Talk:Objections to evolution

Second sentence bugs me

".....(Darwin's) theory of evolution by natural selection initially met opposition from alternate scientific theories....."

• Isn't it better to say his theory "was opposed by scientists with different theories"?
• That would get rid of that awful word "alternate" as well. As Darwin was English, "alternate" should be "alternative" anyway. (e.g. Ferranti said his alternating current was a superior alternative to DC). Moriori (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, better; did it. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Further clarification regarding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

The section that talks about the criticism of evolution that states that it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics correctly points out that this law is incorrectly applied since the Earth and living beings are not closed systems.
Although the section also clarifies that entropy is "a measure of the dispersal of energy in a physical system so that it is not available to do mechanical work", the wording of the section suggests that the 2nd law of thermodynamics can even be applied to the complexity of living organisms.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics pertains the transfer of heat on closed systems, it happens that this law can also be expressed in terms of entropy. However, here 'entropy' and 'closed system' have precise mathematical and physical meanings and 'entropy' even has a precise physical unit (Joules/Kelvin).
This way of criticizing evolution suggest that the 'entropy' of the 2nd law refers to the "dictionary" definition of 'entropy' that pertains the degree of disorder (wich is a very subjective definition) wich in turn can be related (again, in a very subjective way) to the complexity of some subject, object or system (again, very subjective definitions for the words 'complexity' and 'system').
The main reason why this particular way of criticizing evolution is flawed is not that the earth or living organisms are not closed systems, that only makes sense after you make the concession that you can apply the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the first place, wich I think is not being remarked enough in this particular section.

Plaga701 (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Add. "The section that talks about the criticism of evolution that states that it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics correctly points out that this law is incorrectly applied since the Earth and living beings are not closed systems."

pls. compare with: "… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself." John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980, p. 40"

As for other Qs raised, you could read more about subject if gentlemen here would not consider this article to be a showcase of "Leading scientist" effectivly eradicating any non-compliant opinion. Still, if you're willing to discuss the actual content and you do not mind politically incorrect authorship, this might give you some hints about your topic. I'm not proposing to accept it w/o critisism (after all we are humans capable of making mistakes), but if someone states something is wrong, he should IMHO demonstrate it based on actual content rather than put it on black list based on personal bias. --Stephfo (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Stephto, please see WP:UNDUE, and, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (again). Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

<br\> Where on earth did you get that I had a personal bias? Even though I am an atheist, that has nothing to do with the physical definition of entropy. The source that you provided states:

In this paper, the author will consider the fundamental aspects of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics applied first of all in the traditional definitions used in heat and chemical systems.

after that it says:

Then analogous representations of ‘logical entropy’ will be discussed where for a number of years many scientists (such as Prigogine) have been attempting to simulate in a rational way the idea of functional complexity.<br\>

Prigogine’s work has primarily been seeking to express self organisation in terms of non-equilibrium thermodynamics and the term ‘Prigogine entropy’ has thus been introduced.<br\>

This is an attempt to fit the concept of logical entropy in the framework of the 2lotd, wich is not invalid or preposterous, but failure to do so in a way that encircles every single thing we classify as a system (be it biological, social, mathematical...) does not allow to say that the systems that fail to fit in this new law break the 2lotd. It just allow us to say that the 2lotd cannot be adapted to represent these systems.<br\> It's true that the 2lotd can be applied to closed and open systems, but the issue remains the same, the entropy word is miss-used, because it does not pertain any notion or concept of order or complexity when in the context of the 2lotd, it pertains Joules over Kelvin. In blunt terms (I know biologists and physicist are gonna curse me for what I'm about to do), the entropy change between me and the common ancestor I share would have been to be messured (withing the context of the 2lotd) by taking the average tempeture of the ancestor, every one on it's descendants up until my father and mother while taking the amount of heat introduced in these aforementioned primates, doing the same with me, and the applying the formula deltaS = amount_of_heat_taken/origal_tempeture, and even then it wouldn't make any kind of sense (it doesn't make sense the way it's written now), because the second law of thermodynamics talks about physical entropy, not the perceived complexity of the descendants of an organism over time, wich is a heavily subjective notion that can change from one culture to another and over time.
Plaga701 (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose we add this paragraph (I have to find sources to support this):

However as mentioned above, in the context of the second law of thermodynamics, entropy refers to the physical unit joules per kelvin. This definition of entropy is fundamentally different from the more common definition that pertains the level of perceived disorder or complexity of a subject, object or system. Therefore, the entropy that is used to formulate this law cannot be applied to the perceived complexity of organisms, because it not what it measures.<br\>

Plaga701 (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible sources that I have found for this paragraph:<br\>

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html<br\> http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm<br\> http://academicearth.org/lectures/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-and-entropy<br\> http://academicearth.org/lectures/second-law<br\> http://www.khanacademy.org/video/entropy-intuition<br\> http://www.khanacademy.org/video/reconciling-thermodynamic-and-state-definitions-of-entropy<br\> I'm having a hard time finding sourced sources for basic physical concepts like entropy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaga701 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Article Looks like a talk page.

Starting in the "Religious Nature" there are several indented lines which are not in the form of encyclopedic information, but instead read like a verbal or personal argument against the previous writing. It may have citations, but it is quite clearly inappropriate wording and styling for Wikipedia. They need extensive re-writing; if that is not possible, then they must be purged, and moved to the Talk page. 96.28.157.126 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The 'indents' you refer to are all block quotes which are formatted quite correctly.Tmol42 (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I was about to post thatTmol42, but you beat me to it... Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Cambrian explosion

Obviously there should be some mention of the Cambrian explosion (of which Darwin wrote himself), which is not there so far (excluding "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era"). Brandmeister t 17:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's trivial at best, of minor historical significance. Can't really see what it has to do with the subject of this article, or why it should be mentioned at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Dominus, I'm usually a fan of your work, but I'm having trouble getting what you mean when you say the Cambrian Explosion is trivial. Perhaps I'm missing the context of your remarks somehow. Having said that, Brandmeister, if you want it in, source it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Late night brain-fart. Didn't connect this with current creationist objections at the time. Withdraw my comment. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• The Cambrian Explosion argument appears to be a variant of the 'Complexity argument'. It's been made by Henry M. Morris (see for example this TOA writeup) and Stephen C. Meyer in his notorious 'Hopeless Monster' paper (which was the focus of the Sternberg peer review controversy) -- so it's at least moderately prominent. I'd give it a single paragraph subsection within the complexity section if/when somebody feels like writing one (but don't feel any urgency over it). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am with you on that, seems sensible. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Added it to the 'To do' list above. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I once saw a YouTube video of Ken Miller responding to this one. The video was quite a number of years old and I must say that Professor Ken looked quite young and handsome at the time. He mentioned that creationists are quite right that the Cambrian Explosion is a problem for evolution, but, of course, it's a much bigger problem for creationists, whose "theory" says that the Cambrian Explosion couldn't have happened at all, because, of course, they believe everything was created simultaneously a few thousand years ago. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Excluding those who believe in theistic evolution :) Brandmeister t 18:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think those are less creationists than they are people who accept evolution as a robust, predictive, valid, scientific theory and happen also to believe in a god. At least I would apply that description to Miller. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent addition which seemed to imply that both Darwin and Gould thought the Cambrian Explosion was an argument against evolution - as supporters of evolution, it seems rather, how shall I say, unlikely, that either thought they were true objections. Yobol (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I left Gould's opinion: whether he is a supporter of evolution or not, he nonetheless points out a shortcoming in the theory. Brandmeister t 21:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No he doesn't. There os nothing in that quote that can be considered to be an objection to evolution. What "shortcoming" is he pointing out? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a fairly common anti-science canard that seeks to pretend that Stephen Jay Gould was in some way an opponent of evolution. There's not a word of truth or honesty in it, mind, but creationists do promote it, nonetheless. I hope that's not what you're trying to do here, Brandmeister. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and Weasel words

This article reads as if it were written by an expert on the subject who has a strong objection to the nature of this article. After every example of an objection to evolution there are subsequent paragraphs that refute each objection. These paragraphs of refute are more appropriately placed in a "Criticisms" section at or near the end of the article and in a proportion relatively small to that of the main article so that the major written proportion of the page is given to the articles main subject matter 'objections to evolution.' Within the criticisms column and link should be made to a page expanding on the arguments for evolution.

This article also contains numerous weasel words so that a bias is given towards a rebuttal of objections to evolution, for example the following weasel words can be found thought the article and are stared within their respective sentences; 1)Even though biology has long shown that humans are animals, ***some people*** feel that humans should be considered separate from, and/or superior to, animals. 2)Other common objections to evolution ***allege*** that evolution leads to objectionable results, including bad beliefs, behaviors, and events. 3)These objections have been rejected by most scientists, as have ***claims*** that intelligent design, or any other creationist explanation, meets the basic scientific standards that would be required to make them scientific alternatives to evolution. 4)In the years since Behe proposed irreducible complexity, new developments and advances in biology, such as an improved understanding of the evolution of flagella,[132] have already ***undermined*** these arguments.

Other weasel techniques included in this article are use of quotations around words when they are not grammatically needed such as; "Critics of evolution frequently assert that evolution is "just a theory,"..." and "or that certain fossils, such as polystrate fossils, are seemingly "out of place"..."

Lastly while the article does contain many appropriate references there are instances where the writer does not reference material which need research to support their claims, such as

1)In response, creationists have disputed the level of scientific support for evolution. The Discovery Institute has gathered over 600 scientists since 2001 to sign "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" in order to show that there are a number of scientists who dispute what they refer to as "Darwinian evolution". This statement did not profess outright disbelief in evolution, but expressed skepticism as to the ability of "random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." Several counter-petitions have been launched in turn, including A Scientific Support for Darwinism, which gathered over 7,000 signatures in four days, and Project Steve, a tongue-in-cheek petition that has gathered 1,151 (as of January 18, 2011) evolution-supporting scientists named "Steve". 2) Rather, they dispute the occurrence of major evolutionary changes over long periods of time, which by definition cannot be directly observed, only inferred from microevolutionary processes and the traces of macroevolutionary ones. 3)Supporters of evolution dismiss such criticisms as counterfactual, and some argue that the opposite seems to be the case.

This article as a whole tends to speak more about how 'Objections to evolution' can be proven wrong than it speaks about the objections themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbeals123 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 8 August 2011

The article is about objections made to evolution, not about making objections to evolution. Having said that, Wikipedia is obligated to give more credence to the consensus, which shows that Creationism is not a science, and that Creationist objections to evolutionary biology and other sciences are not credible. Furthermore:

1) Very few of the scientists gathered by the Discovery Institute for its "dissent from Darwinism" are biologists, and several of them were tricked by deliberately misleading wording.

2) Creationists quibble vociferously all the time about "differences between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution.'" It's a classic example of the logical fallacy of "moving the goalposts." Creationists claim that there is a great distinction between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution,' but deliberately refuse to explain what that distinction is so that they can automatically disqualify any and all examples of 'macroevolution' brought before them.

3) Supporters of evolution dismiss creationists' criticisms as counter-factual because such criticisms ARE ALWAYS COUNTER-FACTUAL to begin with. In other words, this article is written in an acceptable bias, in the same way the articles about the Hollow Earth, Hollow Moon, Expanding Earth, and Moon Landing Hoax are written with.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr Fink is exactly right. Bbeals123, if you want to understand why this article treats the anti-science claims made against evolution the way it does, please review WP:FRINGE. If you do, you'll see that Wikipedia accepts articles about fringe theories like creationism and intelligent design, so long as they are duly treated as fringe theories, along with an explanation of why scientists almost universally reject them and how they depend on fundamental flaws in reason and logic. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Guidance may also be found in WP:WEIGHT & WP:CSECTION. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Revert Explanation

I reverted this addition,

The obvious exception is group of biologists, prominent proponents of ID, such as Jonathan Wells, Scott Minnich and Dean H. Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, co-author of evolutionary book Biochemical Predestination, who claimed to abandon evolutionary position after being challenged by his student with question how could proteins in first living systems assemble without the help of genetic instructions.

because the "prominent proponents of ID" have repeatedly stated that they have religious and not scientific objections to Evolutionary Biology. And that there is no references cited to support suggesting that there is a sizable minority of biologists who support Intelligent Design while rejecting "evolutionary position"--Mr Fink (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, Stephfo, simply because I explained my actions on the ARTICLE TALKPAGE, and that I want to discuss it ON THE ARTICLE TALKPAGE does not mean I have "failed to explain (my) undo" in any way.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your explanation for revert was: "extremely questionable statement"

Pls. explain what is extremely questionable for you at the statement: "The obvious exception is group of biologists, prominent proponents of ID, such as Jonathan Wells, Scott Minnich and Dean H. Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, co-author of evolutionary book Biochemical Predestination, who claimed to abandon evolutionary position after being challenged by his student with question how could proteins in first living systems assemble without the help of genetic instructions."

Do you question:

• 1.That the members of this group are biologists and at the same time proponents of ID?
• 2.Co-authorship of Biochemical evolution?
• 3.Declaration of Kenyon why he abandoned evolutionary view?
• 4.Smt. else? (there is actually nothing else in this sentence)

Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You're ignoring my reasonings: namely, that your edit is falsely implying that there is a sizable minority of biologists who support Intelligent Design, while rejecting "evolutionary position," that those biologists who support Intelligent Design are prominent within the field of Biology, and that the biologists, particularly those who are members of the Discovery Institute, have repeatedly stated that they reject "evolutionary position" for religious reasons, not scientific reasons.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Should I conclude that you do not stand up for your initial reasoning for revert, you do not regard the statement anymore for questionable (that's why you avoid answering above Qs 1 to 4), but you present new reasons, namely:

• "edit is falsely implying that there is a sizable minority of biologists who support Intelligent Design, while rejecting "evolutionary position," that those biologists who support Intelligent Design are prominent within the field of Biology" -> I guess it is possible to verify whether the book "Biological Predestination" had any influence in the field or not, isn't it? The statement is quoting only 3 persons thus it cannot make any false impression of "sizable minority of biologists".
• "the biologists, particularly those who are members of the Discovery Institute, have repeatedly stated that they reject "evolutionary position" for religious reasons, not scientific reasons." -> citation needed!!! (I'm actually aware of quite opposite statement)

? Pls. explain.--Stephfo (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Do we have reliable third party sourcing for any of this proposed claim? Do we have any indication that this represents more than an ignorable (per WP:DUE) "tiny minority" of the Biological community? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Which particular claim out of following do you question:

• 1.That the members of this group are biologists and at the same time proponents of ID?
• 2.Co-authorship of Biochemical evolution?
• 3.Declaration of Kenyon why he abandoned evolutionary view?

??? Pls. explain. You're starting to use old-fashioned tactic, driving discussion to distraction, is really Mr Fink not able to provide his own reasoning of what he did so that he needs your help? Did you force him to perform the change? So that now he needs to rely on you when it comes to provision of any rationale of what he did?--Stephfo (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

@Stephfo: It is now YOUR responsibility to explain why this addition belongs in the article, providing reliable third-party sources, as Apokryltaros asked you to. You may not turn the situation around and pester him to explain himself further, which he has, and then accuse him of "not standing up for his original reasoning", as you put it.

Provide reliable sources that meet QP policy requirements!!!! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK., pls enlist which particular you have in mind, and demonstrate that any are violated, thanks.--Stephfo (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Finding sources is YOUR responsibility. Read the policies, like I've told you many, many times, and you will know exactly what kinds of sources are good, and what kinds aren't, and also what kind of behavior is allowed on WP, and what kind will get you shunned, blocked or banned. Treating other editors as "the enemy" is not a useful approach to editing at WP. AFTER you read the policies and understand them well enough, I recommend that you find a WP:MENTOR to act as your guide and advisor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we have to go through this every week or so? Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)