Talk:Objections to evolution

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.   — Jess· Δ♥ 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#History_of_evolutionary_thought. (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 <blockquote> 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.   — Jess· Δ♥ 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.   — Jess· Δ♥ 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.   — Jess· Δ♥ 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.   — Jess· Δ♥ 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)

Nominated to be checked for its neutrality

Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOAPBOX and talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 [1] 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) (edit conflict) 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 (Dougweller) 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 [2],[3] the same who gives positive reviews to Creationist books and negative ones to science (Richard Dawkins)[4]. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC) —Tourchiest 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)

Redo Evidence subsection titles ?

I suggest redoing the title to match content here. Under "Instability of evidence" the material dopes not seem to be instability -- it starts by saying "A related objection is that evolution is based on unreliable evidence.", and goes on into the frauds such as Piltdown man. Under "Unreliable or inconsistent evidence" the material seems to be more about the methods for determining dates of events, radiology and geology. So how about these changes:

• "Instability of evidence" to "Unreliable evidence"
• "Unreliable or inconsistent evidence" to "Chronology evidence"

Markbassett (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sound logic - I agree. Ckruschke (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Done -- After a week wait, I've made the titles "Unreliable evidence" and "Unreliable chronology" to better fit the content and to be in the form of an objection. Markbassett (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms from a minority of scientists cont. - paleontologists

Wikipedia is not a forum, and not a place to conduct sham polls
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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: begin a major section for 'scientific objections' ? insert a subsection 'paleontologist objections' ? insert each tidbit wherrever best fit in current structure ? other ideas ? RSVP here, thanks. Markbassett (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC) 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 perWikipedia:Straw_polls#Straw_poll_survey_guidelines CLOSED Markbassett (talk) 00:47, 29 May 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).

Violation of the second law of thermodynamics

Proposed addition to Violation of the second law of thermodynamics:

Conversely, it is a false premise that the second law of thermodynamics applies only to isolated systems. The law is a Physical law, universally applying to all systems, not only to isolated systems but to open systems as well.

The general existence of inanimate open systems which respond as expected of the second law contradicts the implication that an open system is a cause or an explanation for negating the second law. “Self-organization” is not the rule in nonliving open systems.

A recent study explains that 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.

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?

“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…”

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:

“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) 23:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

'A recent study' in 'The American Biology Teacher'? References to a book written by a non biologist in 1944? I don't think so. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck - are you looking at the wrong thing?? The article cited to that is from February 2014, seems appropriate to call that "A recent study". The references for it seem visible online, mostly 2010 thru 2013, with one 2009, one 2008, one 1999 and one historical 1865. See url http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1525/abt.%202014.76.2.4?journalCode=ambt& Markbassett (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn’t a teaching journal be a good place to start if a correction were needed in the teaching of biologists about the second law?LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I imagine it would be in big review articles, and it isn't. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That, and it would be more beneficial if it were a little more recent in origin.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

LEBOLTZMANN2 - It could be a good place but it seems limited. I would expect a teaching journal to focus on teaching techniques and practice, and this journal article about handling questions on thermodynamics relationship would seem limited to a fixed context that the overall course material and goals is fixed ... just can put in side remarks or context to external. To change the content would seem to require more the type of political action and financial mechanisms shown by No Child Left Behind or Common Core. But so what ? It does not seem to really be something that would be meat for the Objections wiki article at the Thermodynamics section though. Markbassett (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Markbassett This line of discussion could lead to a problem. The premise of the section is “The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to isolated systems.” By implication, the claim is the law does not apply to open systems and somehow this explains the matter. It is not likely a major scientific journal would publish an article on what has been known since 1865 (Clausius), that is the second law is a law and thereby applies universally, to open and to isolated thermodynamic systems. LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck So the Mathematical Intelligencer is acceptable as a reference.

The Mathematical Intelligencer publishes articles about mathematics, about mathematicians, and about the history and culture of mathematics. Written in an engaging, informal style, our pages inform and entertain a broad audience of mathematicians and the wider intellectual community. We welcome expository articles on all kinds of mathematics, and articles that portray the diversity of mathematical communities and mathematical thought, emergent mathematical communities around the world, new interdisciplinary trends, and relations between mathematics and other areas of culture. Humor is welcome, as are puzzles, poetry, fiction, and art.

And the American Biology Teacher is not.

The American Biology Teacher is an award winning and peer-refereed professional journal for K-16 biology teachers. Articles include topics such as modern biology content, biology teaching strategies for the classroom and laboratory, field activities, and a wide range of assistance for application and professional development.

Mathematician Jason Rosenhouse is acceptable.

Books

"The Monty Hall Problem: The Remarkable Story of Math's Most Contentious Brain Teaser," Oxford University Press

"Among the Creationists: Dispatches from the Anti-Evolutionist Front Line," Oxford University Press

"Taking Sudoku Seriously: The Math Behind the World's Most Popular Pencil Puzzle," Oxford University Press

And physicist, Nobel Laureate Erwin Schrödinger is not

According to James D. Watson's memoir, DNA, the Secret of Life, Schrödinger's book gave Watson the inspiration to research the gene, which led to the discovery of the DNA double helix structure in 1953. Similarly, Francis Crick, in his autobiographical book What Mad Pursuit, described how he was influenced by Schrödinger's speculations about how genetic information might be stored in molecules.

And geneticist and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky is not.

A prominent geneticist and evolutionary biologist, and a central figure in the field of evolutionary biology for his work in shaping the unifying modern evolutionary synthesis. He published a major work of the modern evolutionary synthesis, Genetics and the Origin of Species, in 1937. He was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1964 and the Franklin Medal in 1973.LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)