Talk:Objections to evolution

Recent Edits on Jun 26

Reverted Gniniv's recent edits again... for much the same reason as has already been discussed ad nauseum. @Gniniv:

1. Again, we cannot add "mainstream" before "science", "scientists", etc everywhere in the article. This is POV pushing.
2. You can't add emphasis to quotes in the article. This is POV pushing.
3. You can't say creationist claims have "gained traction" without sourcing the assertion. This is POV pushing.

...and so forth. Your edits are making the article POV, and they can and will be reverted every time. Please stop inserting the same type of content into the article. Find sources, and quote those sources. Jess ^talk _cs 03:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I added "mainstream" just to clarify that "all" scientists do not subscribe to evolutionary theory (See Jonathan Sarfatietc...) if you have a better term that clarifies the position better I would appreciate it.

Note that I did not say creationist claims, I said the intelligent design movement..As for the sources they were already present in the article...--Gniniv (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Your clarifications contain too much in the way of weasel words in order to push your own POV that Intelligent Design is a legitimate minority of scientists. For example, when and where has the concept of irreducible complexity "gained traction"? As far as I know, absolutely no one, not even Michael Behe, has done any research to confirm it.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv, you're edit warring again. When your changes are reverted and discussion is opened on the talk page, the appropriate response is not to say 'I disagree' and re-add your changes. These POV issues have been discussed over and over again. Please stop. Add and quote sources to the article if you must, but all other "npov improvements" you find should be discussed here first. Jess ^talk _cs 06:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this conversation for a while... I don't think Gniniv quite grasps the concept of neutrality... Maybe the rest of you could have a go at explaining exactly why peer-reviewed science is considered in the situation while religious views are not, I don't think Gniviv quite understands why it is that way, they're probably under the assumption that there is bias in the article. However, if that fails, I think there should be some action done to stop their irrational actions affecting the validity of the article. MitchincredibleII (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

When we try to explain that the concept of neutrality does not automatically entail giving equal, if not greater deference to a fringe minority to Gniniv, he accuses us of being illogical, philosophical and or religious fanatics.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've tried twice myself, to no effect. There is an unjustified perception that ID/creation science simply isn't treated fairly by science (not given a chance), and by extension this article. Which I find peculiar given the Dover trial findings / cross examination on record, and the lack of any alternative to speciation being better; let alone speciation being incorrect in any way. - RoyBoy 21:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Despite it being obvious, does he actually know there are pages which also represent his views which are also neutral. Why does evolution and related pages have to suffer from his POV when ID pages don't suffer from POV of anyone else? MitchincredibleII (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, I reverted most of my inflammatory edits. This page is not about evolution, it is about "objections to evolution" which is an entirely different topic (one deals largely with scientific theory, the other with scientific philosophy) All I ask is that actual objections to evolution are included in the article without being removed due to POV. I agree that neutrality should be upheld and please bring to my attention any of my edits that you view as fringe or inaccurate and I will try to explain them or remove them.--Gniniv (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow! These even more recent edits are priceless. Some of us notice the heat from the Sun when we step outside, while others ("such as Richard Dawkins"!!!) think the energy for evolution must have an extraterrestial origin (well, I guess the Sun counts as "extraterrestial"). I love the citation needed on "Organisms ... are open systems". Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As most would say, avoid inflammatory edits to being with; unless it stand scrutiny. Why would organisms being open systems need to be reference anyway? Dang, Johnuniq beat me! - RoyBoy 04:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I like how one of his sources is saying that because of the Heat death of the universe theory means evolution is false.. [1] it's not even based on current science. Oh and the need a reference for an organism not being a closed system, thats truely comical. I think even entry level high school biology should teach you organisms don't live in glass bottles. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

@Gniniv, your recent edits are considered POV because you're rewriting things to suggest that Intelligent Design proponents and Creationists actually have reputable standing in the scientific community, which they do not, as well as your trying to suggest that there allegedly isn't actually that much support of evolutionary biology in the scientific community. For example, how can "irreducible complexity gain traction in recent years"? Michael Behe has been the only person to mention it in depth, and even he has never ever bothered to do any research or study to confirm it.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In refering to Richard Dawkin's belief in extraterrestrial influences I was pointing to his claim that life on earth was brought by an alien race (See Dawkins and Aliens), not the sun's radiant energy. To quote the Second Law of Thermodynamics: "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." (from [2]) The net energy in any system (whether closed or open) cannot increase-it can only be converted into a different form (to use a organism example: radiative energy from the sun must be converted into glucose by the plant's chlorophyll to power the plant). The net potential energy in the system we are looking at (the sun and the earth ) cannot and will not increase; it only converts into a different form and decays when no new energy is transferred from outside a open system. Macroevolution violates this principle by adding energy (in the form of genetic information) to a system without a outside cause. (See Second Law of Thermodynamics). The difference between so called "closed" and "open" systems merely lies in what you are measuring as the system. If you are just looking at one component of a closed system, than we naturally refer to that part as a open system, even though it is in reality a part of the larger closed system (such as the universe). I agree my edits could use some work and help, but I would like the editors to consider the argument I just raised and critique parts of it.--Gniniv (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the most asinine statement I've read in a long time. Genetic information is just chemical bonds, like chlorophyll that turns CO2 plus the sun's energy into Glucose. Thats using that energy to make/break chemical bonds. Genetic information, mutations, etc, is just different chemical bonds. There is NO difference. The dribble you just spouted above makes NO sense, and it's CLEAR you have no scientific background or even basic science knowledge. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind telling me (and my references) what specifically is wrong with what I said I would be much obliged.....--Gniniv (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Everything, every single point in that statement is wrong. The argument that evolution breaks the laws of thermodynamics is laughable, every scientist in the world laughs at it. It's like the "Evidence" the flat earthers bring out to prove their "theory." It's absolutely not based on science, and exploits the lack of scientific knowledge of the general public to give it credence. You can't have it both ways, if an organism can use outside energy to make chemical bonds in one process you can't say it's not allowed to make chemical bonds in another. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv, among other things, evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics: the 2nd law doesn't even apply to genetics or evolution. If evolution did violate the 2nd law, organisms could not produce offspring, undergo mitosis or fission, or even grow in size. Furthermore, you really need to sit down, and read an introductory textbook on biology before you make any more foolish statements like this one.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

@Gniniv: What is sad about all this is that the reality of life is far more interesting and stimulating than any of the nonsense you have been reading. Surely no amount of drinking the Kool-Aid could make you think that Dawkins really believes that little green men started life on earth? Dawkins simply gave an honest answer along the lines that (1) evolution is about what happened after life got started, and (2) it is not certain how life started, and it might be possible that Hoyle's panspermia was the origin of life on Earth (although, life had to start somewhere). Re energy: Animals eat stuff – that's how they get their energy. Some animals eat plants which in turn get energy from the sun. All energy for evolution comes from the sun (with rare exceptions, like life around hydrothermal vents). The sun shines as brightly today as it did when you were born. That's what provides energy to Earth. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Now to turn to the genetic information relationship- the parent sources of genetic information contribute their respective chromosomes in reproductive cells by each contributing half (If asexual they merely clone themselves). We all know that one half plus one half equals one, making the daughter organism. Any differences between the parent and daughter organisms are from the ordering of the genetic information and the contributions of the other parent (with possible loss of information due to genetic copying errors commonly known as mutations). The net amount of genetic information did not and cannot change without outside additions to the daughter's chromosome (for which no mechanism exists in the modern theory of evolution). This principle I just described is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution. Microevolution involves the reordering of genetic information coupled with possible loss of genetic diversity that is the source of differences observed between related organisms(say Shetland Pony and Zebra-both members of the Horse family and yet exhibit strong differences that are a result of genetic reordering and loss within the family) Macroevolution, in contrast, is the formation of "new" genes that "fortunately" add together without any known mechanism. Macroevolution is not a extrapolation of Microevolution, they are totally different concepts. --Gniniv (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv, you are babbling, and you are repeating lies. Neutrality does not entail repeating lies, or repeating nonsense.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There has been no research or evidence done or found that supports a separation between Microevolution and Macroevolution, NOR DO MUTATIONS ENTAIL A "LOSS OF INFORMATION" ESPECIALLY SINCE CREATIONISTS REFUSE TO DEFINE WHAT "GENETIC INFORMATION" IS. So, if you want make improvements to this or other articles, do so, but be forewarned that they will be heavily altered or reverted if your changes introduce deliberately false information, nonsense, or pushes a POV suggesting that Intelligent Design Theory/Scientific Creationism is not actually an extremely disreputable fringe minority.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

@Gniniv Dawkins addresses Ben Stein's quote mining in conferences filmed here (Response begins at 3:30) and again here. It's also addressed on his site here and on the la times, in addition to our own wikipedia article. To parrot such a complete pile of garbage as Expelled without first doing a cursory google search on the topic is nothing short of dishonesty. Furthermore, wikipedia is not a forum; Your comments here are inappropriate, and in the case of this most recent one, complete gibberish. Take this elsewhere. Jess ^talk _cs 06:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) @Gniniv: You need to get rid of your idea there is Microevolution and Macroevolution, because there isn't a division like that. Biologists don't make that division, only people who can't accept for reasons of their faith the implications of speciation try to make the distinction. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's starting to get a bit rowdy in here, but I think after this amount of time, with ths amount of commenting, believing in Gniviv's 'good faith' would simply be gullible. They're clearly corrupting this page with POV and outrightedly disregard Wikipedia's pre-formed standards in general and for the particular topic of evolution. Wikipedia even disagrees with Gniviv, everything they have said has already been covered in editing rules for Evolution and related topics. Even if they actually believed they are more correct than Wikipedia when it comes to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, they should obey the rules of Wikipedia, if they don't, then action must be taken. This is a website dedicated for gathering valid information and people like Gniviv are exploiting it to misinform people with their personal POV with no decent or accurate references! MitchincredibleII (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

@Gniniv: No known mechanism for new genes? That's strange, as its been shown entire chromosomes can fuse (humans compared to apes), duplicate, mis-copy creating new combinations and variety for an individual on the chromosomal level. The changes for genes are less dramatic, yet they occur, frequently. Though I am curious, what members of the horse family have "lost" (or have less) genetic information? Are you somehow privy to analytical genetic comparisons of that family tree, that shows clearly how speciation occurs slowly, yet still occurs (successful interbreeding can be difficult)? Or are you pulling that from thin air? - RoyBoy 03:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is some modern research on the chromosomal movement of centromeres in horse, donkey, and zebra. - RoyBoy 03:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm late to this party, but to specifically address the 2nd Law argument, there's no violation anywhere. Our solar system is, in its entirety, approaching entropy as the sun uses up its fuel. We're in a state of only semi-permanent equilibrium- in several billion years, the Earth will be consumed by the expanding sun, and several billion years after that, the sun will go out entirely, plunging the surviving planets into cold and darkness. But until then, we're awash in an incredible amount of energy for organisms to use. --King Öomie 14:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv's Defense

@Mr Fink I would be happy if you would explain what I am wrong on-I am open to correction and critique...--Gniniv (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your mistakes and falsehoods have already been pointed out to you in this thread, and elsewhere on the Internet: With the way you accuse us of being religious fanatics because we reject Creationism and Intelligent Design Theory as being nonscience, or your snide responses when we point out that you are just wrong, such as your question about "information needed to turn a trilobite into a t-rex," it appears that you are very closed to correction or critique.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

@Mr Fink True! No research by the modern scientific community is done on the topic due to a strong lack of support for principles that violate the current consensus. All I can say is no advancement will occur in theoretical science until new ideas are dealt with and debated without being pushed off the table as "crazy".--Gniniv (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

With your appeal to fairness, you miss my points entirely, possibly deliberately so. Think about it... Michael Behe claimed that various biological structures, like flagella, are "irreducibly complex," that they were so complicated that they needed an Intelligent Designer to create them, using means and methods beyond the ken of mortal researchers. A claim Behe made without ever doing any research at all, nor providing any evidence whatsoever beyond his own disbelief. Furthermore, "irreducible complexity" is dismissed because it is contradicted by research and evidence showing that biological structures have evolved from other, often very different structures. So explain to us why it is unfair to dismiss an idea if the person who proposed it in the first place is too lazy to provide evidence for it? If anything, to accept a new idea solely because it violates current consensus, rather than having evidence to support it is ludicrous.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

@Mann_jess It may be a little off-topic, but I still find it amusing that he indicated belief in aliens fathering all life on earth...--Gniniv (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

@Raeky I totally agree. Most biologists reject any distinction between Macroevolution and Microevolution because it is far more convenient to label processes that use Microevolution as "Evolution". Simplifying the distinction between genetic recombinations, and the "magical" creation of new information is naturally appealing to those who accept Macroevolution.--Gniniv (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

@MitchIncredible I agree! If you don't mind telling me where I am getting out of line in bringing up these objections, please tell me.--Gniniv (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

@RoyBoy You are totally correct that chromosomes can fuse! What they cannot do, and what I am trying to make a point on is: Genes cannot appear out of nowhere! They have to have a parent (or other outside source) putting them together, whether through fusion or recombination. Without a source "pool" from which to derive the information, no new combination or reshuffle is possible...--Gniniv (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not denying the process of speciation (or interbreeding). I am pointing (in the horse example) that though horses can (to a point) exhibit features different from other members of their family (leading to classification as different species or even different genera) there is never any gain in information (say a pair of fairy wings) that magically appears in the breeding population (which did not exist in the parent genes). The cards can be shuffled or lost, but they can not increase... --Gniniv (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

@King Oomie And what is the source of that "incredible amount of information?". Why the sun of course! You see we both agree that energy (and information) require a source to produce the result. What is the source of the "new" information required to turn a trilobite into a tyrannosaurus? --Gniniv (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv, you apparently haven't read or understood anything that was said. Your response to me is indicative of the whole mess. I linked you to 2 youtube videos, 2 news articles, and a wikipedia article which explicitly quote and explain Dawkins' comment. Instead of reading or listening to any of them, you replied only by paraphrasing your initial comment. You're trolling. Take this somewhere else. Jess ^talk _cs 05:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear new genes routinely occur, can be duplicated and then put to new uses, routinely. Seems you are going for the "first source pool", take that line of argument to the abiogenesis article (actually don't, boring for them too). I don't know how the first gene (drop / puddle) formed, nor do you! Serious dude, *yawn*, if you don't have a verifiable answer we aren't interested in hand of designer disingenuous guesswork because of a gap in knowledge. - RoyBoy 02:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I read the article (wikipedia) you gave and it seems the people interviewed were merely complaining that their perspective was shared so candidly....--Gniniv (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

People were complaining that the interviewers deliberately lied to them in order to get footage that was then manipulated to put words into their mouths.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A), I said "energy", not "information"- and B), you're pulling from a crock of nonsense, the notion that "Mutations can't add information". If you defined what you mean by "information", you'd literally be the first creationist to do so. If you just mean adding genetic code, I can name a famous example of a random mutation causing a SIGNIFICANT increase in "information"- Down Syndrome occurs when individuals have 3 copies of Chromosome 21 instead of 2, a single mutation increasing the amount of genetic code in every cell by 0.75%, or 23,500,000 base pairs. Something about the structure of our genes makes that particular condition fairly common. Similar, though less... detrimental mutations in the past have almost undoubtedly created upstart species all by themselves. --King Öomie 05:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Response

I think we're probably at the point where we should start considering Gniniv's edits as vandalism and warning/blocking accordingly. Hes showing absolutely no willingness listen to others and his only goal is to try to inject his pseudoscience, bold face lies and conspiracy theories into the article. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to debate and discuss all sides of any issue. What I cannot accept is blanket suppression of all alternative perspectives. How about instead of accusing me of vandalism you answer my points above....--Gniniv (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I want it to be clear that I am acting in good faith and will accept comment or correction on inaccurate/inappropriate information.--Gniniv (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And for the 100th time you apparently can't learn how to indent a conversion so people can read and follow it! This isn't about "discussing all sides of the issue" this is about you not willing to accept that your faith based ideas are not grounded in science and don't belong in a science article. You can't put in an idea that is clearly a lie and represent it as truth, we're not going to allow that. And virtually every "objection" to evolution is lies. We've asked you countless times to backup your edits with verifiable documentation or anything to indicate the responses we have to the "objections" is incorrect or wrong, but you keep repeating the same old lies and we keep reverting you. We're getting to the point that blocking you is the only option. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I know I am slow with the indents (thanks for the help)--Gniniv (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that I would say the same thing about your perspective, if I was voicing my own opinion. As this article is about all information (and the open sharing of such) relevant to the topic, we need to be careful to include everybody who has an interest in the subject (obviously per WP:Weight) and not turn to removing valid arguments because we happen to disagree with them. Now will you answer my replies above?--Gniniv (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So you believe that, just a random number here, if 0.01% of a group believes something that is contradictory to the 99.99% that we should give equal platform to both groups due to WP:Weight even if there is mountains of evidence backing up the 99.99%'s position and nothing to backup the 0.01%'s position? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course not! I believe we have the statistics in the article showing a substantial percentage of the General Population (of the U.S.) do not accept evolution. As we are obviously all aware that there are people who question the theory (whether they are religious or not) the objectors must be substantial enought to propagate their views enough to become visible. I am not advocating equal weight (I don't think I have said that) nor have I proposed removing pro-evolution material. All that I ask is we include objections to evolution, not just rebuttals to creationism...--Gniniv (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Who cares what Americans believe, this is article is global. And it's a science article, popular opinion means nothing to it's WP:Weight. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Two points. I don't think we want to include Weight as global (for your sake) if this article is to remain pro-evolution. Outside of the developed world, most people still hold to ingrained religously based creation accounts that strongly differ with the evolutionary perspective Creation myths. Second point, this (for the zillionth time) is not a science article! It is a philosophy of science article, making it open to all perspectives (and objections)....--Gniniv (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not open to perspectives that require giving undue weight to false information, or making unsubtle suggestions that there is an evil conspiracy among scientists to stifle Creationism, Intelligent Design, or other anti-science movements.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

More like in the rest of the industrialized world people accept science and evolution (source). — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So, when is someone going to answer my points at the top of this mini-section (see top of Gniniv's Defense section)?--Gniniv (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Since this isn't obviously in the wrong spot, we don't know what you want responded too.... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Those of your completely, utterly inane "points" worth answering have been already been answered. Furthermore, when you are going to bother to learn basic concepts in Biology?--Mr Fink (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't have "points". You have off-topic content-related discussion which violates WP:NOTFORUM. You've been asked for specific edits and sources for 2 months. Two whole months, by countless editors, and you still aren't providing them. I'm not about to humor your replies until you finally listen to what's being said, and provide what's being asked. Jess ^talk _cs 06:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I am not attempting to create a forum! I just want to be able to edit the article without my information being suppressed...--Gniniv (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have presented my sources and refs (See archives and article edit history) and they continue to be rejected and removed due to POV....--Gniniv (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. You only want to press your own point of view that the scientific community is an evil, clannish clique of bullies out to stifle the poor, innocent Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents who, coincidentally, have no desire to do any research to begin with. And you also want to mock and antagonize us when we point out that you have no understanding of science or scientific processes, or that you have no desire to educate yourself using sources other than creationist propaganda.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Poor/redundant references and rationales are your POV, which were removed. Coincidentally, that's what occurs to creation interpretation of science. - RoyBoy 02:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are being "suppressed"? No, they're bad. If your edits attempted to change the focus of the article to Justin Bieber, they would be similarly "suppressed". It's not because of what you believe, either. You can believe whatever you want. The problem comes from the subversive way you keep attempting to state your beliefs as fact in this article. --King Öomie 05:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, putting a more charitable spin on things, this may just be Gniniv's first run-up against scientific views on evolution. Ve hasn't been here all that long, after all. And if all you've heard your entire life is that evolution (and, by extension, modern science) is bunk, and that there are a multitude of authoritative websites out there that confirm this, then who are you to disagree? Gniniv − leaving aside evolution for a moment, you might do well to understand how science itself operates at this time. It may look like some cabal from the outside, and, again, there are plenty of conspiratorial websites which want to paint it this way. But, in reality, it's a free market in ideas, and one which, at times, encourages almost gladiatorial combat between competing viewpoints. Ideas, especially big ideas like biological evolution, that survive and thrive in science do so against an endless and constant pummelling for years (or decades) by scientists keen to knock them down (with, of course, evidence) and replace them with their own ideas (scientists are not any less egotistical than other people). Once upon a time, and largely for historical reasons, creationism (= the literal interpretation of one among many religious texts) was a "big idea", but as scientific understanding expanded and evidence poured in from a wide range of sources (and not just, or even largely, from biology) it got falsified and displaced. Why it has undergone a revival, particularly in the past 50 years or so is, needless to say, the subject of many ideas, but one thing that is emphatically clear is that evidence just continues to stack up against it (not that scientists are seriously keeping score any longer; but we don't keep score against Lamarckism either). I guess that I'm just saying that, in order for your editing experience here to be more productive, you should probably reflect more widely than just on evolution. Anyway, my pontification is not what this talkpage is for, so I'll leave it now. --PLUMBAGO 10:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with this problem

Gniniv, you've been told repeatedly that you need to provide sources for changes to the article. You've been pointed to policies on verifiability, fringe theories, conflict of interest, npov, discussion and countless others, none of which you've apparently read or understood. You have been monopolizing this talk page and the time of numerous editors reverting repeated pov changes to the article for 2 months, and your behavior is identical now to when this all started in May. Enough is enough.

I strongly recommend that all other editors on this page stop responding to Gniniv's babbling, as it's only encouraging him to continue. I would also encourage that any responses he posts to this talk page which violate WP:NOTFORUM be reverted per policy.

Gniniv, this is the last time I'm going to say it. If you want to contribute to the article, find reliable sources which adhere to WP:RS, and propose specific changes to specific places within the article quoting those sources. This is what wikipedia policy dictates. If you want to contribute to a project without these standards, I would suggest trying your luck at Conservapedia. Jess ^talk _cs 06:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support WP:SHUN — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good! I will open up a discussion forum on my talk page for you guys, and will try putting my sources in the article, of course knowing that you won't remove them...--Gniniv (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand, we will continue to revert your changes if they violate policy or POV push or are just plain wrong, but we're not going to be responding to you anymore, so you can edit all you want, get it reverted and talk to yourself about it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well your comments on the Evolution/Talk page caught my eye. Gniviv doesn't get it. Although an ardent supporter of evolution, I find myself in an odd position of offering assistance to Gniniv to demonstrate what you editors are requesting. For example the section on the Evolution a Religion argument Gniviv could offer a good peer-reviewed article such as this Science article: PERCEPTIONS IN SCIENCE: Is Evolution a Secular Religion? Michael RuseScience 7 March 2003:Vol. 299. no. 5612, pp. 1523 - 1524. Get the idea?? Offering anecdotal ideas off the top of your head won't cut it-you must offer quality journal articles. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

He needs to do more than that. He also needs to explain where that source should go and why. This has been explained to him repeatedly, with examples. The best course of action at this point is to simply revert inappropriate changes and cease wasting time here explaining policy. Jess ^talk _cs 05:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I have started a mediation page as a last resort effort on the conflict between pro-literal (or YEC) and pro-secular (or evolution) bias in the articles Objections to evolution and Genesis creation narrative. Please participate by following this link Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Narrative.--Gniniv (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You should of followed my advice and not immediately open a RFM. A RFM requires all involved parties to agree to the RFM, your unilateral nomination will undoubtedly fail due to that. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv — you have not learnt a thing here, neither in terms of science nor, as Raeky notes, of Wikipedia processes. Your so-called "pro-secular bias" is just the boring old scientific consensus. To imply that this is a political bias is simply unsupportable in reliable sources. No more benefits of the doubt from me. Though, if this really is your "last resort effort", perhaps they won't be needed. --PLUMBAGO 10:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Pro-literal"? With no other explanation? I think you're overstating the bible's importance on a global scale. "Pro-secular", last I checked, simply meant erring on the side of the entirety of human experience. Your ability to say that and believe it to be a systemic problem to be corrected really casts a pall over any "mediation" efforts you attempt to bring. To get an idea of how much of our credulity you're straining, imagine one of us complaining about the "Anti-witchcraft" POV of the editors at Jesus. --King Öomie 12:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources are precisely what I am criticizing-Reliably Pro Evolution....--Gniniv (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Gee, all sources with any kind of expertise, all coming to the same conclusion, without exception? I guess that means either A) They're right or B) They HATE JESUS. Yeah, B sounds reasonable, let's go with that. --King Öomie 13:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The entirety of human experience wouldn't even exist without something to get it started and hold it together. You honestly believe that something can come out of nothing? That is as bad as saying you can drink from an empty cup!--Gniniv (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You're free to believe whatever makes you feel the fuzziest inside. I will continue to find your conclusions naïve. You have no standing to claim your pastor's interpretation of an old book as fact, however. --King Öomie 13:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, I am resuming editing this article after taking a break, as it seems my efforts at a compromise are not being accepted...--Gniniv (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv is right about one thing. Talk origins is not the best of sources. That should be worked on. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

TalkOrigins Archive is a website with pages edited/written by different people; most pages are written by subject experts, and extensive references are listed. Per WP:PARITY, TalkOrigins is more than adequate as a reliable source to counter nonscientific commentary on evolution and related topics. TalkOrigins has been debated at WP:RSN with the consensus that each page should be judged on its merits, with most being suitable for the purpose for which they are used. Very few scientific journals are going to bother refuting "objections to evolution" because vast amounts of research in fields such as biology and medicine confirm the principles of evolution, and "objecting" to evolution has no basis in science or any other methodical discipline. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Talkorigins is accurate. However, with all the talk about peer reviewed articles etc., I'm saying it would be better to have those. I don't want to remove parts sourced by talk origins, and I don't say that it is necessary for other sources, and I agree that scientific journals aren't going to bother with refuting it. I'm just saying that to be fair, whereever possible we use peer reviewed journals (surely there must be an article somewhere in nature describing the evolution of the eye) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded a bit crotchety. Gold-plated sources would always be best, and if anyone finds some, please add them. The tricky part is that a really good source on, say, the evolution of the eye is almost by definition not going to mention anything related to objections to evolution. Therefore, using the source here may conflict with WP:SYNTH. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The next best thing is to include Talk Origins and say True Origins to insure neutrality...--Gniniv (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked through True.origins, seems like most of whats on it has been covered in one way or another in this article. However, if you find something on it not in the article, please bring it up on the talk page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, True.origins is a GREAT source for everything completely wrong about creationism. Every word on that site has been debunked, and yet it stands. --King Öomie 14:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

True origins has a heavy bias. The only criteria for publication is that the article goes against evolution. most if not all articles are riddled with logical fallacies and quote mined passages. The whole archive can be thought suspect. Further NPOV doesn't say there must be equal amounts of citations on every side of a question but that any bias statement must be clearly written as to not imply factual accuracy. IE if we ignore NPOV the following paragraph could be included.

"In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum—or any equally complex system—was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven."

With NPOV we MUST state that an alternate method of analysis and testing the claim exists, and that it has shown many bacteria's flagellum are homologous to other structures in related bacteria proving evidence that the flagellum is possible to be produced by naturalistic means. http://www.pnas.org/content/100/6/3027.full However you are free to bring up any page on talk origins cited here, to debate if it's references support the information or attempt to show any non-biased source that shows an error with the article in question. (For that matter if you actually find a serious or even minor error they'd like to know. Their correction and refinement process is fairly good.)Donhoraldo (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as proposed corrections and improvements do not contradict evolution....--Gniniv (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, as long as they don't unduly support terrible, disproven science and the people who promote it. --King Öomie 16:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

See Also

I think the see also section really needs work--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Quotation

At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.(from How the World Works by Boyce Rensberger)

• • I added the above quotation to the article and I am curious where it should go when it comes to relevance. Any suggestions?--Gniniv (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)