Talk:Objections to evolution: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:18, 14 November 2023

Latest revision as of 11:15, 3 June 2025

(47 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header|search=yes|archive_age=21|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}

{{ArticleHistory

|action1=GAN

Line 22 ⟶ 21:

|action3result=not promoted

|action3oldid=354691000

|topic=Biology and medicine

|currentstatus=GA

|topic=natsci

}}

|action5 = GAR

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=

|action5date = 11:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Evolutionary biology|class=GA|importance=mid}}

|action5link = Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Objections to evolution/3

{{WikiProject intelligent design|class=GA|importance=High}}

|action5result = delisted

{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=GA|importance=top}}

|action5oldid = 1292482471

|currentstatus = DGA

}}

{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=b|

{{WikiProject Evolutionary biology|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Creationism|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}}

}}

{{Todo}}

Line 50 ⟶ 53:

|indexhere=yes

}}

== Overstatements about falsifiability ==

From the Unfalsifiability section:

:: {{tq|human DNA should be far more similar to chimpanzees and other great apes, than to other mammals. If not, then common descent is falsified.}}

"If not" would not falsify anything here. If DNA is part of the construction code for organisms then morphological similarity should correlate with DNA similarity, whether or not the DNA has arrived in its current state through evolution.

:: {{tq|DNA analysis has shown that humans and chimpanzees share a large percentage of their DNA (between 95% to 99.4% depending on the measure).[62] }}

We would not reject evolution if the similarity to chimps were only 89 percent. The 95-99 figure is confirmation of evolution, but not the result of a falsifiable test. The falsifiable prediction is much weaker: that similarity will be higher with chimpanzees than with animals of clearly bigger morphological distance from us, such as elephants or reptiles. Estimates of the expected amount of similarity can be made within particular models of how morphology and DNA co-evolve, but if the predicted numbers are wrong, that only disconfirms the model used, not evolution.

:: {{tq|Also, the evolution of chimpanzees and humans from a common ancestor predicts a (geologically) recent common ancestor. Numerous transitional fossils have since been found.[63] Hence, human evolution has passed several falsifiable tests.}}

This probably falsifies "no evolution at all", i.e., an unchanging set of species, but it does not falsify "limited morphological random walk (or extinction) within each species, but no genuine speciation". It is, after all, believed that modern humans interbred with many of the earlier forms so an anti-evolutionist could just say that the nature of humans changed over time but no real speciation happened.

Even if the transitional fossils falsify all nonevolutionary accounts of human-chimpanzee origins, that doesn't mean evolution has passed another falsifiable test. For falsifiability, it would have to be true that if {{tq|numerous transitional fossils}} had '''not''' been found over time, evolutionary theory would have been modified or discredited. What would probably have happened in that case is to continue searching, based on confidence in evolution and a lack of competing explanations. So the quoted passage is confusing confirmation of evolution and disconfirmation of alternatives, with a falsifiable test.

The current wording in the article is overstated. Rather than BRD this I am posting on the talk page first, as this subject is prone to edit wars. [[User:Sesquivalent|Sesquivalent]] ([[User talk:Sesquivalent|talk]]) 22:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

:*"DNA should be far more similar" - it does not matter that one can construct other models which predict the same thing as evolution does. This is one possible falsification of evolution.

:*"humans and chimpanzees share a large percentage" - We would indeed not reject evolution if the similarity to chimps were only 89 percent, but 89 percent are still "a large percentage". Try 10%. This is one possible falsification of evolution.

:*"(geologically) recent common ancestor" - Again, one can construct other models which predict the same thing as evolution does. This is one possible falsification of evolution.

:More to the point, those refutations of creationist poppycock come from reliable sources, and your [[WP:OR|original research]] trying to find fault with them is 100% irrelevant. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 13:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

::Regarding transitional fossils, the concept of [[Precambrian Rabbit|Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian]] is relevant. [[User:Kauri0.o|Kauri0.o]] ([[User talk:Kauri0.o|talk]]) 00:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

== False balance issues ==

I might try to eventually improve this but in case someone can before I do, examples are "Supporters of evolution have argued in response that [...]", "Supporters of evolution have argued in response [...]", etc. Since apologetic and scientific views don't work with the same standards of evidence, the latter can be presented in Wikipedia's voice instead of as only arguments or opinions, to better comply with [[WP:YESPOV]] and [[WP:GEVAL]]. —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 13:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

:I agree with this. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 20:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

::I removed all instances where "supporters of evolution" were used like that. There may still be other wordings of false balance. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 09:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

:::There is no need to attempt to support something when it is already scientifically proven and universally accepted. Thank you for removing them. [[User:Wretchskull (alt)|Wretchskull (alt)]] ([[User talk:Wretchskull (alt)|talk]]) 11:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

::::I just audited the recent changes and thank you all for the improvements, —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 06:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

::[[User:Hob Gadling]] - I just reverted one of those. A quote cited to talkorigins.org arguing in their CA611 Response section has [[WP:VERIFY]] support for "Supporters of evolution have argued in response [...]". It is inappropriate to rephrase that into wikivoice as “actuality”. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Mark bassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 22:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

::The second one I let be, though it is now grammatically confused, and you might revisit that. Changing “Evolutionary supporters point out” to “But” ... at “But evolution is neither dogmatic nor based on faith, and they accuse creationists of [...]” leaves it confused — who are the “they” making accusations, and what cite supports that? They nearest cite is for the next line about a court decision. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 23:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

::The third one I reverted to revised phrasings. The cite to talkorigins CI100 can be attributed as “Supporters of evolution generally respond by arguing that” ... but that cite does not [[WP:VERIFY]] give support for “Actually” in wikivoice and no attribution. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 23:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

:::You do not need to notify me, I have a watchlist. Your changes are not unreasonable. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 05:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

== Objection to calling "Evolution " proven science. ==

To prove that an otter slipped into the water and became a dolphin who then had a sexual desire for his similar mate has been proven scientifically? How would you design a double blind experiment that would prove such an hypothesis? Would it not involve radioactive tracers observed over thousands of years? I object to "scientists " trying to pass off "ologies" for science. [[User:Tormarquis|Tormarquis]] ([[User talk:Tormarquis|talk]]) 06:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

:A starting point may be [[evidence of common descent]]. The above sounds like a voluntarily unrealistic parody, not a representation of what happened or how. Animals don't evolve in a lifetime, it's more complex than that. —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 06:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

::Also, nobody says dolphins are decended from otters. Creationists probably hold the record for cramming most falsities per sentence into a text. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 09:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

::Dolphins are [[even-toed ungulate]]s, so pretty distant from [[Mustelidae]] including otters. Unsurprisingly. Sounds like the [[crocoduck]] fallacy, think it's a tie? Oh, and proof is for whisky and maths, not so much science. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 10:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

:[[User:Tormarquis]] - is this about something in the article ? This article has a section on the Status as theory, which seems the only place where ‘proven’ is discussed. That says evolution is unproven, as any theory is ‘just a theory’, but that in colloquial meaning ‘proven’ of having compelling evidence it has been ‘proven’. (p.s. Evidence being what has been found so far — there were fossil duckocrocs found but so far no crocoducks found.) Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 22:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

::A [[scientific theory]] is not "just a theory" and also not a hypothesis, you may want to read the linked article... —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 03:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

:::[[User:PaleoNeonate]] The article has a section that says evolution is unproven, as any theory is ‘just a theory’, but that in colloquial meaning ‘proven’ of having compelling evidence it has been ‘proven’. If you don’t feel what the article states is correctly phrasing the cite, feel free to make your proposals for rewording it; if you don’t feel the OP was referring to that then feel free to make your own proposal or question subthread. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 13:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

::::Evolution itself is a proven fact, there are multiple examples of evolution. Obviously the theory isn't a fact. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

== Rampant Censorship problems ==

{{archive top| This discussion is going into [[wp:NOTFORUM]] territory so am just gonna close it.[[User:CycoMa1|CycoMa1]] ([[User talk:CycoMa1|talk]]) 01:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)}}

This article is supposed to be for objections to the theory of evolutions. The article establishes early on that the majority of these objections are raised by religious groups. Despite this, the article's edit history shows repeated examples of new objections being removed for citing a creationist-biased source for the objection. This defeats the entire purpose of the article. What's the point of an article on objections to evolution that can't cite objections to evolution? Furthermore, considering Charles Darwin was a member of the Plinian Society, a radical democratic group with an established agenda against the accepted consensus of the time{{sfn|Desmond|Moore|1991|pp=31–34}}, isn't it hypocritical to exclude articles from members of creationist organizations? --[[User:ATimeTravelingCaveman|ATimeTravelingCaveman]] ([[User talk:ATimeTravelingCaveman|talk]]) 15:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

:@[[User:ATimeTravelingCaveman|ATimeTravelingCaveman]] Says the editor who had never edited an article and whose first talk page edit was an anti-Catholic commment, correctly deleted. Anyway, as this article has barely been edited this year, please provide some links to specific examples. Without those no one really knows what you are complaining about. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

:Creationist sources are among the most unreliable sources there are. It would be crazy to allow them as sources except for their own opinions, and they typically word even their own opinions in a way that distorts the facts they reject. It is far better to use reliable sources talking about them. It's the same principle as that of the sewage plant.

:And you seem to misunderstand the purpose of the article. Its purpose is not to help creationists propagate bullshit. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 05:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

::Regarding radical democrats: The reason why we do not allow creationist sources is not that creationists disagree with the majority, as Darwin did, but that they are unreliable. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 05:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

::State the fringe source with attribution. As a general practice, trying to portray fringe views by third-hand comments of their opponents is not a reliable sourcing. In an article with a mainstream topic one can and should use scholarly second-party sources and avoid even mentioning UNDUE views that are not mainstream and hence also OFFTOPIC. But in an article whose topic is fringe views one should directly convey fringe views while being clear that they are not mainstream, and neutral second-party sources are probably just not available. To relate what fringe views say, it’s better to actually relate what they say and directly cite to where they say it. Any proponent pieces and opposing pieces should be treated as [[WP:BIASED]] sources by stating attribution. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 13:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

:::[[WP:PRIMARY]] disagrees with you: {{tq|primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them}}

:::Creationist publishers are not reliable. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 13:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

::::On the contrary, that agrees with me in that [[WP:SECONDARY]] sources are preferable, repeated at [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]], and those reliable secondary sources should be the source for any article statement of evaluation and synthesis. Opposing advocates are not disinterested secondary sources in this context of articles on fringe topics. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 15:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

:::::Everybody who understands the subject of evolution is an {{tq|Opposing advocate}}, so your criterion leaves only ignoramuses as reliable sources. Creationism is just like other pseudosciences and is treated as such. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 16:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

::::::Hmmm, this provides an example why the context of non-consensus views needs directs cites to unusual sources. Distinguishing factually what was said versus what is consensus views requires avoiding sources that do not separate fact from denunciation, so the scholastic honesty of stating the non-consensus view may need to go to the PRIMARY. Whether it is ‘what the Daily Mail said’ or ‘what John Doe blogged about himself’ or what some evolution objection was ... for [[WP:RS]] “the policy on sourcing is [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]”.

::::::On a side note, are there any biologists having enough hubris to claim complete understanding of evolution or referring to those lacking such as “ignoramuses”? Such claims would appear to have gone too far and hurt their own credibility. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 20:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

::::::: It would be unprofessional for true professional biologist to use such unprofessional language. --[[User:StellarNerd|StellarNerd]] ([[User talk:StellarNerd|talk]]) 20:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

::::::::Biologists don't engage with creationism in a professional capacity, because they are scientists, and there's no science to be found in creationism. [[User:HappyMcSlappy|<span style="color:#660066;">'''Happy'''</span>]] '''([[User talk:HappyMcSlappy|<small>Slap me</small>]])''' 22:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071 I wouldn't be too sure about that]. See sections 6 and 7. I agree that to have a consistent article you need to use the primary sources. [[User:Subuey|Subuey]] ([[User talk:Subuey|talk]]) 19:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::Neither of the authors of that paper are biologists. Thorvaldsen has a degree in [[bioinformatics]], but that's not biology, but the development of tools and mathematical methods for use by biologists. The other is a mathematician.

::::::::::Also, they're both creationists who used deceptive tactics to get their paper published. See [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320303118 the publisher's disclaimer]. [[User:HappyMcSlappy|<span style="color:#660066;">'''Happy'''</span>]] '''([[User talk:HappyMcSlappy|<small>Slap me</small>]])''' 19:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::Looks like the only thing they had added to was the keyword section. The words "intelligent design" and other "design" references are still in the article, so that they used "deceptive tactics" doesn't make sense to me. In any case, biologists - [https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw4056 yes, bioligists] - respond to Behe's work at various times. It's possible to have a conversation here without hurling an insult like "ignoramous". It just gets the conversation off track. [[User:Subuey|Subuey]] ([[User talk:Subuey|talk]]) 00:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::::Only if people keep harping about it. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 04:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::::The disclaimer by the journal explains it all quite clearly, so if you don't understand, there isn't much I can do to fix that. Your new link is a book review. I promise you that not one experiment was run, not one culture grown, not one beaker sterilized in the writing of that review. Honestly, it's rather odd that you seem to think you've a leg to stand on here: You're arguing that biologists take creationism seriously, when the fact that they don't is widely acknowledged, even by creationists. [[User:HappyMcSlappy|<span style="color:#660066;">'''Happy'''</span>]] '''([[User talk:HappyMcSlappy|<small>Slap me</small>]])''' 15:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The source I cited challenging Behe was published in an academic journal; not everything is an experiment. And the disclaimer is no surprise, the predictable uproar is consistent with being cancelled these days. But the peer-reviewed article is still there. NOW, if we could get back to the topic of this section which is how are you supposed to write an unconventional article like this if you don't use unconventional sources. [[User:Subuey|Subuey]] ([[User talk:Subuey|talk]]) 18:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::::::"Peer-reviewed" is not enough. See [[WP:RS]].

::::::::::::::{{tq|how are you supposed to write an unconventional article like this if you don't use unconventional sources}} You won't get around [[WP:RS]]. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 04:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Book reviews are not normally peer reviewed. Your assertion to the contrary requires evidence.

::::::::::::::I'm going to stop discussing this with you now, because explaining why creationist POVs do not belong on this project is tantamount to explaining why water is wet: If it actually requires explanation, then no amount of explanation will be sufficient to foster understanding. [[User:HappyMcSlappy|<span style="color:#660066;">'''Happy'''</span>]] '''([[User talk:HappyMcSlappy|<small>Slap me</small>]])''' 05:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::When I said "peer-review" I was referring to the article with the disclaimer...the point here is that you said biologists do not engage with IDers in any professional way, but the review in a scholarly journal by biologists proves otherwise...a mistake you made but everyone makes them. But I agree, enough of this. [[User:Subuey|Subuey]] ([[User talk:Subuey|talk]]) 13:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::QED. [[User:HappyMcSlappy|<span style="color:#660066;">'''Happy'''</span>]] '''([[User talk:HappyMcSlappy|<small>Slap me</small>]])''' 19:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Nah. [[User:Subuey|Subuey]] ([[User talk:Subuey|talk]]) 23:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|requires avoiding sources that do not separate fact from denunciation}} This excludes creationist sources.

:::::::I have discussed creationists for several years. Ignoramus is the correct word. You don't need a lot of knowledge to discern that, let alone {{tq|complete understanding of evolution}}. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 14:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

::::::::Thank you but that’s ‘avoiding sources that do not separate fact from denunciation’ about the article topic. Anti-creationists just are not RS about objections, any more than creationists should be allowed as cites in the [[Evolution]] article. It is a matter of journalistic ethics and credible content about objections to state the fringe source with attribution. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 13:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::Since creationists typically manage to cram about three rookie mistakes into one sentence on average, if we used their wording, we would have to explain in detail all the things that are wrong with the way they are wording it. That would be too much detail, so, paraphrasing by actual experts is better.

:::::::::Of course you would regard scientific sources (what you call "anti-creationist") as non-RS, but you have no consensus for that. Scientific sources are fine. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 06:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::What are "three rookie mistakes" in this example of an objection to evolution from a prominent Ider? (I am giving you the benefit of a paragraph and not a sentence): "As I have laid out in various publications (e.g., Bechly & Meyer 2017) and lectures, the fossil record demonstrates that the history of life was not a series of gradual transformations by an accumulation of small changes over long periods of time. Instead of conforming to this gradualist prediction of Darwin’s theory of evolution, the fossil record consistently documents a series of saltational transitions with abrupt appearances of new body plans within very short windows of time. This implies a fatal problem for Darwinism called the waiting time problem, because population genetic calculations and simulations show that the windows of time established by the fossil record are orders of magnitude too short to accommodate the required genetic changes for these body plan transformations." [[User:Subuey|Subuey]] ([[User talk:Subuey|talk]]) 00:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{tq|very short windows of time}}&mdash;what is this: creative writing or science? That very short time, e.g. the Cambrian explosion, meant in reality millions of years. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 00:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::::"Millions of years" is very short in terms of the age of earth and the fossil record. This is common speech in science. Common. [[User:Subuey|Subuey]] ([[User talk:Subuey|talk]]) 00:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::::You would be right if speaking of [[geology]], [[biology]] is however another science and it is not written in the stars that many species cannot appear during some millions of years.

:::::::::::::And if you're speaking of https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution , that's a controversy ''within'' mainstream science; ID is a controversy ''outside'' of science. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 01:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::We're not doing journalism, we are writing a [[WP:MAINSTREAM|mainstream encyclopedia]], just like Britannica and Larousse. So, obviously, we have no reason to obey the ethics of journalism. See https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/sciencetoolkit_04 [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 08:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{reflist-talk}}

== NPOV issues 2023 ==

Line 163 ⟶ 63:

:::Accurately representing an opposing viewpoint is not spreading anti-science propaganda. [[Special:Contributions/2601:547:E01:1DC0:1C34:FFF1:FA7C:EC11|2601:547:E01:1DC0:1C34:FFF1:FA7C:EC11]] ([[User talk:2601:547:E01:1DC0:1C34:FFF1:FA7C:EC11|talk]]) 12:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

::::We do represent it. Just we don't represent it as valid/true. It is a conflict between mainstream science and scientifically inane views. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 12:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

:Well done Hausa Warrior, my conclusion exactly. I had to stop halfway through reading it as a start the first time in a long time of reading Wiki that I was reminded “oh yes these articles can be written by any old person, with no body of evidence and slanted to whatever bias they like”. And this article certainly reeks of it. The emotionally charged way that Hob Gadling is replying makes it so obvious. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:6B66:48F4:0:B523:38E1:3F7F:1EEE|2A02:6B66:48F4:0:B523:38E1:3F7F:1EEE]] ([[User talk:2A02:6B66:48F4:0:B523:38E1:3F7F:1EEE|talk]]) 08:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

::This is bullshit. The article is based on reliable sources. Your problem seems to be that the only sources you have been exposed to are far away from any reliability, so you believe in the false rumors spread by creationists instead of actual facts.

::If you have any concrete issues instead of vague accusations, you are welcome here. As is, your writings are not helpful. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 10:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

== Isolated systems ==

"This, then, is the general statement of the second law of thermodynamics:

the total entropy of any system plus that of its environment increases as a result of any natural process."

Physics, Principle with Applications, SIXTH EDITION, p. 425, D.C Giancoli, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey,1998

This excerpt from a physics text book is at variance with: "The claims have been criticized for ignoring that the second law only applies to isolated systems." [[User:LEBOLTZMANN2|LEBOLTZMANN2]] ([[User talk:LEBOLTZMANN2|talk]]) 19:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

: Hello {{ping|LEBOLTZMANN2}}, I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. Both statements agree. If your issue is that the words "isolated system" are not included in the first quote, It's most likely because it is presented as a general statement in the introduction of the book. And if not, here is an other source for the definition that explicitly mention it [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/second-law-of-thermodynamics]. And again, since trying to apply the second law in a non isolated system doesn't make any sense anyway, it's obviously implied even if not mentioned explicitly. --[[User:McSly|McSly]] ([[User talk:McSly|talk]]) 21:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

::To more clearly state the variance of the text book definition with the article, please note the word "any" before system contrasted with the word "only" preceding isolated system. Any system would include isolated, open and closed systems. It is noteworthy that the claim of only isolated systems has no reference whereas the submitted definition is from a physics text book.

::Another question, "Since Earth receives energy from the Sun, it is an open system. The second law of thermodynamics applies only to isolated systems." Would not logic then say since Earth is an open system therefore the second law does not apply to Earth, everything of Earth? [[User:LEBOLTZMANN2|LEBOLTZMANN2]] ([[User talk:LEBOLTZMANN2|talk]]) 19:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Since the Earth receives energy from the Sun, see [[dissipative system]]. A Nobel prize was granted for that idea. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 20:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

:In the ten years since your first attempt at inserting creationist pseudoscience into the article, neither physics nor biology have changed enough to make evolution suddenly contradict the Second Law. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 08:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

==Lacking==

== Is it fair to include Plantinga on this page? ==

Problems wiht evolution:

1) Cambrian explosion: All body plans appear at same time, early in Cambrian explosion. Eyes and other complex features all appear at once in Cambrian explosion. Fossil record is firm.

2) Avalon explosion single cells to complex life all at once. Fossil record is firm.

3) Lack of transitional fossils for most of life forms. Animals appear remain unchanged and most go extinct. The past predictions that new fossils finds would fill in the gap in the transitional fossils as not come true. There are “missing links” for most species.

4) Living fossils: Horseshoe crab, Nautilidae, Australian lungfish, nurse shark and many more. Animals appear, remain unchanged for long time spans.

5) Convergent evolution: Many complex features appear in unrelated animals and plants, too many to be evolution. Look at Chameleon and Sand Lance fish, same eyes (independent eye movements and special focusing lenses) and a darting tongue. The list is very long of convergent evolution, too long.

6) 6) Studies have shown mutations are only beneficial for species that have a very large population size, like bacteria. For all other animals mutations drives the species towards extinction. So mutations do not produce new and complex features, like eyes. When animals are stressed and have a small population size, we protect then, as they do not change. Mutations occur when DNA is damaged and left unrepaired. The ratio of negative to beneficial mutations in anything larger than an ant is harmful to the life form.

7) Natural selection can change an animal’s color and other small changes, but has been shown to have limits. Also, it has been shown that once the pressure that forces the change is gone, the animal will go back to its original state, changes are not permanent! Finch beak evolution, shown as proof, always fails to note the finch does not keep the large beak. As the food that forced the large beak is gone, the beak returns to its original size.

8) Origins of life: There was no primordial soup. There was no time for natural origins, as soon as the Earth cooled there was life. The first life forms were not “simple” as predicted. Cyanobacterium is very complex. There was not one simple early life form, there was a complete ecosystem with sulfate-reducing microorganisms also shows up early in the record, also a very complex life form.

9) Some clades are very diverse and some unusually sparse, evolution should work everywhere the same.

10) The recovery after mass extinctions is very quick, too quick for evolution. Permian-triassic Extinction: 90 percent to 95 extinction rate. Yet, life recovered in just thousands of years. Triassic-jurassic Extinction: Triassic dinosaurs gone and in just thousands of years all new Jurassic dinosaurs. Cretaceous-tertiary Extinction: Mass extinction, all dinosaurs are gone, as is most life forms, yet there are all new life forms in just thousands of years.

11) Breeding for dogs and horses for thousands of years. Change comes at a heavy cost, shorter life span and poor health.

12) DNA testing of close animals has shown they are not related. The two river dolphins and ocean dolphins are not related. The two panda bears are not related and the list can go on and on.

13) The proof of evolution is mostly: Animal A looks like animal B, so animal B must have come from animal A, how childish if you can not show how it happened.

14) Common Ancestry problem. Animals that have a recent common ancestor are too different. A donkey is very close in ancestry to the horse and zebra. So close that they may breed producing mules and zonkeys. Yet the donkey, horse and zebra are very different, too different. The donkey is very cautious and departs from danger, they can not be used in a battle. The horse willingly will go into battle, some like the danger. The Donkey and the horse are easily tamed and once tame will remain tame. Zebra are difficult to tame and difficult to remain tame. Other sample of this problem can be found in nature.

15) “Evolution Junk”, those that only believe in evolution have put on blinders and have made gross errors in the past about designs in nature. The theory is evolution is a series of random mutations, thus residual vestige of random mutations will be found in nature. In this thinking many scientists overlooked designs in life. Only later to be shown that what they called junk, was in fact a good design. Examples of this are many: Tonsils, Appendix, Panda's thumb, Whale hips (still taught as vestige, but this is wrong), Junk DNA, Humpback Whales fins, and more. There are neutral mutations, like some humans have three or one kidney, but these are not residual vestige or a case for design as they are rare.

16) Human exceptionalism: Charles Darwin wrote and many scientists followed this thinking: Animals that most look like us will most closely match our cognitive capabilities. After study and research, the animals that has the closest cognitive capabilities to humans are crows, ravens and New Caledonian Crow. The New Caledonian Crow can: Make fish hooks, teach others how to make fish hooks. Crows and ravens (same family) are the only animals to be able to solve multi step problems and make tools to solve these problems. MRI scans have shown crow and raven brains are the closest brain to humans. Yet Human exceptionalism has shown are not just a higher animal. Humans different much from animals. Humans are the only one to be active in: art, musical, jewelry, use symbolism, active religion, written languages, mathematics, have moral dilemmas and much more. Many of these appeared as soon as humans appear. Neanderthal has few of these abilities and is too different from Humans. Near the end Neanderthals lived at the same time as Humans. Neanderthals had no tear ducts, very large sinuses, large barrel shaped chest, short arms, heavy bones, different braincase, different ear bones, and more. There is no “missing link” to humans from bipedal primates. The large brain evolution hypothesis has been falsified after the discovery of early hominin with larger brains than later hominin fossils.

[[User:Telecineguy|Telecine Guy]] ([[User talk:Telecineguy|talk]]) 01:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

:This articlew is not supposed to mention every single piece of wrong-headed bullshit that has been used to attack biologicial science. That is the job of [https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ An Index to Creationist Claims]. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 07:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

::That’s fine. Telecine Guy just decimated the whole article with his points either way. Job done. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:6B66:48F4:0:B523:38E1:3F7F:1EEE|2A02:6B66:48F4:0:B523:38E1:3F7F:1EEE]] ([[User talk:2A02:6B66:48F4:0:B523:38E1:3F7F:1EEE|talk]]) 08:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

:::That statement makes no sense. This is a Wikipedia talk page, and its goal is to improve an article. Neither your contribution nor that of the other guy does that. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 10:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

:Your arguments betray a serious misunderstanding of evolution in almost every aspect. The cambrian explosion took place over millions of years after multicelluar organisms already formed, and was therefore able to evolve relatively quickly due to environmental pressures. What you are describing as happening "all at once" took place over millions of years. Just because you personally don't understand how that may occur does not disprove evolution but is merely evidence of your own ignorance, which is further evidenced by your frequent mispellings. You also claim that there are no transitional fossils for most species, but completely ignore the fact that fossilization is extremely rare. Of course most minor organisms are not fossilized several times.

:Evolution can predict where a fossil will be. It can predict genetic sequences between organisms. Do you know why humans have a tailbone? It's because our distant ancestors had a tail. The human embryo goes through stages, first being microbal, then with gills, then ape-like fur. Evolution's evidence is so robust that anyone who disbelieves in it either does not fully understand it or is simply an idiot. [[User:FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie|FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie]] ([[User talk:FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie|talk]]) 11:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

== "Supporters of evolution" ==

From what I've read, his 'evolutionary argument against naturalism' is not an objection to evolution, but an argument against metaphysical naturalism. I've never read anything that suggests he intended to disprove evolution, or even to critique it as unviable in the light of humans' reasoning capacities. [[User:Phil of rel|Phil of rel]] ([[User talk:Phil of rel|talk]]) 05:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

:Since he says, {{tq| a God would be expected to create beings with reliable reasoning faculties}} and people are very obviously very fallible, it sounds rather like an argument for atheism.

:I think he is mentioned because creationists use everything that can get, including non-creationist Fred Hoyle. Of course, none of it makes any sense, including Plantinga. I have no objection to deleting him. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 05:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

::It's fair to include him; as shown at [[Alvin Plantinga#View on naturalism and evolution]] he supported ID for a decade, eventually backing off a bit in 2010 – five years after ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' . . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 08:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

In the "Improbability" section there's a sentence that says "Supporters of evolution". what does this mean exactly?, isn't evolution a verifiable fact?, a fact isn't something that you "support", it would be like saying "supporters of gravity" or "supporters of The Holocaust", it doesn't make much sense, does it?.

==Hovind==

Young Earth creationist Kent Hovind blames communism, socialism, World War I, World War II, racism, the Holocaust, Stalin's war crimes, the Vietnam War, and Pol Pot's Killing Fields on evolution, as well as the increase in crime, unwed mothers, and other social ills."

Is Wikipedia implying that evolution might be false?, or that evolution is just a belief and not a fact?

That sentence should be removed because it gives too much weight to pseudoscientific ideas. [[Special:Contributions/2806:109F:10:1CDD:E1AC:432B:2A6F:610B|2806:109F:10:1CDD:E1AC:432B:2A6F:610B]] ([[User talk:2806:109F:10:1CDD:E1AC:432B:2A6F:610B|talk]]) 01:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Blames them on what or for what?

:{{talk quote|a fact isn't something that you "support", it would be like saying "supporters of gravity" or "supporters of The Holocaust", it doesn't make much sense, does it?.}}

:Sure you can. I think it's fine in this context and doesn't really have the effect you describe. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 01:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

== Article review ==

It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and saw lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and at the end of paragraphs. Should this article go to [[WP:GAR]]? [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 15:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

==GA Reassessment==

Young Earth creationist Kent Hovind blames communism, socialism, World War I, World War II, racism, the Holocaust, Stalin's war crimes, the Vietnam War, and Pol Pot's Killing Fields on evolution, as well as the increase in crime, unwed mothers, and other social ill" [[Special:Contributions/86.191.214.39|86.191.214.39]] ([[User talk:86.191.214.39|talk]]) 07:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Objections to evolution/3}}

:….Hovind blames <nowiki>[long list]</nowiki> on evolution, as well as <nowiki>[short list]</nowiki>. Not entirely easy to parse, but conveys the information you asked about. [[User:Sjö|Sjö]] ([[User talk:Sjö|talk]]) 08:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)