Talk:Junkyard tornado

Why it isn't a fallacy

This article is not helpful How is it a fallacy or misrepresentation? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a good treatment of the fallacy over at weasel program. In short it's a fallacy because Hoyle was only calculating the probability of this particular outcome, when in fact there are many workable outcomes (i.e., many valid combinations of amino acids) and the probability that at least one would emerge is much higher. siafu 13:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you understand the sharpshooter's fallacy, I don't see the difficulty. 190.174.87.182 (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If the odds stated by Hoyle are incorrect, what then are the correct odds of life coming into existence in the way posited by Dawkins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.146.116.99 (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming a cyclic universe, the probability is 1, as you get infinite tries at it. 74.74.236.71 13:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

that is a hell of an assumption. 71.255.233.152 (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)ten

And not a necessary one to make to prove its being a fallacy. I am not a dog (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In a broader sense, Hoyle was engaging in a fallacy because he was trying to calculate odds for an event that isn't well-defined. We can calculate the odds of rolling a fair die and getting a "6" perfectly, that is one out of six; for a poorly defined event, any probability calculation does no more than echo the assumptions on which it was made. Hoyle's assumption was effectively saying that a complete cell just somehow self-assembled, which actually resembles creationist thinking, or at least a creationist strawman, much more than it does abiogenetic research. On the basis of other assumptions -- such as envisioning the Earth as a planet-spanning geologically active "bioreactor" with a range of environments operating for at least hundreds of millions of years to produce a primitive self-reproducing chemical system that could lead to "improved" derivatives and ultimately to life as we know it now -- the probability can be assumed to be ONE.

Either way, the calculation represents nothing more than a prejudice, though I would say the second one takes a much more valid view of what we actually know than the first. Hoyle performed his calculation strictly on the basis of the elaboration of the cell without any consideration of processes that might have produced it.

To get an honest appreciation of the probabilities would require that we take a set of Earthlike planets more than, say, a few billion years old and determine the proportion on which life emerged. Since we have a sample size of ONE, there's no way to perform a useful calculation of probabilities. Hoyle's fallacy is an example of "pseudomath", a close relative of pseudoscience, nothing more than a game of presenting a partisan opinion under a false front of mathematical precision. Hoyle's fallacy was more a misuse of probability than of abiogenesis theory. He may have been right, the spontaneous origins of life may be unbelievably improbable, but we have no useful way of calculating such a probability. MrG 168.103.80.164 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This article lacks objectivity

There is considerably scholarly criticism of the so-called naming of Hoyle's fallacy; the article simply assumes that there is indeed a fallacy on the strenght of claims by atheistic evolutionist Dawkins, et al. In fact, the christening of Hoyle's analogy is somewhat specious. In the first place, a fallacy is a classification of a type of error in a categorical or other argument. As such, fallacies are either material/informal or formal, relating to either ambiguity in content or error in structure. All arguments rely on assumptions that are either true or false. Statements themselves are not fallacies. An error in a math puzzle, for exmaple, is not a fallacy: it is an error. If little Tommy got his sum of 230 + 340 wrong, his wrong answer is not a fallacy, but simply a wrong answer. The debate between Hoyle and others is a debate relating to a specific biological interpretation on a specified problem. One may feel that Hoyle has made an error in his conclusion, or argue that he has committed a falalcy of analogy, but to christen an opponenets argument a fallacy on account of a disagreement with the conclusion as though it were somehow characteristic of a class of informal or formal errors may be seen to be intellectually mendacious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.84.90 (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

He not only got his conclusion wrong. He indulged in faulty fallacious reasoning.

Do you know the sharpshooter's fallacy? That's what he did, among other things.

He made a post-hoc analysis of patterns that were specified a priori. 190.174.87.182 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have done some re-writing of the article to minimize POV. Chaparral2J (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

wow that sentence does not flow well

In evolutionary biology, Hoyle's fallacy is a common misrepresentation of Darwinian theory, colloquially named, among evolutionary biologists, after the astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle, although it has been current almost since the time of Darwin himself

This does not flow well at all. In fact I'm having a difficult time trying to determine what the original author even meant which is making it impossible to try and improve it. I'll think about it some more and see if I can make it clearer. Angry Christian (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Title not appropriate

While I do find the subject of this article notable, I think the title is not appropriate. The article begins with Hoyle's fallacy is a term for the statistical analysis of Sir Fred Hoyle.[1]' The source that is provided does not mention the term 'Hoyle's fallacy' at all. The only person known to have called specifically Hoyle's argument a fallacy is Richard Dawkins, who alone represents neither the scientific community nor the general public. In fact, a google search for 'Hoyle's fallacy' results mostly in mirrors of this Wikipedia page and in forum posts using the term (probably copied from Wikipedia). A google scholar search give zero results. I get the idea that that the term is not commonly used. I propose to change the title of the article to 'Hoyle's Argument' or something with a similar meaning.

I also find the article to have a non-neutral POV. Hoyle's statistical analysis itself is not explained. In fact, the article contains nothing but counter-arguments, omitting Hoyle's original analysis. I will try to improve the article as soon as I have done the required research to do so.Lindert (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is unhelpful and manipulative

Readers are told what to believe by this text. The current contents of it should be relegated to a section called "Criticism" while the body of the article should contain a description of the analysis itself. Furthermore, a more appropriate title might be Hoyle's Conjecture or theory rather than fallacy. 76.75.112.185 (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source (a scientific one please because this is about science) that asserts the truth of Hoyle's conjecture/theory? Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that proves/asserts the truth of Memes or the Extended Phenotype? I don't see either one of them labeled as "Dawkins' Fallacy" on Wiki.

This isn't about science at all. This is mainly about Richard Dawkins' opinion and some "computer program" he wrote. Not every unproved or debunked claim is a "fallacy".

Where is the actual science? There is one source for this article and it is biased and not a very prominent or respectable site.

Savagedjeff (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not just about Dawkin's opinion -- Hoyle's fallacy is widely (and correctly, IMO) regarded as complete garbage. Why did Hoyle (whom I respect as an astronomer and free-thinker) believe such rot, that's what I want to know, and would like to see this explored more and reported here.

BTW don't get hung up over "truth" -- we just report what is reported elsewhere. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

ummm source?? Where is the evidence and why is it not presented on this page? You have a single source that is copied word for word. That isn't enough. "Hoyle's fallacy is rejected by all evolutionary biologists." There is no way of knowing that. That is an unsubstantiated claim.

You are selectively "reporting what is reported elsewhere".

Savagedjeff (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Copied word for word because otherwise we would be accused of WP:OR.

And I don't think it is selective. Do you know of any evolutionary biologist that accepts Hoyle's argument? --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa Whoa.. This has nothing to do with natural selection or evolution. Dawkins misrepresented Hoyle's argument. It is about spontanteous origin of life. Both creationists and Dawkins have it wrong.

An evolutionary biologist:

"Few writers about the origin of life fail to mention Hoyle's Boeing-747 analogy. However, Hoyle is absent from university textbooks on evolution. All creationists accept the Boeing-747 argument as a disproof of the natural origin of life, and evolutionists reject it as such. Yockey is the only writer who improves the argument. A definitive answer to the Boeing-747 argument is not yet possible. Just as Maxwell's demon has set a puzzle that is still not fully resolved. A convincing rebut is nothing less than the solution of the problem of the origin of life. As long as science doesn't have a satisfactory and complete theory of the origin of life, science cannot answer Hoyle's Boeing-argument. "

[1]

So there goes the "all evolutionary biologists" argument.

The guy goes on:

" Hoyle's Boeing-747 is an anti-spontaneous-origin-of-life-argument. The argument uses logic and probability."

Finally Richard Dawkins (2003) uses the argument again: "Creationists love sir Fred Hoyle's vivid metaphor for his own misunderstanding of natural selection. It is as if a hurricane, blowing through a junkyard, had the good fortune to assemble a Boeing 747. Hoyle's point is about statistical improbability. () My answer is that natural selection is cumulative. () Small improvements are added bit by bit." Indeed, once you have life, it can be improved in a Darwinian fashion. But can Darwinian processes create the first living cell? That's another question. Philosopher Philip Kitcher (2007) in his Living with Darwin writes: "To use an argument much beloved by ealier creationists, Darwinian claims about selection and the organization of life are equivalent to the idea that a hurricane in a junkyard could assemble a functioning airplane". Two deletion mutations occurred in the argument: 'Hoyle' and 'Boeing-747'.

Read the whole thing. It totally smashes the bulk of this article.

Hoyle believed in evolution. Dawkins set up a strawman:

""We are inescapably the result of a long heritage of learning, adaptation, mutation and evolution, the product of a history which predates our birth as a biological species and stretches back over many thousand millennia.... Going further back, we share a common ancestry with our fellow primates; and going still further back, we share a common ancestry with all other living creatures and plants down to the simplest microbe. The further back we go, the greater the difference from external appearances and behavior patterns which we observe today.... Darwin's theory, which is now accepted without dissent, is the cornerstone of modern biology. Our own links with the simplest forms of microbial life are well-nigh proven."

---Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Lifecloud: The Origin of Life in the Universe (1978), p.15-16

This article needs drastic changes.

Savagedjeff (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have missed something.

1. Where is the statement by an evolutionary biologist that Hoyle's argument is correct?
2. Where does the article say Hoyle didn't believe in evolution? Not the same as understanding it....
3. The fallacy has everything do with evolution and natural selection. And it has to do with the origin of life. Compatible since even simple molecules can be naturally selected.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice sleight of hand to try to move the goal posts. This article says "rejected by all evolutionary biologists." Clearly, that link shows evolutionary biologists who have not rejected it, who are debating it, and see it as an open question.

Look up Robert Shapiro's work on it. He shows the odds are astronomical.

Savagedjeff (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly we can read the same text and come to different conclusions. Again, I ask, where are the evolutionary biologists that accept Hoyle's fallacy? Name them. I don't see them in the link. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

PS Please explain to me what "All creationists accept the Boeing-747 argument as a disproof of the natural origin of life, and evolutionists reject it as such." means! --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying that all evolutionary biologists reject it is a different statement than naming those who accept it. Or saying that any accept it. You're setting up a false dichotomy on top of a strawman and red herring. To not reject it does not mean that you have to accept it. It means it is an open question in need of more research. A little something called agnosticism. So again, not all evolutionary biologists reject it. Stop setting up a strawman/red herring to dodge this point. The statement that all evolutionary biologists reject it inaccurate and sourced. That link was written by a Dutch evolutionary biologist.

Also, the entire claim, "rejected by all evolutionary biologists" is sourced back to, and only sourced back to, Richard Dawkins. In popular science books no less.

Savagedjeff (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a false dichotomy. The claim is that all evolutionary biologists reject the argument. The implication (which is not spelt out in the article, since that would be my OR) is that those that haven't rejected it, would if it were presented to them. Finding a single counter example requires finding someone who has accepted the argument. Since this claim is sourced and you've twice refused to actually name any evolutionary biologist as a counter-example I think it has the right to stay.

BTW the claim is not sourced back to just Dawkins. It now has John Maynard Smith as well.

I'm not sure what you think the relevance of the link author's profession is, since he gives no indication of accepting Hoyle's argument. Indeed I would say he rejects it, although I don't doubt you have interpreted it differently. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the author clearly states that is scientifically unanswerable at this point. That is why it can't be answered. Not because nobody saw the argument. There is no implication of that or anything else you are claiming. You are throwing assumption on top of assumption. He said a "definitive answer" is "not possible". Stop making up stories.

It is relevant because this article explicitly says ALL evolutionary biologists. And again, stop bringing up the acceptance argument to try and muddy the waters. Here is one that explicitly says it is unanswered. How could you possibly claim that as a rejection? Show me the rejection in that piece. That is not a neutral point of view. It is your point of view. And then you stretch this quote "What is wrong with it? Essentially, it is that no biologist imagines that complex structures arise in a single step." to fit under the umbrella of the Dawkins statement. That statement is not the same as saying all evolutionary biologists reject it. It needs much more context at least. You are playing fast and loose with words and using subjective interpretations. I can only assume you are being dishonest at this point by repeating the same fallacies and if you continue I will appeal to a higher authority.

Savagedjeff (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The author states that the origin of life is mysterious -- NOT that he accepts Hoyle's argument.

And I'm still waiting for your explanation of his statement:

"All creationists accept the Boeing-747 argument as a disproof of the natural origin of life, and evolutionists reject it as such."

--Michael C. Price ^talk 22:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous

This article shows only the POV of Dawkins and his minions. What sourcing is there for it being rejected by the majority of biochemists? This is absolute propaganda. 68.80.183.171 (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to present some sort of reason to justify keeping the {{POV}} tag. Do you have a reference (see WP:RS and WP:UNDUE) to an alternative POV that has been omitted from the article? Is there a statement in the article that you think is verifiably incorrect? Is there a statement that should be removed (and briefly why)? Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The rejection by all evolutionary biologists is sourced. Who cares what biochemists think, anymore than, say, accountants. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I recommend changing this "all evolutionary biologists..." to in-text attribution of the cited sources (i.e., "Gatherer and Smith state that all evolutionary biologists..."). I don't support using Wikipedia voice for this statement for the reason that the citations are themselves not well-substantiated in fact (Gatherer just cites Dawkins for this statement and Smith provides an analytical justification) and the statement's verifiability has been vehemently challenged in this discussion. Please see WP:YESPOV for my basis in policy. I also echo the concerns of the unsigned writer in Talk:Hoyle's_fallacy#This_article_lacks_objectivity, which in my opinion has not yet received an adequate reply. I'd also have to agree with Savagedjeff that this article is not as helpful or neutral as it could be. All it really needs to be more helpful is for a more detailed explanation of the statistical analysis that Hoyle did, particularly the variables he based it on (considering that I have no clue what they were); what's there right now just seems threadbare. As for the POV issue, Michael, you've some provided citation for the "all evolutionary biologists..." statement; good, it's not original research then. But without some factual basis, I think these citations are still just POV and I think you're still stuck with the burden of proof of whether or not this is a fact that can be expressed in WP voice. Till then, I think this article still deserves the tag. 67.190.234.202 (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by the lack of verifiability. What statements in particular require more verification? I don't understand what you mean by "factual basis"? Do you mean we should explain things (such as Hoyle's arguments and those of his critics) in more detail? --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

By lack of verifiability, I mean the statement appears to be an unqualified assertion. Gatherer says "All evolutionary biologists, however, concur that such reasoning is merely a trivial error," but is he even referring to Hoyle's fallacy, to Davies or Ellassar's work, or all of the above? And how does he support the assertion anyway? He cites two other sources (Dawkins and Radner), and provides analysis that points out Hoyle's assumptions, but the statement is not sourced to any query or survey of all evolutionary biologists, so how can it be verified? Countering this question by asking, "tell me what evolutionary biologist supports it" is essentially an argument from ignorance and an attempt to manipulate the burden of proof. Similarly, Smith states, "What is wrong with it? Essentially, it is that no biologist imagines that complex structures arise in a single step," again an assertion with only the writer's analysis to justify it. I'm not saying I disagree with the statement, only that I don't think it's proven as a fact such that it can go without in-text attribution. This is a pretty small, not to mention justifiable (vis a vis NPOV policy) compromise to ask for. I'm not asking for the statement to be stricken all together, only to be attributed properly, much as outline of errors in this article was attributed to Musgrave.

As for making it more helpful, let me explain: the section titled "Hoyle's statement" tells me the "event" of concern (cellular life evolving) the concluding statistic Hoyle figured out (one in 10^40000) and the resulting analogy he wrote for it. It tells me NOTHING about how he developed that statistic, what were the variables he factored into it (amount of cells, amount of time available, etc.), and what might have motivated him to study it in the first place. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, I'm not a scientist of any kind. I'm interested in learning about these things, but the description of the "fallacy" is cursory and instead the article focuses on its criticism. This is neither helpful nor fair. 67.190.234.202 (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I read Gatherer as referring to Hoyle's Fallacy itself, as presented by other authors, especially Elsasser.

"verifiability" does not refer to testing the truth of a statement, but only as to whether the statement has been accurately reported. We do not have to prove the statement true, nor to justify the basis the source has for claiming its truth.

As for Hoyle's motivation, that is a mystery to me. I wish I knew. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to fix this article several times by giving references and counter arguments while not removing any of the atheist's arguments, but each time my edits have been over-written. Obviously, the article is hopelessly biased and the overwriting of any attempt at balance is agenda driven -- DFP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.80.176 (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Any source which opens with the fraudulent creationist argument that "Philosophical naturalists claim macroevolution shows order emerging by pure chance. This claim is incompatible with accepted physical and biological principles. The present state of the universe is implicit in its initial state and the laws of nature. Logical principles essential to science require these laws to be maintained by a self-conserving reality identifiable as God." is not a reliable source for science. Your edits contradict mainstream views and clearly promote a fringe pseudoscientific view. By the way, the arguments you oppose are secular, which is not the same as "atheistic". . . dave souza, talk 21:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the latest addition -- it was incoherent nonsense. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ian Musgrave explanation

The text that follows "According to Ian Musgrave...", although well sourced, does not seem that helpful. Comments?--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, with reservations. You have made great progress in fixing the article, but I think it is still rather inaccessible to the general reader. I agree that Musgrave's quote doesn't help much (it's impenetrable unless you already understand it), but I think the points belong in the article. I don't know how to fix the readability issue (without a bunch of WP:OR), but I would like the article to spell out what Hoyle's calculation is about, and briefly outline the fallacies (as per the Musgrave quote). Hoyle's original argument is now almost irrelevant, but the article needs to say exactly what Hoyle meant, and how the concept is (mis)used by creationists these days. I haven't seen Hoyle's text (BTW the article needs a citation for "Hoyle's statement"), but I see that Ebon Musings points to Hoyle's 1983 book The Intelligent Universe and states that Hoyle was specifically referring to the likelihood of abiogenesis (presumably this lays the foundation for Hoyle's panspermia claim?). I see the same reference in Fred Hoyle. I think the article should make these points: Hoyle estimated that abiogenesis (creating a self-replicating molecule) is extremely unlikely. However, Hoyle's estimation is mistaken because a much simpler molecule is sufficient to start the process, and an extremely large number of parallel trials occurred (not sequential), and it is not true that the target molecule has to be exactly "correct". Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was my feeling about Musgrave's points. Inaccessible.

Also, whilst creationists do make all of Musgrave's errors, I don't think they all apply to Hoyle. For instance there is no evidence, as far I can see, that Hoyle assumed sequential processing; the probability he gets is so small that it doesn't matter whether parallel trials are available. Hoyle's main mistake seems to be that he doesn't allow natural selection to operate on the precursor molecules (which I tried to allude to in the article).

I couldn't find a good source (i.e. non-creationist) for Hoyle's exact statement. There was a pointer to a Nature ref from a creationist site, but I'd like to see for myself. And I would like to see Hoyle's own calculations, but haven't come across them either, yet.

Thanks for correcting my spellings (my spellchecker is broken at the moment).--Michael C. Price ^talk 02:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is Ian Musgrave? What is his credibility? His calculations in the referred article are plain wrong. He calculates early Earth oceans volume as 1 x 10e24 litres which is wrong. Indeed it could be no more than 1 x 10e20 liters. His calculations are way off by a magnitude of 10,000. 1 x 10e24 is volume of the Earth, not its oceans! I suggest to remove all references to him and his article. Having something published in "talkorigins.com" doesn't make it scientific. SirGalahad (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with removing him from the text, but still worth retaining as an external link. Let's see what others think. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

<ec> Ian Musgrave. And your source is? . . dave souza, talk 22:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can check the volume of the Earth and see that Ian screwed up. You don't need a source for that. Anyway, I never thought his explanation pasted to the article was that helpful. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Do please provide a source, and if you're right it looks to me like nitpicking over a typo in a figure that doesn't affect his overall argument. Looking over the points listed from him, they look clear and informative to me, and well worth keeping. What's the problem? . . dave souza, talk 22:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, you don't need a source. IM's 2nd point is the only one worth keeping, IMO. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

From looking around, a figure of 1x10e21 looks more acceptable, and that should be corrected but it's not something we cite. IM's first point, as expanded in his argument, is that modern abiogenisis theory doesn't expect life to start with something as complex as a yeast cell, so Hoyle begins with a false premise. As IM correctly points out, the creationists tend to assume one giant random step: it should also be pointed out here that once natural selection begins, the steps are not random. The second you accept, so that confirms the premise that Hoyle gets at least one wrong. The third issue of misuse of sequential odds rather than massively parallel odds, with the refinement that mutations don't have to follow a strict sequence, is an argument I've seen covered elsewhere, though can't recall the source right now. That's another part of the issue. Right, it's my bedtime now, but at the least IM covers issues which our article should deal with. Will come back on this. . . dave souza, talk 00:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Upon reconsideration, all IM's points are valid and need inclusion, I just think they need a bit more explanation to be comprehensible to someone who doesn't "get it". I've tried expanding the explanation slightly elsewhere in the article.

One thing I've pondering is that breaking a search space up with n evenly "spaced" parallel intermediate steps reduces the evolutionary search time from S to S^1/n. I think this is what the IP editor doesn't get. Not sure how to explain it (or source it). --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

All IM's calculations are based on wrong value of 1x10e24. If you follow the calculations you'll see that it is not a simple typo. If you replace 1x10e24 with 1x10e20 or 1x10e21, all of his results will dramatically change. Though he has a point, as a result of wrong calculations, he is unable to prove it mathematically. Main point here is that this article is not a valid scientific source. Scientific articles doesn't contain such big calculation errors. From IM's article: "Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years". Since his prebiotic soup is 1000-10.000 times larger than the real one, the correct value will be projected to over 1-10 billion years which is in contradiction with his original point. I don't want to start a discussion regarding this and other details, just to let you know that IM's article doesn't meet the scientific criteria required for an encyclopedia.SirGalahad (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your point is accepted. We're just trying to decide what to do about it. His arithmetical flaw occurs in what he admits is a straw man argument - his two other main points are valid, namely that (1) creationists assume natural selection doesn't start until a single working cell is created and that (2) they assume no other viable constructs exist apart from those that actually occured.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not remove POV tag.

You had no standing to remove the tag I placed. The whole article is a POV joke. ALL evolutionary biologists disagree with Hoyle? This is an extreme claim to make and is NOT sourced. If you remove the tag again I'm taking this to ArbCom. 68.80.183.171 (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please respond to the comments at #Ridiculous above. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Search for "all evolutionary biologists" in the 3^rd ref (i.e. the one that sources the claim) and see what you find :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The article presupposes that the "fallacy" is in fact a fallacy. This is a clear bias in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucidology (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see #Ridiculous above and respond to the comments there. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This article states "Hoyle's fallacy is rejected by all evolutionary biologists." which is flat out a lie. There are a great many biologists who dissent against the idea that random mutation leads to evolution. For instance:

“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of Evolution.” Pierre-Paul Grasse, - Evolutionist

“It is good to keep in mind ... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin’s theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted.” Prof. R. Goldschmidt, - PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. In Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp ... moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully." - Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucidology (talk • contribs) 10:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:TALK so you can see how to sign your messages and how to reply to previous discussions (do not start a new section with each message). Are you aware that the quotes you just gave have no relevance to the statement about Hoyle's fallacy? Also, the article is talking about all current biologists (not those who died some decades ago, and not physicists), and the statement in the article has a reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

POV tagging

At WP:NPOV dispute we read "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies... Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag."

Accordingly, would anyone who believes the article conflicts with WP:NPOV please point to specific issues in the article, and explain why those issues conflict with content policies. The {{POV}} tag should be removed if no justification for it is provided. Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation

The sources all seem to call it "Hoyle's Fallacy" not "Hoyle's fallacy". I suggest we rename the article to reflect this. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If no one objects I'll raise a move request... --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I object. Look here. It would behove us to follow some measure of consistency as it is our very goal to develop and maintain an encyclopaedia, and to capitalize "fallacy" for the article title would more than likely bring the whole thing crashing down. Please consider spitting on the sources in this case! (If I'm too late, then let me know.)—αrgumziω^ϝ 01:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources are sources. Hoyle's Fallacy is how it is referred to. The Wikipedia decapitalisation policy is stupid - but at least it has enough sense to say that we should go with the sources where appropriate. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice tautology. And it isn't a policy. Strict English standards could also be applied. But it is such an egregious fallacy that perhaps some feel entitled to capitalize on it. :-) What happens when we begin to find sources that don't care for the upper-case letter? Will we have to pick and choose which sources to follow, then? Whoa, slippery slope there (and not a fabricated one).—αrgumziΩ^ϝ 16:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, if such sources exist then we will have use our judgement shock horror gasp. And BTW capitalising Fallacy is not a violation of strict English. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Michael, why are you wasting time, then? Move the article to "Hoyle's Fallacy". I see that "Loki's Wager" (notice the upper-case W) hasn't been undermined (yet). Needless to say, "judgment" doesn't sound like a justification for anything. Thanks for the circularities, though. Oh, and before I forget, this might help you recognize your poor grasp of English. (The Devil's in the details.) I won't bother spelling it out for you, though. Best of luck!—αrgumziΩ^ϝ 21:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand, but since you don't seem interested in correcting your ignorance, good luck to you. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please. Inform me with your enlightened expertise. I'm willing to learn. But more importantly, I'm interested in improving the article. Are you?—αrgumziΩ^ϝ 01:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The article's revision history answers your last question. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That one was rhetorical. ;-) —αrgumziΩ^ϝ 01:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if anyone, and I mean anyone, thinks that a stylistic change is in order and that sources on this monstrously pedantic note don't matter, then please, let us know. It is my opinion that an upper-case F is too reminiscent of Flibbertigibbets, Obtuseness, Obliquity, Languidness, and Senselessness. Since the other party can come up with no other suitable justification besides "it's in dem der sources", this will take a number of voices to have the lower-case f prevail. I'll be here 'till the end of time, so there's no hurry.—αrgumziΩ^ϝ 01:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Contesting "search space" and "solution"

To explain biological evolution in terms of a search for a solution is a hideous error. (In fact, it is Hoyle's most egregious error.) This amounts to building teleology into evolution. Engineers first applied programs mimicking biological evolution to search problems about 50 years ago, and referred to "evolutionary search." The term never should have made its way into biological usage. If you say that biological evolution is engaged in search, you might as well give the creationists their invisible engineer of the Universe. ThomHImself (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)