Talk:Objections to evolution

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.   — Jess· Δ♥ 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.   — Jess· Δ♥ 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.   — Jess· Δ♥ 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.   — Jess· Δ♥ 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.   — Jess· Δ♥ 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:

• 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

So are there any ideas what would be a suitable criteria for an 'objection' area ? Markbassett (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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!   — Jess· Δ♥ 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)

Violation of the second law of thermodynamics

Mr. Fink, while evolution is beyond questioning, this particular article, 7.3 Violation of the second law of thermodynamics, is not.

In the illustration of this article, it is claimed: “The second law of thermodynamics applies only to isolated systems.” This is immediately contradicted in the article when it is expressed that the law applies to all, that would be isolated, closed and open systems: …”the second law of thermodynamics. Though the law applies to all systems”…

There is no basis asserting the second law applies only to isolated and not also to closed systems. “Creationists argue that evolution violates this physical law by requiring a decrease in entropy, or disorder, over time. This claim is based on ‘’’a manifestation of the law only applicable to isolated systems.”

By claiming an isolated system effect only, the second law is relegated to being an idealization or a model. From Wikipedia, Isolated systems: “Because of the requirement of enclosure, and the near ubiquity of gravity, strictly and ideally isolated systems do not actually occur in experiments or in nature. They are thus hypothetical concepts only. Classical thermodynamics is usually presented as postulating the existence of isolated systems. It is also usually presented as the fruit of experience. Obviously, no experience has been reported of an ideally isolated system.”… “The concept of an isolated system can serve as a useful model approximating many real-world situations. It is an acceptable idealization used in constructing mathematical models of certain natural phenomena.”

The article creates a straw man by ignoring open systems since the law applies to all systems. Creationists could just as easily argue that evolution is an anomaly in open systems. The Mathematical Intelligencer quotation presents the paradox. “The fact is that natural forces routinely lead to decreases in entropy. Water freezes into ice” (by energy removed from the open system) “and fertilised” eggs turn into babies” (by energy added to the open system). With both open systems in the same Sun-Earth-space system, natural forces routinely lead to quite different results.LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The situation here has not changed in the last nine months. -JBL (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Among other things, did you read this statement, "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."? I find it hard to believe the article "creates a strawman by ignoring open system" when it discusses how the fact the claim of "the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution from occurring" is invalidated by the fact that the Earth is an open system. If you reread the article, IT IS THE CREATIONIST CLAIM THAT IGNORES THE EXISTENCE OF OPEN SYSTEMS.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Rather than denying open systems, the actual creationist claim is: “Creationists argue that evolution violates this physical law by requiring a decrease in entropy, or disorder, over time.” It is the author of the article who first acknowledges: “the law applies to all systems” and then ignores and drops open systems from consideration by unjustifiably asserting: ”This claim is based on a manifestation of the law only applicable to isolated systems.“ This assertion is a clever way to avoid explaining why open systems of non-living entities react predictably to energy input but are anomalies in open system organisms. The quotation from The Mathematical Intelligencer unwittingly provides the paradox. Heat energy input changes ice to liquid water in an open system - increasing entropy; while nutrient energy input allows “fertilised” eggs to turn into babies - decreasing entropy. That these systems are in earth’s open system does not explain the difference. By ignoring this reality, the article does little to negate the objection to evolution. As it stands, the article is not worthy of being in an encyclopedia and is deceptive by feigning that an answer is provided when it is not. LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Citations

There is not one citation in the opening summary. Much of the information presented is common knowledge, yes, but why is there no citations. However obvious, such straightforward statements as 'Evolution became overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community' still needs a citation, as do other statements. Iheartthestrals (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD of the article is a summary of sourced material the article. BiologicalMe (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)