Talk:Objections to evolution/Archive 9

Criticisms from a minority of scientists
There have been criticisms from a minority of scientists. "Since then, nearly all criticisms of evolution have come from religious sources, rather than from the scientific community"- where is the reference or evidence for this statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.143.88 (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is referenced later in the article, the lede does not need refs, it is a summary of the article itself. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Statements made in the lede do not need references or citations if they are further explained (and given appropriate references and citations) in the appropriate section later in the article, as per Manual of Style--Mr Fink (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems no such material later in the article so rather than presenting the summary up front of later material this seems simply making up a conclusion. Could be just a vague lead-in because the para structure is poor -- it could have started the para with line 3, then line 2 and not needed this line at all.  Markbassett (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested to see what are the non-religious criticisms or what timeframe the line refers to -- but I think reality is this was just filler. Markbassett (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose I could change the vague "Since then" (as not clear whether that means 1859, 1889, 1900, or 1930) to "currently", but since it seems uncited I am going to delete this line since is has no support and seems just filler outside the thread. Markbassett (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It's likely you haven't been getting responses because you're replying to a 7-month old thread. You should generally create a new section at the bottom of the page for new proposals. That being said, the current sentence seems very clear to me. "Since then" is "Since its acceptance within the scientific community nearly a century ago." It follows from the last two sentences. I would be open to clarifying the wording if others think it is too vague, but it certainly shouldn't be removed. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It is outside the para thread and uncited, so deletion looks to be no impact and appropriate. The vagueness distracts from the thread as it causes te question of what it is referring to, and seems just meaningless filler since "nearly a century ago" timeframe of 1914 to maybe 20 years later doesn't have anything of note in Evolution.  (Publication of DNA is 61 years ago in 1953, and modern synthesis by 1947 is 67 years ago.)   It also distracts from the thread in causing the question of "OK, so what are those minority of scientists objections", which is not presented later.
 * So again, I am intending deletion, thinking that para thread and article thread are not changed and are better for losing a bit of what seems ultimately meaningless fluff. Markbassett (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Reordering the second para -- Move 'although many religions accept' from behind line 2 list of creationists to before it ass more logical flow; remove the 'since then nearly all objections' as no cite, not clear which event refer to, and leaves question of what are the other (scientific) objections Markbassett (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The reordered wording on para 2 start seems to flow better. I'm not sure about the US-centric part, the Islamic views on evolution seem to be sidelined under History here -- but that's a different Talk topic.   Markbassett (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The lead isn't required to have sources, as it summarizes the body. The sources you're looking for can be found in the History section and Creation-evolution controversy. I'm not sure that rearranging the text on religion in the way you're proposing would help with clarity... but it's hard for me to picture it since I'm not 100% sure where you're proposing the sentences go. Could you either make a bold edit to the article, or put your proposal in tags here? (Again... this is a very old thread. It would be best to put new proposals at the bottom of the page in a new thread. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, I took a look at your change. I don't have a preference for the order either way, so I'm fine with leaving it as is (or deferring to the opinion of other editors). Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Jess - You are misreading the norm on two points (1) Talks are separate topics not a single running blog, so the most recent posts are better seen in History; and (2) If the lead does not summarize from the article it is unsupported and needs it's own cite. In this case the line "nearly all criticisms of evolution have come from religious sources" is unsupported by later content or by cite (though the nearby Numbers book cite may be a place to look) and does not connect to it's paragraph or the article subject so I view it as an improvement to delete.  It lead to this Talk thread asking so what are those minority of objections from non-religious sources, as well as wondering what is the ratio or count of "almost all", and what counts as "religious sources" -- is it just sacred texts like Genesis or is it religious leaders like Papal decrees and ministers or what -- so I will again take out that line as being off the article topic and confusing. Markbassett (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All of the precious, precious, treasured few non-religious objections to evolution stem from either a) a gross, crippling, inanity-inducing misunderstanding of basic biology/science, b) trying to peddle their own pet crackpot theory for fun and profit, or c) a+b.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that goes back to the issue of the line of if it mentions them, then what are those other objections ?

Markbassett (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Mark, as I've explained already, the sentence you removed follows directly and clearly from the History section, and ties together the preceding sentence in the first paragraph and the following content in the second paragraph. If you believe there is a notable scientific objection, or there have been consistent non-religious objections since Evolution came to prominence, then please present a source backing up that assertion. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to continue repeating myself here. You need to follow WP:DR if you are unhappy with the responses you've received thus far.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Mann -- I appreciate the level of response but the deletion of the claim 'Since then, nearly all criticisms of evolution have come from religious sources' is from being unsupported by cite or article and off-thread, not whether I will have more to enter like an opposing cite. I could credibly believe it became true in the 1940s but that does not make it properly supported.  The history in this article doesn't seem behind it, as that section ends with a para saying that in 1920s objection of 'contradicts bible' happened in America, followed by a para that later objections happen of 'unscientific', 'infringes on creationists religious freedoms', and 'is a religious stance' -- neither of these speak to what proportion of objections come from what sources at any point in history.   I will look for something in Numbers but for now -- just take the edit as an improvement to the article, or please provide some cite or content to make it's presence not be vague and detracting.  Finding I had to guess at what might apply and then vastly reword for clarity and it STILL did not really fit the thread / advance the article just made deletion obvious to me as the way to go.  Thanks. Markbassett (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've already showed you where it's derived from, and honestly, I'm not sure how the article could be any clearer on that front. You should seek dispute resolution if you disagree, or, as I suggested, bring sources that demonstrate our current coverage is lacking.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Mann -- feel free to quote out exactly which passage in History you think has a count of some kind on objections from which source and when that would support the line.  As I wrote, I've been there and do not find text to support some count of the kinds of objections, so I think the start of para 2 is just poor filler, with lesser possibility of author opinionating rather than any actual count or perhaps it is also from Numbers but was not cited.   I will still look for something in Numbers but for now -- just take the edit as an improvement to the article, or please provide some cite or content to make it's presence not be vague and detracting, which would save me the trouble of checking in Numbers. Markbassett (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Markbassett - Your response to Jess' request that you prove your point or goto WP:DR CANNOT be you telling him to prove HIS point. I think Jess has been very clear with his responses back to you and putting the onus on you as the requestor to prove your reason for editting the lede. I don't see that you've done that in any of your responses. So please provide the information that he is requesting or take it to dispute resolution. Ckruschke (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Ckruschke Obviously not "CANNOT" since I did so. What's more I should do so - since I was the editor putting in the edits of a non-supported phrase that led to question for what the minority of scientific objections were.  The hat is not exempt from being wrong or getting edits and asking for me to disprove a negative is not only a logical fallacy, it's about a line that nobody has traced to a meaning so what would I disprove ?  I've looked, it did not seem supported or for that matter something really measurable, so I asked what line he was looking at when saying he thought something reflected a count of some kind on objections from which source and when that would support the line... And not gotten back a cut-paste yet so I'm thinking it's not coming.  Meanwhile I'm looking in Numbers on the off chance that the nearest cite also had something about this.  Markbassett (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * p.s. I am still looking in the Numbers text, still intending to either cite or delete the 'almost all' line as vague line still seems not in the paragraph thread and confusing, plus just not supported by any apparent count apparent or in cite. Markbassett (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have gone thru Numbers and it was a wrong turn -- "The Creationists" was not the source of "Since then, nearly all criticisms of evolution have come from religious sources."  It turned out this is from a rather sorry bit of miswiki behavior in wording and citing.   "The Creationists" is per title covering them for the last century --  a covering of history limited to creationists, not summary of evolution views, has no counts or summary conclusions about science. I have also concluded this the cites were misplaced here long after the edits were done.


 * Conclusion -- the wording was 'most', uncited, changed to 'almost all' about 6 months later, uncited,  and cites to IAP and Ronald Numbers appeared unrelated to the wording, from Souza.  The time line of article wording seems to be:
 * 22 January 2007‎ Silence (22,903 bytes)moved Misunderstandings about evolution to Objections to evolution
 * 22 January 2007 Silence (73,353 bytes) (+50,450)‎ . . (Incorporating text from draft on User:Silence/Evolution to accomodate newly-expanded article scope.)
 * Text read without cites as "The observation, or fact, of evolutionary processes occurring, as well as the current theory explaining that fact, have been uncontroversial among biologists for nearly a century. // Since then, most criticisms and denials of evolution have come from religious, rather than scientific, sources."
 * 13 July 2007‎ Silly rabbit (79,515 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (strengthened wording from "most" to "nearly all".)
 * (this seemed in a heated exchange of posts/reverts ... not serious thought or Talk
 * 14:31, 25 July 2007‎ Orangemarlin wording is "The existence of evolutionary processes and the current theory explaining them have been uncontroversial among biologists for nearly a century.// Since then, nearly all criticisms of evolution have come from religious, rather than scientific, sources. "
 * 15:03, 25 July 2007‎ Dave souza wording is "The existence of evolutionary processes and the current theory explaining them have been uncontroversial among biologists for nearly a century.[3]// Since then, nearly all criticisms of evolution have come from religious, rather than scientific, sources.
 * 07:22, 25 December 2007‎ Hrafn (90,313 bytes) (+282)‎ . . (Reference to settle a rather pointless dispute)
 * So in response to previous pointing this as WP:OR, a irrelevant item was fairly blatently pasted in.
 * Wording was then "The existence of evolutionary processes and the current theory explaining them have been uncontroversial among biologists for nearly a century.[3]// Since then, nearly all criticisms of evolution have come from religious, rather than scientific, sources.[4]"
 * I will proceed to revert wording to "most criticisms and denials" Markbassett (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Reverting again to the 'most' of base article - someone put in 'nearly all' uncited with comment ("Most" is a gross understatement.)

instetead of the 'almost all' uncited ...
 * I do not see relative frequency as relevant but
 * reverting what seems unsupported personal opinions about what it might be and how to say it as best able
 * expecially if it's lacking participation of TALK ...

Markbassett (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms from a minority of scientists cont. - paleontologists
Straw poll ... To put in earlier mentioned long ago criticisms from scientists, I am seeking thoughts on article insertion. I am thinking of doing paleontolgists first and ask folks ideas on best way to fit into article structure: RSVP here, thanks. Markbassett (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * begin a major section for 'scientific objections' ?
 * insert a subsection 'paleontologist objections' ?
 * insert each tidbit wherrever best fit in current structure ?
 * other ideas ?


 * My suggestion would be to create a completely new section rather than add bits and pieces here and there - assuming that the info you are adding truly would not logically belong in the existing sections. Sorry to be vague, but I'm not sure what material you have in mind. However, looking at the page, there is no specific section that I would say includes "Scientific objections". Most of the material is arguments from the negative (implying "scientific" arguments from the Creationist side are ONLY of the "I Don't Want To Hear It" variety). Ckruschke (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Thanks. I'm thinking a week or so to see what folks think, and going slow with edits.  The Paleontologist objections to start with are where they feel their science misused or contrary to majority views.  (The Synthesis reconciled a number of things among views of fields e.g. paleontology, field biology, lab genetics.)  Paleontologists have scientific objections about where the paleontology is abused -- where their science has been oversimplified (e.g. cladistics is cladistics and not an ancestry tree; the pre-human arena has a lot of players, etcetera), been overstated (lacking clarity on certainty of fact what the bone is and where found versus interpretations versus potentials; and clarity on the rarity that there are many thousands of fossils but across a half-billion years a good T.Rex or Lucy is more rare than any gold or diamond) and been misguided (way way way too much pursuit of hypothetical 'missing link' as if single fossil will be the final say and mostly ignoring most eras in favor of pursuing the last million years and human ancestry...)  To fill in from the earlier talk of 'so what are the non-creationist objections' it seemed reasonable to start with the beginnings.  Markbassett (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting there should be a "major section for 'scientific objections'"? Does that imply you think there are serious "scientific objections" which aim to show that life has not evolved? Of course scientists disagree about details, but any objections added to this page would be claims that evolution is false, and almost certainly WP:SYNTH. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This topic is only asking for thoughts on how, not redebate on if. Just about mechanism of insertion for scientists objections -- example possibilites stated put scientific into separate section level or if it should be subsection inserts such as paleontology a subsection under under evidence or if it should just be mixed with the material already here and no new sections or subsections.  Maybe there is common preference for one over the other, maybe a mix, maybe there is a 'it depends' criteria.  This is just asking for thoughts on how to specifically insert the 'some scientists' objections previously talked above looking for what are the non-creationist objections from scientists and to the | Archive 8 discussion on 'New sectioning or New title' which after the 'Too much weight on creationism' asked for clarity on if article scope was intended to be just creationist objections (if so change title) or if other kinds of objections were suitable (if so clarification needed).  That one generally concluded keep the title and feel free to add other kinds of objection and specifically seems objection in the sense of a rejection or cross-purpose (criticisms and denials) and to evolution specifically biological of the current dominant view  modern synthesis.   The discussions already covered existence and what should be in here, this thread is only asking how folks think the editing of such should be done.  Please offer any thoughts on how to edit at one indent in to show response to the original post.  Thanks!  Markbassett (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't comment on 'how' without knowing exactly 'what'. Are you saying that some paleontologists actually reject evolution? Who are they and what do they say? Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dougweller - OK, if you've no general edit precepts in hand or criteria for such, then that's input too.  The what and who will of course be open for others to add to in whatever structure this thread concludes.  The kind of objections I am looking at are basically of the same kind of objection currently used but from scientific source and that is what leads to my query of should I put it into the existing structure anywhere or could have subsections within the existing sections or should it be a section just of that sourcing.  Any wider 'open to other kinds' as previously concluded in Talk seems a separate Talk on how/where to enter -- this Talk thread is just asking about how to add scientific ones.  Markbassett (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * :Dougweller - seems no preference and no edit thoughts at this time. Markbassett (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Dougweller is saying/asking "Who are these alleged paleontologists who reject evolution?" I know of only two paleontologists who reject evolution, but, they only reject it explicitly due to religious reasons.  If we are to imply that there are scientists in the appropriate fields who reject evolution for non-religious reasons, shouldn't we identify who these scientists are, and identify their motivations for rejecting evolution are, first?--Mr Fink (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I too find it somewhat pointless discussing what are going to be quite empty sections. CMD (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. Before any kind of conversation could start, we would need reliable sources showing paleontologists who reject evolution for scientific reasons. Without those, there's nothing to discuss. —Torchiest talkedits 19:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The only scientist in paleontology who made a non-religious objection to evolution that I can think of would be physicist Fred Hoyle, when he alleged the fossils of Archaeopteryx were forgeries, mostly because said fossils were putting a fatal crimp in his pet hypothesis that a space virus rode in with the meteor that killed the dinosaurs jumpstarted mammalian and avian evolution. And I'm not sure if even this example would be appropriate in this article, as Hoyle wasn't objecting to the existence of evolution, itself, but merely one (albeit tremendously important) facet of paleontology and vertebrate evolution.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No edit style thoughts times four This is explicitly a straw poll seeking thoughts on how to edit at one indent ... the last four posters have interesting side comments re content which for straw poll edit topic equates to no edit style thoughts or want the content to talk about. Roger that, thank you for feedback showing the no edit style thoughts, will expect content comments or inputs like Hoyle when done with straw poll of how & where to edit in such inputs and so far not much of that.  Markbassett (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're putting the cart before the horse. How can we comment on "edit style" when we don't know what the content being considered is?  Let's imagine, just for the sake of argument, that you have a single source establishing a single paleontologist with a single scientific objection to evolution as a whole.  Now let's imagine you have a hundred sources establishing a thousand paleontologists with a few dozen scientific objections to evolution.  Can you see how that would affect "edit style thoughts"? —Torchiest talkedits 22:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Torchiest -- It's a straw poll. A call for you tell me. How would you want those situations handled ? Is the determining criteria for you seem one of number of sources then or is it number of objections ? Does that mean Major section versus subsection, or insertion to existing structure?  Again, if you have no pre-existing edit style thoughts or preferences on structure or criteria for division, fine ... adds to the 5 such responses already there and picture that most are interested in content and simply not concerned with the where or style of structure. Markbassett (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, my edit style suggestion is to add no section, subsection, or content. —Torchiest talkedits 22:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, noted but also noting that is a nothing for straw poll topic though. Question for no such content was in prior discussion concluded otherwise as said above.  You can make another thread for that topic if you want.  Markbassett (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, why should we bother bickering about "edit style" for "scientific objections to evolution" when it is accurately predicted that such a section will be absolutely empty of all content, save for some academic malcontents and nobodies who object to evolution for blatantly, if not outright self-confessed non-scientific reasons?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, Markbassett, we can not be asked to discuss "edit style" to begin with until we can be reassured that the sections you want to discuss "edit style" about will not be empty.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mr. Fink, counting as another vote of no edit style preferences Markbassett (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not put words in my mouth, Markbassett, I have not voted for any damned edit style preference, and I will not vote for any edit style preference UNTIL YOU CAN ASSURE EVERYONE THAT THERE WILL BE SOMETHING TO EDIT. It is extremely rude, not to mention extraordinarily aggravating to put words in people's mouths by pretending that we're voting your incredibly inane strawman poll, while simultaneously deliberately ignoring our pleas for assurance that there will be SOMETHING in this godforsaken section to edit.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If we're busy oversimplifying and such, I'd like my edit style thoughts to be bolded as something like: "No empty sections" or "No insignificant/tiny sections". Seems like a good a position/thought to have as any. CMD (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Roger CMD, edit preferences noted. I interpret 'no tiny sections' to mean level section vs subsection as depends on amount of text.  Markbassett (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What precisely is the point of a discussion if you are just going to misrepresent everyone else's positions in such a silly, transparent way? There's clear consensus in this discussion that this is a pointless conversation, so please knock it off and stop wasting others' time.  If you had actual proposed changes to make, that might be worthwhile, but the present direction of this thread is quite inane. --JBL (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Joel -- echoing back the straw poll input as to the asked section/subsection or other edit thoughts allows the contributor to correct where I misunderstand. Where I think no inputs were given re edit style the echo allows that to be the contributor to check that or to have additional inputs.  That echo is about things to the poll question so comments outside the straw poll topic are always going to summarize as 'no edit input'.   As said at the start, I intended giving the straw poll a week or so for folks to input how they'd like it approached first and then go slow after with the content as mentioned.   That would be in separate thread(s) of course.  So far straw poll seems not much specifics on edit preferences, more towards content... it may be time to call that as the result ...  Markbassett (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a "straw poll," this is a strawman poll. Stop wasting everyone's time by continuing this ridiculous farce while ignoring our constant pleas for assurance that this section will not be empty, or filled with blatant undue weight given to religiously motivated science-deniers.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well put Mr Fink. This is simply tendentious editing and must stop now.  It is not only tendentious, but almost incomprehensible.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If someone is just going to willfully reinterpret everything other's say, there's no point saying anything. It's fair to say consensus quite against. CMD (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll Closed the poll for which of 4 ways to insert material turned unexpectedly contentious and off-track. It has reached the week or so that I stated at top. But it is not trending towards consensus nor discussion of the topic given so perStraw_polls CLOSED Markbassett (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Nominated to be checked for its neutrality
I add this section because I saw a banner but no matching Talk area. If anyone can point out the actual nomination details please insert below that so there can actually be Talk content of the nomination. Thanks. "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (April 2014)" Markbassett (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * p.s. Just to ID the source/date of this nomination -- the nomination was apparently made as revision 605245482 edited by 71.173.0.78 at 03:43, 22 April 2014 That editor then inserted at two paras in Unfalsifiability a tag for weasel words that have since been removed.   Markbassett (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Markbassett - Looks like vandalism to me. If I'd seen it first I would have reverted it, but then that's my "trust no IP edits unless they are justified" "I'm a big fat jerk" style. My suggestion is we revert it and move on. Ckruschke (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ckruschke - it does not seem vandalism to me, it just did not define the issues per | POV-check guidance, so might be lazy or error or what the | NPOV calls 'drive-by tagging'.  I'm sure the article has NPOV issues so do not see a check as needed, although I do wonder a bit how a POV check would work and what the particular results would be.  Markbassett (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Markbassett - We probably just have a disagreement in terms. However, I think we agree that the way to fix any "possible" POV issues is not to slap a tag and walk away - its to create a Talk thread and work out specifics. I liken this to someone starting a talk thread stating "This page sucks" and then disappearing... Either way, I think we just delete it. If he comes back, we can work out any POV issues he raises "the correct way". Ckruschke (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Hmmm, further difficulties here make me reconsider this topic. That folks post such and walk away is not good WP practice but it seems that should be a WP concern.  It does indicate possible article issues and that it can not be resolved absent better participation still leaves article concern and the level of article quality or areas of issues are not visible in an objective way.   Do folks think bots could help?  If there was an ad hoc or systematic approach WP had,  I am thinking it possible to come up with indicators of contentious and indicators of biased out of the WP guidelines so WP could auto-magically flag pages of concern for either reason that would indicate directions to address.  Markbassett (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Where is it non neutral? Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On April 21st, the IP |71.173.0.78 flagged the article as having a NPOV problem, as well as marking at least three spots as being "weasel-worded," albeit, with no explanation nor bothering to start any talkpage discussions about it. Because there was no explanation, nor suggestions for remedying given, the flags were later removed.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is correct procedure. No specifics/discussion, no tag. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But the correct procedure still leaves WP concern of some folks view it as biased -- and nothing got done for it and no further look or specification of location and nature... So I wonder if it would help to have a bot check or measure indicating NPOV objective flags -- such as percentage of the 'words to watch', high turnover in edits, low percentage of cites, and high use of quotes quotes.  I'm not sure knowing the article is biased really is that bad tough, or would necessarily help in pointing out for what changes to do if any.  Markbassett (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is written from reliable sources not from what "some folks" think. Now stop trolling.--Charles (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't need a bot for that. If any editor has a specific concern, they need to bring it to the talk page for discussion. Vague comments about possible NPOV are not productive. —Torchiest talkedits 13:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is totally unnecessary to employ or craft a bot to check for NPOV problems simply because the neutrality of a page is incessantly challenged by anonymous tendentious editors who can not be bothered to either use the term (scientific) "theory" correctly, nor be bothered to explain their alleged concern for neutrality on the talkpage beyond jumping on a soapbox.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Torchiest, you correctly state a procedure that does not seem to be working -- just archive 8 alone has about 5 different NPOV issues and 4 scope ones. So if this does not work, in the sense of we have here an article that dozens of serious posters have noted issues with ... how can it get better ?  A bot for objective measure that acknowledges indicators would be the only thing I can think of as a starting point, though I'm sure that has folks cringing too.  Perhaps just flag it as controversial, many known questions not getting answered but best so far?   Markbassett (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It will never be possible to satisfy people who do not like science so there will always be people posting commentary—archives with such commentary is not evidence of a problem. WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG state that article talk pages are not available for general opinions—please either explain examples of problematic text or drop the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq - That was the specific text. The specific issue is this case here, of course.  A call was made for neutrality check.  Nothing gets done, and it's not clear what the norm is.  My proposal for addressing it is to have the objectively countable NPOV indicators measured with a bot or bot-like count and then we would have an objective metric and completed a check which seems better than a nothing.  I think the article has neutrality issues and scope issues and controversy going on but think this proposal is a better response -- in the sense of Talk being a place for the check, I'm proposing a count mechanic as better than a nothing.   Markbassett (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Markbassett, You keep repeating there are problems, so lets move forward and be precise: please copy/paste here the specific text in need of attention and note precisely the problem for each.  Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The specific text in need of attention was/is this threads topic of course, the template flag calling for | POV-check.    For | NPOV dispute, note guidance that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it probably is not neutral—or, at least, that the topic is a controversial one, and one should be wary of a possible slant or bias.  The salient point is that one side—who cares enough to be making the point—thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with.
 * ... The tag should only be removed when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved. (Which does not seem to have happened) .... The tag is intended to signify that there is an active good-faith effort, grounded in policy, to | resolve the perceived neutrality concern....  So I was hunting for what can be done in response and thought can see objectively check from MoS:Words to watch is at least the step of checking.  Markbassett (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In addition to my "explain examples of problematic text", BatteryIncluded asked "copy/paste here the specific text in need of attention". According to recent replies there is no specific problem. Perhaps the objection is that there are some editors who would like the article to suggest that evolution may not be "true"—that is not what is meant by neutrality at Wikipedia. As there are no problems with the article, please stop raising nonspecific objections because that is disruptive as it requires attentiion from other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, being literal, the "copy/paste here the specific text in need of attention" is at the title of this thread and para 2 cited from revision 605245482 edited by 71.173.0.78 at 03:43, 22 April 2014 -- it is the word "pov-check".  There is a call for pov-check and I have proposed something for it from the guidance of  | POV-check and | NPOV dispute.   I think that is the literal answer to your request, but perhaps you were implicitly making an alternative proposal to jump ahead to proposals of specific items for solution, or maybe specific fix recommendations, before or instead of trying an objective measure for pov-check ?   That seems not really the pov-check thread location I was at, but if you want to propose some particular approach or criteria acceptable to you as a better way to pov-check it would be of interest.  Markbassett (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, I do not believe that there is any way that all Creationists will be satisfied that this article meets our NPOV policy (if they even understood it). The article is not meant to be 'neutral' in the sense of showing both sides equally, see WP:UNDUE. So there will always be complaints but that is not evidence that the article doesn't meet our policy and certainly not a reason to keep a tag on the article. Words to watch is of course a guideline and a good one if applied properly, not not a reason to tag the article. Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Doug - this did not seem to respond to my post immediately above it, where I call on this thread to follow the NPOV guidance. Someone has acctually gone to the proper form to start an evaluation as opposed to vandalism or just stating opinion, but did not give details -- and I'm suggesting some metrics as the responding pov-check with WP guidance stated that seems relevant of simply putting forward NPOV (and this is far from the first) is inherently a strong inductive argument for concern.  Belief that a group on some POV will be unhappy is not relevant to whether WP has done NPOV.  NPOV is not the same as neutrality of content, and it is NPOV that is in question at this thread.  Markbassett (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Markbasset, you continue ignoring that it has been repeatedly explained to you that the only editors who raise neutral point of view flags, or otherwise claim a point of view violation/dispute on this and similar pages are those editors who dislike science far too much to bother understanding it and or are Creationists who have a specific agenda to rewrite this page to deliberately cast unreasonable doubt on evolution(ary biology) and science. Please provide an immediate example of this alleged problem, or please desist your tendentious editing.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no POV dispute here, there is, however, a severe case of WP:IDHT. Would some kind soul please close and collapse this discussion, it is a time sink.   Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck -- funny, that is the most you've contributed and seems it might be a confession. Not to be direct about it but if you don't have anything to offer for actually doing a pov-chheck, or interest in the topic, you can just skip reading the thread about it. Markbassett (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * So, you insist that there is a big problem but you are unable to say what it is. How can you write so many pages about nothing? We are done here. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Battery - (od since your post did not seem directed to Drobeck as indent would imply) Undone; please note the WP guidance. There was a call for pov-check; simply hiding the thread seems contrary to that. Markbassett (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Under WP guidance, Markbassett, please desist on making vague proposals to solve a problem that's already dealt with, especially if you can not be bothered to clarify your vague proposals.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just confused about the process. When someone adds an NPOV tag, they must bring their concerns to the talk page for discussion. The way to do that is not simply to open a new section mentioning the tag. Specific pieces of the article purported to have POV issues must be brought to the talk page, in order that they may be analyzed. You have still not done that. Making a blanket statement that the entire article is POV will not work. That is why this discussion was closed. Again, please draw attention to one or more specific pieces of the article that you feel have problems. Otherwise this section will be closed again. —Tourchiest talkedits 19:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Markbasset, I have read the thread, THERE IS NOTHING HERE. You are, once more, wasting everyone's time.  And what 'might be a confession', of what exactly?  Your WP:IDHT behaviour is beyond annoying.  Please stop.  There is no POV problem, you have brought literally nothing to this discussion.  Stop now, please.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Markbassett, you have gone beyond our assumption of good faith. Even when after an administrator explained to you the tagging procedure and noted that there is no POV issue to address in this article, you remain in your soapbox of disruption and distraction. You have to realize that WP:Competence is required for collective work, and you have shown little to none.  BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course, his discomfort is explained if Mark Bassett is the pastor that speaks on Creationism vs. Evolution, the same who gives positive reviews to Creationist books and negative ones to science (Richard Dawkins). BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * —Tourchiest</B> No, I think I have the process correct and close to what you say, i.e. the guidance at Template:POV-check to be precise says "should" address the issues on Talk page, otherwise agree that that is the stated mechanism, and the form of pov check template seems whole article not a section, otherwise procedure got it the same here.  The editor 71.173.0.78 did not start a Talk topic, though he had used proper process up to that point, and I do not see anything for handling that so maybe it runs off guide at that point and maybe that I started the section is only sort of back on that pathway.  So ... a month later, and reconsidering it ... left with a concern that WP process can not progress absent more data, and even ignoring that still leaves article POV concern and without any specifics of the level of article quality or areas of issues.  Hence, I proposed  the notion of mechanical measures as a response in this situation that would have at least some flavor of actual pov-check and pathway option.    I personally did not make the pov-check request but have been trying to find a way move the process to actual product which would better suit the guidance goals  and a general check something seems better than a nothing.  Markbassett (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please could you check what you have written above...it appears to make no sense? Theroadislong (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To quote Dougweller 'Which is correct procedure. No specifics/discussion, no tag. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)' There was no discussion, there was a drive by tag, which was removed, which is how things work.  Honestly, you are wasting a great deal of editors' time, yours included.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Cambrian explosion
So folks know it's there and look so maybe improve it: I have written a subsection for the Cambrian explosion complexity argument for the 'Creation of complex structures' section as requested at top, at least enough to present the Cambrian Explosion and some of the scientific struggles with it. The complexity argument seems to be about the phyla level occurrences so rapidly then (and none since). I have put in readable substantial sources, but would have liked to include that counts up to 100 phyla (attributed to Valentine; Clark 1997), or get Valentines latest. Markbassett (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No adds from anyone on Valentine and complexity argument is getting lost with speed inserts and false blaming the cites so trying to clarify ...

Markbassett (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Been 10 days and no talk or edits so I guess the clarification was somewhat acceptable. Would have hoped someone had more from Valentine or if newer Cladistics views play with the Phylum level of classic hierarchial view, but guess that is for another day.  Will check back in a few weeks and edit the header that called for this section if things seem to have met the call.  Markbassett (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've edited the to-do list to reflect the Cambrian Explosion bit inserted seems to be sticking so that to-do item is now done. It could be expanded by Valentine or other materials I don't know of as routine wiki gardening as or when folks find something relevant. Markbassett (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC).

Proposed addition (revised)
Conversely, it is a false premise that the second law of thermodynamics applies only to isolated systems. Exerpt from a university course:
 * “second Law of thermodynamics can be stated in several equivalent ways, three of which are:


 * 3) The entropy of an isolated system never decreases. It can only stay the same or increase.  If the system is not isolated, then the change in entropy of the system (Ss) plus the change in entropy of the environment (Senv) must be greater than or equal to zero.
 * ∆ S = ∆ Ss + ∆ Senv ≥ 0


 * The total entropy of any system plus that of its environment increases as a result of any natural process.“

Inanimate systems which are not isolated respond to the law as expected. “We also know from experience that systems tend to reach a state of higher disorder: smoke spontaneously diffuses through the air, sugar dissolves uniformly in water and your bedroom becomes chaotic after only a few days of neglect!” Organisms, in contrast, being open systems (not isolated) respond differently, growing ih in size and complexity. This contradicts the implication that an open (not isolated) system is a cause or an explanation for resolving the conflict of evolution and the second law. “Self-organization” is not the rule in nonliving, not isolated (open) systems.

The open (not isolated) system of Earth is a necessary condition but is not sufficient to account for the increased organization produced by evolution. Energy input from the Sun does not comparably affect inanimate systems to produce order. Nor does a net increase in entropy or an increase in total entropy of necessity cause or explain an increase in organization. Ice melting in a glass of water in a warm room increases entropy but there is no apparent attendant increase in organization. Quantitatively or qualitatively, a net increase in entropy or an increase in total entropy does not of necessity cause or explain an increase in organization.

The Mathematical Intelligencer statement should be considered circumspectly. That fertilized eggs turn into babies is seen as routine and as unremarkable as water freezing into ice needs to be evaluated in light of the description by Schrödinger in his 1944 book What is Life? Dobzhansky, the author of the dictum: “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” also regarded that evolution exceeds the ordinary as divine involvement is alleged:
 * “An organism’s astonishing gift of concentrating a ‘stream of order’ on itself and thus escaping the decay into atomic chaos – of ‘drinking orderliness’ from a suitable environment – seems to be connected with the presence of the ‘aperiodic solids’ the chromosome molecules, which doubtless represent the highest degree of well-ordered atomic association we know of – much higher than the ordinary crystal…”
 * “The organic diversity becomes, however, reasonable and understandable if the Creator has created the living world not by caprice but by evolution propelled by natural selection. It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s method of creation.” LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Violation of the second law of thermodynamics

 * Proposed revision with additions

Objection

Another objection is that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Though the law applies to all systems, in the case of a closed one it states, "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium". In other words, an ideal isolated system's entropy (a measure of the dispersal of energy in a physical system so that it is not available to do mechanical work) will tend to increase or stay the same, not decrease. Creationists argue that evolution violates this physical law by requiring a decrease in entropy, or disorder, over time.

Reply

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. Organisms, in contrast, are open systems, as they constantly exchange energy and matter with their environment: for example animals eat food and excrete waste, and radiate and absorb heat. Similarly, the Earth absorbs energy from the Sun and emits energy back into space. The Sun-Earth-space system does not violate the second law, because the enormous increase in entropy due to the Sun and Earth radiating into space dwarfs the local decrease in entropy caused by the existence and evolution of self-organizing life.

Since the second law of thermodynamics has a precise mathematical definition, this argument can be analyzed quantitatively. This was done by physicist Daniel F. Styer, who concluded: "Quantitative estimates of the entropy involved in biological evolution demonstrate that there is no conflict between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics."

Issues

The second law applies to all systems, open (not isolated) systems as well as isolated systems. "The second Law of thermodynamics can be stated in several equivalent ways, three of which are:::...
 * 3) The entropy of an isolated system never decreases. It can only stay the same or increase.
 * If the system is not isolated, then the change in entropy of the system (Ss) plus the change in entropy of the environment (Senv) must be greater than or equal to zero.
 * ∆ S = ∆ Ss + ∆ Senv ≥ 0

The total entropy of any system plus that of its environment increases as a result of any natural process." “We also know from experience that systems tend to reach a state of higher disorder: smoke spontaneously diffuses through the air, sugar dissolves uniformly in water and your bedroom becomes chaotic after only a few days of neglect!”

As open systems, organisms seem to be anomalies. "There is a subtle but significant difference between biological and non-living open (not isolated) systems. For example, a fence post is an open system. A metal post will thermally expand when warmed by external factors (sunlight or ambient air) but retains its structure and does not grow in complexity...it is seen that biological open systems behave as if internally controlled, not reacting to external variables in the way that nonliving systems do. Cells and organisms act upon their surroundings, even foraging, taking in and rejecting nutrients, controlling quantity and variety."

Similar contrasting responses are observed even within organisms: “Unlike the parts of a cell which simply deteriorate if isolated, whole cells can be removed from a plant or animal and cultured in a laboratory where they will grow and reproduce for extended periods of time”. Again a question: What makes a part of a cell react as expected by the second law, and yet the whole cell grows and reproduces? Organisms, such as sunflowers, mature, decline, and die (even if placed in a situation where there is adequate sunlight and nutrients) just as expected by the second law. This behavior is not caused by change in total entropy of earth’s system or the sun’s radiant energy, but by some other governing mechanism.

Perspectives

In a published letter to the editor of The Mathematical Intelligencer titled "How anti-evolutionists abuse mathematics", 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."

Nobel Laureate physicist Schrödinger in his book What is Life? Evolutionary biologist Dobzhansky, the author of the dictum: “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”: LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * “An organism’s astonishing gift of concentrating a ‘stream of order’ on itself and thus escaping the decay into atomic chaos – of ‘drinking orderliness’ from a suitable environment – seems to be connected with the presence of the ‘aperiodic solids’ the chromosome molecules, which doubtless represent the highest degree of well-ordered atomic association we know of – much higher than the ordinary crystal…”
 * “The organic diversity becomes, however, reasonable and understandable if the Creator has created the living world not by caprice but by evolution propelled by natural selection. It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s method of creation.”


 * Can you please summarize in fewer, simpler words about what it is you're trying to propose? Are you proposing references to improve the section about the Creationist trope of "evolution magically violates the 2nd Law" or are you saying that the counterarguments against this objections are and are not valid?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe they want the 'Proposed revision with additions' text added to the article in its entirety. Is that essentially it, LEBOLTZMANN2? -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   Union of Opposites   ‖ 20:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ebyabe Yes. What is proposed is to replace the section Volation of the second law with this revision. It incorporates all of the original article and adds some information under three new titles.

The reason for the addition is that the counterarguments raise issues. If “the second law only applies to isolated systems”, then the second law cannot be a law of science which are universal. The excerpt from a university course shows how the law applies to systems that are not isolated. Examples from the references point out other inconsistencies. LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Bad idea.
 * The situation ist this: Creationists claim that evolution contradicts the second law. It doesn't. The article says that und gives reasons. That's enough.
 * The creationists handle the situation like this: after the refutation, they change the direction of their reasoning and stop talking about the second law, while pretending they still do.
 * Earlier, you suggested the sentence
 * "The open (not isolated) system of Earth is a necessary condition but is not sufficient to account for the increased organization produced by evolution."
 * This is exactly what I am talking about. You are not talking about the second law, you are just saying "I don't get it." You are unable to explain "increased organization" from just energy input. This is your personal problem. It has nothing to do with the science, just with your imagination, knowledge, and reasoning ability. It is not a counter argument. And it has nothing to do with the second law.
 * The suggestions directly above are not any better:
 * The Schrödinger quote just says that life is complex. This has nothing to do with the second law.
 * The Dobzhansky quote talks about the compatibility of religion and science. This has nothing to do with the second law.
 * If we add things that have nothing to do with the second law, to a paragraph about the second law, we give in to the creationist obfuscation strategy.


 * Closer to the subject are sentences like this:
 * "As open systems, organisms seem to be anomalies."
 * This is just wrong. All systems are open systems. Isolated systems do not exist in reality, they are ideal concepts that help us deal with reality. You approximate something as an isolated system, then look at the deviations and determine their consequences. This way you can handle some situations - namely the ones where you are close enough to an isolated systems. If the system is "too open", it won't work very well.
 * Your whole suggestion is wrongheaded in some way or other. This is because you are trying to justify a wrongheaded worldview. Give it up, it's hopeless. Others have tried for decades to save the Second Law Objection and failed miserably in every case. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless the clear statement: “The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to isolated systems.” is misleading. That statement is contradicted by the description of how the second law applies to not isolated systems. The very definition of a scientific law contradicts the statement. Unless this issue is addressed, Wikipedia is misleading those who come for information on evolution.LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There is exactly 0 chance that Wikipedia will ever assert that the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with biological evolution, regardless of how many times you repeat yourself on this page. --JBL (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * LEBOLTZMANN2, please do not use the talkpage as an arena from which to launch ridiculously inane and inanely false accusations of there being some sort of inane political conspiracy to cover up the alleged assertion that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics magically prevents evolution from occurring. Wikipedia will not allow this assert because A) IT IS A DEMONSTRABLY FALSE ASSERTION, and posting false assertions as true directly compromises the primary purpose of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, and B) claiming that this is true would be giving undue and unfair weight in favor of fringe groups.  If it was true, then we would not see any descent with modification at all, as all organisms would be perfect copies of their parents, and all situations of speciation would be blatant, magical miracles of God.
 * Having said that, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND PUPPIES, PLEASE MAKE A SUCCINCT PROPOSAL THAT IS NOT AN INDECIPHERABLE WALL OF TEXT THAT DOES NOT NEED THE INCLUSION OF INANE RANTS ABOUT INANE POLITICAL CONSPIRACIES.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

JBL If the second law of thermodynamics were compatible with biological evolution, then a logical narrative is that the second law applies only to isolated systems. Of course, this requires us to believe Clausius would have promulgated a new universal law of physics that applies to isolated systems only and in contrast to the first law which applies everywhere and at all times. And as Hob Gadling correctly points out, Isolated systems “do not exist in reality”.

Note the quality of the supporting scholarship for the isolated system argument:

Reference 170 was identified by the author as “This article is adapted from my notes for Mr. Tompkins Gets Serious: The Essential George Gamow.” The author does not state if it was ever published.

Reference 171 is from “Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins....” “The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another...”LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr Fink Sorry for any false accusations or rants. As to the science, things naturally fall apart whereas in evolution organisms grow in size and complexity prompting a need for explanation. The explanation in Wikipedia based on the concept of a system that is not isolated is not as good an explanation or “counter argument” as some would like to think. This should not be a problem as scientists change the way they look at things when faced with new information.LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But the problem is with your claim that you refuse to comprehend is IF THERE IS AN ACTUAL PROBLEM WITH THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS INTERFERING WITH EVOLUTION AND GROWTH, WE WOULD NOT SEE ANY EVOLUTION OR GROWTH AT ALL BEYOND BLATANT LITERAL ACTS OF GOD. So, I repeat, please please please please please for the Love of God and puppies, please please please please cough up a succinct proposal that does not require original research, inappropriate synthesis, or inappropriately favorable weight to fringe groups with a blatant anti-science motive., or please stop wasting everyone's time.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're constantly proposing a ridiculously verbose "Nuh-uh" to to the counter of how the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not actually apply to biological evolution because the Second Law does not apply directly to a process of accumulation of copy errors, or that organisms do not violate the 2nd Law because they reproduce through budding off their own material, WHICH WAS NEVER EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN BY THE SECOND LAW, and maintain their growth and order by adding entropy to their environment through taking resources.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The answer to the general question of whether evolution violates the second law or not and consequential ramifications is beyond my pay grade. Within my purview is the question prompted by the existing article: Does the second law apply only to isolated systems? If this is not a true assertion then the counter argument to the stated objection needs rethinking. Also needing explanation is the thermodynamic difference between open (not isolated) systems that are living and those that are inanimate. A specific proposal has been posted on 17:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC).LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If evolution really does violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, IT WOULD NOT OCCUR PERIOD AND ALL ORGANISMS WOULD BE PERFECT COPIES OF THEIR PARENTS. Furthermore, your "specific proposal" is, as I've stated before, an indecipherable wall of text that requires original research, inappropriate synthesis, and give inappropriately favorable weight to fringe groups with a blatant anti-science motive.  So please wasting everyone's time and bandwidth making blatantly inappropriate proposals.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Chill all, and please just stick with whatever cites are and say. For the article topic of "Objections", if there are published objections to evolution stated using 2nd law of thermodynamics, then it belongs here in proportion to its prominence, described as an objection that exists but not as the mainstream view.  If there are not significant amounts of objections from that basis then it does not belong here.  OK ?   Markbassett (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thing is Mark, that none of the objections are "mainstream". Evolution is real, so objections are jokes implanted by religions. You can list them and quote references, it does not make them scientific, real or coherent. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That, and the rebuttals that LEBOLTZMANN2 are proposing are all incoherent original research and synthesis that gives undue weight towards fringe groups that have a blatant anti-science motive.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. time to move on.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Why is this ludicrous thread still open?Charles (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Battery - The article topic is Objections and so what the objection are and soource is by cites.  There is no Talk purpose to debates on logic or convincing and no statement about validity there -- just convey the objections and can skip Talk debating it's validity.  Markbassett (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Objecting to evolution is as pointless as objecting to gravity or to the sky looking blue. Makes me wonder why we have this article at all.Charles (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I have considered putting it up for AfD in the past myself, and would !vote to delete it if someone else did. I can't see its encyclopedic value. This is something that is better handled by other sites like TOA. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this particular article is to catalog the various objections and arguments Creationists and other science-deniers make, bring up and resurrect repeatedly, and dissect some of these objections to point out a few of the logical fallacies and bullshit contents. People tend to forget this in their talkpage crusades.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Larger Scale vs Longer Time Scale.
Apokryltaros - I noticed that you quickly reverted my edit. Perhaps this is a standard reaction to a IP edit on an article that likely receives more than its fair share of vandalism. I respectfully disagree however with your reason given as "Same thing". It may be true that to you they are the same thing because you understand the ToE properly, but that is not necessarily true for everyone else. Someone not familiar with the ToE may not recognize the two phrases as the same, and may actually incorrectly interpret "larger scale" as major changes (like the sudden appearance of a new organ or something similar). I suppose that might be accurate from the view of a paleontologist as we don't have fossils of every generation, however from the view of a biologist time is the only difference between micro' and macro' within the ToE. Please refer to the Wikipedia article on macroevolution in which the first paragraph states "Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales". My primary reason for making the change is for clarity, as the article in general has many sentences describing Creationist arguments which fail to actually represent the ToE properly. So when referencing what the actual ToE states, it is important to be as clear as possible. Although, I am unable to view the cited sources for the sentence, perhaps TO uses the phrase "larger scale", in which case I suppose I could withdraw my requested change. I still think clarity would be benificial to a complex article like this. TY 12.165.27.130 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC) SevenPatch


 * Actually, "larger scale" would imply and encompass both a longer time scale, and more noticeably dramatic changes in evolutionary trends, whereas "longer time scale" would not.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you define the word "scale"? Upon further thought, I think the whole sentence should be rewritten. The sentence currently reads "Additionally, the modern evolutionary synthesis draws no distinction between macroevolution and microevolution, considering the former to simply be the latter on a larger scale." First it states that the MES draws no distinction, then at the end it states that "on a larger scale" is perhaps a distinction.  Perhaps it would be better to state that there is "no distinction in the processes described by the theory of evolution".  I propose the sentence be reworded as "Additionally, the modern evolutionary synthesis draws no distinction in the processes described by the theory when considering macroevolution and microevolution as the former is simply at the species level or above."  I'd also point out that the wikipedia entry for the modern evolutionary synthesis references an unscientific term "megaevolution", I've raised this issue on the talkpage there.  The page "Objections to evolution" seems to be of higher quality than the "modern evolutionary synthesis" page. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC) SevenPatch
 * I would object to "at the species level or above". That definition is the one used by creationists, not scientists. When scientists use it, which isn't all that often, mind you, it is much more vague, referring to an undefined relatively greater time period, sorta kinda. I'm not convinced there is a widely agreed upon definition or distinction, and scientists never make the distinction in the same manner that creationists do. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? This is the first time I've heard it claimed that "at the species level or above" is a creationist definition. I've gotten quite the opposite impression that it is indeed a defintiion used by scientists.  In fact, it appears that that definition is used in other wiki articles which accuratly reflect scientific definitions.  Example 1 would be the wiki article on "Macroevolution" which states "Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population."  Example 2 is the wiki featured article on evolution itself which states "These outcomes of evolution are sometimes divided into macroevolution, which is evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, such as extinction and speciation and microevolution, which is smaller evolutionary changes, such as adaptations, within a species or population." as well as " In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the difference is simply the time involved."  Example 3 would be pretty much every educational resource online including Berkeley, Talkorigins and Biology Online .  Of interest though is that Biology Online does use the phrase "large scale" although I am still of the opinion that it would be better to use a more detailed definition, such as "at the species level or above". 12.165.27.130 (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC) SevenPatch


 * 12.165.27.130 'How do you define scale ?'  As a graduated series of marks at equal interval.  So larger scale means a greater interval between marks and a longer scale means longer total series which might be in tiny steps -- they are not the same thing.  I'll suggest making which sense the cite meant clearer after checking cites for clarification, though the lines above here seem to be saying longer total time.  Markbassett (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

___________________________________________

It has been a week since I proposed the following change within the section titled "Lack of observation":
 * "Additionally, the modern evolutionary synthesis draws no distinction between macroevolution and microevolution, considering the former to simply be the latter on a larger scale."

To be changed to:
 * "Additionally, the modern evolutionary synthesis draws no distinction in the processes described by the theory of evolution when considering macroevolution and microevolution as the former is simply at the species level or above."

I believe this change will be a small step to improving the article and more accurately describing the theory of evolution. I will proceed with making this change as there are no standing objections. Thank you Sevenpatch (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I added "and the latter is below the species level." for formating reasons due to the picture on the top right of the section. I'd personally rather not have to add that, but I'm not good with formating.  Sevenpatch (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

When did biology first show human were animals?
In the section titled ‘Humans as animals’ it states that “biology had long shown that humans are animals”, but I consider that this statement needs backing up:


 * 1) When actually did it first become known that human were animals?
 * 2) Who was the first person to show that humans were animals and how did he do so?
 * 3) How was this finding interpreted by those religious groups opposed to Darwinism before Darwin existed?

I have had attempts to clarify this deleted twice without any explanation or sources given.

luokehao, 24 October 2014, 8:51 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this matters. It's a given in biology that humans are animals. It might be interesting to get a date but if you want one I suggest you find it yourself. The other questions are issues for other articles, not this one, although I doubt that you are going to find many groups opposed to Darwinism (a word not used by scientists but by those who oppose the science of evolution) before Darwin existed. Unless they had a time machine. Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it Carolus Linnaeus who classified humans as Homo sapiens, and grouped them with the Primates? That, and if you are claiming humans are not animals, despite demonstrating intimately identical anatomies, genomes, and biologies with with animals, primates in especial particular, then why aren't humans placed in their own biological kingdom?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it Mr. Fink. Systema Naturae by Carolus Linnaeus in 1735 was probably the first extensive scientific work in Taxonomy (biology) which is the basis for current modern Taxonomy and Zoology.  The first two questions asked by Luokehao seem out of place though as determining that humans are animals isn't something to be known or discovered (such thinking is a misconception), instead it is only a matter of definition and classification based on observing shared characteristics (that is what Taxonomy is).  As for the third question, although Linnaeus himself was religious (from what I can tell but I could be wrong), his classifications almost immediately upset the religions which placed humans above animals.  From Linnaeus's point of view, the names didn't matter, humans and apes have very similar characteristics and thus were classified in the same group under the same kingdom of animal life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus#Views_on_mankind Sevenpatch (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that luokehao (and others who share his religious views) use a different definition of "animal" than biologists. The colloquial use—derived from religious contexts—implies a lowly status, devoid of a sense of the divine (intelligence, morality, and a respect for god), and is often used in a derogatory sense.  The biological use of the term is quite obvious and has become more accepted in the past century or two.  Unfortunately, luokehao, these articles use the term in the biological sense.  For that reason, a citation is not needed per WP:CITE.  If you don't understand why humans are biological animals, then I suggest reading the article Animal.  <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 19:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It is nevertheless the case that the sentence in question contains a factual claim that could and should be cited to a reliable source (perhaps, in a discussion of Linnaeus's work). --JBL (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But the problem is that a) you don't need to cite a factual claim that's universally accepted and understood, like quartz being composed of one part silicon and two parts oxygen, or that water is wet, and b) it's been my experience that those people who would challenge otherwise universally accepted factual claims for religious reasons rarely, if ever, accept in the first place the legitimacy of reliable citations that disagree with them.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This excuse-making is really silly: this is an encyclopedia, and there is absolutely no reason to not provide a citation for this claim. I couldn't care less whether that will cause creationists to change their views; it's a question of improving this article.  If it dates back to Linnaeus, that must be written down in an RS -- someone should find and cite such!  --JBL (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then would you recommend we also start providing reliable citations for otherwise universally understood and accepted factual claims like snakes and lizards being reptiles or that chickens lay eggs, too?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Or that stars are suns. No, we do not have to do this. We can have a note for "biology ... long shown" about Linnaeus, but we don't have to source the fact that humans are animals. Should we put (Homo Sapiens) after 'humans'? Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doug and Mr Fink. There is no need for this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller appears to agree with me that the claim "it is long established ..." would be well-served by an accompanying note giving a more precise statement; such a statement should be supported by a reference. This is not really very complicated. The fact that the question was raised for bad ideological reasons is not a good reason to oppose an improvement to the article. Since some of you seem to know something about this, it should be easy for one of you to find some source supporting the claim in the article. --JBL (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is a valid question luokehaoneeds to provide (on this talk page) cited material that this is an objection to evolution: I am sure once he has done that we could then provide further cited material debunking any claims that we are not animals. Surely all this was thoroughly discussed in the 19th Century when the "are humans descended from animals?" question was all the rage. As far as I am aware though nobody doubts that chimpanzees are animals so all that biologists have had to demonstrate is that chimps and humans have a common ancestor, likely 5 million years back. To then trace this back through primates, mammals, synapsids, amniotes, tetrapods, fish and back to comb jellies should be uncontroversial (except for young creationists) as it is just tracing the chimp line back and nobody doubts that chimps are animals. It is for this reason that the important question ahs been if we have a last commpon ancestor with chimps, or monkeys generally. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The request by luokehao and JBL to quote such references, can be dismissed because 1) it is not likely that such fact can be questioned rationally; and 2) Creationists do not make such claim, only that humans were created with superior linguistic and cognitive capacity. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is both extremely insulting, extremely lazy, and obvious bullshit. Whoever wrote this sentence cannot possibly have been the first person to remark on the length of time that humanity has believed itself to be part of Animalia.  Therefore, there should be some secondary source verifying this claim.  Therefore, when Wikipedia makes this claim, it should be cited, particularly after it has been requested by two editors.  There is no "I like to feel superior and write content-free assholeish posts" exception to the general principle that claims on WP need to be cited.  --JBL (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally: phylogeny changes over time. When I was in secondary school, curricula were still adapting to the relatively recent creation of a new kingdom.  Splitter-lumper wars have recently restructured all sorts of well-established phylogenies.  It is not obvious nor universally known that the classification homo in mamalia in Animalia has been agreed for 300 years, versus 1000 or 100 or some other number.   If any of you were more focused on actually improving this article, you would have provided a note with a supporting secondary source days ago instead of this ridiculous train of irrelevant excuses for leaving this claim unsupported in this article --JBL (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoa! That's a blatant personal attack. Would you like to retract the last paragraphs? Sjö (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Whereas the claim that the position I am taking cannot possibly be rational is, what, pleasant dinner-time conversation? I have reworded slightly so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities, but perhaps you have something substantive to add? -JBL (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to document the obvious. But don't tell the other editors that they are "assholes" for not doing it for you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have refd this now, as I said above what we need to prove is the connection with apes as the connection with tetrapods et al is already proven for apes. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate very much the constructive engagement. Am I correct that the references you gave both support the claim that humans are animals, but don't say anything about the history of this fact?  --JBL (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

____________________________

I would propose that the opening sentence in the "Humans as animals" section be improved. Since this article describes both creationist points of view in addition to describing scientific concepts, I feel it would be benificial to use the correct context when discussing either.

I propose changing:
 * "Even though biology has long shown that humans are animals, some feel that humans should be considered separate from, and/or superior to, animals."

To:
 * "According to the scientific definitions of both human and animal, biology has shown that humans are animals, yet some feel that humans should be considered separate from, and/or superior to, animals."

Considering the section is titled "Humans as animals", it would certainly make sense to link to wiki articles on both words where other citations and links could provide more information than a brief section in the Objections to evolution article. I hope this proposal will satisfy all interested parties. Sevenpatch (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The proposed wording is fine by me. I admit that in both the current and proposed versions the construction "biology has shown" seems awkward; should it be "biologists"?  Is there a better verb choice? --JBL (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We have to be careful of weasel words here ("some feel that..."). Not only should that statement clarify who exactly feels that humans aren't animals, but a source should be provided.  Personally, I think we should all step back and consider a the root of the problem, as I noted above.  People pushing POV are going to focus on whether or not people are animals, whereas people pushing NPOV are going to take the approach done at Animal.  Just as creationists argue that "evolution is just a theory" and how we handle that at Objections_to_evolution, the same should be done for this issue.  This is a conflict of definition, and the article is about science and how we distinguish the science from faith and opinion. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 21:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * To JBL: When I consider the statement "Biology has shown" I think of taxonomy, zoology, anatomy, comparative anatomy, embryology and phylogenetics in addition to many other scientific fields.  If we instead use the term "Biologists" we imply that a group of individuals has shown something which isn't accurate.  It is actually multiple scientific fields which demonstrate or show (according to the scientific definition) that humans are animals.Sevenpatch (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok; it still sounds definitely wrong to me (and I will write more in the next sentences about why) but if no one else is being rubbed the wrong way then I don't care enough to make a big deal of it.
 * To speak of an area I'm more comfortable with: "mathematics" is a body of knowledge or a field of study. One would never say that "mathematics discovered that ..." or "mathematics demonstrates that ..." -- one would instead say "Ancient Greek mathematicians discovered ..." or "Cauchy demonstrated ..." or "it follows from Proposition 4.2 ...."  Mathematics doesn't go around doing or  showing things, these are human activities that build up the body of knowledge called mathematics.  "It has long been known to biologists" or "it is a well-accepted fact of biology" both sound natural to me.  --JBL (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree from a grammatical sense, it does seem odd. Perhaps the opening sentence could be "According to the scientific definitions of both human and animal, it has been shown that humans are animals within several scientific fields of biology, yet some feel that humans should be considered separate from, and/or superior to, animals."Sevenpatch (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This is going in a better direction, but I still feel strongly that we're dealing with the same issue that this article already deals with under the "it's just a theory" discussion. It doesn't matter what people "feel".  What matters is the definitions they use.  According to the biological definition of "animal", humans are animals.  According to the colloquial definition, the term excludes humans.  It's probably better to just say that certain segments of the population make exclusive use of the colloquial definition and are oblivious (willfully or otherwise) to the scientific definition.  Again, the Animal article has already dealt with it beautifully.  It's best we follow suit in the introduction of this section. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 05:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * To Maky: I also was thinking that "some feel that..." might be considered weasel like. I'm not sure if it would be more accurate to attribute the opinion that humans are not animals to any one group though.  It might be true that all creationists for example feel that humans are not animals, but that doesn't mean that everyone who feels that humans are not animals are creationists.  It might also be true that some religious people feel that humans are not animals, but that doesn't mean that everyone who feels that humans are not animals are religious.Sevenpatch (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Regardless, we should be handling this issue the same way we handle the "it's only a theory" debate. That's what this whole article is about.  The point your addressing was my (unfortunate) sarcasm, not the meat of my argument.  <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 22:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll suggest stopping this as wandering. To the topic When did biology first show human were animals? it was answered as Linnaeus Systema Naturae, as that seems the earliest tie within biology. Before biology the prominent cites saying it would seem Aristotle History of Animals and in Aquinas Summa Theologica. Markbassett (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Focus to the Objection at Moral Implications/Humans as animals
Where's the beef ???? This section seems not providing the named topic of an objection of type Moral Implications coming out of Humans as Animals? My first thought is that only thing on topic here is cite 177 to Talk that this view would lead men to behave as animals. I'd also like to see a cite to actual existence of such though, since this seems just a third hand portrayal by an advocacy group. Markbassett (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess I'll make two direct suggestions for this section of the article, will hope for good input back:
 * First, delete the final para "Traditionalists still object" as it is describing objecting to evolution as contradicting literal creation myths, which is both unrelated to the rest of the text and also is scriptural literalism which does not fit this area 'moral implication' nor about 'humans are animals'.  (Maybe there should be a separate section for scriptural/faith damage objections.)
 * Second, put a statement of the objection at the start of the section. Since there is no actual objection cited, then rather than just delete the whole mess as unsupported I will suggest use 'This objection is that human evolving from animals would lead to immoral behavior or that humans nobler behavior shows some inherent difference not from evolution. (citation needed)'.

Markbassett (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds both reasonable and doable.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I just deleted the last para as not matching this section subject, being scriptualism instead of moral objections from humans as animals. Will do lead sentence separately so either or both can be revereted neatly. Markbassett (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * p.s. Moving the para into the Atheism section as the literalism issue seems a better fit there, and this way better respects the contributor(s) content as it gets aa second chance at that section. Markbassett (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Since there had been no further comment in weeks I just did the second change proposed above and added an introductory sentance of the objection. This was just clarifying the writing of what was here as best I could puzzle it by section titles. I found no example of such objection in actual use so have put in a (citation needed). The start added is : "The moral objection to humans as animals is either that regarding humans as evolving from animals would lead to immoral behavior or that humans having nobler behavior shows some inherent difference not from evolution. (citation needed)"  Markbassett (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello ? Second change is just getting reverted by Birkstirnet, trying to get him to join here in talk ... Just undid second and now third time ... will see if more detailed discussion can ensue. Markbassett (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This wording is opaque. The objection should be made plainer. More importantly, support for the text should be mustered before it is added to the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would also want the objection made plainer -- but the issue in hand at the moment is there is no objection stated or cited for this section's topical label. So I proposed adding a lead sentence to expand what matches such topic labels and add citation needed as a step forward.  (It seemed less drastic than just deleting the whole section.)   If you've a better wording for this, another idea for fixing the lack of objection, have actual example(s) of objections fitting this section title, or feel that should remove the section, say on .... Markbassett (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Have I got it right that you actually added something unsourced with a citation needed tag? Not a good idea at all. It could be seen as adding original research and then telling others they should go find a source. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Doug - naw, the thread here is that there is no objection shown fitting this section title, either by statement or citation, the whole section was already random statements without reason to be here before this. So I put in an lede sentence for the section as a place to hang a citation needed and a way forward that is short of simply deleting the whole section as a category without members.   To put citation needed tag on the section title seems less clear.Examples of such objections or citations would be of use, or improve the wording of what on earth is this section supposedly about, or would you think the section should just get removed ?   Markbassett (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The presence of a citation needed tag indicates a problem with the material. This needs to be worked out on the talk page before adding to a GA. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Neil - well this is a fix effort to "wheres the beef" (i.e. objection section without any such objection shown), so the citation needed tag *does* indicate the whole section since long ago had an issue. This thread was started weeks ago and this citation needed on a lead sentence as what little was offered and feedback got.  *SO* if folks have a better wording then please revise it, or if have cites of actual usage to fix that issue then please add them, thank you.   Take your time and TALK if you want ... it's a work hopefully in progress and this is part of progressing, but a day or three isn't an issue. Markbassett (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Neil - just saw you undid before your post above, so I will repost it on this says you had not read the Talk first and appreciate that you did post to this Talk afterwards to help to also show your thinking had not been looking at it as fix-effort-in-progress.  Again, this section lacks actual objections -- closest I see is vague mention of medieval view higher angelic nature and by drilling down at cite 177 had backdrop described as concern re behaving like animals.  Those are the closest this section had to what the humans as animals moral objections are, so consensus after TALK was have a summary lead with citation needed as next step.   We still lack beef, so far we just got the bun.  If your concern is to fix that another way, then please welcoming any go forward with edits or talk for improvement. If your view is no such edit then will suggest respect Talk consensus already done by posting first.  Can even wait a day or two before action -- get some other inputs, and it's been pending fix for long time so the actual fixing may take a while too.

Markbassett (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Markbassett, the solution to fixing problematic material is not to add more problematic material to an article which is supposed to represent high quality content. Use the talk page to work up wording and sources. This is not difficult to understand. If you think existing material is problematic enough to remove, then do so. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And your consensus was one person agreeing with you? Have I got that right? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Neil - OK, so between 1634 and 1637 you've now seen that I did your previously mentioned "This needs to be worked out on the talk page" a few weeks before posting ... hope that helped a bit.  Markbassett (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This subsection had a lot of original research lacking sources: I've therefore trimmed it back to a summary of what the sources explicitly cover: see WP:BURDEN and find sources for any content you want to add. . dave souza, talk 17:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Anything added now should be well sourced. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Markbassett (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Souza - wow big haircut ... I think I see a fix to source ID, will do it and get back after holiday for more.


 * Still short on meat ... I found a website to cite for those 3 pages of the 1980 magazine.  Still seems like Citation Needed  since a minor 35-year old article where this is item 9 of a 10-question list seems very little support and not significant enough to have a section about.  Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ToA is evidence that it's a common objection, that's an example, not a complete list of usage. At Root Ted Haggard ordered Dawkins's crew off his land with threats of legal action and confiscation of their recording hardware, along with the statement "you called my children animals". Dawkins later interprets this as saying that the evolutionary standpoint indeed amounts to saying that Haggard's flock, like all humans, are animals. To quote our article based on the programme. Don't think that's needed here. . dave souza, talk 08:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Dave - I'll point out a couple issues with that:
 * * Article content The article text as phrased is one event, specifically Rendle-Short's single small article 35 years ago ... while I did add a cite so now that part has further detail to identify it, the section text as currently written is just about the one event.  I do not see this as commonly referred to but if you got a source that says the 1980 article is more common or significant than I saw, please add it to the article.
 * * ToA indicates that item as not common. ToA content shows this particular claim as if in disuse and not significant.  In the overall ToA comprehensive list website of creationist claims of many more things and more structured than this article, ToA gave relatively short shrift to the act like animals, only the one example of the 1980 Creation magazine, no further use and relatively little text at that part of the website -- compare that to many other ToA items or to relatively current ID events.
 * I saw other things that might fit within this article category Moral implications / Humans as animals, but I wasn't seeing any that tied to the prior content about 19th century so went for a Citation Needed in general and here we are.   It would seem a stretch to just add new topics in the article when there is no overall lede or a RSS defining what the category is other than title and prior content now gone, and it seems just that out of N blog screeds (no significant book or movement) there are x% that use the word animal and y% of those that say moral with both x and y being small numbers.  Here's a few where I see no central source or theme, maybe others may see something : Ethics and Moral Instincts http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWEB/ETEXTS/ETHICS/Chapter_2_Moral%20Development/Reading-The%20Moral-Instinct.htm   How evolution is junk science

http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2010/04/one-example-of-how-evolution-is-junk.html and  Evolution Handbook Chapter 19 http://www.evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-19.htm  Markbassett (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Creationists versus some creationists
, you reverted "some creationists argue that evolution should be abandoned altogether because of the phenomena it does not explain." back to "creationists argue that evolution should be abandoned altogether because of the phenomena it does not explain." You also reverted "Some creationists argue against evolution on the grounds that it cannot explain certain non-evolutionary processes, such as abiogenesis, the Big Bang, or the meaning of life." back to "Creationists argue against evolution on the grounds that it cannot explain certain non-evolutionary processes, such as abiogenesis, the Big Bang, or the meaning of life."

Your arguments in favor of these changes are WP:WEASEL and that the Catholic Church is not Creationist. First of all, let me remind you that WP:WEASEL also includes the example "experts declare". That is the same as to say "creationists argue". The purpose of WP:WEASEL is to avoid "Unsupported attributions" (quoting from that page). When the article states that creationists believe this or that, it leads the reader to believe that ALL creationists hold those views, which is false. That's why I changed these cases to "some creationists". This is consistent with later citing, "For example, Michael Behe has argued that current evolutionary theory cannot account for certain complex structures, particularly in microbiology." Now, if you believe that I am wrong when I say that not all creationists believe in such things, you must provide a reliable source for each instance supporting the claim that ALL creationists have those views, but that's impossible. There are many creationists who believe in evolution to some degree or another, and therefore, we don't want false claims being made in the article. For example, read Theistic evolution.

Regarding the Catholic church, its holy book is the Bible. According to the Bible, there is a God, and God created many things, including life. Therefore, the Catholic church is intrinsically creationist. There are differing views among Catholics concerning which things in the Bible should or should not be taken literally, but as a former Catholic who went to Catholic schools, I can assure you that Catholics in general believe that God created the universe and life on Earth. Even Catholic Bibles have footnotes that clearly indicate that this is the official position of the Catholic church, whereas other footnotes state that, for example, we shouldn't take literally that so-and-so lived 900 years.

Therefore, WP:WEASEL cannot be invoked. On the contrary, by stating "some creationists", the article can be improved by adding reliable sources, such as "For example, so-and-so believes..." with a reliable source. You simply cannot give readers the impression that all creationists have such irrational and idiotic views. I will undo your edit. Please propose a better solution here on the talk page to see if we can reach consensus. Dontreader (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Creationism can be used in a number of different ways; most commonly it is used to mean anti-evolutionary beliefs; see creationism. Creationists, of the sort discussed in this article, advance these theories. Maybe not all of them. But we follow sources, we don't insert our own wording to quibble with what the sources say. Guettarda (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You don't have any sources that indicate that ALL creationists hold those views. You are not following sources. The reality is plain and simple: not all creationists share those beliefs, and therefore, the logical approach is to phrase those sentences as "some creationists". I refuted what you said concerning WP:WEASEL and the Catholic church, so you just moved on to another pretext for keeping what you want. I will request a third opinion. Dontreader (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Guettarda, I accidentally assumed you were the person that kept on undoing my edit. Now I can't request a third opinion. I find it regrettable that you cannot admit that some creationists believe in those outrageous claims, whereas others do not. You wrote, "we don't insert our own wording to quibble with what the sources say." Which sources are you talking about? Name ONE reliable source that claims that ALL creationists have the beliefs that I reduced to "some creationists". Thanks in advance. Dontreader (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That's okay. I'm at peace with the situation now entirely, especially given the sources that were just shown to me that prove that the paragraph I was questioning is true. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposing the removal of a paragraph
I believe the following paragraph should be removed:

Some creationists argue against evolution on the grounds that it cannot explain certain non-evolutionary processes, such as abiogenesis, the Big Bang, or the meaning of life. In such instances, evolution is being redefined to refer to the entire history of the universe, and it is argued that if one aspect of the universe is seemingly inexplicable, the entire body of scientific theories must be baseless. At this point, objections leave the arena of evolutionary biology and become general scientific or philosophical disputes.

First of all, the source that is provided at the end of the paragraph is deceitful and does not support such claims. Indeed, that page clearly shows a cosmologist answering creationists, not an evolutionist answering creationists. Here are some examples:

Claim CE440: Cosmologists cannot explain where space, time, energy, and the laws of physics came from.

Response: (quoting the relevant parts to make my point) Cosmologists have hypotheses for the other questions that are consistent with observations (Hawking 2001). One should keep in mind that our experiences in everyday life are poor preparation for the extreme and bizarre conditions one encounters in cosmology. The stuff cosmologists deal with is very hard to understand. In the explaining game, cosmologists are far out in front.

Therefore, this reply concerning the origin of the universe, among other matters, was made by a cosmologist, not an evolutionist. As a source, it is useless. It does not support the claim that "Some creationists argue against evolution on the grounds that it cannot explain certain non-evolutionary processes, such as abiogenesis, the Big Bang, or the meaning of life."

If an honest source can be found to support such claims, then great, but it seems highly unlikely to me that this can be achieved. One prime example is Richard Dawkins; he is a famous evolutionary biologist AND a famous atheist. Some of the attacks leveled against him are not because he's an evolutionist but because he's an atheist; there is no reason to believe that when he's asked about the meaning of life, for example, it is due to his thoughts on evolution; rather, it's in the context of his fame as an atheist. Likewise, many other evolutionists are self-confessed atheists, and therefore they are often challenged with questions that have to do with atheism, not necessarily because they believe in evolutionary theory.

After all, this article is entitled "Objections to evolution", so unless a valid source can be found to demonstrate that evolutionists are told that they "cannot explain certain non-evolutionary processes, such as abiogenesis, the Big Bang, or the meaning of life" (as evolutionists and not in the broader sense of being atheists), the paragraph should be removed. Dontreader (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The source quotes several authors, not one 'cosmologist'. The author of the article is a biochemist. And of course we go by what the sources say, WP:VERIFY, not WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't confuse evolutionism with evolutionary biology
 * Theism and atheism are irrelevant here
 * Isaak documents creationist claims about evolution; his work is well-respected and widely cited. His background does not turn those claims into criticisms of cosmology. And his work is just one of many places this is documented. Guettarda (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Being a cosmologist does not bar one from accepting evolution. The source very explicitly says: "CLAIM: Cosmologists cannot explain where space, time, energy, and the laws of physics came from.", and it goes on to discuss this with respect to creationists. I'm not sure why you'd say this source doesn't demonstrate that creationists make this claim.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Also note the section Objections_to_evolution where the topic is discussed, citing Larry Moran, a biochemist and evolutionary biologist. Guettarda (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Dougweller, what I see in that source is this: "Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak". You say he's a biochemist. Of course I believe you, but did he write the article? I'm not sure why it says it was edited by him, as if someone else perhaps wrote it. The references for that article are Stephen Hawking (a theoretical physicist and cosmologist), Charles Seife (a mathematician and journalist), and apparently an article called "A cyclic model of the universe". If in fact Mark Isaak wrote the article, my claims are weakened, but I hope you see my point. The article is written very clearly as cosmologists (not evolutionists) answering creationists. It's the perspective of cosmologists. No argument is made from an evolutionary theorist's point of view. The three references are entitled "The Universe in a Nutshell", "Eternal-universe idea comes full circle.", and "A cyclic model of the universe". All of those sources are cosmological, not evolutionist. I still think it's a weak article to justify this claim: "Some creationists argue against evolution on the grounds that it cannot explain certain non-evolutionary processes, such as abiogenesis, the Big Bang, or the meaning of life." I must insist that the defense made in the article is from the viewpoint of cosmology, even if the author is a biochemist, but apparently he's just the editor who borrowed cosmological literature.


 * Guettarda, first, please read my reply to Dougweller. And even if Isaak documents creationist claims about evolution, he certainly does not do that in the article that is being used as a source. I never said that he had ever criticized cosmology. I'm saying that the article counters arguments made by creationists from a cosmological perspective entirely, not from an evolutionary or biological perspective. Is the article good enough to support this claim: "Some creationists argue against evolution on the grounds that it cannot explain certain non-evolutionary processes, such as abiogenesis, the Big Bang, or the meaning of life." That's the core issue. Thanks.


 * Mann_jess, please read my replies above. Hopefully I made myself clearer. Thanks for your views. I only see this article having a chance at properly supporting the claim if the author is a biochemist as opposed to a cosmologist, but I don't know if that's good enough. To me, that paragraph makes creationists the object of ridicule in an encyclopedia. I would prefer a better source for that claim.


 * Finally, what can I do about this person that keeps on undoing my edit regarding "some creationists" since otherwise it's implied that ALL creationists make those outrageous claims? He's not making any sense to me. I proved that his arguments are wrong. Do I have to ask for a third opinion, or can you all help us settle the matter here? Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The profession of the author isn't relevant. It is relevant that it is 1) a reliable source, 2) addressing the topic. A respected scientist is a reliable source regarding a claim about science (or a claim about creationists making claims about science, as it were). Whether he's the author or editor isn't pertinent here, either. Do you have any source which indicates these aren't claims being made by creationists? In the interim, your desire to have a specifically non-cosmologist respond to a claim concerning cosmology is not going to help us improve the article.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Mann_jess, I do believe the profession of the author is extremely relevant. Let's look at this sentence again:
 * "Creationists argue against evolution on the grounds that it cannot explain certain non-evolutionary processes, such as abiogenesis, the Big Bang, or the meaning of life."
 * Is this true? Is this supported by the source? Do creationists argue that evolution is a false theory because it cannot explain abiogenesis, the Big Bang, or the meaning of life? I don't see evidence of this in the source. Even if the author is a biochemist, is that claim supported by the source? Dontreader (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this true? Is this supported by the source? Do creationists argue that evolution is a false theory because it cannot explain abiogenesis, the Big Bang, or the meaning of life? I don't see evidence of this in the source. Even if the author is a biochemist, is that claim supported by the source? Dontreader (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this true? Is this supported by the source? Do creationists argue that evolution is a false theory because it cannot explain abiogenesis, the Big Bang, or the meaning of life? I don't see evidence of this in the source. Even if the author is a biochemist, is that claim supported by the source? Dontreader (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * All I see in that article is an answer to creationists who don't believe that the universe had a natural origin. Dontreader (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me paraphrase the article: "Creationists argue against evolution on the grounds that it cannot explain certain non-evolutionary processes, such as [other areas of biology, chemistry and geophysics], [cosmology]/[physics] or [philosophy]." We cite two sources:,. The first source explains evolution does not include those subjects, and to paraphrase the 2nd source: "[Creationists - while arguing against evolution] claim cosmologists cannot explain [cosmology] and [physics]." It also cites a book by Walt Brown, which discusses the claim. Yes, our sources back up the statement. If you think you have a better source, feel free to propose it. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Mann_jess. Well, look, I would prefer to remove the part about the meaning of life from that sentence. It just seems to portray creationists as halfwits since there is no way to confuse evolution with that philosophical topic. I just don't think either of the sources you provided makes that connection. I have yet to see evidence of a creationist asking a biologist or a biochemist, etc., the meaning of life just because he's an evolutionist. I have seen creationists ask that stupid question to atheists because they are atheists, not because they are evolutionists. Anyway, I appreciate your replies. I won't insist on that issue, but could you please give me your opinion on whether or not the article should say "some creationists" instead of "creationists"? That's a more simple matter. As I said, my edit was reverted twice. To me it's not right to imply that ALL creationists think this way or that way. I mean, please, can anyone at least agree with me on that issue? I don't want to ask for a third opinion, but I will if no one tries to reach consensus. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong opinion on the "some creationists" discussion, which is why I haven't commented above. They both seem about the same to me. When there is broad agreement in a community with rare exceptions, it is sometimes acceptable to leave those exceptions out. Around 3% of scientists dispute evolution, but we don't say "some scientists accept evolution", we say "scientists", because those 3% are a fringe minority. I don't know how many creationists would accept these arguments. I'd venture a guess it's probably more than "some"; it might be more or less than "most". If so, "some" gives the mistaken impression that the view is not largely held, when in fact it may be. I'm not familiar enough with the literature on these points to have an informed opinion, but many other editors frequenting this page are, so I have to leave you in their capable hands.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And regarding the claim that creationists don't purport that evolution cannot explain the meaning of life:, , , . I think the creationist community is broader than you imagine; they make all sorts of claims that seem to back up their position. Our job isn't to pass judgement on them, it's just to report them.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts. I guess it's better to leave it the way it is, or else we would have to decide when to use "some creationists", or "many creationists", or just "creationists" depending on the claim. I'm quite certain that I objected to the generalization in two extreme cases, which I will paste again:


 * "It is frequently argued that a great weakness of evolutionary theory is that it does not, or cannot, explain a certain aspect of the natural world. Although there is broad agreement that certain aspects of life remain unexplained, creationists argue that evolution should be abandoned altogether because of the phenomena it does not explain."


 * "Creationists argue against evolution on the grounds that it cannot explain certain non-evolutionary processes, such as abiogenesis, the Big Bang, or the meaning of life."


 * I think you might find that mindset quite often in American Evangelical Christian circles, but not among most creationists, certainly not in Europe. I lived for 30 years in Latin America, and almost everyone I knew believed in both creationism and evolution. They would never make such drastic arguments. I don't know about Muslims or Far East Asians, for example. Anyway, as I said, I now think it's better to leave it that way.


 * Now, the new sources you brought up are highly interesting. You see, the sole source that is being used to support what looked like a ridiculous paragraph to me (the source only shows someone answering the creationist question about how the universe originated without a supreme being) should be accompanied by at least one of your sources because they cover the other outrageous statements made in the paragraph. Without an additional source (such as the ones you provided), that paragraph gives the average reader the impression that the editors of the article are bashing creationists, as if there was an agenda to make them look stupid. However, you have sources now that would make that paragraph look entirely honest. I think the second one is the best to add to the existing one at the end of the paragraph, but anyway, you've connected the dots very well. That's why I believe that contentious articles need heavy sourcing. Please add one of those sources. If you do, I promise to fix some of the ref section issues (red letters here and there), because I'm mostly a WikiGnome. I can't stand obvious ref section errors, in particular. Thanks a lot for your research. That was pretty awesome! Dontreader (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You should try to get your hands on Ronald Numbers' book, The Creationists. It may be starting to get a little long of tooth now, but it's a thorough, and sympathetic, treatment of this topic. Guettarda (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Guettarda. It does look like a great book. I appreciate the suggestion. I currently think that both creationists and evolutionists are right and wrong on some issues. The young Earth concept is particularly ridiculous, in my opinion. But I also don't know how evolutionists can say with a straight face, for example, that a certain species of fish in the ocean evolved into salmon, with its highly complex reproductive cycle. I see Pauline faith on both sides. The book should be very helpful. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Dontreader Just follow the cites and... That para looks like an editing glitch not belonging in this article.. The para starting "Creationists argue against evolution on the grounds that it cannot explain certain non-evolutionary processes, such as abiogenesis, the Big Bang, or the meaning of life." came in at the massive rewrite from "Misunderstandings about Evolution" on 22 Jan 2007. This para cited to CE440 in the Index to Creationist Claims, "Cosmologists cannot explain where space, time, energy, and the laws of physics came from." --  You're right, that's nothing to do with the text of the para or Evolution, it seems simply out of the Cosmology section.   The wording about "evolution is being redefined" googles to "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution", but as for the para that is here -- it's a creationist objection to cosmology, not an objection to biological evolution.   I'm thinking you were right and drop the para as not something that fits the article.  Markbassett (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Dontreader - p.s. I'm not too sure about the Hoyle two paras after that either... it seems to be remarking on panspermia for origin of life, but did not make a statement of objection and origin is not evolution so it's not technically an objection per se, it just one of many lots of theories for origin of life. Anf why the forgery emark here makes no sense as that one could be moved to evidence credibility claims. Markbassett (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Markbassett, thanks for your comments. I'm glad to see that you clearly understood my problem with that paragraph and with the source that is still being used to support the claims in it; I had no idea that it was the consequence of a rewriting that took place such a long time ago. To me, it was very obvious the first time I read the paragraph that there was a problem. Even if the author of the article is a renowned biochemist (which the average reader cannot know), the source gives the reader the impression that a cosmologist is answering a creationist, instead of an evolutionary biologist answering a creationist (concerning the origin of the universe, basically). What else can a reader infer from "Cosmologists cannot explain where space, time, energy, and the laws of physics came from."? That's the title of the article, and then there's a response from the perspective of cosmology, not evolutionary biology. That's all. Besides, the paragraph states that evolution cannot explain abiogenesis nor the meaning of life. Now, where does the source back those claims? Nowhere. It doesn't take a veteran Wikipedian to realize that the source is a very poor one, at best. However, someone else provided other sources that do back those claims (at least they would do a much better job). I told him to please use one of those sources, but nothing happened.


 * Concerning the following paragraph that mentions Fred Hoyle, I agree with you completely, now that you mention it. That is another example of extremely flawed editing. Just look at the first sentence: "Astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have argued in favor of cosmic ancestry,[121][122][123][124][125][126] and against abiogenesis and evolution.[127][128]" If that's not an example of WP:CITEOVERKILL, then nothing is. Seriously, can anyone here defend the need for eight citations in a short sentence? Besides, as you pointed out, that sentence has nothing to do with the subsection "Unexplained aspects of the natural world" in an article called "Objections to evolution". Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origin of life, which is something that Fred Hoyle knew very well. The fact that Hoyle argued in favor of cosmic ancestry and against abiogenesis does nothing to help the reader understand real objections to evolution. And the next sentence is just as bad, if not worse (even though I improved it recently): "Hoyle and Wickramasinghe also stated that the Archaeopteryx fossil finding is a forgery, a charge that the expert scientific community considers an untrue statement." How can anyone defend the inclusion of this information in this article? What's the purpose? All I see is a massive POV issue, with an editor that hates Hoyle trying to make him look bad (especially the way it was phrased before I modified the sentence). His mistake is relevant in other Wikipedia articles, surely, but not this one.


 * Furthermore, in the "Improbability" subsection of "Plausibility", we read, "A common objection to evolution is that it is simply too unlikely for life, in its complexity and apparent 'design', to have arisen 'by chance'." What does this have to do with evolutionary theory? Again, the article is entitled "Objections to evolution", not "Objections to abiogenesis". That opening sentence only confuses the reader, who might assume that evolutionary theory deals with the origin of life. Then, not surprisingly, this leads to Fred Hoyle again, and it is stated that Hoyle's Boeing 747 analogy is "known as Hoyle's fallacy", with a source that does not even mention the term "Hoyle's fallacy". So, a source that supports the claim does not exist, and the reader will make the assumption that everyone in the scientific community believes that this analogy is a fallacy (again, to harm Hoyle's reputation). As far as I know, this fallacy charge was made by Richard Dawkins; if so, then why doesn't the article say who made the claim, instead of merely stating "known as Hoyle's fallacy"?


 * Thanks again for your views. Hopefully some of these blatant mistakes will be addressed by one or more of the 200+ page watchers. Dontreader (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Concerning implausibility: While, yes, a lot of deniers and skeptics of evolution do tie abiogenesis together with biological evolution, some really do consider the idea of one species evolving into another to be implausible to the point of laughable impossibility. That's why we have the ridiculous strawmen of comparing evolution to a gameshow, or of "a cat evolving into a dog," and the ever popular "if people evolved from (insert primate of choice here), why are there still (insert primate of choice here) here?"  I've even had people try to pray me into Hell for daring to try to explain to them how we got chihuahuas from wolves over the course of 15,000 years of selective breeding in simple, easy to understand terms.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I really think it's fine for the article to include and refute even the most ridiculous objections concerning evolution, as long as such objections have been raised by a significant number of people. My problems with the article, as stated above, deal with other issues. No one has replied to the concerns raised by MarkBassett or myself. I was hoping that we could reach consensus on the talk page. P.S. The origin of the domestic dog is not as obvious as it may seem. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

DeLay quote
Concerning my March 19, 2015, edit: Upon further inspection, I found that DeLay, like Gutknecht, read into the Congressional Record (June 16, 1999) a column by Paul Harvey. The words used by Harvey on his radio show were written by Addison Dawson in his letter to the editor of the San Angelo Standard-Times, according to DeLay. See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1999-06-16/html/CREC-1999-06-16-pt1-PgH4364-2.htm.

Gutknecht's use of the material: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1999-06-14/html/CREC-1999-06-14-pt1-PgH4214.htm.

This matter is covered by Mark Paxton in his book, Media Perspectives on Intelligent Design and Evolution (2013), p. 167. Alan G. Archer (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then... Restore it? Quinto Simmaco (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not fully understand your comment, but it's probably best to keep the Dawson>Harvey>DeLay>Congressional Record indecent confined to DeLay's wiki page, which I edited on March 20/21 to counter link rot and provide clarification. Alan G. Archer (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Moving tidbits
As note in TALK 'Proposing removal of a paragaph', the end of article section 'Unexplained aspects of natural world' continued after a mention of Hoyle a mention of abiogenesis opposition and also mention re fraud for archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx fraud is under "Unreliable evidence" and fraud isn't 'unexplained aspect of natural world', so I'm moving the cite to there. Markbassett (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

How is abiogenesis possible?
I don't understand how abiogenesis is possible. Please prove that abiogenesis is or isn't possible here. Thanks!The Pokémon Fan (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC) And yes, I understand this isn't technically the place for it, but a good explanation would help. The Pokémon Fan (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, you should see Abiogenesis and the "Defining evolution" section of this article, where we cover that topic already. If you have a specific proposal, please provide suggested wording and sources.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The Pokémon Fan - to be clear, this article involves what happened after that, it's about evolution after life got started, and objections to that ... Markbassett (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Progression of animals by natural selection
I understand how the whole evolutionary mechanism works, but how would an animal live with a half developed liver or half developed legs? I understand how natural selection works to prevent the downfall of a species from a harmful mutation, (95% of the time, most of rest do not affect animal) but wouldn't an organism need several "good" mutations before it could evolve a new device/organ (not to mention the intelligence to use external traits)? and in the between time be suffering from it? The Pokémon Fan (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTFORUM, this isn't the place to ask. You can do some research on this page and Introduction to evolution, or you can ask at the reference desk. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Santorum Amendment
Markbasset added content about the Santorum Amendment, and updated some of the wording. It's important to remember that the overall point of the sentence is that "equal time appeals to creationists", so I'm concerned about removing that wording and migrating closer to "equal time has been supported by legislators and presidents." Overall, I don't have a problem listing attempts at pushing ID, but we shouldn't stray from the original point of the sentence, or give the impression of broad US government support. Thanks. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * User_talk:Mann_jess The phrasing of 'the appeal .. appeals to creationists' is mangled -- neither reading it as 'it asks creationists' or 'this principle is pleasing to creationists' seems a reasonable intent.  What is here seems like writing simply muffed the transition of the prior sentence which describes 'equal time' with an example of it in the real world, and also missed a more notable example of Santorum.  The meaning seems the 'balanced treatment' of Creation Science in 1982  Louisiana Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act of Edwards v. Aguillard and the phrase 'equal time' is the same without adding anything so is deletable.  Certainly neither Bush nor Santorum - real noted events - said "equal" nor "time" nor were they endorsing some external bill or item, they just expressed logic that seems relevant so could be mentioned here to show the relevance of the section.   I didn't move the phrase "equal time" as the prior line seemed clear enough, and to add the phrase "equal time" would lead to wikilinking Fairness doctrine or Equal Time Rule and a diversion into explaining the legal term 'equal time laws' means 'present equally' rather than 'the same amount of clock time'.    Will check back later and unless you have some better phrasing or logic, try the same edit again.  Markbassett (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not understanding what you're trying to say. The base sentence is "This appeal to fairness appeals to creationists." You've expressed you're having difficulty understanding the intent. Do you understand that base sentence? The point isn't to highlight George bush, or any failed legislation, or to discuss any part of US politics in particular. The point is: "creationists say it's 'unfair' to teach only evolution and not teach alternatives equally." Your suggestion changes the sentence to be about U.S. politics.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, so I will separate that phrase from the Bush and Santorum bit. I'll leave "appeals to creationists" for you to deal with.  (Just will again point out again that I see no reading that makes a reasonable intent -- neither  "This appeal to fairness pleases creationists" nor "This appeal was directed to creationists" seemed sensible or about the cites, so I believe it is simply SNAFU mangled phrasing and deletable.)  Markbassett (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * On reflection, the sentence on appealing to creationists is redundant. I think we can remove it, since the following paragraph handles the intent fine on its own. I'm still concerned about the proposal (Santorum + Bush), since it appears to convey that there is broad support for this idea in U.S. politics, when in reality there is some support, but it has been mostly rebuffed. I don't know if the mention of George Bush is even worth mentioning. The Santorum amendment may be - it was a failed piece of legislation, but it may have received significant coverage. I tried incorporating that into the existing content on the wedge strategy and other attempts within the U.S. to legislate for teaching creationism.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with Bush in or out. I was introducing the Santorum since it seemed a gap to mention Bush and miss it when it was larger than those random side comments and was more directly a link to the Teach the Controversy topic.  Think we're at closure with the Santorum edit.  Markbassett (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Other Objections
Am looking to input Other Objections and wondering what means to use for deciding inclusion -- is it a cutoff on publicity (tabloidism) or notability (textbooks) or what. There are a number of possible other objection kinds that I've seen, including: So are there any ideas what would be a suitable criteria for an 'objection' area ? Markbassett (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant - the 'teach my kids practical stuff'
 * Political - distrust of control by other class or regions
 * Relatively minor effect - view that in natural history other causes had much larger effect
 * Outdated - that in various ways Modern Synthesis is being supplemented or revised


 * This isn't a list, so there isn't article-specific inclusion criteria. Generally speaking, we would want to see substantial treatment in reliable sources. Since this is a good article, the bar is a little higher; we would expect most or all of the objections that are covered in substantial works have been included already, so new coverage should definitely have a strong sourcing basis. It's hard to say without seeing the sources first, but if you have any for the above points, list them and we can discuss in more detail. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm looking at the "Other" category that has been listed as needing work and thinking it means something not drilling down nit-picking on unresolved issues and inconsistencies within existing theory, and going somewhere else....   and those were the kinds of other objections that I've seen around as relatively recent.  ( There are other objections in the long-ago past.)  These are more prominent in scholarly treatments than in media of course which was the other part of the question -- serious objections or just most commonly heard ones.  Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Add to Plausability a subsection re science generally ?
I am wondering if the article should include mention that it's also part of a wider theme of disillusionment or distrust of science and scientists, from a combination of 'do not trust anyone anymore' or explanatory and cognitive hurdles. Figure I'd ask if folks think Plausability should get a subsection for General distrust of Science.

I've seen a number of articles mentioning and studying this science distrust phenomenon, such as Science and its skeptics or why many doubt science and Why Science is so hard to believe and Americans increasing distrust of science.

So -- make a new subsection ? RSVP. Markbassett (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like this "theme" is restricted to Americans, so it's probably not notable enough for large mention in an article. Also, as far as I can tell, most of those articles don't discuss evolution, so again I find it difficult to understand why it deserves an entire section. Incidentally, two of them are the same essay printed in different magazines. Rwenonah (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm - the whole Objections article is largely American, so while I could include South African attitudes to science, that just doesn't seem germane to this article.   It seems more a question of if 'distrust Darwinists' is factually sub section of voiced opposition and whether that would be represented as subsectio of Plausibility.


 * Evolution being distrusted is part of the the larger science distrust -- it's not like they didn't think evolution was a topic of science trust concern, see NSF study (and NSF 2014 Indicators) and Pew, and the ASF/Sage study on Politicization of Science. I've also seen joint science-distrust basis mentioned as explanation for the joining of Climate and Evolution discussions and NCSE involvement.  But commentaries on the studies seem to go mostly into bemoaning the fact or speculating over the WHY science is not understood or distrusted, rather than detailing how distrust in evolution is voiced. Markbassett (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Not seeing much comment here, and so for now I'm going to go with not including on the basis that the disillusionment with scientists is a contributing factor that either helps or motivates objections, but it is not an objection specifically about evolution and not add it to the mix. Markbassett (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Re-word title
I suggest that "Objections" be changed to "Criticisms" on ground of similar articles in Wikipedia.68.100.116.118 (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Among other reasons, not all of the objections raised are criticisms. Things like "I don't think evolution works because I don't want to understand it" or saying that "I don't think evolution works as the whole concepts offends my religious sensibilities" are not criticisms.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think criticisms is the common wiki usage and either seems reasonable by me, but mildly prefer to keep the title as is since: The article wording seems a wash since it uses criticisms (e.g. lede is talking "criticisms and denials", and lower down we see status as theory having "Critics of evolution") about as much as it uses "objection", and it channels a lot of "claims" (fm Index to Creationist Claims) which is a third category.   The [WP:COMMONNAME]] seems a wash as google seems to have both at about the same order of magnitude.  There is some conceptual difference where the meaning of criticism (evaluating or analyzing of evolution, especially finding fault) is different from objection (a reason for disagreeing or opposing; expression of disapproval; especially a law case specific point of procedure or law being violated) but again the article seems a mix so nothing really fits.  Markbassett (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
I am planning on editing this page to reflect a more neutral tone in it, as well as include new references to support each claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio Puentes (talk • contribs)
 * post any change proposal here before changing the article so you can gain consensus. --McSly (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The changes you have already made are not neutral to begin with.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Objections to evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120419021937/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * An new Vatican website url has been located and added. BiologicalMe (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Unqualified citation for observed macroevolution
Under "Evidence - Lack of observation" section, there is a sentence that states:

"However, as biologists define macroevolution, both microevolution and macroevolution have been observed."

This sentence cites two references, but none of them states that macroevolution has been observed -- they describe microevolution speciation. Either a valid reference should be used to back up the claim "macroevolution have been observed" or this sentence should be removed.

69.75.54.130 (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the part you quote and try to understand it. Especially the part as biologists define macroevolution and macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. The references are valid. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. In order to avoid a future confusion by other readers, I have clarified the article by explicitly mentioning speciation as to what biologists consider macroevolution.
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

edit to "Lack of observation" section
Rwenonah,

You undid the revision 734033265 and changed the following sentence:
 * before: However, as biologists define macroevolution (i.e. speciation), both microevolution and macroevolution have been observed.
 * after:  However, as biologists define macroevolution, both microevolution and macroevolution have been observed.

Can you elaborate what you mean by "not really true" please? How do you propose to make it sound more clear?

69.75.54.130 (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This edit really said everything that needs to be said. --JBL (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * JBL, no it didn't. Are you claiming that biologists don't define speciation as macroevolution?  My edit only added "(i.e. speciation)" to clarify what macroevolution is.  How is that a battle over evolution?
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Since neither Rwenonah nor anyone else can come up with a reasonable explanation, I have undone Rwenonah's undid.
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The explanation is: your editing is tendentious, and no one is going to humor your attempts to create rhetorical wiggle-room for an inane creationist argument. --JBL (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In other words, other editors are subjecting you to WP:SHUN.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And, there's clearly no consensus for the edits, time to move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @JBL, et al.
 * I asked you a simple question which you continue to dodge: are you or are you not claiming that biologists do NOT define speciation as macroevolution?
 * So, please explain why it is wrong to clarify that macroevolution defined by biologists means speciation.
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We have seen numerous previous editors with identical requests to easily understand your request for clarification is nothing more than an attempt to use tendentious hair-splitting as a Trojan Horse to create WP:weasel word smokescreens for creationist arguments, as was previous explained to you.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know your past experience and you shouldn't expect a total stranger to know your past experience either.
 * However, isn't this page titled, "Objections to evolution"? Search for "creationism" or "creationist" on this page and you will find almost everywhere.  So, I don't see why it is unacceptable to explain how "macroevolution" defined by creationists are different than the one defined by biologists.  Even macroevolution wiki page explains this symantic issue very well.  Considering that this symantic issue is the crux of the creationists' objection to evolution, it is very odd why you block the attempt to clarify the definition used by biologists.
 * Even the very sentence being edited starts with "However, as biologists define macroevolution", which would make no sense if it weren't trying to convey that the macroevolution defined by biologists are not the same as the one defined by creationists...
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem with your editing is that macroevolution is not synonymous with speciation. Speciation is generally a result of macroevolution but these two terms, while related, are not the same thing. See:Macro evolution and Speciation for further information. Bottom-line is, your addition is not technically correct and does not improve the article. <span style=" color:#0B0B3B; text-shadow: 3px 3px #C0C0C0;font-style: italic; font-family:'Britannic Bold';">Darwinian Ape talk 23:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @Darwinian Ape,
 * I know they are not synonymous, which is why I used "i.e." (should I have used "e.g." instead?) If you have a better way to present the information, then please go ahead with your way of clarification.
 * As of now, nowhere in this article does it mention about the symantic issue (which defeats the whole purpose of the topic of the article.)
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To quote briefly from the WP article on macroevolution, "the process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it." Rwenonah (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the relevant data: so far, 6 or 7 different people have taken the time to comment in this discussion; all have communicated in one way or another that they oppose your edits. At least one other person has reverted your edits when you made them.  Your parallel efforts on macroevolution have met with a similar outcome.  There is zero chance that continuing this argument is going to change this situation.  Why don't you go edit the article on your local high school or something instead? --JBL (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @Rwenonah,
 * Thank you for confirming my edit that macroevolution does indeed include speciation. Now that you've confirmed, I ask you the same thing that I asked Darwinian Ape.  If you have a better way to present the information, then please go ahead with your way of clarification and edit the sentence.
 * As of now, nowhere in this article does it mention about the symantic issue (which defeats the whole purpose of the topic of the article.)
 * @JBL,
 * Here is the relevant data: so far 6 or 7 different people have taken the time to comment in this discussion; none of them understands why the edit is needed and had suggested a better way to edit. Your ad hominem attacks only further prove your non-neutral attitude, which disqualifies you as an impartial moderator.
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that you follow the advice found in WP:1AM? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that you follow the advice found in WP:1AM? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment here by the IP editor as a 'neutral' party. So here's my comments:
 * Regarding the content: Speciation lies on the (highly nebulous) border between microevolution and macroevolution. It's as valid to say it's a part of one as it is to say it's a part of another. However, the distinction between micro- and macro- is an entirely artificial one, hence why there's no concrete definition. In practice, there's little difference, as there has never been an event where a member of one species gave birth to another species. It's all about small, incremental changes (even when one takes punctuated equilibrium into account). Then there's the issue of convergent evolution, the imprecise definition of 'species', natural chimeras and others. So it's really not useful to use speciation as a synonym, or even an example of macroevolution, because it's so easily argued that it's neither.
 * Regarding what to do with the page: This is actually really straightforward: Don't include the parenthetical example. The consensus from reading through this thread is quite clear. One editor with a clever argument cannot establish a consensus against the majority without demonstrating the invalidity of the vast majority's arguments, and presenting valid arguments themselves. Consensus goes with the preponderance of arguments. That hasn't been done here.
 * tl:dr: If some content is highly contentious, but improves the article, it should be included. If (as is the case here) some content is highly contentious but merely doesn't hurt the article, it should be left out. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @MjolnirPants,
 * Your statement that "It's all about small, incremental changes" is a hotly debated topic among scientists. There are many who do not support the idea that macroevolution can be reduced to microevolution (which you seem to be aware by the fact that you've mentioned punctuated equilibrium.)  Here is one of the such papers.  However, this is an off-topic and I'd rather not discuss it here.
 * Your recommendation to omit the parenthetical example is appreciated. Nevertheless it does not address the underlying semantics issue, which is addressed in the macroevolution page, but ironically not here.  This is the crux of the objections to evolution raised by creationists, which this page attempts to describe in numerous places throughout the page.  How do you propose that we introduce to the readers about the semantics issue?
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your statement that "It's all about small, incremental changes" is a hotly debated topic among scientists. ROFLMAO. No seriously, I laughed quite a bit right out loud when I read this. It startled my wife. This is such a profoundly wrong statement that I'm considering asking an admin to look into this and see what we can do about preventing you from editing pages which would be considered controversial to a fundamentalist Christian, as you certainly appear to be. You are free to believe what you will, but you are not free to impose your beliefs upon this encyclopedia. I strongly suggest you find articles not related to the conflicts between science and Christianity to edit. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  23:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * User:MjolnirPants --

69.75.54.130 has a point though. The article topic is 'Objections to evolution, so objections that proceed from an incrementalist impression, if common, should be present in appropriate WP:DUE weight. If the objection is that speciation isn't being observed and thus evolution isn't seen, then perhaps the ection needs to say that Definition is part of the objections -- that the technical definitions are not the common understanding or not accepted. Markbassett (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * please read the tl;dr section (the final paragraph) of my first comment in this thread. I have already addressed this point and shown what the problem with it is. As for the actual objections creationists have, they are directly addressed by the very section in question, in detail. This edit did not add any additional objection, it merely (in wikivoice) purported to "clarify" something by wrongly conflating two terms. We don't put inaccurate information in wikivoice, ever. Nor do we put questionable or contentious information in wikivoice. If you want to add a sentence or two (properly sourced) which states that creationists often conflate speciation with macroevolution, then be my guest. But this edit? Hell fuck no. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * aaaand after that, as I said, 69.75.54.130 still has a point.  Hope a retry will get there this time.
 * Point is, it is this article that is specifically about Objections and should convey whatever the objection is more clearly than it is now. I do think that he was right about this Objection is more readably stated in other articles than it is here.  And that this section is doing a whole back and forth about definitions varying and he said - she said - then they said -- which is not making clear what this objection is.  Directing folks into pages of other articles is also not better than just saying it here, and he tried it with a couple parenthesized clarifiers.  If you stylistically dislike parenthesized clarifications then propose something.  For my part, I'll offer the alternative approach of KISS -- keep only the clear bit that was in parens, and drop the multiply defined word that is a side issue.  Because really, if the Objection could be simply and clearly said as 'creationists object that speciation  has not been directly observed' then do it and skip the long digression.  Markbassett (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * p.s. I'll also add that it didn't seem to me like he was conflating terms in wikivoice, but rather paraphrasing from other wikiarticles this one pointed to, e.g. that microevolution is change within species and macro evolution is the formation of new species, but otherwise not different from microevolution.
 * Hoping for response on the point in question, Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * aaaand after that, as I said, 69.75.54.130 still has a point. Either you're not reading what I wrote, or you don't know what the edit in question was, or you're being dishonest here. I've addressed your objections already. If you don't understand how what I said has done so, ask specific questions and I'll answer them as best I can. I also suggest checking out the edit in question and carefully re-reading my prior comments. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Markbassett, might I gently suggest that you follow the advice found an WP:1AM? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon - your essay is a different topic than just me and Mjolnir with each apparently talking different things, and thinking that the other did not understand the prior post.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * User:MjolnirPants -- the aaaand after that, as I said, 69.75.54.130 still has a point. ... meant just that -- expressing I did reread your opinion at tl;dr and honestly afterwards did not see that as eliminating the point or even as closely related to it.  I think I had already read your tl;dr opinion and the rest of thread before my input and outdented to show a break to new subtopic of he has a point that the article wording lacks clarity (oddly shown better elsewhere) on what the objection is and/or what other view(s) are.   I think I understood your tl;dr comment and it's simply my not directed to clarity, so no questions.  If you feel otherwise and would like to explain on how it applies to determining a presentation style or something in this subthread context, please do provide demonstration and further explanation on how it does as a response indented here under this clarity subtopic.   If you're instead/also feeling I do not understand the tl;dr and wanting me to respond to the content or ask about it, then I suggest mechanically the way for that is to repost that as a outdented thread.
 * Relating to this subthread -- would be shown by things answering: Got a ranking of approaches for clarification between parentheses vice KISS alternative or proposing a third clarification methodology, specifically to clarify the objection ? Or opinion on even think there actually is an objection in the end vice that there is none and it's just a false impression from viewpoints and way of speaking with different definitional and semantic bits?
 * Again, I think I understand tl;dr as offering your opinion about edits and contention -- and still view that as just a different point than my view in there being this point so aaaand after that, 69.75.54.130 still has a point..  tl;dr may be interesting -- but it has not made a connection.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I did reread your opinion at tl;dr and honestly afterwards did not see that as eliminating the point or even as closely related to it. Then I'm afraid you fail to understand the most fundamental basics about how Wikipedia and Consensus works. Let me try to help:
 * Wikipedia works by consensus. Consensus is not a vote, but rather a balanced weighing of all views. If one point of view has raised objections to claims or arguments made by another, the other POV must reasonably address those objections. Currently, in this thread, a number of objections have been raised to the insertion of this content. They are described in detail here:
 * The first such objection is that the edit is plainly an attempt at inserting a weasel word, which could be used by future editors as a point from which to criticize WP's grasp of evolution, and thus the pro-evolution POV in all articles dealing with creationism. This is a textbook tactic, characteristic of the wedge strategy. The IP editor has -both in this thread and elsewhere- broadly misrepresented evolution and several facts surrounding it, as well as making arguments against the representation of evolution, all with the potential effect of causing a POV shift towards a pro-creationism tone in articles dealing with it. The IP editor has, notably, dodged questions about their own views, but has otherwise strongly implied themselves to be a creationist.
 * The second objection is that the edit is factually wrong: speciation is not synonymous with macro-evolution, but rather a process within evolution that may be a part of micro-evolution or macro-evolution, depending on the precise definitions used of all three terms, the specific subject being discussed, and the general context of the discussion. Nor is there any clear delineation between micro- and macro-evolution to which one could point in a specific context, using specific definitions to say that speciation falls squarely within the purview of one or the other.
 * The third objection is that the article already covers the fact that creationists often deny the existence (or the observation) of macro-evolution. This edit does not add anything that was not already there. Nor does this edit actually make that case, contrary to both your and the IP's assertions. It simply puts one, factually inaccurate claim -which itself is merely a part of the overall claim that macro-evolution doesn't happen- into WP voice.
 * Nothing you nor the IP has written has, in any way, addressed either of the last two objections. You have implied without stating outright that the IP editor may be right despite being a creationist trying to push a creationist POV on this article, but it is not at all clear that this was intentional. If it were not (as seems more likely, given that you have never addressed the POV based objections to this edit, nor acknowledged the IPs obvious POV), then it's fair to say that none of our ojbections have been addressed. If it were intentional, then even then, it has only been partially addressed, because you haven't shown that the IPs POV is not a problem, only that it is not necessarily a problem.
 * Instead, between you and the IP, your side has argued (blatantly untruthfully) that the edit constituted adding an additional objection creationists make to evolution, that the edit clarified a vague statement (also blatantly inaccurate) and that the terms 'macro-evolution' and 'speciation' are synonymous (also blatantly untrue). All three of those objections to the removal of this edit have been addressed reasonably by my side, in the process of raising objections 3, 2 and 2, respectively. not to mention the fact that all of those arguments are based on (indeed, consist of nothing more than stating) factually inaccurate premises. Furthermore, as I stated earlier, no-one would object to a well-sourced statement saying that creationists often conflate the terms 'speciation' and 'macro-evolution'. Despite both you and the IP editor stating that claim is what this edit is (with the IP editor contradicting themselves about it earlier), neither of you have taken that advice to heart and attempted to re-write the edit to comply with that. Which, to be honest, implies some level of dishonesty, as a more clear wording should be highly desirable to anyone who actually wanted to insert that claim.
 * Furthermore, you have -in your response to Guy- completely disregarded the opinions offered by, , , and , in addition to the implicit support to our side offered by , and claimed this to be simply a discussion between you and I. That is (again...sigh...) blatantly untrue.
 * When one side of an argument has raised a number of valid criticisms about the claims of the other side, and successfully negated all criticisms of their own claims, that is a consensus. It is consensus even when the successful side is outnumbered, and it is a clear and overwhelming consensus when the successful side outnumbers the unsuccessful side 7-2. It is also -in the context of this discussion in which the facts are in no real doubt whatsoever and easily verified- the single best method known to mankind for arriving at The Truth. (Note that is not a link to the often-cited WP essay, The Truth, but a link to the article which explains the philosophical connotations of the term. I am not speaking sarcastically here, but in complete earnestness.)
 * In conclusion, you simply do not have a logical argument. You have rhetorical devices, falsehoods, and implications of being oppressed. Wikipedia does not care about any of those things. Wikipedia is not here to encourage or disabuse your beliefs, or to explicate your particular points of view, even in articles that are about your points of view. Wikipedia is here only to provide accurate, verifiable information, which is what the current state of the article does, and which would be hampered by the edit in question.
 * tl;dr: Go back and read the whole thing. No, seriously. You really need to. This can't be summed up. Also read WP:5P, WP:ABOUT, WP:CONSENSUS and the essay Guy linked you to. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * (insert where responding to will be clearer) User:MjolnirPants - well, a lot in that mix, and thanks for the effort of summation on the thread overall. As to the particular subtopic I put forward on 'clarity' especially make clear what the objection as voiced is ...  I've already said twice that I saw content at "tl:dr: If some content is highly contentious" as not closely related to 'the article is unclear here', and said to reply indented to that indent of clarity>tl>what>tl! etcetera if you wanted to explain a reasoning of how tl is talking about 'clarity', kind of the norms of thread in TALK.
 * To just any clarity aspects I can see in that though,
 * 1 - WPWEASEL seems not directly about making clarity of wording, and this isn't one of the shown phrases, but clarity would be trying to remove the current vagueness and make readable the 'accurately represent' the objection etetera.
 * 2 - 'factually correct' - it's to be clearly conveying what was factually said or meant, not 'correct', and the article already points to microevolution is change within species and macro evolution is the formation of new species, so either of the alternative just seems a way to more clearly write that.
 * 3- no, that edit seems to have cut to the chase rather than the longer path, again seems clearer to just say the final clarifications and the wording colflusion of the section should be snipped out, but a parens of the endpoint is better than what currently is there.
 * (/insert) Markbassett (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sooooooo many words :/. As far as I can tell, this latest leg of the conversation is entirely hypothetical, i.e., no one has actually said "here is a sentence in the article that I believe is misleading" or "here is a proposed paragraph to add to a particular section." If no one is proposing any concrete changes, what is there to talk about? --JBL (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding "(i.e. speciation)" is a concrete change -- one which the consensus is against. Trying to explain why there is a consensus against it is understandable, but unlikely to have positive resuilts at this point. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel like it would be hypocritical not to have tried one time after I offered to answer any questions he had. I don't expect that I got through to him, but no-one can look at that giant wall of text and say I didn't try. At this point however, I'm done.
 * If you read my shorter comments above (the expanded and annotated version of War and Peace with prologue and epilogue up there is really just for Mark), you can see I told them I'd be fine if he wanted to propose a specific change that was factual and well-sourced. He pretty much ignored me. If I didn't know better, I'd think improving the article wasn't the real motive here. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  03:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * JBL - kind of still lacking clarity on what the objection is, and I'd added a second of just cut the digressions of the whole back and forth. "if the Objection could be simply and clearly said as 'creationists object that speciation has not been directly observed' then do it and skip the long digression. ".  The artificial presentation of a dialogue is both confusing and fakeish.  Markbassett (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * kind of still lacking clarity on what the objection is Well, at this point, that's your problem, not any of ours. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * JBL -- got any other approaches to improving the clarity of this section, particularly twhat the objection is (kind of the topic key ) ?  Cheers.  Markbassett (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)