Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

To-do list for Objections to evolution: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2022-03-29

Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Harv target problems, multiple target Sfns Expand : Other : *Consider other objections as possible sections, such as "evolution presupposes..." arguments (currently discussed briefly under "Evolution is unfalsifiable"). Discuss possible alternative section schemes, particularly to remedy ambiguity in "Objections to evolution's plausibility" and "Objections to evolution's possibility" oversections.

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

In this ] edit Stephfo uses the edit summary 'unduly self-serving" WP:SELFPUB & WP:REDFLAG respectively'. How so? Or, perhaps that edit summary was copied and pasted from somewhere else? Like maybe here? ] . Try reading those policies first, and using misleading edit summaries is a real no no. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe Stephfo was simply parroting this edit summary of mine. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 13:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo has added similar material to an another article as well, and asked me why I reverted it on my talk page. The question revealed that he is completely unfamiliar with WP policies. I've just advised him to read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR and stick to them. We'll see if he does. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That's correct, my position is like this: : So please explain in great detail what particular rule within that text was violated, otherwise such qritique is not valid if no reference to real violation is provided and just claim itself cannot be accepted as proof, but rather just a logical fallacy -Argument by assertion or argument of ceasar's new dress talking about violation that nobody is able to specify but just to make references into general descriptions of rules. As for my using ] I do not think there should be double standars - the rules should apply in the same way.--Stephfo (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You ought to read the policies you say have been violated, becuase they very clearly have not been. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

May then let me know if in this edit "this edit summary of mine." these polices also clearly have not been violated or if yes, where the difference stems from?Thanx--88.88.83.52 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF was violated by citing an a set of "unduly self-serving" claims to a self-published blog source. WP:REDFLAG was violated by citing some extraordinary claims about the second law of thermodynamics to a considerably-less-than-extraordinary source. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 17:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you pls. quote the exaxt section of text causing violation? You again just claim the violation w/o proving it. --88.88.83.52 (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)--

88.88.83.52, you are edit warring. Please don't. If you continue I will request that your IP is blocked. Contrary to popular belief, it's the talk page rather than the undo link that should be used for resolving content disputes. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There are however some kind of gentlemen agreement to be applied in my opinion, if the claim is that consensus should be reached on discussion pages and at the same time only one-sided text is allowed to be left displayed at main article, it is hardly to be considered as ethical. In my strong opinion both side's texts should be then removed or both left and a label warning on ongoing discussion flagged. --88.88.83.52 (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

But there is no reason given by Yobol for his undo, why such approach is accepted?--88.88.83.52 (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Have a read through Misplaced Pages:Consensus and consider using the Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

But this is exactly what I'm doing:

• First, Hrafn Undid revision 439539457 using reasoning: Per WP:REDFLAG & talk

I pointed out that: undo was referenced to "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources." but it was not identified what a sensational claim should be in given text. Obviously to claim that DNA contains nucleotides that do not naturally bond together should not be regarded as sensational.

• Then, Dominus Vobisdu Undid revision 439648388 by claiming "Violates WP:SELFPUB" but provided no evidence for such claim.

I reacted: Text reflects mainstream research status, please identify first specific text section that you regard for self-pub in talk. Likewise, fact that living organisms contain DNA is hardly to be accepted as selfpub.

• Again, Yobol Undid revision 439650687 by giving no reason whatsoever, how come someone is allowed to make empty claims w/o being required to prove it and at the end it is me who is warned to be blocked?

If consensus should be reached and this seem diffficult to happen, then I suggest that the page is allowed to be labeled with neutrality label until a consensus will be reached.--88.88.83.52 (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I did give a reason: "per talk", which is shorthand for "consensus has been reach on the talk page against this change". Just so we are clear, I also agree with the numerous objections above. Yobol (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm blind or what, but I see many editors writing in a very vague terms "consensus has been reach ". "I also agree with the numerous objections above." but nothing tangible. Thus, please enlist:

A. consensus =?

B. the numerous objections above:

1.?

2.? etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.83.52 (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Discuss means discuss until you can find consensus based on policy, not say something then revert because you think you are right. That is edit warring and that will get you blocked. That's just how it is here. You picked a contentious topic so you need to be patient and work with the other editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure who are you referring to but if is addressed to me, than please note that I did not start performing any revert - I added a text, not reverted, so I believe "discuss is discuss" is applying equally on both sides, otherwise I have no explanation why only one sides must discuss to add its text and other is allowed to remove w/o discussion. --88.88.83.52 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That's how things are done at Misplaced Pages for the obvious reason that we do not want someone to add nonsense to an established article and then say "you can't remove it until an exhaustive discussion has established that the material violates a policy". By all means, add material, but if it is reverted a discussion must show a consensus that the material is helpful before it is added again (WP:BRD). Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

How can be consensus shown if my Qs remain unattended?

Ref.: Maybe I'm blind or what, but I see many editors writing in a very vague terms "consensus has been reach ". "I also agree with the numerous objections above." but nothing tangible. Thus, please enlist:

A. consensus =?

B. the numerous objections above (I assume there are at least two if there are numerous):

Objection 1: ?

Objection 2: ?

That's what I call vandalism if a person removes content w/o being able to provide any reasoning, just claims or references to non-existent evidence, failing to identify the part of text that should cause some WP violations. The only conclusion I can make is that my text is somehow Guilty by Suspicion, but that normally should not be considered a valid argument. I guess if somebody would condemn you to electric chair claiming you're guilty of murder, you would also insist an evidence should be provided first. I also disagree that content should be allowed to be removed w/o appropriate reasoning, there should be always a good intention of Wikipedian assumed in is contribution (kind of presumption of innocence) and if disputed, a reasonable argument with evidence should be required. It makes very bad impression if argument for erasing content constantly shifts, seems text is unwanted by default/a priori and only appropriate ground must be somehow invented ad hoc. --Stephfo (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You can call it vandalism all you want, indeed, I could not care less if you called it Steve, but you first ought to learn how things work around here. There are policies, we are following them, you are not. Oh and feel free to report all of us for vandalism, let's see how that goes... Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"There are policies, we are following them" that's again general statement w/o pointing to single text section that should violate any WP rule. Are you trying to propose that the "policy" is to erase texts at anyone's discretion w/o giving any single evidence for given claim or even no reason at all? Such approach is usually applied by very manipulative people who are aware they do not have any better arguments at hand, just argumentum ad lapidem or argumentum ad baculum at the very best.--Stephfo (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

It's nice that you've studied formal logic and know all the fallacies by their Latin names, really, it is. However, we are not here to argue with you; the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to WP:BATTLE with your fellow editors. If you'd like to present specific changes you'd like to see, and if you're willing to work with other editors, then by all means discuss it here, otherwise you're not doing much to contribute to the encyclopedia, and I can promise you that it's not going to get you anywhere here. Nformation 09:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Stephfo, do not call other manipulative. Please read WP:NPA. It is another one of our policies. One of the really important ones here is consensus, and it should be clear to you and your English to Latin dictionary that everyone, (and that is my reading, I see no other editor supporting your view) disagrees with you. Move on please. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Does it mean the claim is not required to be supported by evidence? Anyone at his discretion can claim whatsoever without supporting such claim by evidence? AFAIK, wikipedia rules are not based on majority. Or have they changed? It is your turn to "move on" to present your arguments:

Objection1=?

Objection2=?

etc.

against text: Or are you trying to propose that I should accept erase of my text w/o any objection supported by evidence and even it is my turn to find such evidence against my own text? Sounds nonsense. I'm convinced I can demonstrate the manipulation -you as a group avoid discussing passages of my text but ascertain it should be erased -nobody knows which sentence is wrong but everybody agrees the text as a whole is banned. When Q raised -ignored; reasoning -everybody agrees (Argumentum ad populum). That's what I call manipulation. If you do not want to point out specific text sentences that are not acceptable for you then how do you want to reach consensus in modifying it? That's pretending "discussion is in progress" but no actual textual passages are allowed to be discussed. Or do you agree with all of them and that's why you do not accept the text? Or do you disagree with all of them including that living organisms contain DNA? --Stephfo (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You've provided an entertaining example of a creationist who's muddled about biology and about thermodynamics, but we don't give "equal validity" to such claims, we're required to give due weight to mainstream views by showing how this fringe theory has been received. Which is why we need a reputable mainstream source commenting on the fringe claim. Got one? . . dave souza, talk 22:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Pls. do not use Appeal to ridicule, I believe it is not up to WP standards, but rather pick up a sentence from my erased text that in your conviction is eligible to your claim and demonstrate how it is in discrepancy with "mainstream views". Is it this one: "He argues that if, for example, guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would refrain from bonding together as there is no machine (such as Molecular tweezer) to provide a free energy in a specific way to enable that bond to take place."? Is the mainstream view that if guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would bond together naturally without anything more to be added? Please provide source for such sensational claim!--Stephfo (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your claims are indeed sensational, but unsupported by any reliable source: it's up to you to provide these sources, not for me to do original research by debunking yet another creationist claim. As a matter of interest, while they don't comment on this particular conference paper, the Wessex Institute of Technology has form: guess who turned up at the Second International Conference on Design and Nature! . . . dave souza, talk 23:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it really so that you regard for sensational and non-main stream following claim: "if, for example, guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would refrain from bonding together as there is no machine (such as Molecular tweezer)"?

The article "objections to evolution" obviously attempts to state that it is enlisting and possibly refuting objections raised against evolution. If one of the objection is regarded as not allowed to be presented as it is declared, then I believe the whole section should disappear because it is then presenting something else than argument itself and misleading the Misplaced Pages reader, creating false notion about argument raised and even possibly unethically damaging the reputation of a person by twisting his position.--Stephfo (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Got a reliable source for that? p.s. papers in these conference reports aren't really peer reviewed, as Scott Minnich agreed. . . dave souza, talk 00:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and don't remove properly sourced info because you're not getting support for inclusion of non-notable creationist claims. You behaviour is getting increasingly WP:POINTY, please desist. . . dave souza, talk 00:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I regard for argumentum ad absurdum the proposition that there is better source required for claim of some person than the person himself. Please realize your fallacy - you effectively declare that if a wikipedia page states that a person A declares claim B, then there is a source C needed to prove that A really claims B and A cannot be used as reliable source of his own claims. That's nonsense. It has nothing to do with Q whether the claim A is per reviewed, if you declare that person A states B, then you should quote B and only then you can add in you text that this claim is not per-reviewed and accepted by you as such a such etc. --Stephfo (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, please demonstrate then how the claim "Another objection is that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics." is sourced. There was a hyperlink at A.McIntosh's page to this section making a false illusion that his claim is like one presented in this section. May you please identify McIntosh sourced statements that are in line with the text in this section? You want to create illusion that he states what is in this section, but his own real views on this topic cannot be presented? Highly unethical.--Stephfo (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you want to improve the McIntosh bio then, but you must still not give "equal validity" to his claims, and must give due weight to mainstream views by showing how his fringe theory has been received. Without that, his bio is unbalanced and includes non-notable stuff of no evident significance. You're having a go at the wrong article. . dave souza, talk 01:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

@Stephfo: It seems that you still not understand the fact that, according to WP policy, any added material has to be backed up with solid, reliable sources. You've added this material seven times already, and it's been reverted by seven different editors. That's a pretty good sign that there is something majorly wrong with the material, and that it does not conform to several key WP policies, most of all WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTE. Several authors have pointed you to the policies in question, including me, and instead of reading the policies, you went on to edit war and personally attack other editors. It is YOUR responsibility to make sure that any material you add is well sourced and in accordance with WP policies. It is YOUR responsibility to familiarize yourself with those policies. It is now YOUR responsibility to build consensus and convince your fellow editors that the material you propose adding is worth adding. To do that, you had better understand the following policies: WP:ETIQUETTE, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:BRD. The reason no one is taking the time to pick apart your contribution line by line is that it is not backed up by solid sources, and thus reads like a mish-mash of self-published material and your own original research and synthesis. In other words, you really haven't provided anything that is worth the time to pick over line by line. If you want to start a discussion here, provide something backed up with solid sources first. Otherwise, you are going to continue to be ignored. Take the time to intimately familiarize yourself with the policies listed above, and it will soon be clear to you why your proposed additions failed to pass muster here. This is a controversial topic, and if you want to edit here, you will have to adhere very closely to the policies, which you can't do without having read them first. So take a break for a while and get reading. You might want to get some practice and build up some credibility by editing less controversial topics for a while. You might want to consider finding a mentor using WP:Adopt-a-user. When you go to edit a controversial topic like this one, take the time to browse through the talk page archives first to familiarize yourself with past disputes and how they were handled, and to get to know how your fellow editors think. Fortunately, you haven't been disciplined for your recent editwarring and other breaches of Wiki-etiquette. Don't let that happen. Keep a cool head when you edit at all times. Acting in haste or anger will only get you in trouble, and possibly banned. Accept the fact that policies may be interpreted and applied differently here than on Slovakian Wiki. That is particularly true for controversial topics. It's YOUR responsibility to adjust and adapt to the new environment. So welcome to English Wiki, and I wish you a lot of fun and success! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I also added this incident to the fringe theories notice board so we'll likely have some extra eyes over the next couple days. As far as I can tell, Stephfo has already violated 3RR as himself and 88.88.83.52 but I hate putting together 3RR reports. However, since he has been warned and continues to edit war and edit tendentiously it might not be a bad idea to bring some admin attention here if it continues. Nformation 01:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

How come then that you are not able to identify the single sentence and prove that it violates any WP policy? Number of editors means nothing -they are all evolutionists backing up the position of biased article, it would be a miracle if they would not support the twisted misrepresentation of McIntosh' own views. The problem is not whether the source is reliable - but that you create false impression someone is claiming something he is not claiming and not allowing to present what he really is claiming. May you please state how many of these editors were non-evolutionists? You also violate following WP rule: "Focus on content: The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors." Please do not argument with editors. I'm trying to bring you to collaborate on content, but you just keep general sentences and avoid discussing actual content itself not even be able to compare your citation with my sentences and thus proving there is anything wrong with them. I read already multiple times this policies in my native language, pls. stop using argument that I should read something and better pick up concrete sentences you believe support your position. Thanx --Stephfo (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ignored per WP:SHUN and WP:TLDR. Nformation 01:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless your native language is English you have not read our policies in your native language. So, go do some reading, and learn how it works around here. When everyone disagrees with you it might be that you are completely and utterly wrong. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Violated policy: WP:REDFLAG -- sentences: everything that McIntosh says, as already stated. WP:TALK is not a mutual suicide pact -- when an editor places their ideology front and centre, it is very hard to discuss their proposals without addressing their ideological bias. Now either present an "extraordinary source" supporting the credibility of McIntosh's claims, or move on. WP:DEADHORSE applies. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 12:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, may you please be specific what so "extraordinary" McIntosh "says"? You have not identified any such sentence - the article contains summary of mainstream data, it is not so extraordinary to claim that living organisms contain DNA, is it? And to claim that if "guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would refrain from bonding together as there is no machine (such as Molecular tweezer) to provide a free energy in a specific way to enable that bond to take place" is not so extraordinary either- or do u claim that it is? You should pehaps read more on molecular tweezers, I believe. It is not possible to accept your objection if you are not able to identify the extraordinary claim within the sentences, and without such identification what exactly the extraordinary claim should be such objection becomes invalid. Or do you declare that the text contains sensational claim, but you do not know what that sensational claim is?--Stephfo (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This all looks very WP:REDFLAG to me. "decrease in entropy is possible" is a very vague statement. (i) Does he mean 'in a closed system'? Then this would be a clear violation of 2LoT, nanomachines or not. (ii) Does he mean localised decreases in an open system? Then this is pervasive in the growth an maintenance of all life and his 'nanomachines' are simply MacIntosh's gloss on every-day biological systems. Either way, I dod not think that MacIntosh's claims have sufficient clarity, let alone credibility, that they can be included in the article without some reliable WP:SECONDARY sources interpreting them. I am therefore removing the material pending further clarifications. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As this answer was given three days ago, I am closing this WP:DEADHORSE of a thread. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That's very good tactic - you keep blaming the text with ungrounded flood of accusations, not able to demonstrate any rule was violated, keep ignoring the questions, refusing to discuss actual text and modify it, and when the discussion becomes too long and you recieve unconvenient question, you just close the whole discussion by stating WP:DEADHORSE. Pls. do not use WP:IDONTLIKEIT way of behaving. To repeat the Q: Do you declare that the text contains sensational claim (=your objection based on which you erased the text), but you do not know what that sensational claim is? Let's summarize your position:

Objection 1: The text contains sensational claim. Q - what it is supposed to be? -Trial for answer:

Possible answer1: Alledged sensational claim: "Does he mean 'in a closed system'? Then this would be a clear violation of 2LoT, nanomachines or not."

The original text that you as a group of opponents erased, would give you the answer: "The principles of thermodynamics even in open systems do not allow a new function using raised free energy levels to be achieved without new machinery. And new machines are not made by simply adding energy to existing machines." I guess this is what he means.

Independent source: Per A. Larsen: Darwins lære faller (ISBN 82-7199-2228) p.127: "Entropy can be forced to decrease in open system by applying enough external energy and information in an organized form."

Scientific demostration in laboratory: "if, for example, guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would refrain from bonding together as there is no machine (such as Molecular tweezer) to provide a free energy in a specific way to enable that bond to take place."

"Mainstream" confirmation that the argument presented in article as "This claim is based on a manifestation of the law only applicable to isolated systems, which do not exchange matter or energy with their surroundings." is somewhat odd: John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980, p. 40: "… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."

Conclusion: Do you suggest to modify the sentence in following way: "A.McIntosh as creationist however declares that the decrease in entropy is generally possible, even irrespective of isolated and open system, ..." and then it will be acceptable for you?

Note: WP is governed by rule: "verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Thus, even if you have personal problems to understand the principle yourself, it should not make you to ban article that is beyond your comprehension.

Counter-argument 1: Do you declare that "every-day biological systems" can decrease locally the entropy w/o "his nanomachines" (after all, I thought nanomachines have non-McIntosh-dedicated Misplaced Pages stand-alone article)? What would be the scientific test in laboratory to prove such claim, and what reliable source presenting associated data to back such claim? Can you demonstarte it? To me sounds sensational. Thanks for explanation --Stephfo (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

NB! Please adhare to WP: Assume good faith

I'm following this WP policy: "If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute "

I'm disputing this article section because it clearly violates this WP policy (“Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.”)- the article misrepresents the position of proponents of this argument and replaces it with a strawman. In the article devoted to A.McIntosh (Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds) there had been a hyperlink to this section (that I removed but it was already several times put back Andrew McIntosh (professor)) thus creating false impression that this section should be expression of his position as creationist. That's why I propose to present the real position of proponents of this argument as described in here: Objections to evolution and properly sourced in their papers (the first refused version was sourced from BBC Radio Ulster) and not just its stripped version. If anybody feels that argument is wrong, it is possible to state it below that text with all the reassoning without the need to remove the text explaining creationist’s position (the section declares: “Creationists argue that” but it fails to present the full version of heir position).

The article "objections to evolution" obviously attempts to state that it is enlisting and possibly refuting objections raised against evolution. If one of the objection (namely “Violation of the second law of thermodynamics”) is regarded as not allowed to be presented as it is declared, then I believe the whole section should disappear because it is then presenting something else than argument itself and misleading the Misplaced Pages reader, creating false notion about argument raised and even possibly unethically damaging the reputation of a person by twisting his position (WP:V“Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people”). --Stephfo (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

1. I would point out that McIntosh is neither the first nor the most prominent creationist to claim the 2LoT prohibits evolution -- the claim dates back at least to Scientific Creationism (1947) Henry M. Morris. And I would remind you that, as I pointed out above, the expressions that we have seen of McIntosh's claims on the subject are both insufficiently coherent, and insufficiently evaluated by WP:SECONDARY sources to be suitable for inclusion here.
2. McIntosh's claim that his objection to evolution is based upon "empiricism" is both "extraordinary" in that it would appear to fly in the fact of all scientific evidence, and appears to be "unduly self-serving" -- so WP:REDFLAG applies to it. It should not be restored without a secondary source to analyse it.

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 16:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean we give every crackpot idea its due. This would violate WP:UNDUE, among other policies. Agree with Hrafn re REDFLAG. We have a pretty clear case over the last little while of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. We really ought to move on from this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I should also point out that the tag is not necessary, we have ONE editor, who is pretty much a SPA POV pusher and a bunch of others pointing our to him/her that their interpretations of policy are completely and utterly wrong. We have one editor that clearly does not understand policy. The tag should be removed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I tracked down the paper on which the proposed section is based (it's not even mentioned on Google Scholar -- I don't know about the more serious citation databases) to here (abstract available directly, paper available with free registration). I've had a quick skim of it, and could see no mention of nanomachines. His claims look fairly similar (at least at a superficial level) to Dembski's information-as-magic-pixy-dust claims. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 17:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You are violating the WP rule: "In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed." Also there is a rule that you should give a chance for reply.

Add. "I would point out that McIntosh is neither the first nor the most prominent creationist to claim the 2LoT prohibits evolution" - that might be truth but it has nothing to do with my argument on his position being twisted. My understanding of the situation is following: You as representants of group A with opinion X delcare that opposing group B proposing argument Y cannot present their argument Y because their own sources are "not good enough sources" for presenting their own arguemnts and that's why their own arguments must be replaced by twisted argument Z falsely presented as argument of group B that they did not hold. This is not very ethical.--Stephfo (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The source is worthless. WIT Press is a vanity press that charges authors 50 Euro a page to publish their work ]. I've read the paper, and it is basically gibberish, and contains gross fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry. It's basically just a slapdash rehash of irreducible complexity and complex information tripe interspersed with some irrelevant claptrap about the second law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, it's poorly sourced, and clearly not peer reviewed. As such, it violates WP:SELFPUB. Clearly not a source that meets WP guidelines in any way, shape or form, and not notable as well.

There is no dispute here. Just one editor pushing a fringe "theory". The tag should be removed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. "good chance" != "surely is". Having a single editor exhaust all energies in pursuit of specific content smacks more of a manufactured debate than a real debate. aprock (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• This topic has been discussed to death for nearly a full week. As far as I can see, Stephfo has failed to garner even a single supporter for their viewpoint (or cite a single reliable third party source supporting McIntosh's position). As such, the WP:CONSENSUS is clearly against the proposed change. I therefore suggest that:
  1. It is not appropriate to retain the {{NPOV}} tag on the section.
  2. That we move on.
• (I would note parenthetically that the claim that McIntosh's "position being twisted" is obvious WP:Complete bollocks -- as "his position" is not mentioned in the article at all!)

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest that it be time to invoke WP:SHUN? No sense in wasting more time on this. Yobol (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:SHUN is probably the best course of action for this editor, imho. Haven't really replied to this long discussions, but have been sideline reading them. — raekyt 18:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this is very unethical: You, evolutionists, group A, with opinion X, declare that your opponents, creationists, group B, holding opinion Y, cannot have their opinion Y presented because their own papers "are not good enough sources" of their own opinion and that's why twisted opinion Z had to be falsely atributed to them to misrepresent their own position. Even if we would accept that given source is not up to some standards of evolutionists, then it would be ethical at least to decalre that the objection is presented from point of view how evolutionist understand it and that might widely differ from the real position of the proponents of this objection. As for NPOV, I was naively convinced that the flag should not be removed until the disussion is reaching some consensus and also a matter of courtesy is to give your opponent a time for reply. Thanks for your attention. --Stephfo (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Add."Stephfo has failed to garner even a single supporter for their viewpoint" - This was because:

1. I was warned not to look for one, am I allowed to start searching now?

2. You are not allowing even NPOV flag to be raised on - if you are genuinely interested in 3rd party opinions - just leave it on. If you consider in a totalitarian way that only your view is acceptable, keep it off. --Stephfo (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Get it through your head -- WE ARE NOT talking about McIntosh's specific claims, so we are not misrepresenting him. You HAVE NOT demonstrated that we have misrepresented creationist claims about 2Lot GENERALLY -- so you HAVE NOT demonstrated a NPOV problem. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You always make bare claims without any supportive demonstration of them. Do you declare that these two sentences are contradicting "mainstream" science?

"Entropy can be forced to decrease in open system by applying enough external energy and information in an organized form."

"if, for example, guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would refrain from bonding together as there is no machine (such as Molecular tweezer) to provide a free energy in a specific way to enable that bond to take place."

Add."WE ARE NOT talking about McIntosh's specific claims, so we are not misrepresenting him."

1. You had placed hyperlink at his page to this article making false impression as if the presented argument would be of his.

2. Here you claim - "This claim is based on a manifestation of the law only applicable to isolated systems, which do not exchange matter or energy with their surroundings."

3. McIntosh claims: "The principles of thermodynamics even in open systems do not allow a new function using raised free energy levels to be achieved without new machinery. And new machines are not made by simply adding energy to existing machines." There is clear discrepancy between claim of McIntosh refering to open system and your assertion that the argument "is based on a manifestation of the law only applicable to isolated systems".

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

4. May you please introduce your source "^ Lambert, F (2002). "Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions". Journal of Chemical Education 79: 187–192. doi:10.1021/ed079p187. Retrieved 2007-03-24." - is it creationists or what kind of institution it is? I do not regard for smart the idea that the best approach how, for example, to learn the unbiased position of capitalists, would be to ask communists what they think about their views. Maybe the Hollywood blacklist would be the best demostration, although a bit vice-versa, of that principle.--Stephfo (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

1. "Do you declare that these two sentences are contradicting "mainstream" science?" Yes. (i) The inclusion of "information" is irrelevant -- just more creationist BS. (ii) It's been a long time since I studied physics but I'm fairly sure that 'entropy' is more than simply the lack of energy -- so it is unclear to me that adding energy decreases entropy. (iii) The talk about machines/molecular tweezers is simply more creationist BS.
2. A "hyperlink at his page to this article" does not mean that his ideas will be directly addressed here -- only that relevant information can be found here -- like the fact that pretty much the entire scientific community considers claims that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics to be complete BS. This is not "misleading".
3. Lambert is cited for the rebuttal of this claim -- Morris is cited for the claim itself.

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 20:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

This discussion is over, Stephfo. You have failed to generate any interest in your proposed addition, and have violated a whole slew of WP policies with regard to both content and your behavior toward other editors. SEVEN different editors have reverted your additions, and consensus is clearly against you. Give it up, already! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You always fail to answer Qs you do not like - they've been 4, you've managed to see only 3.

#"Do you declare that these two sentences are contradicting "mainstream" science?" Yes. --> then please demonstarte which source states that if "guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would bonding together without anyting else at all".

"(ii) It's been a long time since I studied physics but I'm fairly sure that 'entropy' is more than simply the lack of energy" --> Nobody had declared the entropy is lack of energy, please do not alter the arguments of your opponents

#the entire scientific community considers claims that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics to be complete BS - if it is so, then why they've been all the time unseccessfully trying to establish various speculative models for "selvorganization"? Prigogines, Babloyantas, Kauffman,...

1. I know it is over for you, if you have no answers what else you can do? Only arrogant manipulation to be used as argument: "Consensus reached" even though that you know it is not so.

(:Counter-argument 1: Do you declare that "every-day biological systems" can decrease locally the entropy w/o "his nanomachines" (after all, I thought nanomachines have non-McIntosh-dedicated Misplaced Pages stand-alone article)? What would be the scientific test in laboratory to prove such claim, and what reliable source presenting associated data to back such claim? Can you demonstarte it? To me sounds sensational. Thanks for explanation.) --Stephfo (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. To quote Wilder Smith whose book 'The natural sciences know nothing of evolution' is available on the web - p. 146 "Today it is simply unscientific to claim that the fantastically reduced entropy of the human brain, of the dolphin's sound lens, and of the eye of a fossilised trilobite simply "happened", for experimental experience has shown that such miracles just do not "happen"."I believe this should not be that difficult to understand, is it?--Stephfo (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The title of this page no longer fits the contents. The article no longer contains Objections to Evolution therefore the title is deceptive. I move for the page being re-titled to "Reasons for Evolution" due to the fact that that's what this article is about. --Jacksoncw (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The article does a very good job of detailing the various ways people have objected to evolution over the years, and also helpfully demonstrates how those objections have been unsubstantiated by modern science. Mildly Mad_C 20:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with change. It is very easy to demonstrate that the current title is deceptive, it officially proclaims to enlist the objections against evolution but in fact it does not allow them to be presented in their true statements, an glare example is recent controversy I had with proponets of the section on thermodynamics that is altered out of the all recognition and even proponensts themselves agree they cannot present this argument as it is because they consider it as non-mainstream thus banned. Strangly enough, they redirect e.g. "creationist objections to evolution" to this artile while in fact they do not allow for true creationist arguments to be presented, clearly violating NPOV policy. To demonstarte this in real life, try to add following creationist argument:

"The ice example is thermodynamically irrelevant to the origin of life. When ice freezes, it releases heat energy into the environment. This causes an entropy increase in the surroundings. If the temperature is low enough, this entropy increase is greater than the loss of entropy in forming the crystal. But the formation of proteins and nucleic acids from amino acids and nucleotides not only lowers their entropy, but it removes heat energy (and entropy) from their surroundings. Thus ordinary amino acids and nucleotides will not spontaneously form proteins and nucleic acids at any temperature. Also we should distinguish between order and complexity. Crystals are ordered; life is complex. To illustrate: a periodic (repeating) signal, e.g. ABABABABABAB, is an example of order. However, it carries little information: only ‘AB’, and ‘print 6 times’. A crystal is analogous to that sequence; it is a regular, repeating network of atoms. Like that sequence, a crystal contains little information: the co-ordinates of a few atoms (i.e. those which make up the unit cell), and instructions ‘more of the same’ x times. If a crystal is broken, smaller but otherwise identical crystals result. Conversely, breaking proteins, DNA or living structures results in destruction, because the information in them is greater than in their parts. A crystal forms because this regular arrangement, determined by directional forces in the atoms, has the lowest energy. Thus the maximum amount of heat is released into the surroundings, so the overall entropy is increased....Proteins and DNA are also non-random aperiodic sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures, which are caused by the properties of their constituents."

As contra-argument to statement:

"The fact is that natural forces routinely lead to decreases in entropy. Water freezes into ice"

I can almost guarantee it will be erased within few minutes.

I'm not proposing article should give positive impression about creationism or of their arguments if someone holds that view for odd, but it would be fair to present real arguments as they are declared and not as they are twisted by noted opponents of that views affected by animosity, who have all reasons to adjust these arguments to suit their own agenda.--Stephfo (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Not sure I fully understand the reasoning behind the original comment, but the title appears appropriate for the content - it discusses the various objections to evolution. Yobol (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

But without stating them in their full form, only after censorship by proponents of evolutionary view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephfo (talk • contribs) 21:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The statement "The fact is that natural forces routinely lead to decreases in entropy. Water freezes into ice", makes reference (as far as I can tell, otherwise IS wrong) to the fact that the argument that evolution breaks the 2lotd is flawed due to a wrong interpretation of the word "entropy", wich leads to the thesis that evolution is not possible because, over time, everything must decay and become "simpler". This simple fact of life (+ snow) proves that everything on earth does not decay over time, and ice is arguably more complex that water. (it's also arguably more simple than water, wich means that this particular wrong interpretation of "entropy" leads to an ambiguous unit). Also, for you to use "order" and "complexity" in a scientific setting you have to provide exact units, see second,meter, kilogram

I've read the citation where the "water turns into ice" quotation can be found, and by the context that is provided, it does seem that addresses the misuse of the term "entropy".

Also, creationists arguments ARE presented, however is a very well known and wide agreement within the scientific community that evolution is a fact. This happens partially because the theory of evolution has a lot of evidence that backs it, has made several predictions, and no one has found a theoretical flaw in it in several decades (mind you, in non-formal sciences this is not as easy or common as in, for example, mathematics). Because of these, all of the creationists arguments have counter arguments by proponents of evolution. Due to Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight, we are therefore forced to show all of these counter arguments (provided they're sourced).

If you have new widespread arguments against evolution that you can source, you are welcome to place them here. But remember, is very likely there is evidence or counter arguments than can be found very quickly, due to the status (and by status I mean a lot of empirical evidence and strong theoretical grounds) of evolution as I mentioned in the last paragraph.

PS. please avoid personal attacks.

Plaga701 (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Appears to be a proposal designed simply to make a point. --Escape Orbit 21:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per Yobol and Escape Orbit. 'Reasons for Evolution' would be a horrid title, the reasons for it are umm, because it is. Do we have a reasons for gravity page? oh and BTW there is no censorship of ideas, however, there are these wacky policies we follow like FRINGE and UNDUE etc.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Title accurately matches content. Proposed change is pointy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose The title is accurate, as the article discusses objections to evolution. The article is not for making objections to evolution, as that would entail using pseudoscience, and disreputable sources, or original research due to a refusal to understand science.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jacksoncw, would you care to elaborate as to why this page does not longer contains objections to evolution? As far as I can tell, it consists of several arguments against evolution and counter-arguments for those arguments. This title fits, but I think a better one could be "Arguments against evolution" since the word 'Objection' doesn't necessarily implies reasoning. I'm inclined to oppose change, but I would like to hear more about the original argument.Plaga701 (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems like Evolutionists went into the page and provided some arguments against evolution that they may have experienced from amateurs and posted them in the article with their counterargument. It's more like an evolutionary propaganda page than a dissection/analysis of objections to evolution. That's why I proposed the change.--Jacksoncw (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you're not proposing a change to benefit the article, but to get back on your soapbox and screech about "evolutionist" (sic) oppression.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)