Talk:Evolution/Archive 35
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Evolution. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
social and religious controversies
Comments about the atheist agenda, and redirection to the FAQ.
| These issues are addressed in the FAQ and other articles. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
Theistic Evolution
| Coverage of theistic evolution |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
There is a need for a section about Theistic Evolution. Talk about Evolution's status in big religions such as Islam, and Christianity, and Hinduism, etc. Believe it or not, there are Muslims, Christians, and Hindus who believe in Evolution. Armyrifle 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
|
Observation
| A question about where species come from, with a redirection to the FAQ |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
Suggestions from TxMCJ
A number of discussions with a researcher and university lecturer in evolutionary biology
Definition
Proposed definition of evolution for lead. General support. Concern about "biological" qualifier. Brief discussion of strategy for addressing creationist reactions.
| Hidden for length. Feel free to continue discussion. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Mandaclair recently made some interesting edits to the introduction. They were quickly reverted because they changed the lead significantly, adding a lot of detail, but her paragraph defining evolution seemed useful, and I wonder if we could work it in somewhere without making the lead too unwieldy:
The way she enumerates three processes and separates the technical definition from the vernacular could guide the introduction and first few sections of the article, especially if we can find a way to avoid getting too technical too early. By the way, she also made several good small changes to the intro that were reverted with the others. It'd be nice if someone went through the history and copied some of the changes back in. Gnixon 16:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|
Recommendations
A number of recommendations for the article. Few responses. Proposal of "Misconceptions" section discussed in later subsection.
| Hidden for length. Feel free to continue discussion below. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
If "bold editing" was a bit easier to accomplish, I might recommend the following (Comments by User:Mandaclair):
There are some ideas. Take 'em or leave 'em. I'm willing to help, as long as the debate and round-&-round is kept to a minimum. Kind regards, Mandaclair 19:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|
Cooks in the pot
More students using Wikipedia as authoritative source. Experts may be discouraged from contributing by "too many cooks in the pot."
| Hidden for length. Feel free to continue the discussion. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
A final note, for now (from User:Mandaclair): The main reason I have taken an interest in this article, is because University students are using Wikipedia more and more as an authoritative source -- a fact that is potentially exciting on one hand, and terrifying on the other. As someone who interacts with biology majors on a daily basis, it would make my job (and my colleagues' jobs) much easier if we helped out in making popular resources (like Wikipedia) as accurate as possible. Otherwise, we spend a lot of time helping students "unlearn" what they thought was true about Evolution (such as: it's all adapation, or it's all a directional process of improvement, or the notion that simply because we refer to "evolutionary theory", that therefore evolution must be some kind of tentative hypothesis that has not been "proven" one way or another... you get the picture.) Unfortunately, I am sure that many academics in many fields are deterred by the too-many-cooks environment at Wikipedia, and yet, they may feel compelled to help out in some way -- especially if their students use Wikipedia. All of that being said, the Evolution article (as it stands now) does cover most of the main points, and is a decent introduction to the field and its concepts. It could just be a lot clearer, a lot more accurate on some fundamental points, and it could cite more (and better) examples, in many places.
Thanks, and for now I think I'll leave most of the editing to the more passionate editors here -- I'm happy to help upon request, Mandaclair 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC) |
Natural selection
Proposed definition of natural selection. Criticism of adaptationist tone in article. Importance of superfecundity.
| Hidden for length. Feel free to continue discussion. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Here are some of the other changes I made last night, and the rationale (Comments by User:Mandaclair.):
The important thing about selection is that it is a *self-evident* process, in that: given the undeniable, observable biological facts that 1.) organisms vary, 2.) most variation is heritable 3.) organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive, and 4.) some heritable traits will influence reproductive success, it *necessarily follows* that heritable traits that increase reproductive success will increase in frequency, while heritable traits that do not increase reproductive success will decrease in frequency or disappear entirely. This is why a very common reaction in the scientific community to the publication of The Origin, was basically along the lines of: "well, DUH, how come *I* never thought of that?" It is self-evident to any thinking, rational human. Also, it is tempting to think of all evolution and natural selection as "adaptation to the environment", but that is a somewhat naïve point of view, mainly in that it is incomplete (many traits are preserved due to random factors, or evolutionary constraints that prohibit their disappearance, i.e. genetic linkage or developmental constraints. Adaptation need not enter into the preservation of traits over time.) I strongly recommend toning down the adaptationist tone of this article in general. Natural selection is perhaps best understood if reduced to the self-evident mathematical outcome of perpetuation of certain heritable forms due to the simple fact that there are more copies available to reproduce, and they are better at reproducing. Yes, adaptation occurs, but it is not the driving force. Mutation, drift, and selection are the driving forces. Also, any discussion on drift *must* point out that drift applies to sexually reproducing organsisms, since drift is generally understood as a result of random matings. Thus:
Again, with the concept of speciation and divergence, sexual reproduction must be assumed if you're going to invoke "interbreeding". Many organisms (including eukaryotes) are asexual, and so the ability to interbreed cannot define or describe the divergence process. Thus:
Great suggestions. Two things I'm a bit uncertain of: one is superfecundity - organisms certainly don't always produce more offspring than can possibly survive, and that's certainly not required for selection to take place. All that's required is that you do better than your neighbor, as in any race. And two is the above misconceptions section. I was never a fan of its inclusion before, and I don't want to see it making a prominent return. It hurts the article. Graft 19:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
|
Common misconceptions
Continued from Recommendations. Suggestion for section on common misconceptions about evolution. Some support. Concern that such a section would devolve into anti-creationist POV, as did a similar section before.
| Hidden for length. Feel free to continue the discussion. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi -- the last thing I'd like to reply to, is Gnixon's request for more details about "common misconceptions" about evolution. Here's the short list -- some of these may *seem* targeted for the creationists, but they're really not. Even atheists sometimes misunderstand the true meaning of the word "theory". I also realize that many of these issues are addressed piecemeal throughout the article as it stands, but a "bold rewrite" attempt might want to consolidate them into a single section. I think that would be extremely valuable. (From User:Mandaclair.)
Please e-mail me for questions or details. Thanks, Mandaclair 18:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
|
Changes implemented
Changes to intro by Mandaclair. Support for them from GetAgrippa.
| Hidden for length. Feel free to continue discussion. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Heads up -- I'm going to make a few changes, but none should come as a big surprise. Questions? See archive above.Mandaclair 18:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
|
Struggle to survive
Debate over "struggle for survival" phrase as too Victorian, Marxist, anthropomorphic. Defended as accurate description, used by Darwin. Resolution via "roundabout verbage."
| Hidden for length. Feel free to continue discussion. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Question, Graft: I see by your edit comment that you "hate the word struggle", but I wonder how much bearing your personal hatred of the word has, given the fact that Darwin consistently used the phrase "struggle for existence" throughout The Origin, and this "struggle" is very much viewed as fundamental to Natural Selection. Seems to me that any description of selection ought to be true to Darwin, at least...Mandaclair 23:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Graft on the issue of "struggle for survival" - it's a metaphor from an earlier age, and it's about as dated as "nature red in tooth and claw". No one talks about species interactions in those terms any more. Guettarda 05:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It is an old metaphor and the naive also equate it with the survival of the fittest metaphor, but the point I think Mandaclair is making is that biotic competition is a fact of life and superfecundity relates as organisms tend to reproduce more than can survive in any given ecological setting. The terminology maybe a contention but the point does need to be made. I think we would be remiss not to mention both as this is an encyclopedia and the audience needs the basics. Introductory text and books (Gould, Mayr, etc)all mention it to my recollection.GetAgrippa 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
In an attempt to dress up an old concept in less Victorian/anthropomorphic language, I have gone ahead and replaced the classic "struggle for existence" phrase with some roundabout verbage that, to my mind, means exactly the same thing: "organisms in a population are not all equally successful in terms of survivorship and reproductive success". Conceptually, it is identical to "struggle for existence" -- does this wording satisfy the dissenters?Mandaclair 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
|
Variation and Heredity
Call to cut Variation and Heredity sections. Some support for only summarizing variation and heredity within another section. Is adaptationist perspective a POV issue? How is evolution taught these days? Few comments.
| Hidden for length. Feel free to continue discussion. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I kind of feel like the short "Variation" and "Heredity" sections don't belong here (mainly because the way they are written does not really address Evolution). What do folks think about deleting these sections -- keeping in mind that there will be embedded links to the variation and heredity articles, throughout this one?Mandaclair 04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
|
Selection and Adaptation
Edits by Mandaclair to Selection and Adaptation section. Brief debate over ecological selection.
| Hidden for length. Feel free to continue discussion. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I have now made some bold(ish) edits to the Selection and Adaptation section, a bit more consistent with the way these concepts are taught in Evolution courses for biology majors. The previous version of this section was really a bit off... for example, the 3rd mode of selection is disruptive selection (not artificial selection), and all 3 modes could be argued to select against harmful traits and select for beneficial ones. I also tried to improve the description of sexual selection a bit, and removed the distinction of "ecological selection" because it seemed a bit redundant with the existing description of natural selection in general. "Ecological selection" is not a term I hear used a lot... it makes sense, sure, but I don't think it's any kind of standard category of selection... As I go through this article, though, I am generally very impressed with its quality. My intention here is just to tidy-up, not do any drastic rewrites! Thanks, Mandaclair 05:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
|
A note on the system of boxes just above (used for Mandaclair's comments and the responses): User:Gnixon is the one who wrote the summaries and created the system of boxes. (It would be more clear if he would add his own signed comment to announce the refactoring). In fact, it does save space on the Talk page, and I like the system, but perhaps not everyone does. Please respond here either for or against this type of refactoring. I think there is a consensus that it should be done for questions answered in the FAQ, but there is not yet a consensus for doing it more generally. There is a sub-question as to whether some further action should be taken on Mandaclair's suggestions. Respond here on that issue as well, if you have an opinion. EdJohnston 16:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- For' (obviously). You're right, Ed. I should have said something about it. I certainly hope the archiving and subject headings haven't stifled discussion, but it was getting so long and covering so many topics that I couldn't follow things anymore. Gnixon 20:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- For so long as its employed sparingly to avoid confusing new/casual readers. But it is so obviously useful for high traffic talk pages such as this; I hope to utilize it elsewhere. - RoyBoy 800 23:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Lead
Recent changes to the lead seem to have been well-received, but I think they've also exacerbated an existing problem: the lead is far too long and detailed.
WP:LEAD recommends that the lead be concise and accessible, and suggests that it should be between one and four paragraphs long. The current lead is 7 paragraphs long, and I think one could easily argue that its neither concise nor accessible to the average reader. What's more, from glancing at the table of contents, the lead hardly seems to be an "overview" of the article. (Granted, the article's contents are not well organized.) Some articles about major scientific fields have addressed the issue by including only the definition in the lead, then following with an "Introduction" section. I'm not sure that's the best solution, but we have to do something. Any ideas? I'll try to make a content-neutral revision sometime soon unless someone beats me to it. Gnixon 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
A survey about the lead took place here. Thanks, Ed, for mentioning it. Gnixon 18:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Reviewers during January's FAR stressed that this article needed work on being accessible to its readers, especially in the intro. See FAR section below. Gnixon 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Organization
A glance at the table of contents is enough to prove that this article has become very poorly organized. I'd like to undertake a major reorganization, one that is content-neutral but better sorts things under headings and subheadings. I think a similar change at Physics worked out well (compare before [2] and after [3]). I'd appreciate some input regarding what the table of contents should look like and what goes where. Thanks! Gnixon 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would need to review User:Silence's previous plan, and the feedback questionnaire that he created for the lead, to get some ideas. (It's all in this Talk page or the archives). He also made a list of issues he thought would need to be fixed to get back the FA status. I can try to dig up all the diffs pointing to that stuff later. EdJohnston 16:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The lead survey is here. Gnixon 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The featured article review, including Silence's extensive comments, is here. Gnixon 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Language
After making extensive changes to help resolve items on his list, as well as making improvements to several related articles, Silence left this comment:
Unfortunately, I lack the biological expertise to fix some of this article's largest problems: the opaqueness of some of the more technical sections, lacking even an attempt to provide readers with context in many cases, rnders large portions of this article essentially useless as a general reference tool. What we need is some more work on clarifying concepts by people who are both very familiar with the processes and mechanisms involved, and able to explain them in sufficiently clear, engaging language. We need a Dawkins! :( -Silence 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
He also voted "remove" for similar reasons:
Remove unless dramatic improvements ensue. I can only do so much; the incredibly confusing mess of various parts of the "processes" and "mechanisms" sections will require a substantial rewrite by knowledgeable folk in order to be of any use to readers; there's nothing wrong with using complex concepts and important technical terms, but the article's frequent failure to keep its readership in mind and coherently explain these things, as well as poor writing quality in a number of paragraphs and inconsistency in references, makes the current article unfit to be an FA. Hopefully, if efforts aren't rallied beforehand, they will become more focused as a result of the demanding pressures of the FAC and peer-review process. -Silence 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Other reviewers also stressed the need to explain concepts in accessible language, especially in the Intro. Gnixon 19:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- You and I, given that we have strong disagreement on many issues pertaining to these articles, cannot be the only two who are involved. I would "hold your horses" until other editors weigh in with their opinions. You have a tendency to go "ready, fire, fire, fire, aim." Slow down. Orangemarlin 19:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whereas your tendency is "revert, revert, then maybe read." ;-) Just trying to be bold until there seem to be objections. I haven't yet changed anything about the article. I think the area where we disagree is pretty well-defined, so we can probably cooperate on other things. It's a shame that there haven't been many editors around here lately. Gnixon 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, what happened to the lead? It is way too long. I think it grew by creeping. Orangemarlin 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. See my comments above. Gnixon 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I have said over and over that this article needs to be accessible. Unfortunately, that seems to be a very difficult thing to achieve.--Filll 20:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- We're trying. Come back and help, this article needs you too. Orangemarlin 20:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Semantics
I'm not seriously proposing a move, but can anyone see how many of the problems we have here would be solved by changing the article name to "Evolutionary biology"? Many of the tensions on this page are due to confusion over whether we're writing about
- Evolutionary biology, a field of study like Physics.
- Theory of Evolution, as in, the Modern Synthesis, a theory like the Theory of General Relativity
- Evolutionary processes, as in the observable aspects
- Evolution by natural selection, meaning the concept of it, as in Darwin's revolutionary idea that changed science and society, like Adam Smith's Invisible Hand.
How did the English language come up so short here? How do other encyclopedias handle the problem? Gnixon 20:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let's keep the name Evolution. The idea of changing the name comes up promptly every six weeks, and is always rejected. The name has been this way since 2001. EdJohnston 14:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, I said I wasn't proposing a move! :-) On the other hand, I think it's worth discussing which definition we're writing about, or which parts of the article address each meaning. I also think we have almost enough material to make a separate "Theory of Evolution" article, and I wish we had enough to make "Evolutionary biology" (as in the branch distinguished from molecular bio). Gnixon 14:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
LUCA again
FYI, apropos our debate of a week or two ago, I today read a bit by Doolittle (and Eric Bapteste) about the Tree of Life, in PNAS, Feb 13 2007, titled "Pattern Pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis". He uses some strong language which I have no doubt will end up in some creationist quote mine (cf. his first sentence, "The meaning, role in biology, and support in evidence of the universal ‘‘Tree of Life’’ (TOL) are currently in dispute." Good read. Graft 22:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks Graft. I remember at one point in the past evolutionary webs was emphasized more than trees, but apparently it is a little of both. I agree this will end up in creationist quote mines. Doolittle admits that tree patterns suffice for most of life and that he is referring predominately to prokaryotes because of HGT and fusion events. He gets rather philosophical also (which I tend to agree with some of his sentiments but don't agree with reaction of stifling the whole pursuit). I do think that Doolittle is fatalistic about it as others disagree:
Kurland CG, Canback B, Berg OG. Horizontal gene transfer: a critical view. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Aug 19;100(17):9658-62. Epub 2003 Aug 5. Review. PMID: 12902542 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Lake JA, Rivera MC.
Deriving the genomic tree of life in the presence of horizontal gene transfer: conditioned reconstruction.
Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Apr;21(4):681-90. Epub 2004 Jan 22.
PMID: 14739244 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Ge F, Wang LS, Kim J.
The cobweb of life revealed by genome-scale estimates of horizontal gene transfer.
PLoS Biol. 2005 Oct;3(10):e316. Epub 2005 Aug 30.
PMID: 16122348 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Kurland CG. What tangled web: barriers to rampant horizontal gene transfer. Bioessays. 2005 Jul;27(7):741-7. PMID: 15954096 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE
I think Doolittle is correct to throw a red flag of reasonable doubt, but it should be a cautionary tale to proceed with caution rather than render it mute. In the end, the article will be used by creationist quote mines that another Darwinist scientist disproves evolution theory is feasible. GetAgrippa 14:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like stuff that would fit very nicely into a "current research" section. (Also, I wouldn't sweat the creationist angle too much. It's always easy to distinguish between arguing the details and arguing the big picture.) Gnixon 14:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Doolittle's last paragraph deals with the issue of Creationists:
- Holding onto this ladder of pattern is an unnecessary hindrance in the understanding of process (which is prior to pattern) both ontologically and in our more down-to-earth conceptualization of how evolution has occurred. And it should not be an essential element in our struggle against those who doubt the validity of evolutionary theory, who can take comfort from this challenge to the TOL only by a willful misunderstanding of its import. The patterns of similarity and difference seen among living things are historical in origin, the product of evolutionary mechanisms that, although various and complex, are not beyond comprehension and can sometimes be reconstructed.
- But I do think his point should be well-taken, that one shouldn't assume a rooted, branching tree extending back to the beginning of life when we have no way of showing that this must be the case for the deepest parts of the Tree of Life. I haven't read the above HGT review yet, but what do you think of Doolittle's central point - that the assumption that there's something to be identified beyond all that HGT is unfounded to begin with? Graft 16:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Adam has made some good edits regarding LUCA and HGT. Gnixon 12:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Suggested Edit
As a biologist, I have issue with the use of word 'design' in the following sentence in the 'Academic Disciplines' section: The capability of evolution through selection to produce designs optimized for a particular environment has greatly interested mathematicians, scientists and engineers. Could 'design' be replaced with 'biological processes and networks' or something similar? Evolution doesn't generate function through 'design' but with whatever paradigm works.
Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.191.134 (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
Done. Thanks for the notice. By the way, you can create an account and edit this article.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 06:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I've done a cleanup on Fisherian runaway and trimmed it somewhat. Can someone do a sanity check and make sure I haven't removed anything important? Also, it would be good if someone could add some references to it. (I'm posting here because Fisherian runaway is pretty low traffic.) Regards, Ben Aveling 08:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
BNME:Monkeys
bnme:this is myvirgn attmpt at a internet talk site. I can't type and I have to soetimes hit the keys twice to get em to work. If I a using someones post, please let me k(twice)now. With these thumbs I save monkeys. There had to be some miracle.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bnmeee (talk • contribs) 08:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
Evolution as bushy, and intelligence as only one adaptation
I most recently came across this in Ben Bova's FAINT ECHOES, DISTANT STARS: THE SCIENCE AND POLITICS OF FINDING LIFE BEYOND EARTH, HarperCollins, 2004, p 247. We vaguely think of evolution as a ladder with intelligence at the top. And that's just not the case. Evolution is bushy and goes in all kinds of different directions. Other useful adaptations include sharp eyes, strong legs, a keen nose, increased wingspan, a hunting strategy of sitting and waiting and thus conserving energy, having lots of offstring, long tail feathers to attract mates, thick wooly coats for mammals in cold climates, and etc, etc.
Bova also cites Stephen Jay Gould, who takes this same general view. And here’s a website giving the transcript of a Nov. ’96 interview between Stephen and political consultant/commentator David Gergen [4] . Now, Stephen doesn’t actually use the word ‘bushy’ here, which I have heard attributed to him in other contexts. But it’s a very, very good description of what he is talking about.
I agree with Mandaclair that the Huxley graphic is great for showing a previous view of evolution and it's kind of quaint in its own way, but it is definitely not the modern view! And if you look closely at the captions, they say "Gibbon, Orang, Chimpanzee, Gorilla, Man.” Yes, these five are the currently living species of great apes (six if you wish to count the bonobo chimp as a separate species). But we are cousins!
But this same idea, slightly more sophisticated, is still in wide currency. As a young boy (I'm now 44), I remember seeing a long line of about twenty hominids, as if the whole thing is so neat and orderly. It simply is not. In fact, if we list the usual cast: Ramapithecus, Sivapithecus, Oriopithecus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapien neaderthalis, all those cool cats! Well, most of these guys are our cousins, not our ancestors. (The immediate ancestor of us modern humans is Homo erectus, who is also the immediate ancestor of the neanderthals. So please note that we and the neanderthals are cousins.)
Another thing I might ask in the article is a longer, fuller explanations of L-amino acids in proteins. I take it this is the left-hand amino acids vs. the right-hand amino acids. This is a topic I find fascinating but don't know too much about. And as far as the writing style itself, sometimes a piece of wrting can include a technical description, and then a resaying of the same thing in briefer everyday language. I don't suggest this as anything mechanical and required, but rather as one more feathered arrow in your writer's quiver.
I think one of our main articles on a subject, like evolution, should be long (as long as it stays good!). One of the advantages of the Internet over a set of Encyclopedia Britannicas sitting on a shelf is that bandwidth is so much cheaper than printing! Yeah, I’ll kind of jump in the middle here. I think length in and of itself is not such a bad thing. FriendlyRiverOtter 00:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. If you see any possible improvements to the article, please make them! (If they're big changes, probably mention them on this page.) Gnixon 19:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Archival
This talk page tends to fill up quickly. Can we agree on a policy for archiving old discussions? I would suggest the following:
- Keep any discussion with a comment less than 2 weeks old. Regularly move older ones to the archives.
- For very long but ongoing discussions, use the hat/hab tags to hide older comments. Use the reason= parameter to explain. For example, {{hat|reason=Older comments hidden to save space. Feel free to continue the discussion below.}} produces
| Older comments hidden to save space. Feel free to continue the discussion below. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
blah blah blah blah blah blah |
- When someone raises a controversial subject that is addressed in the FAQ, leave the original post, but immediately use hat/hab on the inevitable flamewar that follows. For example,
- Evolution is unproven! It's a theory, not a fact! User:GenesisTellsAll
| This issue is addressed in the FAQ. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
... |
What do you guys think? Gnixon 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- An excellent suggestion Gnixon. The warning banners and FAQ do little to stop POV pushing and vandals, so addressing it in the Talk but hiding it seems reasonable. It is difficult enough to get consensus on the topic from evolution enthusiast without wasting time addressing side issues not related to the topic. I have to admit I was initially naive to the depths of concern over creationist and ID vandalisms-I thought the editors paranoid, but was I wrong. Fill spends quite a bit of time refuting such claims from creationist and ID proponents. I am shocked as some seems less than honest (not all I should amend)which does little for their cause. GetAgrippa 18:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Credit where due: the hat/hab archives were EdJohnston's idea. We could all try harder to keep our comments tightly focused and avoid starting off-topic discussions. Gnixon 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd propose regular archiving in a simple manner, not topic-by-topic, which is too labor-intensive to be done regularly by a human, and prone to error. It probably requires a bot to do topic-by-topic archiving without tons of work, and the available bots leave something to be desired. The hat/hab scheme for boxing up topics seems fine for questions answered in the FAQ. In general I'd suggest that this Talk page is too large when it gets over 120 kb and that the archiver should leave the most recent 80kb in place. EdJohnston 18:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yeah. I didn't mean that each topic should be archived separately. I imagined someone glancing at the page and saying, "none of the topics above here have comments within the last two weeks, so they all get archived." As for keeping the page to 80-120 kB, I think it's better to decide a reasonable time since last comment and cut on that instead. (Of course, keeping the page small puts an upper limit on that time.) This page fills up so fast that cutting on size will often remove ongoing discussions. Editors shouldn't miss the chance to comment on recent topics just because they haven't logged onto Wikipedia in the last 3 or 4 days. Gnixon 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- By request, here's my comment. The problem with "leaving the original comment" is that you have to apply the strategy with consistency. For example, even after this strategy of "leaving the original comment" was apparently agreed upon (by consensus of two), there was a comment here about "Thesitic Evolution" or something like that, where someone mentioned that other religions allow for evolution, and another about how evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermo. Both of those comments were archived in their entirety, whereas the initial creationist POV comments regarding "the atheist agenda" and "scientific controversy" and "where do new species come from?" seem to have been left, with all rebuttal archived. I have modified the archival to remove POV from the formatting. Many people do not click through to read the archive, so my suggestion is one of the following: EITHER you archive the WHOLE THING with a short description of what the archive is about (as Gnixon does with most of the scientific content), OR you leave the original comment/posting, no matter what POV it comes from. Thanks, TxMCJ 19:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. The justification for leaving the first comment is that it might offend people if their original posts are immediately hidden. The point of hat-habbing FAQ stuff, after all, was to discourage others from engaging in debate on issues in the FAQ---it's the responses that are problematic, not the original post. As for archival of other things and issues of fairness, the two topics you mentioned were not immediately archived like a FAQ topic would have been---instead, I or someone else archived them later just to save space because the discussions seemed to be over. I didn't bother leaving the first comments because I didn't think hiding them would offend the original posters. I certainly didn't intend to bias this page. Bottom line: I'm happy to try immediately hiding FAQ-covered posts, but if they start flipping out about it, I suggest we reconsider. Gnixon 20:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Topical archiving
I must have missed when it happened, but this new archiving methodology isn't very useful. I remember there used to be, at the top of the discussion page, a great reference source that had archives of discussions by topic. For example, the "Evolution is only a theory" topic, which happens over and over again, had it's own link. One could go and read it, maybe realize "oh someone's said that, and it's been set aside." Now I can't find all that stuff. Anyways, all IMHO. Orangemarlin 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Archiving by topic is really useful, but also tons of work to maintain. I suspect people switched to the simpler scheme out of laziness. Keep in mind that this talk page generates about an article's length of comments every couple weeks. See also the discussion about an "Evolution Debates" archive and its deletion as a POV fork. Gnixon 18:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Too bad. It was nice to refer people to old arguments. If they didn't read them, we could beat them up mercilessly. It made my days so much happier. Orangemarlin 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- It would be useful if someone created such a table at the top of the page with links to discussions in the archives. Gnixon 17:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- With User:EdJohnston's help, I think I've found the pages OM refers to. They're linked to in the 2005 archives. Gnixon 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Bot archiving
To save us effort, I've set up User:MiszaBot to automatically archive conversations older than 2 weeks. Hopefully, I got all the settings right. If it causes problems, please let me know and I'll clean things up. If anyone doesn't like this idea, please say so. Or, if you like the bot but not the settings, certainly feel free to change them yourself---it's pretty easy. Cheers, Gnixon 16:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
Controversy (2)
| Revision of Social and religious controversy |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The Social and religious controversy section is probably the most neglected one in the article, but it is one of the most important for many of the new posters on this discussion page. The section has long had "citation needed" tags. It discusses both objections to evolution and controversial social theories derived from it, but the two topics are not well-separated. The paragraphs seem to have each been developed independently and don't transition well. Can we try to improve things? Gnixon 16:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC) I attempted a major revision several days ago. I thought it would be uncontroversial since I only used the previous text and the introductions of the sub-articles, but the change was reverted by someone who preferred to discuss it here first. In response, I've created a Work in Progress page and copied my edit there. I would appreciate if people would take a look, comment at the bottom of the page, and make improvements. Thanks!! Gnixon 16:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks to the users who made comments at the WIP page. I've recently made several edits to the Controversy section, keeping their comments in mind. Particularly, instead of trying to copy in the introductions of related articles, which made the section too long, I've simply organized the section with subsections and cut redundant material. One editor argued for cutting the "Social theories" stuff, but I've left it in for now. I hope this is satisfactory to everyone. Let's work hard to keep this section short, well-referenced, and free of both anti-evolution and anti-creationist POV. Gnixon 16:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
|
FAR
The featured article review in January resulted in delisting, but also produced a number of well-received recommendations from User:Silence and others. Not all of them have been carried out. I've copied Silence's list of recommendations in the hidden archive below. Please comment either within the archive or below it. Gnixon 19:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
| Silence's FAR recommendations. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
25 problems to resolve, for starters:
|
The references have been corrected, broken links removed, internal links were formatted according to WP:CITET, and outside references have been shortened. Other activities to make this an FA are required. Orangemarlin 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- For technical items where it's absolutely clear they've been resolved, I suggest striking through the items. Gnixon 19:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Gnixon, thanks for digging up this useful info. I struck out Silence's action item about external links, since they were reduced to nine back on 9 February. If I see more things I can fix I'll edit the boxed copy of his list you provided above. EdJohnston 20:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I also struck out some items that were completed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
- AOL, I'd like to strike out the infant issue. I agree with the idea of not over explaining concepts in article, but I would emphasize that a "phenotype" is not common knowledge. - RoyBoy 800 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fine to strike it out if it's no longer a problem, but the complaint was justified: "e.g., what makes you different from your neighbor" is far too casual language for an encyclopedia. Gnixon 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The lead
...My god, what happened to it? It's not a summary of evolution any more, it's back to using undefined jargon (genetic drift is *NOT* a term you can just drop into the lead without comment, and is generally completely inappropriate.
| Discussion of lead's history with examples. How long should the lead be? How technical? |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
...Really, I don't see how this article is ever going to reach FA again at this rate. For every step forwards, someone turns around and makes in incomprehensible to non-biology majors again. Does anyone really expect a layperson to understand the second paragraph with talk of the Hadean era, RNA world, and so on? Adam Cuerden talk 11:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Here's the old verson of the lead. Maybe this and the new version can be combined into something useful? I dunno. I'm tired of this nonsense. It seems like every month a new simple lead gets made, then someone replaces it with an incomprehensible one.
Even the old version is too long by WP:LEAD standards. I really think a big problem is that editors can't decide if we're writing about evolution in general or about the details of the theory. I don't think natural selection and speciation need to be explained in nearly so much detail, and I don't think genetic drift needs to be mentioned at all (in the intro), but clearly other editors disagree. I'd love to see an expert (I don't qualify) try to write a concise 2-4 paragraph lead (not even "introduction", just "lead") that covers the big ideas in a readable, engaging way. Gnixon 12:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Which is probably nearer what we need. Adam Cuerden talk 13:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
- Thank you, Adam, for continuing to fight the good fight on behalf of accessibility. Yes, the current lead is a mess. I'd be in favor of restoring the old one (the last one you pasted) wholesale and then working from there.
- A question: what did the lead look like when this article qualified as an FA?--Margareta 00:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, bloody hell, now it's nearly gone entirely. For what it's worth, this was the lead when it was an FA. It's not perfect, but arguably better than what's there now, or was there before:
- Evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a population within a species. Since the emergence of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, which states that all modern species are the products of an extensive process that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics. As the theory of evolution by natural selection and genetics has become universally accepted in the scientific community, it has replaced other explanations including creationism and Lamarckism. Skeptics, often creationists, sometimes deride evolution as "just a theory" in an attempt to characterize it as an arbitrary choice and degrade its claims to truth. Such criticism overlooks the scientifically-accepted use of the word "theory" to mean a falsifiable and well-supported hypothesis.
--Margareta 20:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, the lead section when this article was an FA was quite lacking. It's better than what was there before, but why settle for the lesser of two evils when we can have a good? There's no reason we can't have a lead section that very briefly goes over the most essential aspects for someone who has absolutely no understanding of evolution, and then have the rest of the article go into things in more detail; although I agree that functionality is more important than blind adherence to arbitrary standards or conventions, there is a very important practical (and thus functional) reason for an article's lead section to be as short as reasonably possible: accessibility.
- Evolution is a complex topic, so none of us should be surprised to see some extremely important topics covered too little, or not at all, in the lead section; that is not only tolerable, but preferable, because it means that the lead section isn't bloated. The other main concern, then, is that the lead section be reader-friendly and, in particular, informative. This involves a difficult balancing act, but there's no reason we can't reach that point of equilibrium again; we've come very close in the past.
- For example, we may want to mention and link to "gene" at the start of the first paragraph, if only to account for the many uses of the word "genetic" that are simply unavoidable in the lead section to an Evolution article; however, we might not, on the other hand, need to mention DNA quite yet, and saving that for slightly later in the article will also spare us the difficulty of having to waste valuable lead space on footnotes (in the context of evolution, at least) like RNA. -Silence 21:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Spin-off
| A debate about a proposed "Theory of evolution" article. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Sorry, Gnixon, I wasn't arround earlier to show support - |
Spin-off section 2
Back to the issue. What do people think of creating a more technical "Theory of Evolution"? (I'm a little disappointed that discussion on this article seems to have died down over the last couple weeks. Maybe it's the level of drama? I hope we can return to active, productive discussion---please let me know if I can somehow improve my role in it.) Gnixon 01:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't support having a separate 'Theory of Evolution' article. If the lead is having problems we should fix the lead, not just split off another article. The lead of Evolution was too technical around January 1, it got better till about March 1, and recently it became too technical again. I'd also support moving more technical material to subarticles, e.g. stuff about specific genetic mechanisms. Here are some topics that, while intriguing, might not need to be covered in our main article on evolution:
- DNA methylation
- Gene flow
- Epigenetics
- Non-DNA forms of heritable variation
- Transposons
- Hill-Robertson effect
- Muller's ratchet
Others may have their own suggestions for what's not needed in the main article. EdJohnston 01:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with the idea of moving things like that to main articles. (For the record, I wasn't proposing the other article only in order to move stuff from here. I really think it would be helpful to have a more technical article in one place, even if this one didn't change.) Gnixon 02:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is a great idea to move the topical material listed above to articles on those topics, however I don't like the idea of having multiple tiers of articles on the same topics. Two is plenty, possibly too many, we should not have three. My two cents... --TeaDrinker 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think we need Gene flow, and a brief mention of epigenetics. The others, well, the last two might be useful in explaining other things, but not more than a sentence each. Adam Cuerden talk 02:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that anything that is an important component of the theory of evolution ought to be mentioned here, with a link. But I see no reason why we canot have three tiers of articles: at the top, an article on evolution as fact and as theory that provides a general overview; then an article on the theory of evolution that goes into details about models for evolution, how they have changed, points of contention (comparable articles at this "level" would be evidence for evolution as well as articles on the evolution of actual species e.g. human evolution); then linked articles on natural selection, genetic drift, and other, more technical or contentions elements at play in current models/theorizing of evolution. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think we need Gene flow, and a brief mention of epigenetics. The others, well, the last two might be useful in explaining other things, but not more than a sentence each. Adam Cuerden talk 02:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is a great idea to move the topical material listed above to articles on those topics, however I don't like the idea of having multiple tiers of articles on the same topics. Two is plenty, possibly too many, we should not have three. My two cents... --TeaDrinker 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
A suggestion: since it seems you really want the article to be about the modern synthesis, why not call it "Modern Synthesis" and have "Theory of Evolution" redirect there? Hey look, there is already a modern synthesis article. Maybe instead of creating a new article, you could work on this one?--Margareta 00:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable suggestion, but Modern Synthesis, at least in its current incarnation, seems to be specifically about the historical merging of Darwin and Mendel. I was thinking of something more general that, as Slrubenstein described above, would discuss various models and aspects of the modern theory. Gnixon 21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
More comments from TxMCJ
| Click here to expand. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I only want to mention that I will be working on the Speciation section a bit, and then I figure I'll leave the rest of this process to those who are more passionate about "the process". I do have two general suggestions though, about recent conversations: 1.) The desire to keep an article's lead "between four and seven paragraphs" or some other benchmark number set by Wikipedia seems absurd to me, as if both Silly Putty and the science of Evolution should be given equal lead lengths. Lousy, senseless standards pave the way for lousy, senseless writing. Do not fear a longer, more involved lead -- Evolutionary Biology is certainly worthy of it.
2.) The complaints about the article not being transparent enough to "non-biology majors" are unfortunate, but I would like to argue that nothing can be done about this. Evolutionary science *IS* a complex science -- arguably the most complex science in biology -- and thus it necessarily requires a sound understanding of many concepts (yes, including genetic drift). People who argue against Evolutionary Science mainly argue against it out of sheer ignorance of the core concepts. Thus, failing to provide those concepts in their entirety will only serve to perpetuate a senseless debate. There is no way to distill evolutionary science down into a bubblegum version that everyone can understand and reconcile with their pre-existing beliefs about science and origins, (just as there is no way to distill general relativity into a pop-science version), and I would strongly argue that any attempt to write a solid, accurate, and informative article about Evolution that is accessible to "the uneducated masses" (i.e. those who are afraid of, or unfamiliar with biological concepts) -- will ultimately fail. Thanks, Mandaclair 20:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
_____ I just saw the following comment by the now-departed Orangemarlin: "Evolution is complicated, and to simplify it demeans the subject. We try to spin off forks to more easily explain certain complications. But my biggest criticism of what you write is your assumption that people are either too stupid or too lazy to read this type of article. Once again, if they want the real FACT of Evolution read this article." To that, I say HEAR, HERE. I am glad to see that there was another editor who took this point of view (and I don't mean POV). Too bad he was also driven away by the frustrating environment around here. It's enough to make one want to scoop one's own eyes out with a spoon. I am currently pondering whether perhaps this group of editors may have a particular problem with anti-elitism, which is the most surefire way to drive off individuals who often have the most to contribute. A comment on my talk page, "Surely non-experts can contribute to articles in some ways and experts don't need to have their holy authority worshipped at every turn?" is the sort of comment that *Never* occurs in academic settings. My answer to that question, by the way, is generally NO. Non-experts are rarely as equipped with sufficient knowledge and experience to write the most accurate and representative articles on things. Sorry for the reality check, but that's why none of us is likely to be offered an authoring deal for a textbook or encyclopedia entry on resuable spacecraft engineering. Wikipedia is not journalism, and neither are other encyclopedias. The only thing I'll add is that "authority" is not holy and need not be worshipped, but a lot of progress might be made around here (and on Wikipedia in general) if people knew their limits, knew what they are (and are not) qualified to write about, and do not worship academic authority, but at least respect it. I see that this particular user has driven away another experienced editor recently, with his impossible attitudes and rhetoric. I encourage the rest of you, strongly, to do something about this. Meanwhile, I'm going to make some edits to Speciation in the next couple of days, and then give up on this process in favor of more pressing (and productive) matters. It's way too much work and wasted time, for way too little progress. I'm sorry if that sounds like a poor attitude about things, but it's a very prominent one (regarding Wikipedia), and it is certainly well-justified. Mandaclair 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Does someone need to separate you two?--Margareta 02:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I think I'm done with the article for now (I know, I've said that before, but at this point I've really made almost all of the edits I felt were necessary -- finally got to the Speciation and Evidence sections). In the process I've gotten a lot of backlash for what people think is an impatient, arrogant, and dismissive attitude on my part. Maybe that is justified, maybe not, but if you're curious on my true point of view on those topics (and the recent history of the actual article), please have a look at my talk page. Thanks and I'll check back in again, one of these days... probably sooner rather than later :) Oh, and P.S. I am probably changing my username to TxMCJ. Not trying to be anonymous (y'all know who I am) but I'd like to cut down on some of the user-Googling, if you catch my drift. Thanks,Mandaclair 17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
New lead
New lead: overly reductionist? In general I often applaud serious, bold attempts at massive streamlining, but I wonder if the lead edit by Silence isn't a bit extreme? Plus -- throwing the word theory out front so soon, in such a short lead, could cause all kinds of problems to arise due to the popular misundestanding of the word "theory".
I'm tempted to revert, but I won't "own" this article... I think many of the bold deletions Silence made might be able to really simplify the lead, but the currently posted solution might be a bit overboard... we'd also need to make sure that all of that material gets re-integrated SOMEWHERE in the article, if not in the lead. It may be detailed information, but it's not trivial information. Also: I will differ on the claim that non-organisms are non-biological. DNA is not an organism, but it is biological. As is a virus. TxMCJ 18:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the new rewritten lead of Silence is an immense improvement. I could not believe how horribly the lead had deteriorated over the last few months. I think there is no problem with jamming technical material into the body of the article, but since the lead is probably all that over 90% of the readers will ever read, it better be well written. The lead should be short and succinct and interesting. It should not be overly technical but should give a rough idea about the subject matter. If there is material that you feel ABSOLUTELY must be included, put it in the body, not in the lead. Leave the current lead alone.--Filll 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- To avoid confusion, it should be noted that Mandaclair was responding to my initial edit (which just trimmed some of the trivia out of the lead section to make it easier to see what was crucial before expanding upon that), whereas Filll is responding to my (provisional) rewrite. I don't agree with Filll that we should "leave the current lead alone"—there are a lot of improvements to be made to it, and immediately after any major change we should expect plenty of discussion and revision. However, I agree with your point that most important topics in evolution shouldn't even be alluded to in the lead section, simply because there are so many dozens of them that it would overburden our readers, plus most of them are too technical to meaningfully explain in only a few words. Objective "importance" is not the only criterion for coverage in the lead section, nor even the most important one; practical value to completely uninformed readers is. -Silence 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for a much needed and very well done edit. Agree material lost should be covered somewhere in the article. Of course this version of the lead is open to improvement, but next time we find the lead spiraling out of control, I suggest returning to this very good one. Glad to see you back here, S. Gnixon 21:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Impact
The rewrite is indeed excellent and really accomplished a lot in one stroke. However, historic/current resistance to evolution should be tacked on near the end; perhaps after the 1st sentence in the 3rd paragraph. Without it, there is absolutely no sense evolution was a revolutionary paradigm shift... which reminds me, that paradigm shift also needs mentioned and wikilinked (what did evolution displace). - RoyBoy 800 21:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Mentioning controversy in the lead may or may not be a good idea in principle, but I'm worried that it will just become a big target for warring with creationists. The last sentence has nice wording about how important evolution is to biology, and the Controversy section displays prominently in the TOC. If we mention controversy in the lead, let's be very careful about it. Gnixon 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are talking to the guy who did the Abortion lead; not to boast or anything, but that beats Evolution hands down in the controversy category. :"D RoyBoy 800 21:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Haha, duly noted, but there's a lot more of substance about evolution that doesn't pertain to controversy and competes with it for space in the lead. That's to say, abortion is a relatively simple thing to describe, but its controversy is highly notable. Evolution has a somewhat smaller degree of controversy, and evolution itself is much broader and more complex. Gnixon 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- True :'D, but the quality science smackdown by Silence makes me not too concerned with that anymore. The science could bloat again if it wanted to, but if controversy/social aspects are kept in a paragraph on their own, so it can be compartmentalized successfully. Just as we did for abortion, people have been killed and clinics bombed, but we kept the second paragraph down to one sentence and well placed wikilinks. - RoyBoy 800 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see the need for such a tack-on, RoyBoy, as this is a biological article, rather than a sociological or historical one. The top priority of this article is to explain to our readers the scientific understanding of biological evolution; whether or not it constituted a "paradigm shift" (itself a somewhat controversial idea within philosophy of science; it would probably be opening an unnecessary can of worms for Wikipedia to endorse a specific perspective on it here!) is at best an afterthought, and arguably barely merits inclusion in the article body (perhaps in the "Social effect" and/or "History" section), much less in the lead. Remember that at the end of the lead section we haven't even begun explaining many of the basics of what is actually physically happening in evolution; compared to that, evaluations of its social significance are, at least for the purposes of a biology article like this, of peripheral importance.
- I also doubt that one sentence could properly convey the idea without misrepresenting the scope and significance of the controversy—especially since this would be the only sentence in the lead section not dealing directly or indirectly with the science of evolution. Describing "resistance" in such a context would imply that there is significant scientific resistance to evolutionary theory, which couldn't be further from the truth. Furthermore, I would like to keep the third paragraph as short as possible, and expand the "History" section instead where possible, because that section is currently woefully diminished. -Silence 21:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Top priority does not denote only priority, for an article, and especially for the lead. I hate to be the spoiled sport, but I must remind everyone here this is not a biology article. Okay? This is an article on the subject of evolution. This includes biology and controversy. No mention of controversy is a glaring oversight. See the Encarta beginning for a guildeline. Evolution displaced dominant historic views; if that isn't lead material, I don't know what is. The focus should, is and always has been on the biology. Great! That does not give us license to push other stuff to the bottom of the article. - RoyBoy 800 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is an article about biological evolution. (There are other articles for other types of evolution.) Thus, it is a biology article. Controversy is relevant here only insofar as it is relevant to understanding biological evolution. No mention of controversy in the lead section is infinitely less of an oversight than no mention of dozens of other, more important topics for understanding biological evolution, like the fossil record and DNA. Yet these, too, are mentioned nowhere in the lead. For an article as immensely complex and broad as this one, we simply need to stop trying to squeeze every single "important" topic into the lead section, or it'll grow unmanageably large once again; if something is "important" we should work first on improving its coverage in the article body, and only afterwards, if there is wide agreement, insert it into the lead. If anything even the current lead is a little longer than would be ideal.
- Every major scientific discovery in history has "displaced dominant historic views", in one way or another. Without proper context and details, this is too vacuously vague to be very useful to readers in the "bite-sized" format that a lead section demands.
- The introduction to the Encarta evolution article is twice as long as the lead section of evolution. Since that means that at least half of the information in that introduction wouldn't fit here without us beginning to re-bloat the newly-trimmed section, pointing to the inclusion of something there wouldn't be sufficient grounds for inclusion even if Encarta was the pinnacle of encyclopedic achievement.
- The fact that this article's focus is on biology not only gives us "license" to push other stuff to the bottom of the article (and to other areas of the article body, many of which desperately need just that kind of "pushing" in order to flesh out missing information!); it gives us the duty to do so. -Silence 22:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- False comparison, DNA is implicitly referred to in the lead multiple times, and fossils are simply mineralized relics of DNA variation. Heh, yeah that's a stretched connection... but the point is both are central evidence for evolution. Controversy is a different sub-topic entirely; having nothing to do with biology, but everything to do with evolution... especially historically, the history (of the controversy and evolution's historic context) are under serviced in the lead.
- I get the distinct impression that now that the lead is "in shape", nothing can be added? Another way to see it, is that you've created room for other notable aspects of evolution to be mentioned.
- Don't obfuscate the issue with re-bloat. Encarta is a clear example that an encyclopedic article and lead is not exclusive to its main subject. Ever. Encarta is long and I have no intention of replicating the topics/coverage it has.
- The disambig notice at the top clarifies what concept of "Evolution" this article is covering. It's function is to keep people from placing concepts from Stellar evolution here. It provides absolutely no editorial mandate to focus exclusively on the biological aspect of that concept. I'll understand if I need to repeat this several times since this has obviously been an assumption carried forward by the dominant/active editors here, but that disambig notice does not change the fact this article needs cover all aspects of biological Evolution. That includes controversy (religion), history, politics and if notable enough, sociology. I'm not debating this with you, I'm trying to, with as light a touch as possible to a valuable contributor, to say... incorrect. Disambiguation is just that, disambiguation; it does not set (or force) tone on an article. - RoyBoy 800 22:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Implicit" references to DNA and fossils are obviously useless to readers who don't know anything about DNA or fossils! (And Wikipedia articles ought to assume as little as possible about what article-readers know.) If the controversy has nothing to do with biology, then it also has nothing to do with evolution (i.e., biological evolution); what you meant to say is that it's not a biological topic, but it still obviously has to do with biology, in the sense that it has to do with (the social effect of) a major scientific theory in biology. That is why it merits mentioning in this article at all; if it was irrelevant to biology (and thus to biological evolution), it wouldn't have even a single word devoted to it anywhere on the page.
- Evolution itself has no "historical context" in the sense you mean; what you mean to say is that the theory of evolution has a certain historical context, but remember that this article is about the biological process of evolution, not just about the scientific theory explaining that process (although obviously the theory must be significantly explained in order to convey the modern scientific understanding of evolution to our readers); the correct article for the theory (which, unlike the process, does have a historical context and a social effect in the sense you mean) is modern evolutionary synthesis.
- Things can certainly be added to the lead; it's "in shape" in the sense that it's not in terrible condition now, but it's certainly far from ideal, and I'm not averse to major, systematic changes being implemented if they're improvements. However, most things that can be added to the lead shouldn't be added, for the simple reason that the lead would be unmanageably large if we let most relevant and important topics in evolution be covered in the lead; only those that are crucial for a very basic understanding of biological evolution should be mentioned at all, and even those only briefly. For this reason, the evolution lead section isn't 100% "closed" to new input; it just needs to be kept on an extremely tight leash, and all proposed additions must be subjected to intensive scrutiny and wariness, in order to avoid the section becoming bloated yet again (as has happened dozens and dozens of times in the past).
- It doesn't provide a mandate to focus exclusively on strict biology, but it does provide a mandate to focus primarily on it. (I find it strange that you would suggest that I want the article to "exclusively" discuss strict biology; if that were so, I'd be arguing against keeping the section on "Social effects" around, not just arguing against adding a sentence about social effects to the lead section.) In my view, the level of primary importance of this area over others, combined with space limitations in the already overburdened lead section, combined with the difficulty of concisely and clearly explaining the nature of the controversy without conferring undue weight to minority views, warrants saving mentioning of a "social controversy" until later in the article. In your view, the importance of the social controversy overrides these three concerns; that's perfectly fine, and a valid opinion. I'm open to hearing suggestions on how add-on sentence you are proposing would look. But understand that there is a long-standing consensus, and a lot of editorial history in this article, opposing the inclusion of even a brief mention in the lead section of the topic you wish to add. For this reason, we should be doubly cautious in weighing the options, and not rush to assume that such an inclusion would be more helpful to our readers in this case than an exclusion, considering the (not exclusive, but exceedingly primary) focus of the article as a whole. Further discussion is needed first; I recommend devising at least one version of the proposed sentence and open a new thread (since this one has been scrolled up a bit) for discussing it at the bottom of this Talk page. Then we can get a better idea of consensus, act accordingly, and move on to more productive matters. -Silence 02:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Silence" must be latin for "wisdom." Hmmmmmmm.... Gnixon 04:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- But aren't you underestimating the notability of the impact of biological science on society? For analogy, is it reasonable for the Physics lead to mention the impact of say, nuclear weapons and semiconductors? Gnixon 22:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- This article isn't analogous to physics because it discusses a biological process, rather than a field or discipline of science; the proper analogy would be between physics and evolutionary biology. The social impact of a certain area of science is of more relevance to the article on the study of a phenomenon (e.g., evolutionary biology) or the explanation of that phenomenon (e.g., modern evolutionary synthesis) than on the phenomenon itself (e.g., evolution). This is not to say that the social impact of such study isn't important enough to mention in this article, merely that it's not quite important enough for the lead section, if only because there's always so much vastly more important information that we're currently leaving out for the sake of brevity and comprehensibility. -Silence 22:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Information that should be left out. - RoyBoy 800 22:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's what I get for picking a poor analogy. It's the idea of evolution that has impact, not the products of the field (physics). Maybe a better analogy would be Marxism or Adam Smith's take on economics. Meh. I agree with your comment below that these things should be addressed in the body before updating the intro. Gnixon 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- An analogy I would refer to is Age of the Earth, which I helped out on. While almost entirely science oriented there still needs to be mention of notable dissenting views. Now here is the kicker, those views have sub-articles, young earth creationism and such... but they do still merit a mention in the parent article. As they are indeed a part, a small part, but nonetheless a part of the subject matter for the article. - RoyBoy 800 23:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- We don't have to say it was a paradigm shift, but we must provide historic context for evolution; and wikilink to the dominant scientific theory prior to Darwin. If memory serves, it Gradualism or something like that... Huxley comes to mind; it was based on slow changes of terrain being analogous to biological changes. I can't really remember. - RoyBoy 800 22:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think you make a good point that this topic deserves to be broader than just the science, but it will be challenging to discuss the social impact without bloating the lead or giving undue weight to objections to evolution. Do you have specific suggestions? Gnixon 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not this second, but it should be short, a sentence or two; although it think it could grow to a small paragraph with historic, Darwin's time, and modern sentences providing a clear understanding resistance has been notable, historic and is ongoing in certain places. - RoyBoy 800 22:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Such an addition might be a superb one for the exceedingly short section "History of modern evolutionary thought"; I recommend adding it there first. If something isn't even important enough for the article body, it's certainly not important enough for the lead section. Also, gradualism (proposed in 1795 by Hutton) is part of the essential basis of evolution (and of modern geology and evolutionary biology), not the "dominant scientific theory prior to Darwin"; perhaps you're thinking of Lamarckism. Regardless, none of this is remotely significant enough for the lead section. -Silence 22:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree it at least makes sense to start by including these things in the body before the lead. Gnixon 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not notable for a biology article, but this isn't just biology article. Again look at Abortion, we have sub-articles wikilinked in the lead; which is still very tightly written. - RoyBoy 800 22:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Evolution is indeed "just a biology article". Abortion is not, but the fact that abortion isn't a biology article hardly shows that Wikipedia has no biology articles! Evolution is, quite simply, one of Wikipedia's biology articles; where it touches on non-biological topics, it does so only because of their relevance to evolutionary biology. For confirmation, just look at the "Abortion" infobox at the top of Abortion: none of these daughter articles are biology topics! They're all social, legal, and at best medicinal. In contrast, just about all of the daughter articles linked in Evolution's infobox at the top of the article are biological. That shows the relative importance of the social controversy to these two topics, and explains why the importance of mentioning the controversy in Abortion's lead section doesn't necessarily establish the importance of mentioning a completely different controversy in Evolution's lead section. If you want the article on evolution's social effect, go to Social effect of evolutionary theory; that's where this sort of information most belongs, not here. -Silence 00:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree that Evolution is "just a biology article" in the sense you mean---it's much more important than that, and very notable for reasons other than its scientific significance. A brief, well-placed reference to Social effect of evolutionary theory in the lead could resolve a lot of these issues. Gnixon 04:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Every sub-topic in the Evolution infobox should ideally be touched on in the lead of the parent article. That won't happen for relatively obscure topics like phylogenetics for example, however, controversy over evolution is hardly obscure! The notability of said daughter articles is what's pertinent; not a thematic breakdown of sub-articles which obviously reflects the nature of the respective topics. To put another way, resistance to evolutionary biology didn't happen? Someone volunteers, "yes many people disagreed with it passionately, as it contradicted their beliefs up until that point, but over time it has increasingly been accepted." Then I say, "how would I know that from reading the lead in evolution?" Wikipedia is not a science textbook, it aspires to be an encyclopedia. That lead simply does not meet that criteria, based on my practiced judgment of notability and understanding that topics are larger and more complicated than their scientific discipline. Leads are summarized reflections of that. - RoyBoy 800 03:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Information does indeed belong in appropriate sub-articles, but to not mention and point to those notable sub-topics/articles ignores the encyclopedic goal of Wikipedia. - RoyBoy 800 03:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't like quoting policy, but I hope it will help in this instance. From the lead in WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Emphasis on overview, meaning cover each sub-topic; and notable controversy. - RoyBoy 800 03:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with these sentiments. It would be an interesting challenge to try and incorporate notable objections to evolution in the lead without giving undue weight. (But I certainly think it's possible.) Gnixon 04:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Off the cuff, while I'm eating lunch at work, the most notable aspect is that evolution contradicts literal religious interpretations; and has therefore been accused/labeled as atheistic by said groups; not much else beyond that needs to be said about current objections, although if intelligent design is deemed notable enough I can be slid in as the modern evolution to the movement. Then there would be another sentence about past objections and the initial controversy/criticism Darwin faced, and maybe mention a key evolution champion of that time. So all that would be 2-3 sentences, then another sentence for whatever I'm forgetting. Sociology misuse? - RoyBoy 800 17:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- And of course, all this still is framed by introduction/conclusion sentences to provide historic/modern context for evolution; telling readers what it displaced and how dominant useful it is (which is already in the lead); but it can be expanded beyond "central organizing principle of modern biology" and wikilink to other disciplines/applications it has used for, in order to emphasize its broad scientific usefulness and acceptance. - RoyBoy 800 19:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The words paradigm shift sometimes get thrown around too casually. For starts, let me say that any claims about a "paradigm shift" need to come from reliable, verifiable sources, not our own views. Let's see what the major sources have to say before deciding anything. However, my own view - and yes, I know this can't go into the article but believe me I have been exploring this issue for a long time is this: first, to whatever extent "evolution" is used throughout Western culture, metaphorically or in some other rhetorical way, to describe and explain all sorts of phenomena, people usually use the word to mean "progress." In this sense, neither Darwin nor the founders of the Modern Synthesis accomplished any paradigm shift; on the contrary, their attention to change and the ways change can be good fits into a paradigm that established itself with the Enlightenment. See the classic books by JB Bury and by R. Nesbitt. Second, to whatever extent people throughout Western Culture explicitly appeal to Darwin and Mendel to explain all sorts of phenomena, they are usually really using Darwin and Mendel to authorize a sort of biological reductionism that Darwin and Mendel probably would not have supported and that certainly does not have the full support of evolutionary scientists (see works by Gould and Lewontin - you do not have to agree with their specific claims about specific biological debates to acknowledge their credentials as evolutionary scientists). I do believe that "progress" and "biological reductionism" are indeed powerful ideas in our culture, and I acknowledge that many uneducated people identify both with the theory of evolution, but in fact I think they are separate, have a separate existence, and need to be addressed separately. If someone can provide good secondary sources that provide another view, let's by all means examine them. But my reading of intellectual and cultural history suggests that at best the theory of evolution fits in with other dominant thoughts and ways of thinking - but not that they in any way caused these thoughts and ways of thinking to exist or become dominant. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Common descent
Are we ever going to have a war about this? The lead now states common descent quite baldly as tracing down to a single ancestor. Are we resolved to ignore confusion on this subject, or should we somehow amend the sentence to clarify? Will I ever shut up about this? Graft 22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- If your problem is with the fact that we say "common ancestor" rather than "common ancestor or ancestral gene pool" (which will just confuse most readers, since we haven't yet said what a gene pool is), dictionary.com attests to the fact that a "common ancestor", in this context, need not be a singular, specific individual organism; it defines a "common ancestor" as "the most recent ancestral form or species from which two different species evolved". The universal common ancestor can thus be a grouping of organisms, at least as far as I can tell. That's the very reason that terms like last universal ancestor are so often used. -Silence 22:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Quoi? Non, as far as I've read. Maybe a population or species, as is certainly the case with "common ancestors" for sexually reproducing creatures, but certainly not a grouping of disparate organisms that are genetically distinct. Common descent should mean a single root to the tree of life. Graft 23:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, this isn't Baraminology. There is a single root, as far as can be told: it's just obscured horrendously by extreme HGT at an early phase of divergence. Unless you're claiming that the same genetic code could independently evolve repeatedly... Adam Cuerden talk 07:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Quoi? Non, as far as I've read. Maybe a population or species, as is certainly the case with "common ancestors" for sexually reproducing creatures, but certainly not a grouping of disparate organisms that are genetically distinct. Common descent should mean a single root to the tree of life. Graft 23:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, no, I'm not claiming that, and really I don't know the field incredibly well. But see the Doolittle & Bapteste paper I linked to above; the position you cite above is one of three that Doolittle highlights, and it's certainly under attack. Eugene Koonin gave a talk on my floor a month or two ago on his theories of origins, and he definitely does NOT claim a single organism at the root. (I won't be able to do his scenarios justice, but you can probably look 'em up.) Graft 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm of course not claiming that there's multiple roots for, say, mammals, or animals, or probably even eukaryotes. But going beyond that it's not clear... Graft 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is a really fascinating topic to me... my most current understanding of "origins" is that, due to the (mainly) universal genetic code and the strict use of L-amino acids, that all life on earth *now* is likely to be descended from one ancestral lineage. However, the RNA world hypothesis and other early-earth ideas definitely allow for other (i.e. multiple) origins of life on Earth at that time... but I'm fairly sure that all *extant* lineages of life are believed to be traceable to an ancestral form, largely based on phylogenetic evidence. Do you know Carl Woese's paper on the Darwinian Threshold? I will try to find a link to it... I always have my students read that paper, near the end of my course. TxMCJ 04:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm hesitant to re-insert "common ancestor or ancestral gene pool" simply because it seems needlessly complicated and lengthy for the lead section. How about if we changed "All known species are descended from a single ancestor" to "All known species are descended from a single ancestral gene pool"? That would keep it relatively short, but make the statement accurate to all noteworthy scientific views on the matter (since presumably the "single-individual universal ancestor" view would also need there to be a single gene pool). Then we can discuss the matter in more detail later down the page, if anywhere. -Silence 23:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Moment of silence
| ...for Kurt Vonnegut. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
So... A moment of silence please, for Kurt Vonnegut who died today at age 84. I only mention it here because I hope most of you have read his novella "Galapagos", about a group of tourists in the Galapagos who end up being humanity's only surviving individuals after the rest of the world is wiped out in a nuclear war. Population bottleneck, great evolutionary story... pick it up if you haven't read it... and give it a read (or reread) this weekend... :( Mandaclair TxMCJ 04:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
|
More on Drift
| Factors contributing to Drift (passionate debate!) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Drift occurs because you must sample from your gametes to produce the next generation.
If random mating by itself produced drift, H-W equilibrium would be impossible.
Mating preference has nothing to say about drift one way or another...
It's WHICH alleles end up in your gametes (an issue of assortment) that is the cause of drift. Graft 17:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
|
- P.s. GetAgrippa, I like and support all of your suggestions (especially about phylogenetics, but *that* would require a whole new section teaching readers how to interpret trees...) but consider: if there is this much confusion and debate and disagreement and argument between authors of this article, then how on *blesséd Earth* can anyone here expect that a concise, general-public, "no-biology-background-required" article on Evolution is even possible? -- Nevermind the ability of *this* group of editors to produce it? Point being: before anyone else tries to make a future argument for keeping this article "short and sweet and non-technical and non-jargony", have another look at the pages and pages and pages of talk that's gone on about the content. Then ask yourself: how much of it do you understand, personally? Evolution is NOT a one-dimensional subject, nor an intuitive one, and any attempt to distill it to an easily digestible morsel in plain English will utterly, utterly fail. The article needs to be rich and robust, and there is a way to achieve this without writing "War and Peace" (as someone recently put it..." TxMCJ 19:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was the idiot who made the War and Peace comparison (poor argument and word choice). I guess I am biased and I like the idea of a rich and robust article. My tendency would be to saturate the article with information and dazzle the reader with nice illustrations as examples. Evolution touches on every subject of biology so why not get touchy. I always thought the Simple Evolution article addressed the issue of an accessible short and sweet version. Perhaps it is time to restart with a new game plan. Just get a consensus of what to put in it and how to organize it (this may qualify as a "miracle"). I have always been more concerned what is in the article (or left out) rather than how to say it. It seems without a good foundation and some plans this article will never develop. Perhaps a comittee of evolutionary biologists (graduate students in field also) can have a meeting of the minds and bring method to the madness. I would agree that those trained in the field are better equipped for such a task, although I think scientist and biologist in general can help build the article with the Master plan. I can't imagine that a group of evolutionary biologist could not agree on a Master plan (of course the devil is in the details). It is an idea anyways. GetAgrippa 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- GREAT idea, GetAgrippa. So let's start out by taking a roll call of the evolutionary biologists editing this page.
- "Here". TxMCJ 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Master plan
| A debate about editing and the value of contributions. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
Restrict editing even more?
- Also: this is probably a concept from chipmunk fantasy-world, but being that the core of Evolutionary science does not change at a *fraction* of the rate that this article changes: does Wikipedia allow for successive "editions" posted at intervals, rather than constant editing? I strongly feel that we do the article (and anyone on the internet interested in Evolution) a great disservice by re-molding it all the time. It gives the sense of disorganization, and of uncertainty. It also gives the incorrect impression that evolutionary biologists can't get their story straight, which is something that gibbering creationists love to believe. I really think that for an article like this -- especially something of such high scientific AND social import (as Janis Joplin might say) -- a much better strategy would be to allow editing and the release of a new edition every three MONTHS or so (instead of every three minutes). Core concepts are not going to change over three months (or three years, or thirty years), but... I doubt that Wikipedia allows for that sort of thing. People would be at a loss, of what to do with all their spare time! ;-) But could we make an argument perhaps, that because of extensive vandalism here, that we disable editing of this article for periods of 3 months at a time (after reaching our... ahem... "consensus" article?) I know other heavily vandalized articles can have disabled editing, so this is just an idear... My point is not only about vandalism, but it's more about this: as an educator, I would be very very happy if a quality article about evolution was posted here and STAYED HERE FOR A WHILE WITHOUT GETTING REARRANGED ALL THE TIME. As you know, this article is Google's first hit for the word "Evolution", so it's really important (*REALLY* important) for there to be quality work here -- and I'll say it again -- written mainly by people in the field, and not hobbyists or people with casual interest. Quality work, in my opinion, is not constantly hemming and hawwing and changing itself around. The facts and theory of Evolution hardly change that much to justify the amount of editing that goes on around here, and if the folks here really view themselves stewards of this information, there ought to be a push to recruit the best authors you can, get the thing written, and then STOP CHANGING IT so often. Thanks for listening, TxMCJ 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't a concept from a fantasy-world, just a non-Wiki world. Text has no sanctity here. There's almost always a better way to say something. Parts of the text that are satisfactory don't tend to change. There's a lot of text here, and we certainly shouldn't be reluctant to let people make incremental improvements as they see fit. I'd think this would appeal to an evolutionary biologist :) Graft | talk 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Modern evolutionary biologists recognize that evolution is rarely a process of constant gradual change, and usually more characterized as a tempo of punc. Eq. : Long periods of stasis, interrupted by short bursts of change. That's PRECISELY the evolutionary "pattern" I would like to see in this article, so you are right, Graft, although you didn't mean to be ;-) TxMCJ 22:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- TxMCJ did you read this Science article in relation to the subject? :Pagel M, Venditti C, Meade A. Large punctuational contribution of speciation to evolutionary divergence at the molecular level. Science. 2006 Oct 6;314(5796):119-21. Erratum in: Science. 2006 Nov 10;314(5801):925. PMID: 17023657 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]. I thought it was an interesting analysis. GetAgrippa 03:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
| After this point, more debate largely about the efficiency of the wiki-process. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
"Favorite"? There are no "favorites" in accuracy and completeness. Science is not about "which version of this article tickles me pinkest". Sure, people have different editing and writing styles, but a constantly changing article does other readers a huge disservice. Not every child, high-school kid, college student, or inquiring mind is Wiki-geek enough to go seeking for more complete truths by browsing the article's history. This thing is for the PUBLIC, not for experienced editors. TxMCJ 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
|
Second law of thermodynamics vs. creationists
| A request for an explanation of why evolution does not violate 2nd law of thermodynamics |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I would like to see the following quote (or, the information in it) included in this article. It simply and elegantly explains why evolution does not violate the 2nd law. --Thorwald 02:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
|
Expanded to-do list
I'm seeing a lot of talk on this Talk page, but not a lot of action, or even a lot of talk about the article. Here's my attempt to organize and start to codify a plan of action for improving the article and addressing unresolved content issues; additions and discussion are welcome. Hopefully this will help jumpstart a new wave of improvements that will get this article back on track for FA status—and, in the process, back on track for achieving higher value and usefulness to laypeople who want information on evolution. -Silence 06:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- 0. Lead section
- Status: Good length. Decently accessible. Probably receives more focus than the entire rest of the article.
- 0a - How much should genetics be addressed? How can genes be concisely but accurately explained here? Do we need to mention DNA?
- 0b - How many evolutionary processes should be discussed, and in how much detail? Do we need to mention mutations? Do we need to mention genetic drift? Should we add a mention of gene flow or genetic recombination?
- 0c - Does an entire paragraph need to be devoted to natural selection? The argument for this is that natural selection requires a more in-depth explanation to gain even a superficial understanding of, and can be explained in that much detail without appealing to confusing terminology, unlike genetic drift; the argument against this is that natural selection isn't any more important than genetic drift and the like for understanding how evolution works.
- 0d - The explanation of adaptation, speciation, and comment descent is currently relatively poor: it's clumsy and not as clear as it could be. This is probably the clearest area of potential improvement in the lead section.
- 0e - Should a sentence be tacked on to the third paragraph mentioning the social controversy surrounding evolutionary theory?
- 0f - Should supporting evidence for evolution (e.g., the fossil record) be mentioned?
- 0g - Where should the distinction between evolution as theory and fact be briefly explained, if anywhere? Here? Basic processes? Study of evolution?
- 1. Basic processes
- Status: Decent length and quality, but could be better. As this section immediately follows the lead section, it is currently the most important section in the article to work on improving, as it should provide all the more detailed, but still basic, explanations for how evolution works. Also, the distinction between this section and "Mechanisms of evolution" is unclear. A substantial reorganization may be necessary if a non-arbitrary line between the two cannot be found.
- 1a - The discussion of Gregor Mendel is a useful device for explaining heredity in a simple way, but it is a bit out-of-place, especially since Darwin himself isn't discussed in the same level of detail until near the end of the article. Consider reworking the basic explanation to transfer the historical details to the "History" section. This section should ideally only explain heredity itself, not the history of scientific views on heredity.
- 1b - The relevance of the last three paragraphs of "Mutation" to the topic of mutation is unclear.
- 2. Mechanisms of evolution
- Status: Same as "Basic processes". Major reorganization needs to be discussed if the current layout is arbitrary.
- 2a - "Selection and adaptation" needs references.
- 2b - Considering that "Gene flow" and "Gene migration" are synonyms, do we really need a separate section for "Migration"?
- 2c - The hybridization section should be shortened. We only need a very, very brief overview; detailed examples like wheat and mules are unnecessary.
- 3. Evidence of evolution
- Status: Overly long. This is not an especially important section; the job of this article is to explain evolution, not to justify it. Any non-essential information should be removed, as there's already an extensive daughter article for covering any details or examples, Evidence of evolution.
- 3a - Specifically, "molecular evidence" should probably be shortened by at least a paragraph or so, if possible.
- 4. History of life
- Status: Good length and good information, but disjointed.
- 4a - Going over "history of life" before "origin of life" makes absolutely no sense.
- 4b - Likewise, not going over "common descent" before going over the common descent-based theory of how life has developed makes no sense. If anything, these sections are exactly backwards. Old formats like this were simpler and made much more intuitive sense.
- 5. Study of evolution
- Status: Needs some expansion.
- 5a - Why "History of modern evolutionary thought" when the daughter article is History of evolutionary thought? Isn't "modern" redundant? For the purposes of the evolution article, the concept of "evolution" is modern by definition, since it is Darwinian by definition. Moreover, pre-modern "evolutionary thought" is indeed already touched on (albeit very briefly) in this section, so that satisfies any concerns about chronocentricity.
- 5b - "History of modern evolutionary thought" is far too short of a section. It could be almost twice as big without problems. Because of its shortness, it lacks many very important details, like modern conflicts in evolutionary science (punctuated equilibrium, neutral mutation, etc.).
- 6. Social and religious controversies
- Status: Decent, but needs some tidying in general.
- 6a - The creationism paragraph should probably either be expanded a little and split into two paragraphs, or shortened a little, depending on how important it is.
- 6b - The eugenics/social darwinism paragraph needs a POV check.
- 6c - We should consider whether there are any social effects other than social darwinism and creationism that merit mentioning here; if so, we could expand the section's title from "Social controversies" to "Social effects" in general.
- 6d - The daughter article Misunderstandings about evolution is largely redundant to Objections to evolution, and raises POV concerns in its very framing. Should it be deleted, or reworked? Does it have enough content that isn't also used as an "objection"?
- 7. Footnotes/References
- Status: Inconsistent and confusing. Should be significantly longer as well.
- 7a - "Footnotes" is an inaccurate and misleading name; it should be changed to "References", "Citations", "Footnotes and citations", "Notes and references", or something of the sort.
- 7b - The "References" section below is so short that it should just be integrated into the above section. Find out what parts of the article are being backed up by the texts in question, then attach them to the text in question.
- 8. External links
- Status: Just right. Concise, useful, and unbiased; nothing more could be asked for in a link section. The lack of a "See also" section is also a plus, as it prevents the accumulation of cruft.
-Silence 06:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Discussion of expanded to-do list
Way to go, bro -- I'll have some additions eventually but I'm exhausted at the moment. This outline format is great. TxMCJ 06:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Looking good. May I suggest that "Social and religious controversies" should have 6d – indicate early controversy, and fluctuations in level of controversy. The current opening sentence "Ever since the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, evolution has been a source of nearly constant controversy" is misleading, as controversy was at a peak around 1810 – 1830, there was wide interest and less controversy in the later 19th century, then the current concepts of creationism gained headway in the 1920s: History of the creation-evolution controversy covers this in outline. Something on the lines of "Since concepts of evolution were put forward around the start of the nineteenth century there have been varying levels of controversy." would be more appropriate, with reference then being made to Darwin's natural selection being the focus of 20th century attention. Will think about it, .. dave souza, talk 10:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ditto - thanks, Silence. One suggestion i have been mulling over for a while. I hesitate to make it only because I do think the intro is good and don't like to muck with good things. But I wonder whether it would be helpful to our lay audience to specifiy in the lead that "evolution" refers both to a fact (observable phenomena) and a theory (a model to explain that phenomena)? We can do so in a way that also introduces the structure of the article, as 1 and 2 are largely on the theory/model and 3 and 4 on the facts/observed phenomena. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we need to go into the fluctuation, since that won't give much information to readers without specifying how and when and why it fluctuated; we could, however, replace the "Ever since the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859" with "Ever since the early 20th century", if editors agree that the relevant controversies and objections surrounding Darwinian evolution largely started then.
- As for the theory/fact distinction, I've been thinking about that as well, but I don't think it would be helpful to discuss that in the lead section, just because properly explaining it there could overwhelm readers. If we always use "evolution" in this article to mean "the process of evolution", and always use "the theory of evolution" or "evolutionary theory" or similar when referring to the theory, then I think we should be fine, since we are careful to define "evolution" as a process (rather than theory) at the start of the article, and readers shouldn't be expected to assume otherwise about definitions unless we specify otherwise. I wouldn't be averse to trying to include that information somewhere in the article, though (perhaps under "study of evolution"?), since it may indeed be valuable to clearing up some potential misconceptions. We don't need to go into it in much detail regardless, though, since we already have a daughter article going into all the gritty details (evolution as theory and fact).
- I am more interested in the idea of reorganizing the article along something like the lines you mention. We need some sort of meaningful overarching structure to the article, because currently the "Processes/Mechanisms" division doesn't seem to make much sense (unless someone could explain and justify the distinction). However, I'm not sure how we would successfully implement a layout trying to distinguish the theory/model from the observation for an article like evolution; theory is just too pervasive and vital in an article like this. It is the theory that makes evolution the "light" in which biology makes sense; without that theory, the fact is just a trivial observation. This is a particularly counterproductive way to present evolution to laypeople, who won't have any such grasp on history or philosophy of science. I also don't see how section 4 ("history of life") in any way constitutes "facts" or "observed phenomena"; since when have we directly observed the evolutionary development of all life forms? -Silence 12:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can't argue as I have already said I feel ambivalent about the point already. However, I think a lot of lay people are confused over the relationship between fact and theory and that in the past we have sometimes gotten hung up on the best way to explain to a lay audience the relationship when the simpler/simplest thing to do is just state that evolution is both - and I don't think it would be too hard to show the difference (e.g. the fossil record, genetic evidence, and contemporary field studies provide overwhelming evidence that species change, diverge, and form new species; the theory of evolution provides a modle to explain how this happens ... or something like this). I agree that the two are deeply entwined which is why it makes sense to start with the more theoretical sections. I know as it stands 4 is kind of anomolous. I lump 4 with 3 and "evolution as fact" as a proposal really for how to develop 4 because the history (not origin) of life is reconstructed largely on fossil evidence and increasingly on genetic evidence but either way, well, call me old-fashioned but this is evidence and while it may be interpreted in light of the model, it nevertheless is empirical evidence for evolution. Put anothe way: the fossil evidence indicates that hominids evolved from australopithicenes - this is an inductive, not a deductive claim. How and why this occured is explained by the theory. Anyway, this was my thinking more or less. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- The easiest thing might be to say "evolution is both a theory and a fact", but I'd argue that that's far away from being the simplest thing, since it actually constitutes misleading our readers and confusing important scientific terminology; a fact can never be a theory, and a theory can never be a fact, in science. What we really mean by "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is that the word evolution is sometimes used to refer to a theory, and at other times to a fact; but these two words are not the same "evolution", and do not constitute one "thing".
- I think it would be much, much harder to show the difference than you seem to realize. Consider, for example, your claim that various things "provide overwhelming evidence that species change, diverge, and form new species"; but new species have also been directly observed arising in studies! Is speciation theory/explanation, or observation/fact? What about mutation? Couldn't someone argue that even the cell model is just a "theory" to explain various facts (including the fact that we see certain things under a microscope)? Moreover, I don't see how it makes any sense to discuss the theory explaining evidence before we discuss the evidence itself; wouldn't it be less counter-intuitive to first tell readers what the facts are, and then to seek to explain those facts with some "theory" sections?
- As for 4, you correctly note that "the history of life is reconstructed largely on fossil evidence and increasingly on genetic evidence"; the key phrase here is "reconstructed... on... evidence". The reconstruction isn't itself the direct evidence; it's the cluster of theories (with the overarching theory being "common descent") explaining the evidence (specifically, the fossil and genetic evidence, e.g., homology). To say that common descent is evidence of biological evolution is like saying that the Big Bang is evidence of stellar evolution; if you're using "evidence" so loosely as to apply even to the most theoretical of ideas, then you have already lost your "theory/evidence" distinction and the article layout becomes arbitrary again. The idea that hominids evolved from australopithicenes is not an observation, but a theory explaining the distribution of fossils; to say that this explanation is any less theoretical than the occurrence of speciation or mutation or many other processes/mechanisms of the evolutionary theory seems arbitrary to me. The fact that our evolutionary history might seem more "obvious" or "fact-based" to us than natural selection or other models doesn't make it any less theoretical. The key distinction is that it's still "fact-based", not factual: it's accounting for and explaining the evidence. -Silence 12:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well said and entirely correct. Another major source of confusion is equating "fact" and "truth" (along with "theory" and "conjecture"). Thus "evolution is both a theory and a fact" has been used/understood by some to mean "evolution is both a scientific theory and true," as in, "the choice between theory and truth is a false dichotomy based on misunderstanding of theory." The problems with the language are too complex to be explained in the lead. (IMHO) Gnixon 13:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly did not mean to belittle the status of evolutionary theory or the complex relationship between theory and fact. I agree with everything Silence and Gnixon have written. I only meant to suggest that it might clarify things for a lot of readers to say in the lead that evolution is both a fact and a theory. I do not think that having one section on mechanisms of evolution and another section on evidence for evolution - a structural issue - suggests that theory and fact are entirely divorced. It is just a point about organizing the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have any problem with separating mechanisms and evidence for evolution (especially if we are clear on what does and doesn't constitute a "mechanism"); indeed, that's the current status of the article. My problem was with how we should distinguish "fact" and "theory" in such a way as to have separate sections for the fact and theory of evolution here; distinguishing mechanisms from evidence is much easier. It doesn't resolve the current processes/mechanisms confusion, however.
- I also agree with you that it would be helpful to readers to clarify that process of evolution (evolution) is a fact/observation, and the theory of evolution (modern evolutionary synthesis) is a theory/explanation/model. I just haven't seen an adequate way to insert that information into the article yet; I'm very hesitant to add it to the lead section and risk overloading the first few paragraphs with subtle terminological distinctions. We could certainly add it to Evolution (disambiguation) and Evolution (term); perhaps we could mention it in Evolution as a footnote at the start of the third paragraph? That would raise the problem that most people wouldn't bother clicking the note, though, plus it would introduce inconsistency in the reference style... Perhaps the solution is to priefly discuss the issue at the very beginning of "Basic processes" or something. That section's pretty short. -Silence 13:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- The fact and theory issue has come up before and initially I think a Gould quote was used to address the issue. It definitely needs to be addressed somewhere in the article, but I think many people still don't get it when it has been addressed. I think the history section spends too much time on ancient history and Darwin and not enough on the Modern synthesis and hardening thereafter. Since most of the definitions, nomenclature, etc. are derived from the Modern synthesis and NeoDarwinism, it seems approriate to emphasize the roots of current evolutionary thought. I also think it is a good idea to address misconceptions as they arise by topic, so more Modern can bring up distinctions between fitness and fittest, natural selection and population genetics rather than mutationism, etc. Just a suggestion. Oh yeah, I think Silence deserves a big hand for consistently being so methodical in addressing issues within the artilce. It generates the most productive bouts of change in the article. GetAgrippa 14:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Approve strongly of addressing misconceptions within relevant sections (as opposed to a separate section or ignoring them altogether). Gnixon 15:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As for this fact/theory thing, maybe it would make sense to point out in the lead that "evolution" refers to both the general observation/idea of populations changing over time and the scientific theory explaining those observations. We might be able to avoid problems of terminology by not using charged words like "fact" and "theory" (but use only "scientific theory," perhaps). I notice another language issue: we can use "theory" to refer to the theory, but we seem to have trouble coming up with a way to refer to the basic observations that don't depend on the full structure of the theory. For example, "evidence" has horrible connotations. I won't attempt any specific suggestions just yet. Gnixon 15:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- On second thought, perhaps "observations" fits the bill. What would people think about retitling the "evidence" section? (I've never understood its raison d'etre.) Gnixon 15:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would recommend bringing this issue up on Talk:Evidence of evolution. I personally agree 100% with you that this is a troubling section as currently presented, but if it is troubling then the article should be troubling for the same reason, so if anything that article would need to be moved first (and it would probably then have to be rewritten..). On the other hand, there are analogous sections in other articles, like Big Bang#Observational evidence. Perhaps part of the problem is that we aren't clear on what the "evidence" is evidence for. Is it evidence for common descent? For natural selection? For the occurrence of evolution (i.e., populations genetically changing over time)? Another problem is that there's simply too much evidence for evolution; evolution is such a fundamental, widely-supported phenomenon that having a section on evidence for it comes across (to anyone who understands evolution) as being as silly as having an evidence section for, say, cell theory. -Silence 00:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
My Apologies In Advance
| Complaints two editors have had about a third |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I posted what I view to be an important statement here, that was subsequently deleted. I am not going to contest the censorship, because I agree that this kind of thing really brings Wikipedia down to a very poor level, but instead of reposting here I am moving the content and argument to my Talk page, for the record. Please have a look if you are remotely interested. Thanks, TxMCJ 18:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It was I who removed the statement. It was one user's complaint about the behavior of another user. It was an inappropriate use of an article talk page. I don't believe TxMCJ's current comment is an appropriate use of this talk page either and am considering removing it as well. Please discuss your complaints on your personal talk pages, or if that fails, utilize standard channels of dispute resolution. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
|
Keeping things simple RE: (Pattern/Process, and Theory/Fact.)
I realize immediately upon posting this new section, that this could erupt into the "least simple" debate one could imagine... and that's sort of my point. I suggest that we try to view all of the above discussions as indicative of the distinction that is made across many sciences, the distinction between pattern and process. You observe a pattern. You discover or propose the process. The process describes the pattern you observed. Note that this is not "hypothesis testing" -- you still have to design experiments to test the validity of the process you propose (which of course is why Evolution is science and ID is not.(in your opinion)) I think keeping a distinction between pattern and process is the simplest way to organize one's thoughts within any science.
Pattern: Life is diverse. Process: Speciation (which of course has several sub-processes)
Pattern: Taxa are naturally ordered hierarchically. Process: Shared ancestry/common descent (has sub-processes)
Pattern: Taxa show ranges that are either continuous or disjunct. Process: Historical relationships between lineages and land areas.
Pattern: Variation exists in every species. Process: Mendelian genetics
Pattern: Homology. Process: Phylogeny
Pattern: Allele frequencies in a population. Process: selection, gene flow, drift
Pattern: Fossil record shows forms that no longer exist. Process: Evolution over time, and extinction
et cetera. Note that this "pattern/process" distinction is not some clever tool I am coming up with on the spot to help solve our problems. It's really the way that almost all sciences are structured.
OK, now: you might want to make the logical leap and say that pattern is fact, process is theory. Makes sense at first, however, that is not really the best distinction to make, as even the processes above are now regarded as "facts" in the same way that any other "fact" outside of formal logic or geometry becomes accepted as "fact". I know the FAQ covers this and that most of us understand the distinction, yet it seems like we spend a lot of time dwelling on it, and I'm not sure why.
My second point on this, therefore, is please let us not bog our readers down (and our discussions down) with too much cud-chewing on theory and fact, and "what gets categorized as theory, what as fact". All the article needs to state is the following concise points: 1.) Theory and hypothesis are not synonyms (in science); 2.) Evolution is a theory (a body of ideas and processes that accurately describe data), much like Number Theory or Atomic Theory -- and thus it is not a concept that is somehow "still on the table awaiting proof"; 3.) The core conclusions of Evolutionary Biology are also facts (selection, change over time, shared ancestry, old Earth) by the same definition that any other falsifiable hypothesis that matches the data perfectly every time, eventually becomes accepted as fact. End of that story. Need not elaborate. Move on to the article.
I argue for a simplification of all of the above, mainly because most people are not going to have the patience (and maybe not the cerebral constitution either) to join us in our deep contemplations of theory and fact. I know the distinction is made in the FAQ, but I also think our own discussions on this page could be simplified and cleaned up a bit by not referring to "fact" and "theory" as much, as if a quality article requires us to somehow categorize the information for our readers (it doesn't). Thanks, TxMCJ
Please Include Specific Examples in Plain English
Here’s an article arguing that bird lungs are superior to mammal lungs [5] . Well, evolution sometimes works that way. It fashions a solution that is simply good enough. And it does not backtrack later to fashion a perfect solution. Here is another article about the respiratory system of birds [6] .
A couple of weeks ago, Gnixon invited me to contribute to the article. Thank you very much for the compliment, but I have not yet found the sweet spot. My writing has been criticized for sounding too much like an essay. Well, I don’t think the writing should be all that difficult to read (afterall, our concepts here are difficult enough!). There is a sweet spot between formality and readability.
And, I’m even more convinced that our article should be longer. This is a major destination article. This might well be our best chance to describe, to explain, to teach. So, if you have found the sweet spot, or even if you feel you’re close, please contribute. I think we could easily use five straightforward examples of evolution working, a much longer history of life on earth, and a longer section on controversy, including claims on “irreducible complexity” about the hemoglobin molecule and bacteria flagellum. When creationists talk about such things, they are really doing us a favor. These are great examples we can discuss. They are bringing up puzzles which do in fact pique people’s interests. Let’s keep the discussion going. I’m thinking about two paragraphs on each topic, even if there is another wiki article that discusses it at greater length, we just include a link (much longer for history of life on Earth). Much too much of wiki is people simply linking together blue words. That’s just the skeleton of the article! We need people who will fill in with good description and explanation. Please talk just like you would to an interested high school or college student. And maybe toward the latter part of the article, allowing it to become more challenging, talk just like you would talking to a professional colleague who’s in a slightly different field and who’s sincerely interested, What’s the latest going on in evolutionary biology? Go ahead and tell us. I want a readable, teachable article. I want to read stuff, be reminded of what I already know, and then go a little bit further. For example, the part about Archaea, that’s a completely different taxonomy than what I grew up knowing (I graduated from high school in 1981). I would very much like having this spelled out in plain English, and the implications. I understand one thing that makes this early taxonomy so difficult is that bacteria swap DNA all the time.
I do appreciate everyone’s efforts. I realize just how hard writing is. I’m making suggestions the best I can, but do it your own way. FriendlyRiverOtter 03:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Evolution is "guided" by natural selection and other activities, it attributes no human "value" to anything that happens. I guess I find the word "superior" to be attribute a "value" to something that evolved for different reasons. Birds have extraordinary metabolism (think about flying for 2500 miles when birds migrate), and their lungs evolved to provide oxygen to that metabolism. Humans don't need that, and in fact, bird lungs would not provide enough oxygen for humans to have the massive brain that we do. So, in that case, our lungs provide a superior advantage for humans over birds. Orangemarlin 05:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I participate as an interested lay person (and I do hope I’m one of the intended audiences! at least for the first half of the article or so). I may well raise issues/ask questions that are obvious, but not yet obvious to me.
- 1) By “superior,” I mean it in the engineering sense, extracting more oxygen from a given volume of air, that type of thing.
- 2) And why do brains require more oxygen than muscles? FriendlyRiverOtter 18:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I beleive that the lungs of birds are often considered superior to human's due to their "circular breathing", which allows them to continue breathing at the same time as exhaling. Our lungs have "dead space", ie a volume of stale air that remains in lungs and bronchi with every breath, and, as a closed sac, there is a period of time where we do not breathe. Jared743 05:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
New page
I suggest creating a seperate page on "Evolutionary theory", which, when searched, leads to the article on Evolution. The article would focus more on the mechanisms of evolution, allowing this article to focus on the factual side of evolution. Any comments, reactions? --THobern 20:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Already exists. Modern evolutionary synthesis. -Silence 20:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Then can we have "evolutionary theory" link there? Thanks, --THobern 21:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea. Though we could also make it a dab page linking to Evolution, Modern evolutionary synthesis, and even past evolutionary theories, like Lamarckism. -Silence 21:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well that was my orginal problem with the linking. I suggest a page covering the different schools of Evolutionary thought, historical and modern. It can link, of course, to the main articles. Thanks
--THobern 21:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- There are no other modern ones, except for religious attempts to "create" science where none exists. Orangemarlin 16:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that all is hunky-dory between advocates of gradualism and punctuated equilibrium? Neither believes that they are taking a religious position, as I understand it. Mdotley 19:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Mdotley, that's not what I was referring to. When someone throws in "theory", I know what they mean, and it wasn't what you described. BTW, it may not be hunky-dory (haven't heard that in years), but one side is NOT claiming that G_d is on their side. :) Orangemarlin 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- You brought religion into it, Marlin. Anyway, I'm with Mdotley on this one. A history of evolutionary theory would be more appropriate than linking "evolutionary theory" to Evolution (I recently changed this to link to Modern evolutionary synthesis, but that's not quite right).--THobern 05:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I mean along the lines of Genetic drift, Phenotypic plasticity, Gene-centered views of evolution as opposed to earlier Lamarckian models. The article would focus more on the mechanisms of evolution, allowing this article to focus on the factual, as opposed to the theoretical, side of evolution.--THobern 20:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think it would be a mistake to try to separate the description of what has happened in the history of life and the explanations for why this has happened. You need to explain one to understand the other, so I don't think separating the two would make this any clearer to the reader. TimVickers 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see where you're comming from, and I have to agree. Perhaps seperate articles on both. One for evolutionary theory, the other for the history of evolution. Thanks for the feedback, --THobern 21:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- ^ a b c d Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-87893-187-2.
- ^ Lande, R. (1983). "The measurement of selection on correlated characters". Evolution. 37: 1210–1226.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Haldane, J.B.S. (1953). "The measurement of natural selection". Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Genetics. 1: 480–487.
- ^ a b c d e "Mechanisms: the processes of evolution". Understanding Evolution. University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 2006-07-14.
- ^ Gould, Stephen J. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Press. ISBN 0-674-00613-5.
- ^ Dawkins, Richard (1989). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press Press. ISBN 0-674-00613-5.
Lake, James A. (2004). "The Ring of Life Provides Evidence for a Genome Fusion Origin of Eukaryotes" (PDF). Nature. 431. Retrieved 2007-03-18.{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ UCLA Report (2004). "Ring of Life". Retrieved 2007-03-16.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ Doolittle, Ford W. (February 2000). "Uprooting the Tree of Life". Scientific American: pp. 72-77.
{{cite journal}}:|pages=has extra text (help)CS1 maint: year (link) - ^ Lake, James A. and Maria C. Riveral (1999). "Horizontal gene transfer among genomes: The complexity hypothesis". PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science). 96:7: pp. 3801-3806. Retrieved 2007-03-18.
{{cite journal}}:|pages=has extra text (help) - ^ Bapteste; et al. (2005). "Do Orthologous Gene Phylogenies Really Support Tree-thinking?". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 5:33. Retrieved 2007-03-18.
{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=(help) - ^ Gogarten, Peter (2000). "Horizontal Gene Transfer: A New Paradigm for Biology". Esalen Center for Theory and Research Conference. Retrieved 2007-03-18.
- ^ "IAP STATEMENT ON THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION" (PDF). the Interacademy Panel on International Issues. Retrieved 2007-03-20.
- ^ "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2006. Retrieved 2007-03-20.
- ^ Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-87893-187-2.
- ^ Gould, Stephen J. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Press. ISBN 0-674-00613-5.
- ^ Lande, R. (1983). "The measurement of selection on correlated characters". Evolution. 37: 1210–1226.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-87893-187-2.
- ^ Haldane, J.B.S. (1953). "The measurement of natural selection". Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Genetics. 1: 480–487.
- ^ Gould, Stephen J. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Press. ISBN 0-674-00613-5.
- ^ Lande, R. (1983). "The measurement of selection on correlated characters". Evolution. 37: 1210–1226.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Haldane, J.B.S. (1953). "The measurement of natural selection". Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Genetics. 1: 480–487.
- ^ Myers, PZ (2006-06-18). "Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?". Pharyngula. scienceblogs.com. Retrieved 2006-11-18.
- ^ IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)
- ^ From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws