Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary Relativity


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Nobody but the author of this original research is in favor of keeping the article.  Sandstein  06:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary Relativity

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to be WP:Original research or pseudoscience. Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggesting the inclusion of the term Evolutionary Relativity in an Encyclopedia is not an example of Original Research. While the external reference links need to be reformatted into appropriate hyperlinks using the title of the articles instead of the web addresses, and the referenced articles should perhaps be discussed a bit in the body of the article, the concept or construct of Evolutionary Relativity has already been established as a culturally and scientifically meaningful one.

Taking the concept into the universe's acknowledged potential for other intelligence is a logical and sustainable move, a move found in many histories of ideas at Wikipedia, where references and discussions of further applications and theories involving a concept have flourished without deletion.

Asserting that possible higher intelligence in the universe belongs in a discussion of Evolutionary Relativity is not pseudo science by anyone's standards. The particular theory of higher intelligence that is the vehicle for asserting the appropriate application of the concept of Evolutionary Relativity in this article can be discussed separately, in its own right, as psuedo science or a breakthrough in study and reasoning, but the theoretical vehicle does make it very clear that Evolutionary Relativity can be applied to the possibility of higher intelligence. Wikipedia often has interesting, challengeable theories that help illuminate other abstract concepts and theories

Marcoslee (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Marcoslee (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Gobbledegook - two buzzwords that have popped into the pop-science subculture: 'evolutionary' and 'relativity', put together. Wow, dude, that's so, like, cool and scientific and stuff, man. The article is not coherent. If this is a widespread pseudo-scientific phenomenon, it may be worth an article as such, but the only references here are a random book and a web page ('journalofcosmology.com/Aliens100'). Unless more can be provided, this ought to be deleted. A few weird outlying articles have already given Wikipedia already an unfairly bad name for partisan garbage in the humanities - this is the sort of thing that might extend that to the sciences too. Delete! 41.185.146.90 (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete references are mostly of one author, presumably the author of this article (or fan). If there is any scientific literature on the interface of either the special or general theory of relativity and evolution, this article doesnt reflect it. I doubt there is, and the use of the word "relativity" as a label to imply some sort of paradigm shift in another discipline is overdone and lame, esp. in this case. If this author publishes a print book from a major publisher, and gets LOTS of press, even press excoriating him for his ideas, then id be glad to create an article on that, but again, nothing here to salvage.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am not sure I would describe this as junk science, junk everything would be more apposite. Formally, no reliable sources exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC).


 * Evolutionary relativity” has been argued extensively by Noah Greenstein in the first external link of the article all the way to the level of molecular physics, but I don't think it is essential to have that kind of connection. Processes in biology and evolution can be conceptualized and measured in terms of time, space and movement. The possibility of a physical connection between physics and biology, or even between physics and linguistics, as in some discussions by Ernst Cassirer or Noam Chomsky suggest a vibrant idea with useful applications, although some anti-evolutionists would be reviled by the very idea of such a godterm of physics being applied to a bio-environmental process they question.

Socio-culturally, socio-psychologically and politically, the term may have racial implications and this tendency may even be applicable to other intelligent species in the universe. As used in the Krangle argument, earthling’s various versions of God may all be the one highest evolved Singularity of the universe playing a dramatic role in human history. Compare Copernicus and Galileo upending Ptolemy. This is more than a paradigm shift. This is an argument that is compatible with the recent moving of the former Wikipedia entry entitled “The Singularity” to a new entry called “Technological Singularity,” the enterprise and technology friendly idea of a singularity every now and then from the Silicon Valleys in the clouds. A The Singularity concept requires the kind of thinking apparent in the instant case with more work and organization, maybe a move to the little Superintelligence entry, but I think it can and should have its own entry.

Keep “evolutionary relativity” and give Krangle the right to have a link to his lulu.com self-published Revolution or Extinction because it is a totally free download and not a commercial sales opportunity, and it will help to illuminate the important questions in play here.

Let Wikipedia launch this theory of evolutionary relativity as it applies to a highest operational intelligence within the universe in order to expand the philosophy of science and communication implications of the possibilities of higher intelligence. God, The Singularity, Superintelligence, Evolution and Evolutionary Relativity, Technological and Social Scientific singularities, etc.

Marcoslee (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Marcoslee (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Lets not and say we did. Sorry, thats not the purpose of Wikipedia, read up on what constitutes an article. Its not our job to peer review new scientific and cultural paradigms and publish them. Xxanthippe is absolutely, precisely correct in their final comment. Refute their argument with reliable, third party commentary on this subjects importance, otherwise post the material on a blog, and good luck with that.(seriously, good luck in the world of ideas, especially as we approach the Omega Point)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Marcoslee (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A concept such as "evolutionary relativity" immediately means something to everyone and can contribute to mainstream discussions of a The Singularity, singularities, God, superintelligence, etc. I do not completely understand the kind of hostile resistance to it I am seeing here.  I suggest the term can participate in the further important development of some of the most exciting and influential ideas that we are working with today, beyond the preliminary ways it has already begun being used today in biology and linguistics.


 * Delete as SYNTHESIS that advances a stream of blather. --Lambiam 19:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Marcoslee (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the comments in this discussion except one has presented any substance to back up any of the claims that the entry of "evolutionary relativity" does not fit Wikipedia's needs and rules except one discussing the need for more references. Well, there are more references now and there has been a rewrite of the discussion of this interesting and useful concept. It is applicable for discussion of a hypothetical or reported higher intelligence in the universe and that is not research.  It is a fact based on common beliefs and facts about those beliefs and their implications.  Not everything is someone else's or your research. This term is going to get bigger and be part of a needed discussions regarding The Singularity, which needs to be decoupled from Technological Singularity.  Where are the giants of those areas on this? You'll be embarrassed later on if the Wikipedia system misses this, now because it doesn't have anyone qualified to administer a decision on this.


 * Alright, I'll explain in more detail. This article is not suitable for wikipedia because it is original research: "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists. That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources."
 * In terms of each of the links you've provided:
 * http://journalofcosmology.com/Aliens100.html - I find no mention of the term "evolutionary relativity" here.
 * http://www.groundreport.com/Health_and_Science/Consequences-of-Relativity-in-Evolutionary-Biology/2835950 - ground report is a website on which anyone may publish a report, so it doesn't meet the reliable source guidelines
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=-wt1aZrGXLYC&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=evolutionary+relativity&source=bl&ots=92VC55NXgq&sig=fl4KzXgqNspQdNNyqSkkrggnGBc&hl=en&ei=IUGbTa6bIZC2tweQxJDcBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=evolutionary%20relativity&f=false - I see no mention of "evolutionary relativity" here, just some pages that happen to contain both words.
 * http://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/general-relativity-in-evolutionary-biology/ - Blog, not a reliable source
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=5aNwSImFZhUC&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=evolutionary+relativity&source=bl&ots=SNG7sZMdRH&sig=4H4y-4GXhu0M1JC-kwhQvBq8DTM&hl=en&ei=JZCXTdjzBomztwfAuqyVDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=evolutionary%20relativity&f=false - Book discusses "evolutionary relativism", a concept that doesn't appear to be related to this article
 * http://www.newbookforanewworld.org/chapter-26-the-systems-theory-of-human-evolutionary-behavior-and-the-theory-of-evolutionary-relativity-you-thought-the-title-of-this-chapter-was-a-joke-didn%E2%80%99t-you/ - this doesn't seem to meet the reliable source guidelines
 * http://rbsp.info/rbs/RbS/PDF/spie08.pdf - The term "evolutionary relativity" is not used anywhere in this document.
 * There is no evidence of the the term evolutionary relativity being used in any reliable sources, so no way to verify your account of what it is. We can only write the article once the idea gets significant coverage in reliable sources, it is not wikipedia's job to launch this theory. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This may be "a battleground" here over "evolutionary relativity," but the term is not part of propaganda, advertising and showcasing. It is a serious philosophical, linguistic and scientific term. There is no product in play here. Some of the references I have posted were to support other aspects of the entry's discussion and there were more references to Evolutionary relativity in the references than you have pointed out. "Evolutionary relativity" does not necessarily have to be a theory in the sense that Einstein's theory is in terms of hard science, yet there are encyclopedic facts comparing physics and biology in terms allowing for the application of the concept of evolutionary relativity in that sense:

"In biology, as in physics, there are both temporal and spatial dimensions. The temporal dimension of biology is measured in terms of generations and the spatial dimensions are measured in terms of mutations.  To describe the motion of a species, i.e. how a species is evolving, we do so by stating its velocity.  Just as in physics we have velocity = meters per second, in biology we have velocity = mutations per generation.  Each kind of mutation is analogous to a direction; changes in physical structures x, y and z are graphed just like directions x, y and z.  Species move through this evolutionary space-time by reproducing."

Using the term in further ways, such as in a discussion about other, higher intelligence in the universe is a natural and Krangle is doing it.

The need to compare The Singularity and anything SU or any singulatarians are doing is philosophical and linguistic work, encyclopedic work, in deed. "Evolutionary relativity" can, is and will help do this work. Those are the issues on this and the question that will be asked later is where was the support for this besides me. Where is some singularity input! Marcoslee (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, improve, or merge or redirect. Look at how "Evolution in Variable Environment (EVE) has been handled for over a year in a state of hopeful improvement.  The article even posits evolutionary relativity, although it does not articulate the term.  "Evolutionary Relativity" is more conceptually fundamental and applicable to wider and deeper discussions of this nature, yet it has been treated with hostile disdain.  Why hasn't "evolutionary relativity" been supported and helped to be presented more adequately, like this other evolutionary concept?  I do not see why "evolutionary relativity" has not met with a thoughtful interest in seeing its successful inclusion.

Here is the template and how "Evolution in Variable Environment (EVE) is presented in Wikipedia--- The topic of this article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (November 2010)

This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions may be available. (April 2010)

"Evolution in Variable Environment (EVE) is a computer program designed to simulate microbial cellular behavior in various environments. The prediction of cellular responses is a rapidly evolving topic in systems biology and computational biology. The goal is to predict the behavior a particular organism in response to a set of environmental stimuli..." Marcoslee (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the second time you gave your recommendation. As stated in Articles for deletion: "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." You also did not disclose that you are the article's creator and sole contributor. --Lambiam 20:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not mean to try and wind up with two votes, and I have fixed the record. I don't believe in a vote and believe a fair consensus requires more interaction about what is philosophically, linguistically and semantically acceptable about "evolutionary relativity," not just that certain people almost seeming like they have been recruited (and mostly in unhelpful ways) to deny its actual and hypothetical uses.  And, I thought my authorship was known and have been hoping for contributors to this especially young entry.  Why have only the naysayers found their way here?  "Evolutionary relativity" should have a huge gang of supporters including very big names, and it will.  Anyone who cannot see that is fooling himself and the hostility the concept has found here, rather than supportive and facilitating input has been disheartening.

Marcoslee (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Above, Physics is all gnomes went out of their way to explain in detail and at length why this article does not belong in Wikipedia, but you ignore this and instead argue against a strawman. The hostility you perceive is not against the concept but against your soapboxing and ignoring our content policies. --Lambiam 06:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:OR. Possibly WP:FRINGE as well. - SudoGhost (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There are 64 matches for “evolutionary relativity” at Wiley publishers

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-WILEY2_SEARCH_RESULT.html?query=evolutionary%20relativity

There are 12 results for: evolutionary relativity in Evolution, a particular Wiley journal listed by Wikipedia http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/search/results

The NYT published an article about The Singularity, which repeatedly uses the idea of “evolutionary relativity,” and no one calls these futuristic contemplations “fringe.” The article runs over 5000 words.

''Merely Human? That’s So Yesterday'' By ASHLEE VANCE Published: June 12, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/business/13sing.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage

“They believe that technology may be the only way to solve the world’s ills, while also allowing people to seize control of the evolutionary process. “

“We will transcend all of the limitations of our biology,” says Raymond Kurzweil, the inventor and businessman who is the Singularity’s most ubiquitous spokesman and boasts that he intends to live for hundreds of years and resurrect the dead, including his own father. “That is what it means to be human — to extend who we are.”

“…challenges from religious groups that see the Singularity as a version of “Frankenstein” in which people play at being gods, and technologists who fear a runaway artificial intelligence that subjugates humans….”

“Some of the Singularity’s adherents portray a future where humans break off into two species: the Haves, who have superior intelligence and can live for hundreds of years, and the Have-Nots, who are hampered by their antiquated, corporeal forms and beliefs.”

An encyclopedist, a philosopher, a semanticist can recognize that "evolutionary relativity" is being discussed.

The term is applicable because of the meanings of "evolution" in all its extensions and "relativity" in all its extensions. There is no need to present more research in a case like this, only rationale. The term has been found in print and only using some preliminary Googling. Only more writing and organization that perfects the presentation of the range of applications of "evolutionary relativity" are needed. The process here reveals a reversal of the goals we are supposed to be working with. I haven't finished scouring all the articles in the NYT and the academic literature and journals. Thinking people can apply "evolutionary relativity," have, and will in learned discourse. Marcoslee (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing we will all be "Have-Nots" then...
 * The New York Times article was interesting but was about 'the singularity', it doesn't mention 'evolutionary relativity'. The Wiley search is just a list of books that contain the two words, we have no idea if they're discussing the same concept as you or not. (I suspect not).--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as above.  EBE123  talkContribs 16:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. GcSwRhIc (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Marcoslee (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to say that most of the comments are by people that are known to the initiator of the delete proposal, and the further requests for deletion are clique-bound rather than argument bound. "Evolutionary relativity" is a natural, logical concept that applies in many ways to discussions about many things in sociology and technology development, biology and evolution, and it is especially important in discussing higher intelligence in the universe.  Evolution is something worthwhile to talk about in relative terms, like linguistics, even if it does not perfectly fit a full blown parallel to Einstein's applying the term to physics.  It is a further honoring of Einstein that the term relativity will have been applied to several fields in science and social science.
 * Comment While that may be true, (for the time being at least) it doesn't seem to be a good fit for a wikipedia article, as per the reasons listed. I don't think anyone is stating that it doesn't exist, but that it doesn't fit the guidelines for a wikipedia article. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This seems to be a hoax. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's time to close this time-wasting AfD. Creator needs to understand the nature of an encyclopedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC).


 * I've been ganged up on before, as a Jew, as a Muslim and as a Commie, by the government, the Mafia and others.  Read my book, but that is not what I have been hyping here. I have used my references to higher intelligence only in order to highlight the potential of "evolutionary relativity." I would be quite amenable to deleting my name and book title entirely and presenting the higher intelligence material as hypothetical in order to provide the reader with the propositions for debate about what different presumed natures of higher intelligence (Hawking's vs others) might create for a singularity oriented younger intelligence. My profile is checkable, my university education, my jobs, listed at my screen name. It’s silly to call the inclusion in a people’s encyclopedia of such a powerful concept for classroom discussion such as “evolutionary relativity” a hoax.  It means a lot and has a lot of applicability.  It does belong in Wikipedia and does not violate any principle.  It is not original research.  It needs more organization and more discussion of the range of applications. Marcoslee (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.