Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punctual objection to evolution


 * 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. Sr13 07:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Punctual objection to evolution

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnecessary fork from objections to evolution to house the creators wp:or ornis ( t ) 10:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, Of course I, as the writer, do not agree. To convince me please show me the falsehood of that statement or a previous article that supported the same arguments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fbartolom (talk • contribs).


 * Delete, as unsourced, OR nonsense. I should add that I've already asked the editor who created it (who appears to be the author of this "concept") to address these concerns, but it looks completely unsalvageable to me.  Its ignorance of mechanisms of speciation is nearly total.  --Plumbago 10:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete completely unsourced original research --Pak21 10:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pseudo-scientific gibberish.--Targeman 10:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Speciation has been observed, it's a "no-brainer" that any argument based on its "impossibility" must be void. --Robert Stevens 12:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: the Earth is not flat, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article about it. --Pak21 12:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: We generally only have articles about fallacies that are (currently or historically) notable. This is a fairly minor objection and generally conflated with other objections to macroevolution, rather than stated alone as a central objection. It is sufficiently minor that even the name of it appears to be OR (as it generates no Google hits). Hrafn42 12:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Pak21. Douglasmtaylor 12:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - not only is this article OR (and wholly unreferenced), it appears to be nothing more than a POV-fork attempt to deny the contents of the article on Speciation (which is well-referenced). Hrafn42 12:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - O.R. more suitable for a blog rant than an encyclopedia. Tarc 12:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - it would be unsalvageable OR even if it were coherent.  Eliminator JR Talk  12:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Do I need to even say why? Good heavens. --12:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to objections to evolution. This is a real objection that has been made and addressed.  Debunked here. JulesH 12:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, it needs to establish its notability (at least!) before merging. Thusfar it appears to be an idea penned by the editor who created this article.  --Plumbago 13:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with Plumbago. At minimum, we would need a citation of a notable creationist making this objection. I think I have, on rare occasions, seen it (but cannot remember if it was made by a prominant creationist or some random blogger), but that isn't a good enough basis for including this objection in objections to evolution. Hrafn42 13:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. (Do not merge.)  This is crank-science OR plain and simple, and is not a legitimate objection to evolution.  (Via edit conflict: Yes, agree with Plumbago.)  Silly rabbit 13:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do not agree with either ... as for the purportedly observed samples of speciation we have always to do with "ex-post" evaluations. I am not aware of a scientist having produced or observed a new species to arise out of the blue. Also, even if that would happen, there would always apply the argument stated in the punctual objection to evolution post that the first member of the new species has no one with whom to mate, otherwise it should still be of the old species, and so that variation would extinguish together with its own life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbartolom (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 July 2007
 * Comment ROTFL. Please learn to understand evolution before criticising it, or at the very list read the link I posted above. JulesH 12:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unsourced OR. Gandalf61 14:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am the source: I touch the ground as the Buddha did to assert my right to take advantage of it and it would be also strange if Wikipedia were only a backup for information available elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbartolom (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, oh Awakened. Strange as it may seem to Thee, Wikipedia is not the place for original research. --Targeman 14:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Best AfD argument ever! But the Buddha was not writing an encyclopedia.  Delete as wild OR, and although it's not relevant for the AfD discussion, I would add that this article demonstrates almost complete misunderstanding of speciation.  bikeable (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, original research, get your own website if you want to "assert your right". And yes, that's exactly the point of WP:V that information on Wikipedia has to be "available elsewhere". NawlinWiki 14:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. ...in a reliable source which asserts the notability of the subject. Silly rabbit 14:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. And so someone would need to say what should be an entity able to assert the notability of a subject: I supposed the reviewers of wikipedia were competent enough for that without resorting to the Nobel prize committee.


 * Punctual deletion until it evolves into something less OR and more fit to survive in Wikipedia. Clarityfiend 14:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment ROTFL. Kudos Clarityfiend.  --Plumbago 15:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced rambling.  Lx  Rogue  15:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Soemthing not unlike this has been rasied as an objection to evolution on a number of occasions (and answered), but not under this name. A version of this objection, proerply sourced and named, should be included in objections to evolution there is no reason to split this out unless a sizable history of comment and controversy can be shown, and there is a whiole aricle, not jsut a paragraph, to be written on this objection. All this has nothing to do with the merits of the objection, or its lack of merit. DES (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a purported theory (and apparently OR at that) it fails WP:V, as a scientific concept, it is unfortunately not even wrong... -- MarcoTolo 16:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR VanTucky  (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Unoriginal WP:OR... that's strong indeed... is this article meant as a koan?--Victor falk 22:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing more than barely coherent nonsense. Someguy1221 02:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Hardly punctual. The theory of Evolution has been around for 170 years. ~ Infrangible 03:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; This article makes no sense. Cedars 03:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Poor grammar can be worked on, and does not justify deletion. Documenting an unsound argument or a nonsensical claim similarly does not warrant deletion. Having a total and utter lack of verifiable sources, however, is a very good reason to delete. Endomorphic 04:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per above as unsourced, unverifiable OR, and WP:SOAP. "It's not even wrong." Bearian 13:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete with speedy/snow AfD close I think the post has something to do with Adam and Eve and their first child and monkeys turning into humans, but I really can't say for sure. Patent nonsense item 2 covers Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever. This seems to apply. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 18:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No, seriously. Does anyone know what the article is stating? Would someone please post a simple, clear statement of the objection to evolution? Is it saying that a new species and the species from which it came cannot exist at exactly at the same time? Please. Anyone. Clarify this. Thanks. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 06:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that it's trying to say if a new species did evolve, it would have to breed with un-evolved version of itself, like a donkey with a horse. Either the article lacks a basic understanding of evolution, or I'm missing something.  Lx  Rogue  06:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No, that's more or less it. It's basically an objection to the Hopeful monster fallacy. ornis ( t ) 06:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I got the gist of it. 1. New species are only new if they cannot breed with an un-evolved version of themselves. 2. For a new species to evolve, it must breed with the un-evolved version of itself to create the new species.  3. However, if it is able to breed with the un-evolved version of itself, then it must not be a new species. Is that it? --  Jreferee  (Talk) 15:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite. By definition two creatures are of different species if they can't ( or generally don't ) breed and produce fertile offspring. This objection is based on the false notion that speciation occurs instantaneously. A horse for instance one day gives birth to a donkey, say. Now since horses and donkeys produce mules, the donkey would become extinct, having no one with which to breed and produce viable offspring. Does that make sense? ornis ( t ) 15:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ornis is correct about it not being instantaneous. Additionally, (in)ability to interbreed tends to be a positive feedback loop (the more you interbreed the more you can interbreed, and conversely the less you interbreed the less you can interbreed, until interbreeding becomes negligible and a speciation has occurred), and this is happening on a population rather than individual level (a sub-population speciates from its parent population, not a single individual). Hrafn42 16:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research, and a lot of it. --Wingsandsword 00:58, 20 July 2007 (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.