Talk:Objections to evolution

NPOV issues 2023

Can I give an opinion on what I am reading? B/c I might be an editor but I also use Wikipedia to learn stuff. An on controversial issues I like to read NPOV to get a balanced reading of the conflicts. am... I am not getting that here. Someone mentioned "Wikipedia's voice"? It is like A and B have a debate and both parties have conflicting beliefs. Yet only B (pro-Darwin) gets to invoke Wikipedia's authoritive Voice over what A said. And that is what this article reads like. To the point where me (no horse in this race) reading this knows 100% that this article was controlled by subject B in the debate. I have seen others raise this objection and been closed down. So what hope do I have? But let the record reflect the tone of this article is not a NPOV position unlike other articles where there is a conflict of views. (Israel-Palestine) for example. Every device has been used to dismiss position A (against evolution). Start with the slant in the lede. Hausa warrior (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Evolution is consensus within science. This is not a conflict between two equally valid standpoints. It is a conflict between science on one side and religious ignoramuses, nutcases and liars on the other.

See WP:CHARLATANS and WP:FRINGE. Also WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree, to me this article feels like it should be called "Refuting Objections to Evolution". 2601:547:E01:1DC0:12D8:FE21:840E:90E6 (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course it does. Those objections are all stupid and ignorant, and it is not Wikipedia's job to spread anti-science propaganda. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Accurately representing an opposing viewpoint is not spreading anti-science propaganda. 2601:547:E01:1DC0:1C34:FFF1:FA7C:EC11 (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

We do represent it. Just we don't represent it as valid/true. It is a conflict between mainstream science and scientifically inane views. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Well done Hausa Warrior, my conclusion exactly. I had to stop halfway through reading it as a start the first time in a long time of reading Wiki that I was reminded “oh yes these articles can be written by any old person, with no body of evidence and slanted to whatever bias they like”. And this article certainly reeks of it. The emotionally charged way that Hob Gadling is replying makes it so obvious. 2A02:6B66:48F4:0:B523:38E1:3F7F:1EEE (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This is bullshit. The article is based on reliable sources. Your problem seems to be that the only sources you have been exposed to are far away from any reliability, so you believe in the false rumors spread by creationists instead of actual facts.

If you have any concrete issues instead of vague accusations, you are welcome here. As is, your writings are not helpful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it fair to include Plantinga on this page?

From what I've read, his 'evolutionary argument against naturalism' is not an objection to evolution, but an argument against metaphysical naturalism. I've never read anything that suggests he intended to disprove evolution, or even to critique it as unviable in the light of humans' reasoning capacities. Phil of rel (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Since he says, a God would be expected to create beings with reliable reasoning faculties and people are very obviously very fallible, it sounds rather like an argument for atheism.

I think he is mentioned because creationists use everything that can get, including non-creationist Fred Hoyle. Of course, none of it makes any sense, including Plantinga. I have no objection to deleting him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It's fair to include him; as shown at Alvin Plantinga#View on naturalism and evolution he supported ID for a decade, eventually backing off a bit in 2010 – five years after Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District . . . dave souza, talk 08:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

His "ID" belief is different from others. Technically speaking, all religious (particularly Abrahamic faiths) believe in an "Intelligent Designer", even theistic evolutionists like Dobzhansky, Fisher, Simon Morris, Francis Collins, Francisco Ayala, etc. The only thing common here is the name, but what each label means is different. The traditional "ID" belief is only considered problematic because of it's rejection of evolution and denial of natural causes. There's nothing wrong with believing that the "Intelligent Designer" designs through the natural process of evolution as a mechanic. One can take the designer as the first cause and natural causes as secondary. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, you're argument is an example of genetic fallacy. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

different from others - All beliefs are different from all other beliefs; Plantinga is not special in that regard.

Technically speaking - Wikipedia does not speak that, unless reliable sources already did it before. Antievolutionists have always tried to include non-antievolutionists into their groups; your rhetorics is not new.

The traditional "ID" belief is only considered problematic because - Wrong. It is considered problematic because it uses bad reasoning.

an example of genetic fallacy There is no trace of that fallacy here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not an anti-evolutionist. Check my en wiki profile.

Also, I don't understand what you're trying to say in the second statement. As I said, even theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins counts as believers in intelligent design if we were to apply the basic definition and principle of the concept of "Intelligent Design". The technicality matters here because as Plantinga said, he does not object against evolution and does not subscribe to the anti-evolutionist beliefs of the more traditional ID advocates. The technicality matters here because he himself uses the term ID in that way. Additionally, his argument was never used against evolution because it only applies to philosophical naturalism. Also, no. Traditional ID advocates never tried to add non-anti evolutionists into their group. The Discovery Institute literally wrote a book and has an entire website dunking on theistic evolution.

Also, you didn't even finish what I said. That's quoting out of context. The "because" here matters because "ID" isn't seen problematic because of it's mere name. It is seen problematic because it is traditionally used to object against evolution. Yes, it is problematic because of bad reasonings against evolution. But, Plantinga's argument is completely different.

Also, there is, in fact, trace of that fallacy here. The individual was trying to justify adding Plantinga's anti-metaphysical naturalist argument because Plantinga was involved with the ID movement even though his argument doesn't even object against evolution. It counts as a genetic fallacy because an opinion (that his argument should be added) is being validated purely because of it's origins even though it's completely irrelevant.

Literally, you're entire comment is an argument from ignorance. I'm not here for some sort of debate. Plantinga's argument, regardless of how strong or stupid it is, isn't against evolution. So thus, it is to be removed. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins counts as believers in intelligent design if we were to apply the basic definition We don't apply definitions here. See WP:OR. This is one of the most important Wikipedia rules. Another is WP:RS: If reliable sources say that Collins is ID, we write that he is ID. If no sources say that, we don't say it. End of story.

Traditional ID advocates never tried to add non-anti evolutionists into their group Creation scientists did. They made lists of creationists including Newton, Linnaeus and lots of other pre-Darwin scientists that never had a chance to take of position on evolution because they never heard of it. But all this is beside the point. Just don't gather random people and call them ID.

I am ignoring your fallacy claims because it would take forever and they are beside the point of this page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

But, that's not OR. It would counts as OR if some drastic information was added which would require compelling evidences to be valid. (For example, if I gave a description of his childhood without adding any sources) There's nothing wrong with applying definitions and lack of it will create confusions (like how you initially claimed that Plantinga is an anti-evolutionist because of the label of ID even though that is wrong). Applying definitions are important especially when things are ambiguous and nuanced. For example, in the article eclipse of Darwinism, there is a note clarifying the difference between 19th century "theistic evolution" and modern theistic evolution because these two things actually are different and refer to different things. That honestly makes Wikipedia itself un-trustable with it's information if words and labels were accepted as mere face value.

Also, I know that ID advocates try to put pre-Darwinian scientists into their lists, but that's different. My statement only applies to post-Darwinian era. They wouldn't tolerate anyone who accepts evolution or thinks that it is compatible. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

But, that's not OR You are wrong. See the examples in Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material: The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Making the second paragraph policy-compliant would require a reliable source specifically commenting on the Smith and Jones dispute and making the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source concerning the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.

This is directly applicable to what you are trying to do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Except Hoyle's argument very specifically supports an intelligent designer who designed things without starting with abiogenesis. Since it is an argument against abiogenesis, it makes sense to put the argument here. On the other hand, Plantinga's argument is specifically against metaphysical naturalism. And it cannot be and has never been used against evolution in any way. So, it doesn't logically belong here. The article itself makes it clear that it is an argument against metaphysical naturalism and not evolution. So, it doesn't make sense to put it here at all. It belongs to the article naturalism. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Isolated systems

"This, then, is the general statement of the second law of thermodynamics:

the total entropy of any system plus that of its environment increases as a result of any natural process." Physics, Principle with Applications, SIXTH EDITION, p. 425, D.C Giancoli, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey,1998

This excerpt from a physics text book is at variance with: "The claims have been criticized for ignoring that the second law only applies to isolated systems." LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @LEBOLTZMANN2:, I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. Both statements agree. If your issue is that the words "isolated system" are not included in the first quote, It's most likely because it is presented as a general statement in the introduction of the book. And if not, here is an other source for the definition that explicitly mention it [1]. And again, since trying to apply the second law in a non isolated system doesn't make any sense anyway, it's obviously implied even if not mentioned explicitly. --McSly (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

In the ten years since your first attempt at inserting creationist pseudoscience into the article, neither physics nor biology have changed enough to make evolution suddenly contradict the Second Law. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Plantinga

A discussion was already held here on the status of inclusion of Plantinga's argument. First of all, Plantinga's argument was specifically against philosophical naturalism, not evolution. So, it doesn't matter what other views of Plantinga are, his arguments are simply not relevant here. Additionally, he never objected against evolution. He already stated that his belief in intelligent design was different from other advocates. They merely just carry the same label, but what the label means here varies. As he stated, all religious people (or at least of the Abrahamic faiths) believe in some kind of designer, including theistic evolutionists like Dobzhanksy. God could've just "designed" by the natural process of evolution. And even if he was an anti-evolutionist, trying to use his other views to justify a completely irrelevant argument here would be an one kind of genetic fallacy. This article is specifically for anti-evolutionist arguments. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

ID is a form of antievolutionism. he never objected against evolution contradicts the following sentence He already stated that his belief in intelligent design. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Plantinga does not exactly deny evolution, and remains skeptical about intelligent design as science. He talks like a philosopher, not like a scientist. And, yes, if he means that epistemic responsibility is scarce in humans, he is spot on. Most humans have never attained the full-blown rationality demanded by embracing modern science. I don't think that our specie is a paragon of rationality. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Plantinga does not exactly deny evolution Neither does ID.

if he means that epistemic responsibility is scarce in humans, he is spot on He does not mean that. He uses that as a sort of reductio ad absurdum: if naturalism were true, it would mean that people's thinking is not reliable, which would mean that you cannot rely on... naturalism! His reasoning is full of holes and really stupid: you do not need naturalism to derive that, as you say, people's thinking is indeed not reliable. And picking naturalism as the thing that you cannot rely on at the end is purely arbitrary.

I had no problem with deleting Plantinga back then (see #Is it fair to include Plantinga on this page?, contribution from June 2023), but consensus seemed in favor of keeping him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Except, the mere concept of an intelligent designer is not really anti-evolutionist. The term ID is being used here in an extremely un-orthodox way. As I mentioned his "ID" belief is very different from the more traditional ID belief. The only thing common here is the name. It would be like if I renamed YEC into evolution and evolution into YEC. The only things that change here is the label, but the core beliefs would still be the same. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, how do I even get a concensus? Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Lacking

Problems wiht evolution: 1) Cambrian explosion: All body plans appear at same time, early in Cambrian explosion. Eyes and other complex features all appear at once in Cambrian explosion. Fossil record is firm. 2) Avalon explosion single cells to complex life all at once. Fossil record is firm. 3) Lack of transitional fossils for most of life forms. Animals appear remain unchanged and most go extinct. The past predictions that new fossils finds would fill in the gap in the transitional fossils as not come true. There are “missing links” for most species. 4) Living fossils: Horseshoe crab, Nautilidae, Australian lungfish, nurse shark and many more. Animals appear, remain unchanged for long time spans. 5) Convergent evolution: Many complex features appear in unrelated animals and plants, too many to be evolution. Look at Chameleon and Sand Lance fish, same eyes (independent eye movements and special focusing lenses) and a darting tongue. The list is very long of convergent evolution, too long. 6) 6) Studies have shown mutations are only beneficial for species that have a very large population size, like bacteria. For all other animals mutations drives the species towards extinction. So mutations do not produce new and complex features, like eyes. When animals are stressed and have a small population size, we protect then, as they do not change. Mutations occur when DNA is damaged and left unrepaired. The ratio of negative to beneficial mutations in anything larger than an ant is harmful to the life form. 7) Natural selection can change an animal’s color and other small changes, but has been shown to have limits. Also, it has been shown that once the pressure that forces the change is gone, the animal will go back to its original state, changes are not permanent! Finch beak evolution, shown as proof, always fails to note the finch does not keep the large beak. As the food that forced the large beak is gone, the beak returns to its original size. 8) Origins of life: There was no primordial soup. There was no time for natural origins, as soon as the Earth cooled there was life. The first life forms were not “simple” as predicted. Cyanobacterium is very complex. There was not one simple early life form, there was a complete ecosystem with sulfate-reducing microorganisms also shows up early in the record, also a very complex life form. 9) Some clades are very diverse and some unusually sparse, evolution should work everywhere the same. 10) The recovery after mass extinctions is very quick, too quick for evolution. Permian-triassic Extinction: 90 percent to 95 extinction rate. Yet, life recovered in just thousands of years. Triassic-jurassic Extinction: Triassic dinosaurs gone and in just thousands of years all new Jurassic dinosaurs. Cretaceous-tertiary Extinction: Mass extinction, all dinosaurs are gone, as is most life forms, yet there are all new life forms in just thousands of years. 11) Breeding for dogs and horses for thousands of years. Change comes at a heavy cost, shorter life span and poor health. 12) DNA testing of close animals has shown they are not related. The two river dolphins and ocean dolphins are not related. The two panda bears are not related and the list can go on and on. 13) The proof of evolution is mostly: Animal A looks like animal B, so animal B must have come from animal A, how childish if you can not show how it happened. 14) Common Ancestry problem. Animals that have a recent common ancestor are too different. A donkey is very close in ancestry to the horse and zebra. So close that they may breed producing mules and zonkeys. Yet the donkey, horse and zebra are very different, too different. The donkey is very cautious and departs from danger, they can not be used in a battle. The horse willingly will go into battle, some like the danger. The Donkey and the horse are easily tamed and once tame will remain tame. Zebra are difficult to tame and difficult to remain tame. Other sample of this problem can be found in nature. 15) “Evolution Junk”, those that only believe in evolution have put on blinders and have made gross errors in the past about designs in nature. The theory is evolution is a series of random mutations, thus residual vestige of random mutations will be found in nature. In this thinking many scientists overlooked designs in life. Only later to be shown that what they called junk, was in fact a good design. Examples of this are many: Tonsils, Appendix, Panda's thumb, Whale hips (still taught as vestige, but this is wrong), Junk DNA, Humpback Whales fins, and more. There are neutral mutations, like some humans have three or one kidney, but these are not residual vestige or a case for design as they are rare. 16) Human exceptionalism: Charles Darwin wrote and many scientists followed this thinking: Animals that most look like us will most closely match our cognitive capabilities. After study and research, the animals that has the closest cognitive capabilities to humans are crows, ravens and New Caledonian Crow. The New Caledonian Crow can: Make fish hooks, teach others how to make fish hooks. Crows and ravens (same family) are the only animals to be able to solve multi step problems and make tools to solve these problems. MRI scans have shown crow and raven brains are the closest brain to humans. Yet Human exceptionalism has shown are not just a higher animal. Humans different much from animals. Humans are the only one to be active in: art, musical, jewelry, use symbolism, active religion, written languages, mathematics, have moral dilemmas and much more. Many of these appeared as soon as humans appear. Neanderthal has few of these abilities and is too different from Humans. Near the end Neanderthals lived at the same time as Humans. Neanderthals had no tear ducts, very large sinuses, large barrel shaped chest, short arms, heavy bones, different braincase, different ear bones, and more. There is no “missing link” to humans from bipedal primates. The large brain evolution hypothesis has been falsified after the discovery of early hominin with larger brains than later hominin fossils. Telecine Guy (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This articlew is not supposed to mention every single piece of wrong-headed bullshit that has been used to attack biologicial science. That is the job of An Index to Creationist Claims. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s fine. Telecine Guy just decimated the whole article with his points either way. Job done. 2A02:6B66:48F4:0:B523:38E1:3F7F:1EEE (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

That statement makes no sense. This is a Wikipedia talk page, and its goal is to improve an article. Neither your contribution nor that of the other guy does that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"Supporters of evolution"

In the "Improbability" section there's a sentence that says "Supporters of evolution". what does this mean exactly?, isn't evolution a verifiable fact?, a fact isn't something that you "support", it would be like saying "supporters of gravity" or "supporters of The Holocaust", it doesn't make much sense, does it?.

Is Wikipedia implying that evolution might be false?, or that evolution is just a belief and not a fact?

That sentence should be removed because it gives too much weight to pseudoscientific ideas. 2806:109F:10:1CDD:E1AC:432B:2A6F:610B (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

a fact isn't something that you "support", it would be like saying "supporters of gravity" or "supporters of The Holocaust", it doesn't make much sense, does it?.

Sure you can. I think it's fine in this context and doesn't really have the effect you describe. Remsense诉 01:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)