Talk:Evolution/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Richard Dawkins

Would it be possible to add some of Richard Dawkins works to the list of General Reference? Personally I'm not yet bold enough to edit existing articles; especially not this particular topic where every word is scrutinized and criticized.

The primary contributors could perhaps consider addressing the current trend in biologist perception of evolution from that of the species perspective to that of the evolving unit itself “DNA”. Dawkins works stress the significance of the genetic code while de-emphasizing the bodies which contain the genes.

I guess I am asking “Why no reference to the “Selfish Gene” which reflects a new perception of the existing evolutionary “theory” (that word has been debated to death)?”

There is a significant amount of text addressing the challengers of evolution. Why is this included? The statement that evolution is the most widely accepted “theory” within the scientific community on the origins of life dismisses the need to address the challengers any farther. If I believed that life was deposited here by extra-terrestrials would the primary authors feel compelled to explain why this is unlikely in the context of the modern evolutionary views? The Burden if Proof has shifted to the shoulders of those who support Intelligent Design, Creationism, or Alien origins.

I noticed that the article on Plate Tectonics does not devote a section on the challenges made by the young earth society; nor do they address the flat earth society.

My vote is to delete all references to the controversy. Separate articles already exist on creationism and intelligent design as well as specific articles concerning said controversy. A bold request, but why the need to appease?

I hope I am not trolling …. Not sure what that means. Troll ... an ugly beast ... rude and obnoxious?

Jim B. 66.56.206.4 00:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think if you look back through the talk archives, the main reason we have the sections is due to a large social controversy in the U.S. It seems every year that schools choose biology textbooks or vote in a new board some school somewhere decides to downplay the significance of evolutionary theory or introduce ID. The flat earth people do not get nearly so much press. To ignore a social aspect of a scientific idea would not be very encyclopedic, no matter how incorrect that social controversy may be. It is our job here to represent the facts and educate. See Electric power transmission and the section on health effects for a possibly similar situation where popular ideas are not supported by science. Nowimnthing 02:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This article reports the facts of evolution and evolutionary theory, and the facts of the "controversy" (and the fact that this is a social and not a scientific controversy), and does so well.

Jim, a troll is somebody who deliberately writes inflammatory or offensive stuff, or asks divisive questions, in order to start arguments for his own amusement. That's not what you're doing, by any means. Robin Johnson (talk) 11:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. It is controversial, and in fact according to an Article in National Geographic:

A Gallup poll drawn from more than a thousand telephone interviews conducted in February 2001, no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us. National Geographic 'Was Darwin Wrong'

I teach Biology and I avoid both ID and Creationism other than to mention them as part of the social controversy. 'So I will retract my request for editing' this article since, upon reflection or as you have pointed out, it is merely the controversy that is referenced and not the details associated with the opposing views.

As for Richard Dawkins ... if you are including his arch nemesis Stephen Gould ... you have to add The Selfish Gene or River Out of Eden or The Blind Watchmaker or Climbing Mount Improbable ... I am sure this thread is dead ... but someone who cares and can edit with confidence include Richard!!!!! Jim B --71.77.215.178 23:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a mention of Richard Dawkins' significance to the idea of gene-level selection, but he certainly deserves more prominence. The shift from group selection to gene selection is just as (if not more) important than the punctuated equilibrium debate. If Gould is important enough to warrant a photo, I don't see why Dawkins or Williams shouldn't be included as well. -- Schaefer (Talk) 06:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The shift to the gene as the most significant unit in evolution; albeit, demoralizing to some is a very relavent and new perspective in Evolution. We devote a major section on the Creation vs. Evolution debate and ignore the 'scientific debates' specific to the topic. At least with your Dawkin's reference one can link to the Richard Dawkins page and gain insight into that perspective. I guess if we accomadated all wishing to be represented it would be a book ... not an encylopedia article. Probably not relavant ... but Dawkins takes a way better picture than Gould! J. Butler --66.56.207.111 03:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to include Selfish Gene in the General References section, since this had already been discussed here somewhat favorably, and because the book is mentioned within the article itself. However, it was reverted within about a half-hour. I'll let someone else add it back in, it's considered important, which I think it is. Tarinth 19:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a question....

According to Evolution, we all descended from single celled organisms. So therefore the dinosaurs did too. There are still cold-blooded animals which some say descended from dinosaurs but my question is...if the dinosaurs all died out then how did some creatures that exist now come to be? - unsigned

When the dinosaurs lived, they were not the only animals on earth. When the dinosaurs died out, other animals surivived. We are descended from at least some of those animals. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's reasonably well-accepted that dinosaurs were warm-blooded; modern cold-blooded creatures are probably the descendants of lizards (which dinosaurs are NOT) extant at the same time as dinosaurs. Graft 15:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The feathered dinosaurs didn't die out. They evolved into birds, which are best described as modern feathered dinosaurs. WAS 4.250 18:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Some nonavian dinosaurs show signs of being warmblooded, but it is not universal amongst dinosaurs. The pre-Avian dinosaurs typically appear warm blooded. There is still some debate the last I breached the subject is my understanding.PLoS Biol. 2006 Jul 11;4(8) [Epub ahead of print] Dinosaur Fossils Predict Body Temperatures. He does ask a good question since the Precambrian is dotted with strange plant-like fossils scientist aren't sure how to classify, and then well form embryos that follow the Cambrian fauna. He does have the wrong impression that all life dies out during global extinctions, which is not true. The oceans have been particularly immune for at least one long period. Is he asking when does a species diverge enough to be classified as a new genus, order,class, or phylum? Like when did a reptile or therapsid species diverge and evolve into a new class-mammalia or an archosaur reptile evolve into the dinosaurs? He may think that something evolves into something rather than sharing common ancestors and lineages. Like trilobites gave rise to horseshoe crabs and scorpions. A trilobite didn't evolve into a horseshoe crab, it just shares a common ancestry.GetAgrippa 18:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of web sites with horse evolution. That is a good example of how evolution is not a linear process, but a web of organisms that varied in size, number of toes, etc. that eventually gave rise to zebras, horses, etc. GetAgrippa 03:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also recommend some evolution sites like Talkorigins.org, The Panda's thumb, and Darwiniana (I think that is it?) If you want super saturation with historical relevance read Stephen Gould's The Structure of Evolution theory. It is like War and Peace in length, but really gives a balanced accounting of fact and theory and the evolution of evolution. GetAgrippa 17:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And for those of you who are tired of Gould ... try Richard Dawkins, "Climbing Mt. Improbable" "River Out of Eden" "The Selfish Gene" or "The Blind Watch Maker" ... are there no Dawkin's fans out there? His text are far more suited for the general reader / nonscientist. I am certain someone with editing skills will add Dawkins to the long list of references at the end of the Evolution Article?!

Jim B --71.77.215.178 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I like Dawkins because he is molecular, but I thought the Structure of Evolution is more broad and historical for the questioning novice.GetAgrippa 01:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to borrow a phrase, Just a Question. Evolution seems probable, until you add the question of what is original matter? Some theories say that it is the Big Bang that created it all. Now, Just a question, but if everything evolved from something, where did it start? If you say the Big Bang happened, then I wonder if you can answer me this. What are the chances of two random particles hitting each other and exploding in life. What are the chances, hear me out, lets say you take a puzzle and drop all the pieces and they all connect to each other. Those are the chances of this happening. 69.67.231.27

Whole crapload of mathematicians working on the probability of dropping puzzles in Newark, is there? This is trolling. CMacMillan 04:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't about the Big Bang, it is about evolution, and doesn't comment on issues like the origin of all matter in the universe. Evolution assumes a chemical origin to life, but doesn't deal with the origin of those chemicals. For information on scientific explanations regarding the origin of the cosmos, you may wish to read Cosmology.Tarinth 19:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Page Protection

...WHY doesn't Evolution have it? It's vandalised all the time. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it has a large team of dedicated editors who carefully watch it and protect it from any significant corrosion. And because, despite being an FA, it needs a lot of improvement, and an occasional anonymous editor who makes a small improvement is worth it for the minor effort of reverting the anonymous vandalisms. And because, being such a prominent article, ideally it should showcase the best of Wikipedia, and one of those best aspects is its editability by anyone, so semi-protection should be a temporary measure if it is used at all here. (And, personally, because I just find some of the vandalism amusing in its trying-to-be-serious absurdity.) -Silence 16:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Silence. For anybody who actually wants to write a book about all cultural and personal misconceptions about the fact of evolution and the modern synthesis, just look at all the vandalism on this page.--Roland Deschain 20:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Silence is perfectly correct. Also, this issue has been discussed several times before and the overwhelming consensus was that protection was not needed (see the talk archives). Mikker ^(...) 20:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree also. There is always room for improvement, and new finds and better examples. Vandals hit everywhere, which is surprising. I think the greatest asset of Wikipedia is that it can be more current than traditional encyclopedias, and it not just a few authors ideas and effort. GetAgrippa 23:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Problems with Evolution

This article should point out a few of the flaws in Evolution instead of taking it as fact. Here are a few examples:

At the rate continents are eroding (6 cm's every 1000 years) if the earth was actually 4.5 billion years old, all of the earth's land would have eroded several times over. Which can not be compensated by techtonic activity, which is far to slow (by evolutionary standards) to have fixed the problem.

• Please provide sources for this assertion.--Roland Deschain 01:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In actual fact, the horizontal movements along mid-ocean ridges is measured in centimetres per year. When translated into plate subduction zones (as in the Pacific Ring of Fire, the Himalayas and the Alps for instance) this is easily fast enough to conter the effects of evolution). As a result the Himalayas are still increasing in height.John D. Croft 12:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If flatly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that "1. Each time energy is converted from one form to another, some of the energy is always degraded to a lower-quality, more dispersed, less useful form. 2. No system can convert energy from one form to another useful for with 100 percent efficiency. 3. Energy cannot be spontaneously transferred from a cold body to a hot body. 4. The entropy of a system increases over time." (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=define:+Second+law+of+thermodynamics&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

• This misconception is already discussed in this article. See here.--Roland Deschain 01:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In actual fact evoltion is only possible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is by accelerating the entropic use of solar energy that evolution occurs. John D. Croft 12:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoung many other flaws. I think that Wikipedia should promote a more even system, if creationism was stated as fact it would be immidiatly reversed.

Please state the other flaws. Also, make sure to read the fact/theory section so that you can see why this article does not term creationism a scientific fact.

And to everybody posting after me. Please remember to be polite to newcomers.--Roland Deschain 01:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I endorse what Roland has to say. Guettarda 01:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• The first "problem" is not directly relevant to evolution: evolution in this context deals solely with biology, not with the geological history of the Earth's landforms. The second "problem" is not a scientific flaw of evolution, but a common misconception about evolution (and physics) that's already addressed in the article. -Silence 01:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest you check out the talk.origin archive. Or maybe even the book "Evolution" by Mark Carl Zimmer (very nice intro). Cheers, Mikker ^(...) 02:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (thanks bikeable)

  (Nitpick: Carl Zimmer.) bikeable (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe you best direct your first problem to Earth sciences and associated pages, although you will need sources if you intend to proceed. The second problem - well put simply our "system" includes all life forms on earth, the earth itself, and the sun, from which we get energy. Sure the sun will burn itself out one day, but not any time soon. --Michael Johnson 03:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, SamuelGrauer to be sure there are real criticisms and arguments to be made with the theory of evolution. However, there are no arguments to the fact of evolution (Read the definition). Unfortunately none of your arguments are valid ones, but if you pursue the topic I do believe you will see the nature of the evidence and arguments. GetAgrippa 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

SamuelGrauer, I dunno why you think that erosion rate can't be compensated for by plate tectonics. In those same thousand years the Adirondacks will have uplifted 200 cm, the Rockies 500 cm, the Andes from 60 to 300 cm and the eastern Himalaya almost 700 cm. I suspect that someone fed you bad information. Varith 14:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Science is unique

The uniqueness of an enterprise that succeeds by constantly trying to prove itself wrong was brought to my attention by this post at slashdot that says "science was invented once, based on the legacy from Greece, and has since spread everywhere. That is the ONLY science - anything else may be knowledge, or technology, but it isn't science, because it's not been done according to scientific methods, where we purposefully try to *invalidate* ideas, instead of validating them. This is a very unnatural way of thinking, and has turned out to be a very practical one." I imagine many of the people who post here with evidence against evolution don't quite grasp that their evidence is from the process of science. A cherry picked factoid out of context derived from science (which is the ongoing process of investigation into trying to disprove any and every theory in science). Science is in fact an elaborate unique institution that consists of continually making progress by continually trying to disprove itself. As opposed to every other world-view institution ever created which continually try to obstruct counter evidences. WAS 4.250 14:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This line may not be entirely true.

"...and the recently-discovered Tiktaalik, which clarifies the development from fish to animals with four limbs." From the end of the first paragraph in section 2.

My problem is this: In the Tiktaalik page it states that "The rear fins and tail have not yet been found" (just after the list of characteristics). How can the Tiktaalik clarify moving from fish to tetrapods when it is not even know if it had 4 limbs/appendiges?

My suggestion is that the line be changed to the following

ORIGINAL: and the recently-discovered Tiktaalik, which clarifies the development from fish to animals with four limbs.
SUGGESTED: and the recently-discovered Tiktaalik, which could suggest the development from fish to animals with four limbs. w00tboy 16:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not very well-phrased, is it? Tiktaalik is interesting because the structure of the front limbs shows an intimediary between the fish fin and the tetraploid limb. The actual tetraplody isn't that important.

Would I be mistaken in thinking "clarifies the development from fish to amphibians" or "clarifies the development of the fish fin into the tetraploid limb" or even "clarifies the development of the fish fin into the amphibian limb" would be accurate? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Clarifies" is more correct than "could suggest" because this is just one more piece of evidence added to an existing mountain of exidence; and not some clue stumbled onto suggesting some new line of thought. What it clarifies has been identified by the experts and is relected in our terminology (I believe). It is not for us to decide for ourselves what is clarified; we should do no more than use the terms the experts use in their evaluations. WAS 4.250 19:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fishapods

Have a wee pic. Tiktaalik is a "transitional" species in that it shares characteristics with lobe finned fish and later tetrapod vertebrates: "clarifies the development from fish to land vertebrates" might work better.. dave souza, talk 20:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant pic. Must use it! Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Tik..

Love the pic, but, am I crazy, or is tiktaalik smiling? Panderichthys seems depressed, by comparison. Does this violate NPOV? ;-) Slrubenstein | Talk 12:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheery wee blighter! ...dave souza, talk 17:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it's agreed that it's not about tetrapods. So should we remove/alter that bit to something else. Like amphibian limb etc, because that's the only part that is like an amphibian. I'm still not sure about "clarifies" though, I mean it's just another animal, and we want to be ireefutable don't we? w00tboy 15:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell you've failed to read everyone else, who's saying it's about the transition between fish and tetrapods. Tetrapods, of course, meaning with four limbs – a classification which includes those later more land-adapted beasties called amphibians. For a reliable source, a Nature summary talks of "When fins became limbs", "It's a fish with fins, but fins that flexed and extended like arms and hands. It has tetrapod-like ribs, a mobile neck and wrist." and "fossils that illuminate the transition between fishes and land vertebrates... our picture of that transition is greatly improved". The term "clarifies" fits pretty well with these statements. ..dave souza, talk 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I read them all. I may not agree with them. But it isn't even know if this animal is a tetrapod! w00tboy 04:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

External Link

I want to add an external link to data that shows the percentage of the population that believes in evolution in various countries. I found this data to be very interesting. The link is: http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=286 by JamieA

This article is not about popular beliefs. The link should go in an article where popular belief is relevant. This article links to some other wikipedia articles like that. WAS 4.250 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the majority of Americans doubt the evolution of man in particular. Ironically since WWII America has won over half of all nobel prizes in physiology, medicine, physics, and chemistry. America is still considered the world's leader in science, and yet evolution is met with doubt by 1/3 and the evolution of man is doubted by 1/2. The influence of religion has its greatest impact in doubting the origin of man. Although educated people fair better in evolution belief, it is not that clear cut. Weird.GetAgrippa 19:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that many of the Nobel Prize Winners in medicine, physiology, physics or chemistry doubt the facts of evolution.John D. Croft 12:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Creation-evolution controversy would be more appropriate for it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Geomor's cuts

Geomor's removbed large sections, many of them, in my opinion, appropriately. However, is there anything that should be saved/spun off in what was removed? Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's all the cuts he made, with comments:

Evidence for Evolution: Molecular evidence

The section on Horizontal gene transfer has the following two sections cut: "Molecular evidence also offers a mechanism for large evolutionary leaps and macroevolution." and "Rather than evolving eukaryotic organelles slowly, this theory offers a mechanism for a sudden evolutionary leap by incorporating the genetic material and biochemical composition of a separate species. This evolutionary mechanism has been observed."

This reduces the paragraph into the much more readable:

[Horizontal gene transfer]], the process in which an organism transfers genetic material (i.e. DNA) to another cell that is not its offspring, allows for large sudden evolutionary leaps in a species by incorporating beneficial genes evolved in another species. The Endosymbiotic theory explains the origin of mitochondria and plastids (e.g. chloroplasts), which are organelles of eukaryotic cells, as the incorporation of an ancient prokaryotic cell into ancient eukaryotic cell. Heneta, a protist, is an extant organism that is undergoing endosymbiotic evolution.

Evidence from studies of complex iteration

Completely deleted. Since it's just a series of (copyrighted?) quotations, this may be best.

Ancestry of organisms

The following is cut: "One example of this misconception is the erroneous belief humans will evolve more fingers in the future on account of their increased use of machines such as computers. In reality, this would only occur if more fingers offered a significantly higher rate of reproductive success than those not having them, which seems very unlikely at the current time."

I agree with this cut: It's hardly a common belief, and it's rambly and badly written.

Self-orginisation and entropy

Cut completely. I disagree with this cut: It's probably in the top three creationist arguements - but I must admit to being worried about the lengthy quote (copyright infringement?).

In short, I think that some of his cuts, which were reverted, were quite rightly done, and think we should cut them again. Is there agreement on this? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is consensus on keeping what was deleted as evidenced by its long standing presence in the article. You are of couse free to present arguments for this absurd deletion attempt, but the arguments presented so far for deletion strike me as completely without merit. WAS 4.250 02:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles do need clean-up at times, and re-evaluation of examples. I am rather worried by all the copyrighted text being quoted verbatim in some sections, and think we should at the least have a look at that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a couple tags to get the worst bits: I do hope they don't last long, but I don't have time to do anything myself. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote Removed

“ Not only has life evolved, but life has evolved to evolve....For example, the vertebrate immune system shows that the variable environment of antigens has provided selective pressure for the use of adaptable codons and low-fidelity polymerases during somatic hypermutation. A similar driving force for biased codon usage as a result of productively high mutation rates is observed in the hemagglutinin protein of influenza A. ”

It had nothing whatsoever to do with complex iteration. It's a good quote, but shouldn't have been where it was. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Evolvability is a selectable trait. by Earl DJ, Deem MW. from Department of Bioengineering, Rice University, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA. says "Concomitant with the evolution of biological diversity must have been the evolution of mechanisms that facilitate evolution, because of the essentially infinite complexity of protein sequence space. We describe how evolvability can be an object of Darwinian selection, emphasizing the collective nature of the process. We quantify our theory with computer simulations of protein evolution. These simulations demonstrate that rapid or dramatic environmental change leads to selection for greater evolvability. The selective pressure for large-scale genetic moves such as DNA exchange becomes increasingly strong as the environmental conditions become more uncertain. Our results demonstrate that evolvability is a selectable trait and allow for the explanation of a large body of experimental results." and "Not only has life evolved, but life has evolved to evolve. That is, correlations within protein structure have evolved, and mechanisms to manipulate these correlations have evolved in tandem. The rates at which the various events within the hierarchy of evolutionary moves occur are not random or arbitrary but are selected by Darwinian evolution. Sensibly, rapid or extreme environmental change leads to selection for greater evolvability. This selection is not forbidden by causality and is strongest on the largest-scale moves within the mutational hierarchy. Many observations within evolutionary biology, heretofore considered evolutionary happenstance or accidents, are explained by selection for evolvability. For example, the vertebrate immune system shows that the variable environment of antigens has provided selective pressure for the use of adaptable codons and low-fidelity polymerases during somatic hypermutation. A similar driving force for biased codon usage as a result of productively high mutation rates is observed in the hemagglutinin protein of influenza A. Selection for evolvability explains the prevalence of transposons among bacteria and recombination among higher organisms. We suggest that therapeutics also confer selective pressure on the evolvability of pathogens, and that this driving force for antigenic drift should be considered in drug- and vaccine-design efforts." WAS 4.250 14:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The research certainly uses iterative studies, but the section is on iterative studies as evidence for evolution. This is in the wrong section. I'm not sure where it should go. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also removed the readded:

"Not only has life evolved, but life has evolved to evolve."

Because it was A. unattributed, despite being an exact quote (D.J. Earl and M.W. Deem) and B. A brilliant quote, but unexplained and still in the wrong section. We can't just assert things and expect everyone to fall into line. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

WATCH ATTRIBUTIONS, please. You CANNOT put an exact quote into the article without clearly indicating who said it RIGHT THERE, not in the footnote. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"You CANNOT put an exact quote into the article without clearly indicating who said it RIGHT THERE, not in the footnote." Can you point me to a wikipedia page with that rule, please. There are a couple of other sites that have this problem and I want to be able to directly link to that rule.--Roland Deschain 19:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem!

Can we please stop restoring copyright violating material? (e.g. here) The version restored to doesn't even identify one of its quotes accurately. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather than just deleting it, can we not simply annotate it correctly and rewrite the section is such a way as not to put such heavy emphasis on lengthy quotes. That way both sides get their wish. We don't have to delete it and the copyright and format issues should get resolved. It's called compromise and usually is the best way out of these edit wars.--Roland Deschain 00:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yo, what, this section sucks. That quote sucks. Somatic hypermutation is not evolution. Why is this bullshit in here at all? Graft 00:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, except that any attempts to fix the section keep getting reverted - hnce making it hard to fix. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is constantly subject to vandalism and alteration by creationists. It also has a long list of established editors, many of whom are highly credentaled in the field. Any edit that involves large scale deletions of text by an unknown (in terms of this article) editor, without any attempt at discussion, is just asking for an immediate, knee-jerk reversal. --Michael Johnson 02:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't engage in knee-jerk reversal. Use your head. If you can't, please don't bother editing this article. Graft 04:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Me? I didn't edit Adam Cuerden at all. I was just trying to explain why he was getting reverted. --Michael Johnson 05:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

But yeah, that section needs a serious rewrite. Reading the section, I'm having a hard time understanding what it is trying to establish. I suggest rewriting in to establish the growing field of computational studies in evolution (Bioinformatics, Genomics, Proteomics). The current section is all over the place with too many specific examples. Plus I'm not sure what the title of the section is driving at. All in all, after 30 min of thinking about it, I'm agreeing with Adam Cuerden and that most of this section needs to be rewritten ASAP. Can we change the subject to something along the lines of Evidence from Computational Studies?--Roland Deschain 02:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I'll stop editing that section as of now. WAS 4.250 03:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Balance?

I note that the wikipedia entry on Creationism has an entire section devoted to criticism of the argument. Why is there not an entire section in this article dedicated to criticism of evolution? I endorse the development of such a topic within the main body of this article. -Patrick

Sure. Just come up with some Creationist critiques that are actually valid, and we'll put them right in. I think you'll agree it's a waste of time to report specious arguments? Graft 15:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that this is a science article, so all criticisms should have some basis from the scientific literature. Also read Misunderstandings about modern evolutionary biology as this section discusses the most common popular criticisms of evolution and why they are not valid.--Roland Deschain 15:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In the subsection of this entitled "Speciation" it suggests that the emergence of new 'species' is somehow proof for evolution. Creationists do not debate that new 'species' come along by means of natural selection. The reason I've added the ' is that I think we need a broader term than species. I think 'kind' covers it well. The bible says that animals will reproduce after their kind. Basic kinds can be observed inbreeding with different species within themselves. Eg dog kind (domestic dogs, wolfes, coyotes), cat kind (lions, tigers), horse kind (horses, zebras, donkeys). A new species is not a new kind and does not go against the bible. If one group of animals is cut off from other of that kind it is logical that long-term decendands have common traits because there is only the genetic information that was there when the original group was cut off. Since this is the only information there the future generations will only have these characteristics. Creationists have no argument that natural selection occurs. What we do not accept is new genetic information. Mutations happen, natural selection happens. These have been observed countless times. However no new genetic information is ever present. If a cow grows an extra leg it is not new information because the cow already has the DNA coding for legs. w00tboy 04:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oy. Party at W00tboy's talk page for anyone who wants to discuss this. Graft 06:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The matter has been discussed before. Please check the archives for more details, though WP:NPOV#Undue weight will also give you a good introduction to the issues in hand. --Davril2020 15:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

See also the NPOV FAQ on pseudoscience. Mikker ^(...) 19:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Call to trim article

This article has grown to 92 kB, more than three times larger than the recommended limit for good readability (see Wikipedia:Article_size). Could we make an effort to trim it down a bit? Much of the information in this main article could be moved to supporting articles. For example, I think a new article on the technical aspects of the theory would be very helpful. I can also think of at least one section that could be moved almost entirely to one of the supporting articles. Could one of the regular (trusted) editors who monitor this page make some suggestions for areas to trim? Enter the bullet points! Gnixon 13:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I do not want to see this article cut up and moved to different subtopics. Wikipedia:Article_size cannot be invoked here, as that rule specifically states that exemptions can be made for articles summarizing certains fields. For such a huge field as evolution, a large article is expected. I do think that some trimming can be done to remove text, but don't think sections needs to be moved to different articles etc etc. Can you make suggestions as to what sections you think are the most trouble some. I also do not think that the technical aspects should be moved away. This would simply lead to the dumbing down of the article. --Roland Deschain 14:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article_size suggests trimming an article after it exceeds 12-15 pages. This article is 27 pages long! Even if an exception is due for Evolution being a large field, Article_size points out that the main article should be a "starting point," that the article "should still be kept short where possible," and that "summary style" should be used where separate articles on subtopics are possible. To avoid argument, let's for the moment forget about excising whole sections or technical content, but we have to do something. Do you notice any particular sections that seem too long? Gnixon 15:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The History section. Canbe greatly cut and is actually a section I don't mind linking to outside this article.--Roland Deschain 17:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be worthwhile to have a History of Evolution Article. It could blend history with social issues such as legal issues:Monkey Trial, Creationist dual garbage, etc. I don't see that the misunderstandings is an essential section. Our job is to create an informative article, not deal with all the social impact or misunderstandings. That is a separate articles and issues. Embryology is a large field and will probably be a small article referencing a lot of detailed articles when it develops. Most of the major topics are already entertained as articles. For the evolution article, then Natural selection and History of Evolution as articles can entertain the details for example. Have a main evolution article that is a big picture suitable for an encyclopedia with references to detailed articles on particular subjects. Being concise is not dumbing down, but for an encyclopedia you dumb down articles. Just like an Introductory Biology text is a dumb down from all the detail that any subject truly entertains and entails. GetAgrippa 17:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We already have a daughter article for "History of Evolution": History of evolutionary thought. We also already have a daughter article where we could discuss the more "technical" aspects of the modern theory of evolution in great detail: modern evolutionary synthesis. Summarizing some of the more unnecessarily-detailed sections of this article is a very good idea; the shorter the article is, the more likely it is that the vitally-important information will not be drowned out by the less essential facts and ignored by most readers. If you want some ideas for how to shorten the "History" section further, by the way (though it would obviously be absurdly inappropriate to remove it altogether and simply link to the other article; summary style is ideal here), check out this article's history: in the past, the history section was significantly shorter (and I attempted to make it somewhat shorter again a few weeks ago, but it still could be further tightened), and did a better job of concisely relaying certain facts. Although the current History section is an improvement over the past one in a number of ways, in terms of brevity it could do with some reversion of the trivia that's been added since then. -Silence 18:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• The History section

Okay, why don't we try to trim the History section as Roland, Agrippa, and Silence suggest? I recommend editors first look through the main article, History of evolutionary thought, and consider adding to it some of the content that is cut from this article. Gnixon 19:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Silence for the heads up on the other articles. I hadn't noticed. Since you have edited this section previously, perhaps you could pull up your older version and then edit the improvements into that version? I agree we cannot completly avoid the topic, but with a detailed article on the subject then this section should highlight the main points.I have to agree with Gnixon that this article is too long. Perhaps those of us with children, middle school to high school, should ask children to read the article and get a novice perspective. The article needs useful concise content. I often think the edit battleground in the making of the article has driven unneccessary additions. However, to be fair, it is a huge topic and it is easy to warrant more additions and detail. What audience do you gauge an article like this? GetAgrippa 19:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, may I suggest using a sandbox for the editing of a particular section. That way these large edits won't compromise the article during the edit process.--Roland Deschain 00:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Albeit falling on deaf ears; I suggest eliminating the sizeable section on the "controversy". Since the mission is to define evolution not creationism or Intelligent Design. Why include them in the first place. Create a spinoff ... the "Controversy". At best your recognition of the social concerns only generates emotional responses and does very little to provide clarity on the topic of EVOLUTION. Granted the discussion generated would not be as lively ...since most of the concern addressed in the "discussion" is that it points out misconceptions brought forth by creationist, but offers nothing in return. This forces you to waste a paragraph or two on what is a THEORY. Drop that entire section ... let the creationist an ID's write their own article. As you say time and time again ... there are places for those discussions.

And finally: "Oh God" ... pun intended ... Where is Dawkins:

In General Reference you cite:

Garcia-Fernàndez, Jordi. Amphioxus: a peaceful anchovy fillet to illuminate Chordate Evolution. Int J Biol Sci (May, 2006). Who the hell is going to read that to 'grasp evolution'... "peaceful anchovy"?

Smith, D. C. (1988). "Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony". Nature 336 (6194): 66-67. ... One most wonder at what level of biology background is you average reader? Has any of the editors attempted to read these journels ... Encylopedia = General knowledge.

Add:

River out of Eden:

A Darwinian View of Life by Richard Dawkins, 1995. Illustrations by Lalla Ward

Publisher: HarperCollins. Part of the Science Masters series Paperback Reprint edition (September 1996) ASIN: 0465069908

The Selfish Gene:Second Edition by Richard Dawkins, 1989 (First Edition was 1976)Publisher: Oxford University Press

Paperback (October 1989) ISBN: 0192860925

Last attempt ... promise.

J. Butler --66.56.207.111 01:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

J.Butler is right on the money. This is an encyclopedia and all the issues of theory, misunderstandings and controversy is an appropriate subject, but it just doesn't need to be entertained in detail in this article. It doesn't have to be a defense or apologetic just the facts of evolution. Did any of you note an anectdote in a recent Science. In a University they taught both evolution and intelligent design simultaneously to one group and then a book on the Red Queen hypothesis and evolution theory in another. The group exposed to both (I.D. and evolution) had a higher percentage of converts over to evolution. Not that I am pushing teaching I.D., but the contrast educated the students into logical conclusions. The students weren't told that I.D. was incorrect, but they discovered the weaknesses of the arguments and choose evolution because of the strengths of the arguments. There is so much pertinent information about evolution that could take up the space. Mentioning the names of noted scientist with major contributions such as Mayr, Gould, Dawkins,Kimura, etc. would be more profitable than these side issues. Myself I would prefer examples of evolution such speciation of Stickleback fish, genetics and speciation of the butterfly, archaic DNA of Artic penquins and cave bears, hybridization in plants and birds, Darwin's finches studies, examples of spandrels and exaptations, etc. GetAgrippa 14:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversial articles typically grow very large, and are then divided into sub-articles. The key to this is to avoid POV forks, in favor of content forks. Obviously this article reached that stage some time ago. The issue now is how to think about a series of evolution-related articles. This article should focus on one thing (and I leave it to you guys to decide what that core is) and should then have links to related articles AND brief summaries of each article that was spun off. I am trying to be productive and here is my proposal: what you should all be talking about is that little box created by the {{ that says "evolution3" in it. It is time to reconsider how the articles in the box fit together, what is missing, and come up with a consensus rationale for the series of articles on evolution considered as a whole - and then let that rationale dictate what gets cut from this article, summarized here, and then pasted in a new linked article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree Slrubenstein. Good points and logic. A daunting task in consensus building. There are already spin off articles. I guess there are several strategies in this proposal. We could have a big picture evolution article that would spin off the detailed articles, or make like a presentation with a series of evolution articles covering themes or parts of the organized presentation. I like the first because the basic article would suffice for the general audience, and the more inquisitive would have more detailed articles to supplement and expand any particular facet. We could leave the "meat" of the article as it is, so we would just reorganize, expand by entertaining more separate articles with a brief description of highlights in this article. I would also suggest the use of examples. There are so many elegant and convincing examples of evolution besides Darwin's finches and peppered moths. It would not just be definitions and theory, but real examples with mechanistic explanations (bring evolution to life). GetAgrippa 03:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

One things people haven't addressed is that a lot of the article size is being generated by the inline cites. However I do think the article could use some serious editing to improve calarity, I think the history section as it stands is one of the better parts of the article - clear and concise. These are a few things tha I think would amke a big difference;

1. Getting rid of current research as it is currently presented, it doesn't really say or add much
2. The modern synthesis section is significantly bloated and is the area of the article that needs the most work; most of the text doesn't exaplin how these ideas are associated with the modern synthesis at all and it duplicates information presented in other parts of the article like Evidence of evolution. I think what the author was probably aiming for was a section on mechanisms of evolution and, instead it's a mess.

1. The mutation, HGT, recombination could all be merged into the variation section since they all describe mecanhisms for getting genetic vatiation (duplicates "Molecular evidence" to some extent)
2. Mechanisms of evolution - what is the point of this short section?
3. Drift (notably citation free) should be merged with Gene flow and Population structure to make a single section on population genetics (could be merged into the evidence part of the article?)
4. Selection and adaptation seems like an odd thing to include here these ideas weren't unique to the modern synthesis and the text doesn't explain how the modern synthesis contributed to these ideas
5. Speciation and extinction - this is the only section that should really have additional information added to it - species concepts were a major part of the synthesis

--Peta 05:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oy, peta, you need to learn to look at section headers; many of these things are nested for good reasons. As to the rest, I disagree with most of it, obviously, since I organised a lot of the existing text. The bit about variation, if you read it, is considerably different from mutation, recombination, etc. - it's an introduction to the concept of variation and the idea of evolutionary forces acting on it, very different from things that inttroduce variation. Drift does NOT belong with gene flow or population structure any more than selection does. "Population genetics" is not a useful umbrella concept here. As to selection not being unique to the modern synthesis - duh. neither was heredity, or many other concepts. Thus, "synthesis". Finally, speciation was not a "major" part of the synthesis - the big move was melding Darwin's adaptionist concepts with Mendel's genes/discrete units of heredity concepts. Speciation is almost an afterthought. Anywho... Graft 06:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I read the article; the modern synthesis section is the most disorganised and bloated part of the article, much of it lacks any kind of context - its just a whole bunch of ideas. Why are HGT, mutation and recombination all discussed at length and in seperate sections given they are all mechanisms of genetic chnage and they all have good daughter articles?--Peta 06:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

By all means, trim if you think things are bloated. Though personally I think a handful of paragraphs isn't "at length" - mutation is the only section that has more than three or four. It'd also be entirely reasonable to rearrange sections - there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to their order at the moment. But the section merges you proposed above are in my opinion inappropriate. All of these concepts are distinct and kept apart for a reason. Graft 06:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The article starts with a nice flow. Define evolution, History of Evolution, Evidence for and examples of evolution. Maybe here we should to the Modern Synthesis, Genetics and Molecular Biology-(mutations, recombinations, genetic drift, gene flow, nonrandom mating, HGT, Phenotypic plasticity, Epigenetic change, mention Dawkin’s, Kimura, etc.), Natural selection and Adaptation (mention Gould’s ideas of Exaptation), Speciation (develop topic for article:Allo,para, and sympatric speciation, Dobzhansky-Muller Theory Of Postzygotic Isolation, etc.), Population biology-levels of selection discuss natural selection and drift, Hardy-Weinberg and homozygousity, etc, Microevolution-examples of speciation, and then do Macroevolution for the last section-(Earth’s life history, Comparative genomics, Evodevo, Gradual and Punctuated evolution, Coevolution (mention Red Queen), Extinction and Radiations). The article has the content I mainly suggest moving the Macroevolution content to the end of the article and perhaps shorten or lengthen specific topics. Drop current research, Misunderstandings (Not essential because we just educated to merits of the arguments), and Social and religious-(Address the issue in history section, because creationism and present incarnation-I.D. is historically relevant). This is a suggestion.GetAgrippa 13:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a significant subject that needs to be carried in depth. It is essentially the basis of all modern biology. In a print encyclopedia, the content of this subject would probably be quite a bit longer. Tarinth 19:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Creating a new article for Misunderstandings About Evolution

As I see it (as we are trying to cut down on this article) this section seems to be taking up a huge amount of space. I'm not saying that this section is not important. Rather I'm saying that it is so important that it deserves it's own article. Once that article is created, the evolution article can simply spend a summary paragraph on this topic. As this is a scientific topic, I don't really think that unscientific misunderstandings need so much space and so much detail. Now the obvious dilemma with this is a potential POV fork, but I don't think that should be a problem. The POV Forking article states that:

"Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others."

As I read this, the creation of the article should not be a POV fork as long as we keep a concise summary in this article. Anybody has objections to this. This type of move will cut down the article greatly with very little work.--Roland Deschain 01:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Misunderstandings about evolution" is barely even encyclopedic or NPOV enough even to merit a section; turning it into an entirely new article is really pushing it. Ideally this sort of information should be organized based on its subject matter, not based on whether or not certain people misunderstand it. For example, information on misunderstandings of speciation that are not vital enough to include in Evolution should be moved to a specific daughter article like Speciation, not a generic daughter article like Misunderstandings of evolution. The solution to this section is to trim the non-vital information, either incorporating it into other sections of this article (where it will be more useful due to not being hidden at the bottom of the article in a too-generic section; "misunderstandings" could conceivably relate to any topic or field in evolution, making this a useless section for the purpose of assisting readers in finding the information they seek) or into daughter articles specializing in the information in question. -Silence 01:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see you're point. The NPOV issue really kills it and had I spend 5 more minutes thinking about it, I would have seen it ;)--Roland Deschain 01:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, a separate article “The misconception” is not warranted. However, neither is space devoted to defending evolution. When you dedicate a section of this article defining a theory -you are not clarifying or enlightening … you are defending. The creationist sense this; thus, part of the ‘antagonistic aspect’ to the article itself. Do you feel a need to define Theory or is there a need to rub the creationist / ID’s noses in it. Reflect deeply on this… seriously. It is an emotionally charged issue and we all enjoy the debate but…

Recognize the alternative views by addressing them in the:“See also” forget the ‘spin-off’ idea … it too is just a compromise that is not needed.

See Also Creationism

See Also Intelligent Design

In the articles on / Plate tectonics / Big bang / Theory of Relativity / … no one felt a need to stop and define Theory. Nor do they address or recognize opposing views that lack scientific credibility. I’ve stated this before … but I can assure you no one when composing geology submissions pays homage to the debate over a flat earth nor in plate tectonics do they respond to the criticism that there is not sufficient time in 5,600 years.

So to be specific … delete / move the entire section ‘Misunderstandings about modern evolutionary biology’ as well as the add on "Social and Religious Controversy". Not that it isn’t worthy of discussion … in fact kudu’s to the authors, it is extremely well written … but that it detracts from the scientific content and only serves to fuel this never ending debate.

Delete it for the same reason I do not construct my lessons from the book:

Evolution and The Myth of Creationism: A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate by Tim Berra

Delete it because National Geographic enraged its readers with “Is Evolution Wrong … No”. True, sensationalism sells magazine but it is not worthy of a document claiming scientific validity.

Delete it for the same reason you do not allow for a rebuttal by authors such as Ken Ham (Evolution: The Lie).

If the article itself clearly defines evolution then you do not need a lengthy section ‘defending’ it at the end of the article. It is inflammatory in a scientifically condescending way. It is not a historical perspective … it is closing arguement defending evolution. We all know this. Debate evolution somewhere else … explain it here.

And where the hell is Dawkins!!!!!! ‘Christ’ J. Butler --66.56.207.111 23:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok someone referenced Dawkins under gene seletion ... I will shut up now!!!! :) Wikipedia is awesome J. Butler --66.56.207.111 02:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Conflict with religion

This sentence seems to have suddenly become controversial:

While many other fields of science, such as cosmology and earth science, also conflict with a literal interpretation of many religious texts, evolutionary studies have borne the brunt of these debates.

The fact is that a literal interpretation means just that, literal. For example, Genesis says the Earth was created in six days, earth science says otherwise. This is a conflict. If you take a figurative interpretation to eliminate the conflict, it's no longer a literal interpretation. This statement is therefore an obvious fact. siafu 19:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've baby-sitted the social and religious controversies section for quite a while now, and all of it has always been pretty controversial with the fundagelicals. I agree with you, it is "an obvious fact", though a reference won't hurt if someone can fine one. Mikker ^(...) 00:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Siafu, your literal translation of the Torah is incorrect. Each of the first six days in the Torah end with the verse, 'and there was evening, and there was morning, (day end).' No where in the rest of the Torah, nor in 5767 years of commentary is that ever found again. This suggests that there is something intrinsically different about those first six days than any other day in history. On literal terms, this puts into question the possible lengths and times of day. Furthermore that would not necessarily even defy science, since it appears today that our days are getting longer, why would it be completely inconcievable that days were MUCH longer, say 500 million years?

There is evidence of a misunderstanding in the Hebrew text here. The HHebrew word "Yom", translated here as day, is used elsewhere in the Bible to represent a "period of time". That this is the intention of the six days of creation is demonstrated by the verse Genesis 2:4 which uses the word "toledoth" (Generations) in describing the six days of creation. We must remember that the contex for the composition of these texts was in Babylon, where there were in fact 6 generations of Gods before the Gods rested on the Shappatu (the seventh) - inaugurating the Biblical Sabbath. One should be very careful claiming "literalness" on the basis of contested translations.John D. Croft 12:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, the fact of the matter is that on literal grounds, the Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars and seasons were formed on the 4th day of creation. All we know based on the text is that a day is the alternation of dark and light, again leaving room for interpretation for how long a period the first few 'days' took. Since there was no period where the earth revolved around the sun nor rotated on it's axis, revealing and hiding the light, the first few days did not necessarily need to be mere 24 hour periods.

Here is a great websource showing how the literal truth of the Bible is in stark contradiction with cosmology and astronomy. The above rationalization is funny. If days are getting longer today, then days in the past would have been shorter and the 6 creation days would have been actually shorter than todays 24 hour days. See what conclusions one can come to when one can set up any postulates one likes.--Roland Deschain 12:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm responsible for the offending sentence, so I've augmented it with a pair of sources from appropriate articles. They might not be best (since both deal only with universe/Earth ages), so feel free to replace as appropriate.

Regarding a literal interpretation, the anon's objection above favours one "literal" reading over the most literal interpretation of the word "day". How odd. I always liked Isaac Asimov's short story where he put the whole creation-in-days thing down to a limitation of time and papyrus on the part of Moses, who originally intended to describe the big bang, etc., but was forced to summarise somewhat. Cheers, --Plumbago 13:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough our anon pal's idea does have something (indirectly) to do with evolution: Robert FitzRoy later recanted his enthusiasm during the Beagle voyage for Lyell's ideas of deep time explaining the raised beaches of the Pampas, and produced his Remarks with reference to the Deluge, earnestly explaining that the days couldn't have been so very long or the grass would all have died out. ... dave souza, talk 21:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Distinctions between theory and fact

The Gould quote "evolution is both a fact and a theory...", is somewhat enlightening. But isn't it more precise to say that evolution is a fact, not a theory, and that natural selection is a theory that attempts to explain the fact of evolution? Maybe a little more clarification is required to support that quote. Awinkle 18:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It is incorrect to state that evolution is a fact, not a theory, because evolution is both a fact and a theory. Natural selection is not the modern theory of evolution: it is just one aspect of that theory, which is much more complex and multi-faceted than natural selection alone. The "theory of evolution" is modern evolutionary synthesis, not natural selection. The "fact of evolution" (like the "fact of gravity", its observed effects, as opposed to the theory of gravitation) is the day-to-day observed consequence of evolutionary processes, such as in antibiotic resistance. -Silence 18:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

CALL TO TRIM ARTICLE (PART 2)

The first call ... not my own ... was essentially ignore, so I will take up the banner here.

It is clear that a significant amount of space in this article on evolution is dealing with the religious controversy, either directly or indirectly (defining theory). Why? This article already has the maneuverability of an Aircraft carrier, something needs to be thrown overboard. Am I the only one that sees that you claim the 'moral high ground' based on the Science behind evolution; then taunt the creationist with your diatribe on 'the controversy'. In the post above 'Conflict and Religion' energy was expended deliberating the meaning of literal by referencing the Torah for God sake. We still devote space in defining Theory to the creationist (give up already)! This is a Wikipedia Article on Evoution not a political platform. There is a hypocrisy here that is not lost upon those who oppose evolution as a viable theory. You do evolution a disservice by not allowing the theory to stand on its own merits. Debate the meaning of the word literal somewhere else and focus on the science in this entry. Free up some space in this article ...throw overboard the Evolution vs Religion rhetoric; there are already two Main articles in Wikipedia devoted to this aspect. Social Effect of Evolutionary Theory and Creation-evolution Controversy.

Is this the weakness with Wikipedia, you can edit small things such as changing the word big to large; but when it comes to dramatic changes no one has the authority to hit the delete key? Perhaps this aircraft carrier needs a captain?

               J. Butler --66.56.207.111 00:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As I suggested, for large changes in FA articles: take the section to be modified and put it in a sandbox (or even here in the discussion). Edit it here till a consensus is reached, then move it over to the main article. This is the most productive way I have found to cause large changes. This article deals with the evolution/creationisms controversy as it applies to science. Namely, the direct charges made against the science of evolution (theory, thermodynamics, etc etc). I agree with you that that section needs to be trimmed, but it is still (to my great shame) still a prominent view point (however misguided) about evolution and its validity. We are dancing on a sharp point here. If we discuss these popular objections to evolution, the article is said to be against creationism and is political in nature. If we do not discuss them, this article will be accused of ignoring objections to evolution by creationists. The answer again is to have the section there, but maybe to trim it down and move the extra text to other articles.--Roland Deschain 00:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, is easier to be a critic than a contributor. I have not written a single line in the article so weight my insights accordingly.

I placed both the ‘misunderstandings’ and ‘social and religious controversies’ in my own little sandbox (Word) and attempted to edit. It cannot be edited and remain effective. If you take on the challenge of defending / explaining evolution then you can’t be brief. Those who challenge the Theory will exploit the holes … and slowly … line by line you will be force to respond; thus, back to square one. Do not edit it … as a defense to the challenges to evolution this article is extremely well constructed.

The Main Articles “Social Effect of Evolutionary Theory” and the “Creation-Evolution Controversy” may be the solution to bulk. All are in agreement that the Topic of Evolution is massive. I guess I was suggesting, leaving the main article “Evolution” as untainted (maybe not the right word) by the controversy as possible… sort of confidently dismissing all challengers by simply enlighting them on the facts.

Transfer the last two section “Social and Religious Controversies” and “Misunderstandings About Modern Evolutionary Biology” to the main articles mentioned above. If you read them, there is considerable overlap, especially on the need to define theory.

Then insert a link … Not a subtle link … but a Big … GO HERE TO EXPLORE THE CONTROVERSY. This would accomplish several goals. 1)The reduction of bulk 2)Allow readers to learn about Evolution without the defensive ‘tone’ As a teacher, this is far more important than many realize. 3)Result in an improvement to the “Creation-Evolution Controversy” article, because frankly, it may be the ‘main article’ but this does a much better job at addressing the issue. The debate over ‘literal’ and the ‘length of a day’ can take place on that discussion page. This frees you (and others) up to edit only the science, for accuracy and value. Yea… a little boring … I agree.

I am not certain how such a shift in content can be achieved between sites. Especially on this scale (The advantage of having senior editors). Those that have actually invested time may not wish to have the content ‘merged’ at a different location. It would be difficult for some authors to be delegated to a ‘background’ position. No doubt, you would know better than I if that is even possible. It may be community property, but I have read enough discussion on this one to know egos are at play.

Whatever happens … take yourself seriously. I teach, so trust me on this much... You are the source of information for high school students. That is a lot of responsibility! Keep up the excellent work. J. Butler --66.56.207.111 03:20, 20 October 2006

Thanks for the advice ... I created an account ... ty ... J. Butler (UTC) --Random Replicator 02:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is about evolution so we need to cover this topic and highlight history with social and religous impact secondarily. As I stated earlier, the article starts and has a nice flow. Define evolution, History of Evolution, Evidence for and examples of evolution. Here the article goes into macrevolution. Maybe here we should to the Modern Synthesis, Genetics and Molecular Biology- Should include discussions of mutations, recombinations,non-random mating, genetic drift, gene flow, HGT, Phenotypic plasticity, Epigenetic change, mention Dawkin’s, Kimura, etc.), Natural selection and Adaptation (mention Gould’s ideas of Exaptation, and topic has a full article so just hit main points), Speciation (develop topic for article:Allo,para, and sympatric speciation, Dobzhansky-Muller Theory Of Postzygotic Isolation, etc.and refer to expansive article), Population biology-(levels of selection, effect of size (Founder effect),Hardy-Weinberg drifts towards homozygous population), Microevolution-examples of speciation and Evodevo, and then do Macroevolution for the last section-(Earth’s life history, Comparative genomics, Evodevo (which is micro and macroevolution), Gradual and Punctuated evolution, Coevolution (mention Red Queen), Extinction and Radiations). The article has the content I mainly suggest moving the Macroevolution content to the end of the article and perhaps shorten or lengthen specific topics. Drop current research, Misunderstandings (Not essential because we just educated to merits of the arguments), and Social and religious-(Address the issue in history section, because creationism and present incarnation-I.D. is historically relevant). There are articles on many topics like Natural Selection and Speciation, but we need to highlight the main content for this article.I would group all the social concerns in history section and refer to main articles of History and Religious and Social impact. I am more concerned about covering the huge topic of evolution more than all the side issues. There are so many offshoot articles that cover many topics in detail, so this article needs to be a big picture quick reference for any student to understand evolution. GetAgrippa 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree. Now my question is: Within the world of Wikipedia; how does one build consenses for such dramatic changes in an article? Certainly you can't simply high-lite the section 'Misunderstandings' and hit the delete key? Do you call for a vote? I'm thinking, changes of this magnitude are impossible.--Random Replicator 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading through your list of suggested components ... Hardy-Wienberg Equlibrium Model ... the backbone of understanding the mechanisms for evolutionary change. It seems to be 'missing' from this article all together. If/When the 'controversy' sections are removed, that would be an excellent place to improve on understanding of the science behind evolution. --Random Replicator 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Evolution major topics

A separate, sub-Article can be made to discuss the religious history.

The Evolution article should focus on:

1–Biological evolution.

2–Evolution of earth, i.e. the continents, (latitudes), and the Evolution of the Oxygen atmosphere that co-evolved with biology.

3–Other earth based, geology that distributed species, or also extinction events. (With geology, the Law of superposition, and the Law of faunal succession).

A fellow stuck in the Sonoran Desert of arizona,USA, ...-Mmcannis 07:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This "evolution" article could be more properly titled: History of the Evolution Debate, or Timeline of the History of Evolution, or History of Evolution (timeline)... (added thoughts on this overly long, rambling, and off-point article).....Mmcannis 07:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And....If one is unwilling to understand how fast the seafloors are recycled on Earth, the SuperFast dynamics of Earth, i.e. The Big Trenches in the Pacific are eating up really young rock, in comparison to the 4.5 Billion years.. One line in the article says how 'Evolution occurs at a slow pace'. OBVIOUSLY an incorrect statement. It has been speeding along at a clip, constantly. Just think how fast the Ediacaran went to the Precambrian, and it hasn't stopped since. .. ! .. ...In-the-desert...Mmcannis 07:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this the line referenced?

The evolutionary process may be exceedingly slow. Fossil evidence indicates that the diversity and complexity of modern life has developed over much of the history of the earth. Geological evidence indicates that the Earth is approximately 4.57 billion years old. Studies on guppies by David Reznick at the University of California, Riverside, however, have shown that the rate of evolution through natural selection can proceed 10 thousand to 10 million times faster than what is indicated in the fossil record.[24] Such comparative studies however are invariably biased by disparities in the time scales over which evolutionary change is measured in the laboratory, field experiments, and the fossil record.

The intent of the term 'slowly' seems to be an effort to establish the long history of life on earth and the inevitable changes that would occur given such time. This is followed by citing research on the actual 'rate' of evolutionary change within a population; a somewhat different concept. As you point out, the rate can in fact be exceedingly fast, especially among micro-organisms.

In addition I strongly suggest deleting the term "may be".

Suggested rewrite:

Geological evidence suggests the earth is approximately 4.57 billion years old. The diversity and complexity of life documented in the fossil record is the outcome of evolutionary changes over much of that time. There are differing views on the rate of evolutionary change since te begining of life, early in earth's history. Studies by David Reznick at the University of California, Riverside, suggest that the rate of evolution through natural selection can proceed 10 thousand to 10 million times faster than what is indicated in the fossil record.[24] Such comparative studies however are invariably biased by disparities in the time scales over which evolutionary change is measured in the laboratory, field experiments, and the fossil record.

This eliminates the offending term 'slowly' and 'maybe'. It brings more focus to what is being contrasted (the actual rate of evolution).

What is needed here, if there are any, is a 'comparative study' as referenced. Is there a resource that documents or supports slower rates of change within a population? If not, then perhaps a brief statement referencing genetic changes in a population (evolution) are a function of reproductive rates, life spans, number of offspring, environmental conditions .. etc. which would contribute to the 'bias' or 'disparities'.

In fact... I am not sure what this line even means: 'Such comparative studies however are invariably biased by disparities in the time scales over which evolutionary change is measured in the laboratory'. It seems to say a lot without saying anything.

At this point I am not comfortable in actually editing the work of others, since I am new to the game. Also, Arizona is a beautiful state, so much geological diversity.--Random Replicator 22:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

...the Hell?

"Also, we humans did not evolve from lesser primates."

...Since WHEN? I mean, bloody hell, "lesser" and "greater" are meaningless in evolution, but that's about as misleading as you can get. Deleting this section o' bizarreness. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That was removed. Joelito (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Request to Edit: Mechanism of Evolution

Suggested Edit:

Copy/pasted from Article:

Mechanisms of evolution Evolution consists of two basic types of processes: those that introduce new genetic variation into a population, and those that affect the frequencies of existing variation. Paleontologist Stephen J. Gould once phrased this succinctly as "variation proposes and selection disposes."[28]

These mechanisms of evolution have all been observed in the present and in evidence of their existence in the past. Their study is being used to guide the development of new medicines and other health aids such as the current effort to prevent a H5N1 (i.e. bird flu) pandemic.[29]

The second paragraph seems to contribute nothing for clarity. Is the emphasis on "Evolution has been directly observed" which is nice but not relevant here or a 'plug' for research on the Bird Flu. I went through the links, they offer nothing to clarify the topic 'Mechanisms of Evoluion'.

I am going to try out the delete key if no one objects on the basis that this line distracts from the content and intent of this section and adds to the bulk of an already obese article. If you want to build my confidence ... say "go ahead".--Random Replicator 01:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree Random Replicator. There are better examples, and this one seems added because of recent interest. GetAgrippa 16:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Balancing point of view

I added a creationist rebuttal to evolution in order to provide a balanced point of view for this article - other controversial articles have similar 'sceptical' external links - is it not fair to add them for evolution too? SparrowsWing 08:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Only links relevant to evolution should be added here. I agree with the editor who removed your link. Apart from anything else it wasn't a very good website. --Guinnog 09:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you are following the Wikipedia guidelines of being polite. SparrowsWing 09:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read this to see that your balance argument is contradicted by Wikipedia policy. Your misguided appeal for balance would make all articles unreadable. We do not include your website in this article for the same reason the astronomy article does not include geocentric websites in theirs. Both websites have nothing to do with the respective topic, as both topics are science oriented and the websites are public commentary at best. You link would be far more appropriate in the Creation-evolution controversy.--Roland Deschain 13:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm the link you gave me states "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views." I would hardly call creationism a minority view. The creationism article contains several external links to critisism of creation in terms of evolution. You will notice that I am not campaigning for these to be removed, I am merely asking for the same balance to be present in the evolution article. Thank you for the other link - I will go and check that out as well. SparrowsWing 20:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Around the Western world, polls have revealed that people endorse evolution to the tune of about 80% on average. This is even higher (around 99%) when talking to scientists, especially biologists. It is only in the United States that a large proportion of the population still holds on to the creationist (of any stripe) view. On a global scale, creationism is very much the minority view.--Ramdrake 20:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition to Ramdrake argument, this article both has a section on creationism and another section on common creationist claims (and why they do not invalidate the theory of evolution). What I'm trying to show you is that from a scientific point of view (and this is a science article), there is no criticism regarding the core ideas of evolution discussed here. There are large popular criticism about evolution (which has a section here) and several scientific misunderstanding about evolution (also discussed here). So this article does discuss and acknowledge the creationism criticism of evolution, but it makes it quite clear that it is not a scientific criticism of evolution. --Roland Deschain 20:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Roland - I appreciate your clarification. I'm happy for that link to be excluded on that basis. SparrowsWing 21:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Guess I'm Trolling / Since I'm at loss as to how to contribute.

This could be perceived as advice, but since it is likely to contribute nothing, nor elicit a positive change it more likely falls under the category of trolling. Don’t ban me though, I promise not to come back … seriously. I have no doubt that many have contributed an enormous amount of time developing this article and are to be commended for your efforts. A collective mind, if you will, on the topic of evolution. Wishing to be a part, I sat down at the keyboard thinking that I might clarify some of the information in the Mechanisms of Evolution section. I deleted a line … what a sad commentary on my skills.

But in my defense. An encyclopedia is a document used to obtain “general” information. I think you may have lost sight of your primary audience in this document. For example: If I asked any of you to explain Genetic Drift to the ‘typical’ reader at this site, would your response be the following:

Genetic drift describes changes in allele frequency from one generation to the next due to sampling variance. The frequency of an allele in the offspring generation will vary according to a probability distribution of the frequency of the allele in the parent generation. Thus, over time even in the absence of selection upon the alleles, allele frequencies will tend to "drift" upward or downward, eventually becoming "fixed" - that is, going to 0% or 100% frequency. Thus, fluctuations in allele frequency between successive generations may result in some alleles disappearing from the population due to chance alone. Two separate populations that begin with the same allele frequencies therefore might drift apart by random fluctuation into two divergent populations with different allele sets (for example, alleles present in one population could be absent in the other, or vice versa).

Would your ‘average’ reader, pursuing information in Wikipedia go away with a clearer understanding of Genetic Drift? Genetic Drift is not a complex concept … yet.

My foray into the cyber world is over; back to the couch and Oprah where I can do no damage. --Random Replicator 02:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yo, RR - it's hard for specialists to write accessible text. Sometimes they forget what's obvious to people who aren't them and what's not. I seriously suggest you take a shot at rewriting that section right here on this talk page if you think it's bad. Graft 18:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed section

==Current Research==

{{seealso|Ancestral Reconstruction|Human Genome Project|Bioinformatics|Evo-devo}} Evolution is still an active field of research in the scientific community. Improvements in sequencing methods have resulted in a large increase of sequenced genomes, allowing for the testing and refining of the theory of evolution with respect to whole genome data. Advances in computational hardware and software have allowed for the testing and extrapolation of increasingly advanced evolutionary models. Discoveries in biotechnology have produced methods for the ''de novo'' synthesis of proteins and, potentially, entire genomes, driving evolutionary studies at the molecular level.

===Micro RNA===

Small RNA or micro RNA ([[miRNA]]) appears highly significant in regulation of gene expression during development. <ref>{{cite journal | author = Sempere LF, Cole CN, McPeek MA, Peterson KJ.| title = The phylogenetic distribution of metazoan microRNA: insights into evolutionary complexity and constraint..| journal = J Exp Zoolog B Mol Dev Evol | volume = | issue = Jul 12 | pages = | year =2006 | id = PMID 16838302}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | author = Massirer KB, Pasquinelli AE.| title = The evolving role of microRNAs in animal gene expression.journal = Bioessays. | volume = 28 | issue =5 | pages = 449-52 | year =2006 | id = PMID 16615087}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | author = Zhang B, Pan X, Cannon CH, Cobb GP, Anderson TA.| title = Conservation and divergence of plant microRNA genes.| journal = Plant J. | volume = 46 | issue =2 | pages = 243-59 | year =2006|id = PMID 16623887}}</ref> Micro RNA's contribution to evolution is considered an [[epigenetic]] mechanism in [[evolutionary developmental biology]]. Micro RNA appears to constitute 1% of the human genome. Scientists are designing silencing interference micro RNA in the hopes of shutting down genes involved in cancer, diseases, and the contribution of genes in developmental biology.

Removed this section as only purpose seems to be to talk about micro RNA. Not comprehensive, not well formatted, feels out of place with the rest of the article. Needs to be thoroughly rethought. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree Samsara. They are just hanging there. They should be included in Molecular biology section if anything. Comparative genomics (and archaic DNA anaysis)should be mentioned if it hasn't been. MicroRNA's are more about genome evolution and not essential for this article.GetAgrippa 20:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've spun it off into Current research in evolutionary biology - when the section's ready, we can readd it, but it's nowhere near FA quality yet. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible Logical Fallacy

The article states:

Stephen Jay Gould explained that "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

Red Herring: "And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered." The above information is irrelevant as to wether we evolved from ape like ancestors or not. If you drop an apple it falls. This can be directly tested. We evolved from apes. This cannot be directly tested. Ergzay 01:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As the apple falls towards earth, the earth fall towards the apple. Try testing that. --Michael Johnson 02:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you directly test that the Earth is revolving around the sun? Or the age of the Earth for that matter? Past event can still be scientific facts, even though they cannot be directly tested: mass extinctions, human evolution from ape like ancestors, etc etc. A good example is dinosaurs. Today, we directly observe their skeletons and know for a fact that they lived in the past. The same applies for human evolution. Today, we directly observe the chimp/human skeletons, genomes, behavior, geographical distribution. fossils, etc etc and can determine for a fact that they evolved from a common ancestor. That fact can turn out to be false tomorrow, but so can any scientific fact. Tomorrow apples might start falling sideways. --Roland Deschain 02:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Tomorrow apples might start falling sideways." Well if you were to say this then you would also be saying that physical laws are not constant.

Do not get me wrong. I am not saying that we did or did not evolve from apes. I'm just saying that what he says in that quote is a logical fallacy. I propose removing the last two lines from that quote as they are not very relevant to the section. It makes it neutral and it also sticks closer to the topic of the section. Ergzay 02:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to my pertinent points (revolution around sun, age of Earth, dinosaurs) -- the quote you chose to pick was just a philosophical joke concerning the nature of scientific fact. Those are my relevant points as to why Gould is spot on as to what Theory and what Fact is (scientificly speaking). The last part is the most important part as it applies directly to this article. It differentiates what fact is (human evolution) and what theory is (theory of evolution). Plus, please states why you think the sentence is a logical fallacy.--Roland Deschain 02:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

All facts are known to greater or lesser degrees of certainty. We can't be 100 percent that the sun rose yesterday, but we can be so many dozens of decimal points close to certain that it is useless to dispute the fact. Gravity and evolution are ultra-high certainty facts. The theories of the mechanisms are very high certainty, not as high as the facts themselves, but they are several decimal points close to certainty. So, while there are some semantic quibbles that interest a few, practically speaking the facts and theory are used almost synonymously. Hu 08:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Lamarck

The short comment on Lamarck doesn't really explain what Lamarck thought and why he was wrong very well. How about moving the section on Mendel up, explaining Mendel's work was largely unknown throughout Darwin's life, THEN moving on to Darwin: A compare and contrast of Lamarck and Mendel will quickly explain both theories.Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we move Lamarck discussion to the History of evolutionary thought. We're trying to cut down on the size of this article.--Roland Deschain 19:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should mention Cope and Hyatt in the history article if it is not already entertained.GetAgrippa 12:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Roland about Lamarck, however it would be worthwhile to mention Neo-Lamarckism and epigenetic changes that support this modified Lamarckism.There is a significant body of literature supporting heritable epigenetic change.GetAgrippa 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've said probably a dozen times in response to this, there's no significant body of literature supporting epigenetic evolution. Until there is (if there ever is), "Neo-Lamarckism" is inappropriate, as is discussion of epigenetic inheritance on this page. Graft 22:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes you said it Graft, and the last time I mentioned a number of recent articles and books on the subject in plants, yeast, and mammals. You can't ignore a body of literature because of POV. "There is no significant body of literature" is false. Here is a recent review in plants:Epigenetics and its Implications for Plant Biology 2. The ‘Epigenetic Epiphany’: Epigenetics, Evolution and Beyond. R. T. GRANT-DOWNTON and H. G. DICKINSON. Annals of Botany. Ann. Bot., January 2006; 97: 11 - 27.GetAgrippa 17:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to indicate what, in that review, you think supports the idea of epigenetic evolution. Be clear on what I'm saying here: epigenetic systems can evolve, as the article points out, if the genes controlling them evolve. This is nothing novel; that epigenetic states are heritable does not suggest that epigenetics are responsible for the evolution of those states. Graft 20:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Graft I don't need to argue the merits of any published article. You stated their is no significant literature, which there is. You seem biased by POV and you obviously have not familiarized yourself with this literature. I am not posing one review article. As I said there is a significant literature to cite books and peer reviewed journals of heritable epigenetic change in mammals, yeast, and plants and the significance in evolution. That's it! I am not fond of the Neo-Lamarckism notion either, but it is a subject entertained in peer reviewed journals and a subject that maybe worth some mention. GetAgrippa 21:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well drop the Neo-Lamarckism angle and just mention epigenetic phenomena as another means to generate phenotypic variation. A fundamental notion of evolutionary biology has been that natural selection acts on phenotypes determined by DNA sequence variation within natural populations. It would be nice to mention epigenetic phenomena like methylation and siRNA's generate phenotypes without DNA sequence alteration, but altering existing gene networks. I noted methylation is mentioned in Heredity section. Hybridization is significant in plants and should be mentioned as another means to generate diversity.GetAgrippa 00:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, man, I'm not expressing any POV, here, I'm just saying that the literature you're citing doesn't say what you think it says. People who study epigenetics would obviously like to emphasize its importance everywhere, inclding in evolution, but that review does little to bolster the notion that epigenetics has any more importance for evolution than any other form of gene expression (and, to its credit, it's aware of those shortcomings). Yes, it's a heritable phenotype. It's still a phenotype; it still cannot evolve without the genotype changing. This is exactly like any other phenomenon. E.g.: let's consider some foxes that have red or white coats depending on the weather. Through no fault of their own, they're forced to migrate to a colder climate, where they only express white coats. There are very few red foxes now. Later on, things get better, and they can move back to a warm climate, where they all become red again. Phenotype changes, but the underlying genetics do not. This is not evolution. As to altering existing gene networks - why is this any different than, say, the MAP kinase cascade, heterochromatin formation, etc.? Graft 16:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Graft, What are you talking about? "It is not saying what I think it says." Where do you get that? Initially when I first brought the subject up you said there are no heritable epigenetic changes, now you say there is nothing novel in the article or the subject. I said nothing about epigenetic evolution, nor does the article. The article talks about possible contributions of epigenetics phenomena in biology and possible contributions to evolution, and makes reference to Neo-Lamarckism. Neo-Lamarckism doesn't posit classic Lamarckism but the growing evidence that epimutations are significant in biology and may have significance in evolution. This is true especially in plants like toadflax where epimutations results in flowers with radial rather than bilateral symmetry. In the mutant plant a gene is extensively methylated and thus not expressed--and this methylated state is heritable by subsequent generations of toadflax plants. I note you are a grad student and I had hoped you would figure out the intent of the article. It reminds me of the naive statement you made that it is generally accepted that dinosaurs are warm-blooded. I have made of number of positive suggestions to improve this article with little success. Like Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. I noted at a bookstore that every evolution text book mentioned it. The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is a unifying precept in population genetics, and population genetics is the backbone of modern evolutionary biology and any evolutionary hypothesis will probably remain in doubt until the hypothesis is expressed in the form of a population genetics model. I give up trying to guide the editors to improve this article. I have been asked to edit and improve the evodevo article , but after this experience I would rather chew my leg off. This article deals with side issues too much and does not cover the evolution subject in an organized manner. I have noted that a large number of scientist like Kim van der Linde have similaly given up contributing to evolution related topics. I am retiring from a long research and teaching career and now I retire from this effort. GetAgrippa 19:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"What determines phenotype is one of the most fundamental questions in biology. Historically, the search for answers had focused on genetic or environmental variants, but recent studies in epigenetics have revealed a third mechanism that can influence phenotypic outcomes, even in the absence of genetic or environmental heterogeneity. Even more surprisingly, some epigenetic variants, or epialleles, can be inherited by the offspring, indicating the existence of a mechanism for biological heredity that is not based on DNA sequence. Recent work from mouse models, human monozygotic twin studies, and large-scale epigenetic profiling suggests that epigenetically determined phenotypes and epigenetic inheritance are more common than previously appreciated."Epigenetic variation and inheritance in mammals.Rakyan VK, Beck S.Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2006 Sep 25.

"In plants, naturally occurring methylation of genes can affect the level of gene expression. Variation among individuals in the degree of methylation of a gene, termed epialleles, produces novel phenotypes that are heritable across generations. To date, ecologically important genes with methylated epialleles have been found to affect floral shape, vegetative and seed pigmentation, pathogen resistance and development in plants. Currently, the extent to which epiallelic variation is an important common contributor to phenotypic variation in natural plant populations and its fitness consequences are not known. Because epiallele phenotypes can have identical underlying DNA sequences, response to selection on these phenotypes is likely to differ from expectations based on traditional models of microevolution. Research is needed to understand the role of epialleles in natural plant populations. Recent advances in molecular genetic techniques could enable population biologists to screen for epiallelic variants within plant populations and disentangle epigenetic from more standard genetic sources of phenotypic variance, such as additive genetic variance, dominance variance, epistasis and maternal genetic effects."Epialleles via DNA methylation: consequences for plant evolution.Kalisz S, Purugganan MD.1: Trends Ecol Evol. 2004 Jun;19(6):309-14 After reading these two abstracts I would hope you could see the potential of epigenetic phenomena to participate in evolution. The subject is definitely useful for Current thinking article and should be developed more in Heredity in this article. GetAgrippa 21:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

GetAgrippa, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, here, and I hope you'll appreciate that. I'm genuinely expressing reservations about this subject because I don't think it merits serious discussion on this page. As you'll note above, I did NOT say that there is no evidence for epigenetic inheritance, I said there is no literature on epigenetic evolution. This is all I'm trying to say: epigenetics is cool, and yes, heritable, but epigenetics do not evolve except as a result of plain old genetic evolution. Why, then, should we give epigenetics a special discussion here? What is figurative about epigenetics, as opposed to any other sort of phenotypic variation?

Does anyone else want to weigh in on this? Graft 00:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As to Hardy-Weinberg, I'm not sure why it's taught so heavily, but believe me when I tell you that it is NOT a significant evolutionary principle. Actually, it's kind of a joke. It's a trivial mathematical fact. There's no reason for you to get upset because I said this; if you disagree, just convince me otherwise. I am amenable to reason. Graft 00:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading your comments, I am at a loss for words. I suggest you research and read the literature in drosophila, plants, yeast and mammals. Here is a paper about hybrid sterility, and a translocation of a gene on two different chromosomes allowing reproductive isolation without sequence evolution. Gene Transposition as a Cause of Hybrid Sterility in Drosophila .John P. Masly, Corbin D. Jones, Mohamed A. F. Noor, John Locke, H. Allen Orr1 Science 8 September 2006:Vol. 313. no. 5792, pp. 1448 – 1450. Further, epigenetic reprogramming often occurs during hybridizations. Hardy Weinberg is an idealized situation that is useful in population genetics. For example: Impact of Violations and Deviations in Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium on Postulated Gene-Disease Associations Thomas A. Trikalinos1, Georgia Salanti, Muin J. Khoury and John P. A. Ioannidis. American Journal of Epidemiology ,Volume 163, Number 4 Pp. 300-309 Environment-dependent admixture dynamics in a tiger salamander hybrid zone. Fitzpatrick BM, Shaffer HB. Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 2004 Jun;58(6):1282-93. It is not a joke!! GetAgrippa 02:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If transposition of a gene is not sequence evolution, what is it? I'm not sure what you mean to indicate here. I think Roland's suggestion below is a reasonable step.

As to Hardy-Weinberg, I'm not suggesting it's not useful. It is a staple of population genetics. But it tells us very little about evolution, for a few reasons: one, it's an extremely restrictive null hypothesis that is rarely applicable to real populations. Two, it operates on a much shorter time scale than evolutionary forces. Average time to fixation for a neutral polymorphism is 4N generations. Meanwhile, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium can be achieved in a single generation. Three, it is a statistically weak test, which requires large samples to show significant deviations. Meaning, HWE can tell us lots about population structure, assortative mating, etc. But it also disproves its own utility with regards to selection: variation that's severe enough to produce strong phenotypes, enough to produce significant deviations from HWE, will be rare, meaning that most of it will exist not in homozygotes but in carriers, and thus we would see no devitations from HWE anyway. I'm not opposed to a discussion of Hardy-Weinberg, as it's definitely fundamental to population genetics. But as a null hypothesis for evolution, it's a pretty poor one. Graft 18:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Graft thanks for your POV, which is what your stating. Maybe you should write Science and make your semantic argument with the authors of the paper, reviewers, and editors. Note an editors comments. “”Hybrid sterility has been well studied for more than a century by many prominent scientists, including Darwin, but the molecular underpinnings have remained unidentified. Masly et al. (p. 1448) have identified a gene involved in sperm motility, JYAlpha, responsible for F2 hybrid sterility resulting from crosses of Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans. During speciation gene translocation had placed the gene on two different chromosomes, leading to sterile F2 males lacking any copies of the gene. Thus, reproductive isolation can occur without sequence evolution.” Your comments on H-W is opinion also. Not saying there is not merit to your opinions, but remember NPOV.GetAgrippa 13:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what NPOV has to do with anything. We're trying to decide what belongs in the article and how it should be written. If my opinion isn't relevant, neither is anyone else's, and the article cannot be written.

Regarding the paper in question, the editors seem to be using an idiosyncratic definition of "sequence evolution", maybe restricting it to substitutions. I can't really be sure, since they don't clarify. However, the point still stands: this is obviously a genetic change, not an epigenetic one. Graft 18:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel like we're just arguing endlessly, here, instead of trying to arrive at some conclusion. Do you have an idea of what you want included? I think this would form a better basis for discussion. Graft 18:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Epigenetic mechanisms are a part of evolution and therefore should be covered in this article. That point is not in question. Epigenetic mechanism produce phenotypic variation that can be selected for, which is evolution. However, the amount of research that has been done on epigentics as it relates to evolution is rather small (compared to other mechanisms of evolution). So yes, have a sentance or two (even a well placed paragraph is somebody feels like doing all the research), but keep it simple and to the point.--Roland Deschain 18:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Trying to promote a solution. Graft, you ask what NPOV has to do with it. Let me suggest an anwswer. When you write, "As to Hardy-Weinberg, I'm not sure why it's taught so heavily, but believe me when I tell you that it is NOT a significant evolutionary principle" you are clearly expressing your own point of view. I think GetAgrippa is saying that here and elsewhere - specifically, your interpretation of the epigenetic arguments - is your point of view. We encourage editors to look for verifiable sources and GetAgrippa has provided several. With all do respect, it sounds to me like you are not taking GetAgrippa on good faith. He is clearly an expert on this topic, but he is not pushing his own views, only ones expressed in published sources. When you write " As you'll note above, I did NOT say that there is no evidence for epigenetic inheritance, I said there is no literature on epigenetic evolution. This is all I'm trying to say: epigenetics is cool, and yes, heritable, but epigenetics do not evolve except as a result of plain old genetic evolution" I have to ask again: is this you rown point of view? Is this the restul fo your own original research (i.e. are you providing your own synthesis or interpretation of published sources)? if so, you know that this cannot dictate what goes into the article. As far as I can tell, GetAgrippa only wants to add to the article the claim that there are "possible contributions of epigenetics phenomena in biology and possible contributions to evolution, and makes reference to Neo-Lamarckism" and he has provided verifiable sources. It seems to me that GetAgrippa is complying rigorously with our policies, and I do not understand your objections. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein's synopsis of the issue here, and his take on how to resolve it. When simple discussion does not resolve disputes, by strictly applying WP:NPOV and WP:NOR most disputes just evaporate. Though I'm not a subject matter expert like Graft or GetAgrippa both are (as is Slrubenstein), it seems GetAgrippa has properly sourced content that is relevent while Graft has a valid point as well. Considering the sheer amount of brains on this page surely a compromise solution that can be reached if we all take a step back and look at the page from the perspective of making a complete, informative and concise article. FeloniousMonk 16:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, GetAgrippa is properly citing reasonable sources, and Graft is protesting the contents of those sources using original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

POV Issue - I know it's painful but....

Okay, yes, I am a creationist. But that doesn't mean I can't think objectively about this article and it doesn't mean I can't conform to WP policy.

I have a POV issue with part of the very first paragraph:

"All contemporary organisms are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record.[2][3]"

Science considers the process of evolution (descent with modification, speciation, etc.) to be a valid part of natural science. It is - the process of evolution could be observed, measured, quantified, etc. in a controlled setting. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss whether the conjectures made by the majority of scientists regarding the observations of natural selection, mutations, and descent with modification are correct. Obviously, I personally have not seen any evidence that any natural process can increase information in the genome (neither has Richard Dawkins, for that matter) but since the majority of science believes that such a natural process does exist somewhere out there I do not want to make an issue out of that here.

However, the statements that I take issue with above move beyond the realm of quantifiable, observable science into a set of conjectures regarding the past. And, I might add, they are a highly disputed set of conjectures that millions of dollars are being spent to counteract. Even if the process of evolution could take place, the statement that "evolution is the source for the diversity of life" reflects an extreme POV in violation of WP:NPOV. This is a historical statement that could never be substantiated - similar to stating affirmatively that "all Native Americans at the time of Columbus had reached the American continent by travel over the Bering Strait during the second century C.E.". This may be close to the truth, but it is a violation of, specifically, the undue weight policy and would not be part of Wikipedia.

WP policy demands that the statements referenced above be changed so as to reflect that they are not facts, but the conjectures reached by the majority of credible science. I would suggest "All contemporary organisms are thought to be related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus the apparent source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record.[2][3]" Unless someone can demonstrate why the statement that "evolution is responsible for all life" is a fact and not an opinion based on NPOV's Simple Formulation, this must be changed. Thank you! I look forward to objective dialogue on this subject without the need to resort to a question of personal bias. standonbible 15:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A similar argument could be made for adding such modifiers to the article on gravity. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss whether the conjectures made by the majority of scientists regarding the observations of falling objects and attractions between them are correct. Nevertheless, we assume such conjectures are correct, as per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Quote: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority)."

My point is that when an overwhelming number of relevant scientists takes a certain position, we write scientific articles chiefly from their point of view. -- Ec5618 15:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The statements are properly cited and I don't see any need to add weasel words. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 15:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Doc Tropics, if you can give an example of weasel words that have been used I would appreciate it! :-). standonbible 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ec5618, WP:NPOV#Undue weight only discusses how detailed a description one need give to dissenting views. It says nothing about the point where one can drop attribution and just declare something to be true due to its overwhelming scientific consensus. That is, it permits one to write an extensive, detailed article on what mainstream scientists believe while writing very little about what a minority of Creationists believe, but you still have to frame everything in terms of what either party believes without declaring one to be correct. What policy exists that allows an article to simply say "X is true" as apposed to "virtually everyone says X is true" when support for X passes a certain threshold? When does attributing a source for a view become less NPOV than simply declaring the view as objective fact? -- Schaefer (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ec5618, unfortunately you are missing a critical distinction. I am not pushing for a change of "Evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes." If I asked to change this, it would be the equivalent of asking to add "such modifiers to the article on gravity". Both gravity and evolution are natural processes that can be measured and don't need to be conditionalized with "most scientists believe" statements. However, the statement that "evolution is the source for all life" is not observable science like the theory of gravity - it is a conjecture about the past. You would not put the statement "all landslides that occurred between the fourth century B.C.E. and the second century C.E. were the sole result of random gravitational forces" because it is an unprovable (and un-disprovable) conjecture about the past. You might say "most historians/geologists believe that all landslides that occurred...." etc. because this conforms to WP: A Simple Formulation, which states "Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone." Just like the landslide example, all historical statements beyond a certain point are opinions. I favor attributing the opinion that evolution is responsible for all life to science and scientific thought in general by using something like "the apparent source". If you have a better way of complying with WP:NPOV I'd like to see it. standonbible 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the word 'most' in "most historians/geologists believe that all landslides that occurred...." is a weasel word. Such wording does not conform to WP: A Simple Formulation, because the opinion is not attributed to anyone.

Secondly, I'm certain the article doesn't state that evolution is the source of life, as the Theory of evolution only deals with events that happened since the start of life. That evolution is responsible for all life is conjecture and opinion, and outside the realm of evolutionary theory. However, the Theory of evolution doesn't just deal with what is going to happen and what we observe to be happening now, just as the Theory of gravity doesn't apply only to current objects. The Theory of evolution allows us to extrapolate past events, just as the Theory of gravity allows us to extrapolate that the Moon was once closer to the Earth. Now, you're right in saying that these past events are not proven, and cannot be observed, but again, we cannot specify in every single article that past events cannot be observed and should therefor be taken with a grain of salt. -- Ec5618 16:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Most believe...", "are thought to be...", the apparent source..." are all weasel words. This article is not about beliefs, it is about science, and it clearly conforms to scientific standards. Wishful thinking and wiki-lawyering aren't going to change that. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You write "Obviously, I personally have not seen any evidence that any natural process can increase information in the genome (neither has Richard Dawkins, for that matter)". You seem to have missed gene duplication and polyploidy. What makes you think Dawkins has missed these too? David D. (Talk) 18:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Obviously, I personally have not seen any evidence that any natural process can increase information in the genome (neither has Richard Dawkins, for that matter)". You are misguided in this account. Evolution theory has a perfectly valid mechanism that has been observed and tested in the laboratory. See Gene duplication for a brief intro and a Science article on that topic.--Roland Deschain 18:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you guys are missing the point, which is not whether or not evolution can be produced in a laboratory (which requires intelligence) but whether or not all life is the result of evolution. How can Standonbible make this any clearer?! I'm aware of all of the examples you listed but none of them--I repeat, none of them--is proof of evolution, it only supports intelligent design. After all, it was produced in a laboratory, right? BugEyedMonster 15:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it say "evolution is the source of all life". It says "Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth", a fact which has been verified by observation of the fossil record and genomes. thx1138 16:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There might have been a different way to evolve in the past which was traded in for evolution as observed nowadays at a later date, as science fiction tends to show, mankind sucks at imagining the unknown. There are also theories about space born organisms spreading life through the universe. A concession to the disputed text would be an improvement because it's far from as solid a fact as that the earth is round. --Zero g 17:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Science fiction is just that. Fiction. (Also, the argument that all life today is descended from a common ancestor does not rely on any particular account of where that ancestor came from e.g. a meteorite or something else). Anyway, Ec5618 was right, up top. The only issue here is whether the language provides a precise enough account of the scientific consensus, and I think it does. Let's move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Slrubenstein. This horse is dead, continuing to beat it is non-productive. Let's move on. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree as well. FeloniousMonk 18:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that evolution is solidly, absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt proven, and that anyone who doesn't think so must be a cheese-head? That's not science; that's bullheadedness, which is what most people here at Wikipedia seem to be very good at. BugEyedMonster 04:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, just the other day I was standing in front of a vat of chemicals. Suddenly, lightning struck the vat and a minute later out came the Man-Thing! He shook hands with me and said he knew everything because the current had caused his brain cells to form in just such a matter. Now ain't that amazing? BugEyedMonster 04:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, what we are saying is is that as far the scientific community is concerned "evolution is solidly, absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt proven, and that anyone who doesn't think so must be a cheese-head"(to use your phrasing). In fact in science there is always some doubt. Proof is only for math and alchohol but evolution is about as close to proven as stuff in science can get. JoshuaZ 04:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein that this is non-productive. A constant edit battle with vandals and creationist POV is distracting from the task of improving this science article. Not that I don't respect other's opinions, but this is not an appropriate forum for non-science issues. Further, the article clearly states that this article is not a forum for this issue. Perphaps a Creationist-Evolution Forum Article could be created to detour the activity to a distinct article on Wikipedia. Let everybody have their say, but leave this article to evolve in a productive manner.GetAgrippa 05:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I will be working on this - I am develping a reply. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if you guys would refrain from insinuating that I am a vandal or moving the discussion. standonbible 11:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Standonbible I was not referring to you as a vandal, but your comments are an POV issue. I am referring to the countless predecessors of POV and vandals. Creationism nor I.D. have generated arguments considered as valid scientific thought. This view was held by the judge in the Dover case who should be considered an impartial reviewer, at least in legal terms. Further, the vast majority of scientists (some devout Christians) have either refuted and/or take issue with these arguments. Most faiths, including most Christians, have no problems with evolution (most consider faith and science separate domains). No disrespect, but I don't think you could generate any discussion that has not been addressed ad nauseam. Even as a point of view, you have to argue with peoples of faiths and scientists, so it is clearly a POV issue. Look through the Archives and you will see what I mean. GetAgrippa 13:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the support from Zero G and BugEye but I hasten to point out that I am not trying to argue about the process of evolution here. I mentioned in passing that there isn't any process that can be seen to increase the functional information content of the genome, and of course when you touch the sacred cow of beneficial mutation speculation there are bound to be repercussions - as demonstrated by David D. and Roland's comments. Whether evolution takes place under observable conditions (i.e. real repeatable science) is not the issue here. The issue is whether the blanket statement "Evolution is responsible for the diversity of life that we see today" conforms to NPOV standards.

I do not appreciate Doc Tropics' accusation of WikiLawyering. If he would like to visit that page and find where my concerns qualify as such I would be happy to see them, but until then he really ought to assume good faith and accept that I do have valid NPOV concerns about this page.

You should not bring up the topic of weasel words unless you think that an opinion has been converted to a fact by the use of weasel words. The statement "Many individuals believe that the New York Yankees are the best baseball team" obviously uses weasel words to turn a biased opinion (the NY Yankees are the best) into a statement of fact without citing sources. It doesn't help your case (that the statement "evolution is responsible for the diversity of life" is not POV) to say that the statement "Evolution appears to be responsible for the diversity" uses weasel words. Weasel words make an unverifiable, biased statement appear to be O.K. by adding ad populum arguments to support the position (see the Avoid weasel words article for futher confirmation of this). Since you aren't arguing that "evolution is the source of all diversity of life" is a POV statement, avoid spouting "weasel words! weasel words!" at the first opportunity. This situation obviously falls under one or all of the exceptions to the AWW rule:

• When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion. For example, "In the Middle Ages, most people believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth".
• When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify. For example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats".
• When contrasting a minority opinion. For example, "Although Brahms' work is part of the classical music canon, Benjamin Britten has questioned its value". Brahms's importance is almost, but not quite, an undisputed fact; it is not necessary to source the majority opinion when describing the minority one.

Here's the issue: even though the statement "Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record" would be regarded as fact by the majority of the scientific community, it is hotly disputed by a significant scientific minority and by the majority of the general population in the United States and worldwide. Further, it is an unverifiable statement about remote history (no, it has not been "verified by observation of the fossil record and the genome", thx; even secular science admits that genetic and operational homology does not prove a common ancestor - only a common environment). Its inclusion as-is violates NPOV and changing it to "Evolution thus appears to be the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record" would not violate any WP policies.

As we continue to come to a consensus on this talk page, I would like to politely request that other editors address only the statements I have made and not get bogged down by trying to debate whether evolution happens today. That goes for both sides. Looking forward to resolving this WP policy conflict - standonbible 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything in the article is perfectly referenced. The passage "all organisms are the result of evolution", which you complain about, does not even appear in the article. If you feel anything is inadequately referenced, please add "{{cite needed}}" after the punctuation mark following the unreferenced statement. Evolution is a biological concept, hence the biological view is given here. There is a series of separate articles on creation. Kind regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Samsara, thanks for your comment. I am fully aware that the passage "all organisms are the result of evolution" does not appear in the article; rather I am concerned that the statement "Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record" violates WP:NPOV by stating a disputed opinion about the past as a fact. Also understand that I know evolution is a "biological concept" but the statement that it is responsible for life forms today is an opinion concerning natural history. Biology can analyze, measure, and predict natural selection, gene duplication, and speciation - that's science. The NPOV statement I am taking issue with is not science; it is an opinion about what might have happened in the past. standonbible 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

standonbible wrote "I mentioned in passing that there isn't any process that can be seen to increase the functional information content of the genome, and of course when you touch the sacred cow of beneficial mutation speculation there are bound to be repercussions - as demonstrated by David D. and Roland's comments. " Huh? All i did was mention two possible mechanisms to increase information. I'm not defending a sacred cow, I'm informing you of known examples based on your statement that "I personally have not seen any evidence that any natural process can increase information in the genome ". Now I'm confused, are you saying you knew about polyploidy and gene duplication, but discount it? David D. (Talk) 16:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said before, I do not want to get bogged down in debating this here. This page exists to discuss possible changes to or issues in the Evolution article. If you would like to ask me that question on my talk page, I would be happy to discuss it. :-) standonbible 22:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Further, the sentence you have a problem with,, namely "Evolution is responsible for the diversity of life that we see today" do you have a proposal to improve this sentence? David D. (Talk) 16:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do - if you read what I stated above you will see that I suggested "Evolution thus appears to be the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record." standonbible 22:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You suggested:

"All contemporary organisms are thought to be related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus the apparent source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record.[2][3]"

Sorry, I missed it first time through. After you started trying to question evolution with incorrect statements, I read no further. You need to be careful to stay on topic otherwise, especially with your username, people skip over your contributions. I see your point here but the wording above could be better (use of "apparent" does not sound right). I'll think about it. David D. (Talk) 22:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"especially with your username, people skip over your contributions." Yes, this faith-based discrimination really is annoying, isn't it? (I'm not talking about you necessarily, but "people" in general just like you said.) standonbible 00:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If anything, a username such as standonbible is going to be taken as serious as a username such as satankilleddisco. Take from that what you wish, but let's try to remain on topic. -- Ec5618 00:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately you have been preceeded by many trolling faith based uernames. The consequence is once burnt twice shy. But now you seem to have everyones attention so a serious discussion can break out. And has. David D. (Talk) 04:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Here's the issue: even though the statement "Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record" would be regarded as fact by the majority of the scientific community, it is hotly disputed by a significant scientific minority and by the majority of the general population in the United States and worldwide. Further, it is an unverifiable statement about remote history (no, it has not been "verified by observation of the fossil record and the genome", thx; even secular science admits that genetic and operational homology does not prove a common ancestor - only a common environment)."

I really object to this statement. Who is this significant scientific minority; the closest thing I am familiar with is Intelligent Design, but that is definitely not scientific. Can you provide us the scientific publications of this minority. "even secular science admits that genetic and operational homology does not prove a common ancestor". This is false. Can you actually cite any scientist (in a scientifically peer reviewed journal) that actually makes this claim. I can provide you with a lot of scientific literature that exactly argues the opposite of your statement. Genetic homology gives evidence for the common ancestor. A common environment will produce convergent evolution, which can easily be differentiated by genetic analysis from homologous evolution. For scientific reviews arguing for a universal common ancestor [1], [2], and [3]. Now a lot of open question remain, but the concept of a universal common ancestor (to my best knowledge) is not refuted within the scientific community.--Roland Deschain 19:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If I could make a comment here on one part of this, if he's proposing "even secular science admits that genetic and operational homology does not prove a common ancestor", then scientific reviews arguing that it provides strong evidence don't necessarily say that genetic and operational homology proves it. Homestarmy 20:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Using the word prove can lead to difficulties. I cited those three papers to show scientific articles that argue for the existence of a universal ancestor using genetics and biochemistry. I hope that is clear enough.--Roland Deschain 20:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this list qualify as a scientific minority? I freely admit that there are several pseudoscience organizations that Wikipedians have listed here but surely Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research, that have thousands of PhD scientists in the field of biology, astronomy, geology, anthropology, etc., would qualify under your personal definition of "scientific minority". I'll post more on this later. standonbible 22:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I said that "even secular science admits...." because I have had secular evolutionist scientists admit that to me - I did not really say that for support of the statment but just as a way of stating that statement. Junk DNA analysis does not show any difference between what evolutionists label as homology and what they label as convergent evolution. The only reason that any distinction is made is because a recent common ancestor for one particular pair of creatures fails to fit within their predetermined frame of reference (they've already determined "who decended from whom").::I hate to get into a deep discussion here, but since you insist - I read the three articles you cited. Even from the abstract it is easy to see that the researchers aren't trying to reverse-engineer evolution to find out new information - rather they start by assuming that there was a common ancestor so they pick and choose from different organisms to see what the minimum genetic material necessary for life is. If you suppress the assumption that the disputed statement in this article is already true, you realize that the things that "strongly support it" just happen to be able to be squeezed into the predetermined mold. It's like arguing that "since many earthquakes trigger landslides that trigger more landslides ad infinitum, it is obvious that all landslides started from the same earthquake and have triggered each other since then. How do we know this? Most landslides look very similar except for the color of the dirt/rock and they occur under similar circumstances." If you assume that all landslides had a common source, then the homology of landslide results is good evidence! If you suppress this assumption for just a moment, such evidence is obviously flawed.

I am not asking for much here. Since no hard evidence exists (and, in fact, no hard evidence can exist because we're dealing with past events) to confirm that evolution is the source of the vast diversity of life on earth, we should at least say "evolution thus appears to be" in order to conform with NPOV. Unless you can explain why the statement "Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on earth...." is a fact and not a disputed opinion, it must be stated as a fact "i.e. appears to be" in order to conform with WP policy. standonbible 23:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read the articles, then you would see that the data fits the hypothesis that there is a common universal ancestor. That is science. You make a hypothesis and you test it. Again, I have provided scientific journals that argue for the universal common ancestor. It is not for wikipedia editors to argue about scientific valiity, but rather just to provide verifiable sources. Please provide a scientific paper that argues against a common ancestor and we will have something to talk about. You do not have anything to stand on as long as you just argue from your opinion (Wikipedia:No original research). So start providing sources to support your assertions, as this article is choke full of sources that support exactly what it says.--Roland Deschain 00:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not view that this list as a scientific minority. They have not published any journals in any reputable scientific journal. You can have three PhDs in biology, but as long as you do not publish your findings in scientific journals, you are not doing science that can be evaluated by your peers and by us at Wikipedia (ie: anybody can publish cute fining on the web or on non-peer review prints). There are so many journals out there that anybody with even the weakest results can publish. So rather than degrading this into an argument about scientific credentials and what is a scientific minority (which doesn't matter at all), just provide us scientific articles that support your claim. Keep in mind that none of the articles you provide should mirror those arguments made by Intelligent Design as they have been discredited (see the pertinent article): such as arguments from design, false dichotomy, irreducible complexity, information (which you already brought up unsuccessfully). I would have to argue that your scientific minority is not scientific at all, but that does not add anything to either point in this arguement. Rather, just start posting scientific findings that support your view point (as this is a scientific topic).--Roland Deschain 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You state "There are so many journals out there that anybody with even the weakest results can publish." Not true; a friend of mine, Dr. Jason Lisle, a PhD astrophysicist, was barred from publishing even non-controversial research to get his PhD because he had published other creation-related research in a creationist publication. He had to re-do his research and publish under a different name in order to get the PhD. Don't make unfounded assumptions like that. Considering the trouble I am getting just for trying to change "is" to "appears to be" here on WP, it is no surprise that secular journals won't allow any research that casts doubt on evolution. [[4]] what happened when a secular evolutionist tried to publish a peer-reviewed, non-religious document that questioned Darwin. standonbible 00:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As regards what constitutes a "scientific minority", I think it might do to get a little perspective from Project Steve. If you can present a list of similar length (and scientific prestige) then I think that might be sufficient as a "scientific minority". siafu 00:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

POV part II

What about: "Evolution is thus the only known source of the vast diversity of life on Earth". There could be other sources that might pop up in the future, but at this point in time, evolution is the only explanation we have. I still find it a deeply unwarranted concession ("Gravity is thus the only known reason that apples fall to the ground"), but I'll leave it up for others to discuss.--Roland Deschain 23:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The addition I propose above is not wrong, but it is redundant.--Roland Deschain 23:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Is it relevant? I would imagine that those who desire to discredit evolution, even if merely by sullying it, would deem it relevant, but from a scientific point of view, it is relevant? Do we honestly have to explain the baser concepts of science in every article? -- Ec5618 00:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds fair to me. I am pretty sure that fixes the POV problem. It is not like saying "Gravity is the only known reason that apples fall to the ground" because it's dealing with past facts. It's more like saying "meteorites are the only known source of circular holes in the ground" but at least it conforms with WP policy. standonbible 00:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It is still like gravity. When we assume that gravity was the only thing keeping the dinosaurs from being flung into space, we dare to presume that no other force acted back then. For all we know, the force of gravity has been gradually increasing, while another heretofore unthought of force decreased. Why assume? -- Ec5618 00:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

it is exactly like saying "gravity is..." I take it this is actually a serious suggestion??? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot defend this change. Also, negative arguments have already been made by me (redundant) and by Ec5618 (why not make the same change in every scientific topic).--Roland Deschain 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Gravity is actually an unexplained phenomenon, so the statement could be taken serious as there might be various forces involved in what is generally refered to as gravity. Given that sci-fi writers can't even properly predict what will happen in 20 years it's a bit over confident to determine what happened in the past 4 billion years with such certainty.

Of importance as well, it's unlikely that life on earth started out with genes, DNA, sexual organs, etc, which raises the question if evolution is used as an all encompasing term, or as the introduction suggests, as a rather narrowly defined concept. If the intro is correct the statement becomes questionable and could be improved, since it gives the impression that evolution explains why life on earth evolved and developed the abilities that made evolution possible, which it doesn't. --Zero g 00:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing Evolution with Origins of life - a different topic. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Home below) What KC says and also note that its much easier to figure out what has already happened than what will happen and in any event a very different matter between biological behavior and scifi issues. Nor for that matter does most scifi even try to actually predict things. Anyways, this is all WP:OR and a bit off-topic. JoshuaZ 00:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously comparing sci-fi to origin science is slightly humorous, but considering that science can tell us more about the future than the past....

Since you seem to like gravity, I'll adapt: it is more like saying "When water seeps into cracks in rock and freezes, it expands, breaking the rock. This is the cause of all landslides that have occurred in the past three thousand years in regions that freeze. standonbible 00:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I gotta say, i'm not entirely certain how this is a concession, since it implicitly indicates that creationism or anything like creationism is not only false, but doesn't actually exist. Why would a creationist or someone else opposed to evolutionary theory support this? (well, besides standonbible apparently) Homestarmy 00:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

At least it conforms to WP policy. standonbible 00:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it gives the impression that tomorrow a new explanation for life might be found. This principle of all theories being fallible is a universal concept of science and I distaste having to include it in evolution and not in all other scientific articles (where it applies equally if not more so, as evolution is one of the most supported theories we have. To quote Daniel Dennett: "Evolution is about as well established as the fact that water is H₂0")--Roland Deschain 00:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As most editors have already said, standonbible, if you can implement the change in other major scientific topics, then we will gladly put in the change here. At this point, this article should be treated no differently than all the other scientific articles. (Meaning, we don't have to second guess every assertion just because of unknown discoveries in the future).--Roland Deschain 00:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

KC said, "You're confusing Evolution with Origins of life - a different topic." Actually, ZeroG had a good point - that the current statement, as-is, gives the impression that the article discusses the origins of life. standonbible 00:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

(To Roland) But by saying Evolution is the only explanation, it implies Creationism (or other alternate things) isn't one. I think there's a difference between saying an explanation is wrong and saying that it doesn't even exist :/. Homestarmy 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Roland Deschain; the proposed change, while doubtless well-intended, is an unwarranted concession. The original version is technically correct, and adding unnecassary qualifiers will simply obfuscate that. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, Roland. The difference here is that this article is about the biological process of evolution but this unsourced, unverifiable statement is made that deals with natural history, not science. If it is so obvious, why don't you omit the statement altogether? We aren't dealing with the observable, testable, repeatable theory of macroevolution. We are dealing with an opinion about the past. Big difference. Again, compare to my example "When water seeps into cracks in rock and freezes, it expands, breaking the rock. This is the cause of all landslides that have occurred in the past three thousand years in regions that freeze and thaw periodically." standonbible 00:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Then you have to go to the Gravity page and state that we could not observe gravity before humans were around. . . therefore any argument that uses gravity for past events (planet formation, eclipses, etc) needs to be rewritten. I see your point, but it applies to all of science. At this point in time all the evidence that we can find points towards a universal common ancestor. If you can find scientific finding that contradict that, then we can talk further.

You are deeply opposed to the principle of Uniformitarianism (science) (it seems). If you reject that principle, then most of the conclusions in this article need to be rewritten. However, so then must all other scientific articles (and we are talking huge rewrites). --Roland Deschain 00:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether I am "deeply opposed to" the Uniformitarian assumption (incidentally I am not). Nor does it matter whether we could observe gravity before humans were around. The fact is that a opinion rejected by the majority of the population (albeit accepted by the majority of the scientific community) is stated as a fact in clear violation of NPOV.standonbible 01:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, about half the people in the US don't accept evolution (less than half according to some studies) and outside the US the numbers accepting evolution increases dramatically. Furthermore, what the lay public thinks isn't always relevant- for example a substantial fraction of the US population thinks that the sun revolves around the earth- we don't need to give this much weight since it comes from simply ignorance. The bottom line is that NPOV doesn't require this and even if NPOV did require something when the majority of the lay pop thought something it wouldn't apply in this case since most people don't think that. JoshuaZ 01:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't being US-centric. I was thinking on a worldwide scale - outside of the US, Europe, and China evolutionist views are vastly in the minority. Of course, that really doesn't matter. As far as geocentricism is concerned - we can say "the earth revolves around the sun" because we can look at it and it does! To paraphrase the oft-ridiculed question asked by Ken Ham, "Did you look at evolution happening?" standonbible 01:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if that were true in general and would want to see a citation (not to AiG or something similar but a real citation). And in any event, your personal epistemological distinction between whether or not we can "see" something is not relevant to Wiki policy. JoshuaZ 01:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It is hardly an opinion. As science stands at this time, it *is* the only accepted answer. Unless you can give an example of variety NOT arising through evolution (in a suitably broad definition to include genetic drift, artificial selection, and such) I don't see why we should change it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

See below. standonbible 01:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Although a previous attempt to move this discussion off of the article's talkpage was unsuccessful, I believe the topic has now been adequately addressed. There is simply no consensus to change the current wording, nor will there be, absent some astonishing new evidence. I suggest moving both of these sections into the archives. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Second that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone address this query? We know that water freezing can crack rocks, causing landslides. Such landslides always occur under the same conditions - rapid temperature fluctuation with running water and steep inclines. But no matter how much evidence we have that water can indeed crack rocks and cause landslides, the statement that "All landslides that have taken place in areas with rapid temperature fluctuation with running water and steep inclines were caused by freezing water in rocks" is still an opinion about the past - even if you haven't seen other ways of causing a landslide in those conditions actually happen. Do you see the parallel here? standonbible 01:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why. standonbible 01:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the old MFF (Multi Fruit Fallacy), more commonly known as apples and oranges. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How.standonbible 01:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hasty generalization... False dilemma, in fact read all the Correlative-based fallacies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I read'em. standonbible 02:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A better analogy you might try to pursue is how astronomers can claim that gravity is the only reason for initial star formation? All stars currently forming are too far away for any gravitational readings to be taken and the closest star has already formed. Furthermore, how can astronomers say that our own sun was formed through gravity even though no living thing on Earth could have observed it. I can make similar analogies for every field of science (how can you claim water is H₂O if nobody has ever observed water atoms.--Roland Deschain 01:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't believe that all stars formed via gravity. And we can test H₂O. What was wrong with that generalization analogy?standonbible 01:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Standonbible you have mentioned a number of naive statements with no citations to support your contention. Others have pointed out the vast literature that refutes these statements. I understand your concerns, but I don't see how this will improve this encyclopedia article. It is like Rick Warren says (if I can borrow his words in a different context) " It is not about us", nor our opinions but it is about an effort to create a concise informative encyclopedia article. Besides you know the "Truth" which should suffice. This article does not need to cloud or confuse the issue.GetAgrippa 02:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Natural history is science. I don't know where you get this idea that science can't tell us anything about the past. Geology, astronomy, paleantology, even criminal forensics are all scientific disciplines that can give us accurate information about what happened in the past. thx1138 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys! Even the stupidest scientist knows that you cannot use words like "all" and "never" in science! It's exactly like saying, "Every war involves people shooting each other." Now, anyone who's smart knows that isn't true; I mean, look at the Cold War. Likewise you can't say that evolution is the only source of the vast diversity of life on earth. Ratso 22:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

POV part III

I want everyone to understand that I am not under any circumstances asking for a concession to a creationist POV here. Rather I am trying to fix an obvious POV statement. After rereading some WP policy and looking over y'all's arguments, I have come up with a compromise that should satisfy everbody (and prove that I'm not just out trying to get a creation concession). The easiest way to solve a POV is to cite it, so why don't we use one or more of the peer-reviewed articles provided by Roland? Then readers can see the actual research that is done without any POV factored into the article. Here's my proposed compromise:

"Evolution is thus believed to be the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record."

That text looks like this:

"Evolution is thus believed to be the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many [[extinction|extinct]] species attested to in the [[fossil record]]."<ref name=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15035042&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum>[[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15035042&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum]]</ref><ref name=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=14700546&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum>[[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=14700546&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum]]</ref>Citing is always better than using what appear to be weasel words or stating an opinion as a fact. So in short I propose citing peer-reviewed scientific articles (oh, and replacing the first two book cites with those cites) in support of a universal common ancestor to make this statement comply with NPOV. Am I still trying to cloud or confuse the issue (to use GetAgrippa's words)? standonbible 13:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You changed the sentence again. The change can be opposed on the same grounds as your other proposed changes (see the lengthy above discussion) (gravity is believed to have held the dinosaurs to the ground, water is believed to have been drunk by human ancestors , etc etc).--Roland Deschain 13:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why don't you want this statement to be cited? I'm trying to show the evolutionist's viewpoint, for crying out loud! standonbible 13:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, go ahead and cite it. But the current sentence reads:

• "Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record."

Your version is:

• "Evolution is thus believed to be the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record."

So it's the change to the sentence I object to, not the citation.--Roland Deschain 14:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't really cite a statement of fact. Is this appropriate language?

"Evolution thus is given credit for the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record."

That way it is obvious to the readers why it is given that credit based on the citations. Citing a fact means nothing.

And please don't bring gravity up again. That line is getting very old. standonbible 14:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, citing is fine (I can find better citations than those above), but changing the sentence is not (as all the above consensus clearly shows). I will bring up gravity every time as it goes to the heart of why your argument does not work exclusively for evolution (another argument can be used to show why your line of attack does not work for science in general). I think you can see that almost everybody here disagrees with your proposed changes (see the previous discussion). The reasons given are more than good enough for me (ie: you have not to this date provided a single source that actually invalidates this sentence) and all philosophical/allegorical (landslide) arguments that you have brought up have been objected to on many grounds. I advice you to give up on this line of attack (you have no support here) and go up to the next level for Wikipedia disagreements Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.--Roland Deschain 15:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What's getting old is the ideological ax grinding going on here. I've provided a cite, but please don't think that peppering the article with fact tags is a contribution that improves the article. Repetitive, baseless objections to details not central to the topic earn editors a place on the "ignore/crank" list, not their pet viewpoint a higher prominence in the article. FeloniousMonk 16:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't mind fac tags so much. I mean, it's not like we have anything uncitable, and if he finds a statement awkward, ohers might as well. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen them misused too many times to discredit content/poison the well. Let's keep in mind that this is a former FA, so it's already cleared the highest NPOV scrutiny the project applies. Meaning that these NPOV objections are suspect. Their misuse destabilizes perfectly fine articles. Number five of Raul654's laws of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654/Raul%27s_laws) is that articles which have achieved a strong consensus as being neutral are prime targets for new partisans. While these partisans are being taught the importance of actual NPOV, original research and verifiability, the articles look like a shambles and often remain pockmarked by the attempts to accomodate fringe views.

While I have no immediate solution for this problem, this is important issue that will need to be addressed. It is certainly a massive waste of time for long-term dedicated contributors to be chasing down cites for widely accepted facts for partisans who think their viewpoint really warrants greater mention, or that a featured article is {{totallydisputed}}. This process does not bring quality to encyclopedia articles, it brings mayhem. And the dispute resolution process is not geared for dealing with it. For one thing, if we were to RFC every difficult POV-pusher (let alone RFM or RFA), there would be no more time left to actually work constructively on articles. Is this what we want? FeloniousMonk 16:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Since when is science not able to make predictions about natural history? This is a science article and presents the scientific consensus that evolutionary processes result in the diversification of life on Earth. This is known because of science. To state that science cannot study natural history is seriously missing the point. JPotter 18:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Evolution is thus believed to be the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record." Adding "believed to be" makes the sentence fall out of the realm of science and into the realm of POV. You would be hard pressed to get that statement published in any scientific journal. Evolution is not about belief. You could say:Evidence supports that evolution is the source of the etc., or Evolution provides a mechanism to generate the vast diversity of life on Earth, etc., but the sentence is accurate (as is) in the context of this article. GetAgrippa 19:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose standonbible’s change. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Uphold his change. Knowledge Seeker, I'm not Scorpionman who you have repeatedly blocked but I do know that he's right about one thing: you are totally and absolutely biased and prejudiced against creationism! You saw Standonbible's sources and ignored them because it conflicts with your own opinion! There is nothing wrong with Standonbible's statement. Ratso 22:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in Christian mythology, if that’s what you mean, but speculation about my personal beliefs is not relevant here. This is a science article, and I don’t feel his change is appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose letting in non-science like Creationism. That would be Undue Weight. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose not only the change, but any further discussion. Can't we just archive this under a "Perenial Controversies" section and point newcomers to it? That is a legitimate way to preserve the talkpage for actively productive discussions and has been used successfully on other controversial articles (eg, Abortion). --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. No argument has been provided to cause the change (ie: no sources have actually been provided that show the sentance lacking). The only argument that would actually necessitate the change would require a huge amount of rewriting in all scientific topics. All this entire discussion tried to do is tweak the sentence to give it some air of fallibility, a change that is redundant in a scientific topic (all of science is fallible). If we must drive home the potential fallibility of evolution home in every sentence, then all other scientific articles must take up the same tone. This would pretty quickly make all scientific articles unreadable.--Roland Deschain 23:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Author. As can be seen from my comment on FeloniousMonk's talk page, I understand that the consensus on this article is in opposition to my suggestion that a particular sentence is rather POV and ought to be better cited. Rather then dragging out this obviously hopeless attempt at cleaning up this article, I told Felonious and his cronies on his page that I was going to let this thing lie. I wish people would be scientific enough to question their assumptions once and a while. standonbible^Talk! 23:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose As has been said the logical implication of introducing this change is that "it is believed" would have to be added to all science articles. As far as I can see this is just part of a continuing campaign by creationists trying to increase the respectablility of their religious beliefs by downgrading the status of science. See here for instance --Michael Johnson 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I'm not sure if you fully understand the implications of your proposal since the consequences of such a change would go far beyond this article and far beyond even science articles. Given that our observation of events is itself based on potentially flawed senses and flawed recollection (see false memory for instance) we cannot be completely confident of anything at all. So you would need to preface every single factual assertion on the whole of Wikipedia with a 'it is thought ...' or 'it is believed ...'. We would reach the point where articles say 'It is believed that the sun rises in the east'. Unless you are dealing with people sufficiently dense that they are unaware that human beings are fallible the proposed change is completely unnecessary. --Davril2020 23:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Author Oh, do stow it! I've said I'll let this thing lie. MichaelJohnson, you really don't need to accuse me of pushing a "religious belief" or "downgrading the status of science". When a opinion is so hotly contested it isn't "downgrading the status of science" to suggest that statements be better cited. Oh, and Davril, the sun doesn't rise - the earth turns. It isn't as though natural history is observable, repeatable, or testable - and this article is about the process of evolution, not natural history. Like I've said I have decided to let this thing lie but you don't need to continue spouting the evolutionist POV. standonbible^Talk! 00:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the Evolution article. It is about evolution. If you were commenting on the talk page for Mathematics, would you accuse editors there of having a Mathematics POV? You seem very angry and dismissive, but your attacks make no sense at all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we really have to get embroiled in this? If POV-pushers on the Mathematics page were suggesting that division by zero actually does work, equals 32.6, and even proves that the supernatural is impossible, and they called themselves "Mathematists", I could hardly refrain from calling it a "Mathematics POV". But enough about that. Can I let this thing lie or not? standonbible^Talk! 01:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to say if you can or not. You have stated you would several times, but have failed to do so. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. No hard feelings, really. standonbible^Talk! 01:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't the consensus view of the scientific community that evolution by natural selection has been the method by which life as we know it has arisen from more primitive forms, but does not attempt to speak to the actual origin of initial primitive forms themselves? Because in that case, the use of the word "source" in the sentence under discussion could mislead readers into thinking we are referring to the topic of origin theories, which I was under the impression evolution was not. Kasreyn 00:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply: The sentance states "Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life". I think the sentence is more than clear that evolution explains the diversity of life we see, not the origin of life itself.--Roland Deschain 00:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is insanity. It is clearly stated that this is not a forum or debate about evolution. A Neutral Point of View is in context of the subject-in this case evolution (not in general). Standonbible seems disingenuous in bringing up arguments that "he doesn't want to get into here" and offering no reliable references. He takes the strategy of arguing NPOV, but his motive is purely POV. It is shameful. I like Doc Tropic's suggestion for a "Perenial Controversies" section. It is no wonder that legitimate discussion is scrutinized with such intensity with this constant onslaught.GetAgrippa 01:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I should have read more carefully. Thanks, Roland. Kasreyn 02:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. It quite clearly is a concession. The statement does not need attribution to an opinion any more than well established scientific statements on other pages. Rintrah 02:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe this issue is resolved and would like to prematurely archive it to avoid any acrimony. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)