Talk:Objections to evolution/Archive 6

Macroevolution
This article unfairly implies that all these critisms are levied against "evolution" when really, the majority of them are only objections against Macroevolution. I suggest renaming the article "Objections to macroevolution" and to at least state what the objections are in neutral / objective langauge before trying to cover how macroevolutionists respond to them. --BenMcLean (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read Claim CB902? Gabbe (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The technical definition of microevolution is change that we can observe in living creatures today, referred to from ancient times as "heredity". Macroevolution refers to changes that certain philosophical assumptions imply from the fossil record and from arguing backwards from there. The charge is that by using the word "Evolution" to denote all change in animals whatsoever, Darwinists have created a logocracy (a Newspeak-ish framing of the debate) in which the contraversial and debatable parts of their idea can no longer be separated from the plain and obvious parts which even the most staunch seven-day Creationist really agrees with. Making the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is meant to correct this, and re-separate "evolution" from basic heredity. --BenMcLean (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ben, you're drawing a distinction that antievolutionists usually fail to make unless they're trying to weasel out of having to accept evidence of evolution. Sources cited here such as "Evolution Is Religion—Not Science" and "The Lie: Evolution" may mention macroevolution in the fine print, but their basic stance is opposition to evolution. Also note the rarity in science of the term "macroevolutionists", by which you presumably mean biologists or scientists. . . dave souza, talk 20:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason they fail to make it is because they're more interested in convincing stupid people and in selling books than in making sure they always say exactly what they mean. It's vital to their case, however, that the language be such that they can refer to those parts of the theory they disagree with as distinct from those parts that, as I said, even the most staunch seven-day Creationist agrees with. --BenMcLean (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Without macroevolution there is no common descent from a common ancestor, a core principle of evolution, that made Darwin so hesitant to publish until he had "overwhelming" evidence for it. I think he was trying to wait until the DNA sequencing appeared. :"D - RoyBoy 17:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. But we're not debating Darwinism anymore, we're debating Neo-Darwinism in which the meaning of "evolution" has changed. --BenMcLean (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Diversity or Microevolution is observed variance within a fertile kind. Evolution or Macroevolution is change from one kind to another. While the former has been observed and accepted by Darwinism and opponents, the latter has never been shown to conclusively happen. It seems that the proponents of Evolution should be more accurately called Macroevolutionists. Why the reluctance on the part of Darwinists to include both sides in the debate?--Gniniv (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Allow me to repeat myself, have you read Claim CB902 and the Macroevolution FAQ? Gabbe (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked your source and found it to be from a non-neutral propaganda source. The Wikidictionary defines Microevolution and Macroevolution  similar to how I stated them above-see links for reference.--Gniniv (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then, which sourced improvements to the article would you like to make and/or discuss? Gabbe (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm looking forwards to reading the scientific papers on the "other side" of this purported debate. Clearly my own reading is too narrow, since none of the science journals that I routinely read publish anything on evolutionary biology remotely as contrary as that suggested by Gniniv.  In passing, not all biologists make as big a song and dance about macroevolution as a separate and distinct process from microevolution.  Speaking personally, I just see a lot (admittedly to the nth degree) of microevolution, plus a number of additional bells and whistles (e.g. reproductive isolation, horizontal gene transfer, endosymbiotic theory).  --P LUMBAGO  11:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You have a good point there; none of the mainstream scientific journals publish that Macroevolution has never been observed, only Microevolution and the extrapolation of that into capital "E" Evolution.--Gniniv (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that the observed "evolutionary" changes that have been cited in the article are actually examples of Microevolution and not Macroevolution. I think this will improve the neutrality of this article. Any thoughts?--Gniniv (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure what you mean. If you take the "Evolution has never been observed" section, for example, it discusses whether macroevolution has been observed. Which specific changes would you make and what sources would you use for those changes? Gabbe (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So, what sort of examples of so-called macroevolution do you have in mind? The link you cite above suggests "large-scale patterns or processes in the history of life, including the origins of novel organismal  designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiations and extinctions" as examples.  Of which, evidence for novel designs has been found in evodevo investigations of the genome, and there is no shortage of evidence of evolutionary trends (e.g. adaptiveness to land-living by plants and animals), adaptive radiations (e.g. Darwin's finches) and extinctions (e.g. various extinction events) in the fossil record.  And if you're looking for the creation of separate species then it's been done already.  All of which have been scrupulously documented in the mainstream literature.  So, what are you after?  --P LUMBAGO  08:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think that the examples you cited above (eg. Darwin's Finches, etc..) qualify more as examples of Microevolution (inter-special or familial level diversity, with continued maintenance of fertility between different populations-an example would be that the finches are still finches.... ) than Macroevolution (Reptiles to Mammals etc..). What do you think? Maybe pop another look at the Wikidictionary and see if I am making a mountain out of a molehill....If you think that I am maybe raising a reasonable point we can talk about how we could possibly implement the terms and if we need to use more technical synonyms for them....--Gniniv (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary is an open wiki (ie. that anyone can edit), and therefore not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. See WP:IRS. Gabbe (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point, I have an actual dictionary in front of me (Webster's New World College Dictionary; Fourth Edition; ISBN 0-02-863119-6) and it defines the terms as follows (and I quote):


 * Microevolution-n. ''small scale hereditary changes in organisms through mutations and recombinations, resulting in the formation of slightly differing new varieties.

''
 * Macroevolution-n. large scale and long range evolution involving the appearance of new genera, families, etc. of organisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gniniv (talk • contribs) 22:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we still need to consider the points I've raised.....--Gniniv (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * True, Webster's is a decent source and those words are acceptably defined as such. Now, what specific changes would you like to make to the article, and which sources would you use? Gabbe (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether "macroevolution" is defined in a manner that suggests additional processes or as simply "microevolution + lots-of-time", there is no shortage of evidence for it from the fossil record. And on the specific point about reptile → mammal evolution, and leaving aside the abundant fossil evidence, there are even extant organisms that display intermediate characteristics consistent with this major branching.  Are you (Gniniv) suggesting that just because we haven't watched a so-called "macroevolutionary event" take place right in front of us it, there is no evidence for such "events"?  The period of time over which they occur (especially cf. the reptile/mammal division) would mean that no one scientist, or even many generations of them, could observe them in this way.  As Dobzhansky noted, "Experience seems to show ... that there is no way toward an understanding of the mechanisms of macro-evolutionary changes ... other than through a full comprehension of the micro-evolutionary processes observable within the span of a human lifetime".


 * In passing, on the particular point of definition, the OED tends to the latter definition above with "Major evolutionary change, usually over a long period; the evolution of genera or higher taxa", but I would be reluctant to trust a dictionary on a matter of science anyway (cf. this recent gem). --P LUMBAGO  08:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (Can't trust a dictionary on a definition?-even if it is a science definition. What's the world coming to?)


 * Honestly...


 * Now, what do you guys think? I mean, I agree that most of mainstream science thinks that Macroevolution is simply Microevolution plus a few million years; but, I think my point (due to the Microevolution extrapolation assumption, Macroevolution can never really be actually observed real time) should be put in the article.  I also think that Macroevolution is not simply Microevolution for a long time, that seems a little to convenient for a valid scientific theory to work. Try reading the definitions above (or find your own and compare them if you think that Websters is now a tool of the anti-science crowd)  and we could discuss furthur ideas and see if there is actually a debate on this issue amongst mainstream scientists...We may also want to bring up the debate on punctuated equilibrium and the evidence (or lack thereof) for this alternative view on Macroevolution.  Any thoughts?--Gniniv (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We may want to clarify (as a start) that at least for a short period of time (pending more debate) Macroevolution/Evolution is (with a capital "E") not the exact same thing as Microevolution/Natural Selection/Genetic Diversity (Take your pick). Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gniniv (talk • contribs) 23:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC) --Gniniv (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy governing this on Wikipedia is WP:DUE (as well as WP:GEVAL, WP:MNA and WP:PSCI). It basically says that articles should feature prominent arguments by mainstream experts, while non-mainstream arguments are typically excluded. Your argument that "macroevolution is not the same as microevolution plus a few million years" can only be included if it can be sourced to mainstream biologists. It isn't sufficient that you (or anyone else here for that matter) simply feel that it should be included. Do you have such a source? Gabbe (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Gniniv: Gabbe is right. You seriously need to provide some sources for your contention (you even note above that it is your contention).  And you need to be sure that they satisfy the guidance notes that Gabbe cites.  Finding disagreement between scientists on how exactly macroevolution is defined, or how important different scientists think it is, is not enough — there is always disagreement between scientists, but it is only infrequently fundamental and therefore relevant for an encyclopaedia reader.  For instance, there is no serious debate over punctuated equilibria, and certainly nothing that could be construed (except via mischief) as an "objection to evolution".  Creationists 30 years ago tried that particular trick and it got them nowhere — though it probably did make biologists somewhat more aware of a vaguely interesting discussion in palaeontology.


 * And I've not the first idea what you mean about microevolution being "a little too convenient". Too convenient for what?  And what do you mean when you say that "at least for a short period of time" macroevolution ≠ microevolution?  That makes no sense.  Similarly, conflating microevolution, natural selection and genetic diversity is unhelpful and confusing.  What are you trying to get at?  Microevolution is the generation by generation change (by natural or artificial selection; or simply by genetic drift) in organisms (i.e. short timescales, so easily observable); natural selection is the unguided process of differential survival and reproduction between organisms; and genetic diversity is simply the observation that organisms are not genetically identical.  Anyway, I think some clarity on your part would be helpful before we worry about whether scientists have any serious issues with so-called macroevolution (which, from my reading of sources, they don't).  --P LUMBAGO  16:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Gotcha! I agree that my point doesn't belong until I can source it properly.  I appreciate that you guys are helping out.--Gniniv (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Information that we could include that I have found a source for is simply the proper technical definition of Microevolution and Macroevolution...--Gniniv (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Gniniv Those terms should not be explicitly defined here, as there are separate articles for each: Microevolution, Macroevolution. Further, I'm not totally sure what adding explicit defs would accomplish. Are the defs themselves objections to the theory? Lastly, this appears to have been covered in the Evolution has never been observed section of the article; Links to the two terms and a discussion of the primary context they're referenced is within the first couple paragraphs. Jess talk cs 03:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is a reference for a definition of Macroevolution and Microevolution, but the link is from a discussion website, not a peer reviewed Secondary source. Is there any other reference that has a little bit more credibility for the definitions?--Gniniv (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @Gniniv I'd suggest checking out the Microevolution and Macroevolution articles, as both cite a plethora of sources, including physical books. Further, AFAIK, talkorigins is considered a reliable source on WP. You said earlier that you had a source for "the proper technical definition" of the terms. Is this a source you'd care to share? Part of my point above is that the full definition and discussion of the terms should be partitioned to the individual articles on each topic. Discussion on this page should only concern objections to evolution. Do you feel that changing the info regarding micro/macroevolution would improve the article to that end? On an unrelated note, please indent the discussion... as it's really hard to follow long threads without proper indentation; Text just goes everywhere. Thanks :) Jess talk cs 06:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the formatting help and I agree...--Gniniv (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

New Objection Proposal.
There is an objection not listed on here, and though I can't find any support, it raises a valid question and to dismiss it because of no major scientific support is Ad Vericundum anyway.

If I have a computer, and that computer can make a more complicated computer, and that computer can make an even more complicated computer, then it would reach infinite complexity. That is impossible.

That is what evolution is.

I have a life form that can make a more complicated life form that can make a more complicated life form. The end result must be an infinitely complicated life form. That is impossible.

Therefore evolution is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnderWiggin1 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If I have a computer, and that computer can make a more complicated computer, .. . Obviously the conclusion is not necessarily true. Nevertheless, you just need to present some reliable sources that discuss this objection and we can start trying to work it into the article. Cheers, Ben (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Like most objections to evolution, this is one big misstep in logic. Just because an element of a system something cannot be be infinitely complex doesn't mean the system cannot approach infinite complexity; it's simple chaos theory. Notwithstanding that the argument is predicated upon a purely fictional example. Please find a reliable source for this theory and it might be added with due consideration to weight. DKqwerty (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Complexity isn't favoured by evolution but adaptability is.  Computers are designed --like in "intended for a purpose"-- machines (and can indeed be complicated) but they only produce more complicated computers when/if told to do so.  In all its complexity nature is different.  Species don't evolve all by themselves just because they can, but because some changes are occasionally favoured by some circumstances.  Machines told to produce increasingly complicated machines will certainly end up with something that ceases to be operational (or becomes 'impossible'), but such a process wouldn't be favoured by natural selection.  And, as Ben said, unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas are not favoured on Wikipedia. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To wit, can anyone name an infinitely complex creature? The atomic theory of matter would seem to preclude such a level of complexity in ANY situation. -- King Öomie  13:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

EnderWiggin1: "Complexity" is a vague concept in biology, but "entropy" is less so. Have you read the entire Objections to evolution's possibility section? As well as the Entropy and life article? Gabbe (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * EnderWiggin1: Thinking that dismissing your thought experiment would be an argument from authority rendering the dismissal invalid, is a fallacy fallacy. Please read No original research, that's where the problem lies. (The logical errors in your argument have already been adressed.) - Soulkeeper (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the other comments here, please be aware -- this is very important! -- that evolution in no way implies an increase in complexity. Complexity can be beneficial (in the sense that it provides an organism with a greater probability that it will live to pass on its genes) but by its nature it is also costly (in a more complex process, more can go wrong, as it were, and by definition more energy is required to build a complex system developmentally). So we have a trade-off, and evolutionary pressures will tend to push complexity when its benefits outweigh its costs and push simplification when the benefits are no longer worth it.

While we as humans tend to measure "success" based on human-like traits -- intelligence, maybe, or our social nature, or whatever -- but remember that biology doesn't care in the least about these things. All that matters is that an organism live to pass on its genetic material. By this metric, many of the world's most successful organisms are very simple when compared to humans. Bacteria, nematodes, etc. And there are numerous extant examples of organisms developing a feature (a tail, for example) and then later losing it because it no longer conferred an advantage.

In sum, evolution is not a staircase of complexity, with each step necessarily being more complex than the next. Once you understand this, your thought-experiment breaks down, even without broaching the question of what "infinite complexity" even means. Cheers, 72.42.168.134 (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, one more thing, unrelated to evolution, but related to your thought experiment. Suppose that each time your computer builds its newer, more complex version, it is only able to improve upon itself by half as much as it did in the previous step.  So, for example, let the complexity of the first computer in the series be represented by a complexity of 0, and suppose in the first iteration it increases its complexity by one, and then by one half, and then by one fourth, and so on.  This process can continue forever, with each computer in the series being strictly more complex than its parent, and yet it will never attain "infinite complexity" (the series of improvements will asymptotically approach a complexity of 2).  There are many examples from mathematics of series that are strictly increasing in this way but that fail to diverge.  So really, without even getting into the evolution, your thought experiment is an appeal to human intuition, which lamentably turns out to be wrong about a great many things. 72.42.168.134 (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Evolutionary theory has NOTHING to do with this "infinite complexity" term you've clearly fabricated. It isn't scientific - in terminology, or argumentation.  98.168.192.162 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Evolution Versus YEC Debate
Come to my talk page to participate in a ongoing Evolution versus YEC debate sourced from points raised by Dr. Werner Gitt...--Gniniv (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Is not Was
There IS continued resistance to his views, not was. See chart at bottom of article, referencing [157]. If you still contest, that's fine, but that table and some other information will have to be removed as well, because you are contesting that information too. Using the word was does not satisfy the condition of verifiability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavengen (talk • contribs) 12:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The caption to the Darwin portrait should be read in context. It is a part of the section History of objections, more exactly it is connected to the first paragraph of the section, which is about the 19th century views of Darwin's ideas. I think that the caption is a good summary of the paragraph and that you can’t take it to mean that there are no objections to the concept of natural selection today. (After all, there’s a whole article about objections to evolution here.) Also, it would be misleading to change ”was” to ”is” because it could be taken to mean that creationists today accept the idea of common descent but reject the idea of natural selection. Sjö (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is hardly an article about the objections to evolution. I see what you mean about how that wording could imply that creationists accept the idea of common descent, as that wording isolates the two clauses. However, the way it is now is misleading as it could be taken to mean that there is no longer resistance to his views about natural selection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavengen (talk • contribs) 08:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No longer resistance in academic, educated circles. Similarly, there is significant resistance to the foundations of Calculus amongst middle-school students. This is not a notable viewpoint. -- King Öomie 15:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Check this out. There is no need to insult people. Go look up the word "opinion" I don't think you know what it means. This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about with this article. The authors want to word everything to imply that people that object to the idea of evolution are not intelligent, lack comprehension, are uneducated, or ignorant. There is no need for that. By the way, according to the dictionary, and my college biology book ("The Living World. Sixth Edition. George Johnson, Jonathon Losos.) evolution is an opinion. To quote the book (pg. 14) "There is no absolute truth in science, however, only varying degrees of uncertainty." To quote the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion): "o·pin·ion   [uh-pin-yuhn] –noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty." Tavengen (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And for the rebuttal: the text of WP:DUE. -- King Öomie 03:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the idea of the best-supported scientific theory in the history of our species being labeled an opinion is more than slightly off-putting. -- King Öomie  03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Still missing the point. That is not what I am talking about. Let me give you an example: I could write: "The stupid, uneducated, amateur wikipedia member named King Oomie referred to the page WP:DUE to allege that he was correct, after misinterpreting Tavengen's state-of-the-art information." Or I could write: "A member of the wikipedia community King Oomie referenced the page WP:DUE to explain his reasoning." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavengen (talk • contribs) 03:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * State-of-the-art information on pseudoscience and denialism, perhaps. Read the page, you'll see what I'm talking about. -- King Öomie  03:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also regarding what you said: "Also, the idea of the..." ""Please, if you want to discuss the validity of evolution, Wikipedia is not the venue to do so (see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK). Might I suggest talk.origins instead?" Tavengen (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop using it as a weapon, and start following it. It's not a free license to say whatever the hell you want and then go "AH HAH" when people respond. That's called trolling. -- King Öomie  04:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You didn't mean this offensively?: "No longer resistance in academic, educated circles. Similarly, there is significant resistance to the foundations of Calculus amongst middle-school students. This is not a notable viewpoint. --King Öomie 15:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)"

I haven't discussed anything about the validity of information in the article. I have discussed it from an editorial viewpoint. However, just because this is an evolution article and you support evolution, doesn't give you free license to say "whatever the hell you want" and insult people. Tavengen (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize if my analogy offended you. I couldn't think of a better example of a group of people, outside of a field of science, vehemently disagreeing with that field's conclusion. You said "Evolution is an opinion". I said "No, it isn't". And then you said "DON'T DISCUSS THAT HERE". -- King Öomie  04:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just stop. Tavengen (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This article in general
"The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints."

Every section of this article disparages the subject. Throughout the article, the objectors are written about using negative language. For example, in the first section: "some members still reject it"- rejecting is a negative action "objections to evolution have frequently attempted to blur"- blurring is a negative action. "Such objections have often centered on undermining evolution's scientific basis, with the intent of combating the teaching of evolution as fact and opposing the spread of "atheistic materialism"- undermining is negative, combating is negative, opposing is negative. "citing detractors' misinterpretations"- detractors is negative, misinterpretations is negative.

Throughout the article, proponents are written about using positive language. For example, in the first section: "his theory of evolution by natural selection initially met opposition from alternate scientific theories, but came to be universally accepted by the scientific community."- universally accepted is a positive description. "The observation, or fact, of evolutionary processes occurring, as well as the current theory explaining that fact, have been uncontroversial among biologists for nearly a century."- uncontroversial is a positive description. "accept the occurrence of evolution,"-accept is a positive action. "to evolution's evidence, methodology, plausibility, morality, and scientific acceptance."-5 positive values attributed to evolution.

That's just the first section. At best, this article is in need of a complete re-write to present the information in a unbiased point of view.

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."

Although the article presents some information about some of the "objections to evolution", the main idea expressed by the article is arguments against the objections to evolution. If reading the article alone doesn't convince someone of it's biased nature, they only needs to look at the citations. Are any of the 157 works cited in the article not written by a proponent of evolution? This article was very poorly written in terms of bias and npov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavengen (talk • contribs) 07:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your opinion about the use of the words you pointed out. If a group or movement opposes something, how can using the word violate NPOV? And yes, evolution is universally accepted by biologists. So I don't see your issue with the wording, if it's accurate. The scientific acceptance of evolution means that our policy on neutral pov requires us to give due weight to objections, which is very little. From the policy:
 * "Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the main views. Any mention should be proportionate, representing the scientific view as the majority view and the pseudoscientific view as the minority view, including explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all part of describing differing views fairly.'"
 * Also, please note the section on due weight regarding articles on minority views:


 * "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."


 * NPOV does not mean all views are treated equally. It means all views are treated fairly as reliable sources dictate. Auntie E. (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Aunt Entropy, Tavengen has a point. Take for example the section on falsifiability:
 * A statement is considered falsifiable if there is an observation or a test that could be made that would demonstrate that the statement is false. Evolution is considered falsifiable because it makes predictions that, if they were contradicted by the evidence, would falsify evolution. In contrast, many religious beliefs are not falsifiable, because no testable prediction has been made about the supernatural.

All this before the objection is even stated? And not merely a defense of evolution before the objection to it is even stated, but a spontaneous attack on "many religious beliefs" from the assumed philosophical ground of evidentialism, which said beliefs don't accept to begin with, and which is totally and completely irrelevant? The whole article drips with this kind of intellectually dishonest behavior. And you're telling me this is neutral and objective? I think it's evident that the editors here have been so afraid that someone might actually think that any of these arguments MIGHT POSSIBLY HAVE SOME MERIT that they can't even state them without attempting to refute them before, during and after so that it becomes almost impossible to tell what the objectors are really saying, which is really the point here. At the very least, each objection needs to be divided into sections that argue for and against the objection and not have the article constantly tripping over itself in an attempt to defend macroevolution from any perception of doubt. --BenMcLean (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with what Ben said. A non point-of-view article should have a "consistently impartial tone", the tone is NOT impartial at ANY point in the article. In good, editorially non point-of-view writing, it should NOT be clear what the editors point-of-view is. This article is COMPLETELY about disputing the validity of objections to evolution. Again "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavengen (talk • contribs) 23:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * On the specifics of falsifiability, I have edited the first two paragraphs of this section such that the anti-evolution argument is outlined first, prior to the response from scientists. Previously it was a bit cart-before-the-horse, but hopefully this clears things up a bit.  In passing, if the arguments ostensibly disputing evolution are erroneous then the WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE approach is to make this clear.  Unfortunately (well, for creationists et al.), all objections to date are erroneous (which, of course, doesn't stop them being endlessly recycled), and we would be misrepresenting the state of the art of biological knowledge to imply otherwise by giving "equal word count" to both sides.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  12:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tavengen is still right that the overall article is heavily biased. Certainly there are alot of fallacious arguments against evolution but back up and reflect for a second how much time and effort has been spent similarly "debunking" articles about MAGIC or the Greek gods on Wikipedia compared to the "debunking" of objectors in this article. --BenMcLean (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the efforts Plumbago, you kind of entirely missed the point of what I said. I don't really care what information biology wants to present in a biology article. The point is, the TONE of the article is defamatory of people that object to evolution and glorifies evolutionists. It's not WHAT is being said, it's HOW it's being said, or more specifically the choice of words. Tavengen (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a thought: how many protesters have you encountered advocating for respect of the Greek Gods or for the inclusion of magic in the science curriculum? The answer to this question may illuminate why objections to evolution are considered so carefully.  In passing, when you say there are "alot of fallacious arguments against evolution", are you implying that there are some that are not fallacious?  --P LUMBAGO  08:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am. There are both blatantly fallacious and somewhat reasonable arguments on both sides. An example of a blatantly fallacious argument would be the one I've heard most often in favor of macroevolution: that anyone who doesn't believe in it is stupid or dishonest. --BenMcLean (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you've chosen a fallacious misquote as an example – the original was "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." which Dawkins wrote in 1989 and has been much used against him since. You forgot ignorance, and as Dawkins wrote in retrospect, Ignorance Is No Crime. However, that's a comment on antievolutionists, not an argument in favour of the existence of evolution or of evolutionary theory. . . dave souza, talk 09:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you see that one in the article, feel free to remove it. -- King Öomie  05:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And if there are some that are not fallacious, all you need do is add reliable sources to this effect. It's that simple.  Incidentally, some biologists, of whom I am one, do not distinguish macroevolution - it's simply what happens with microevolution if you wait around longer.  --P LUMBAGO  14:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They're the exact same process, so most do not. "Micro" and "Macro" evolution are also unacademic terms.  Arguing that microevolution will not lead to macroevolution is nearly indentical to saying 1+x=2, and it could POSSIBLE equal 3, but there is NO WAY that it can make it to 10.  It is, indeed, quite dishonest, as they do not even assert any sort of mechanism that would stop microevolution from inevitably culminating in macroevolution.  98.168.192.162 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pleease look up WP:FRINGE98.168.192.162 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Academic elitism
An argument I have heard repeated loud and often is that the philosophy of macro-evolution is propped up by academic elitism and so we'd expect the same behavior and arguments from academia whether the idea is true or not. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed made this argument. --BenMcLean (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Also, those that are biologists and oppose the ideas of evolution will automatically be classified as pseudoscientific. So if evolution is universally accepted by biologists, anyone (including those wishing to become biologists) who disagrees with it, is automatically prevented from being one. Isn't that unfalsifiable then? hahahah. Anyone who studies biology and finds evidence opposing evolution is categorically discredited right? It's kind of like saying "Biologists universally accept that evolution is true, therefore, anyone that does not accept evolution is not a biologist." So in essence it's really an empty statement to say "Biologists universally accept evolution." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavengen (talk • contribs) 2010-03-02 00:02


 * I wouldn't confuse academic elitism with refusing to prove a negative or otherwise engage in unscientific debates about scientific subjects. You can't on one hand take an Anti-intellectualism standpoint and then with the other hand try to use some sort of science to prove your point.  If you think there's some broad scientific conspiracy out there to supress valid evidence of ID or creationism please feel free spread the word to the Flat Earth Society, I'm sure they'll be glad to hear the news.  Nefariousski (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The charge of academic elitism is not necessarily anti-intellectual. It is merely critical of the current academic establishment. Whether elitism equates to a "conspiracy" is a further question. --BenMcLean (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that you call the theory of evolution, probably the most supported theory of science next to germ theory, "the philsophy of macroevolution" means I can't take what you say seriously. And for any biologist to ignore the vast amounts of evidence which supports evolution is veering into denialism. There is no evidence which disproves evolution. In fact, we find new evidence to support it every day. It's not a matter of opinion here. I mean you are just as well off saying evil spirits cause disease instead of viruses and bacteria and getting mad because people who believe such things don't get degrees in medicine. They don't, and I for one am glad for that bit of meritocracy. Auntie E. (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Please, if you want to discuss the validity of evolution, Wikipedia is not the venue to do so (see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK). Might I suggest talk.origins instead?" Tavengen (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You will of course find new "evidence" to support it every day because you hold a philosophy which excludes any other possibility before you begin. This isn't inductive reasoning, it's deductive. --BenMcLean (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In fairness, Ben didn't seem to be saying that the argument was a valid one, merely that it seemed to be a prevalent one. If it is a prominent argument, it would seem to be appropriate to mention it in the article. Now&mdash;regarding the question of its prominence&mdash;since Expelled is not a reliable source, are there any reliable sources that discusses this argument? Gabbe (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think there is some validity to this argument, especially considering the grand sweeping assertions on the part of macro-evolution apologists that anyone who disagrees with them is dishonest or stupid. --BenMcLean (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, if you want to discuss the validity of evolution, Wikipedia is not the venue to do so (see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK). Might I suggest talk.origins instead? If you want to discuss reliably sourced edits to this article, then feel free to make a suggestion. Gabbe (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The very fact that you (BenMcLean) refer to people as "macro-evolution apologists" speaks volumes (what happened to "evolution apologists"? did the evidence get too uncomfortable?).  As Gabbe says, this is not the place.  --P LUMBAGO  08:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, well let's be consistent and cut out the parting shots then, shall we? --BenMcLean (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edit BenMcLean - you should read WP:TALKO. --P LUMBAGO  09:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Unfortunately (well, for creationists et al.), all objections to date are erroneous (which, of course, doesn't stop them being endlessly recycled), and we would be misrepresenting the state of the art of biological knowledge" "Please, if you want to discuss the validity of evolution, Wikipedia is not the venue to do so (see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK). Might I suggest talk.origins instead?" Tavengen (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between explaining something to address your concerns about the article, and explaining something to rail against the status quo. The breakdown of WP:DUE was warranted. -- King Öomie 03:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ben was discussing the article editorially, as is the purpose of the talk page. Plumbago was discussing the validity of the information. Tavengen (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So it's okay to say "This article is wrong because of A, B, and C", but it becomes off-topic to say "Actually, you're wrong about that"? -- King Öomie  05:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, check this out. Don't reply to my topics. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavengen (talk • contribs) 05:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't he reply? This is a discussion after all. Gabbe (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

oomie shouldn't reply because he is trolling. 173.87.185.55 (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tavengen - I was merely pointing out the obvious: that there are no scientifically accepted objections at the present time to evolution. And that, despite this, the same tired objections come back time and time again.  Which, in part, is the rationale for this article: to collect together such objections and explain the mainstream science viewpoint on them.  That said viewpoint does not find in favour of them has nothing to do with WP or editors here.  If you disagree, just show us your reliable sources.  --P LUMBAGO  09:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have said time and again. I'm not arguing the information in the article. It's HOW it says it. Obviously there is no grounds to keep the article's wording offensive, so you all keep changing the subject by saying "wp:undue" "wp:___". Again, it's not what information is in the article, it's HOW it is said. It would be fine to link a "wp:___". If it was relevant to what is being discussed.

"Impartial tone Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." THIS part of wp:neutral is relevant to what i was saying. wp:undue is NOT.

"Sorts of terms to avoid

Words and expressions should be avoided if they are: ambiguous, uninformative, or non-specific. derogatory or offensive. ones that imply that Wikipedia itself, rather than the sources, supports or doubts a viewpoint. condescending toward the reader. clichéd. unnecessarily flattering or positive. "

Article Rename
This article needs to be renamed. "Objections to evolution" does not describe the content of this article. What about "Objections to evidence against evolution"? I think this succinctly describes the content of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavengen (talk • contribs) 04:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been brought up time and time again. As per WP:DUE and WP:PSCI, it would be intellectually dishonest to present the various objections to evolution,  flawed as they are, without some background and a discussion of the  relevant sourced refutation. We're not in the business of presenting  pseudoscientific claims without challenge. Feel free to remove your own comments, Tav, but don't touch mine. If referencing current scientific views is all it takes to insult you, perhaps a harder look at what you believe is warranted. The article IS about objections to evolution. But under about half a dozen policies, and per Gabbe below, these views can't be presented absent their scientific counterpart, even if that counterpart is a summary refutation. We're not going to present this stuff as factual, because it's not. -- King Öomie  14:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oomie, this is not the place to debate the validity of evolution. I am talking about the tone of the article not the information. There should be an auto-reply function for talk pages. IGNORING THE VALIDITY OF EITHER STATEMENT WHICH IS BETTER WORDED? "Only uneducated, ignorant people believe in evolution."
 * Evolution is widely accepted among biologists, therefore it would be misleading of us to promote alternatives to evolution as if they were as widely accepted by biologists. See WP:GEVAL and WP:MNA. Gabbe (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically, "Objections to evolution" is a concise and accurate description of this article content. That the article contains rebuttals to these objections is only natural, as every article on Wikipedia should give due weight to the consensus view among mainstream experts in the field (in this case, biologists and other scientists). "Objections to evidence against evolution" would be imprecise, first of all by implying that there exists "evidence against evolution". Gabbe (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe Tavengen meant "Objections to evidence for (of?) evolution"? But that would sort-of defeat the line of argument being pursued (that there are valid objections to evolution), since it would imply that there is only evidence for (or of) evolution.  I agree with Gabbe that "Objections to evolution" is the most concise and accurate title for this article.  --P LUMBAGO  09:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, guys, this is another article that has problems. You can't weigh an article titled "objections to evolution" in favor of proofs of evolution. Now, I favor the scientific theories of human origins as much as you do, but the article title is illogical. Off the top of my head... "Objections to Evolution and their refutations" would be infinitely better. By all means, push evolution! It's true! But, uh, admit it while you're doing it. Don't be ashamed of it. Admit it. Be proud.EGMichaels (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC) This is exactly what I mean, EGMichaels proposed title is much better than the current article title, and it is not misleading. 173.87.185.55 (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "Misconceptions about evolution" would be a more accurate title, but that would surely stop those who need it the most from reading it. Is there any use in preaching to the choir, even in an encyclopedia? - Soulkeeper (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We aren't trying to prove or disprove anything. We are simply here to report notable and verifiable views -- and use logical titles.EGMichaels (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This. 173.87.185.55 (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Objections is the better word. The objections may be based on misconceptions, but who cares. We simply outline the objections according to WP:WEIGHT; thus an outline of an objection will likely include the debunking of any misconceptions introduced as the basis of that objection. Ben (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you use debunking in a similar manner to "Objections to Creation in Genesis"? No, you'd let the objections stand without debunking.  And that's fine.  The PROBLEM (again) is the title.  "Objections to Evolution and their refutations" honestly tells the reader what the article is about.EGMichaels (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This. 173.87.185.55 (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first few sentences hardly make sense to me and make no mention of reliable sources. My preference remains with the current title for the reasons I listed above. Ben (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ben, what the heck are you talking about? When something doesn't make sense to you, read it again.EGMichaels (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, infinite loops are fun! Here, I wouldn't want you to miss out: Good trains make objections into beer, but only on yellow notepads without cashews. Have fun applying your own advice! Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cute, but you have yet to consider my point. I can't guess what you are talking about if you won't say it.  Your point about reliable sources had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I said.  I supported the CONTENT of the article and the WEIGHT it was giving.  I merely commented that the title did not reflect it.  And then you said there was something you didn't understand.  Well, WHAT didn't you understand?  I can't explain something to you in a vaccuum.EGMichaels (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm considering these sentences:
 * I supported the CONTENT of the article and the WEIGHT it was giving. I merely commented that the title did not reflect it.
 * Ok, so the title does not reflect it, where it must be one of "content" or "weight". Weight is constant across all articles (ideally) so article titles need not hint at it. So you must mean that the article title does not accurately reflect the contents of the article. Before I continue, can I ask you you to confirm my understanding of your words? Let's not worry about consequences of my understanding just yet, a simple yes or no, please, so we can work through this. Ben (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Put simply, the title should unambiguously agree with the article. It is unencyclopedic to merely discuss objections to evolution without answering those objections.  You and I are agreed on the content.  We are not agreed that the title clearly gives that impression.  This, again, is where you build consensus by dismissing people's concerns rather than considering them.EGMichaels (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Holy shit mate. I just very carefully considered what you wrote and even stopped mid-analysis to make sure I understood. Asking you if I had understood you correctly gets me the reply: you build consensus by dismissing people's concerns rather than considering them. You're either an idiot or a troll, possibly both in light of the diff you've just created. Ben (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ben -- as I said, YOU build consensus by dismissing other people. Your comment about me being an idiot or a troll is merely another demonstration of that habit.  It's not a good consensus builder.  Consensus is built by collaboration, not conquest.EGMichaels (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Again you're missing the fact that the article is written in line with POLICY. Please read WP:WEIGHT particularly the balance section, the impartial tone section, the third paragraph of the "Undue weight" section etc....  Tons of specific direction that support the article in its current state.  Nefariousski (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nef, once again you are laboring under a poor title. I did not propose that the article weigh in favor of the objections.  I merely proposed that the title admit it.EGMichaels (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You have been given more links to help you educate yourself about Wikipedia's policies than I care to count now. I know you've read them so I don't feel it is a waste of time, and I feel it prudent, to point you to WP:COMPETENCE and ask you to carefully consider it. Ben (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nefar you should read the part about impartial tone, and also wp:avoid.

173.87.185.55 (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Ben, I carefully consider competence every time I try to get you to use functional English in a title. But I still have to work with you nevertheless.EGMichaels (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you don't actually. This is a volunteer project after all. Ben (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and you keep volunteering those titles, don't you?EGMichaels (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, EGM- instead of taking another cause under your wing, read through the archives of this talk. This isn't new, and neither are any of the arguments here. -- King Öomie  23:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * King -- why keep fighting? Why not just say what you mean in the title?  I don't get these baits and switches in the titles.EGMichaels (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OMG, not another article title war! Anyway, yes EGM, "Objections to Evolution and their refutations" is a somewhat more accurate description since the current article documents both objections to evolution and why these particular objections are wrong. But it's hardly concise, and it's not likely to be one that people will come looking for (though I admit that WP:TITLE leaves things a little vague). Furthermore, since we are talking about science here, it remains perfectly possible that an objection to evolution will one day arise that cannot be refuted. At which point your suggested title will become redundant. Keeping the article with the current, somewhat unsatisfactory title leaves the door open for this, uses a title that's likely to be found by those looking for objections to evolution and keeps things simple. However, I would not like to stifle people suggesting alternatives, but I seriously doubt that any of the alternative titles suggested so far (or straightforward variants) are likely to be adopted here. --P LUMBAGO 12:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Plum, that was exactly my reaction when (out of morbid curiosity) I wanted to know if it was just me or Ben constantly getting into title conflicts. Imagine my surprise when I saw this.  I'm sure you're just as shocked at him!  (No, not him... you didn't NOTICE a title conflict until I pointed it out?)  I agree about concision.  "Evolution: objections and answers" would be easier to find in a search (people don't start typing "objections to..." to see what controversy they want to get into).  At the very least the article title should lead off with the subject matter.  In any case, evolution and human origins is something interesting to me, but I'm confortable enough with the information here to not need to do any editing.  My main interests are stocks and mythology.  So, no real push back from me here.  But just as YOU were shocked enough at another title war to point it out... I was shocked enough at another title war to point it out.  I was, just like you, merely pointing out a recurring problem.  How about have a talk to Ben about this weird habit of his?EGMichaels (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, irrefutable because it's grounded in fact? Or because it's unfalsifiable? Because there's already a whole bunch of the latter :P -- King Öomie  14:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * King, I think Plum was being hypothetical. ANYTHING is hypothetically possible.EGMichaels (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But realistically speaking, some things are so unlikely to occur that they can be safely disregarded. Not that I'm saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE for evolution to be overturned- but it's survived continuous attack for a few centuries now. -- King Öomie 14:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the interest of research into this article's past issues, I've collated these links. Article name decided, second discussion, third discussion. First complaint of bias, second complaint, complaint specifically about article name, bias, complaints, ad, infinitum. I realize this appears to be a large spread, but the first thread was started three years ago, back when the article was "Misunderstandings about evolution". -- King Öomie  14:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, and... do you want to keep winning battles or stop the war? The problem is that editors on both sides are arguing about absolute truth.  If, instead, they kept the argument on the grounds of historical differences and documentation the editors themselves could get a break.  For instance, Jews and Christians will disagree about Jesus being the Messiah.  However, they could work peacefully together in an article documenting who has had various views in history.  The people arguing stops being the editors themselves and becomes historical (and mostly dead) people.  Jews and Christians will both agree that Peter thought Jesus was, and Maimonides thought Jesus wasn't -- for example.  Here, both pro and anti evolution folks can agree that Darwin was pro, and Dawkins, while that guy who wrote "The Origin of Species Revisited" was at least a skeptic.  We need to merely list all the notable views from reliable sources and call it a day.  But this article... is not a hot button for me.  As I said, I just wanted to see if Ben was doing this title fighting in other places, and saw that he was.  For what it's worth, "Objections to evolution" is infinitely better than "Misunderstandings about evolution."  The old title would imply weird things like Lamarkianism, etc. where the MECHANISM of evolution is misunderstood.EGMichaels (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the article was structured significantly differently then as well. It wasn't this one with a different name. It was simply abandoned in favor of this new one. There is no absolute truth argument here. Side A presents objection to evolution, side B points out that the objection has no basis in science (or fact). Several policies (see above) would be violated if we dropped side B's input and presented side A unchallenged and implicitly as fact. There is a reason the article Chemtrail conspiracy theory includes scientific information about contrails without needing to be called Refutation of the chemtrail conspiracy theory- intellectually honest, unbiased reporting debunks it on its own. -- King Öomie 14:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * King, as I said a few times, I have no problem with the content of the article. "Evolution controversy" would be a fantastic title.  Short, encyclopdic, and clearly named to express two sides of an argument.EGMichaels (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you don't care about the content, I'm saying that content fits the title fine. There is no scientific controversy over the theory of evolution, but a manufactured one pushed with the intent of presenting creationism as a serious subject to students, so I'd say that title is as misleading as you think the current one to be. As I said several sections above- there is significant opposition to the foundations of Calculus amongst middle-schoolers. This does not a controversy make. -- King Öomie  16:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I just checked and saw that there IS an Evolution controversy article.  I'll have to look at the differences between the two.  While I agree that there is no scientific controversy, there's definitely a cultural one.  Even this article deals with those contested points.EGMichaels (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed Content
The following quote has been removed:

"An example of this is the claim that geological strata are dated through the fossils they hold, but that fossils are in turn dated by the strata they are in. However, in most cases strata are not dated by their fossils, but by their position relative to other strata and by radiometric dating, and most strata were dated before the theory of evolution was formulated. "

I am removing this quote because it is not a correct example of claim being made.


 * It's just flat incorrect anyway. Although uniformitarianism is relatively old with respect to evolution, the actual dates that we have now post date the atomic age.EGMichaels (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed this quote and someone saw fit to restore it where it doesn't belong. It's not a proper example of the circular reasoning used in this argument. It's a complete misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.86.44 (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you read the sources (specifically, ) linked in the paragraph? Gabbe (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The following paragraph has been removed:

{"This view is thus invariably justified with arguments from analogy. The basic idea of this argument for a designer is the teleological argument, an argument for the existence of God based on the perceived order or purposefulness of the universe. A common way of using this as an objection to evolution is by appealing to the 18th-century philosopher William Paley's watchmaker analogy, which argues that certain natural phenomena are analogical to a watch (in that they are ordered, or complex, or purposeful), which means that, like a watch, they must have been designed by a "watchmaker"—an intelligent agent. This argument forms the core of intelligent design, a neocreationist movement seeking to establish certain variants of the design argument as legitimate science, rather than as philosophy or theology, and have them be taught alongside evolution.[22][35]"}

I am removing this entire section as it states, and continues to rationalize, that the argument is "invariably justified . . . from analogy." Sir Fred Hoyle's argument is not based on "analogy" but rather on a statistical unlikelihood which he addressed during a lecture at the California Institute of Technology, "When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link, it's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2,000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes.  Rather then accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act."

The writer of the removed paragraph is clearly biased and intentionally attacks religion to divert attention away from the real objection which is mathematical likelihood.

The following paragraph has been removed:

{"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. Supporters of evolution generally respond by arguing that evolution is not based on "chance", but on predictable chemical interactions: natural processes, rather than supernatural beings, are the "designer". Although the process involves some random elements, it is the non-random selection of survival-enhancing genes that drives evolution along an ordered trajectory. The fact that the results are ordered and seem "designed" is no more evidence for a supernatural intelligence than the appearance of complex natural phenomenon (ie. snowflakes).[101] It is also argued that there is insufficient evidence to make statements about the plausibility or implausibility of abiogenesis, that certain structures demonstrate poor design, and that the implausibility of life evolving exactly as it did is no more evidence for an intelligence than the implausibility of a deck of cards being shuffled and dealt in a certain random order.[35][98]"}

This objection does not come from an "argument by lack of imagination" but rather from the inability of the writer of the removed paragraph to articulate the opposing sides argument. Regarding the notion of "chance" the objection comes from the efforts of Stanley L. Miller, who, in 1953, formed amino acids in his laboratory in a "prebiotic soup." Shortly after he attempted to turn the amino acids into proteins and nucleic acids, the necessary building blocks for life, but had no success in doing so. After almost sixty years of continual testing by the scientific community there has been uniform failure in every experiment. Regarding these experiments the Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University said, "It is fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems." and, ". . . there is a fundamental flaw in all current theories of the chemical origins of life."

The argument here is not that "we don't know what happened therefore it didn't happen" but rather, "the scientific communities inability to explain, agree, or recreate life from nothing simply means that it should not be taught as science." Klous Dose of the Institute of Biochemistry in Mainz, Germany, said, "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field end either in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."

In closing, this article seems quite biased and often resorts to using Straw Man Fallacies. Please help clean up this article by making sure both sides of the issue are addressed from a neutral stand point.
 * The article was neutral, but your changes would seem to push it towards pro-creationism. This article isn't intended as a Creationist resource for how to 'win' arguments. As you can see in the article itself, every single argument has been answered and disproven (and it would be a violation of WP:N to NOT point that out after every single one. We can't just allow incorrect information to sit by itself to be mistaken for fact). And there's no strawman- I've heard the majority of those arguments from real people, almost verbatim. -- King Öomie  12:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

-You are correct. This article isn't intended as a Creationist resource for how to 'win' arguments. This article is a list of objections regarding evolution. One such objection is the statistical unlikelihood of events, which this particular section of the article is supposed to address. However, instead of exploring statistics or probabilities it states the argument is only based on "analogy" and "lack of imagination."

This simply not true. Hoyle's analogy comes from his line of mathematical reasoning which he commented on during a lecture at the California Institute of Technology, "When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link, it's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2,000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes."

It is more then appropriate for Hoyle's mathematical line of thinking to be explored in this article. One might also wish to explore the odds of enzymes forming into nucleic acids and proteins, how many proteins it takes to support a single cell, and also how nucleic acids and proteins are able to bond.

I would like to see these objections addressed not because I'm "pro-creationism" but because many people look to this article to see if the arguments for or against evolution are sound. Only by sticking to the objection and considering it in its entirety will we present a "neutral" stand point and allow the reader to make up their mind for themselves.

To use your own words against you "As you can see in the article itself, every single argument has been answered and disproven." I think you should reconsider your motives. The point of this article is not to prove or "disprove" anything, it's to state the criticisms, belief and science based, that people have with evolution and to explore the logic/facts that both support and discredit such an objection.

In closing, this section of objections "Evolution Cannot Create Complex Structures" needs to develop the objection, present statistical likelihoods, and include quotes from distinguished persons who have argued for or against evolution in a mathematical context.


 * Sign your posts with ~, please. I agree that the article isn't intended to 'disprove' anything. It will, however, point out that things ARE disproven. To speak specifically to your example of statistical probability, Hoyle's incredulity is based on his lack of imagination, and failure to understand that while rolling a group of 400,000 dice and getting the exact same result TWICE is extraordinary, rolling that group ONCE and getting A result is not. He's speaking from the standpoint that because we are here, the dice roll was preordained ("Oh, how unbelievably unlikely!"). On the contrary; in any arbitrarily-large group of chemical reactions, over an arbitrarily-large amount of time, there will be A result. If not us, something else. Any one of an unimaginably enormous amount of possible universes could exist instead of the one we occupy now, but it was inevitable that it would be one of those. It just happened to be this one. Random is random is random- we aren't an exception, but rather one of a nearly infinite amount of possibilities. The dice were not rolled to fit a template or a prediction- our senses and instinctual understanding of the universe have drawn that template in our heads ("We are amazing, because we fit the definition of perfection that exists only in our own minds!"). Lack of imagination. -- King Öomie  18:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

-This is an interesting line of logic you follow. I remember hearing something similar in a lecture once, in a slightly different context but the line of reasoning was the same, "Today, out in the parking lot, I saw a car with the license plate 5B2771K. And I got to thinking to myself, out of the hundred-million cars in the USA what are the odds I would happen to see the one with the license plate number 5B2771K?  The odds are a hundred-million to one, absolutely amazing!"

During this lecture he used this analogy to try and prove that improbable things happen all the time. This line of reasoning did not sit well with me and it took me some time to figure out what was wrong with his conclusion. The fact is, the odds of him seeing a license plate number on a license plate is not a hundred-million to one. Rather the odds are 100%(assuming all license plates have license plate numbers). However, if I sent you out to pick a random license plate number while I also went out and picked a random license plate number and later on when we met up we realized we'd both picked 5B2771K then the odds of us both picking the same license plate number would be a hundred-million to one.

The same is true of proteins. There's nearly an endless possible amount of ways for enzymes to form together. However, there are only about a thousand combinations that create proteins - and out of those proteins there are only a handful of them that can support a single celled life form. So while "rolling the dice" will yield a result, the odds that-that particular roll will produce the correct protein is absolutely mind bogglingly small. Since 1953 Stanley Miller and others have been trying to create proteins out of enzymes in a lab but they haven't been successful. The reason is the odds are are just too low.

And then, even after you do get your protein, you still need nucleic acid, another complex molecular structure consisting of a phosphate group, a purine/pyrimidine, and a pentose sugar. Of course, if you want your cell to have the ability to reproduce (mitosis) your going to need two very specific and complicated kinds of nucleic acid (DNA and RNA) as well as cytoplasm, organelles and a cell membrane.

As Professor Maciej Giertych, a noted geneticist from the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, once said, "The very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. . . There is no known way to science how that information could arise spontaneously."

Another problem brought to my attention came from an article in Scientific America by John Horgan, "Ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere. Such an atmosphere [carbon dioxide and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life."

So, based upon the specific kinds of proteins that are required to support a single celled organism, the information that needs to be stored in the complicated molecular strands of DNA and RNA to support mitosis, and the hostile environment which the first organism appeared in, we find ourselves looking at a very unlikely (what I would call statistically improbable) set of circumstances.98.165.237.38 (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know that there are only about a thousand combinations of enzymes that create proteins? Have you tried all the other combinations, and found them not to create proteins? How do you know that only a handful of these proteins can support a single celled life form? Do you have access to all the possible single celled life forms (as opposed to all single celled life forms that are available to us), and observed that they contain only said handful of proteins? The "correct protein" you're talking about, implies that the life we see today is the only possible "correct life". You don't have any basis for such an assumption. Please read the article Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations at talkorigins.org, and try to understand it, before posting more transparent ID diversions here. - Soulkeeper (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 98, your line of logic is again based on a failure of imagination. Our blueprint is not the ONLY way life can form. Who says you need a nucleic acid? Who decides what a "correct" enzyme is? And, really? The failure of scientists to synthesize something in a decade is indicative that nature couldn't do it over a billion years? We can't turn hydrogen into plutonium, either, so I guess God must have pooped that out. I was very specific with what I said, as was the speaker you saw. The dice weren't rolled twice. They were rolled hundreds of millions of times, until a workable result was achieved- ONCE. And if not on this planet, then elsewhere. How many millions of Goldilocks planets do you think there are just in the Orion arm? -- King Öomie  13:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, wait, WP:TALK. Stop removing sourced content without explanations beyond "this isn't right" and we'll have no problems. -- King Öomie 13:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk Origins
Hello there. I was reading this article and I was wondering why it makes heavy use of citations from talk origins, a Usenet group. It seems that a Usenet group would not be a reliable source as per Wikipedia policy. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The archives linked are not discussion boards, and make heavy use of external cites that meet our own requirements. -- King Öomie  18:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To see the previous discussions that establish reliability, you can visit WP:RSN and enter "talkorigins" in the search archives box at the top. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent revert
recent edits by to the article with the following rationale: Any objections? Gabbe (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) There's no reason to bring up YEC specifically in the lead.
 * 2) There's no reason to capitalise section title into "Objections to Evolution's Status", see MOS:CAPS.
 * 3) The section "Evolution has never been observed" is aptly named as is.
 * I agree with the reversion. The change in the lead is incomprehensible: YEC is not relevant in the paragraph where it was introduced, and the sentence seems grammatically incorrect. The heading changes are particularly unjustified. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I accept the revision, I've tried to think about this from a more objective position, and saying creationism versus saying YEC probably is a tad more coherent.....--Gniniv (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Discussion
Any thoughts on improving the neutrality of the criticism section? I know alternative ideas are irritating, but wouldn't it be fair to include some of their perspective while still holding to WP:Weight? I tried some edits in good faith, but it seems they weren't acceptable. Does anyone mind telling me why not?--Gniniv (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to. For the time being, I'm going to re-revert them. Let's establish consensus before we add it back in. I'll be back after that and go through some of the issues I see. Thanks Jess talk cs 05:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds great, I will be waiting....--Gniniv (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got caught up with a call from work. I'll get that reply to you in a bit :) Jess talk cs 05:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

A few thoughts
 * difference between the colloquial definitions of theory and the scientific context - this isn't appropriate; when creationists call it "just a theory", it's not a matter of misunderstanding the difference, it's a matter of deception and obfuscation. It's an attempt to mislead people who don't know better.
 * Due to a greater understanding of relativity and orbital mechanics - this is incorrect. Evolution is much better understood scientifically than either of these.
 * as most biologists define - "most" simply means "more than half"; while there are a few creationist biologists who use the term in the typical creationist sense of "anything I don't believe in", it's not appropriate to use the term "most" to mean "all but a tiny sliver of a fringe". Guettarda (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your first point, this is not about what either point of view is trying to do. It is about the difference between the colloquial definition and scientific definition.
 * I need a explanation and peer reviewed reference on how Evolution is more verifiable than relativity and orbital mechanics before I accept the second point
 * I agree on the third point, it would be more accurate to say "nearly all" or "mainstream" biologists.--Gniniv (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Any thoughts?--Gniniv (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A couple other things I'd add:
 * "Due to a greater understanding of relativity and orbital mechanics it would be just as accurate from a Physics standpoint to say the Sun revolves around the earth"
 * This is incorrect. The Sun and Earth influence each other, but it is in no way just as accurate to say the Sun revolves around the Earth as it is to say the Earth revolves around the Sun. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the article, so even if it were correct, it wouldn't belong here. Finally, the way this sentence (and context) was proposed in your change is unencyclopedic; It is a minor addition, yet the grammar and sentence structure are off, making it only detract from the point being made. The previous version was more concise, accurate, and on-point.
 * "Although it might be tempting to consider overwhelming consensus as sufficient for a theory to become a Scientific Law, it is not the only requirement."
 * This implies a fundamental misunderstanding of the word theory and the word law, which detracts from the point being made (ironically, about the misapplication of the word theory). A scientific theory is never promoted to a law. The two are fundamentally different. Also ironic is that this is explained in the stub article you linked to. Worth noting is that these two terms are both also different than the term fact, which is what the paragraph in question intends to address.
 * "As long as critics and proponents of any theory recognize that theories can only be confirmed, not proven; and the importance of the alternative, the onward thrust of scientific advancement in all branches will continue."
 * This is soapboxing, which is not allowed on talk pages, much less in the article.
 * "both microevolution and macroevolution have been observed."
 * Addition of the cn template is unnecessary, as a source is provided the very next sentence (in addition to an example of the distinction).


 * Addressing your replies above:
 * I'm not sure how this item has anything to do with your changes, so I won't comment on it.
 * There are plenty of sources for this around the net. I'm sure some of the sources in the Evolution article are among them. I don't have time to find one for you now, but I assure you that they are out there to be found, if you're interested in doing some research. In any case, discussion of gravity and orbital mechanics have no place in the evolution article.
 * No change should be necessary to this sentence. We are discussing a clearly defined scientific term. The scientific definition for that term is what is pertinent here. Jess talk cs 07:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jess for your efforts. I'd second the reversion — the changes served only to confuse the article and to make the fact/theory distinction less clear.  And the portion about orbital mechanics was just bizarre — I presume a confusion about inertial frames.  Anyway, I can't see that any of the (now reverted) changes require further action.  --P LUMBAGO  07:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree on most your challenges, but the sourcing for Microevolution and Macroevolution needs to be improved on, in my opinion.--Gniniv (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand. Your edits didn't really deal with the macro/micro evolution section, and I haven't seen you propose any solid changes to that area. Are you saying that the current sources are inadequate? I don't follow. Ref 84 lists 30 instances of speciation, with 89 unique references. Ref 41 lists 29 more evidences for macroevolution, with sources. In fact, in those 6 paragraphs, there are a staggering 18 distinct sources listed, covering everything from the history of the terms to specific transitional forms. And mind you, this isn't even the main Evolution article! If you have a specific suggestion on how the sourcing should be changed, by all means, please propose it. There's always room for improvement. Jess talk cs 04:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If you guys don't mind reviewing my next attempt at improving the criticism section I would appreciate it..--Gniniv (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I hate to do this, but I've reverted those changes as well, for much the same reason. Here are a few of the issues:
 * You removed a reference as 'dead' that wasn't
 * You've added the term "creationism" and "mainstream" in places that aren't appropriate. Ex: "As a result, many attempts to rebut evolution or creationism are actually straw men"
 * You've combined paragraphs / removed formatting which made the content easier to read, making monolithic blocks of text which are unmanageable.
 * You've tried to simplify some sections, and removed content/context in doing so.


 * Unfortunately, many of these changes are similar to the issues we had before. Perhaps we can address some of the larger problems at work here, and get to the root of the problem:
 * Adding terms like "the majority", "mainstream", "most", etc, to the article is not, and will never be an improvement. This falls under WP:WEASEL, and furthermore would need to be sourced. Even if it were sourced, a greater change to the sentence structure to include that source would be necessary, rather than just a textual addition of most in the sentence.
 * Therefore, please don't add these sorts of words in the text -- they aren't appropriate, and must (by policy) be reverted
 * Discussion of creationism, other scientific theories, and so forth are only appropriate insofar as they are discussed at length in a relevant section. This article is about specific arguments raised against the the theory of evolution, not about religious texts, creationism, theories of gravity, acceptance of other theories, and so forth. In most cases, this means such topics are not appropriate in this article at all. Creation-evolution controversy, history of creationism, or the respective scientific theory's article would be better places for that sort of content.
 * In short, stay on-topic, and don't discuss other tangentially related topics in the article.
 * When simplifying, be absolutely sure you aren't removing relevant content. Simplification should only take the form of rephrasing content which is already present, leaving the same impression on the reader after as before. If you remove content without cause, the change will have to be reverted.
 * In short, check that any text you change or remove doesn't add something (anything!) to the article. If it does, leave it in.
 * I know you have strong opinions about this topic, but please remember that the information contained in this article is (and must be) based entirely on the sources provided. This means that, for example, when you change religious sources to alternative sources, this terminology change must be backed up by the respective source; You must establish that this is an appropriate and unambiguous term in the real world through your citations. Not doing so is a NPOV problem, and must be reverted.
 * In short, make sure all changes, including terminology changes, are reflected in the sources listed.
 * Controversial changes should go through the talk page first, before being applied to the article. Consensus must be established, per WP policy, before those sorts of additions are included.
 * In short, if you think there might be a dispute, bring it to the talk page before adding it to the article


 * Hopefully that gives you a better understanding of why your changes are being reverted, and how you might go about contributing to the article in a way which will stick. Jess talk cs 06:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Latest edits
Gniniv's latest edits are, once again, problematic

First edit
 * Adds the qualifier "majority", this has been discussed before, and Gniniv accepted that this was problematic
 * Changes The observation of evolutionary processes occurring, as well as the current theory explaining that evidence to The Theory of Evolution - removing mention of the "observation of evolutionary processes" and changing "current theory" to "The Theory of Evolution" is unacceptable POV editing
 * Changing nearly all criticisms of evolution have come from religious sources to Nearly all modern criticisms of evolution have come from alternative sources is totally unacceptable, since it amounts to a misrepresentation of the cited source. Also piping "creationist|alternative" isn't good form.

Second edit, although the edit summary says "clarified subject", as far as I can tell only removed some spaces.

Third edit says "removed dead reference"; the reference is, in fact, alive; even if the link was dead, a ref to Scientific American would still be valid.

Fourth edit
 * changed Creationist sources frequently define evolution to Creationist and Mainstream sources frequently define evolution; to begin with, "mainstream" definitions are irrelevant here, because we're talking about criticisms. Secondly, this change does not accurately reflect the source.
 * changed many attempts to rebut evolution are actually straw men that do not address the findings of evolutionary biology to many attempts to rebut evolution or creationism are actually straw men that do not address the findings of evolutionary biology; quite frankly, given the context of the sentence (and the subject of the article) this addition is gibberish at best, POV nonsense at worst.

Fifth edit is simple overlinking.

Guettarda (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catches Guettarda. I would completely agree with your assessment.  I see that Jess has reverted the changes (thanks).  Anyway, Gniniv — what are you trying to achieve here?  You claim to be addressing deficiencies in the article, but so far have just been introducing them.  What gives?  --P LUMBAGO  06:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bah! You beat me to it last night Guettarda! I didn't even notice until this morning :) Oh well. Thanks for your notes! These issues same seem to keep cropping up... despite Gniniv's apparent good faith in editing the article. I'm having a hard time figuring out a way to head them off. Jess talk cs 13:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree and will move on to less controversial topics....--Gniniv (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection Status of Article to Question Neutrality
(Slightly Edited for Clarity)


 * @Gniniv I'm really trying hard to understand your behavior here... I'm just coming up short no matter what I try. Shortly after posting this ^ message, you requested (and were granted) full page protection on the article. Not only does this directly oppose what you've written above, but it's also wholly counterproductive; You haven't responded to, nor provided any input regarding, any of the objections raised to your edits. Furthermore, you're the one doing the editing. So, what problem is the page protection intended to solve? Block you from making changes so that no discussion can take place? Additionally, your behavior of editing in the same controversial statements which have been opposed (citing relevant policy) over and over, yet agreeing with the objections every time, has been equally baffling to me for some time. Is there something I'm missing here? Jess talk cs 06:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You may be wondering why I decided to come back after saying I would move on. I just wanted to see the editors look at my last set of objections before moving into less controversial waters. I felt that a protection period would give us all time to discuss without a constant edit war (Me from my perspective and the other editors from theirs). Technically speaking, we are all editing WP:POV, its just that the majority of editors have a Pro-Evolution perspective, with only myself objecting...--Gniniv (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've protected the page for three days following a request from Gniniv on RfPP, but Jess has asked me to take another look, because Gniniv has posted above that he's going to move on instead. Could Gniniv clarify here asap whether there are remaining issues? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * From my outside prospective, watching the page just chose not to act on any of Gniniv's edits since the other wonderful editors here was on top of it is that Gniniv was at worst being disruptive and refusing to follow established editing guidelines, specifically when asked by the editors to discuss his proposed changes here on the talk page and gain consensus before adding to the main page. Gniniv kept making edits that did not have consensus and kept getting reverted for a few days now. For Gniniv to request protection and to get a full sysop protection is not solving the issue with Gniniv's edits. Wouldn't warning Gniniv to follow established policies be more prudent then preventing any work on this article for days? — raeky ( talk 06:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I had already warned him about this diff. He deleted the warning from his talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough... — raeky ( talk 16:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What I see here is a content dispute. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And that revert by someone that's probably WP:POVPUSH justifies a 3 day complete lockdown of the article and not a warn? This article is a hot-bed of people trying to POV-push supernatural beliefs and Gniniv appears to be a bit more clever then the people who just copy Genesis 1 into the content of the page. Regardless his edits do have the creationist smell to them and you can see other editors here opinions of those edits above. — raeky ( talk 07:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't comment on the specific issues, only try to judge whether this is a legitimate content dispute, or whether it's a matter of vandalism or other disruption. So far as I can tell it's a content dispute, and protection is appropriate if Gniniv wants the reverting to stop. If he intends to move on as he posted above, then protection isn't necessary, but given that he requested protection after posting that, it appears that he wants to continue to argue his case. That's why I've asked for clarification from him. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 07:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A three day lockdown is not a big deal, but it sets a dubious precedent because there has been very little argument from Gniniv to support their wanted changes, and no engagement with the quite detailed explanations for why they are inappropriate offered above. The only editor supporting the changes is, with three who have reverted them (with explanations in edit summaries and here): , , . These editors have also supported the reversions: , . I would not have thought that a dispute involving one editor with five others warranted full protection, but I can live with it. My final point (and the reason I have written all this) is that if Gniniv wanted the article unchanged for three days, a simpler procedure would have been to stop making the changes: the request at WP:RFPP seems very odd. Johnuniq (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A 3 day PP isn't that big of a deal... the only problem is that I don't see it actually solving anything. In this instance, a PP would be used to either 1) give an editor a chance to discuss changes on the talk page without changes being made, or 2) stop repeated vandalism. In the former case, Gniniv hasn't made any attempts before or after the PP to argue his case; In fact, he's agreed with the reverts. In the latter case, he's the only one making disruptive edits. So, in the meantime, the PP is only blocking legitimate editors for no apparent reason.
 * More specifically, regarding the content dispute SV quoted... these edits look okay at first glance, but they're blatant POV pushing, irrelevant nonsense, or factually incorrect on closer examination. This was addressed a few days ago in the Neutrality Discussion section. You'll see that on 03:22, 10 June 2010, Gniniv responded in agreement with the revert, with his sole objection to a completely unrelated area.
 * With Gniniv not commenting now that the page is protected, I can only speculate on his reasons for the request, and the only reason I can come up with which still clings to assuming good faith is that it was a misguided attempt to get an admin involved, and that he didn't really understand what he was requesting. In any case, thanks again for your efforts SV. I appreciate you putting time into this. Jess talk cs 15:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll unprotect soon, Jess, if Gniniv doesn't offer some clarification, but I'd like to give him a bit more time to make sure he has a chance to see this. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely understood. Thanks :) <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 16:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv's Reasoning
I appreciate that you guys are accepting my protection request on the article. From my perspective there is a strong Pro-evolutionary bias in the article, preventing most of the editors from clearly defining the anti evolution arguments opponents of evolution present. This article is supposed to be about Objections to evolution, not why those objections are not allowable. Could all the editors just step back for a breather period and allow a less biased approach of Objections to evolution? I think we need more guys who actually object to evolution to participate if the article is going to neutrally present information. We could have a section presenting arguments for and against with fair coverage for each perspective. Any thoughts?--Gniniv (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttals of Objections to Evolution belong in a seperate section (or article) for Criticism. They should not make up the total content of the article itself. (See WP:Neutral) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gniniv (talk • contribs) 00:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a Biology article, thus we treat the subject as scientists treat it, that is purely from a evolutionary standpoint due to WP:DUE. There are religious articles dealing with evolution that treat it more with a religious slant, this is not one of them. Editors here will not allow supernatural creep to devalue this article. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 01:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are actually incorrect. It is a Objection article. This article is not about science, it is about the philosophy of science. Due to that being the case, we need to make sure people of all philosophies (even religious) are represented. Even if it could be called a science article, the same stands. Alternative views must be represented (yes, according to their market share) even if they are considered religious. Science and religion are not mutually incompatable. Evolution and YEC are....--Gniniv (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Read my comment below, you are incorrect this article is from the POV of science, in which, there is no objections to evolution. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 01:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again this is because this is a pro-evolution article, it's a biology article written from the standpoint of modern scientific beliefs. In which case the POV of science is there is no objection to evolution. This article is an attempt to explain from the scientists point of view that there is no objections and why the so-called-objections (all from people with a religious POV most likely) are invalid. If you want to approach this subject from a pro-supernaturalism point of view, I suggest you head over to Creation–evolution controversy which is an article that's dual Biology & Creationism point of view. Otherwise if you want to keep editing Biology articles, you should probably read Talk:Evolution/FAQ. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 01:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The circular reasoning that anyone who objects to Evolution is objecting to science is invalid. When proponents of a majority theory criticize the alternative theory they try to invalidate the objection(s) by saying it is not scientific(what they mean is it is not the majority theory). Science is merely the observation of evidence and the formation of a logical explanation. Any theory (whether religous, or "scientific") that observes empirical evidence and forms a explanation is scientific, no matter what philosophy influences the analyzation. Science is not the majority theory. It is the deduction of critical evidence and the arguments for and against various theories explaining that evidence.--Gniniv (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to your opinion, so long as you keep it out of our articles. Until you can backup your opinion with peer-reviewed reliable sources, they don't belong in Biology articles. From the Biologists standpoint, there is no debate, evolution is a fact, and any objections to it come from outside the Biological sciences. Your assertion that there is an "alternative theory" is not accurate, because there is no alternative theory in science, if so, again bring out the peer-reviewed reliable sources to back that up. Supernaturalism is not science. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 01:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Says who? Just because the elitist minority of our population accepts evolution does not preclude the possibility of an alternative explanation (that is illogical, Theory A does not remove the possibility of Theory B). According to a Gallup Poll (See below) most Americans accept a supernatural explanation for the existence of the earth. If the evidence points to a supernatural cause, it is still scientific to follow that evidence. Your word play is confusing "science" with "evolution" or "majority view", which is common, but inaccurate.....(See Scientific Method)--Gniniv (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Why should objections to evolution be edited only by Pro-evolution editors? Thats as silly as having only Richard Nixon explain the details behind Watergate.--Gniniv (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of WP:DUE. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 01:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? So WP:DUE only allows the majority to have their say? I think it is more likely it was originally intended to insure that the topics presented in an article actually stay on the article's subject with room being given to each.--Gniniv (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is like saying just because a majority of American elementary age children believe in Santa Claus (Which I don't know is true) his existence is unquestionably proven...

I think both Creation-evolution controversy and this article are suffering from POV bias. We need to step back and make the articles more neutral. I would agree with your comments if this was the Evolution article, but it's the Objections to evolution article-written by Pro-evolutionists (Articles need to be written by editors from both sides-with WP:DUE considered-otherwise this article is little more than a blaring of how inaccurate anti-evolutionists are)....--Gniniv (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're failing to understand WP:DUE, because there is no debate among scientists, the article reflects that. For your "alternative theory" to be included in science articles (like this), you will need a percentage (not an insignificant one) of notable scientists proposing it, which any "alternative" does not have. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 01:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is not talking about scientists! It is talking about objections (and objectors) to evolution. They do not have to be only scientists....--Gniniv (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Your claim that there is no debate amongst scientists is inaccurate. It is denying that there are some scientists who do object to evolution. The accurate statement is: an overwhelming majority of scientists unquestioningly accept evolution and reject the alternative. A distinct minority of scientists do question evolution: Henry Morris, Larry Vardiman, Russell Humphreys, etc, but are ignored due to a general distaste for religion influencing how one looks at life. Why do people allow all philosophies but religious views to influence how they view science? An example would be: A person who's philosophy is athiest choosing to accept that the universe evolved by chance. But the majority of scientists are disgusted when a person who's philosophy is YEC chooses to accept validated historical accounts found in Genesis as a good explanation for the universe's existence.--Gniniv (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And considering Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all people (not just scientists) the advantage of WP:DUE might be all the other way.. According to Gallup, more Americans object to Evolution than accept it...

So if DUE really is a factor in this argument, WE should have more content objecting to evolution to represent this demographic....:-)--Gniniv (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Again you fail to grasp the meaning of WP:DUE, popular opinion isn't relevant. ONLY peer-reviewed scientific papers from reliable well known journals and notable scientists and a significant percentage of them would change Wikipedia's stance on Evolution. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 01:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, Wikipedia is not reflective of the Modern Scientific Community's opinion (A distinct minority of the population similar to College Professors). It is reflective of Everybody's opinion!! --Gniniv (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Science articles are written and maintained from the point of view of scientists, not the common layman. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 01:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If this was a trade publication of the American Scientific Community I would agree with you, but it is not. Wikipedia is the Free Encyclopedia. Even with DUE! (See my point above). We need to accurately present all sides of a subject. As the old saying goes, "There are two sides to every story".--Gniniv (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Your claim that this article can only be edited by scientists commits the logical fallacy of appeal to authority....--Gniniv (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am fine if we just include both sides in the discussion, considering the points I have raised. I do not know if there are any other editors in Wikipedia who share my perspective on science-but until I know differently, I will defend these valid questions to reach a consensus on this article. I have decided that I will not back down from the overwhelming amount of editors who reject my perspective until my questions are answered. I will also continue to request full protection on this page until a solution is reached...--Gniniv (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Every article does not need every viewpoint and counter-argument. Should we put in any significant amount of information on Earth to represent the minority of people who belove in Flat Earth Theory? We don't give much weight to fringe theories, and any theory besides modern evolution is fringe for a biological article. Your POV pushing will never get put into this article. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 02:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As outrageous as this may sound (I am not a proponent of Flat Earth by the way) we Need to Include All Perspectives that the General Population Holds to. If this article is truly standing for freedom of information, we must fairly include all ideas, despite their controversial undertones, if part of the General Population holds to an idea they need to be included.. Even if something is a fringe theory, that doesn't always make it wrong. Remember that Copernicus and Galileo were hated in their time for proposing outrageous ideas to the mainstream community-but modern consensus unquestioningly accepts their findings. Quite a change of heart!..I guess the worm turned....(See Libertarian and objectivism for a good analysis of the objective philosophy-on which Jimmy Wales founded Wikipedia)--Gniniv (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Only a robot is able to perfectly edit wikipedia without POV! Lets face it, we will always present our perspective on any issue, despite our efforts otherwise. The next best thing is to include people from all perspectives to ensure neutrality. I am not saying we can't include what is wrong with Creationism. We just need to include what is wrong with Evolution as well. --Gniniv (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should consider merging Creation-evolution controversy with this article, they basically cover the same ground....--Gniniv (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Gniniv: Henry M. Morris was a civil engineer; Larry Vardiman has a PhD in atmospheric science; Russell Humphreys has a PhD in physics. None of these people is a reliable source regarding evolution. Every scientist working in the field of biology knows that Evolution is a correct description of how life has developed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct on the scientists! I might add Duane T. Gish (Biochemist) and Ken Ham (Biology Teacher) as YEC scientists who focused more in the field of biology. My point is not that YEC is in the majority or generally accepted amongst most scientists (its obviously a distinct minority). The picture I am trying to present is that there are still (a few) scientists who still question the reigning paradigm of modern scientific thought (Biological Evolution, Cosmology etc...), despite drastic ridicule and lack of support from nearly all conventional sources.--Gniniv (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

When is someone going to answer my challenges on the need to include all perspectives?--Gniniv (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Gniniv Let's step back for a second. One question needs to be answered before all others: What is page protection solving? You were the one making the reverted edits, so as long as you stop making them, they'll stop being reverted. In the meantime, PP is stopping other editors from legitimately improving the article. Please clarify that point, and we can move on to the rest of the discussion. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 07:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I requested page protection to force all the editors of this article to engage me on the neutrality of the content (I think it is working)...--Gniniv (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC
 * We were engaging you before. I spent quite a bit of time formulating detailed responses to your edits, which you never responded to. So again... what has PP done, besides block legitimate contributions, which wasn't possible before? Furthermore, can we remove page protection now, since all you state you wanted is a discussion, and a discussion is now taking place? <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 16:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Objections to evolution and Creation-evolution controversy are not the same articles. Please understand this. Objections to evolution is intended to list and address the objections which have been raised to this specific scientific theory. Creation-evolution controversy is intended to cover the controversy which surrounds evolution and ID, including political, historical, and religious influences. The two are fundamentally different. This article has nothing to do with religion, or anyone's worldview. It has to do with biology. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 07:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree-I was just checking that the two are not related.--Gniniv (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 2. It doesn't matter what view you have on WP:Due, the scientific conspiracy, or really anything else. There are established policies on wikipedia for a reason. If you have a problem with them, take it up on the policy page, like WP_talk:Due. When another editor quotes relevant policy, the appropriate thing to do is to read and respond to the policy... not give your opinion on how wikipedia is biased. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 07:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said wikipedia is biased, I said the editors (including myself) are biased. To make wikipedia neutral we need to make sure people from both sides of an issue are covered.
 * According to WP:Due, there are specific ways in which we are allowed to cover both sides. When an editor quotes a policy like WP:Due, it's your responsibility to read that policy, and either 1) respond that it is not relevant to the discussion for some specific reason which is consistent with the policy, or 2) cede your request. Your responses have been to ignore the policy, and state how we should go ahead and cover things differently anyway. That's not ok. If you have an objection to WP:Due, then bring it to that talk page. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 16:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree and I have just done so. Looking at DUE's policy, It loos like objections to evolution falls under WP:DUE's policy of a significant minority view (see my Gallup Poll info) so it should be included as a significant minority view point in the article.--Gniniv (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gniniv, see equal validity on WP:Due. Quoting:
 * "The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must 'give equal validity' to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."
 * This is a scientific article. Short of peer-reviewed scientific objections to evolution, creationism is (by definition) pseudoscience. According to WP policy, therefore, we must represent the view as such, and include the scientific responses to those views. This is what the article does. We cannot, per policy, include creationism in the article without demonstrating why it is rejected by biologists. If you have a problem with that, take it up on WP:Due's talk page. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 02:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 3. There is no dispute within the scientific community that evolution is a fact, it happens, and it is the reason for current diversity of life. If you disagree with this statement, you are welcome to provide a reliable source contending it. In the meantime, our reliable sources will have to (and must, per policy) stand. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 07:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would (and have in other articles) attempted to put in my sources, but due to the sources not holding mainstream views they are quickly removed for some odd reason (POV bias). "Reliable" sources as you call them are the ones that do not question the reigning paradigm of thought. --Gniniv (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What happened on other articles is irrelevant here. Furthermore, if your sources have been removed, that doesn't mean you can just go ahead and start making POV edits without sources. You need to provide sources for contentious content, and those sources have to be acceptable per WP:RS. Period. If editors have objections to a source you provide, then discuss those objections when they are removed, on that article's talk page, with that editor. Not on some unrelated article as anecdotal evidence that WP is biased. Again, if you have issues with WP:RS, then take it up on that talk page. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 16:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, and as you can see below (in proposed edits), my latest proposed edits do include sources to be more in line with your correct analysis of my former edits.--Gniniv (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 4. This has nothing to do with at least half of the reverted edits you've made in the past few weeks. Most were stylistic problems, mistakes, or directly violating specific WP policy. Each and every problem you've introduced in those edits has been drawn out and discussed at length, and furthermore you've agreed with these objections! What exactly are you arguing? Because as far as I can tell, what you've written here is a general distaste for the conclusions one might infer from reading the article, without proposing any changes, or backing up your opinion with any policy, precedent, or source. I'm sorry that this article conflicts with your religious view, but that doesn't give you the right to introduce your opinion into it. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 07:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The reversions I accepted were because I agreed with the editor's rationale on my style and bias. I am just asking that the editors (myself included) work to improve the neutrality of this article, and continue to constructively criticize new edits.--Gniniv (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that other editors here are not working to improve the neutrality of the article, and are not constructively criticizing new edits? I feel pretty foolish for wasting so much time responding in detail, quoting policy and precedent, to your previous edits... which you didn't respond to... for you now to accuse me of not constructively criticizing them. Gniniv, your edits thus far have decreased the article's neutrality, not increased it. It may be hard for you to see that, since it weights it toward your position, but from an objective standpoint, per policy, they are POV and must have been reverted. We have 7 editors and 1 admin here who agree. I don't know how else to say this. But we need to start talking about specific improvements to the article... not general accusations of bias on WP, and what policy means. You need to propose specific changes, and we can discuss those individually.


 * (also, please indent your responses, as I keep having to do it for you, else the discussion quickly becomes unreadable) <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 16:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Will do!--Gniniv (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions
In the interests of helping to move things forward, it's worth bearing in mind that the numbers of editors on either "side" has no relevance to the debate. There could be one editor expressing Gniniv's position, or there could be a thousand. What matters is what the sources say, and that they're included in a way that's policy compliant and disinterested.

What I suggest is that Gniniv compile a list on this page of suggested edits, together with the sources he wants to use, and that others say of each edit separately whether they're acceptable or not, and if not why not.

Gniniv, you need to make sure that everything you want to say is sourced to a high-quality reliable source, and that the sources are specifically discussing evolution, or the philosophy of science via a discussion of evolution; see WP:SYN for one of the pitfalls of combining sources inappropriately. I see some original research in this edit of yours, though I also see it in the material you replaced (but less so). If you're recounting an argument that a source has mounted, use in-text attribution, such as "X argues that ..." The sources needn't be scientists, but they must be high-quality, and preferably academic. If you could find some mainstream philosophers who discuss objections to evolutionary theory that would be ideal. Mary Midgley is one suggestion; this book of hers, Evolution as a Religion, might be of interest.

Hope this helps in some way. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 14:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Slim — I don't think that Midgley would be a productive avenue here, since her objections appear largely in opposition to what she perceives as ultra-Darwinists rather than evolution per se (the subject of this article). Further, even given this, it's not obvious what sort of impact, if any, she has on the science.  Speaking as a biased biologist, I can't perceive any impact whatsoever, but I'm unlikely a good judge.  --P LUMBAGO  19:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Arjun024
In the last sentence in the lead section which says "there is significant skepticism of evolution in the Muslim world, South Africa and India with smaller followings in ... " - I  request that India be  removed.
 * The cited source is talking about a poll conducted among 10,000 people in 10 countries. So, imaginably the sample size taken in India is too small a size compared to its population (population of India == 1 billion+). Well, as a matter of fact, given the very low level of education in India, a very huge proportion haven't even heard about any theory of evolution - leave alone being skeptic about it. Moreover, given that Indian people are very religious and Indian religions reject creationism of the christian model ; even the Vedas being interpreted as supporting evolution. (See Hindu views on evolution, Jainism and non-creationism). To be very honest, i think that some creationism supporter intentionally googled and found a link that the editor thought could support India in that list. Thanks  Arjun  codename024 07:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Arjun, the source is New Scientist, July 1, 2009, and it says:


 * "A British Council poll of 10,000 people in 10 countries has revealed that creationism is strongest in the US, South Africa and India, with 43 per cent in each country agreeing that God created life in its present form. Almost a quarter of Londoners are creationists, according to the poll presented at the World Conference of Science Journalists in London on Tuesday.'"


 * It doesn't say anything about the sample size in India being too small, or anything about education levels, so to remove one of the countries for that reason would be OR. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I concur with SV and I've disabled the editprotected template. We can only report what's already been published in reliable sources and India is included in the cited source, so you would need that or another source to say that the sample was too small before we could say so in our article. You may well be correct, but the threshold for inclusion in WP is verifiability, not truth. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A poll of 10,000 people in 10 countries including India means that, the sample size of the people surveyed in India is a number less than 9,992. The source clearly states that " there is significant skepticism of evolution for atmost some 9,991 people of India" - I agree. Now, taking this information and writing down "there is significant skepticism of evolution in India" is but an editor's synthesis. The source is only talking about the result it obtained when it conducted the poll of 10,000 people; it is not even trying to give a comprehensive picture of the opinion of Indians or any country's people. Thanks to HJ Mitchell, Verifiability is exactly the point i am trying to bring to light here - We cannot verify a "significant" opinion/characteristic/whatever of the people of India from a reliable verifiable source that publishes the result of a survey it conducted among atmost 9,991 Indians.
 * If it is felt essential to fellow editors that this info has to be included in the article, it can be included as "When a poll of 10,000 people in 10 countries including India were conducted, a significant percentage of people rejected the evolution theory." this was cut later by me after i found the 2 articles which i have mentioned in the immediately succeeding post of mine   Arjun  codename024  20:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This article and this article would probably be good sources on the topic of Hindu creationism. I'll see if I can get access at work tomorrow. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I just did a search in google news; and want to show these 2 articles
 * This article from The Times say that "More adults in India than elsewhere said they could believe in God and evolution, with 85 per cent agreeing"
 * This article says "For the question "To what extent do you agree or disagree that enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution [sic]?" — posed to respondents who had heard of Charles Darwin and knew something about the theory of evolution — India led the list with 77% of respondents agreeing, with China second at 72% and Mexico second at 65%. The United States was ninth at 41%, just behind South Africa at 42% and well ahead of Egypt at 25%" .  Arjun  codename024  20:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the same study. That finding appears to be speaking to India's overall lack of fundamentalism, but even so it's clear they are speaking of a sub-set of evolution such as microevolution not contradicting their faith. Right after it repeats: "Adults in the US, South Africa and India ... was created by a God and has always existed in its current form." All that is missing from the Times article is 43%.


 * The second article is quite interesting, as it shows the large divide in India of those with sciences education versus those without. Whereas other countries such as the U.S. the exposure to Darwin / evolution is routinely overshadowed by established religious influences. It has potential for inclusion, but its more relevant to educational quality rather than a meaningful insight into India's national sentiment to evolution. Does it show India can progress, yes, but its likely those 77% are a much smaller portion of the population. Which then does not contradict the previous findings. If others disagree I'd be interested to figure out how to accurately and smoothly include it in the lead. - RoyBoy 15:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've posted a note on Talk:Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education. - RoyBoy 16:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the disparity between the learned and the other is pretty clear from these links. 77% of people those who knew about the theory of evolution agreed with the evolution theory - so when one is to say that "there exists skepticism of a theory"; then it will be in regard to those people who knew about the theory; not the general population - Because for one to be skeptical about a theory it is a sine qua non that one should know about that theory in the first place. In the last question posed by the surveyors in the ncse article, a smaller but a good per cent (43%) of people say that "life on earth, including human life, was created by a God and has always existed in its current form" - But this question was not exclusively posed to those who knew about the theory of evolution. I am not trying to sell that Indians are generally evolution backers; rather, i am trying to convince that there isn't enough evidence to generalize the opinion/sentiment of Indians and write in Wikipedia that "there is significant skepticism of evolution in India" . Arjun  codename024 16:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand, however that can be said for any country. "significant" is simply a reflection of popularity (not quality), which I think is clear as specific countries are then listed. If you have an alternative word (popular?) I'm open to suggestions. - RoyBoy 17:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that to be skeptical about a theory, one should first know about that theory; "significant skepticism" is a word play that only distorts the facts. If the information need to be presented; it can be stated as such like : "In a survey, 43% of Indians opined that life was created by a God and has always existed in its current form, but 77% of respondents who knew about evolution agreed that evolution is backed by scientific evidence."


 * As per "Call a spade a spade" policy - here we should not use oblique and obfuscating language, and just "tell it like it is" if at all needed. Cheers -  Arjun  codename024 10:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I hadn't realized using the skepticism was so misleading. Pondering... unsure if I like your expansion, but better than anything I have on mind. Done. - RoyBoy 03:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I lied, how about widespread disbelief? I just like to prioritize summary style in leads; and I'm not sure if the 77% mention will stay. I agree, an important and encouraging figure, but it can also be turned around to say: Look! 33% aren't buying it! Maybe I'm being pessimistic? - RoyBoy 03:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on; what does it change (skepticism -> disbelief). You have gone the opposite way i have been trying to convince. My earlier claim still holds that "to disbelieve a theory, you have to first know what the theory is". This is like generalizing about an uneducated illiterate ghetto populace that there is widespread disbelief in Superstring theory among them.  Arjun  codename024 09:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL, as awesome as that example is, most in that case wouldn't know and would be n/a. What's relevant, I think, is they think they know. Isn't that sufficient to disbelieve something? I agree it isn't right/proper, but disbelief is the essence of the topic. They don't believe it because of preexisting beliefs, regardless of their biological knowledge level, and they go from there. If you would like to improve the lead, by demonstrating they are truly out of touch to what evolution is, I'd ask you to provide really good sources. They likely are already in the article, but I must emphasize this needs to be triangulated and strongly sourced, as its a generalization creationists adamantly oppose for good and bad reasons alike. - RoyBoy 00:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not need to bring sources; because i am saying that the source that is present now is inadequate for what it supports. the source only says that 43% believe God created life in the present form; it doesn't say that 43% disbelieve evolution because (i repeat) "one can only believe/disbelieve in something, if one has atleast heard of it" . Call a spade "a spade" not "something not like an axe" . Moreover, if something is N/A from the source, it must be N/A from the article too; other it become WP:OR  Arjun  codename024 06:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a true statement: "While objections primarily originate from the United States, there is widespread belief in creationism in the Muslim world,[8] South Africa and India[9] with smaller followings in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada.[10] However, in India 77% of respondents who had heard of Charles Darwin and knew something about the theory of evolution agreed it was backed by scientific evidence.[11]"'


 * But, belief in creationism is not exactly synonymous to Objection to evolution. There are equivalent only for those subset who know about evolution (and still Object).  Arjun  codename024 06:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Perhaps I should stop editing this article just before sleeping. Seems to be slowing my grasp of the obvious. Sorry. Used your suggestion, further refs and improvement is indeed needed. - RoyBoy 04:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine!  Arjun  codename024 09:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The population size does't noticeable impact the certainty of a survey. 1000 People asked/ country is enough to get about a 3 % margin of error. So the premise of this request is incorrect. ScientificStandard (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes
If anyone wants a change to the article, please discuss it here. Precise wording would be good, but that is not necessary. I suggest that proposals should include a description of a wanted change, its location in the article, and a source to support any new claim. If a proposal is to reinstate a previous edit that has been reverted, please post a diff of the old change and suggest that it be restored. Johnuniq (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to add the following note to the lead section with the links to two websites that offer good objections to evolution. I would write it like this: (See links for top evidences against the Theory of Evolution: Major Objections and Jonathan Well's Take. Any thoughts on the links?--Gniniv (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Gniniv: I would submit that you are not a good judge of "good" arguments against evolution. Even a cursory examination of the links you provide reveals them to be full of the usual creationist nonsense that's been debunked so many times it's difficult to judge its repeated publication as anything other than poisonous bad faith.  I mean, trawling up (among many other creationist chestnuts) the Second Law of Thermodynamics?  Please ...  You really need to understand that while this creationist stuff may seem convincing and new to you, it's all old hat rubbish that has been dealt with time and time again.  Sorry to be so blunt, but that's how it is.  That said, if you can find something in it that is not covered here already, please point us specifically to it.  A generic weblink to a grab-bag of "objections" is not sufficient --P LUMBAGO  09:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would submit, (if you can accept my criticism) that you (and all pro-evolutionary editors) are not good judges of anti-evolutionary sources (just as I am not a good judge of pro-evolutionary sources). These links have points that I have never seen answered by the scientific community.  Since Objections to evolution is what it is, we need to include them (maybe at the end if it's to much to have them in the opening) to truly present a neutral point of view.--Gniniv (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries — I am more than happy to accept criticism, it's part of my job as a scientist. But, unfortunately, you are mistaken.  These claims have been trawled up repeatedly over the years, and all have been dispensed with repeatedly.  Your first website, in particular, is chock full of shocking nonsense — are you sure you read it?  I would be happy to explain why (on your talkpage) if you wish.  As for the second link, Jonathan Wells and his mischievous book are already covered pretty well here at Wikipedia.  But I suspect that you'll probably find that all such criticism is just part of the scientific conspiracy propping up evolution.  --P LUMBAGO  08:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My intent is not to remove any of the other editor's info and claims. I just want to make sure the actual objections to evolution are presented...--Gniniv (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also like to add Werner Gitt's information theory arguments with his book as a reference: "In the Beginning was Information ISBN 0-89051-461-5"--Gniniv (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And how does an engineer have relevance to a biology article? Plus books are not peer reviewed. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 15:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be more accurate to say his books are not reviewed by peers of evolutionary thought (due to their vehement hatred of alternative ideas). Dr. Werner Gitt should be included because he is one of the leading experts in Information theory which DOES have a strong bearing on the claims of evolution.--Gniniv (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a point about the structure of this dispute, Raeky. This isn't an article about biology. It's about Objections to evolution, and it can cover the scientific and philosophical debate. Sources should be high-quality. There's no need for material to be peer-reviewed, and no strict need for the sources to be academics either, though it would make sense to use academics given that so many are involved in the debate.


 * One approach to adopt might be to consider which sources you would use if you were writing a final-year BA or MA-standard paper on Objections to evolution as part of a philosophy of science course. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this isn't a biology article, it's used as an article where the objections of evolution are addressed from a biologist point of view, in which case peer-reviewed journals are of high relevance to change the wording of one of these rebuttals to an objection. This isn't about giving fair coverage of the supernaturalist point of view, it's taking their classic objections and explaining them from the standpoint of science. Therefore a book from a self-professed creationist engineer is going to be of NO relevance to that? — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 15:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well any objection of any objector can be relevant, if they are a notable objector. Besides, books can be preferable to some creation websites I've had to rely on to establish creation POV. - RoyBoy 16:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) I don't want to get involved in the particular content issues, but it's clear there's no reason in policy to restrict the sources to biologists. The philosophy, history, and ideological consequences of evolutionary theory are widely discussed in a number of academic disciplines. Sources from all these disciplines are welcome. It means that producing a very good article on this topic will involve a lot of reading, and you're right to insist that that reading be done, rather than looking around on Google for random sources, but that's a separate issue. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Lets be clear here, Gniniv is trying to change the wording of this page so it doesn't sound like there are no valid objections to evolution from a scientific standpoint. Thats why we're fighting these edits, because there is no valid scientific objections to evolution. The whole purpose of this article is to list the common objections, then explain why they're wrong from the standpoint of science. To change one of these explanations to not state that the objection is wrong, will require substantial peer-reviewed literature to represent a wide degree of scientific objections to evolution, and there that does not exist. Gniviv is just being more clever about his approach than these people, but make no mistake his intent isn't that far removed from the Genesis posters. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 16:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And after looking through his edit history, apparently hes trying to slip this through the cracks without us noticing right away, Good article reassessment/Objections to evolution/1, hes trying to get the article removed from Good Article status now. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 16:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Gniniv, ze did list it on this talk page but it was quickly and correctly removed by another editor. - RoyBoy 17:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (undent) Gniniv, the GAR crosses the line, as I've been prepping the article for FA review. Reading above you say: "I am just asking that the editors (myself included) work to improve the neutrality of this article". I'd like to point out NPOV requires us to point to the scientific consensus on evolution being valid and supported by every scientific finding and discipline known to humankind. Neutrality does not mean, allow a manufactured / false controversy to confuse a reader or a GA article, or white washing (imply validity to) any objection to evolution which isn't scientifically validated by an independent third party. - RoyBoy 17:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * All I can say is: This article is absolutely not ready to be a GA candidate, much less a FA candidate.--Gniniv (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Really... while I've been impressed by the learning curve you've undertaken coming to Wikipedia very recently, I have participated in the improvement of several featured articles and many good articles. Your confidence in the face of the contrary reality (its been a GA for a while, and it's not controversial) bespeaks trouble in recognizing Refuting Evolution ain't that good. Don't get me wrong, its decent as far as creationist books go... but that's a pretty low standard unfortunately. - RoyBoy 03:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Raeky, there's a fundamental problem with your approach, which is that by restricting too tightly what counts as a reliable source, you're ipso facto determining the outcome, and indeed you're defining "reliable" to refer to sources who will uphold that outcome. An example from an area I edit in: I could create an article, Objections to animal rights, and insist that only academics specializing in animal-rights theory be permitted to act as sources. Indeed, that would make a lot of sense: how can academics who don't specialize in it know what they're talking about? But the consequence of that editorial decision would be that the article would swiftly conclude all the objections were invalid.


 * Instead of having the article commit suicide-by-source, if I can put it that way, you have to do your best to make a broad sweep of the academic sources to ensure the article provides a three-dimensional view, which will include positions you personally find wrong-headed. See WP:SOURCES for the kinds of sources that are allowed. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * These are not my interpretation of how we define WP:RS in Evolution articles, it's how the community defines it for these pages. We don't put in criticism of evolution without reliable peer reviewed sources from people WITHIN the biology fields agreeing with that criticism. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 19:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by the community, but that's not a correct interpretation of the policy, because as I said above, it pre-determines the outcome. I've been in a similar situation myself with articles; for example, when I was editing The Holocaust (though I want to stress that I'm not responsible for its current contents), I tried to make sure we were focusing on academics who specialize in the Holocaust, and I did that because I wanted to ensure the material was responsible. But it's something you have to be tremendously careful about, because it can have the result of excluding criticism. In an area such as evolutionary theory, which is discussed within so many academic disciplines, it's really impossible to justify using only biologists, particularly because so much of the opposition to it is conceptual. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it you don't edit the evolution articles much then? We don't change our stance on evolution because some economist creationist writes some opinion books about how he thinks his supernatural being of choice created man. I don't quite get what your getting at, some sections of Wikipedia are more liberal with what sources they allow, some more strict. Evolution articles would be one of the most strict on sources that can be used to change the meaning/content of the pages. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 20:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say ONLY biologist's work can be used, but the key part is peer reviewed. We're not going to accept a source from say, http://www.creationism.org/ or http://www.answersingenesis.org/ for a biology article. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 20:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)\


 * Using the same reasoning, we also shouldn't accept sources from say Talk Origins as valid.--Gniniv (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right that sources should be high-quality, but there are high-quality sources that aren't peer-reviewed. I don't want to say any more about this, because I don't want to get involved in the content issue. Hopefully Gniniv will list the edits he wants to make, along with his sources, so that you have something specific to discuss. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I fully intend to be level headed and present my sources when I come up with edit ideas (See above). Dr. Werner Gitt is a renowned information theorist whose studies have massive implications on the origin of life-eg. evolution. I appreciate you guys criticizing my work (just don't suppress it for POV reasons) and I will continue to challenge the neutrality and bias in this article until it truly fulfills the good article status.  I agree that that this article should not be limited to mainstream biologists; objections to evolution have a far wider following than that exclusive to the scientific community (from what I have seen, the mainstream scientific community is rarely going to challenge the status quo; new ideas in (most disciplines)  tend to come from the outside).--Gniniv (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I propose we add a new section (with links to wikipedia biographies if available) of prominent people who disagree with evolution--Gniniv (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Two good book sources for the article would be Refuting Evolution (ISBN 0-89051-258-2) and Refuting Evolution 2 (ISBN 0-89051-387-2) (Both by Jonathan Sarfati). Any thoughts?--Gniniv (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not ready for protection to be removed (and if it is removed I will rerequest it) until the inclusion of alternative POV in the article is allowed; seeing how it is impossible to edit any article approaching the controversy of this one without taking sides. I am willing to accept challenges to the grammar and content of my sources, but dismissal of all ideas criticizing evolution (isn't that what this article is all about?) amounts to little more than censure and I will not abide it.--Gniniv (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Again this is a biological article addressing the common objections to evolution, having a section with biographies of people who object to evolution is not relevant for this page. If you have specific changes or additional objections that we can address then list them. As for you wanting to hold this page hostage until we bend to your will and dilute the science with supernaturalism, that's not going to happen. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 01:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? That is suprising. I think it would be very relevant. The outrageousness of the bias present on this debate is shown by if I tried to propose a list of people who favor evolution on the Creation-evolution controversy article-no questions there!! I thought you would question if I have relevant people who object to evolution (which I do, See above). As I said earlier, this is not about how mainstream biologists view evolution, it's about how objectors to evolution view the subject.  I think your content is better suited for the actual Evolution page.--Gniniv (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note also that I said a list of people with links to the biographies-not full length biographies actually in the article.....--Gniniv (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I listed my current proposed changes above.....--Gniniv (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)Noone's going to let you list people who favor evolution either, that's a stupid goal. The list would be in the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of respected, published scientists. Just to quote the article it's self:


 * "In response, creationists have disputed the level of scientific support for evolution. The Discovery Institute has gathered over 600 scientists since 2001 to sign 'A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism' in order to show that there are a number of scientists who dispute what they refer to as 'Darwinian evolution'. This statement did not profess outright disbelief in evolution, but expressed skepticism as to the ability of 'random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.' Several counter-petitions have been launched in turn, including A Scientific Support for Darwinism, which gathered over 7,000 signatures in four days, and Project Steve, a tongue-in-cheek petition that has gathered 1,138 (as of March 30, 2010) evolution-supporting scientists named 'Steve'."

No need to be shocked! My proposed list would only include "prominent objectors" to Evolution, not every single human being who does. If I did it would be just as long (or longer) as the list of evolution accepting people...:-)--Gniniv (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To be clear, lists of names isn't adding anything of value to this or any other biology/creationist article. This is really getting tiresome. List _specific_ actual changes you want to make, word for word, where you'd place it, with references, so we can decide on their merit. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 02:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I did above! Allow me to reprint them below.....--Gniniv (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree Raeky. This is getting ridiculous. I've been entertaining what I thought was good faith objections thus far, but I'm beginning to think that assumption was incorrect, and I'm not going to waste my time on this for much longer. I (and other editors) have quoted policy and precedent which precisely describes this situation numerous times, Gniniv, and you've outright rejected it, and are now claiming that you intend to continue being disruptive unless we give in to your demands. That is not ok, and I don't appreciate my time being wasted patiently explaining WP policy to you when you apparently never intended to follow it to begin with. If I'm wrong and you are acting in good faith, then you need to explain exactly why WP:Due doesn't apply... because as far as I'm concerned, it explicitly prohibits the activity you're engaging in, in perfectly clear terms. You've been directed to it. And you've ignored it. This last response of yours about re-requesting PP until your opinions are inserted was over the line. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 02:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)What's troubling is hes convinced an admin to lock the page. I don't care about Gniniv, his views are easily dealt with like every one else that came before him. It's the admin who is somehow duped into thinking Gniniv is a valid editor and not a creationist-POV-pusher. The worst part is, if this sets some sorta president with others of his ilk to try to worm their ways though the policies and trick admins to helping their cause. We'll get more like Gniniv and less like the Genesis 1 pasters. This isn't funny anymore and I long ago have stopped assuming good faith with Gniniv, after reviewing some of his other edits in other evolution articles. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 02:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have seen, when a dispute continues to escalate into an edit war, the recourse is discussion (which we have done). I have come to the point where I will not challenge a removal of the protection status if it is instituted. I am not challenging WP:DUE's policy, but I think ideas that object to evolution form a significant minority view (requiring coverage according to WP:DUE)-see my arguments above. In summary, I will not challenge a revert on the protection status, but I will continue to put in valid, referenced sources in view of my conclusion. I want it to be understood that as silly as it might sound, i have been acting entirely in good faith, and will agree (as I did above) if my grammar or source material does not follow WP:RP. Feel free to challenge me.--Gniniv (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think even you guys can admit that at least Ken Ham and Henry Morris are sufficiently prominent to justify the significant minority view status.--Gniniv (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources
SlimVirgin is correct that there is no reason to restrict sources to biologists, however, that statement needs a very big qualification: It is fine for, say, a geologist to find something from the field of geology that leads to an objection to evolution (perhaps a claim regarding the Age of the Earth). But a geologist is not a reliable source when commenting about biology itself, so the views of a geologist should not be used to assess, for example, phylogenetics or the working of a bacterial flagellum. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)And I never said we'd never consider a non-biology article. And your example is good, if a geologist wrote an article in say Creationist Digest about the earth being only 2000 years old and he has proof! We're not going to use that reference. If it was published in Geology then we'd take note. Where the reference is from and how many there are are important. A book by a fringe group is not enough to introduce anti-evolution wording into evolution articles, imho. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 03:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but this article is not about biology, it is about the philosophy of science in which every human being can be included...--Gniniv (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh. We discussed this. You agreed.
 * Objections to evolution and Creation-evolution controversy are not the same articles. Please understand this. Objections to evolution is intended to list and address the objections which have been raised to this specific scientific theory. Creation-evolution controversy is intended to cover the controversy which surrounds evolution and ID, including political, historical, and religious influences. The two are fundamentally different. This article has nothing to do with religion, or anyone's worldview. It has to do with biology. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 07:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree-I was just checking that the two are not related.--Gniniv (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is not about philosophy. It's about biology. Evolution concerns biology. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 03:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just check the title, this is not about the biological mechanisms behind evolution, it is about the objections raised to those biological mechanisms... --Gniniv (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Objections raised to biology. Since the topic is biology, and we need to further cover biology's response to the objections per WP:Due, that makes this a biology article; Everything about it is about biology. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 06:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Dr. David N. Menton. "Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, or a Law?" (html). Missouri Association for Creation. Retrieved 2010-06-16.
This reference I have issues with. It potentially has objections not addressed by this article that I think should be addressed. I recommend everyone before commenting read it, it's not very long: http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/theory.htm It's by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D. an Anatomist who is fallaciously misrepresenting Evolution has an untestable and unfalsifiable idea that is not a theory but a faith. Using quote mining, specifically the following quote:

After reading this source is there anything in here we need to address in the article to prevent confusion by this fallacious gross misrepresentation of science? — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 09:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the source is unrepresentative of so-called "objections" to evolution. It follows the standard template of caricaturing science, misrepresenting sources and boldly-stated false claims.  But, while using it, the article does also appear to largely address its content.  Or are you concerned that it makes (patently false) claims that are left unanswered in the article?  The quote-mining which you identify is addressed here if you wish to somehow tackle it.  Certainly, I note that the article makes no reference to the strategy of quote mining adopted in framing many ostensible "objections to evolution".  But I don't think that this is the place (that would be Creation–evolution controversy).  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  10:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree quote mining is best left for Creation–evolution controversy, but here I don't think we address the idea that the reference is trying to plant that evidence for evolution is unrepeatable thus outside the realm of empirical science. We address something like it from other angles, but I don't think we address that specific objection. Right off the bat is E. coli citrate experiment, maybe Culex molestus and Rapid Temporal Reversal in Predator-Driven Natural Selection and of course probably more, but those are all repeatable evidences for evolution. Is "Evolution evidence is not repeatable" be a valid objection to add? From a cursorily search of the internet, it seems this isn't an uncommon objection. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 10:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a primary source, and thus gives no indication of how common it is. Why not cite the State of Oklahoma. 2003. House Bill HB1504 evolution disclaimer? – ably discussed in http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html Menton's way with facts is discussed here, but without reference to this specific claim. . . dave souza, talk 10:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The E. coli evolution experiment is a very interesting one when you are discussing if evolution is "repeatable", since the existence of frozen stocks of the ancestors of the current strain allowed the group to "re-play the past" - going back to an ancestral state and repeating the selection of the citrate-utilising adaptation several times. This showed the role of contingency in the evolutionary process, with the critical adaptation requiring pre-adaptations that only occurred in one lineage. However, this might be better discussed in another article. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv's Proposed Edits

 * I would like to add the following note to the lead section with the links to two websites that offer good objections to evolution. I would write it like this: (See links for top evidences against the Theory of Evolution: Major Objections and Jonathan Well's Take. Any thoughts on the links?--Gniniv (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That has already been addressed above, but to sum it up. Not happening. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 03:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree, the websites are not notable enought (amazing that I sometimes compromise, Huh?)--Gniniv (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also like to add Werner Gitt's information theory arguments with his book as a reference: "In the Beginning was Information ISBN 0-89051-461-5"--Gniniv (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Be specific, whats the wording you want to add. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 03:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For one, he is also an Information theorist which does have a bearing on evolution, and for two; by peer reviewed you mean pro evolutionary acceptance, which naturally he does not have. He is accepted amongst his actual peers in the Creationist community though...--Gniniv (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No I mean peer reviewed i.e. published in a academic journal. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk
 * I am open to suggestions, as long as the basic idea of the content is not removed. We could put it at the end in a note about information theory's bearing on evolution...--Gniniv (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By specific, as in the exact wording you want to introduce to the article. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 03:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Two good book sources for the article would be Refuting Evolution (ISBN 0-89051-258-2) and Refuting Evolution 2 (ISBN 0-89051-387-2) (Both by Jonathan Sarfati). Any thoughts?--Gniniv (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What in those books that is not already addressed on the page you think should be addressed, we need quotes. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 03:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are is a good Irreducible Complexity quote from Refuting Evolution 2 we could insert:

Any thoughts?--Gniniv (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would we add a scientifically false statement? This is old-hat, been proven a 1000 times that these structures can evolve, see Objections_to_evolution. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 03:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh Really? To quote Dawkins from that source  Note my emphasized statements.  He saying "There's got to be", not "there is"!!!  He doesn't sound very confident, and he seems to want to blame people for disagreeing with his trepidation...--Gniniv (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously trying to quote mine here? You think that's going to get you somewhere? — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 03:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dude! You referenced it!!!--Gniniv (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please use proper indents, so these threads are understandable! — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 03:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest we can use Morris and Sarfatti sources for items already listed in the article, as supplemental or replacement refs if existing refs are repetitive (too much talk origins?) or insufficient. I believe I have Refuting Evolution somewhere, just need to dig it up. I'd be curious to learn if there are notable additional objections in that source. - RoyBoy 03:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, I agree that there is to much Talk Origins, and to little actual works by objectors to evolution....--Gniniv (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)I have no issue adding additional objections, provided there is enough sources (And for sources here they can be your creationist non-science sources), but the rebuttal to that objection all the sources there need to be science sources. This page is about the scientific establishments response to those objections. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 03:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is another good one from the same source:


 * A completely fallacious quote. If you want to add something, try adding something that hasn't been proved wrong a 1000 times? — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 03:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Proven wrong-Or dismissed???? If you truly knew what the scientific method is, you would know that nothing can be 100% proven, only partially confirmed by a theory, until a better solution presents itself-That's the true purpose of science....--Gniniv (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, in science nothing is 100% true, not even gravity, we can't even prove we exist. But evolution has been the prevailing theory of the origins of the diversity of life on the planet for over 150 years, and never once, in all of those 150 years, of all the new technology and discoveries, has it ever been proved wrong. Every new discovery affirms it. So... — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 03:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We're getting off-topic again. We shouldn't be discussing the merits of objections. We should be discussing 1) whether they are prominent enough to be placed in the article, 2) where they should go, and 3) what the scientific response to them is. Gniniv, you have not provided any of those 3. Please do. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 03:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree Jess, and here are my answers to your points..
 * Yes, I think Ken Ham Ken Ham Link and Henry M. Morris Henry Morris Link are fairly prominent and according to WP:DUE qualify as a significant minority view
 * I will give that since they are minority views, they belong at the end....
 * The scientific response is clearly suppresion, and censure of the alternative views presented by objectors to evolution-this applies to any alternative theory.... Scientists Shouldn't be Censored

--Gniniv (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly censorship, is it? Okay. Source it please. Per WP:RS if you don't mind. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 04:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, See my links..
 * I didn't ask for sourcing on Ham and Morris. I asked you to source this clear global scientific censorship you're asserting. And I asked you to do it per our established standards on reliable sources. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 06:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think my newslink to censorship of theories in the enviromental science arena provides some convincing evidence of what is going on....--Gniniv (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, proven wrong. That's the basic underlying idea of Popperian ideas of science - that you can disprove things. You know, the whole falsifiability idea. The basic idea underlying Popperian science is that as you disprove one hypothesis after another, what you are left with is the truth. Small-t truth. Guettarda (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, are you guys so insecure that any new ideas that attempt to challenge "Evolution" are automatically wrong? Relax! If evolution really holds water, its evidence will easily refute creationism... When will you answer these quotes with refutations, not insecure opinion???--Gniniv (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Insecure? Nope. "New" challenges? No, not really. These are old ideas - ideas that have been tested and rejected. Or ideas that are impossible to falsify, and thus unscientific. Guettarda (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The same goes for evolution, it is impossible to falsify, thus it is unscientific...So in actuality, we are dealing with a philosophy conflict--Gniniv (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. It's entirely falsifiable. Already covered in the article anyway. Guettarda (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See Objections_to_evolution Guettarda (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If evolution is truly falsifiable, give me just one false point the Theory makes.....--Gniniv (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Seriously? I'm starting to think you're trolling. 3 minutes before this you said you finally read the whole article, which in an of itself is baffling... and you just replied to a link to an entire section on falsifiability, one of the biggest in the article, citing over 21 sources. Where exactly is the confusion? If you're really acting in good faith, you're going to have to show some effort here. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 06:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Specifics
We need to focus on specific ways to improve this article. So you need to make specific suggestions Please try to focus on something that's either not in the article already, or talk about ways that we could improve what's already in the article. This is not the place to discuss the merits of evolution. See WP:NOT. Guettarda (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gniniv, you raised the issue of Jonathon Wells' opposition to evolution. I presume you're talking about the arguments he raised in Icons. Which ones of them do you consider not to be adequately covered in this article? I believe that his 10 broad themes are addressed in the article, but if you believe that there are some that have not been addressed, I'd be happy to discuss them with you.
 * You mentioned irreducible complexity, but that's already discussed in the article.


 * Sounds fine, I was ignorant Jonathon Wells was in the article....--Gniniv (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * True it is discussed, but in a hostile light. We need some opposing quotes in that section to make it more neutral....--Gniniv (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't insert your comments within my signed comment. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we don't need "opposing quotes to make it more neutral". Irreducible complexity has been disproven. Even Behe admitted as much. Guettarda (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think Ken Ham and Henry M. Morris are fairly prominent and according to WP:DUE qualify as a significant minority view - Morris' views are discussed in the article, and he is actually discussed by name. Ham's views are also discussed in the article. As as Sarfati's. Guettarda (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the "discussion" is more about saying why they are wrong, and not what they actually say. I would like the editors t--Gniniv (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)o consider inserting some of the references and quotations that I have above.--Gniniv (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious from what you have written here that you are unfamiliar with the content of the article. If you can't be bothered to read the article, I don't see how we can have a serious discussion of how to modify its content. We're all volunteers here. Guettarda (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point! I am going to take some time off discussing and read the entire article. If you will excuse me....--Gniniv (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I have read the entire article..I still have come to the conclusion that it is written from a negative point of view, but the coverage is better than on the Answers in Genesis Article...--Gniniv (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said in Talk:Evolution, the only objections to Evolution(ary Biology) today are deliberately false states, or are illogical appeals to ignorance, or even deliberately false states that depend on illogical appeals to ignorance (e.g., that all of the fossils of Archaeopteryx are allegedly forgeries). It would be extremely helpful, in that, if you do desire "make this article more neutral," that you use reputable sources for your rebuttals, i.e., peer-reviewed articles from scientific journals.  As it is, you appear to be holding this article hostage simply because this article is not 190% sympathetic to creationists and other anti-science, anti-evolution points of view.--Mr Fink (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Archaeopteryx, how come the Hoatzin is so similar to this claimed transistional fossil if it was supposed to be replaced by "higher" birds???--Gniniv (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How is requesting both sides of a story illogical??--Gniniv (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

All I am trying to do is open of this philosophy article to more alternative perspectives. My sources are reputable enough to be recognized as serious critics of evolution. I have another good candidate for mention below.... --Gniniv (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, if you take Ken Ham's inane attempt at invalidating evolution, Were you there? to heart, we would be forced to also consider all historical events that lack living witnesses, i.e., American Revolutionary War, World War 1, The Reformation, etc, to be fiction, as well as regard that, if you commit a crime without any eyewitnesses, you never did anything to begin with.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, for the historical events you describe, we have oral accounts passed down from people who actually lived the events, as well as significant documentation (newspapers, war antiques etc..). For evolution all that exists are a few dubious fragments of transistional fossils and a overly-idealistic tale of how they got there....--Gniniv (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, COMMON DESCENT is idealistic? Creationism relies on the existence of an all-powerful man in the sky who created the entire world for your benefit! -- King Öomie  12:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I may be so bold, if He didn't do it, than Who did? Aliens? That's what Dawkins seems to think! (See Dawkin's interview with Ben Stien on Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed) Or maybe some twist in a finite universe allows for infinite time, is that it? (String theory)
 * That interview was a hatchet job, according to Dawkins, who ha stated he regrets doing the interview at all. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or, in fact, any theory of how the universe itself was created. It only pertains to how life changes, not where it comes from. In fact, your statement leads me to believe you know basically nothing about this theory you KNOW is false. I can play that game also- I KNOW your god is fake. How could he be his own son? Are they sisters, too? -- King Öomie 14:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is everyone who lived through the War of 1812 dead? Yeah? Good. I'm of the opinion that Germany won that war, and my guess is as good as any other. How can you dispute me? You weren't there. -- King Öomie  14:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I can easily dispute you because historical evidence exists to back me. The hard evidence for evolution is strangely sparse and subject to radical reassessment (See Peking Man--Gniniv (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Gniniv, when you say "negative" do you mean that the objections are not fairly presented, or are you talking about the fact that they are all refuted? You need to bear in mind that these objections are all entirely specious. We can't present falsehoods as if they were true. So, bearing that in mind, what specific improvements would you like to see in the article? Guettarda (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Negative, yes. So what? Do you mean to tell us negative goes against WP:NPOV. To give you a heads up it doesn't. That's why its a GA. - RoyBoy 03:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

And thats why I will continue to challenge its GA status. No article that does not have a NPOV belongs in this criteria.....--Gniniv (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I just got a great tip from a helpful admin on a good, well-recognized critic of current scientific thought. Anyone heard of Mary Midgley? I think her critiques of the replacement of humanities with scientific philosophy warrants some coverage in the article....--Gniniv (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And what would you propose, exactly? <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 04:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe insertion of some of her quotes and books that criticize the dogmatic attitude of the scientific community. Any thoughts?  I will put some ideas below....--Gniniv (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please put specific ideas. That said, criticism of science is not appropriate for this article. At all. This article is about specific objections to a specific scientific theory. Unless she specifically talks about evolution, and specifically attempts to rebut the mechanisms behind it, she won't be added to the article. I think I can say specific a few more times. Specific specific. That's it, it's lost all meaning. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 05:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought the article's name is OBJECTIONS to Evolution, not Acceptance of Evolution.....--Gniniv (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Science and Evolution are far from being synonymous. Even a basic dictionary can tell you that....--Gniniv (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a reference to a pamphlet she wrote about the topic: Biological and Cultural Evolution (1984) Institute for Cultural Research Monograph Series No. 20 ISBN 0-904674-08-8 --Gniniv (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So why should we include this pamphlet when it is over 20 old?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What does it matter if its true??? Darwin's theory of evolution is over 100 years old, and no one seems scared of including the subject in articles....--Gniniv (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Evolutionary Biology is not a humanity, it is not a philosophy, it is a science, therefore, Mary Midgley's inclusion into this article is unwarranted. You consistently refuse to acknowledge the fact that today, there is no scientific opposition OR objections to evolution.  The only opposition and only objections raised against evolution are by people who either refuse to believe in evolution because they were told that God told them not to believe in (or understand) evolution under pain of eternal damnation, or by people who have no intention of understanding biology or science ever.  Furthermore, it is extremely unfair and counterproductive that you continue holding this page hostage because you insist on wanting this page to be rewritten to be biased towards evolution-deniers and other anti-science points of view, even though this page is originally about discussing the objections to evolution, AND why these objections are unfounded.
 * Furthermore, there is nothing dogmatic about wanting to uphold good science, and there is nothing dogmatic about not wanting to lend undue weight to crackpots and frauds.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You continue refusing to explain why your definition of "neutrality" requires giving equal or more weight to crackpots and frauds.--Mr Fink (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

By "good science" you unfortunately do not mean reasoned, empirical study-you mean ardent, philosophical belief..I am not insisting on a bias! Quite the contrary, I am requesting that the page presents the evidence from both sides of the discussion, making this article truly worthy of a GA label that one editor seems so commited to attaining (I think that is quite reasonable, as long as the GA criteria are actually being met, most notably WP:Neutrality).--Gniniv (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I do mean reasoned, empirical study when I say "good science." You will not find reasoned, empirical study amongst any of the writings of evolution-deniers.  Like I said before, you need to recognize that the objections to evolution today, are founded on false statements and appeals to ignorance.  Being "neutral" does not mean we give equal deference to people who deny reality to simply appease their egos, ignorance and piety.--Mr Fink (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As this is the Objections to evolution article, it needs to recognize that many (if not most) objections come from outside the scientific community...--Gniniv (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your point here is what exactly? Are you simply making the factual observation that "objections" to evolution come from outside science, or are you somehow trying to suggest that this means that they should be treated with kid-gloves, or perhaps even venerated as The Truth?  You need to explain why, on a matter of science, non-scientific sources should be given equal weight to reliable sources such as scientific papers.  Pretending that objections to evolution are "philosophical" and therefore OK to be non-scientific is not a successful strategy.  --P LUMBAGO  07:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If this was the Evolutionary biology article I would be inclined to agree with you, but it isn't...This article is about objections to evolution-whether they be philosophical or scientific-so having a philospher in the article is not uncalled for. Anyways, it seems to me that most scientists have an almost philosophical "faith" in their theory, no matter what opposition is raised against it..--Gniniv (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a good quote in which she replied to criticism "Mr Mackie's article is not the only indication I have lately met of serious attention being paid to [Dawkins's] fantasies. (See Mary Midgley main article for reference)" --Gniniv (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Gniniv, you are quickly approaching issues with WP:Civil and WP:AFG. Multiple responses you've posted above are rude and unnecessarily accusatory. You need to calm down, and work constructively with other editors.<span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 06:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as you can see I have taken a cool-down period, and I apologise if my comments were out of line...--Gniniv (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In passing ... Gniniv — do you have the slightest idea of the context of the quotation that you've used above?  I'm guessing not since it has nothing to do with objections to evolution (remember: why we're here), and is in fact from Midgley's (marvellously inept) "review" of The Selfish Gene, which is Midgley's rant against Dawkins, not evolution.  As well as pushing the boundaries noted by Jess, you're looking rather troll-like with your repeated inability to come up with anything reliable to support your contentions of non-neutrality here.  Time for a break?  --P LUMBAGO  07:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, one gets the impression that Gniniv's purpose here, besides holding this article hostage, is to repeatedly shame everyone for not adhering to his own personal interpretation of neutrality, i.e., not giving equal or greater deference to creationists and people who bash Dawkins for a living.--Mr Fink (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that Midgley quotation refers to her objections to Dawkin's argument that reciprocal altruism is an entirely genetic trait. Howe exactly this relates to the general topic of evolution is a mystery to me. Indeed, on p445 of that book review Midgley makes a reasonable (if a little confused) attempt at explaining Darwin's ideas.


 * Hardly the words of somebody with philosophical objections to evolution! Tim Vickers (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So let's see if we can move this forward. There is quite clearly no consensus for rewriting the entire article to satisfy Gniniv's preferences.  However, there seems to be some consensus that including quotes from prominent Creationists under the relevant objections would be acceptable.


 * Gniniv: the onus is on you to explain EXACTLY what you want changed, and how. Others have pointed this out.  Saying "I want the article to be more neutral" is not fulfilling your obligations.  Saying "I want to include quotes by Ken Ham" is not fulfilling your obligations.  You need to say which quote you want included, where, and in what context.  That's how this process works.


 * So: I'm going to propose that you provide us with a list of five SPECIFIC changes you want made. Be precise.  I, at least, promise to examine and discuss those requested changes in good faith.  However, if you're not willing to offer up those specifics, then we need to move on; you don't have the right to keep the article in a state of limbo forever based on a vague and general desire for "more neutrality."  --BRPierce (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to point out you've never edited this article before, or posted on it's talk page before this post, and primary edit creationist articles... — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 01:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ...and if you look at my edit history on those articles, you'll find that I'm strongly critical of Creationism. (Incidentally, I think it would be more accurate to say that I don't edit much, period, and I suspect that the majority of my edits actually involve various works of literature.)  I monitor the evolution and creation articles fairly closely though; right now, this is going nowhere fast, and has spilled over into other talk pages.  I'd like to see it resolved, so I thought I'd toss in a suggestion.  Sorry if it came out of the blue.  --BRPierce (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your help is appreciated, and if you hadn't noticed everyone here has their "pseudoscience" radar on alert, so getting things added that violate WP:DUE or isn't a WP:RS isn't going to happen. And I must admit I didn't read a lot of your posts, just noticed that you hadn't posted here before and there was a lot of your posts on creationist pages. Sorry if I misjudged. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 01:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally understand, and I appreciate you diligence to uphold the neutrality of this encyclopedia...--Gniniv (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Trying again
Let's try to keep this on focus. We need to stop arguing about the merits of the underlying content (evolution, creation) and focus on the article content. It's important to stay on topic. Anything not related to improving the article needs to go somewhere else, preferably not on Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While this is a scientific topic, it's largely about opposition which comes from outside science. I don't think it's helpful to get off on the whole "scientific sources" issue here.
 * That said, the objections need to be notable. They should not be repeated - if the same issue is raised by three people in three slightly different ways, it's still the same issue
 * We need to give priority to secondary sources, which is why things like Numbers' book is such an important source. We shouldn't be the ones sifting through objections and deciding which to include or omit.
 * NPOV requires us to document all notable views on a topic. So it goes without saying that we can't have "objections" without "rebuttals".
 * Gniniv needs to come up with concrete proposals for things s/he wants added. Not references, not quotes, but actual suggestions for based on reliable sources. And "I think x should be added to section y because of z", not "we need to add x to the article".
 * Also, no more conspiracy theories about scientists 'supressing' creationist input to peer-reviewed journals. That one is just starting to make me angry. -- King Öomie  20:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no strong feelings towards including all kinds of metaphysical inspired debate refuting evolution. Objection is objection. But we should then also clearly state it is some philosophical idea and not in any way supported by science.---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  20:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, by science you mean the currently accepted explanation for the origin of life, not reasoned empirical study...--Gniniv (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You have been asked to stop with the conspiracies and trolling: furthermore, creationists do not use "reasoned empirical study" to support their claims and lies. If you want us to assume that you REALLY WANT TO IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE, accusing us of being some sort of anti-science philosophers simply because we do not agree with your own arbitrary interpretation of "science" does not help your case at all.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay! I am back and will provide a concise list of improvements that could be made to the article's current configuration (See Below):


 * We need to add 4 or 5 prominent critics of evolution (whether from a philosophical or scientific standpoint) in the lead section that we don't already have. A few ideas could be Mary Midgley, Werner Gitt etc...
 * We need to present the actual arguments against evolution (not mischaracterizations). For example:


 * should not be said to mean that creationists criticize "science" or even "Evolution" in the since of Natural Selection-in reality the criticism in this argument is being pointed toward Macroevolution which is (obviously) impossible to observe due to the enormous amounts of time said to be involved.
 * should not be said to mean that creationists criticize "science" or even "Evolution" in the since of Natural Selection-in reality the criticism in this argument is being pointed toward Macroevolution which is (obviously) impossible to observe due to the enormous amounts of time said to be involved.


 * Finally, we need to include more works by actual critics of evolution in the outside link and reference section, and links to websites that are critical of evolution such as The Institute for Creation Research. We should also have books by objectors like:
 * Refuting Evolution 2 ISBN 0-89051-387-2 (Jonathan Sarfati), Biological and Cultural Evolution (1984) ISBN 0-904674-08-8 (Mary Midgley) etc...


 * Any thoughts?--Gniniv (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are some thoughts. Over to you. --P LUMBAGO 08:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Saying we need "4 or 5 prominent critics" without specifying who they should be, or what they should be critiquing (especially in an article that already contains a number of "avenues of critique"), is insufficient.  The article is stuffed full of misguided or erroneous criticism that has been discounted; for us to add new "criticism", it first needs to be clear on what is being criticised (and by whom).
 * 2) Saying "actual arguments against evolution (not mischaracterizations)" without saying what these arguments are is similarly absurd.  You are aiming to provide a concise list of improvements, but are simply not listing any at all.  Stating that we want improvements ≠ suggesting improvements.
 * 3) Sarfati's points are (a) wrong on new species, see speciation; and (b) already covered in the article, cf. "creationists specify that they are objecting only to macroevolution, not microevolution".  Unless you have in mind some other point of his - in which case, make it clear here.
 * 4) Again: have you read anything above about Mary Midgley?  She is not a critic of evolution; instead, she aims to be a critic of the gene-centered view of evolution, which is not the same thing.  Even she might baulk at being co-opted by creationists.
 * 5) Linking failed creationist attacks on evolution violates WP:NPOV and is emphatically not what an encyclopaedia is about (i.e. informing readers with the best available information).  Incorporating them as sources within the text (i.e. placing them in context with their refutations) is different.  As before, if you think that there are valid critiques out there that are missing here, tell us about them.  It's that easy.


 * I agree! If we were to include Dr. Werner Gitt we would need to specify that his critique of evolution is largely through information theory... --Gniniv (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I did specify what the argument was, in this case Sarfati's quote from his book.--Gniniv (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but we could have both that statement and the quote to reinforce what an actual creationist said about the argument...
 * True, but realize this article is not about "Creationist Objections to evolution" (That is reserved for the Creation-evolution controversy article) it is about all objections to all aspects of evolution. Mary Midgley deserves mention because she has criticized the philosophical posturing of proponents of evolutionary theory.--Gniniv (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The definition of "best" is in the eye of the beholder! Naturally, as a YEC I could say the same thing about my fellow editors linking to Pro-evolutionary content. The basic quality of the sources (verfiable, fairly prominent, grammar, etc..) should naturally be checked; but I believe WP:NPOV will be minimized and WP:Neutrality preserved if we include editors and references from opposing perspectives.--Gniniv (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Plumbago pretty well sums it up. Gniniv, you're still speaking in general terms: "It would be nice if we had more objections by critics of evolution."  That's not what's needed here.  The reality is that nobody else is going to write these changes; if you want them, you're going to have to write them.  That means saying EXACTLY what changes you want to make--not "I want to put some prominent critics in the lead," but "I want to put THIS quote by THIS critic in THIS location in the lead for THIS reason."


 * That being said, I think including specific critics in the lead is a bad idea. That's not what the lead is for, and I don't think it should be loaded down with specific deniers of evolution OR with specific defenders of evolution; instead, it should present the big picture, and save the specifics for the body of the article.


 * You may want to be cautious about claims such as "Macroevolution is obviously impossible to observe"--by the generally-accepted definition, macroevolution has been observed many times. --BRPierce (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That is fine! So long as we include them somewhere, it doesn't really matter where we put them.--Gniniv (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct. We could add a statement like: "though Macroevolution is commonly accepted to have been observed countless times by the modern scientific community, many creationists question that claim."--Gniniv (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

@Gniniv: There are some things we must address if you have any intention of making this conversation successful. Seriously. I'm tired of cleaning up the messes you're leaving behind on talk pages so the discussion is understandable, and asking for and sifting through requests for specific details. I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to follow these requests, then there's no way I can take you or your position seriously, as by ignoring convention, you're making no effort to be understood. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 06:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Please indent your posts appropriately. You've been reminded of this numerous times by numerous editors.
 * 2) Please don't break up posts before a sig. Respond to comments as a whole. Not doing so creates a horrible mess where we can't attribute comments to people in any reasonable way. You've been reminded of this numerous times by numerous editors as well.
 * 3) Please respond to requests for specifics with specific details. You've been asked for this I don't know how many times. That means the exact text, to be placed in the exact place, for the exact reason. All 3. Not 1 of the 3. Not 2 of the 3. All three.


 * I'd second Jess' points - specific edits are what is required. Further, regarding your seemingly specific remark about macroevolution above, what is missing from the article that isn't currently covered by:
 * “... creationists specify that they are objecting only to macroevolution, not microevolution: most creationist organizations do not dispute the occurrence of short-term, relatively minor evolutionary changes, such as that observed even in dog breeding. Rather, they dispute the occurrence of major evolutionary changes over long periods of time, which by definition cannot be directly observed, only inferred from microevolutionary processes and the traces of macroevolutionary ones.”
 * It sounds like you're either wanting the same point made twice, or that you simply haven't read the article. Finally, I can't help but point out yet again that Mary Midgley does not object to evolution so is an inappropriate source here.  Her tone might suit your viewpoint, but her content does not.  She might just fit in over at gene-centered view of evolution except for the fact that others have better articulated similar points.  Anyway, until I see at least a hint of specific edits that don't replicate material already covered in the article, I'm done here.  --P LUMBAGO  11:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay! I keep forgetting to indent properly, and I appreciate that you brought it up.  I agree that responding to specific points may be convenient for me, but it messes up the talk page.  Thanks for reminding me of these proper formatting tips.
 * But, I do believe in answer to your last tip (number 3) I have specified the exact rationale behind what I wanted to include. For example, when I requested we include more books that actually have arguments to evolution, I gave Sarfati's Refuting Evolution 2 as a good prospect and suggested that it go in the reference section.  You can challenge me if you want (I may be wrong) but I think you can agree that both of our goals is to keep this article as WP:NPOV as possible, despite our personal POV....--Gniniv (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this talkpage for a while and thought I might just add my 2 cents in the hopes that this will hurry along. Gniniv, what everyone else means by being specific is they want the actual text exactly how you want it in the article.  This basically means take the section you disagree with and rewrite it and post that rewrite in the discussion (or if you don't wanna write over something, write a new section). FrostyM288 (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. We have a specific change proposed: if I understand correctly, Gniniv would like to list Sarfati's Refuting Evolution 2 as a source for the claim that there's a distinction between micro- and macroevolution.  Thoughts?  --BRPierce (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's already added the quote in the text, and it hasn't been reverted, so I'd say that it's ok with other editors for now. I'm actually fine with adding specific quotes to each section which are representative of the objection raised. Particularly if we can find concise ones, and use the proper styling, I think it could really add something to the article. That said, I have a sneaking suspicion that it goes against the manual of style somehow. If anyone with more experience copyediting can attest to this (either way), it would be helpful. If I'm wrong, then it would be great for other editors (Gniniv included) to find short representative quotes for each objection and post them here. Thoughts on this proposal are welcome! <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 03:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think a quote from Behe instead of Sarfati would be more relevant for that section, and I tend to agree quotes from leading proponents of the objection would improve the article. So I didn't see any reason to remove it, but a Behe quote I think would be best there since the article states hes first introduced that objection. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 18:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd agree. On this point, Behe is more pertinent and credible than Sarfati (of whom, I can't find any scientific publications at all).  The quote is effectively describing irreducible complexity which is the work of Behe, so Sarfati is not the best source.  --P LUMBAGO  11:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That is fine, if someone can find a similar quote from Behe, please replace Sarfati's quote. I agree that he is not as notable as Behe....--Gniniv (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)