocate argument. You have lost much of your good faith as a consequence. Evolution does not dictate the rate of fossil formation. Stop stating your misunderstandings as facts, and you'll do much better at Wikipedia. - RoyBoy 01:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't this userfied? Is it appropriate for a talk page? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Let it take its course, hopefully soon it'll be done. - RoyBoy 01:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Abiogenesis

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)

Evolution and Abiogenesis are two separate theories... One doesn't explain or anyway relate to the other. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That is my point. Please read what I wrote again. Jaydstats (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the scientific viewpoint, this article though isn't about the scientific view point but on the fringe elements objections to it, and the most common misconception of that fringe belief is to misconstrue science and theories either out of ignorance or intent. They link the two, so this article should address how they're not linked and not connected. So it must be mentioned since they mention the link. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I see your point. From a purely scientific point, I would have just quickly stated that abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution and stopped there, but I understand what you are saying. Jaydstats (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Evolution fact

So I have heard an argument and I want to broach it here to get your take on it. The argument goes:

When evolution is discussed as being a fact they are talking about changes in species. This is only a small poriton of what the Theory of Evolution discusses though, and not what creationists disagree with. The theory of evolution could be more accurately named the theory of common ancesteral descent. The whole idea that evolution is a fact is more of a play on words (calling evolution change) than actually getting to the issue.

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)

What source makes the arguments that you are discussing? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:58, 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)

Atheism and Morality

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)

It seems to me your objection lies in how "evolution leads to atheism" is categorized, i.e. that you don't think it should be under "objections to evolution's morality". I agree. Moving the section.--Loodog (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should try another approach because the section heading "Objections to evolution's morality or consequences to religion" (new words in italics) doesn't quite convey the objection. Of course the notion of "evolution's morality" is absurd, but the article should accurately convey the argument. I believe I have seen arguments that evolution must be "wrong" because atheists like Richard Dawkins are pro-evolution (and according to their world view, it goes without saying that atheism is immoral). I think the section heading should be restored (italic words above omitted), and the "Evolution leads to atheism" section given another couple of sentences. First, the argument needs to be spelt out a little more (currently, the first two short sentences give the argument; the rest is the counter argument). Then the assumptions should be made explicit (atheism = immoral). In other words, I'm agreeing with 130.179.229.47 (but not that it should be in its own section). Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How about 'Objections to evolution's moral implications' as a new section title. And I would point out that although there is no objective reason to view atheism as immoral, many of the 'objectors' view it as such, which would appear to be sufficient reason to place it under this umbrella. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes...that's a good section title. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that some note or reference to Athiesm not being immoral would be in order? For example stating that many have argued that atheism is not immoral at all (references) and then proceeding?Jaydstats (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there should be a clearer statement of the objection (something about atheism and morality), and there should be a clear statement of the counter argument. One of the best ways of achieving the latter would be to spell out the former (i.e. add a sentence or two at the start to explain the argument saying that evolution must be false because evolution leads to atheism which is immoral – it might be hard saying this briefly because of its many absurd assumptions, but we need to try). After clearly stating the objection, the counter arguments need to be made: there is no reason to think that atheism is immoral; even if it were, that would have no bearing on whether "evolution is true". Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 13 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)

Quoting the Bible?

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)

1. New threads go at the bottom.
2. The article links the Bible ref, so (non-Christian) readers can see what the Bible says for themselves. The "context" (which is that most creationists are Christians) makes it even more relevant.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I believe Islamic creationists have the same stance. If the IP can find a Quranic reference that would support it, I'm sure it could be included as well. Auntie E (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

We could try searching Answers in Leviticus. . dave souza, talk 23:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

godandscience.org is not a WP:RS

1. godandscience.org is a small Creationist Christian apologetics ministry. As such it probably falls afoul of WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources. Due to its small sizer it probably also runs afoul of WP:SELFPUB.
2. None of its members appears to have any qualification in evolutionary biology or population genetics (one Microbiology MS, one Geological sciences MS, one Psychology BS)
3. The claim that "Evolutionists often 'forget' to tell the reader that the new 'species' are unable to produce viable offspring with the parental species simply because of a chromosomal duplication event." is arrant nonsense, as the most commonly used definition for "species" is a population that are capable of producing viable offspring with each other. See speciation for genuine information on the topic.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It obviously isn't a reliable source about biology, but might it be a reliable source for creationist beliefs? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but the appearance is that the reference was added not to support or refute a specific concept in the article but to forward the group's goals. At best the inclusion of the link is sufficiently contentious to raise NPOV questions. Alan (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(i) It was not cited for its "beliefs" but for purported facts. (ii) It is a very small and non-prominent creationist group, so its beliefs should not be given WP:UNDUE weight, regardless. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Binary falsifiability

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)

That's completely incorrect. There's always the scientific fallback position of "We just don't know", which is preferred without exception over "God did it". In this case, the position that a supernatural force had a hand in creation is seen as utterly illogical, and the reliance on that idea equally so. Not making room for god in a scientific theory is as understandable as not allowing for the possibility that the Easter Bunny hid your keys that day you were late for work. --King Öomie 17:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but you haven't given any specific suggestion to act upon nor have you cited any examples of "binary falsifiability". The understanding, as it stands presently, is that there is no alternative based upon scientific evidence. To say the article treats creationism as "false" while evolution as "real" (which it makes no such explicit, boolean claims) is not due to a bias or the forcing of non-falsifiability onto one theory; it's simply a symptom of available theories and available scientific research into those theories. DKqwerty (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Deviating from the naturalistic isn't good practice for science topics such as this article, when attempting to assertain the truth about some"thing", it requires testable "things". Regardless of creationism's variation(s) it can come from no"thing" (ex nihilo); its an alternative with as little or as much substance as one chooses. - RoyBoy 05:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes and even more to the point science depends on methodological naturalism, which is a fancy way of saying that a scientific hypothesis must involve only natural (as opposed to super natural) causes and events, and can be tested through observation of or experimentation with the natural (or if you prefer the material) universe. If you want to assert that spirits hid your car keys, science really doesn't say that is false, rather it says that that is not a scientifically valid explanation. If you want to do science you have to look at explanations consistent with the laws of nature not the supernatural. There have always been people who felt otherwise but scientific naturalism is a cornerstone of modern science. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

ID typifies creationist arguments, and "while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science..... ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation" – Kitz, page 64" . . dave souza, talk 11:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Evolution leads to atheism

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

Why is it misleading to call scientists "scientists"? It doesn't say "biologists" and I never read it to mean that on cursory glance.--Louiedog (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a little clarification is useful, and I've edited the section to say at the start that the scientists surveyed were not specifically biologists. My understanding is that the percentage of biologists who hold to Young Earth Creationism is much lower. I've also mentioned in the text as well as in the table that these are American scientists, YEC scientists are much rarer in other countries. dave souza, talk 05:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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 influence of genetic drift?

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)

Genetic drift is often overlooked in comparison to its seemingly more active counterpart natural selection, so this of course should be remedied. IOW, go for it. Auntie E. 18:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made a stab at highlighting the importance of genetic drift. Now, shouldn't the caption regarding the eye be rewritten as well? The "evolution of the eye" article explains how the eye developed through natural selection, and how the intermediate steps all mean a selective advantage to its host organisms. As such, it's not an example of exaptation is it? Gabbe (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I can't think of an evolutionary step where eyes (or proto-eyes) weren't obviously used to detect light levels or otherwise "see". --King Öomie 13:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review loose ends

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.

"Kent Hovind's son Eric Hovind has now taken over the family business while his father is in prison... " - Is it relevant that his father is in prison?

I think it is relevant, since there needs to be an explanation as to why his son took over.

• The license page for Image:Charles Darwin 1880.jpg lacks a source that can be verified by fact-checkers. You might be able to get the information from the original uploader and add it.

Original source possibly Corbis Images which has rights to another photo in the same series.

• Image:Haeckel drawings.jpg

I've clarified with a PDF from a journal the copy was created/published in 1892.

• What is the source of Image:WilliamPaley.jpg? The given source link is self-referential, and won't be of any help to fact-checkers.

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? - RoyBoy 04:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Re the archive: It appears you have to manually edit /archivelist (which I did, and that caused the archive box info to be immediately updated). I think that if the archivelist subpage did not exist then the archives would have appeared automatically, but would be just '1', '2', etc. By the way, I also edited /Archive 4 to show the date range in the header. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thx for the help. Originally the dates were shown, but I changed it thinking the new text would awaken the bots. - RoyBoy 04:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)