Talk:Objections to evolution: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:23, 17 June 2024

Latest revision as of 11:15, 3 June 2025

(22 intermediate revisions by 14 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

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

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

|action5result = delisted

|action5oldid = 1292482471

|currentstatus = DGA

}}

{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GAb|

{{WikiProject Evolutionary biology|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Creationism|importance=High}}

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)

== NPOV issues 2023 ==

Line 85 ⟶ 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.

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

::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)

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)

:::His "ID" belief is different from others. Technically speaking, all religious (particularly Abrahamic faiths) believe in an "Intelligent Designer", even theistic evolutionists like [[Theodosius Dobzhansky|Dobzhansky]], [[Ronald Fisher|Fisher]], [[Simon Conway Morris|Simon Morris]], [[Francis Collins]], [[Francisco J. Ayala|Francisco Ayala]], etc. The only thing common here is the name, but what each label means is different. The traditional "ID" belief is only considered problematic because of it's rejection of evolution and denial of natural causes. There's nothing wrong with believing that the "Intelligent Designer" designs through the natural process of evolution as a mechanic. One can take the designer as the first cause and natural causes as [[Secondary causation|secondary]]. [[User:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar]] ([[User talk:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|talk]]) 18:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

:::Also, you're argument is an example of [[genetic fallacy]]. [[User:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar]] ([[User talk:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|talk]]) 18:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

::::{{tq|different from others}} - All beliefs are different from all other beliefs; Plantinga is not special in that regard.

::::{{tq|Technically speaking}} - Wikipedia does not speak that, unless reliable sources already did it before. Antievolutionists have always tried to include non-antievolutionists into their groups; your rhetorics is not new.

::::{{tq|The traditional "ID" belief is only considered problematic because}} - Wrong. It is considered problematic because it uses bad reasoning.

::::{{tq|an example of genetic fallacy}} There is no trace of that fallacy here. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 20:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

:::::I am not an anti-evolutionist. Check my en wiki profile.

:::::Also, I don't understand what you're trying to say in the second statement. As I said, even theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins counts as believers in intelligent design if we were to apply the basic definition and principle of the concept of "Intelligent Design". The technicality matters here because as Plantinga said, he does not object against evolution and does not subscribe to the anti-evolutionist beliefs of the more traditional ID advocates. The technicality matters here because he himself uses the term ID in that way. Additionally, his argument was never used against evolution because it only applies to philosophical naturalism. Also, no. Traditional ID advocates never tried to add non-anti evolutionists into their group. The Discovery Institute literally wrote a book and has an entire website dunking on theistic evolution.

:::::Also, you didn't even finish what I said. That's [[quoting out of context]]. The "because" here matters because "ID" isn't seen problematic because of it's mere name. It is seen problematic because it is traditionally used to object against evolution. Yes, it is problematic because of bad reasonings against evolution. But, Plantinga's argument is completely different.

:::::Also, there is, in fact, trace of that fallacy here. The individual was trying to justify adding Plantinga's anti-metaphysical naturalist argument because Plantinga was involved with the ID movement even though his argument doesn't even object against evolution. It counts as a genetic fallacy because an opinion (that his argument should be added) is being validated purely because of it's origins even though it's completely irrelevant.

:::::Literally, you're entire comment is an [[argument from ignorance]]. I'm not here for some sort of debate. Plantinga's argument, regardless of how strong or stupid it is, isn't against evolution. So thus, it is to be removed. [[User:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar]] ([[User talk:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|talk]]) 08:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins counts as believers in intelligent design if we were to apply the basic definition}} We don't apply definitions here. See [[WP:OR]]. This is one of the most important Wikipedia rules. Another is [[WP:RS]]: If reliable sources say that Collins is ID, we write that he is ID. If no sources say that, we don't say it. End of story.

::::::{{tq|Traditional ID advocates never tried to add non-anti evolutionists into their group}} Creation scientists did. They made lists of creationists including Newton, Linnaeus and lots of other pre-Darwin scientists that never had a chance to take of position on evolution because they never heard of it. But all this is beside the point. Just don't gather random people and call them ID.

::::::I am ignoring your fallacy claims because it would take forever and they are beside the point of this page. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 12:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

:::::::But, that's not OR. It would counts as OR if some drastic information was added which would require compelling evidences to be valid. (For example, if I gave a description of his childhood without adding any sources) There's nothing wrong with applying definitions and lack of it will create confusions (like how you initially claimed that Plantinga is an anti-evolutionist because of the label of ID even though that is wrong). Applying definitions are important especially when things are ambiguous and nuanced. For example, in the article [[The eclipse of Darwinism|eclipse of Darwinism]], there is a note clarifying the difference between 19th century "theistic evolution" and modern theistic evolution because these two things actually are different and refer to different things. That honestly makes Wikipedia itself un-trustable with it's information if words and labels were accepted as mere face value.

:::::::Also, I know that ID advocates try to put pre-Darwinian scientists into their lists, but that's different. My statement only applies to post-Darwinian era. They wouldn't tolerate anyone who accepts evolution or thinks that it is compatible. [[User:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar]] ([[User talk:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|talk]]) 13:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

::::::::{{tq|But, that's not OR}} You are wrong. See the examples in [[Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material]]: {{tq|The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Making the second paragraph policy-compliant would require a reliable source specifically commenting on the Smith and Jones dispute and making the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source concerning the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.}}

::::::::This is directly applicable to what you are trying to do. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 11:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

::Except Hoyle's argument very specifically supports an intelligent designer who designed things without starting with [[abiogenesis]]. Since it is an argument against abiogenesis, it makes sense to put the argument here. On the other hand, Plantinga's argument is specifically against metaphysical naturalism. And it cannot be and has never been used against evolution in any way. So, it doesn't logically belong here. The article itself makes it clear that it is an argument against metaphysical naturalism and not evolution. So, it doesn't make sense to put it here at all. It belongs to the article [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]]. [[User:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar]] ([[User talk:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|talk]]) 09:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

==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."

Blames them on what or for what?

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)

:….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)

::I think it is easier to read now. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 08:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

== Isolated systems ==

Line 132 ⟶ 77:

: 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)

== Plantinga ==

A discussion was already held here on the status of inclusion of [[Alvin Plantinga|Plantinga]]'s [[Evolutionary argument against naturalism|argument]]. First of all, Plantinga's argument was specifically against philosophical naturalism, not evolution. So, it doesn't matter what other views of Plantinga are, ''his arguments are simply not relevant here''. Additionally, he never objected against evolution. He already stated that his belief in intelligent design was different from other advocates. They merely just carry the same label, but what the label means here varies. As he stated, all religious people (or at least of the Abrahamic faiths) believe in some kind of designer, including theistic evolutionists like [[Theodosius Dobzhansky|Dobzhanksy]]. God could've just "designed" by the natural process of evolution. And even if he was an anti-evolutionist, trying to use his other views to justify a completely irrelevant argument here would be an [[Genetic fallacy|one kind of genetic fallacy]]. This article is specifically for anti-evolutionist arguments. [[User:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar]] ([[User talk:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|talk]]) 17:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

:ID is a form of antievolutionism. {{tq|he never objected against evolution}} contradicts the following sentence {{tq|He already stated that his belief in intelligent design}}. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]])

::Plantinga does not exactly deny evolution, and remains skeptical about intelligent design as science. He talks like a philosopher, not like a scientist. And, yes, if he means that epistemic responsibility is scarce in humans, he is spot on. Most humans have never attained the full-blown rationality demanded by embracing modern science. I don't think that our specie is a paragon of rationality. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 20:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

:::{{tq|Plantinga does not exactly deny evolution}} Neither does ID.

:::{{tq|if he means that epistemic responsibility is scarce in humans, he is spot on}} He does not mean that. He uses that as a sort of reductio ad absurdum: if naturalism were true, it would mean that people's thinking is not reliable, which would mean that you cannot rely on... naturalism! His reasoning is full of holes and really stupid: you do not need naturalism to derive that, as you say, people's thinking is indeed not reliable. And picking naturalism as the thing that you cannot rely on at the end is purely arbitrary.

:::I had no problem with deleting Plantinga back then (see [[#Is it fair to include Plantinga on this page?]], contribution from June 2023), but consensus seemed in favor of keeping him. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 07:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

::::Except, the mere concept of an intelligent designer is not really anti-evolutionist. The term ID is being used here in an extremely un-orthodox way. As I mentioned his "ID" belief is very different from the more traditional ID belief. The only thing common here is the name. It would be like if I renamed [[Young Earth creationism|YEC]] into evolution and evolution into YEC. The only things that change here is the label, but the core beliefs would still be the same. [[User:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar]] ([[User talk:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|talk]]) 08:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

::::Also, how do I even get a concensus? [[User:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar]] ([[User talk:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|talk]]) 08:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

==Lacking==

Line 164 ⟶ 101:

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" ==

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?.

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)

:{{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==

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