User talk:MLearry

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

December 2018

Hello, I'm Shellwood. I noticed that in this edit to Technological unemployment, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Technological unemployment. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

A re-organization of information would be of help, since some parts in History suddenly talk about 'studies' and policy. My aim was to change organization with same information.

January 2019

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Abiogenesis seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Abiogenesis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Abiogenesis. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User talk:Tgeorgescu have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or write things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia, as you did at User talk:Tgeorgescu. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing here, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Abiogenesis. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Tgeorgescu, you may be blocked from editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Please refrain from accusing me based on false claims and wrong assumptions. I have only exerted my right to express myself here, and I will continue to do so. If you keep accusing me with those limited "wikicodes", in wrong assumptions and false claims, I will have no other choice but to conclude that you falsely accuse anyone who simply challenges your beliefs by stating & defending a different opinion.

You've again mistaken Wikipedia for a democratic society where social freedom, personal expression and the liberty thereof are values placed above all other. In such a society McCarthyism is a malignant prejudice designed to silence opinions and constrain political thought. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A book. An online repository. The people who are making it are doing a job. They're working and they are adhering to a basic set of management principles. If this were a company, like the marketing department of coco cola for example, it would be perfectly reasonable for the company to have principles, which say, "no - we don't want that". And to enforce them if employees persistently acted in contrary.

For some reason, because a group of editors have objected to your contributions and you have found no support, you accuse the project of being Machiavellian, whereas the reality is that your content has been looked at (ad nauseam) and has been rejected.

You are required to disclose COI here. Just like you are required to sign NDAs or exclusivity contracts if you work for coco cola.

In fact the only real difference between this organization and a company is that we don't fire or sue people when they come into the office and spend all day bending the ear of everyone they meet, telling colleagues what a bunch of pigs we and the company are for not seeing eye to eye with them.

In a nutshell - its OK for Wikipedia to have policies, its OK for Wikipedians to decide they don't like certain content and its OK to exclude that content from our pages.

Edaham (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Consider this a formal warning, next stop is WP:ANI. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Did Edaham wrote that? Or was it copied by Tgeorgescu. Edaham, my content was not considered "ad nauseam", but never read in the first place. Allow me one question: Why you keep saying I modify the article? I have not modified the Abiogenesis article since I began these talks. Why you keep accusing me of that? I have not modified the article. Yes I have engaged in a debate with some here. But I thought that is why the "Talk" is there for. Now, perhaps they don't like my argument, they cannot debate it on real argumentative grounds (Edahman seemed to do the same, when he/she mistake defending an argument based on what is a duty and/or a right, with the sale of a product like coca-cola, and state the word "again" when it has no real measure of events re-occurring so they have to call a "wikicode" on SOAPBOX? Is funny, but then, I suggest, put the article on lock and then ask for anyone who want to change it to state the kind of change it will make... That way, at least I feel people can see better how this "non-democracy" of wikipedia (which is supposed to be fair and unbiased, and allow dissenting expressions) work.

Wikipedia has a bias. It's biased towards academic sources, it's biased against fringe sources and claims. It's certainly not a democracy, it's an encyclopedia with articles that should be based on reliable sources, and we have criteria for those. I'm glad to see you are using the talk page now. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

But, Mr or Ms. Doug Weller, respectfully, you state about "bias" as if the problem is never unjustified claims that have no real justification, when often, many editors here take a reference from academia and make an unjustified and exacerbated claim from it, and then post the reference, as if that justified the mistake, but no, it doesn't justify that mistake, because some sources really don't say as much as the editors claim they say in the article, they don't imply what it is said to imply, the implications come from unjustified assumptions or "faith" in an uncertain issue (not always from scientific rigor or rational analysis). Some use words in the article in ways that hide limitations of assumptions. Is not that Wikipedia is biased toward scientifically reliable sources and quality evidence, it is that it allows bias on radical positions, as pro or anti-god, and that IS NOT THE JOB OF ANY EDITOR, editors shouldn't try to make it an article in a "style" that favors a lack of belief in god (or a pro-belief in god, for that matter). That is the biased way I am referring to, the framing and play on words (unjustified, by the sincerity virtue/rule, even with proper sources).

I appreciate that you limit your complaints to your Talk page. In harmony, I want to share that your underlying mistake is that you do not understand the scientific method. Science looked into magic, and godly magic -or any magic for that matter- has never been shown to exist, so magic/miracles is not an option to factor into the nature of things when seeking evidence-based answers. While religion is a topic to entertain in a philosophical context, it always failed under the scientific method, so it is no longer a factor to consider when using the scientific method. Please realize that a science article cannot present religious faith (magic/creationism) as an equal and alternative mechanism, and this is not because Wikipedia or scientists are "afraid of god" as you claim, but because such paranormal force has never been observed, never mind measured and studied. Regarding your complaints about spontaneous generation (creation of complex life in a single event within hours), you have to understand that this discarded belief is not the same scientific argument as abiogenesis, which is a gradual process spanning billions of years of step-wise increasing chemical complexity to produce single living cells. The good news for you is that —unlike religion— the scientific method is self-correcting, so if a godly entity shows up and demonstrates its magical skills, then science will review the new facts. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Mr or Ms. Rowan Forest, let me show you why it is you who is not understanding the meaning of Science and of Abiogenesis in this ocasion, and not understanding the implications of the research done to date in Abiogenesis and, in Cell Biology, in general. "Science looked into magic, and godly magic"... Why do you keep talking about magic? No one here has ever implied, even remotely, that we are the product of magic! Now, let's talk about what you don't understand regarding Pasteur experiments (refuting Spontaneous generation): No one has stated that Abiogenesis is the same as Spontaneous generation, you are simply doing a straw man tactic when saying that, but, what is important to recognize about those Pasteur experiments is that current evidence doesn't favor a cell coming from non-cell phenomena. What this implies, is that Abiogenesis has THE BURDEN OF PROOF if proponents want it to become a Theory. It is not a given! There is no evidence whatsoever of a cell coming from non-cells... We, as scientists, must have the possibility open, since we cannot be afraid of the truth. Hence, let Abiogenesis research continue, but (and this is the pertinent part) never deceive yourself (or or others, who might read the encyclopedia) into thinking that our current mere hypotheses, suggestive as they are (but nevertheless, inconclusive so far), do signify that we can have a deep evidence-based reason to believe abiogenesis happened! We cannot start with the conclusion or all our methodology will be flawed! (which is what you, and others in this article, are doing)... You are essentially assuming Abiogenesis happened, and that scientist today are simply working on "the minor details of the how and when"... That's not the way to do the Scientific Method! I know you will resort back to your question: "But, what alternative there is?"... Well, It is not our work, as editors of an encyclopedia for the public, to answer that, or, in other words, to cheer for what we feel is what happened, but our job as editors IS to state the sincerity of the facts. Right know, the sincerity of the facts is that we don't know if Abiogenesis is the answer to the question about the rising of life as we know it (I say mystery in a non-assuming way, is not that I root for the guys who say "God did it", is that I want to truly remain neutral; NO one can say for sure, and no one should suggest with play on words that "Science is certain because it has the evidence but just working on the minor details of the how", because, NO, Science hasn't found the evidence it needs to have a fair answer. If you ask the researchers, they will certainly held the belief that it happened, but because they must belief in order to take the research seriously, or else why do it in the first place? I'm glad they are doing the research, because that means we are not afraid of the truth, whatever it is... In order to make you see that your argument about abiogenesis vs. God is simply an argument from lack of imagination, philosophically speaking, let me assure you we can find beliefs that are not the same as magical thinking but that are a plausible alternatives, or at least make abiogenesis more rational when that idea is added as a complement to abiogenesis (not just abiogenesis-by-mere-chance); great minds can imagine philosophical & non-magical notions that engross the idea of a subjective reality not being secondary to materialistic phenomena,you can also imagine it, just imagine such has always existed, like simply stating that physical systems capacity for information processing is fundamental, as matter and energy, it only change form, and that in the 'singularity of the big bang', such system was one, and we are that system, changed... Now, I don't want you to think I am endorsing any of those notions here and that I want you to belief in those notions as the truth, no, no, to put those in the article can be 'fringe ideas', regardless of how really rational the methodology when thinking it was... Do not misunderstand me, I only want that the article explicitly recognize the truth: That we cannot say that Abiogenesis did happened for certain, yet (maybe some day we might, may be never, but not today). The more rational, scientific and sincere to do is to state our ignorance of the matter explicitly and call on the importance of keep doing the science, because we cannot be afraid of the truth (ironically, some scientists are afraid of the "God-like" hypothesis too much, to the point they still stop rational based simply because the tend to combine all such philosophies under "religious feelings").

Hello. Your line of reasoning is that of creation science, which is well established —by schools and by courts of law— to be firmly based on religion. Creation science can never stand side-by-side with science, because their underlying premises and intentions are very different. Thank you for taking the time and effort to explain, but I do not think I can be useful any longer in this talk page. In harmony, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Mr or Ms. Rowan Forest, your line of reasoning is based on various fallacies, including but not limited to 'petitio principii' (a fallacy in which a conclusion is taken for granted in the premises; you insert as the premise that abiogenesis-by-luck is the cause of life, when that is what must be demonstrated and has not been done yet). You also misinterpret "my line of reasoning" as "creation science", when my line of reasoning is simply that it is more sincere and it is the right thing to do to state how lacking in answers current science is with respect to the question of how life emerged (notice that I am not asking that the article includes the idea that God did it, that would be as biased as saying or implying that Abiogenesis happened but we still don't know how, which is what you & the current sentences in the article imply). Your line of reasoning is also based on false dilemma (that we have to choose a side). Not only we don't have to choose a side, we also shouldn't choose a side if the goal is encyclopedia neutrality... State the ideas, state the facts, state what new research directions will be, but state the reality on how answers are still lacking, don't play with words to hide that... Furthermore: Neither courts of law nor schools are the equivalent to scientific validation of any sort of theory of Abiogenesis, so what those schools & courts say is immaterial/irrelevant to the truth in this case, for encyclopedia purposes... Truth is that there is no Abiogenesis theory yet because current evidence is lacking. One additional statement that I must reiterate, but that I don't want it to be mistaken as my intend: To put Abiogenesis vs. Typical Religion as the sole set of possible explanations to choose from is often an argument stemming merely from lack of imagination.

Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free thought, which is a Good Thing.

— WP:FLAT

We don't deal in WP:THETRUTH. Biology does not care about mind-matter duality, noumena and phenomena or about Bergson's philosophy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Mr. or Ms. Tgeorgescu, the innovation in accepting that Abiogenesis is currently (& still) just hypothesis, and that need the more evidence to make it valid Theory is kind of the new thing, these days, the major scientists studying abiogenesis has been having that brand new though only in recent times, I mean, only since the 80'S you can read objections to the RNA world, the most popular idea behind Abiogenesis, and when they happen, they are minor objections, like:“[The RNA world hypothesis] has been reduced by ritual abuse to something like a creationist mantra”... {Kurland CG; Bioassays 2010 October; 32(10) 866-71} Mr. or Ms. Tgeorgescu: Did you just read those concepts on Wikipedia to add them on my talk page? Because no one single concept you mentioned is necessary to know the limitations of current Abiogenesis research (BTW a noumenon is generally used when contrasted with phenomenon, so please, go back to that wikipedia page and read it again, or else you are saying that Biology doesn't care about anything at all, not even phenomena related to life). Not one of those concepts was implied, all those concepts (mind-matter duality, Bergson's philosophy, etc.) were weirdly "summoned" by you, and not even one of them is necessary to understand the limitations of current Abiogenesis data, or necessary for a philosophical or scientific point of view that try to study subjective experiences that is neither based on religion nor based on pure materialism. Go see 'Integrated Information Theory' or Roger Penrose ideas on consciousness; read them on Wikipedia and please tell us if those guys who made those ideas -Penrose, Tononi, Koch- are talking "science" or not, and check what their education was. If they are not talking science, write to them, tell them "Biology is not interested in their ideas", then, since Wikipedia is not about "fringe theories" or about "innovative reference work", or about "noumena", then eliminate those Wikipedia articles, already accepted as part of Wikipedia... Ups, I went too fast, I know that I should put some code, a code-snipet, or some acronym with links to insignificant wiki-essays... Am, go ahead, WP:SOME-WIKI-BLA-BLA-BLA, read about those concepts too... Oh, and BTW, read about kinds of monism too, there is not just one kind... "Youngsters, Remember what your professors said about Wikipedia ? Yes, our professors warned us all..."

The choice is naturalistically or non-naturalistically (i.e. miracle). Why do you call that a false dilemma? My professors said "it is ok to read Wikipedia as a starting point, but do bother to read its sources". You somehow try to WP:COATRACK a philosophical question into a science article. We have no use for that, the WP:RULES are clear. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I call that a false dilemma because 1) that is not the choice to be made in an encyclopedia article. The article of an encyclopedia state the facts about research conclusions, their limitations, quote opinions and state future research, but it doesn't play with words to hide the limitations of some hypothesis so that "any believer in God note we are atheists", as the current Abiogenesis article does) 2) There might be naturalistic explanations that are not based on mere luck (Abiogeneisis ,as put on the article, implies great chance events), but the simple fact is that Abiogenesis is NOT yet a certainty, so you put your "naturalistic option" as a premise, when it must be the conclusion, and it is not yet the conclusion (petitio princippii)... and 3) The false dilemma is also about ignoring a rational necessity to understand that is better to accept current ignorance than to bet in a group based on feelings. We don't have to choose that in this article; In fact, we are more neutral if we don't choose that! either explicitly or implicitly. The philosophical position was already put on the supposed "solely-scientific article" before I even read it (in fact, the implications of accepting a formal fallacy as ok, embedded in the article, was there before I came in!). And "WP:Rules"? You mean the misinterpretation and excuses framed to hide that the article wants to frame its non-neutral position & bias? They are so ad-hoc, and can be so easily put on justified dispute, one simply need to state the truth to understand why they are wrong. One last important detail. To study the implicatins of Abiogenesis. Our professors told us that the problem with wikipedia was not always on the references, but often the issue is the unchecked articles and the way interpretation f research are stated...

According to [1], science had been defined in a standard way as "the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." Wikipedia is not the place for WP:PROPAGANDA against such definition. See WP:RGW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Mr or Ms. Tgeorgescu, the definition of science that you quoted was Kansas State Board of Education... But if I seek a different definition by another group, one involved in Science, say the 'Science Council' one may define Science the following way (and I quote): "Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."... On this different definition, the aspect of Science is not constrained to "natural explanations", but, in contrast, as long as the method involves observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, then the notion of how "natural" an explanation seems to you is irrelevant... Which is rational, considering that, for example, Einstein Relativity theory or Quantum Mechanics seem "less natural" than Classical Physics, less familiar, more "weird" and "spooky", but the evidence available of them required that us accept those Hypotheses as Theories. The point to be made is this: A scientific theory is not judged merely on how natural or familiar its premise seem, but it is evaluated on how the evidence integrates with predictive and descriptive aspects of the hypothesis to be verified in a phenomenon, including how rational & lacking in fallacies our ideas are when evidence is observed... You keep misinterpreting rational explanations of why something in the article is wrong and objections, thinking is just a "propaganda" (is not propaganda). Kansas State Board is not the Gold-standard in defining Science.

Your sophism is equivocation. "Natural" means "occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural". It is not the antonym of weird or spooky, merely the antonym of supernatural. If you're advocating for the inclusion of supernatural explanations in science, Wikipedia does not need you. Take your business elsewhere. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Think about normal. Welcome, and thank you for coming to the Teahouse with your concerns. Unfortunately we cannot help you for two reasons. Firstly, the Teahouse is here to assist editors who have difficulty with editing in general., and we rarely get involved with individual topic issues. Normally, we simply advise editors to post on the relevant article's talk page. However, in this case, I would certainly advise you and your husband against that, and simply tell you that you will not have any success trying to use Wikipedia to alert people to any concerns, new ideas or theories, nor to promote any personal interests you may have here. You see, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which simply reflects what other reliable sources have published about notable topics. You can't simply add stuff that you happen to know. You first need to get your ideas or concerns covered by independent sources. Only then can it get accepted on pages here. For that reason your edits were immediately reverted by an automated bot which detects content that seems unreliable or damaging to the article. I'm really sorry about that, but there are other ways to promote awareness that don't involve editing Wikipedia, such as blogs and personal websites, as well as getting the attention of journalists in the mainstream media if there are serious issues which society has overlooked. Trying to change the world by changing Wikipedia first simply doesn't work. I confess to not fully understanding exactly what it is you were trying to get across, but I think the principle is the same no matter what ideas and concerns anyone may want to get publicity for. Wikipedia just isn't that place. Sorry. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Copy/pasted from Wikipedia:Teahouse. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: You keep using straw man tactics, as bias as you are, and miss the point! Here is your original mistake: Petitio Principii (Begging the question, You put it in the premise, instead on waiting if it is the conclusion. Don't want your "business " on wikipedia telling things so blind to the truth and thinking "locked articles" is the same as evidence-based argument... Now, add another mistake you are making: the "notion" of natural for you is that "occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature", but, often, you don't even know what is the "ordinary course of nature"! You pre-define an expected behavior of nature and expect it in some way, but you truly cannot say which is that ordinary course of nature for every event or phenomena! Tell us, why does the universe is composed of mainly matter when matter & antimatter should have annihilated in the first place? Now, Tell us, what is the "ordinary course" of a black hole, or of dark matter? What is the ordinary course of nature involving quantum entanglement? What is the "ordinary course of nature" that explains subjective experience? What is the ordinary course of nature of the acceleration of an expanding universe? Now, will you say that the phenomena doesn't exist and are just "imagination" simply because NOBODY KNOW THEIR TRUE "ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE"? SHOULD WE SAY THEY ARE UNNATURAL? NO! What we should do is to stop ad-hoc pseudo-classifications of natural vs. unnatural. Some made too quick classification as not-natural equals what I don't understand and natural equals what I understand (THe BIG Bang, proposed by a priest, was mocked in this way). There can be unexplained phenomena that is natural, we simply can't say how the phenomena behave, and that means that potential non-chance factors that aid Abiogenesis (and refute the current by-luck abiogenesis) doesn't require magical beliefs, simply other points of view of the behavior of some aspect of nature. Ms. or Mr. Nick Moyes: My first suggestion was that the Abiogenesis article was written in a way that hides the limitations on current Abiogenesis ideas, and uses play on words and a style that tries to led the reader into thinking that : "Scientist are certain Abiogenesis happened, we just need the details of how & when it happened"... Of course, this is a fallacy, petitio principii(i t puts what should be the conclusion as a conceded premise, when it is not conceded yet). My point has been , and still is, that there is no need to be bias and furnish a slowly ingrained "atheist" slogan in this encyclopedia article. I do not want it implying that God did it, neither. Now, at this very moment, thank you, but no, thanks, there is no need for any wikipedia editor to come "and manage". Keep in mind, this is MY talk page, and I simply write motivated by what I think is something that should be stated, to anyone I think should read it. If I feel motivated to reply , if I feel I must do it, I will do it, if I feel there is no need to reply, I won't reply. That my motivation tonight, nothing more... Right now, I will show an article talking about relatively current research about Abiogenesis, from Oxford, written near the ending months of 2017, and it can be found in this link (below)...

http://oxfordre.com/planetaryscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.001.0001/acrefore-9780190647926-e-6

The final , concluding remarks state the following: "By demonstrating in 1953 that it was possible to form amino acids—the building blocks of proteins—from methane, a simple organic molecule containing only one carbon atom, Stanley Miller generated the ambitious hope that chemists will be able to create life in a test tube. Despite the tremendous efforts of chemists tackling the problem, it must be acknowledged that the dream has not yet been accomplished. This calls for us to truly review our approaches to chemical origins of life"... You see, that is an example of neutrality. He is not cheering for his team, he knows that to accept limitations on knowledge is more scientist-like. he doesn't give up neither, simply say it how it is (BTW, Read that info on Penrose, Tononi & Koch yet? Come on, now, are those real scientists? Tell those wrote the wikipedia article about those ideas that "their article is not natural"... Can't do it?).

"This calls for us to truly review our approaches to chemical origins of life". Exactly; there are several chemical pathways to investigate, and under drastic climatic conditions of the early Earth. Isn't it amazing that all the classical gods lost their appeal when humanity began to understand nature? No more god of thunder, god of earthquakes, Sun god, god of rain, god of disease, etc. Every time knowledge sheds light on an unknown, superstitions retreat back into the darkness of magic. Assuming magic/unnatural/paranormal/miracles/dark forces from the start does not serve knowledge. That is the reason science (and Wikipedia science articles) do not consider creationism as an option, but chemical evolution leading to abiogenesis. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Please, Mr r Ms. Rowan Forest, keep in mind, the only one mentioning about old classical gods, superstition & magic is you, Mr./Ms. Rowan Forest... And I wonder what impedes you from mentally conceiving that what the author imply is that Abiogenesis cannot state victory yet, that they must try new ideas... Read about Integrated Information Theory, perhaps after reading about it you may understand that options are not just Luck vs. Religious god...

There is no such controversy in abiogenesis or the theory of evolution. La raison d'être of "creationist science", is to spread propaganda in sciencespeak. The drones go humming: "As cracks in the Darwinian edifice have begun to appear […]" and the Discovery Institute then introduces in all schools another version of the fundamentalist Christian god. Yes, one of the old classical gods. Rowan Forest (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Mr./Ms. Rowan Forest, there is no Theory of Abiogenesis yet. Stop delusions (and stop cheap attempt at poetry).. .

Do you see your double standard? According to you abiogenesis isn't a theory, but integrated information theory is a theory. Scholarpedia isn't WP:RS. And, frankly, we don't give a damn about "rational arguments", since we only care about WP:RS, high-quality, WP:MAINSTREAM peer-reviewed WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh Mr./Ms. Tgeorgescu, Aren't you supposed to say that Dr. Tononi research is non-scientific? (you see, it assumes that "a system's consciousness is determined by its causal properties and is therefore an intrinsic, fundamental property of any physical system"). Go ahead, tell Dr. Tononi and his team that his ideas are so unnatural, is not possible, because it was either "God or lucky abiogeneisis", tell him "Biology doesn't care about such noumenas"... Come on, now, why don't you do it? (here is the article Integrated Information Theory, go ahead, put some wiki-blah-blah code on it, and add him some ultimatum messages. Where is the double-standard now?... I can go even more on why it is you who is wrong about what Science is: Did Dr. Tononi IIT ideas passed some testing? Yes, they did!, and did Dr. Tononi' ideas were published in a peer-reviewed, professional science Journal? Yes! It was not Scholarpedia, seek better, seek here: { Oizumi, Masafumi; Albantakis, Larissa; Tononi, Giulio (2014-05-08). "From the Phenomenology to the Mechanisms of Consciousness: Integrated Information Theory 3.0". PLoS Comput Biol. 10 (5): e1003588.}... & Also, seek here: {Tononi, Giulio; Boly, Melanie; Massimini, Marcello; Koch, Christof. "Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate". Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 17 (7): 450–461. doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.44} ... Do you see it? Nature journal doesn't think Science is what your definition of science stated, and there are ideas seriously considered that transcend your limited imagination, published there. The fact that Integrated Information Theory has the name Theory is due to the same reasons String Theory has its name (I didn't coined the term Theory as classification, that IS the way is usually named, be it really a Theory or Not)... But that wikipedia article on IIT do state the criticism and limitations of Integrated Information Theory, it doesn't imply is universally accepted when is not... Let me quote you now :"frankly we don't give a damn about rational arguments"... Is math based on rational arguments? Is the inference that evolution occurred absent of any rational argument (along with the empirical evidence)? I believe you don't care about rational arguments, that's why you are so biased (hey, it was my case, all along)... Without rational arguments in combination with empirical evidence, you will never understand why Evolution is true or why your definition of natural is lacking. (Go, Wiki-warrior, fight the unscientific nature of Integrated Information Theory article, and how unworthy it is from ; If you or some other editor had to stated so much for Abioigenesis, why not do it for other articles you think are less wikipedia worthy; Or perhaps, accept the more honest fact: You were wrong, there are other natural, science-worthy options or hypotheses you couldn't imagine, Abiogenesis vs. religion god is a false dilemma, so we don't have to choose, and the most neutral thing to do is state limitations of current hypotheses in a succinct, clear way, eliminate the petitio principii that tries to scream either atheism or theism)...

You have understood nothing about Wikipedia. You see, all the hard work has been outsourced. Wikipedia editors never decide which theory is scientific. They simply take it at face value from those qualified to make that judgment. If that is undecided inside the scientific community, we tell our readers that. So: what IIT has to do with the origin of life, has Tononi placed a bet on how life has arisen from dead matter? If he has not clearly spelled that out, making it falsifiable, IIT is at best irrelevant for the article abiogenesis. Our article does not deal in sophisticated metaphysical questions or arcane subjects of the philosophy of mind, it is a science article, not stuff for a philosophy class. You see, philosophers are able to think deeply upon issues which are totally not scientific problems. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Mr/Ms. Tgeorgescu If all the work of wikipedia is outsourced, why do you choose the hiding of limitations on Abiogenesis, the framing of questions to the point is either abiogenesis or nothing else what is Scientific, & cherry pick so much on the article references. I presented you with an Oxford article made by someone who knows more about the topic than either you or me, and that article doesn't hide the failures by implying that abiogenesis is "certain, we just need details". Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia... You should stop deforming the purpose by presenting ad hoc rules that are simply framed to allow members of atheism club (and don't even think I want to put a god on it, I want that topic of pro vs. anti God off the article, even in smell). "What IIT has to do with the origin of life?" Well, it integrates an idea similar to Panpsychism (perhaps a variant of it), within a Scientific neurobiological context. It cannot be totally irrelevant to Abiogenesis in all aspects because IIT implications, if they are proven correct via further research, are that physical system are somewhat capable of integrating information in a non-emergent but intrinsically manner (believe it or not, it is founded on the notion that some things dead/inanimate to us can be "alive" in some sense, to put in simpler terms, but not everything.)I have never stated IIT has been validated as a formal Theory-by-evidence, but I have no objections with that article because it is written with a clear part that state limitations/criticism, it doesn't hide the failures. You (and others) claim that hypotheses options are "natural vs. supernatural", but that ignores ideas like the ones of Dr. Tononi & Dr. Koch, and also ignores that nobody knows how nature behaves in every case/phenomena. Yeah, old gods, those are obviously superstition, but do that mean materialistic notions already explained everything? No... It is because this is not meant to include the philosophical implications of Abiogenesis that one should not write about it framing its position toward a belief (be it God or atheism; for that, it needs a more suitable & proper title), but you intend to do that, and, what is worst, is that it is assumed without enough evidence yet (thus entering metaphysical/philosophical assumptions & positions, when that was not the question or purpose of the encyclopedia, & that's not an editors job, also sacrificing neutrality in the process).

Pushing one's own views inside Wikipedia is a mortal sin. And wanting that Wikipedia community believe you on your word of honor, that is without providing any WP:RS, is simply ludicrous. See WP:NOTNEUTRAL and WP:MAINSTREAM: we are very, very biased for mainstream science and we intend to keep it that way. Your WP:ADVOCACY for WP:FRINGE views is quite unwelcome. Take your views to your own blog or Conservapedia and leave us with mainstream science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at User talk:MLearry. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, You are biased indeed, but not for mainstream Science... You are biased toward fallacies. We know in your limited imagination and lack of argument you intend to keep the bias alive, Tgeorgescu, don't worry (":Pushing one's own views inside Wikipedia is a mortal sin" (?) Try arguments, instead of ridiculous metaphors. My only motivation is to express what I feel I must express... I forgot, wiki-warrior, the snippet or code: Wiki-code-blah-blah-blah. Hey did you complained about that Integrated Information theory yet? No? Double Standard, huh?... Did you find that article in Nature, I left you the link, when you said scholarpedia, I showed you it was Nature (yes, is more serious than your article)... You want Mainstream science? Here, include this reference on your Abiogenesis page: "Despite the tremendous efforts of chemists tackling the problem, it must be acknowledged that the dream has not yet been accomplished. This calls for us to truly review our approaches to chemical origins of life"... In fact, here, read all of it and learn how a real encyclopedia article on Abiogenesis should be written:

http://oxfordre.com/planetaryscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.001.0001/acrefore-9780190647926-e-6

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Abiogenesis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)