Talk:Objections to evolution/Archive 7

Proposed renaming of article
Anyone else think it might be a good idea to rename this article Scientific objections to evolution in order to make it clear that the topic is about science, and not philosophy or religion? That could nip this in the bud, although it opens the door to an article entitled Religious objections to evolution. Whether that would be good or bad is debatable. —Torchiest talk/contribs 17:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose — raeky ( talk 17:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What's your reasoning for opposing? —Torchiest talk/contribs 17:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it's not necessary. Because (a) Scientific objections to evolution, there are NO scientific objections to evolution. and (b) Religious objections to evolution are what this article is about and the scientific rebuttal to them. — raeky ( talk 17:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was sloppy on my part. I only glanced at the article, specifically the falsifiability section, and thought it was about decades old scientific objections that had since been cleared up.  Looking at it more closely, I see I misunderstood the content and withdraw my suggestion. —Torchiest talk/contribs 17:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I just don't think we need to split the article up this way. Not least because the lead is pretty clear on what the origins of the listed objections are (i.e. largely religious; but couched in scientific language).  --P LUMBAGO  17:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per P LUMBAGO 's reasoning Sepia officinalis (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose totally agree with Raeky--Etrusko25 (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that I understand the contents of the article better, I'm withdrawing my suggestion entirely. —Torchiest talk/contribs 23:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Khan academy
Could be unsuitable as its a tutorial, but possible good reference for evolution basics in relation to objections. - RoyBoy 03:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wonderful set of videos, but are not much use for this article. Maybe useful to Gniniv to learn the basics though. — raeky ( talk 05:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! I am quite aware of the principles behind the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection.  What I am questioning (See above) is the equivalence of the two....--Gniniv (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it that difficult to indent? And what do you mean equivalence of the two? You contending that the two are not dependent on each other? Do you accept Natural Selection but reject Evolution? — raeky ( talk 05:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Gniniv, From your babbling and repeating of debunked lies, including your latest nonsensical belching about "information," such as your snide question about how much information being required to "turn a trilobite into a t-rex," it is painfully obvious that you deliberately refuse to understand even the most rudimentary concepts in Biology. It's my suggestion that you need to demonstrate to us that you are capable of understanding science, besides stop using religious propaganda produced by creationist liars as your sole source of scientific information.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Raeky: Believe it or not, I do! Natural Selection is the shuffling of a pre-existing gene pool to fit the current enviroment. Evolution (with a capital E) is the creation of new information that appears out of nowhere to fit the modern scientific community's whim (See my replies above for more detail) .--Gniniv (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you think Lenski's detailed observation of the evolution of citrate-digesting Escherichia coli is magic? Seriously, why do you insist on wasting our time with babbling and ranting about scientists conspiring to suppress creationism and intelligent design?  Do you think it's evil scientist magic that causes creationists and intelligent design proponents to lack the desire to do research?--Mr Fink (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well luckily for the rest of us your completely nonsensical illogical and flat out wrong beliefs are as easy to spot as a white peppered moth on a black tree, so we'll be happy to naturally select them out of the gene pool (article). — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 06:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gniniv, there is nothing (example, evidence, expert) to demonstrate natural selection cannot give rise to evolution over the micro and macro time spans; which is the only meaningful distinction there is between micro/macro evolution. Speciation can also be regarded as macroevolution, as population groups that no longer interbreed continue to diverge, every animal shows this... from horses, to finches to fruit flies. The article will progress to FA quality shortly, I hope you progress. - RoyBoy 02:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I laughed out loud at that one. Nice Raeky. :)
 * @Gniniv You're being told by numerous editors (who have scoured sources for this article) that you don't understand the topic. The question is, are you honest enough to hear that and research it? Whether you're honest or not, either way, this isn't the place for discussion. Take your opinions to talk origins, or frankly, anywhere else. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 06:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:TE
I am going to follow the above policy in situations described like this and will quit editing this article until further notice.--Gniniv (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As a note to other editors, before I suggesting shunning in the section above, I posted on the COI Noticeboard here. As noted in my comment, I'm not sure if that was the right course of action, but since Gniniv seems intent on participating, I guess I'll leave it up and see how it goes. To the other editors here: Feel free to participate if and how you see fit. 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 07:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I watch WP:COIN and marked your report as "resolved" because it definitely is not a COI issue and should not clutter that noticeboard (I suggested WP:DIS as a possible avenue, but I don't see why that is needed now). The best strategy has been outlined in the previous section: politely revert any unhelpful edits made by anyone, for example, with edit summary "poorly sourced per talk page consensus". Do not post write-only messages to this talk page (that is, if no one is going to read your message, it's just feeding the excitement to post). There is no urgency here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks John. After I proposed the section above, I considered deleting the COI noticeboard request. You're right that's a much better course of action. 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 14:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Opinion Poll
I apologize if this has been brought up before, but I am concerned that the public opinion poll cited at the bottom of the article describing the proportion of scientists accepting evolution is inaccurate. Specifically, I feel that we should try to find poll data using biologists as a benchmark, not just scientists in general. The reason, of course, is that the rate of acceptance of evolution among those trained in a relevant field- medicine, biology, ecology- is likely to be much greater than the overall rate, which includes those who may not have had formal training in evolutionary biology. Sepia officinalis (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Our current source for that data is here, which only lists comparisons of the general public to American scientists. If you can find a reliable source which cites statistics for biologists (I imagine American biologists would be preferable for consistency), it might be a good addition to the table. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 16:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits on Jun 26
Reverted Gniniv's recent edits again... for much the same reason as has already been discussed ad nauseum. @Gniniv: ...and so forth. Your edits are making the article POV, and they can and will be reverted every time. Please stop inserting the same type of content into the article. Find sources, and quote those 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 03:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Again, we cannot add "mainstream" before "science", "scientists", etc everywhere in the article. This is POV pushing.
 * 2) You can't add emphasis to quotes in the article. This is POV pushing.
 * 3) You can't say creationist claims have "gained traction" without sourcing the assertion. This is POV pushing.


 * I added "mainstream" just to clarify that "all" scientists do not subscribe to evolutionary theory (See Jonathan Sarfatietc...) if you have a better term that clarifies the position better I would appreciate it.


 * Note that I did not say creationist claims, I said the intelligent design movement..As for the sources they were already present in the article...--Gniniv (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your clarifications contain too much in the way of weasel words in order to push your own POV that Intelligent Design is a legitimate minority of scientists. For example, when and where has the concept of irreducible complexity "gained traction"?  As far as I know, absolutely no one, not even Michael Behe, has done any research to confirm it.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Gniniv, you're edit warring again. When your changes are reverted and discussion is opened on the talk page, the appropriate response is not to say 'I disagree' and re-add your changes. These POV issues have been discussed over and over again. Please stop. Add and quote sources to the article if you must, but all other "npov improvements" you find should be discussed here first. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 06:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this conversation for a while... I don't think Gniniv quite grasps the concept of neutrality... Maybe the rest of you could have a go at explaining exactly why peer-reviewed science is considered in the situation while religious views are not, I don't think Gniviv quite understands why it is that way, they're probably under the assumption that there is bias in the article. However, if that fails, I think there should be some action done to stop their irrational actions affecting the validity of the article. MitchincredibleII (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When we try to explain that the concept of neutrality does not automatically entail giving equal, if not greater deference to a fringe minority to Gniniv, he accuses us of being illogical, philosophical and or religious fanatics.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tried twice myself, to no effect. There is an unjustified perception that ID/creation science simply isn't treated fairly by science (not given a chance), and by extension this article. Which I find peculiar given the Dover trial findings / cross examination on record, and the lack of any alternative to speciation being better; let alone speciation being incorrect in any way. - RoyBoy 21:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite it being obvious, does he actually know there are pages which also represent his views which are also neutral. Why does evolution and related pages have to suffer from his POV when ID pages don't suffer from POV of anyone else? MitchincredibleII (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As you can see, I reverted most of my inflammatory edits. This page is not about evolution, it is about "objections to evolution" which is an entirely different topic (one deals largely with scientific theory, the other with scientific philosophy)   All I ask is that actual objections to evolution are included in the article without being removed due to POV.  I agree that neutrality should be upheld and please bring to my attention any of my edits that you view as fringe or inaccurate and I will try to explain them or remove them.--Gniniv (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! These even more recent edits are priceless. Some of us notice the heat from the Sun when we step outside, while others ("such as Richard Dawkins"!!!) think the energy for evolution must have an extraterrestial origin (well, I guess the Sun counts as "extraterrestial"). I love the citation needed on "Organisms ... are open systems". Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As most would say, avoid inflammatory edits to being with; unless it stand scrutiny. Why would organisms being open systems need to be reference anyway? Dang, Johnuniq beat me! - RoyBoy 04:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I like how one of his sources is saying that because of the Heat death of the universe theory means evolution is false.. it's not even based on current science. Oh and the need a reference for an organism not being a closed system, thats truely comical. I think even entry level high school biology should teach you organisms don't live in glass bottles. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 04:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Gniniv, your recent edits are considered POV because you're rewriting things to suggest that Intelligent Design proponents and Creationists actually have reputable standing in the scientific community, which they do not, as well as your trying to suggest that there allegedly isn't actually that much support of evolutionary biology in the scientific community. For example, how can "irreducible complexity gain traction in recent years"?  Michael Behe has been the only person to mention it in depth, and even he has never ever bothered to do any research or study to confirm it.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In refering to Richard Dawkin's belief in extraterrestrial influences I was pointing to his claim that life on earth was brought by an alien race (See Dawkins and Aliens), not the sun's radiant energy. To quote the Second Law of Thermodynamics: '''"in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." (from )''' The net energy in any system (whether closed or open) cannot increase-it can only be converted into a different form (to use a organism example: radiative energy from the sun must be converted into glucose by the plant's chlorophyll to power the plant). The net potential energy in the system we are looking at (the sun and the earth ) cannot and will not increase; it only converts into a different form and decays when no new energy is transferred from outside a open system. Macroevolution violates this principle by adding energy (in the form of genetic information) to a system without a outside cause. (See Second Law of Thermodynamics). The difference between so called "closed" and "open" systems merely lies in what you are measuring as the system. If you are just looking at one component of a closed system, than we naturally refer to that part as a open system, even though it is in reality a part of the larger closed system (such as the universe). I agree my edits could use some work and help, but I would like the editors to consider the argument I just raised and critique parts of it.--Gniniv (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the most asinine statement I've read in a long time. Genetic information is just chemical bonds, like chlorophyll that turns CO2 plus the sun's energy into Glucose. Thats using that energy to make/break chemical bonds. Genetic information, mutations, etc, is just different chemical bonds. There is NO difference. The dribble you just spouted above makes NO sense, and it's CLEAR you have no scientific background or even basic science knowledge. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 05:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind telling me (and my references) what specifically is wrong with what I said I would be much obliged.....--Gniniv (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Everything, every single point in that statement is wrong. The argument that evolution breaks the laws of thermodynamics is laughable, every scientist in the world laughs at it. It's like the "Evidence" the flat earthers bring out to prove their "theory." It's absolutely not based on science, and exploits the lack of scientific knowledge of the general public to give it credence. You can't have it both ways, if an organism can use outside energy to make chemical bonds in one process you can't say it's not allowed to make chemical bonds in another. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 05:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Gniniv, among other things, evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics: the 2nd law doesn't even apply to genetics or evolution. If evolution did violate the 2nd law, organisms could not produce offspring, undergo mitosis or fission, or even grow in size.  Furthermore, you really need to sit down, and read an introductory textbook on biology before you make any more foolish statements like this one.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Gniniv: What is sad about all this is that the reality of life is far more interesting and stimulating than any of the nonsense you have been reading. Surely no amount of drinking the Kool-Aid could make you think that Dawkins really believes that little green men started life on earth? Dawkins simply gave an honest answer along the lines that (1) evolution is about what happened after life got started, and (2) it is not certain how life started, and it might be possible that Hoyle's panspermia was the origin of life on Earth (although, life had to start somewhere). Re energy: Animals eat stuff – that's how they get their energy. Some animals eat plants which in turn get energy from the sun. All energy for evolution comes from the sun (with rare exceptions, like life around hydrothermal vents). The sun shines as brightly today as it did when you were born. That's what provides energy to Earth. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Now to turn to the genetic information relationship- the parent sources of genetic information contribute their respective chromosomes in reproductive cells by each contributing half (If asexual they merely clone themselves). We all know that one half plus one half equals one, making the daughter organism.  Any differences between the parent and daughter organisms are from the ordering of the genetic information and the contributions of the other parent (with possible loss of information due to genetic copying errors commonly known as mutations).  The net amount of genetic information did not and cannot change without outside additions to the daughter's chromosome (for which no mechanism exists in the modern theory of evolution).  This principle I just described is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution.  Microevolution involves the reordering of genetic information coupled with possible loss of genetic diversity that is the source of differences observed between related organisms(say Shetland Pony and Zebra-both members of the Horse family and yet exhibit strong differences that are a result of genetic reordering and loss within the family) Macroevolution, in contrast, is the formation of "new" genes that "fortunately" add together without any known mechanism.  Macroevolution is not a extrapolation of Microevolution, they are totally different concepts.   --Gniniv (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Gniniv, you are babbling, and you are repeating lies. Neutrality does not entail repeating lies, or repeating nonsense.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There has been no research or evidence done or found that supports a separation between Microevolution and Macroevolution, NOR DO MUTATIONS ENTAIL A "LOSS OF INFORMATION" ESPECIALLY SINCE CREATIONISTS REFUSE TO DEFINE WHAT "GENETIC INFORMATION" IS. So, if you want make improvements to this or other articles, do so, but be forewarned that they will be heavily altered or reverted if your changes introduce deliberately false information, nonsense, or pushes a POV suggesting that Intelligent Design Theory /Scientific Creationism is not actually an extremely disreputable fringe minority.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Gniniv Dawkins addresses Ben Stein's quote mining in conferences filmed here (Response begins at 3:30) and again here. It's also addressed on his site here and on the la times, in addition to our own wikipedia article. To parrot such a complete pile of garbage as Expelled without first doing a cursory google search on the topic is nothing short of dishonesty. Furthermore, wikipedia is not a forum; Your comments here are inappropriate, and in the case of this most recent one, complete gibberish. Take this elsewhere. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 06:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) @Gniniv: You need to get rid of your idea there is Microevolution and Macroevolution, because there isn't a division like that. Biologists don't make that division, only people who can't accept for reasons of their faith the implications of speciation try to make the distinction. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 06:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's starting to get a bit rowdy in here, but I think after this amount of time, with ths amount of commenting, believing in Gniviv's 'good faith' would simply be gullible. They're clearly corrupting this page with POV and outrightedly disregard Wikipedia's pre-formed standards in general and for the particular topic of evolution. Wikipedia even disagrees with Gniviv, everything they have said has already been covered in editing rules for Evolution and related topics. Even if they actually believed they are more correct than Wikipedia when it comes to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, they should obey the rules of Wikipedia, if they don't, then action must be taken. This is a website dedicated for gathering valid information and people like Gniviv are exploiting it to misinform people with their personal POV with no decent or accurate references! MitchincredibleII (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Gniniv: No known mechanism for new genes? That's strange, as its been shown entire chromosomes can fuse (humans compared to apes), duplicate, mis-copy creating new combinations and variety for an individual on the chromosomal level. The changes for genes are less dramatic, yet they occur, frequently. Though I am curious, what members of the horse family have "lost" (or have less) genetic information? Are you somehow privy to analytical genetic comparisons of that family tree, that shows clearly how speciation occurs slowly, yet still occurs (successful interbreeding can be difficult)? Or are you pulling that from thin air? - RoyBoy 03:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is some modern research on the chromosomal movement of centromeres in horse, donkey, and zebra. - RoyBoy 03:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm late to this party, but to specifically address the 2nd Law argument, there's no violation anywhere. Our solar system is, in its entirety, approaching entropy as the sun uses up its fuel. We're in a state of only semi-permanent equilibrium- in several billion years, the Earth will be consumed by the expanding sun, and several billion years after that, the sun will go out entirely, plunging the surviving planets into cold and darkness. But until then, we're awash in an incredible amount of energy for organisms to use. -- King Öomie  14:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv's Defense

 * @Mr Fink I would be happy if you would explain what I am wrong on-I am open to correction and critique...--Gniniv (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your mistakes and falsehoods have already been pointed out to you in this thread, and elsewhere on the Internet: With the way you accuse us of being religious fanatics because we reject Creationism and Intelligent Design Theory as being nonscience, or your snide responses when we point out that you are just wrong, such as your question about "information needed to turn a trilobite into a t-rex," it appears that you are very closed to correction or critique.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Mr Fink True! No research by the modern scientific community is done on the topic due to a strong lack of support for principles that violate the current consensus. All I can say is no advancement will occur in theoretical science until new ideas are dealt with and debated without being pushed off the table as "crazy".--Gniniv (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * With your appeal to fairness, you miss my points entirely, possibly deliberately so. Think about it...  Michael Behe claimed that various biological structures, like flagella, are "irreducibly complex," that they were so complicated that they needed an Intelligent Designer to create them, using means and methods beyond the ken of mortal researchers.  A claim Behe made without ever doing any research at all, nor providing any evidence whatsoever beyond his own disbelief.  Furthermore, "irreducible complexity" is dismissed because it is contradicted by research and evidence showing that biological structures have evolved from other, often very different structures.  So explain to us why it is unfair to dismiss an idea if the person who proposed it in the first place is too lazy to provide evidence for it?  If anything, to accept a new idea solely because it violates current consensus, rather than having evidence to support it is ludicrous.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Mann_jess It may be a little off-topic, but I still find it amusing that he indicated belief in aliens fathering all life on earth...--Gniniv (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Raeky I totally agree. Most biologists reject any distinction between Macroevolution and Microevolution because it is far more convenient to label processes that use Microevolution as "Evolution".  Simplifying the distinction between genetic recombinations, and the "magical" creation of new information is naturally appealing to those who accept Macroevolution.--Gniniv (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @MitchIncredible I agree! If you don't mind telling me where I am getting out of line in bringing up these objections, please tell me.--Gniniv (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @RoyBoy You are totally correct that chromosomes can fuse! What they cannot do, and what I am trying to make a point on is:  Genes cannot appear out of nowhere!  They have to have a parent (or other outside source) putting them together, whether through fusion or recombination.  Without a source "pool" from which to derive the information, no new combination or reshuffle is possible...--Gniniv (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not denying the process of speciation (or interbreeding). I am pointing (in the horse example) that though horses can (to a point) exhibit features different from other members of their family (leading to classification as different species or even different genera) there is never any gain in information (say a pair of fairy wings) that magically appears in the breeding population (which did not exist in the parent genes).  The cards can be shuffled or lost, but they can not increase... --Gniniv (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @King Oomie And what is the source of that "incredible amount of information?". Why the sun of course! You see we both agree that energy (and information) require a source to produce the result.  What is the source of the "new" information required to turn a trilobite into a tyrannosaurus? --Gniniv (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Gniniv, you apparently haven't read or understood anything that was said. Your response to me is indicative of the whole mess. I linked you to 2 youtube videos, 2 news articles, and a wikipedia article which explicitly quote and explain Dawkins' comment. Instead of reading or listening to any of them, you replied only by paraphrasing your initial comment. You're trolling. Take this somewhere else. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 05:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear new genes routinely occur, can be duplicated and then put to new uses, routinely. Seems you are going for the "first source pool", take that line of argument to the abiogenesis article (actually don't, boring for them too). I don't know how the first gene (drop / puddle) formed, nor do you! Serious dude, *yawn*, if you don't have a verifiable answer we aren't interested in hand of designer disingenuous guesswork because of a gap in knowledge. - RoyBoy 02:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I read the article (wikipedia) you gave and it seems the people interviewed were merely complaining that their perspective was shared so candidly....--Gniniv (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * People were complaining that the interviewers deliberately lied to them in order to get footage that was then manipulated to put words into their mouths.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A), I said "energy", not "information"- and B), you're pulling from a crock of nonsense, the notion that "Mutations can't add information". If you defined what you mean by "information", you'd literally be the first creationist to do so. If you just mean adding genetic code, I can name a famous example of a random mutation causing a SIGNIFICANT increase in "information"- Down Syndrome occurs when individuals have 3 copies of Chromosome 21 instead of 2, a single mutation increasing the amount of genetic code in every cell by 0.75%, or 23,500,000 base pairs. Something about the structure of our genes makes that particular condition fairly common. Similar, though less... detrimental mutations in the past have almost undoubtedly created upstart species all by themselves. -- King Öomie 05:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Response
I think we're probably at the point where we should start considering Gniniv's edits as vandalism and warning/blocking accordingly. Hes showing absolutely no willingness listen to others and his only goal is to try to inject his pseudoscience, bold face lies and conspiracy theories into the article. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 05:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am happy to debate and discuss all sides of any issue. What I cannot accept is blanket suppression of all alternative perspectives.  How about instead of accusing me of vandalism you answer my points above....--Gniniv (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I want it to be clear that I am acting in good faith and will accept comment or correction on inaccurate/inappropriate information.--Gniniv (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And for the 100th time you apparently can't learn how to indent a conversion so people can read and follow it! This isn't about "discussing all sides of the issue" this is about you not willing to accept that your faith based ideas are not grounded in science and don't belong in a science article. You can't put in an idea that is clearly a lie and represent it as truth, we're not going to allow that. And virtually every "objection" to evolution is lies. We've asked you countless times to backup your edits with verifiable documentation or anything to indicate the responses we have to the "objections" is incorrect or wrong, but you keep repeating the same old lies and we keep reverting you. We're getting to the point that blocking you is the only option. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 05:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I know I am slow with the indents (thanks for the help)--Gniniv (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that I would say the same thing about your perspective, if I was voicing my own opinion.  As this article is about all information (and the open sharing of such) relevant to the topic, we need to be careful to include everybody who has an interest in the subject (obviously per WP:Weight) and not turn to removing valid arguments because we happen to disagree with them.  Now will you answer my replies above?--Gniniv (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So you believe that, just a random number here, if 0.01% of a group believes something that is contradictory to the 99.99% that we should give equal platform to both groups due to WP:Weight even if there is mountains of evidence backing up the 99.99%'s position and nothing to backup the 0.01%'s position? — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 05:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course not! I believe we have the statistics in the article showing a substantial percentage of the General Population (of the U.S.) do not accept evolution.  As we are obviously all aware that there are people who question the theory (whether they are religious or not) the objectors must be substantial enought to propagate their views enough to become visible.  I am not advocating equal weight (I don't think I have said that) nor have I proposed removing pro-evolution material.  All that I ask is we include objections to evolution, not just rebuttals to creationism...--Gniniv (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Who cares what Americans believe, this is article is global. And it's a science article, popular opinion means nothing to it's WP:Weight. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 06:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Two points. I don't think we want to include Weight as global (for your sake) if this article is to remain pro-evolution.  Outside of the developed world, most people still hold to ingrained religously based creation accounts that strongly differ with the evolutionary perspective Creation myths.  Second point, this (for the zillionth time) is not a science article! It is a philosophy of science article, making it open to all perspectives (and objections)....--Gniniv (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not open to perspectives that require giving undue weight to false information, or making unsubtle suggestions that there is an evil conspiracy among scientists to stifle Creationism, Intelligent Design, or other anti-science movements.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * More like in the rest of the industrialized world people accept science and evolution (source). — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 06:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So, when is someone going to answer my points at the top of this mini-section (see top of Gniniv's Defense section)?--Gniniv (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this isn't obviously in the wrong spot, we don't know what you want responded too.... — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 06:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Those of your completely, utterly inane "points" worth answering have been already been answered. Furthermore, when you are going to bother to learn basic concepts in Biology?--Mr Fink (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't have "points". You have off-topic content-related discussion which violates WP:NOTFORUM. You've been asked for specific edits and sources for 2 months. Two whole months, by countless editors, and you still aren't providing them. I'm not about to humor your replies until you finally listen to what's being said, and provide what's being asked. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 06:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Believe me, I am not attempting to create a forum! I just want to be able to edit the article without my information being suppressed...--Gniniv (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have presented my sources and refs (See archives and article edit history) and they continue to be rejected and removed due to POV....--Gniniv (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. You only want to press your own point of view that the scientific community is an evil, clannish clique of bullies out to stifle the poor, innocent Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents who, coincidentally, have no desire to do any research to begin with.  And you also want to mock and antagonize us when we point out that you have no understanding of science or scientific processes, or that you have no desire to educate yourself using sources other than creationist propaganda.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Poor/redundant references and rationales are your POV, which were removed. Coincidentally, that's what occurs to creation interpretation of science. - RoyBoy 02:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edits are being "suppressed"? No, they're bad. If your edits attempted to change the focus of the article to Justin Bieber, they would be similarly "suppressed". It's not because of what you believe, either. You can believe whatever you want. The problem comes from the subversive way you keep attempting to state your beliefs as fact in this article. -- King Öomie 05:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, putting a more charitable spin on things, this may just be Gniniv's first run-up against scientific views on evolution. Ve hasn't been here all that long, after all. And if all you've heard your entire life is that evolution (and, by extension, modern science) is bunk, and that there are a multitude of authoritative websites out there that confirm this, then who are you to disagree? Gniniv − leaving aside evolution for a moment, you might do well to understand how science itself operates at this time. It may look like some cabal from the outside, and, again, there are plenty of conspiratorial websites which want to paint it this way. But, in reality, it's a free market in ideas, and one which, at times, encourages almost gladiatorial combat between competing viewpoints. Ideas, especially big ideas like biological evolution, that survive and thrive in science do so against an endless and constant pummelling for years (or decades) by scientists keen to knock them down (with, of course, evidence) and replace them with their own ideas (scientists are not any less egotistical than other people). Once upon a time, and largely for historical reasons, creationism (= the literal interpretation of one among many religious texts) was a "big idea", but as scientific understanding expanded and evidence poured in from a wide range of sources (and not just, or even largely, from biology) it got falsified and displaced. Why it has undergone a revival, particularly in the past 50 years or so is, needless to say, the subject of many ideas, but one thing that is emphatically clear is that evidence just continues to stack up against it (not that scientists are seriously keeping score any longer; but we don't keep score against Lamarckism either). I guess that I'm just saying that, in order for your editing experience here to be more productive, you should probably reflect more widely than just on evolution. Anyway, my pontification is not what this talkpage is for, so I'll leave it now. --P LUMBAGO 10:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with this problem
Gniniv, you've been told repeatedly that you need to provide sources for changes to the article. You've been pointed to policies on verifiability, fringe theories, conflict of interest, npov, discussion and countless others, none of which you've apparently read or understood. You have been monopolizing this talk page and the time of numerous editors reverting repeated pov changes to the article for 2 months, and your behavior is identical now to when this all started in May. Enough is enough.

I strongly recommend that all other editors on this page stop responding to Gniniv's babbling, as it's only encouraging him to continue. I would also encourage that any responses he posts to this talk page which violate WP:NOTFORUM be reverted per policy.

Gniniv, this is the last time I'm going to say it. If you want to contribute to the article, find reliable sources which adhere to WP:RS, and propose specific changes to specific places within the article quoting those sources. This is what wikipedia policy dictates. If you want to contribute to a project without these standards, I would suggest trying your luck at Conservapedia. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 06:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support WP:SHUN — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 06:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! I will open up a discussion forum on my talk page for you guys, and  will try putting my sources in the article, of course knowing that you won't remove them...--Gniniv (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, we will continue to revert your changes if they violate policy or POV push or are just plain wrong, but we're not going to be responding to you anymore, so you can edit all you want, get it reverted and talk to yourself about it. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 06:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well your comments on the Evolution/Talk page caught my eye. Gniviv doesn't get it. Although an ardent supporter of evolution, I find myself in an odd position of offering assistance to Gniniv to demonstrate what you editors are requesting. For example the section on the Evolution a Religion argument Gniviv could offer a good peer-reviewed article such as this Science article: PERCEPTIONS IN SCIENCE: Is Evolution a Secular Religion? Michael RuseScience 7 March 2003:Vol. 299. no. 5612, pp. 1523 - 1524. Get the idea?? Offering anecdotal ideas off the top of your head won't cut it-you must offer quality journal articles. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * He needs to do more than that. He also needs to explain where that source should go and why. This has been explained to him repeatedly, with examples. The best course of action at this point is to simply revert inappropriate changes and cease wasting time here explaining policy. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 05:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
I have started a mediation page as a last resort effort on the conflict between pro-literal (or YEC) and pro-secular (or evolution) bias in the articles Objections to evolution and Genesis creation narrative. Please participate by following this link Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Narrative.-- Gniniv (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You should of followed my advice and not immediately open a RFM. A RFM requires all involved parties to agree to the RFM, your unilateral nomination will undoubtedly fail due to that. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 03:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Gniniv — you have not learnt a thing here, neither in terms of science nor, as Raeky notes, of Wikipedia processes. Your so-called "pro-secular bias" is just the boring old scientific consensus.  To imply that this is a political bias is simply unsupportable in reliable sources.  No more benefits of the doubt from me.  Though, if this really is your "last resort effort", perhaps they won't be needed.  --P LUMBAGO  10:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Pro-literal"? With no other explanation? I think you're overstating the bible's importance on a global scale. "Pro-secular", last I checked, simply meant erring on the side of the entirety of human experience. Your ability to say that and believe it to be a systemic problem to be corrected really casts a pall over any "mediation" efforts you attempt to bring. To get an idea of how much of our credulity you're straining, imagine one of us complaining about the "Anti-witchcraft" POV of the editors at Jesus. -- King Öomie 12:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources are precisely what I am criticizing-Reliably Pro Evolution....-- Gniniv (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Gee, all sources with any kind of expertise, all coming to the same conclusion, without exception? I guess that means either A) They're right or B) They HATE JESUS. Yeah, B sounds reasonable, let's go with that. -- King Öomie  13:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The entirety of human experience wouldn't even exist without something to get it started and hold it together. You honestly believe that something can come out of nothing? That is as bad as saying you can drink from an empty cup!-- Gniniv (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're free to believe whatever makes you feel the fuzziest inside. I will continue to find your conclusions naïve. You have no standing to claim your pastor's interpretation of an old book as fact, however. -- King Öomie  13:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, I am resuming editing this article after taking a break, as it seems my efforts at a compromise are not being accepted...-- Gniniv (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Gniniv is right about one thing. Talk origins is not the best of sources. That should be worked on. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TalkOrigins Archive is a website with pages edited/written by different people; most pages are written by subject experts, and extensive references are listed. Per WP:PARITY, TalkOrigins is more than adequate as a reliable source to counter nonscientific commentary on evolution and related topics. TalkOrigins has been debated at WP:RSN with the consensus that each page should be judged on its merits, with most being suitable for the purpose for which they are used. Very few scientific journals are going to bother refuting "objections to evolution" because vast amounts of research in fields such as biology and medicine confirm the principles of evolution, and "objecting" to evolution has no basis in science or any other methodical discipline. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Talkorigins is accurate. However, with all the talk about peer reviewed articles etc., I'm saying it would be better to have those. I don't want to remove parts sourced by talk origins, and I don't say that it is necessary for other sources, and I agree that scientific journals aren't going to bother with refuting it. I'm just saying that to be fair, whereever possible we use peer reviewed journals (surely there must be an article somewhere in nature describing the evolution of the eye) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sounded a bit crotchety. Gold-plated sources would always be best, and if anyone finds some, please add them. The tricky part is that a really good source on, say, the evolution of the eye is almost by definition not going to mention anything related to objections to evolution. Therefore, using the source here may conflict with WP:SYNTH. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The next best thing is to include Talk Origins and say True Origins to insure neutrality...-- Gniniv (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just looked through True.origins, seems like most of whats on it has been covered in one way or another in this article. However, if you find something on it not in the article, please bring it up on the talk page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, True.origins is a GREAT source for everything completely wrong about creationism. Every word on that site has been debunked, and yet it stands. -- King Öomie  14:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * True origins has a heavy bias. The only criteria for publication is that the article goes against evolution. most if not all articles are riddled with logical fallacies and quote mined passages. The whole archive can be thought suspect. Further NPOV doesn't say there must be equal amounts of citations on every side of a question but that any bias statement must be clearly written as to not imply factual accuracy. IE if we ignore NPOV the following paragraph could be included.
 * "In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design.  The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process.  To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum—or any equally complex system—was produced.  If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven."
 * With NPOV we MUST state that an alternate method of analysis and testing the claim exists, and that it has shown many bacteria's flagellum are homologous to other structures in related bacteria proving evidence that the flagellum is possible to be produced by naturalistic means. http://www.pnas.org/content/100/6/3027.full However you are free to bring up any page on talk origins cited here, to debate if it's references support the information or attempt to show any non-biased source that shows an error with the article in question. (For that matter if you actually find a serious or even minor error they'd like to know. Their correction and refinement process is fairly good.)Donhoraldo (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as proposed corrections and improvements do not contradict evolution....-- Gniniv (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as long as they don't unduly support terrible, disproven science and the people who promote it. -- King Öomie  16:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Quotation

 * I added the above quotation to the article and I am curious where it should go when it comes to relevance. Any suggestions?-- Gniniv (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is irrelevant to the article. This article deals with objections to evolution. The quote does not. -- Ec5618 (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Gniniv says he's retired. We shall see - there was a possibility he would have ended up banned (see the discussion at ANI). Funny, the quote from from someone described as an anti-Creationist. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Social Darwinism
I removed a recently added section (diff), and the removal was reverted with an inapppropriate reference to WP:CENSOR and WP:V in the edit summary (not all verifiable material is suitable for an article). Now that the material has been trimmed, it is not so obviously inappropriate, and I will wait to see if anyone wants to comment before taking further action. Similar material was pasted into two other articles: Social Darwinism and Social effect of evolutionary theory.

The text currently reads:
 * Evolution has been used to justify Social Darwinism, the exploitation of "lesser breeds without the law" by "superior races," particularly in the nineteenth century. Strong, typically European, nations successfully expanded their empires, and as such, these strong nations could be said to have "survived" in the struggle for dominance. With this attitude, Europeans, with the exception of Christian missionaries, seldom adopted the customs and languages of local people under their empires.

and this reference is used (including the long quote):

The text is not helpful in this article because the source does not attempt to argue against evolution, nor does it claim that the quoted material is an argument against evolution. The following is not relevant: "With this attitude, Europeans, with the exception of Christian missionaries, seldom adopted the customs and languages of local people under their empires."

The quoted text (like "lesser breeds without the law") needs clarification since an article should not assume that readers are familiar with Kipling: it's just too mysterious (compounded by the fact that Kipling was referring to European conflict, and not what the "popular mind" thought). Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the text is not useful here. It is from a college textbook where none of the authors is a specialist on the issues, and the textbook tries to cover too many disparate topics (like study of local languages in colonies and Christian missionaries), and it is totally vague on who these "Social Darwinists" were--not one is named. Finally it has no footnotes to validate its claims,  All in all, a poor RS. Rjensen (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. (for the record, I tried to pare down the original addition to make it passable in the article, but have no objection to its removal.)  Although Social Darwinism is an interesting tack to take when discussing Evolution, the passage in question should be removed on the grounds of WP:SYNTH (evolution supports social darwinism + social darwinism is bad = people regard evolution as bad).  It would, however, be nice to find a WP:RS that does support this, because the article currently doesn't have anything about Social Darwinism.  Mildly MadTC 02:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think that the text should be removed. The text does not fall under WP:SYNTH because the reference clearly states "In the popular mind, the concepts of evolution justified the exploitation of 'lesser breeds without the law' by superior races." The reference does indeed mention evolution directly. And yes, since the text was chosen to be used in universities, it is probably even more reliable and neutral. I object to the removal of the text. Wikipedia should not be censored. Thanks, AnupamTalk 05:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled why a reliable and neutral source would describe the role of Christian missionaries that way given their well documented past and ongoing role in the loss of indigenous culture around the world. Seems slightly odd. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason the text is WP:SYNTH is that the source used does not claim that there is something wrong or morally bad about evolution: the source simply says 'In the popular mind, the concepts of evolution justified the exploitation of "lesser breeds without the law" by superior races.' To be useful as a reference in this article, the source would have to assert (for example) that teaching evolution was undesirable (or that evolution is in some sense "bad") because it leads to repugnant beliefs including that imperialism is justified. However, the source actually makes no comment about evolution other than the above.

The first sentence of the new text is defensible for this article because it could be (wrongly) argued that it is obvious that the source is stating an objection to evolution. However, the other two sentences are just comments on some misguided views from 100 years ago and serve only to make some kind of point about Europeans (it would be fine to make that point in another article where it is relevant).

I see that the word "censored" has again been inappropriately used above: censorship is when an external authority imposes control of content. It is not censorship when an editor adds a paragraph to an article, and it is not censorship when another editor removes it – that's just editing which occurs on thousands of articles every day. Johnuniq (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The information and reference in the article are fine - the text on the article never takes a stance - it just presents the facts the book discusses. Cheers, AnupamTalk 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When commenting, please engage with the points you are replying to. You have not begun to address the issue concerning the relevance of the material to this article. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason is simple. The article states gives the following quote as a reference: "The most extreme ideological expression of nationalism and imperialism was Social Darwinism. In the popular mind, the concepts of evolution justified the exploitation of "lesser breeds without the law" by superior races. This language of race and conflict, of superior and inferior people, had wide currency in the Western states. Social Darwinists vigorously advocated the acquisition of empires, saying that strong nations-by definition, those that were successful at expanding industry and empire-would survive and that others would not. To these elitists, all white men were more fit than non-whites to prevail in the struggle for dominance. Even among Europeans, some nations were deemed more fit than others for the competition. Usually, Social Darwinists thought their own nation the best, an attitude that sparked their competitive enthusiasm. In the nineteenth century, in contrast to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Europeans, except for missionaries, rarely adopted the customs or learned the languages of local people. They had little sense that other cultures and other people had merit or deserved respect."
 * The article states that the concepts of evolution justified XYZ. For this reason, the information deserves a mention in the objections section of the article, since "this language of race and conflict, of superior and inferior people, had wide currency in the Western states" (which was justified by the concepts of evolution). I hope this clears any doubts you might have. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed the following: To be useful as a reference in this article, the source would have to assert (for example) that teaching evolution was undesirable (or that evolution is in some sense "bad") because it led to repugnant beliefs. For example, let's say that studying evolution caused obesity. A paper might discuss how this finding was reached, yet the authors might be totally in favor of evolution, and might regularly study evolution themselves – it would be SYNTH to use that paper as an objection to evolution. You would need a reliable source asserting that it was wrong to study evolution because it caused obesity.
 * Still, as I said, the first sentence is defensible. It is the other two sentences and the long quote in the ref (on European nations expanding their empires, and Christian missionaries) that are totally irrelevant here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet; investigation requested
See Sockpuppet investigations/Sepahbash __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Serious re-write needed.
I think we need to make unambiguously clear, in every section, that each and every one of these ideas is either false, circular or completely unfalsifiable. We should also include a criticism section: The most significant of which are A) creationists refuse to actually debate an issue with anything but circular logic, B) They will ignore/continue to use the same arguments in different groups, after they have been shown to be most likely wrong, and C) They continue to use centuries old misinterpretations of science without recognizing its evolving nature, D) they intentionally misrepresent the subject ("Why are there still monkeys if we evolved from them?...") and continue to do so after they have been shown to be wrong. Or they simply don't understand it, in which case this article has no purpose as nothing in it is based on reality.

I understand the desire to take a neutral point of view, and almost always agree with it. Almost. Sometimes, in areas like these, we need to make it absolutely clear that one side is utterly and proudly wrong. Reality simply doesn't work that way. If I were to say that because I actively experience the world, instead of an instant perceived passing of time (as with sleep or amnesia-inducing medicines I cant recall the names of), I am actually fully immortal because I'm experiencing the world and if i were going to die it would have already happened from my point of view, for the same reasons as the other two examples. But This is simply not the case, even though I can make it SOUND reasonable. Its just like saying 10+10 = 000010000; clearly it does not, but you can see how it *might*

This page should be written with that theme in mind: one side is wrong. Even if the other side is not right, the wrong side will remain just as wrong. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (i) Isolated criticism sections are depreciated, per WP:STRUCTURE. (ii) Such a section would in any case only be a good fit for generalized criticism of creationist claims -- specific criticism is better given straight after the claim. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Popper's view misrepresented by omission
Please note this. I fixed it   Be a bit honest. This is supposed to be a "good article".--DoostdarWKP (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that fix it ? Popper is saying that some things are explained by sexual selection. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He says that it is a verbal maneuver, and turns the theory into a tautology. His main point is that "The theory of natural selection may so be formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true." I am of course fine with rewording the other sentence. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If we include Popper shouldn't we include comments on this? and  are just 2 I found in a quick search. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Popper is a controversial figure in this regard and his remarks have been referred to since he said that natural selection is a tautology. So, he deserves to be mentioned here (not misrepresented to say the least). But yes, of course we should summarize the views of those criticizing him, or at least their main arguments. I couldn't open the first link, but the second link was to the point. You can say that Michael Ruse thinks that Popper really tried to take Darwinism seriously, but somehow it didn't add up as a proper science by the standards of physics and chemistry. His efforts led to his creation of a bastardized form of Darwinism that corrupted his philosophy. . One can even move the controversy to Popper's own article and add a link here. No problem with that either, but it should not be removed completely; but let's keep the correct version of his views for sometime at least to compensate for the misrepresentation. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See if this works - it should. Dougweller (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I managed to see it. Thanks. As I said, I have no problem with including attacks on Popper (though I personally disagree with this last writer, but that's not important as far as this article is concerned). If there is not much space here, it can be moved to Criticism of Karl Popper, and a link added here. My main point was that Popper was discussed AND misrepresented.--DoostdarWKP (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Objections to evolutionary explanations in what sense
This article does not define the "Objections to evolution" in all its various levels. It just addresses the objections of those who completely deny the evolution, not those who only object to evolutionary explanations restricted to certain aspects of Humans, such as radical altruism, human language (Chomsky's views), etc. Francis Collins says that "Humans are unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the knowledge of right and wrong and the search for God."

And according to another source: "The extension of Darwin's theory of evolution to human form, function and behaviour has always been controversial. Evolutionary explanations of the human mind, with its apparently unbounded capacities and responsiveness to environmental influences, and of human culture, with its myriad creative diversity and transcendence beyond mere functionality, have been particularly contested. As a result, evolutionary approaches in the social and cognitive sciences have gained ground slowly and haltingly. But insofar as the human body has been moulded and shaped by evolutionary pressures operating in our ancestral past, it seems likely that the biological structures and mechanisms underlying human cognition will also have been selected for; and in this sense, at least, the human mind must have an evolutionary history. What is rather more contentious is whether properties intrinsic to the mind itself were selected for in evolution."

- Peter Carruthers, Andrew Chamberlain

--DoostdarWKP (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Humans as animals" section
The article reads: "Even though biology has long shown that humans are animals, some people feel that humans should be considered separate from, and/or superior to, animals." It is exactly the other way around :-) Biology does not *show* that we are animals. It starts off by viewing us from a zoological perspective. The question of "What does it mean to be human?" or "What makes us who we are?" are philosophical and meta-scientific questions, admitting various answers at the same time depending on how you look at it. Thus, one can say that we are animals and not superior to them for we share the same organic structure with other animals, and one can say that we are different from animals because we have certain qualities not existing in other animals. It is all a matter of definition. While very important, biology is not exhausting the space of legitimate perspectives. Much of the section Objections to evolution is not useful for it starts off by confusing religious perspective of "What makes us who we are?" with a scientific one. And then discusses which one is correct and which one is incorrect, an ill-defined topic to start with. I suggest we ditch the whole section altogether. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I exactly agree with what you're saying, but that section does seem potentially problematic for other reasons. I don't see anything to justify the weasel words "some people feel" in that sentence.  I'm not sure if the statement "Even though biology has long shown that humans are animals" even makes a lot of sense, or is necessary.  I think the first sentence could possible be removed entirely without losing the idea.  In fact, it might be appropriate to cut the second and third sentences as well, and/or find some more references for what's being stated in that paragraph, as I believe the reference at the end only really covers the last couple sentences. <B>—Torchiest</B> talk/edits 13:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * oppose: removing the section. It is an aspect of objections that needs to be covered. It is self evident and common knowledge that humans are animals e.g. we share more than 99% of our genes with chimps. It is also common knowlege that some people feel...etc. As to what makes us who we are that is largely a matter of genetic inheritance, with some environmental factors included. Studies of identical twins reared separately in different environments have shown the genetic influence to be stronger than many might expect. Perhaps the section can be improved but I do not see any problem with it as it stands.--Charles (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the idea that we are animals just is. It is like saying "even though optics has long shown that the sky is blue". Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course from a biological perspective this is obvious. However the article is contrasting biological view point with a religious one, and claiming that one being true implies that the other one is false. In other words it is confusing two views on human that come from entirely different perspectives. This is very akin to Scientism, where the claim is made that physical interpretations are superior to all other interpretations of life. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What the heck is scientism? Yes I know it has an article but using such an ill defined perjorative term is not helpful. The section concludes by saying that most religions have reconciled their beliefs with evolution so I really do not see the problem.--Charles (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, in your view we can add a sentence like this too: Even though physics has long shown that human experiences are all chemical processes, some people feel that humans should look for meaning in their existence beyond a chain of pure chemical reactions.
 * You see. You say that you don't know what scientism is, and then go ahead and criticize it. This is just not fair.--DoostdarWKP (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In every way we can measure, humans are not zoologically distinct from other animals in any significant way (our intelligence, by the way, fits this bill as well). You can't just say "Well some people disagree", when their alternate belief is based on entirely nothing, and claim it equally valid. This situation really is QUITE akin to Dbrodbeck's example of "Even though Optics has long shown that the sky is blue...". We don't need to go out of our way to assure our readers that "Their faith is still okay". And we certainly don't need to marginalize three centuries of science to protect people's feelings. -- King Öomie  06:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "humans are not zoologically distinct from other animals in any significant way". Correct. That's what I said myself. You are not addressing my point. Do you claim that viewing humans zoologically is the only legitimate way to look at humans? Do you claim that viewing humans in terms of atoms and chemical reactions is the only legitimate way to look at humans? These are the questions that the article is taking an instance on.--DoostdarWKP (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Humans are animals, this is getting quite absurd. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an objection to science in general. Do you have any specific improvements in mind or are you just soapboxing?--Charles (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. This is not an objection to science and yes Humans are animals (zoologically). Why are you repeating yourselves? I would not continue this anymore because there is no prospect of consensus on this with you guys. My point will clear to future readers who have the required philosophical attentiveness and carefulness. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I will say again, "We don't need to go out of our way to assure our readers that "Their faith is still okay". And we certainly don't need to marginalize three centuries of science to protect people's feelings." If people want to think of themselves of manifestations of the Sun's power, great. But we don't need a comment in the article about how many people believe this. And if you're looking for a 'less' crazy example, we don't need to point out that Creationists believe humans were molded from the dust of the earth, or that Nords believed we descended from the Ash tree. -- King Öomie 16:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct that "We don't need to go out of our way to assure our readers that "Their faith is still okay"". But in the same vein, why should we go out way saying them that their "faith is not okay?". The article says that "Even though biology has long shown that humans are animals..." and then says that "The mediaeval concept of a great chain of being set out a static hierarchy in which humans are "above" animals, but below angels and God." Why do we have to  go out way contrasting religious categorization with scientific categorization, and discuss things in an epistemological sense. Yes, the masses in medieval times took religious categorization as the only legitimate categorization (religious fundamentalism), and did some evil things accordingly. But this is no justification for this article to take scientific categorization to exclude religious categorization. Your perspective is correct: why do we need to bother discussing the relation of the two anyways (which the article does indeed). But my point is that, if we want to do so, we should do this in a fair way.--DoostdarWKP (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is that humans, in the religious context you provided, have been considered separate from other animals, and thus, not part of evolution from other creatures. That is the basis for the objection, and because of that, we must contract the scientific and religious views in order to understand the objection.  I still think the first sentence of the section is redundant, or could be worded better. <B>—Torchiest</B> talkedits 05:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested changes to the lead
I would suggest this change. The reason is that the article says that "does not accept such objections as having any validity, citing detractors' misinterpretations of scientific method, evidence, and basic physical laws." This is missing the point. Not all objections are invalid. There are indeed inconsistencies (see the source I provided, or rather ask your biologist friends), but that they are not enough to refute the theory given its expeditionary power. It is not a 100% - 0% thing. Biology is not math. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please allow a reasonable time (min 1 week) for other editors to comment before inserting this.--Charles (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"The theory of evolution is indeed testable, and it has been tested over and over,with stunning success, as we will show in later chapters.That is not to say that there are no unsolved problems or inconsistencies; as we have seen, even a successful theory will have inconsistencies, but these are not necessarily enough to defeat a theory"
 * Oppose Not a strong enough reference for making such a claim, quoted below is the paragraph in question on page 45 and it just has a passing mention of some inconsistencies. This book isn't what I would consider reliable enough to make such a claim. Peer-reviewed journals or other more rigidly reviewed scientific publications would be necessary to back up that statement. I'm not saying science explains everything about biology and paleontology, that would be a stupid claim, of course some stuff is still unexplained, but to state that there is actually evidence that is inconsistant enough to even make it seem like scientists are remotely in doubt is a falsehood. This statement without clear explained backed up examples would only serve to confuse. — raeky  t  21:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

- Young, Matt. Strode, Paul K.


 * This is an academic press; it is a University Press. It is obviously peer reviewed. You should not be serious. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that, I'm saying that a single sentence in a book that doesn't describe in any detail what so ever is not substantive enough for inclusion here. — raeky  t  08:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, many of the sentences in this article do not go into details either. It comes as a surprise to me that the above sentence should invoke negative reactions; rather it should appear as something obvious. Those inconsistencies and open problems are known to biologists, and are by no means controversial. Biologists agree that inconsistencies exist, and they all agree that these are "research directions", problems to think about. They - correctly - become upset when creationists use these to invalidate evolution altogether.
 * I can give you one example of such difficulties: the gaps in the fossil record and the stasis that dominates the history of most fossil species. Biologists have tried to explain this through theories like Punctuated equilibrium or migration, etc. There is a healthy debate.
 * If rejection of evolution is an extreme position on the other side of the spectrum, on the other side of the spectrum are those who turn evolution into a truth ideology that has to be 100% true, forgetting the nature of scientific enterprise and its underlying assumptions. Evolution is a theory in biology, not in math or physics. It is only natural to expect inconsistencies, just as it is natural to expect even more of that when look at theories in social sciences. We have seen enough to believe that it gets much of the picture correctly. To say that it is true in all its details is an ideological statement, not a scientific one.--DoostdarWKP (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: there is no indication that the "unsolved problems or inconsistencies" that Young & Strode point to are in any way related to the creationists' 'objections', and mentioning the former in the context of the latter would merely confuse the issue. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's the problem, I don't have a strong opinion on where to include this. Maybe one can put it in the context of the theory being testable. That's fine by me. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support:

"there is no indication that the "unsolved problems or inconsistencies" that Young & Strode point to are in any way related to the creationists' 'objections'."

Why is this article on "Objections to Evolution" framed as Evolution vs. Creationist. This whole article seems more like Evolutionary Apologetics than a framing of the "Objections to Evolution." Unless this article IS Evolution vs. Creationists the above quote has no relevance.

I don't give a rats butt who is RIGHT in this silly dispute between E vs. C. What I do care about is that this article reaches the greatest possible height of objectivity and balance. I want this because I have the greatest respect for what Wikipedia is doing and I want every page to be as good as it possibly can be.

The fact is that there are "unsolved problems or inconsistencies." Admitting this would only increase the credibility of the article. Making it plain that Evolutionary biologist are hard at work trying to explain any discrepancies is also the truth.

" . . . but to state that there is actually evidence that is inconsistant enough to even make it seem like scientists are remotely in doubt is a falsehood."

The proposed change hardly suggests the above quote. The proposed change does not suggest, IMO, " . . . [that] scientists . . . are in doubt" although I cannot support the global "scientists" because there are scientist who doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDurden1937 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are no inconsistencies. That is just creationist wishfull thinking. A handfull of people with scientific training who have been unable to break free of religious brainwashing in childhood prove nothing.--Charles (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Charles. Stickee (talk)  11:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Increased number of chromosome pairs --> new species
A very good article, very well put together! Recently, I've been hearing a lot of criticism concerning the difficulty to change numbers of chromosome pairs (and turn into another species). Note 71 in this article currently refers to this video, which addresses the matter from one perspective: http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/evol07.sci.life.evo.genconnect/ I.e. the change towards having fewer chromosomes than before. However, the criticism I've heard mainly concerns increasing the number of chromosome pairs. Could anyone present sources with theories or research on the matter? (or let me know if it's even relevant). Thanks in advance. --90.227.67.113 (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The general issue concerns the transition from one species to another. --90.227.67.113 (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There were discussions about the number of chromosome pairs on the Reference Desk recently: and . I think you'll find something there.Sjö (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Creationist objections
Honestly this article sucks. This is not Objections to evolution but Creationist objections to evolution. This page should be at least renamed or otherwise include the serious objections from the few scientists that claim that evolution may not be the entire story behind adaptation and species development, and that natural selection is unsuitable if not incapable to explain certain phenomena. Without mentioning no rigour at all (e.g. Greg Chaitin has recently tried to formalize the theory) because in its current state it is only a principle and a mildly successful model to explain some phenomena. And no, I am not a creationist, I may even identify as evolutionist, but I do not follow evolutionist as a dogma... which this page seems to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.5.50 (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Second Law Argument
I thought up a counterexample to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLOT) argument and I'd like to at least suggest it for inclusion here because it very graphic:

"If the SLOT rules out evolution, then it will have to rule out airplanes, cars, and personal computers, too -- after all, it's not like WE can violate the SLOT, either. If the SLOT rules out evolutionary constructions, then it will have to rule out human constructions as well."

This seems like an obvious conclusion, but oddly I've never seen it used. MrG 71.208.38.224 (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Then it's irrelevant to us. We would need reliable sources (see WP:RS to use it in the article. Dougweller (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I figured that would be the answer. I would reference you to documents I've written myself, but I don't think you'd be impressed.  However, if you don't want to use it ... at least think about it.  MrG 71.208.38.224 (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We still wouldn't be able to use that, then, as it would then be original research, which brings its own set of verifiability problems.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't suggesting you reconsider posting it -- I never thought it likely it would be -- I was suggesting you think over the concept. I've laid this on a number of people, and it's like I have to rephrase it three or four times before the light bulb goes on.  Don't know why, once it does, it's staggeringly obvious.  MrG 71.208.38.224 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Then WP:NOTFORUM applies. This page is to discuss article improvement, not the article topic. There are plenty of places on the internet to discuss and debate. Wikipedia is not one of them.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Macro evolution not observed
The article in the observation controversy section states macro-evolution has been observed. This is not however true, as no large scale phenotypic evolution has ever been observed. I have quotes from evolutionists themselves who admit this ie. Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould and Jerry Coyne. Only microevolution or minor variations/small changes have been observed, not macro. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up. Now all you need are the reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We're waiting for the reliable source. Mostly macroevolution cannot be observed, because accumulation of change takes time.  If I saw a fish evolve into a mammal, I'd have to say the theory of evolution doesn't exist.  However, we have observed speciation in numerous organisms.  Microbial resistance to antibiotics is the easiest case.  I would suggest you find a better argument to counter the FACT of evolution.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Anglo Pyramidologist is wrong on two fronts:
 * The scientific definition of "macroevolution" is 'evolution above the species level' (though the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is considered largely outdated in scientific circles these days).
 * By this definition macroevolution has been observed repeatedly through speciation events.
 * I would further point out that Anglo Pyramidologist's definition of "large scale phenotypic evolution" is (i) unreasonably vague & (ii) seems aimed at setting the bar sufficiently high that it will not, by definition, be observable in a single human lifetime. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of bored with AP's editing across articles. He uses creationist arguments that have long ago been debunked.  Next we should see that evolution violates the First and Second laws of thermodynamics.  Or that there are no transitional species.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 06:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Vot? No crocoduck? I'm disappointed. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I want one as a pet. And I cannot believe there's an article about it.  Next thing you'll tell me is that there is an article on Episode 147 of Family Guy.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There's an article on the George H. W. Bush vomiting incident -- doesn't it just make you sick? :P <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. Wikipedia is going the way of a trivia encyclopedia.  But I digress.  So, what's the next AP argument against evolution?  Should we just pull up the ICR website and let him choose one.  And we should take turns on who gets to debunk it. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Macroevolution is defined as "large scale phenotypic evolution" in the biology textbooks. I took an A level in biology 5 or so years ago, here is my biology textbook reference for the definition of macroevolution - Biology, Eldra Pearl Solomon, Linda R. Berg, Diana W. Martin, Cengage Learning, 2005, pp.381-383. Now turning to Jerry Coyne's book Why evolution is true, 2009, page 133: "Given the gradual pace of evolution, it’s unreasonable to expect to see selection transforming one “type” of plant or animal into another—so-called macroevolution—within a human lifetime. Though macroevolution is occurring today, we simply won’t be around long enough to see it". So macroevolution according to the biology textbooks and world's leading biologists is not observable and never has been observed. Like i said the wikipedia article on this subject is in error. Macro has never been observed - so the error it has needs to be removed. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (i) Solomon et al says no such thing. It does not give a specific definition of macroevolution, but talks about it in close conjunction with "speciation", strongly supporting the contention that it is 'evolution above the species level'. (ii) "another—so-called macroevolution" = not really macroevolution. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * p.383 contains a box definition page and macroevolution is defined as "large scale phenotypic evolution" and then adds that this is in connection to taxonomic levels i.e species. However no "large scale phenotypic evolution" has ever been observed (as Gould, Coyne and Dawkins) all admit. Observed speciation still has never involved large scale phenotypic evolution, fish still looks like fish, dogs like dogs and so on. As far as science is concerned, macroevolution has never been observed. Read the quote i pasted above from Coyne. So we have evolution believers with Ph.d's in biology admitting macro is not observable, but some wikipedia users think the contrary? I only can presume you guys are anti science. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There has been phenotypic changes; "large scale" being in the eye of the beholder and not a very scientific judgement at all. At any rate, as stated above, it is debated whether micro and macro evolutions are different at all. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually what it states is that "Macroevolution is large-scale phenotypic changes in population that warrant placement in taxonomic groups at the species level and higher -- that is news species, genera, families, orders, classes, and even phyllas, kingdomd and domain." By this definition "new species"=speciation, which is observable, is explicitly macroevolution. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * AP, show us some high-quality reliable sources say that "macroevolution has not been observed" and then we can have a discussion. There's no point to arguing back and forth based on your own interpretation of sources. See WP:SYNTH. Guettarda (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Speciation is not macroevolution. Macro is large phenotypic change, speciation in contrast is micro - for example different flies scientists have said have changed into different species but they still physically resemble each other, large scale evolution has never been observed. The problem with speciation is that no scientist actually knows how to define a species, see the species problem. Since there is no clear definition, defining a new species as having speciated is rather controversial and not agreed upon, and secondly it is not macroevolution - large phenotypic change. Speciated flies for example are still flies that look virtually identical. To claim macroevolution has been observed you need an example of an observed large scale transition i.e a aquatic fish to a land walking creature - yet such a change has never been observed. Macro is not observable. Also since recorded history man has never observed himself to macroevolve, so that's 6000 years of no eye-witness testimony. In fact no animal since this time has been observed to macro evolve either. Georges Cuvier first found 5,000 year old mummified cats which are identical to modern cats, so no macroevolution has ever been observed. What needs to be added to this article is this fact that macro is not observable. To quote Gould -"evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of human history". (Discover, May 1981, p. 36). Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "By this definition "new species"=speciation" - please learn to read. The definition of macro is is large-scale phenotypic changes in population that warrant placement in taxonomic groups at the species level and higher. Yet no large scale phenotypic change has been observed. Two posters above even admitted this. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your definition of "large-scale phenotypic change" has no scientific basis and is determined by your opinion of what it should be. If, as you say, species have not been defined, how then can you in the same argument define something as a change in species level or higher? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Anglo Pyramidologist: "please learn to read" YOURSELF! "new species" '''IS IN THE SOLOMON ET AL DEFINITION:
 * "Macroevolution is large-scale phenotypic changes in population that warrant placement in taxonomic groups at the species level and higher -- that is news species, genera, families, orders, classes, and even phyllas, kingdom and domain."


 * Macroevolution includes "news species" which is speciation. Please learn to read. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@AP, I know you've been pointed to WP:NOTFORUM before. Please begin to follow it. If you see a problem in the article, please provide reliable sources which say exactly what you're proposing to include. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't need to provide anything, i am asking (as i did on the article but my edit was reverted) for a source that macroevolution has been observed. The article claims macro has been observed but contains no source for this claim. Evidently the article is biased and was written by an evolutionist who is incorrectly presenting macroevolution as science, when in actual fact its never been observed. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * On the contrary - your objection hinges on the claim that speciation is not macroevolution. If you want to make this argument, you need to provide high quality, reliable source which says this. If you are unwilling to support your assertion with sources, then you aren't using the talk page appropriately, and you should find something else to work on. Guettarda (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Claim CB901: No case of macroevolution has ever been documented. "As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented." <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * AP, it has been pointed out to you that your idea is incorrect, and that the consensus here clearly goes against you (as well of course, does the scientific consensus). Move on.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I said observed cases of speciation are not macroevolution, and i provided the source (a biology textbook) which defines macro as "large-scale phenotypic change - above the species level". Hrafn is diliberatly exlcuding the first part of the definition (see what i bolded) because he knows its never been observed. Large scale phenotypic evolution or speciation has never been observed, the only speciation observed is micro. Note how even the Talkorigin's link Hrafn links to opens by saying "We would not expect to observe large changes directly" so even Talkorigin's agree macro is not observable. And since its not observable its not apart of science, the basis of the scientific method is observation. However i'm not here to talk about this - i'm here to correct the lies or errors in the article that macro has been observed when it hasn't (as even Talkorigins agrees) Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Simply because you are bending over backwards in order to refuse to look at the evidence for macro-evolution does not magically make macro-evolution a fantasy, AP. Nor does this deliberate refusal magically make everyone who disagrees with you into liars and conspirators.  In other words, please provide verified, referenced evidence that macro-evolution does not occur, or please stop wasting everyone's time with your soapboxing.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, AP, if you are going to say that you are not obligated to support your claim that macro-evolution has never been observed, please do not be shocked, pained, or huffy that no one here will take you seriously.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @AP, your argument is at its absolute best a violation of WP:SYNTH. You are saying "source (1) says the definition is (x)" and "definition (x) clearly can't happen". You don't have a source which says "Macroevolution is (x) and (x) has never been observed". The ref Hrafn listed is quite clear, and to try and paint it as pro-your-side is being intentionally argumentative. Consensus is quite clearly against you, so rehashing the same points is soapboxing, which is not allowed here. You've been invited repeatedly to provide sources, and if you can't do that, this section should be closed. Provide what's being asked, or find a more productive way to spend your time.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, please learn to use indenting, so the discussion is actually legible. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not to be picky, but we've asked AP at least 10 times to provide reliable sources. All we get is rhetoric, original research, and a complete failure to answer our questions.  It's like a bunch of us are talking rationally over here, and about 10 meters to the right, stands one guy stating some random stuff that isn't related to the main conversation.  Can someone just block him or something.  I'm all for open dialogue, but I'm getting a little tired of everyone saying the same thing.  Most of us understand it.  One doesn't.  Grumble.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, he's had his chance. Stop engaging him. "Sources?" is all anyone needs to say to him. Anything else just facilitates his disruption. Guettarda (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah it might be time for WP:SHUN and just revert anything that seems like a forum post or soapboxy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All in favor, say "aye."  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Shunning shouldn't be put to a vote. Simply, if he edits constructively, then he should be engaged. If you feel he's editing disruptively, and you personally find WP:SHUN to be appropriate, feel free to act on it. I'm hatting the section, since it hasn't been constructive for a while. If there are any legitimate issues with this content, AP, feel free to open a new section and provide reliable sources. Thanks. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Creationists and macroevolution
The following might prove illuminating on the recent problems we've been having communicating with a certain creationist: "Creationists' view of microevolution is similar to that of evolutionary biologists, but the two groups understand macroevolution very differently. Creationists accept microevolutionary processes affecting genetic variation of populations, and most also accept speciation, or the branching of a lineage into reproductively isolated groups. But creationists take literally the evolutionary biologists' definition of macroevolution as "evolution above the species level," and infer that major groups of living things such as phyla and classes—the upper taxonomic levels characterized by body plan differences—have a qualitatively different history than lower levels such as populations and species. They view the distinguishing features of phyla and classes as appearing suddenly, denying that such structures as segments, appendages, exoskeletons and the like could evolve through microevolutionary processes. Their definition of macroevolution thus overlaps only slightly with that of evolutionary biologists because they concentrate only on the emergence of new body plans or major features which distinguish "major kinds" of living things. Effectively, macroevolution to creationists equates to the inference of common ancestry, which they reject. Their view is that because God created living things as separate "kinds," major groups and the features distinguishing them could not have come about through natural processes, microevolutionary or otherwise. Their position is "micro yes, macro no." There is a robust argument among evolutionary biologists over how new body plans or major new morphological features arose. No one disputes the importance of natural selection: it affects the genetic variation in populations, which may be the basis for a new species (in conjunction with isolating mechanisms). All parties likewise recognize the possibility or even likelihood of other biological mechanisms affecting morphological features that distinguish major groups of organisms. The issue in evolutionary biology is how and how much natural selection and other microevolutionary processes are supplemented by other mechanisms (such as regulatory genes operating early in embryological development)."

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Putting it metaphorically, to a creationist macroevolution is a distant mountain range, alien and forbidding, to an evolutionary biologist, it is a road that leads right from the door, continues through the rolling hills, through the foothills, to the furthest mountains, without stopping. This is why Solomon spoke of "new species, genera, families, orders, classes, and even phyllas, kingdoms and domain", listing each milestone in the 'road', emphasising that macroevolution covers everything from speciation through to the most distant domain splits. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent Hrafn. Actually, it helps clarify for me why Creationists get all worked up about macroevolution.  I just thought they invented some of their ideas, but this makes sense.  Not that I agree, but now I have a better idea about their logic.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't recall the exact quote, but Nick Matzke had something similar to say about it. See the final para of Macroevolution Guettarda (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nicely put, Hrafn. The vast continuous vista you describe offers plenty of room for moving the goalposts, which may have something to do with creationists' frequent mention of "macroevolution." __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Battleground Mentality
A couple of concerns I've had over the last few weeks that I think need to be aired: There is a subset of editors--which I fully admit that I am a part of--that spends a decent portion of their time on Wikipedia watching and editing articles related to Biology and Evolution (and by extension, Creationism/Intelligent Design), but more to the point of this discussion, making sure that these articles comply with WP:FRINGE and its parent policies. I have a great level of appreciation for these editors and their contributions, and hold no doubt that their ultimate intentions are for the betterment of the encyclopaedia.

(Disclaimer: purposely not providing diffs to avoid singling people out. I'm sure you can find them yourself.)

However, over the last few weeks, I have observed an increasing WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality surrounding these articles. I feel that the discussions surrounding these articles (including WP:ANI, user's talk pages, etc.) too often drifts in to the gray area between enforcing policy with a firm hand, and personal attacks. Specifically, things like unnecessarily "piling on" to posts that rebuke editor's arguments, making side comments and/or jokes about said editors and their views, and generally taking a hostile tone towards anyone that does not understand or chooses to ignore policy.

Again, I have no doubt that the desired ends of these efforts (with respect to article content) are fully within policy, but IMO the means (Ed: Not WP:DR itself, but the tone in which it is done) of achieving those ends are brushing up against the bounds of Wiki-quette. I know that it is very frustrating that the same tired arguments must be made over and over, but that's still not a reason to be uncivil--there is most definitely a distinction to be made between firmly enforcing and informing editors about policy, and belittling them for disagreeing with you, regardless of who is or isn't right.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, and I don't intend to take any further action about this, but I'd just like to ask everyone to take a step back and take an extra look at the way we go about improving Wikipedia. Thanks, Mildly MadTC 15:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Then exactly what are we supposed to do with editors who forcefully demand that that articles be rewritten to give their pet fringe POV at least equal (if not more so) weight, who scream that scientific concensus is wrong in spite of the evidence, and who claim that any and everyone who disagrees with them, or even asks for verified sources of their pet fringe POV, are all evil trolls conspiring against them?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Mildly Mad, I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Anglo Pyramidologist was given a lot of latitude to push his POV.  He then moved to vandalize the article when you didn't get his way.  He got blocked for all of his efforts.  Your invention of a battleground mentality is simply wrong.  And if by "improving Wikipedia" we're supposed to let editors just write whatever bullshit they want on both the article and the article talk, then I've got a feeling that Wikipedia will be very much worse off.  And finally, civility is a matter of perspective and personal taste.  It's just used by admins to do what needs to be done if all other things fail.  There is absolutely no reason to give someone 5 chances to change the article in violation of NPOV.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This so called 'piling on', it seems to me, shows consensus. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Because I suppose we need to let someone continue to push an idea that has been thoroughly debunked. Our job isn't to give fringe theories equal weight to those theories that have vast evidence in support.   Also, I assume that Mildly Mad wants consensus to be 100% of editors in support.  Never going to happen.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope. I don't dispute that there's WP:TE, WP:DE, etc.  Just suggesting a little more civility in handling it, that's all.  Mildly MadTC 18:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm civil for one go around. After 20...fuck it, I'm out of patience.  I think everyone was frustrated with AP.  He no longer gets AGF, sorry.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but you don't need WP:AGF to be WP:CIVIL. From AGF: "When doubt is cast on good faith... [b]e civil and follow dispute resolution processes, rather than attacking editors..." Mildly MadTC 18:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Piling on is something I try to avoid; if other editors have already stated the case in terms I agree with, I mostly sit back and munch my popcorn. OM, i appreciate your passionate contributions, but I believe you probably recognize that others occasionally see just a hint of prickliness in your style. While four-letter "sentence enhancers" don't particularly bother me, I cannot agree that civility should ever be abandoned on Wikipedia. Credibility, in my estimation, comes from an even tone in sticking to the facts, even in the face of what may seem like aaah suboptimal editing skills on the part of others.
 * @everybody else, while assuming good faith is more often useful than not, some situations call for a more carefully considered approach. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with MM and Bill. Specific to AP, I think this recent issue was handled appropriately; He was given a large amount of rope to spout his ideas (indeed, sometimes too much), and chose to hang himself rather than work constructively. However, I've seen other cases where a new user either has some crazy ideas, or a glaringly incorrect view of how WP works, and he's ridiculed off talk pages almost immediately. I imagine this is common because of the prevalence of "drive by disruptors" on this topic, where any effort put into educating them goes to waste. But I don't think this is universally true, or that it should be assumed from the start. Hostility shouldn't be a first response to "silly ideas" from newbies, but I do see it pan out that way sometimes. Unfortunately, that sort of initial hostility sometimes leads to a user becoming disruptive; When he thinks his ideas aren't being heard, or he senses some sort of evil cabal at work, he needs to take more drastic measures. Educating and re-educating new users is less entertaining and cathartic, but it's also less prone to those issues... and I think a healthy reminder of that is appropriate. After all, even if a user has a lot of silly ideas, some will be able to partition those ideas from their editing and still contribute useful sources and input. Those editors are not only acceptable, but invaluable, and chasing them away before they understand how the site works damages the project as a whole. TL;DR: I agree. Be nice, even if an idea is stupid.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have made every effort to be civil, but if there was some problem with my comments here, I would welcome specific feedback. Guettarda (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, I always welcome specific suggestions for improvement as well. If finds issue with something I've said, please hop over to my talk page.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Mathematical Objections
I removed a large section about "Mathematical Statistics" that was added by User:Shivankmehra. It was more or less copied from this article from Evolution News dealing with the 1966 Wistar Symposium, which has been which has been widely cited in anti-evolution writings for quite some time. While the cited article pretty clearly misrepresents the proceedings, I think it might be worth mentioning in the article in a more neutral way, perhaps a small mention in the "Improbability" or "Impossibility" sections. Mildly MadTC 13:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would further point out that Evolution News is nowhere close to a WP:RS, and that the author of the piece, Casey Luskin, has no background in either mathematics or evolutionary biology. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And of course, Casey Luskin writes for the Discovery Institute. I think that makes it the anti-RS article.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 14:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, no -- scary as it may sound, Casey actually makes the rest of the DI look almost-sorta-ifyousquint-reliable by comparison. None of them are great (or even good or mediocre) in this respect, but Casey is ludicrously bad. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think my snarkiness didn't come through correctly. However, it's amusing that he's the worst of a very bad lot.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 15:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would put him up there along with Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron on a list of World's Worst Creationist Apologists. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. That's a good group. I think I would vote Cameron as being the worst of the worst.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But Casey tries so much harder than Cameron -- he's like the The Little Engine That Couldn't. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides the facts that Casey Luskin does not know what he's whining about whenever he talks about anything science- or reality-related, and that Casey Luskin is also a verified liar, I feel it is important to remind people that he's employed by an organization that has, according to the Wedge Document, literally pinkie-swore on the Bible to do literally any dirty trick to Jesusify the American Scientific Community, and Science Education in general, in order to both destroy Evolution, and Jesusify America for Jesus.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The kind of evolution being objected to

 * Creationists often argue, for example, that evolution is unproven, non-factual, or controversial.|title=Separation of Christianity and State

This article does not criticize biological evolution, i.e., one form of life gives rise to another, but "molecules to man" evolution. So it's not a representative example of saying that evolution is unproven.

Unfortunately, the polemic being quoted there is mixing two ideas together: (1) the idea that life can emerge from (non-living) matter and (2) the idea that one species of life can evolve into another by physical processes alone. The polemicist rejected both (taken together) as unproven.

Does anyone besides me see this distinction? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This article describes why and how Creationists argue against Evolution, and is not actually about arguing against Evolution. In other words, the article is about the objections that are brought up against Evolution, and is not actually about bringing up objections against Evolution.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In this context, Ed, that looks very much like a distinction without a difference. The "polemicist" here is Ken Ham, whose Creation Museum shows two species of dinosaur, who flourished in epochs about one hundred million years apart, coexisting on the deck of Noah's Ark, in a literal young-earth creationist setting. Given that, it is not a stretch to parse "these books teach molecules-to-man evolution, based only on unproven natural processes, as fact!" as including biological evolution in the "unproven natural processes" it rails against. That looks very much like an argument that "evolution is unproven, non-factual, or controversial." What particular change would you propose here? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I was proposing that we find a better, more representative quote: something that fits all creationists, not just those who believe Noah's Ark harbored dinosaurs!


 * There are two main creationist objections to evolution:
 * Those which include opposition to (A) "unguided" molecules-to-life origins along with opposition to (B) "unguided" evolution of one living species to another
 * Those which omit mention of A and only mention opposing B


 * I am proposing we work together to find a quote from a creationist who makes the more typical, second objection. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your (B) would appear to be the crocoduck argument and/or the related 'Why are there still monkeys?' argument. Both involve a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution, and particularly speciation works -- and how species are related to each other. With a very few exceptions, living species are collateral relatives, not lineal descendants of each other. See for example this. Also, given what a fractious, schismatic lot creationists are, you are unlikely to find "something that fits all creationists" on just about anything. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What, if any, is the basis for Ed's asserting the prevalence of "the more typical, second objection"? One could just as easily say that many creationists manage to drag abiogenesis into the argument as if it were relevant to adaptation and speciation. That mistaken conflation is one of their attempts to argue that "evolution is unproven, non-factual, or controversial." Creationists' arguments may gallop from spurious pillar to irrelevant post, but this citation does in fact support its associated Wikipedia assertion.
 * The sentence in question merely states that "Creationists often argue..." It makes no claim about the validity of those arguments. I am content to keep Ken Ham as a notable example of a creationist who claims evolution is bogus. Cite not broken, doesn't need fixing. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Genetic code
Nowhere is the evolution more visible in its entirety than in the collected genome sequences. Even though we have sequenced just 50 mammal species, 1000 bacteria, a few plants and a some other animals, the tree of life that can be drawn from it is nearly identical in all details to that deduced from anatomy -- yes, anatomy made a few mistakes, the genetic code doesn't lie.

So why does this article not contain a single mention of this fact? How can anyone in the light of two investigative lines converging to the same picture state that there is not enough evidence? --Ayacop (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the robust evidence for evolution. It is about notable objections to evolution. Unless some such objections have been made on the basis of DNA analysis, there is no need to mention it here. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While the article is primarily about objections, it does answer these with the best evidence. That is where I think mention of genetic code is missing. --Ayacop (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article does mention DNA analysis in the "Unfalsifiability" subsection as well as in the "Evidence" section. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Add. "Too specific" or actual argument not welcome?
Ref.:Apokryltaros: "too specific an example" Ref.:Artichoker: "overly specific" Please explain why you've removed the real argument on topic of 2nd law of thermodynamics with quotes and kept only the stripped version that thus becomes just a strawman w/o the key elements such as link between the 2nd law itself and the presence of nanomachines in the living cells. Thanx in advance for explanation--Stephfo (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edit is confusing and poorly written. Among other things, it sounds like you are implying that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics really does somehow prevent evolution from occurring.  That, and you need to differentiate your own words and those of the people you're quoting.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which particular sentence is confusing you?--Stephfo (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All of them. Are you really implying that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics bars evolution from happening?  Who's saying what?  Can you demonstrate how the thesis is to be falsified in the first place?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, we can start analyzing then: To quote Wilder Smith whose book 'The natural sciences know nothing of evolution' is available on the web - p. 146 "Today it is simply unscientific to claim that the fantastically reduced entropy of the human brain, of the dolphin's sound lens, and of the eye of a fossilised trilobite simply "happened", for experimental experience has shown that such miracles just do not "happen"."I believe this should not be that difficult to understand, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephfo (talk • contribs) 01:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it is difficult to understand as you have not specified what sort of context the quote is to be used in (I can not read your mind, after all). Is Wilder being presented as one of the originators/authorities who presented the 2LOT in the first place, or is he being used as an authority figure to justify claiming that the 2LOT prevents evolution from ever occurring to begin with?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Artichoker and Mr. Fink on this. The section Stephfo added is poorly written. It is difficult to tell who is asserting what, and the way it is written makes it seem that the argument that the second law forbids evolution is a valid one. In fact, it's difficult to say that the argument as Stephfo presents it is indeed an argument based on thermodynamics at all, rather than a simple argument based on personal disbelief. That is also true of the sources he supplies, in neither of which does MacIntosh present what could be considered an argument based on thermodynamics. Based on these sources, I'm not convinced that MacIntosh actually has an argument. What I am convinced of is that MacIntosh is profoundly ignorant of even basic biology and biochemistry. He's therefore probably not the best example to present in this article. I can't see anything new here that hasn't already been presented in the section on irreducible complexity.
 * The Wilder quote is out of place, as it has nothing to do with thermodynamics at all. It is a simple argument from personal disbelief, and nothing more. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I too agree, and, stop adding the neutrality tag, the source's misunderstanding of evolution and 2LOT and his sticking his fingers in his ears and singling 'la la la la' really loudly does not mean there is a neutrality problem. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with you, there is false argument presented on behalf of some creationists, a strawman, the claim is that an argument is like this "Creationists argue that evolution violates this physical law by requiring a decrease in entropy, or disorder, over time." whereas e.g. McIntosh daclares something different: decrease in entropy is possible, but there are molecular nanomachines necessary to achieve for that effect, and he even demonstartes it with examples that the bindings between e.g.nucleotides require an extra free energy to take part in the process, an this extra energy can be provided in his view only by means of these molecular nanomachines. Creationists also argue that if, for example, a living organism dies, the bindings within nucleotides start to fall apart even while still being exposed to extra energy if I understand them correctly. --213.52.31.122 (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This all looks very WP:REDFLAG to me. "decrease in entropy is possible" is a very vague statement. (i) Does he mean 'in a closed system'? Then this would be a clear violation of 2LoT, nanomachines or not. (ii) Does he mean localised decreases in an open system? Then this is pervasive in the growth an maintenance of all life and his 'nanomachines' are simply MacIntosh's gloss on every-day biological systems. Either way, I dod not think that MacIntosh's claims have sufficient clarity, let alone credibility, that they can be included in the article without some reliable WP:SECONDARY sources interpreting them. I am therefore removing the material pending further clarifications. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, we need some secondary sources. And redflags are raised for me as well.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Inclusion of material, especially material unclear enough to bring to the talk page, really needs reliable secondary sources to establish due weight. aprock (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then please explain what kind of source is this: "mathematician Jason Rosenhouse stated:


 * The fact is that natural forces routinely lead to decreases in entropy. Water freezes into ice and fertilised eggs turn into babies. Plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugar and oxygen, but [we do] not invoke divine intervention to explain the process [...] thermodynamics offers nothing to dampen our confidence in Darwinism.[150]" :::::::::- do you hold it for primary or secondary? Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks secondary to me, it's a mainstream source commenting on fringe claims. As require to give due weight. . dave souza, talk 22:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please explain this edit summary
In this [] edit Stephfo uses the edit summary 'unduly self-serving" WP:SELFPUB & WP:REDFLAG respectively'. How so?  Or, perhaps that edit summary was copied and pasted from somewhere else?  Like maybe here?  [] .   Try reading those policies first, and using misleading edit summaries is a real no no. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe Stephfo was simply parroting this edit summary of mine. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Stephfo has added similar material to an another article as well, and asked me why I reverted it on my talk page. The question revealed that he is completely unfamiliar with WP policies. I've just advised him to read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR and stick to them. We'll see if he does. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's correct, my position is like this: : So please explain in great detail what particular rule within that text was violated, otherwise such qritique is not valid if no reference to real violation is provided and just claim itself cannot be accepted as proof, but rather just a logical fallacy -Argument by assertion or argument of ceasar's new dress talking about violation that nobody is able to specify but just to make references into general descriptions of rules. As for my using [] I do not think there should be double standars - the rules should apply in the same way.--Stephfo (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You ought to read the policies you say have been violated, becuase they very clearly have not been. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * May then let me know if in this edit "this edit summary of mine." these polices also clearly have not been violated or if yes, where the difference stems from?Thanx--88.88.83.52 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ABOUTSELF was violated by citing an a set of "unduly self-serving" claims to a self-published blog source. WP:REDFLAG was violated by citing some extraordinary claims about the second law of thermodynamics to a considerably-less-than-extraordinary source. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you pls. quote the exaxt section of text causing violation? You again just claim the violation w/o proving it. --88.88.83.52 (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)--
 * 88.88.83.52, you are edit warring. Please don't. If you continue I will request that your IP is blocked. Contrary to popular belief, it's the talk page rather than the undo link that should be used for resolving content disputes. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are however some kind of gentlemen agreement to be applied in my opinion, if the claim is that consensus should be reached on discussion pages and at the same time only one-sided text is allowed to be left displayed at main article, it is hardly to be considered as ethical. In my strong opinion both side's texts should be then removed or both left and a label warning on ongoing discussion flagged. --88.88.83.52 (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But there is no reason given by Yobol for his undo, why such approach is accepted?--88.88.83.52 (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a read through Consensus and consider using the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But this is exactly what I'm doing:
 * First, Hrafn Undid revision 439539457 using reasoning: Per WP:REDFLAG & talk
 * I pointed out that: undo was referenced to "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources." but it was not identified what a sensational claim should be in given text. Obviously to claim that DNA contains nucleotides that do not naturally bond together should not be regarded as sensational.
 * Then, Dominus Vobisdu Undid revision 439648388 by claiming "Violates WP:SELFPUB" but provided no evidence for such claim.
 * I reacted: Text reflects mainstream research status, please identify first specific text section that you regard for self-pub in talk. Likewise, fact that living organisms contain DNA is hardly to be accepted as selfpub.
 * Again, Yobol Undid revision 439650687 by giving no reason whatsoever, how come someone is allowed to make empty claims w/o being required to prove it and at the end it is me who is warned to be blocked?

If consensus should be reached and this seem diffficult to happen, then I suggest that the page is allowed to be labeled with neutrality label until a consensus will be reached.--88.88.83.52 (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I did give a reason: "per talk", which is shorthand for "consensus has been reach on the talk page against this change". Just so we are clear, I also agree with the numerous objections above. Yobol (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm blind or what, but I see many editors writing in a very vague terms "consensus has been reach ". "I also agree with the numerous objections above." but nothing tangible. Thus, please enlist:
 * A. consensus =?
 * B. the numerous objections above:
 * 1.?
 * 2.? etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.83.52 (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Discuss means discuss until you can find consensus based on policy, not say something then revert because you think you are right. That is edit warring and that will get you blocked. That's just how it is here. You picked a contentious topic so you need to be patient and work with the other editors. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who are you referring to but if is addressed to me, than please note that I did not start performing any revert - I added a text, not reverted, so I believe "discuss is discuss" is applying equally on both sides, otherwise I have no explanation why only one sides must discuss to add its text and other is allowed to remove w/o discussion. --88.88.83.52 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's how things are done at Wikipedia for the obvious reason that we do not want someone to add nonsense to an established article and then say "you can't remove it until an exhaustive discussion has established that the material violates a policy". By all means, add material, but if it is reverted a discussion must show a consensus that the material is helpful before it is added again (WP:BRD). Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How can be consensus shown if my Qs remain unattended?

Ref.: Maybe I'm blind or what, but I see many editors writing in a very vague terms "consensus has been reach ". "I also agree with the numerous objections above." but nothing tangible. Thus, please enlist:
 * A. consensus =?
 * B. the numerous objections above (I assume there are at least two if there are numerous):
 * Objection 1: ?
 * Objection 2: ?
 * That's what I call vandalism if a person removes content w/o being able to provide any reasoning, just claims or references to non-existent evidence, failing to identify the part of text that should cause some WP violations. The only conclusion I can make is that my text is somehow Guilty by Suspicion, but that normally should not be considered a valid argument. I guess if somebody would condemn you to electric chair claiming you're guilty of murder, you would also insist an evidence should be provided first. I also disagree that content should be allowed to be removed w/o appropriate reasoning, there should be always a good intention of Wikipedian assumed in is contribution (kind of presumption of innocence) and if disputed, a reasonable argument with evidence should be required. It makes very bad impression if argument for erasing content constantly shifts, seems text is unwanted by default/a priori and only appropriate ground must be somehow invented ad hoc. --Stephfo (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can call it vandalism all you want, indeed, I could not care less if you called it Steve, but you first ought to learn how things work around here. There are policies, we are following them, you are not.  Oh and feel free to report all of us for vandalism, let's see how that goes...  Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "There are policies, we are following them" that's again general statement w/o pointing to single text section that should violate any WP rule. Are you trying to propose that the "policy" is to erase texts at anyone's discretion w/o giving any single evidence for given claim or even no reason at all? Such approach is usually applied by very manipulative people who are aware they do not have any better arguments at hand, just argumentum ad lapidem or argumentum ad baculum at the very best.--Stephfo (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC).
 * It's nice that you've studied formal logic and know all the fallacies by their Latin names, really, it is. However, we are not here to argue with you; the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to WP:BATTLE with your fellow editors.  If you'd like to present specific changes you'd like to see, and if you're willing to work with other editors, then by all means discuss it here, otherwise you're not doing much to contribute to the  encyclopedia, and I can promise you that it's not going to get you anywhere here.   N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  09:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Stephfo, do not call other manipulative. Please read WP:NPA. It is another one of our policies. One of the really important ones here is consensus, and it should be clear to you and your English to Latin dictionary that everyone, (and that is my reading, I see no other editor supporting your view) disagrees with you. Move on please. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Does it mean the claim is not required to be supported by evidence? Anyone at his discretion can claim whatsoever without supporting such claim by evidence? AFAIK, wikipedia rules are not based on majority. Or have they changed? It is your turn to "move on" to present your arguments:
 * Objection1=?
 * Objection2=?
 * etc.
 * against text: Or are you trying to propose that I should accept erase of my text w/o any objection supported by evidence and even it is my turn to find such evidence against my own text? Sounds nonsense. I'm convinced I can demonstrate the manipulation -you as a group avoid discussing passages of my text but ascertain it should be erased -nobody knows which sentence is wrong but everybody agrees the text as a whole is banned. When Q raised -ignored; reasoning -everybody agrees (Argumentum ad populum).  That's what I call manipulation. If you do not want to point out specific text sentences that are not acceptable for you then how do you want to reach consensus in modifying it? That's pretending "discussion is in progress" but no actual textual passages are allowed to be discussed. Or do you agree with all of them and that's why you do not accept the text? Or do you disagree with all of them including that living organisms contain DNA? --Stephfo (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You've provided an entertaining example of a creationist who's muddled about biology and about thermodynamics, but we don't give "equal validity" to such claims, we're required to give due weight to mainstream views by showing how this fringe theory has been received. Which is why we need a reputable mainstream source commenting on the fringe claim. Got one? . . dave souza, talk 22:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pls. do not use Appeal to ridicule, I believe it is not up to WP standards, but rather pick up a sentence from my erased text  that in your conviction is eligible to your claim and demonstrate how it is in discrepancy with "mainstream views". Is it this one: "He argues that if, for example, guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would refrain from bonding together as there is no machine (such as Molecular tweezer) to provide a free energy in a specific way to enable that bond to take place."? Is the mainstream view that if guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would bond together naturally without anything more to be added? Please provide source for such sensational claim!--Stephfo (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, your claims are indeed sensational, but unsupported by any reliable source: it's up to you to provide these sources, not for me to do original research by debunking yet another creationist claim. As a matter of interest, while they don't comment on this particular conference paper, the Wessex Institute of Technology has form: guess who turned up at the Second International Conference on Design and Nature! . . . dave souza, talk 23:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it really so that you regard for sensational and non-main stream following claim: "if, for example, guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would refrain from bonding together as there is no machine (such as Molecular tweezer)"?
 * The article "objections to evolution" obviously attempts to state that it is enlisting and possibly refuting objections raised against evolution. If one of the objection is regarded as not allowed to be presented as it is declared, then I believe the whole section should disappear because it is then presenting something else than argument itself and misleading the Wikipedia reader, creating false notion about argument raised and even possibly unethically damaging the reputation of a person by twisting his position.--Stephfo (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Got a reliable source for that? p.s. papers in these conference reports aren't really peer reviewed, as Scott Minnich agreed. . . dave souza, talk 00:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and don't remove properly sourced info because you're not getting support for inclusion of non-notable creationist claims. You behaviour is getting increasingly WP:POINTY, please desist. . . dave souza, talk 00:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I regard for argumentum ad absurdum the proposition that there is better source required for claim of some person than the person himself. Please realize your fallacy - you effectively declare that if a wikipedia page states that a person A declares claim B, then there is a source C needed to prove that A really claims B and A cannot be used as reliable source of his own claims. That's nonsense. It has nothing to do with Q whether the claim A is per reviewed, if you declare that person A states B, then you should quote B and only then you can add in you text that this claim is not per-reviewed and accepted by you as such a such etc. --Stephfo (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, please demonstrate then how the claim "Another objection is that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics." is sourced. There was a hyperlink at A.McIntosh's page to this section making a false illusion that his claim is like one presented in this section. May you please identify McIntosh sourced statements that are in line with the text in this section? You want to create illusion that he states what is in this section, but his own real views on this topic cannot be presented? Highly unethical.--Stephfo (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, you want to improve the McIntosh bio then, but you must still not give "equal validity" to his claims, and must give due weight to mainstream views by showing how his fringe theory has been received. Without that, his bio is unbalanced and includes non-notable stuff of no evident significance. You're having a go at the wrong article. . dave souza, talk 01:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

@Stephfo: It seems that you still not understand the fact that, according to WP policy, any added material has to be backed up with solid, reliable sources. You've added this material seven times already, and it's been reverted by seven different editors. That's a pretty good sign that there is something majorly wrong with the material, and that it does not conform to several key WP policies, most of all WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTE. Several authors have pointed you to the policies in question, including me, and instead of reading the policies, you went on to edit war and personally attack other editors. It is YOUR responsibility to make sure that any material you add is well sourced and in accordance with WP policies. It is YOUR responsibility to familiarize yourself with those policies. It is now YOUR responsibility to build consensus and convince your fellow editors that the material you propose adding is worth adding. To do that, you had better understand the following policies: WP:ETIQUETTE, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:BRD. The reason no one is taking the time to pick apart your contribution line by line is that it is not backed up by solid sources, and thus reads like a mish-mash of self-published material and your own original research and synthesis. In other words, you really haven't provided anything that is worth the time to pick over line by line. If you want to start a discussion here, provide something backed up with solid sources first. Otherwise, you are going to continue to be ignored. Take the time to intimately familiarize yourself with the policies listed above, and it will soon be clear to you why your proposed additions failed to pass muster here. This is a controversial topic, and if you want to edit here, you will have to adhere very closely to the policies, which you can't do without having read them first. So take a break for a while and get reading. You might want to get some practice and build up some credibility by editing less controversial topics for a while. You might want to consider finding a mentor using WP:Adopt-a-user. When you go to edit a controversial topic like this one, take the time to browse through the talk page archives first to familiarize yourself with past disputes and how they were handled, and to get to know how your fellow editors think. Fortunately, you haven't been disciplined for your recent editwarring and other breaches of Wiki-etiquette. Don't let that happen. Keep a cool head when you edit at all times. Acting in haste or anger will only get you in trouble, and possibly banned. Accept the fact that policies may be interpreted and applied differently here than on Slovakian Wiki. That is particularly true for controversial topics. It's YOUR responsibility to adjust and adapt to the new environment. So welcome to English Wiki, and I wish you a lot of fun and success! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I also added this incident to the fringe theories notice board so we'll likely have some extra eyes over the next couple days. As far as I can tell, Stephfo has already violated 3RR as himself and 88.88.83.52 but I hate putting together 3RR reports. However, since he has been warned and continues to edit war and edit tendentiously it might not be a bad idea to bring some admin attention here if it continues.   N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  01:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How come then that you are not able to identify the single sentence and prove that it violates any WP policy? Number of editors means nothing -they are all evolutionists backing up the position of biased article, it would be a miracle if they would not support the twisted misrepresentation of McIntosh' own views. The problem is not whether the source is reliable - but that you create false impression someone is claiming something he is not claiming and not allowing to present what he really is claiming. May you please state how many of these editors were non-evolutionists? You also violate following WP rule: "Focus on content: The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors." Please do not argument with editors. I'm trying to bring you to collaborate on content, but you just keep general sentences and avoid discussing actual content itself not even be able to compare your citation with my sentences and thus proving there is anything wrong with them. I read already multiple times this policies in my native language, pls. stop using argument that I should read something and better pick up concrete sentences you believe support your position. Thanx --Stephfo (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignored per WP:SHUN and WP:TLDR. N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  01:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless your native language is English you have not read our policies in your native language. So, go do some reading, and learn how it works around here.  When everyone disagrees with you it might be that you are completely and utterly wrong.   Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Violated policy: WP:REDFLAG -- sentences: everything that McIntosh says, as already stated. WP:TALK is not a mutual suicide pact -- when an editor places their ideology front and centre, it is very hard to discuss their proposals without addressing their ideological bias. Now either present an "extraordinary source" supporting the credibility of McIntosh's claims, or move on. WP:DEADHORSE applies. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrafn, may you please be specific what so "extraordinary" McIntosh "says"? You have not identified any such sentence - the article contains summary of mainstream data, it is not so extraordinary to claim that living organisms contain DNA, is it? And to claim that if "guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would refrain from bonding together as there is no machine (such as Molecular tweezer) to provide a free energy in a specific way to enable that bond to take place" is not so extraordinary either- or do u claim that it is? You should pehaps read more on molecular tweezers, I believe. It is not possible to accept your objection if you are not able to identify the extraordinary claim within the sentences, and without such identification what exactly the extraordinary claim should be such objection becomes invalid. Or do you declare that the text contains sensational claim, but you do not know what that sensational claim is?--Stephfo (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As this answer was given three days ago, I am closing this WP:DEADHORSE of a thread. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's very good tactic - you keep blaming the text with ungrounded flood of accusations, not able to demonstrate any rule was violated, keep ignoring the questions, refusing to discuss actual text and modify it, and when the discussion becomes too long and you recieve unconvenient question, you just close the whole discussion by stating WP:DEADHORSE. Pls. do not use WP:IDONTLIKEIT way of behaving. To repeat the Q: Do you declare that the text contains sensational claim (=your objection based on which you erased the text), but you do not know what that sensational claim is? Let's summarize your position:
 * Objection 1: The text contains sensational claim. Q - what it is supposed to be? -Trial for answer:
 * Possible answer1: Alledged sensational claim: "Does he mean 'in a closed system'? Then this would be a clear violation of 2LoT, nanomachines or not."
 * The original text that you as a group of opponents erased, would give you the answer: "The principles of thermodynamics even in open systems do not allow a new function using raised free energy levels to be achieved without new machinery. And new machines are not made by simply adding energy to existing machines." I guess this is what he means.
 * Independent source: Per A. Larsen: Darwins lære faller (ISBN 82-7199-2228) p.127: "Entropy can be forced to decrease in open system by applying enough external energy and information in an organized form."
 * Scientific demostration in laboratory: "if, for example, guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would refrain from bonding together as there is no machine (such as Molecular tweezer) to provide a free energy in a specific way to enable that bond to take place."
 * "Mainstream" confirmation that the argument presented in article as "This claim is based on a manifestation of the law only applicable to isolated systems, which do not exchange matter or energy with their surroundings." is somewhat odd: John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980, p. 40: "… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
 * Conclusion: Do you suggest to modify the sentence in following way: "A.McIntosh as creationist however declares that the decrease in entropy is generally possible, even irrespective of isolated and open system, ..." and then it will be acceptable for you?
 * Note: WP is governed by rule: "verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Thus, even if you have personal problems to understand the principle yourself, it should not make you to ban article that is beyond your comprehension.
 * Counter-argument 1: Do you declare that "every-day biological systems" can decrease locally the entropy w/o "his nanomachines" (after all, I thought nanomachines have non-McIntosh-dedicated Wikipedia stand-alone article)? What would be the scientific test in laboratory to prove such claim, and what reliable source presenting associated data to back such claim? Can you demonstarte it? To me sounds sensational. Thanks for explanation --Stephfo (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute -Violation of the second law of thermodynamics
NB! Please adhare to WP: Assume good faith
 * I'm following this WP policy: "If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]"
 * I'm disputing this article section because it clearly violates this WP policy (“Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.”)- the article misrepresents the position of proponents of this argument and replaces it with a strawman. In the article devoted to A.McIntosh (Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds) there had been a hyperlink to this section (that I removed but it was already several times put back Andrew McIntosh (professor)) thus creating false impression that this section should be expression of his position as creationist. That's why I propose to present the real position of proponents of this argument as described in here: Objections to evolution and properly sourced in their papers (the first refused version was sourced from BBC Radio Ulster) and not just its stripped version. If anybody feels that argument is wrong, it is possible to state it below that text with all the reassoning without the need to remove the text explaining creationist’s position (the section declares: “Creationists argue that” but it fails to present the full version of heir position).

The article "objections to evolution" obviously attempts to state that it is enlisting and possibly refuting objections raised against evolution. If one of the objection (namely “Violation of the second law of thermodynamics”) is regarded as not allowed to be presented as it is declared, then I believe the whole section should disappear because it is then presenting something else than argument itself and misleading the Wikipedia reader, creating false notion about argument raised and even possibly unethically damaging the reputation of a person by twisting his position (WP:V“Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people”). --Stephfo (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I would point out that McIntosh is neither the first nor the most prominent creationist to claim the 2LoT prohibits evolution -- the claim dates back at least to Scientific Creationism (1947) Henry M. Morris. And I would remind you that, as I pointed out above, the expressions that we have seen of McIntosh's claims on the subject are both insufficiently coherent, and insufficiently evaluated by WP:SECONDARY sources to be suitable for inclusion here.
 * 2) McIntosh's claim that his objection to evolution is based upon "empiricism" is both "extraordinary" in that it would appear to fly in the fact of all scientific evidence, and appears to be "unduly self-serving" -- so WP:REDFLAG applies to it. It should not be restored without a secondary source to analyse it.
 * NPOV does not mean we give every crackpot idea its due. This would violate WP:UNDUE, among other policies.  Agree with Hrafn re REDFLAG.  We have a pretty clear case over the last little while of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.  We really ought to move on from this.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that the tag is not necessary, we have ONE editor, who is pretty much a SPA POV pusher and a bunch of others pointing our to him/her that their interpretations of policy are completely and utterly wrong. We have one editor that clearly does not understand policy.  The tag should be removed.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I tracked down the paper on which the proposed section is based (it's not even mentioned on Google Scholar -- I don't know about the more serious citation databases) to here (abstract available directly, paper available with free registration). I've had a quick skim of it, and could see no mention of nanomachines. His claims look fairly similar (at least at a superficial level) to Dembski's information-as-magic-pixy-dust claims. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are violating the WP rule: "In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed." Also there is a rule that you should give a chance for reply.
 * Add. "I would point out that McIntosh is neither the first nor the most prominent creationist to claim the 2LoT prohibits evolution" - that might be truth but it has nothing to do with my argument on his position being twisted. My understanding of the situation is following: You as representants of group A with opinion X delcare that opposing group B proposing argument Y cannot present their argument Y because their own sources are "not good enough sources" for presenting their own arguemnts and that's why their own arguments must be replaced by twisted argument Z falsely presented as argument of group B that they did not hold. This is not very ethical.--Stephfo (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The source is worthless. WIT Press is a vanity press that charges authors 50 Euro a page to publish their work []. I've read the paper, and it is basically gibberish, and contains gross fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry. It's basically just a slapdash rehash of irreducible complexity and complex information tripe interspersed with some irrelevant claptrap about the second law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, it's poorly sourced, and clearly not peer reviewed. As such, it violates WP:SELFPUB. Clearly not a source that meets WP guidelines in any way, shape or form, and not notable as well.


 * There is no dispute here. Just one editor pushing a fringe "theory". The tag should be removed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. "good chance" != "surely is".  Having a single editor exhaust all energies in pursuit of specific content smacks more of a manufactured debate than a real debate. aprock (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This topic has been discussed to death for nearly a full week. As far as I can see, Stephfo has failed to garner even a single supporter for their viewpoint (or cite a single reliable third party source supporting McIntosh's position). As such, the WP:CONSENSUS is clearly against the proposed change. I therefore suggest that:
 * It is not appropriate to retain the NPOV tag on the section.
 * That we move on.
 * (I would note parenthetically that the claim that McIntosh's "position [is] being twisted" is obvious WP:Complete bollocks -- as "his position" is not mentioned in the article at all!)
 * Might I suggest that it be time to invoke WP:SHUN? No sense in wasting more time on this. Yobol (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SHUN is probably the best course of action for this editor, imho. Haven't really replied to this long discussions, but have been sideline reading them. — raeky  t  18:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, this is very unethical: You, evolutionists, group A, with opinion X, declare that your opponents, creationists, group B, holding opinion Y, cannot have their opinion Y presented because their own papers "are not good enough sources" of their own opinion and that's why twisted opinion Z had to be falsely atributed to them to misrepresent their own position. Even if we would accept that given source is not up to some standards of evolutionists, then it would be ethical at least to decalre that the objection is presented from point of view how evolutionist understand it and that might widely differ from the real position of the proponents of this objection. As for NPOV, I was naively convinced that the flag should not be removed until the disussion is reaching some consensus and also a matter of courtesy is to give your opponent a time for reply. Thanks for your attention. --Stephfo (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Add."Stephfo has failed to garner even a single supporter for their viewpoint" - This was because:
 * 1. I was warned not to look for one, am I allowed to start searching now?
 * 2. You are not allowing even NPOV flag to be raised on - if you are genuinely interested in 3rd party opinions - just leave it on. If you consider in a totalitarian way that only your view is acceptable, keep it off. --Stephfo (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

'''Get it through your head -- WE ARE NOT talking about McIntosh's specific claims, so we are not misrepresenting him. You HAVE NOT demonstrated that we have misrepresented creationist claims about 2Lot GENERALLY -- so you HAVE NOT demonstrated a NPOV problem.' <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk''(P) 18:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You always make bare claims without any supportive demonstration of them. Do you declare that these two sentences are contradicting "mainstream" science?
 * "Entropy can be forced to decrease in open system by applying enough external energy and information in an organized form."
 * "if, for example, guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would refrain from bonding together as there is no machine (such as Molecular tweezer) to provide a free energy in a specific way to enable that bond to take place."
 * Add."WE ARE NOT talking about McIntosh's specific claims, so we are not misrepresenting him."
 * 1. You had placed hyperlink at his page to this article making false impression as if the presented argument would be of his.
 * 2. Here you claim - "This claim is based on a manifestation of the law only applicable to isolated systems, which do not exchange matter or energy with their surroundings."
 * 3. McIntosh claims: "The principles of thermodynamics even in open systems do not allow a new function using raised free energy levels to be achieved without new machinery. And new machines are not made by simply adding energy to existing machines." There is clear discrepancy between claim of McIntosh refering to open system and your assertion that the argument "is based on a manifestation of the law only applicable to isolated systems".
 * (Compare: John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980, p. 40: "… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
 * 4. May you please introduce your source "^ Lambert, F (2002). "Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions". Journal of Chemical Education 79: 187–192. doi:10.1021/ed079p187. Retrieved 2007-03-24." - is it creationists or what kind of institution it is? I do not regard for smart the idea that the best approach how, for example, to learn the unbiased position of capitalists, would be to ask communists what they think about their views. Maybe the Hollywood blacklist would be the best demostration, although a bit vice-versa, of that principle.--Stephfo (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "Do you declare that these two sentences are contradicting "mainstream" science?" Yes. (i) The inclusion of "information" is irrelevant -- just more creationist BS. (ii) It's been a long time since I studied physics but I'm fairly sure that 'entropy' is more than simply the lack of energy -- so it is unclear to me that adding energy decreases entropy. (iii) The talk about machines/molecular tweezers is simply more creationist BS.
 * 2) A "hyperlink at his page to this article" does not mean that his ideas will be directly addressed here -- only that relevant information can be found here -- like the fact that pretty much the entire scientific community considers claims that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics to be complete BS. This is not "misleading".
 * 3) Lambert is cited for the rebuttal of this claim -- Morris is cited for the claim itself.

This discussion is over, Stephfo. You have failed to generate any interest in your proposed addition, and have violated a whole slew of WP policies with regard to both content and your behavior toward other editors. SEVEN different editors have reverted your additions, and consensus is clearly against you. Give it up, already! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You always fail to answer Qs you do not like - they've been 4, you've managed to see only 3.
 * #"Do you declare that these two sentences are contradicting "mainstream" science?" Yes. --> then please demonstarte which source states that if "guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would bonding together without anyting else at all".
 * "(ii) It's been a long time since I studied physics but I'm fairly sure that 'entropy' is more than simply the lack of energy" --> Nobody had declared the entropy is lack of energy, please do not alter the arguments of your opponents
 * #the entire scientific community considers claims that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics to be complete BS - if it is so, then why they've been all the time unseccessfully trying to establish various speculative models for "selvorganization"? Prigogines, Babloyantas, Kauffman,...

(:Counter-argument 1: Do you declare that "every-day biological systems" can decrease locally the entropy w/o "his nanomachines" (after all, I thought nanomachines have non-McIntosh-dedicated Wikipedia stand-alone article)? What would be the scientific test in laboratory to prove such claim, and what reliable source presenting associated data to back such claim? Can you demonstarte it? To me sounds sensational. Thanks for explanation.) --Stephfo (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. To quote Wilder Smith whose book 'The natural sciences know nothing of evolution' is available on the web - p. 146 "Today it is simply unscientific to claim that the fantastically reduced entropy of the human brain, of the dolphin's sound lens, and of the eye of a fossilised trilobite simply "happened", for experimental experience has shown that such miracles just do not "happen"."I believe this should not be that difficult to understand, is it?--Stephfo (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I know it is over for you, if you have no answers what else you can do? Only arrogant manipulation to be used as argument: "Consensus reached" even though that you know it is not so.

Change Title
The title of this page no longer fits the contents. The article no longer contains Objections to Evolution therefore the title is deceptive. I move for the page being re-titled to "Reasons for Evolution" due to the fact that that's what this article is about. --Jacksoncw (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article does a very good job of detailing the various ways people have objected to evolution over the years, and also helpfully demonstrates how those objections have been unsubstantiated by modern science. Mildly MadTC 20:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with change. It is very easy to demonstrate that the current title is deceptive, it officially proclaims to enlist the objections against evolution but in fact it does not allow them to be presented in their true statements, an glare example is recent controversy I had with proponets of the section on thermodynamics that is altered out of the all recognition and even proponensts themselves agree they cannot present this argument as it is because they consider it as non-mainstream thus banned. Strangly enough, they redirect e.g. "creationist objections to evolution" to this artile while in fact they do not allow for true creationist arguments to be presented, clearly violating NPOV policy. To demonstarte this in real life, try to add following creationist argument:

"The ice example is thermodynamically irrelevant to the origin of life. When ice freezes, it releases heat energy into the environment. This causes an entropy increase in the surroundings. If the temperature is low enough, this entropy increase is greater than the loss of entropy in forming the crystal. But the formation of proteins and nucleic acids from amino acids and nucleotides not only lowers their entropy, but it removes heat energy (and entropy) from their surroundings. Thus ordinary amino acids and nucleotides will not spontaneously form proteins and nucleic acids at any temperature. Also we should distinguish between order and complexity. Crystals are ordered; life is complex. To illustrate: a periodic (repeating) signal, e.g. ABABABABABAB, is an example of order. However, it carries little information: only ‘AB’, and ‘print 6 times’. A crystal is analogous to that sequence; it is a regular, repeating network of atoms. Like that sequence, a crystal contains little information: the co-ordinates of a few atoms (i.e. those which make up the unit cell), and instructions ‘more of the same’ x times. If a crystal is broken, smaller but otherwise identical crystals result. Conversely, breaking proteins, DNA or living structures results in destruction, because the information in them is greater than in their parts. A crystal forms because this regular arrangement, determined by directional forces in the atoms, has the lowest energy. Thus the maximum amount of heat is released into the surroundings, so the overall entropy is increased....Proteins and DNA are also non-random aperiodic sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures, which are caused by the properties of their constituents."
 * As contra-argument to statement:

"The fact is that natural forces routinely lead to decreases in entropy. Water freezes into ice"
 * I can almost guarantee it will be erased within few minutes.
 * I'm not proposing article should give positive impression about creationism or of their arguments if someone holds that view for odd, but it would be fair to present real arguments as they are declared and not as they are twisted by noted opponents of that views affected by animosity, who have all reasons to adjust these arguments to suit their own agenda.--Stephfo (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not sure I fully understand the reasoning behind the original comment, but the title appears appropriate for the content - it discusses the various objections to evolution. Yobol (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But without stating them in their full form, only after censorship by proponents of evolutionary view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephfo (talk • contribs) 21:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement "The fact is that natural forces routinely lead to decreases in entropy. Water freezes into ice", makes reference (as far as I can tell, otherwise IS wrong) to the fact that the argument that evolution breaks the 2lotd is flawed due to a wrong interpretation of the word "entropy", wich leads to the thesis that evolution is not possible because, over time, everything must decay and become "simpler". This simple fact of life (+ snow) proves that everything on earth does not decay over time, and ice is arguably more complex that water. (it's also arguably more simple than water, wich means that this particular wrong interpretation of "entropy" leads to an ambiguous unit). Also, for you to use "order" and "complexity" in a scientific setting you have to provide exact units, see second,meter, kilogram
 * I've read the citation where the "water turns into ice" quotation can be found, and by the context that is provided, it does seem that addresses the misuse of the term "entropy".
 * Also, creationists arguments ARE presented, however is a very well known and wide agreement within the scientific community that evolution is a fact. This happens partially because the theory of evolution has a lot of evidence that backs it, has made several predictions, and no one has found a theoretical flaw in it in several decades (mind you, in non-formal sciences this is not as easy or common as in, for example, mathematics). Because of these, all of the creationists arguments have counter arguments by proponents of evolution. Due to Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight, we are therefore forced to show all of these counter arguments (provided they're sourced).
 * If you have new widespread arguments against evolution that you can source, you are welcome to place them here. But remember, is very likely there is evidence or counter arguments than can be found very quickly, due to the status (and by status I mean a lot of empirical evidence and strong theoretical grounds) of evolution as I mentioned in the last paragraph.
 * PS. please avoid personal attacks.
 * Plaga701 (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Appears to be a proposal designed simply to make a point. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Yobol and Escape Orbit. 'Reasons for Evolution' would be a horrid title, the reasons for it are umm, because it is.  Do we have a reasons for gravity page? oh and BTW there is no censorship of ideas, however, there are these wacky policies we follow like FRINGE and UNDUE etc....  Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Title accurately matches content. Proposed change is pointy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The title is accurate, as the article discusses objections to evolution.  The article is not for making objections to evolution, as that would entail using pseudoscience, and disreputable sources, or original research due to a refusal to understand science.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Jacksoncw, would you care to elaborate as to why this page does not longer contains objections to evolution? As far as I can tell, it consists of several arguments against evolution and counter-arguments for those arguments. This title fits, but I think a better one could be "Arguments against evolution" since the word 'Objection' doesn't necessarily implies reasoning. I'm inclined to oppose change, but I would like to hear more about the original argument.Plaga701 (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems like Evolutionists went into the page and provided some arguments against evolution that they may have experienced from amateurs and posted them in the article with their counterargument. It's more like an evolutionary propaganda page than a dissection/analysis of objections to evolution. That's why I proposed the change.--Jacksoncw (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, you're not proposing a change to benefit the article, but to get back on your soapbox and screech about "evolutionist" (sic) oppression.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Remember that Jacksoncw feels that this page is already a soapbox.Plaga701 (talk)
 * I skimmed over the creationists arguments presented, and while the vast majority are sourced (didn't checked the sources), they generally only present the thesis and some of the reasoning behind it. I'm not familiar with the current contra-evolutionist arguments that are modern and accepted, so I can't judge the quality of the sources or the arguments, only their vadility.<br\>
 * Jacksoncw, if you have sources for the most recent articles and papers of counter-evolutionists proponents, and feel that this page is outdated and/or presents non-wide views of the non-evolutionists community, I think the correct thing to do is open a new section in the talk page presenting these sources. Mind you, to be able to state a non-wide view and outdated information, you need to present non-evolutionists arguments against the outdated non-evolutionists presented in this article, or accepted non-evolutionists texts (texts=articles,papers,books,links...) that contradict the non-evolutionists arguments presented here.
 * If you have better, more-up-to-date accepted sources for the arguments already presented here, update the sources then.
 * Also, for all the editors of this article, I think we could expand the counter evolutionists arguments here to present more than just a thesis and some reasoning. But please, make sure that the science used is accurate, otherwise we're bound to end up in lengthily discussions about what is and what is not "entropy" and the like.
 * For this kind of article, I suggests we avoid bold editing. Given it's controversial, we could end up with a lot of edit-wars, wich would only hurt the article. Let's propose the changes here before making them final.
 * If you can't find such sources, please put this matter to rest.
 * And finally, let's remember WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and let's avoid personal attacks. Plaga701 (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Does Wikipedia has right to be called free at all?--Stephfo (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Add. "If you have better, more-up-to-date accepted sources for the arguments already presented here, update the sources then." That's what I did at least two times, I provided argument of university professor of thermodynamics, then it was refused by proponents of evolutionary view that have nothing to do with thermodynamics whatsoever, obviously accepted by pro-evolution community of WP as "per-review" committee, designating view of professor of thermodynamics as "basically gibberish, and contains gross fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry" but when I asked to enlist three major errors none was stated as a matter of fact.--Stephfo (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass me that article if you will.Plaga701 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Does it make sense? My inconvenient arguments (from perspective of proponents of evolutionary view) can be found only erased in history of this page, isn't it going to be the same? If not, let's have a look:

[[File:Chloroplast.svg|thumb|275px|right|In plants and algae, photosynthesis takes place in organelles called chloroplasts. Chloroplast ultrastructure: 1. outer membrane 2. intermembrane space 3. inner membrane (1+2+3: envelope)

4. stroma (aqueous fluid)

5. thylakoid lumen (inside of thylakoid)

6. thylakoid membrane

7. granum (stack of thylakoids)

8. thylakoid (lamella)

9. starch

10. ribosome

11. plastidial DNA 12. plastoglobule (drop of lipids)]] A.McIntosh as creationist however declares that the decrease in entropy is generally possible, but there are nanomachines (which he differentiates from natural forces and attributes to outcome of design thus intelligence) necessary to achieve for that effect, and he even tries to demonstrate it with examples that the chemical bonds between nucleotides in DNA require an extra so called Gibbs free energy to take part in the process, an this extra energy can be provided in his view only by means of these molecular machines. He argues that if, for example, guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would refrain from bonding together as there is no machine (such as Molecular tweezer) to provide a free energy in a specific way to enable that bond to take place. Further on he points out that after living organism dies and these machines cease working, the DNA starts falling apart even while still being exposed to extra energy. Thus, he believes natural selection has no power to create new functional structures such as DNA or information biopolymer, respectively, without which fertilized eggs would not turn into babies. Likewise, he refers to photosynthesis as to process that again requires functional machine (biological mini-factory) for which he holds the leaf containing photosynthetic membranes and organelles as a whole capable to raise locally a Gibbs free energy, thus effectively catalyzing the chemical reaction and enabling photosynthesis to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephfo (talk • contribs) 00:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did we not go through this non notable person's ideas already? Where has this been covered in secondary sources?  Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alas we did, scroll up four sections, please put the stick away and back away from the dead horse. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad. There is consensus, and his arguments were addressed four sections up, I just though that I could put his doubts at ease. No point keeping this alive if we're gonna circle back to this source. Someone please put the dead horse tag, I don't know how. Plaga701 (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Second sentence bugs me
".....(Darwin's) theory of evolution by natural selection initially met opposition from alternate scientific theories....."
 * Isn't it better to say his theory "was opposed by scientists with different theories"?
 * That would get rid of that awful word "alternate" as well. As Darwin was English, "alternate" should be "alternative" anyway. (e.g. Ferranti said his alternating current was a superior alternative to DC). Moriori (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, better; did it. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)