Talk:Evolution/Archive 51

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 45

←

Archive 49

→

Etymology and history

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Shouldn't there be an etymology of the word? And shouldn't the history section be frist? 86.21.104.180 (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

History isn't nearly as important as the theory it's self, the page is lucky to have much of a history section as all since it would be more relevant on a page like history of evolution then on the evolution page it's self. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 10:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

With regard to etymology, this is an article about the science of evolutionary biology. While the evolution of the word "evolution" is an interesting subject, it is not appropriate for this particular article. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No this is an article about evolution. Nearly all articles have etymologies, hell, even War on terrorism has one. I think it's a great idea. Don't knw where we'd find sources though. Also, raeky, history of evolution is a timeline of how evolution progressed; you're looking for History of evolutionary thought ;-)--Patton^t/c

Well, I don't have the statistics to take issue with this so I will only note that, for example, the gravity article does not have an etymology section. My concern is really about space. Isn't etymology really a separate issue from the subject of this article? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If somebody can find a source, we could add it as a footnote, like in photosynthesis. However, for myself I don't think it is all that important. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no need. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Biologically or In Biology

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I reverted a change made a day or so ago in the lead, just because "In biology..." has a slightly different meaning than "Biologically," and although it may not be as "succinct", I do think it's more accurate. If I've overstepped, feel free to revert. Quietmarc (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale reversions of FAQ edits.

Latest comment: 15 years ago39 comments8 people in discussion

I have restored recently reverted edits for the following reasons:
Baby out with the bathwater. An editor has twice instituted wholesale reverts of edits to the FAQ page. These reversions undid changes indiscriminately, including these:

These edits seem harmless enough and the editor does not explain why they are being reverted.
Lack of guidance. The editor also reverts at least one substantial change:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution%2FFAQ&diff=273288993&oldid=273251113

The editor provides three reasons for this reversion. First, "[g]et consensus before you make such huge ... changes." This does not tell me what the problem is (and, in any case, there is no requirement that edits be pre-screened for consensus; consensus is the process for resolving disputes).
Second, the editor says the change is "unreadable." No further information is given to suggest what the exact problem is. Of course, I thought the changes made the section more readable. So I have no clue how to meet the editor's concerns.
Third, the editor says "[b]ad changes that confuse the issue." Again, there is no guidance.
If the editor who is making these reversions wants to go in and fix the problems the editor perceives then that is certainly in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. Alternatively, I would welcome any instructive comments the editor wishes to make. However, I respectfully suggest, wholesale reversions without meaningful explanation are not appropriate. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I noticed when I saw the initial changes was that they was simple grammatical changes which didn't change the meaning of the sections or reordering some paragraphs so that the section flows better. Although I admit I didn't pay extreme close attention, but that was my impression. I would side with Butwhatdoiknow here unless someone posts some really good reason why these changes are controversial and "unreadable" — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. I gave a reason, it was completely unreadable. And bullet points are not very encyclopedic. Bad writing is bad writing.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OM, since you wrote this I have put four of the five the items listed above to the group one by one (see Step 1 - Step 4 below). And, one by one they have been approved (with some improvements by helpful editorial suggestions). You did not complain that any of those four items was "unreadable." So would you now agree with me that your statement that my changes were "completely" unreadable was a bit hyperbolic? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I've pointed it out to you yet Butwhatdoiknow, but have you read over WP:BRD? Your edits here have been consistently challenged as unhelpful, so maybe you could consider, at your suggestion, having your edits pre-screened to save any fuss. Ben (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We understand that there is some conflict between two editors, but it's not very worthwhile to look at each edit, so how about specifying two versions of the FAQ for consideration (are there two complete versions in the history?). One way to proceed might be for Butwhatdoiknow to make a user subpage with proposed changes. Those who want could tweak that, while OrangeMarlin might like to restore the FAQ to how it was, and some might like to slightly tweak it. Then we could better assess the situation (for consensus). It might be useful to first offer opinions on OrangeMarlin's point that bullet points are not very encyclopedic. While true in articles, I'm not so sure about the FAQ. I haven't paid a great deal of attention to this FAQ, but some similar efforts that I've seen have suffered from encyclopedic constipation where the words wouldn't make sense to anyone wondering about the issues, so I wouldn't mind some bullet points and plain talking (but would not want to divert from policy, if that policy applies to a talk-page FAQ). Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

How about we just point out how the above linked edits are anything but helpful to the article? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about the talk page FAQ, which has a very specific and not necessarily encyclopedic reason for existing. How exactly are the linked changes here NOT helpful to the article? Or more specifically how are they unreadable? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Step 1

While I don't believe that the rule is "you must obtain consensus before you change an article," I am willing to do this in bite-sized portions to avoid unnecessary disputes. With that in mind, I propose to make the following change:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution%2FFAQ&diff=271162857&oldid=270176136

A. Is there any concern with this change OTHER THAN the use of bullet points?
B. If bullet points are a problem (and some comments above suggest that they aren't), would it be a problem to have the text indented without the bullets? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the bullet points, this isn't technically an encyclopedic article. Bullets are not forbidden according to the MoS, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists. On the other hand I can see how this would make sense without bullet points as just being a sentence like it was previously (in accordance with the first rule of bullet points Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs.) For sake of compromise I suggest removing the bullet points, merging them to a sentence and keeping the other grammatic changes (which I think are better then how it was previously worded). — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So all of you think this change reads like anything other than what I hear from politicians? The "formers" and "latters" makes it almost unreadable. The bullet points make it worse. Admittedly, the original is bad too (a creationist reading the FAQ will think we're trying to hide something), but the changes make it worse, and far more unreadable. Given the amount of bandwidth wasted on these discussions and reversions, why not make it better? Don't ask me to do it, because I think the Evolution article itself is sufficient, I've thought this FAQ should be an article. It might already be elsewhere. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 11:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So you agree that at least part of this edit (the part that replaced the "formers" and "latters" with "firsts" and "seconds") is helpful? If so, then please consider whether saving those changes and removing the bullet points would have been a more constructive reaction than a complete reversion. See Wikipedia:Restoring part of a reverted edit. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So what your saying is either (a) you don't understand modestly (at best) advanced grammar or (b) you don't attribute a creationist the ability to do so, or a combination of both (a) and (b)? It's taken you two weeks to come into this discussion about these changes? I don't share you're view that the English of these pages should be so dumbed down that a grade schooler can read and understand it. If the creationists are not going to read it, and if they do not going to change their opinion anyway, then why dumb it down, that only serves the purpose of making us look like we can't use proper English. If the issue is you don't understand proper English then thats an entirely different topic. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Step 2

Any objection to this change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution%2FFAQ&diff=273251113&oldid=271162857 ? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say leave off "wikipedia" and just have it say; "Most of the topics covered in the evolution article are basic enough to not require an appeal to the micro/macro distinction." I think stating wikipedia is redundant and evolution wouldn't be capitalized. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you examine the literature you'll see that macroevolution contrasts with microevolution either as longer time scale or the degree of change of traits. GetAgrippa (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not this is so, what does that have to do with the copy edit change I am proposing? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur, setting aside the macro/micro argument (where there is none in science) the copy changes don't have anything to do with it, it's grammar. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This change does change the meaning of the sentence:

Most of the topics covered in the evolution article are basic enough
Most of the topics covered in evolution are basic enough

Those mean two separate things, but I think the first meaning is what is actually meant in the article, meaning our Evolution article doesn't deal with them because there is no distinction of micro & macro in science. The distinction is made primarily by creation scientists because they can't deny changes happen, so they have to relabel those changes as a different theory so the facts of that theory which can't be denied won't contribute to the big evolution debate that their religious beliefs say can't be true. This is a change to the FAQ about common arguments. The argument in question is why we don't deal with micro and macro in the main Evolution article. So I think the 1st example (proposed change) in context of the paragraph is accurate and correct. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Step 3

Thanks to Ewulp for re-making this fix. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there some change to discuss in this step? I r confused. :-\ — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. It was only an insertion of a missing '' to close italics. However, OrangeMarlin reverted it (as part of a mass revert) so maybe OM sees something that I don't. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Step 4

Here is a set of changes (one of which was not by me) that were included in OrangeMarlin's indiscriminate revert:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution%2FFAQ&diff=273981622&oldid=273790055

Any problems with these changes? (one that I have is that it is missing 3 parentheticals. I was in the process of adding those when OM struck and will resume that process if no one objects to restoring these changes.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable to give a description of each link and to refer them to more. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Come one, this is not necessary. All I read above is Orangemarlin did this and Orangemarlin did that...waaaaaaahhhh. How about telling me how adding animals helps the story? Once again, the only reason this FAQ exists is not to teach me or you anything, it is simply the easiest way to shut down a creationist complaining about this or that on this discussion. It's not useful.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So they have a better chance of clicking those links to discover what those fossils are, as opposed to a short explanation on the FAQ? You're assertion is that they're not going to read/care about it anyway. So why does it matter how it's worded? They're not reading it anyway. I think, from my prospective, having it presented in the nicest and most professional way, and informative makes it a worthwhile resource, otherwise why have it? We can simply just remove all the content and replace it with "See ______" links since all this info is found in other articles anyway. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Steps 1 - 4 redux

All of the changes made in response to the discussion above have just been reverted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution%2FFAQ&diff=cur&oldid=prev

The rationale given by the reverting editor (who expressed no concern regarding the changes when they were being discussed) is: "Intensely dislike changes." I make this posting in the hope that the reverting editor will explain the basis for his dislike. Or, perhaps, someone else can tell me what the problem is. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless a rational and good explanation is presented why here soon, I'm going to revert the revision. If it's reverted again without a reason other then WP:IDONTLIKEIT the user will be reported to the admin notice board. This kind of behavior is counterproductive to wikipedia and the advancement of these articles! These changes was forced to be discussed in minutia due to this same user wholesale reverting them in the first place! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the regression since the editor in question refuses to communicate. [1] Editors who don't give a shit (if I understand him correctly) shouldn't be allowed to keep others occupied for hours. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't give a shit, except I hate confusing poor creationists more and more, and some of the edits are confusing, trivial, or useless. So, I do give a slight shit. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm, seriously, WHY is this being discussed here in such minute detail? The stuff you're talking about is trivial edits to the TALK PAGE FAQ for this article. Even IF they were significant edits, the FAQ is entirely in aid of making discussion on this page easier. It is totally pointless for it to exist if it becomes more of a headache due to this talk page cluttering up with inane quibbling over its content. Can you please give it a rest? Or if you really want to natter on about it, make a separate discussion page for the FAQ. Graft | talk 06:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it all started with what seem to be very harmless edits by Butwhatdoiknow, followed by this rude wholesale revert that was never explained. It's a beginner's mistake to take this seriously and to discuss the merits of an edit that was reverted in this manner by this particular user. I believe a more honest edit summary would have been: "I don't trust you [because you are not one of the established owners of the FAQ, or whatever is the reason]. Undoing because checking that you didn't shift the meaning slightly towards a direction I don't like would require reading several paragraphs." The obvious problem with the discussion here was that following it would also have required reading several paragraphs.

Most editors who have experienced this a few times simply rerevert. This is likely to start an edit war though. Thus we have a choice between giving up, breaking policy, or wasting our time by talking to someone who habitually doesn't communicate.

You are right that all this is relatively pointless and discussion should be continued at something like a talk page for Talk:Evolution/FAQ. Unfortunately the page itself is a talk page, and if another page was created there would be no way to force Orangemarlin to watchlist it. So he would even have a plausible excuse for not reading the discussion before reverting yet again. In any case it doesn't seem wise to reward this disruptive behaviour with success. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever on your personal attacks, which have been frequent lately. So back to the discussion at hand, your assumption about my reasons are completely wrong. The FAQ exists for precisely one reason, and it's to end Creationist lead discussions on this page. Now, the .0001% probability that they'll actually be convinced by the FAQ means that let's not make it more difficult to read, which the edits were doing. Were all edits bad? No. I simply don't have the time to sort through it, and that's why I requested, several times, that the it should be discussed if it's going to be that massive. In the end, I find the FAQ to be very difficult to read, which will prevent even that .0001% probability from happening. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If anything I recently said about you didn't accurately describe your behaviour, then I don't understand why you don't take it to WP:ANI. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And the two weeks these edits was posted here asking for suggestions/changes/comments wasn't enough time for you or anyone else to decide if you was ok with them or not? Each edit was given many days in succession between being posted here for comment and then being implemented, yet again you just wholesale reverted them all. If you can't be bothered enough to find time then you shouldn't be reverting edits that have been open for discussion for WEEKS here. Either devote time to monitor this, or stop reverting other peoples work because you don't have time to personally approve of it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Step 5

Here is the last change that was reverted by OM:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution%2FFAQ&diff=273288993&oldid=273251113

I don't doubt that the edits I made can be improved upon (and, if there is consensus for my changes, I don't doubt that those changes will be made). My question for you'all at this point is whether my effort to dumb it down a bit are, in general, an improvement over the current text. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So far only Orangemarlin has reverted you, and so far he hasn't touched my re-revert. Don't expect any statement from him that he is prepared to tolerate your edits now; I don't recall him ever conceding anything other than by stopping to revert. Obviously this puts you under the sword of Damocles, but that's much less intimidating if you consider that it's made of cardboard. My approval was in my edit summary [2]. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Last call. Anyone have any strong objection to this change (subject to tweak edits that I suppose will follow)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

O.k, tweak away y'all! Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Theory or fact

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

I know this has been posted a million and three times and is covered in the FAQ but I want to be absolutely sure, could I in good concious go on national television tomorrow and declare "Evolution is a fact"? The article "Evolutions as theory and fact" is too complicated and doesn't have a simple "if you look at in a general way then A, if you look at it this way then B". I get other pages on the web written by biologists and doctors saying that "Evolution is not a fact, but is likely to be true". Wikipedia keeps mentioning something like mathematical meaning and logical meaning and I just want some disambiguation- I know Wikipedia is not a forum, so just delete this is no-one is willing to answer, I just wanted to make sure. If someone could give me a good "phrase" I could say if I would be going on television to explain this (I'm not really going to be on a TV, just for the sake of an argument), i.e. in a concise and simple manner: "Simply put, if you look at it from a scientific viewpoint... but if you look at it from a logical viewpoint...". --BiT (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Wikipedia talk pages aren't forums. However, you're welcome to use the Science reference desk. Cheers, Ben (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

~~Take a look at Evolution as theory and fact. Does that answer the question you are asking?~~ Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I see that you've already read that article, which states: The potentially confusing statement that "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. This statement arises because "evolution" is used in two ways. First, the "fact of evolution" refers to the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, which are known to have occurred. Second, the "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur. What part of that text do you find to be too complicated? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In the scientific definition of a fact, sure it's true. It's a fact we see genetic differences, mutations, per generation of an organism. It's a fact we've seen speciation as the result of these mutations. Theres lots of facts that are used to build up the theory of evolution. But with all scientific theories, scientists are hesitant to call the theory a fact. The theory is built to explain the facts but it it's self isn't a fact. That help? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"National television"? And you are not even saying which country you are referring to? But it's obvious. Such a silly question can only be asked from the US. Elsewhere even the most religious people have learned that the extended metaphers used in a sermon don't become statements of fact simply by getting very old. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you'll take a look at the reference desk where I copied this to it says that I did not mean for the national television thing as a literal factor, but rather as a measurement of caution in front of all people. I don't come from the US, but the reason why I want to learn more about this is undeniably because of people from the US that scare the shit out of me. Therefore I want to learn more about evolution so I can either stop believing in it (if I realize that it's false) or defend it (if I believe evolution, or most of it is true). --BiT (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just the usual caveat that evolution is science, it's not a matter of believing it, it's well tested observations and theory which are accepted as correct. Until something new get similar support from testing. Not being USian I sympathise, would observe that there's excessive creationism here too. . . dave souza, talk 23:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, "believe" was a bad choice of words. Let's just say that seeing some of the people in the US believing what they're told (which is really understandable), me "believing" in science blindly was just as bad. There isn't really anything like ID or creationism where I live though. --BiT (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

With the aim of possible improvement to the FAQ, might it be worth considering that evolution is the fact that the inherited characteristics of groups of organisms change over time, and have changed significantly over past ages, introducing new species? That's explained by evolution theory, in the same way that mountains are a fact, and are explained by plate tectonics. In the past, both mountains and species of animals were explained as the result of divine intervention for the benefit of mankind, this bacame strongly debated in the 17th century, and while science is now settled on both issues, some religious groups believe in explanations that conflict with science. . . dave souza, talk 13:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I always liked the gravity analogy. Gravity is an observable physical phenomena (the force that holds us to earth) theories to explain it mechanistically are that of Newton as mass attraction and more recently that of Einstein relativistically as a bend in space-time. Evolution is an observable physical phenomena (the notable change in population traits [phenotypes and genotypes]especially in response to the environment through time), theories to explain it mechanistically are notably those of Darwin's natural selection and more recently the expansion of the Modern Synthesis with a gene-centric view of populations. So evolution and gravity are more accurately facts with a theory but also fact and theory is accurate. Younger students seemed to grasp the idea is my experience and you quickly establish evolution is an observable fact-plenty of examples to give. The analogy is also good because you can compare Darwin who was right about natural selection but wrong about gemmules,etc. with Newton's law of gravitation and where he was accurate and problems. Then compare Einstein with the Modern Synthesis in modern theory. Gravity and Evolution never changed as fact just their theories adjusted and perfected. Works well. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at Fact#Fact of Science, scientific method, Epistemology, and truth. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

FAQ radical change

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

I was browsing over at Talk:Barack Obama and noticed their FAQ is actually in the header of the talk page in a very nifty way. Would anyone oppose if we convert the evolution talk faq into something like this? I think it would be more helpful since it would be easier to find! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)}

Sure go ahead. Looks awesome and is much more prominent. :-)--Patton^t/c 20:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary style really should apply to talk page templates too ;) I'd prefer to keep the FAQ on its own page, lest people just scroll past a wall of text to get to the real discussion. Ben (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, I hate to agree with Ben, but you do need to worry about the MEGO effect. (MEGO? My Eyes Glaze Over.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire thing doesn't need to be bigger then the warning box at the top now, it can start off collapsed, but instead of another page they click too they expand it and it's all right there... It would be a template we'd create for it so it's code on this page would only be one line. I think it can work and work better then what we have now.. but I'd like more opinions. :P — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would solve my concern. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think it matters what we do with the FAQ – it will be ignored by the people we most want to read it. However, let's try the change, and undo it if it doesn't work out. Looks potentially very useful. Johnuniq (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll start building the template and we can give it a trial run, see how we like it. ;-) — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fairly acceptable now, one problem I see though is the reference list, since it's generated by a fancy template I can't make it auto hide within a box, and since it's transincluded or whatever the term is into this page if someone put a in-line reference in one of the discussions here it will likely get stuck up there in the FAQ's reference list. It does auto-hide, and I think looks somewhat condensed and presentable. What do you all think? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

One way to solve the references"problem" is to not make them actual in-line ref's anymore, but manually formatted and typed at the bottom of each relevant answer box then they'd all be sucked up and hidden condensing the box more. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been over a week, so I guess since noone said anything that it's acceptable? :P — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's live already! I like it. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea, seems noone has had any issues with it, at least noone has said anything. :P — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And so far it seems to be working - no one has posted a silly question since you made the change. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You are asking for trouble. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Main processes vs. major mechanisms

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

The second paragraph of this article tells me that the "main processes" of evolution are variation, reproduction, and natural selection. The third paragraph tells me that the two "major mechanisms" are natural selection and genetic drift. Is there a difference between a process and a mechanism? If so then I suggest that we should provide an explanation. If not then I suggest we should do something to harmonize these two paragraphs. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. What about "These generational changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: genetic variation, reproduction, and differences in how well individual organisms survive and reproduce." Tim Vickers (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, but I think we need to do something with the "Two major mechanisms drive evolution" in the third paragraph. How about something like "Two major mechanisms determine which generational changes will prevail [or "survive" or "be passed along" or ...] over time"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The way the text is currently organized is in line with the aphorism (given by Stephen Jay Gould, I think) "mutation proposes, selection disposes". Or, in our case, we break it up by 'processes introducing variation' and 'processes eliminating variation' (and, actually, in that regard it seems to me that gene flow is misplaced, since it doesn't actually eliminate variation, it introduces it). With that in mind, I'd rather say something like, "Generational changes are the product of two antagonistic sets of forces: those introducing new variation into the population, and those that resolve the eventual fate of variants." Or something. Graft | talk 08:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

More simple please. Think of the high-school students! Tim Vickers (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was simple! Um. How about: "Me hit rock with other rock. It make sound." (I'm not very good at this simple business...) Graft | talk 07:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should be looking for something between "Me hit rock" and "resolve the eventual fate of variants" (which may be a bit vague for laypeople). For example, "opposing" might be a better word than "antagonistic." (Now that I think of it, are the two forces really "antagonistic"?). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, yes, they're antagonistic. In genetics we talk about things like "mutation/selection balance", about mutation pressure on a genome, etc. There is only one example of when selection acts to maintain or increase the level of variation - balancing selection - which is idiosyncratic and probably not very widespread in its influence on evolution in general (in fact I wrote a paper on that very subject). So it's fair to say that these are antagonistic forces. Anyway, I don't think the beef is that people won't know what "antagonistic" means, as compared to "opposing". This isn't simple.wikipedia.org... If "resolve the eventual fate of variants" is too vague, "push new variants to fixation" seems too technical. I don't think I'm in a good position to decide what's appropriate for a lay audience, here. Graft | talk 22:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had a shot at simplifying this. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the "Evolution" article

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

This is not the Creation Science article.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I see a problem with this article being that most Creation Scientists have caught on to a lot of these arguments and have refuted them all on sites like http://creation.com. The information regarding DNA is lacking, could be more comprehensive and is misleading in regards to certain things. The example of RNA and nucleotides to support Evolution is much the same similar to the Stanley Miller experiment that ended up creating poison instead of life, resulting in what would not be the origins of life, but rather the end of it. I would recommend the author do a bit more research on the other side of the equation instead of having tunnel vision, because I believe that the author utilizes Evolution sources too much instead of utilizing Creation Science sources, and that leads to the author's misdefining what Evolution is in the beginning when he defines it to be Variation, which it actually is not unless Evolution is Creation Science, since Variation is a component that makes up the Creation Science paradigm. So that simply leads to absurdity. There are several other issues with a lack of information leading us to believe that new information and new functions can arise from what is presented here, as the how it leads to the new functions is not explained. I find all too often that Creation Science websites can cover their end on this matter. Evolution sites simply have a harder time. One of the reasons I can see the author is not really looking at Creation Science research (being that the origins of Science came from Creation Scientists as well, and Creation Scientists review a heavy emphasis on Origin Science, that Evolutionists typically tend not to look at, this might help the article out if the author could look at the other side, perhaps getting some information and some ideas to where he could strengthen his own information and the way that it is presented). All in all, I give the article a D to C, as I can tell the research was done, however being that its too onesided, a D or C is all I can give it and thats being generous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casenator (talk • contribs) 03:49, 8 April 2009(UTC)

Thank you for sharing. Please see Talk:Evolution/FAQ for responsess to your concerns. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is about Evolution not Creation science. All in all I give your posits an F. Further they are irrelevant to making this "Evolution" article better as they are related to creationism and not evolution science. I appreciate your concerns and beliefs but provide peer reviewed articles that can refute any facts related in this article. Perhaps then your posit would hold merit. Thanks again. Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

http://creation.com isn't a reliable source for information about evolution. Information must comply with WP:RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:TALK entitles us to remove comments from talk pages that are not helpful for the article. If the various objectors to evolution would like to propose a change to the article, let's discuss it. Otherwise, let's just revert. Johnuniq (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really in favour of that in all cases e.g. this one. Casenator thought he/she was being helpful... and it was their first edit. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't remove them, just reply with similar responses you all did here, FAQ, Policy, etc.. then HAT it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Evolution not only on phenotype

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

The first sentence says change in the inherited traits. Trait (biology) says it is phenotypic character. Thus this excludes genetic change that does not affect the phenotype, from the concept of evolution. Such changes should be included. --Ettrig (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

change in the inherited traits is correct... not sure what your saying? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of molecular evolution seems not to affect the phenotype. See Neutral theory of molecular evolution. This definition seems to exclude that part of evolution. --Ettrig (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

But they're inherited mutations, so change in the inherited traits is correct. If it wasn't inherited, it couldn't factor into evolution... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Raeky, you seem to b e twisting Ettrig's comment around. Ettrig is quite correct that evolution involves a change in genoytpe even if it does not change the phenotype. Yet Ettrig is pointing out that one can read the sentence as saying evolution is change in phenotype only. But genotype can change without changing phenotype. The question is NOT whether phenotypic traits reflect genetic changes, the issue is whether there can be genertic changes that are not manifested phenotypically. I do not see how you could be arguing that evolution, in the modern synthesis, only involves phenotype. You are wrong, Raeky, it involves any change in gene frequency even those that do not express themselves phenotypically. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not understanding what phrase you all are referring too.. but an inherited change wouldn't matter if it was expressed or not or within a encoding region or not. The phrase "change in the inherited traits" is boiling down to the meaning your attributing to "traits" I tend to think of those as changes to the genes, which doesn't necessarily mean if it's expressed in any visible way or not. Maybe I just don't see the confusion with that statement as you all do? A trait doesn't explicitly mean phenotype correct? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the first two sentences in this thread again. Then read the definition of trait referenced there. Repeat this until you find your mistake. --Ettrig (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the first sentence is inaccurate. But an "accurate" definition is a little too mystifying a beginning for an article of this sort - we used to begin with 'change in gene frequencies', etc., but this article is a keystone article read by a lot of laypeople; better to give the simple explanation first and introduce the nuance later. Maybe there should be an explicit section on neutral evolution to make up for this...? Graft | talk 21:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There are always genetic mutation symply by reproduction, if there are not inherited traits we cant talk about evolution aec | talk 21:37, 09 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.133.108.236 (talk)

Freemasonry

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

Observations that many Victorian men wore shoes, had large beards and were Freemasons, unrelated to article.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It appears that several important members of the Lunar Society were members of Freemasonry, including Erasmus Darwin himself, who apart from being the grandfather of Charles Darwin, also contributed to evolutionary philosophy. [3] ADM (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And? --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, so what? Tim Vickers (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

..apparently Francis Crick's grandfather made shoes. How do we know when someone's won this game ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Charles Darwin himself has little to nothing to do with evolution any more, let alone his grandfather who was probably some form of creationist. So...what's the point of mentioning that his opah was a freemason in an article that's not about either person? Farsight001 (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Mozart and Rabbie Burns were also members of Freemasonry – it's a conspiracy! Best put a hat on it. . dave souza, talk 09:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with freeemasonary?--Patton^t/c 11:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue not whether freemasonry is good or bad but, rather, whether it has anything to do with the Wikipedia Evolution article. I believe the consensus is that it doesn't. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

the spelling Sean.hoyland - talk 14:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As per Wikipedia:Lead section, I always try to have about 3-4 paragraphs in a lead and avoid any very long or very short paragraphs. I don't think you gain anything by splitting paragraphs into 1-2 sentence chunks, as in here, but if there is a good reason I suppose we could format it like this. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems a relatively arbitrary measure; a few line breaks here and there isn't a big deal, especially if it improves clarity. As it is things are a bit messy; there's lots of binary forking going on here - two opposing forces - two ways of producing variation, and two ways of affecting its frequency. Keeping track of all those "twos" is a bit hairy. Graft | talk 21:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"Social and cultural responses"

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

This entire sociology section seems very inappropriate to be included a science article. It seems to me this article would be improved by removing this section and merely including a link to an article on the Contraversies of "Social and cultural responses" to evolutionary theory. The section as it stands really doesn't even address the social and cultural responses because that is just too large of a subject. As it stands it just appears as a short blurb pushing a one sided look at the suject. That's not fair to everyone that put real scientific information in the article. What first caught my eye was biased use of "creation myths" rather than just saying "creation stories." Many evolutionary scientists actually believe such "myths" in various forms or interpretations thereof. Ironically even Darwin himself was a "creation myth" believer. In short keep the sociology out of the science article it doesn't belong there. I invite the author of this section to start another article on this subject and link it. It's actually is a nice start to such an article. (but do remove it from this article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 04:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Mikearion but you need to come up with a better argument than "many (weasle word) evolutionary scientists actually believe such "myths"" - do you have a citation for that?

I don't see why "creation myth" is biased but "creation story" is acceptable. Could you please elaborate on this?

You claim it ironic that Darwin was a "creation myth" believer? I'm not certain I follow at all. If you look at his biography it is clear that at some point in his life he believed in the Bible and God but changed as he went through personal trauma and scientific discovery. Why is that ironic? Isn't that just natural growth?

I will look at the article (just responding here to your comments) and feed back later. --Candy (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As a comment, the term creation myth is s technical term used to describe these mythological beliefs, and is not intended to indicate any judgment on whether any of these various ideas in mythology are false or factual. See Myth#Term for a more in-depth discussion of this point. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Candorwien. You just confirmed my concerns that this section doesn't belong in a science article. Here you are attempting to engage in spiritual debate with me. I'm really not interested if this religion or that religion is a “myth” or not, I don't care how Darwin's faith was effected, it's moot. And that's my point, why is this stuff in here? It's has nothing to do with science, it's another subject. There is plently of space for spirtual articles and related contraversies at wikipedia. I don't see the spiritual implecations noted in other science articles. And there is no reason to deal with such in this article. And, I would prefer to not say "myth" OR "story". But if we must have this section and don't want to appear baised "story" is the better choice. To use the word "myth" is to suggest the article and thus the science takes sides on the issues of religion.

Look, except for the spiritual charged "Social and cultural" section this is a great science article. How Darwins' faith may have been effected belongs in the Darwin article and so-forth. An article on the "Contraversies of Evolution" would also be a great article. And link it to this article for those that want to go there.

Let's do what we all know wikipedia demands and clean up this article. It's a science article and should stick to that subject matter. Clearly just our conversation proves that point.

The subject matter of this article is whatever we decide it is; its scope is not necessarily limited to science. We've historically emphasized the science in this article, I think to its benefit, but a discussion of the sociological aspects are certainly in order. The same occurs on many, many topics with both a technical and sociological angle. See, for example global warming or DDT. Graft | talk 04:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly I'm not attempting to engage in any sort of spiritual debate with you at all. It's quite clear from my comments that this is not so. I was simply asking you to clarify your statements so I could understand what you were saying. --Candy (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be unhappy with classifying Social Darwinism as science, so would not want to put this in the section on History of evolutionary thought. Equally, I don't think this can be deleted, as this topic is just as notable a part of the cultural responses to evolution as the religious responses. I therefore don't think we can simply delete this section, since these set of topics dominate the discussion of evolution in the general media. We have to address this somehow, and can do this by summarising the articles that deal with such topics. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation for Darwin statement

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Also the section needs citation. "As Darwin recognized early on, the most controversial aspect of evolutionary biology is its implications for human origins." Without a quote from Darwin this sentence appears to be original research or opinion. It may in fact be true but without backing that up it just hangs there with a question mark for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 05:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Bowler p. 207 states that Darwin knew of this controversy, as it had been demonstrated by responses to the publication of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation in 1844, and explains, as I've rephrased it, that "the most controversial aspect of evolutionary biology is the implication of human evolution that human mental and moral faculties, which had been thought purely spiritual, are not distinctly separated from those of other animals." He also refers to the implication of materialism, but as Desmond has noted this did not necessarily mean atheism at the time, and could refer to Christians who subsribed to the idea that mental processes were a property of the brain rather than of an immaterial spiritual entity. . dave souza, talk 11:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears the concern was more the perception that not purely “spiritual” forces are at work in human kind. But rather natural forces are at work in humans as much as they are in animals. That doesn't address human “origins” without much extrapolation. In fact the subject of origins is completely absent from the quote. Therefore this confirms this is original research and needs to be modified.

Could be replaced with something like: "Darwin recognized early on that the results of his theory of human evolution contained spiritual implecations."

I don't think we can go beyond that and be honest at the same time. Unless there is other documentation to back up the other statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 02:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the Descent of Man would shed light on some of your concerns Mikearion. I also think changing the line to include --Candy (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)spiritual implications is original research - exactly where you came in in the first place! ? ! --Candy (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Survival of genetic disorders

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Perhaps the survival of life-threathening/reproduction-halting genetic disorders should be mentioned. This was described by Sharon Moalem in the book Survival of the sickest. See http://www.survivalofthesickestthebook.com/ or do google search.

It describes that people inheriting a single gene of certain diseases (eg cystic fybrosis, sikkelcelanemia, ....) are actually better equipped against some diseases (if you inherit 2 you get sick and are do not have advantage, only disadvantage) also describes survival of asian flush and diabetes

The system is not yet described anywhere on wikipedia, include in this article (or more appropiate one) and make new article about the system (not the book) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.189.98 (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

See heterozygote advantage and balancing selection. Graft | talk 23:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Also See Mutation-selection balance which is likely the best explanation for why genetic disorders exist. Matthew Ackerman (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Populations in Hardy-Wienburg Equilibrium can be evolving

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Currently the article reads "The Hardy-Weinberg principle states that the frequencies of alleles (variations in a gene) in a sufficiently large population will remain constant if the only forces acting on that population are the random reshuffling of alleles during the formation of the sperm or egg, and the random combination of the alleles in these sex cells during fertilization.[52] Such a population is said to be in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium - it is not evolving.[53]"

This could be read to say that if a population is in Hardy-Wienburg Equilibrium then it is not evolving. This is not true. Neither is it true that a non-evolving population must be in Hardy-Wienburg Equilibrium. How can we clarify this?

I suggest "The Hardy-Weinberg principle states that the frequencies of alleles (variations in a gene) in a sufficiently large population will remain constant if the only forces acting on that population are the random reshuffling of alleles during the formation of the sperm or egg, and the random combination of the alleles in these sex cells during fertilization.[52] Such a population is said to be in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium - it is not evolving.[53] Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium can also be exhibited by an evolving population under specific conditions, and if the assumption of the Hardy-Weinberg principle are not met, a non-evolving population may not exhibit Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium." Matthew Ackerman (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify how an evolving population can exhibit Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium? Cubathy (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe your right. I was assuming that populations which displayed the genotype frequencies predicted by the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Equation where actually in Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium, even though their allele frequencies would change over time.

I had originally thought Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Frequencies would be maintained whenever mutations had an additive effect (h=.5), but after looking at the math, this is clearly false. I'm fairly certain that there should be some model that allows for Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Frequencies to be maintained despite selection, but it is not immediately clear to me what the requirements are at this time.I'll get back to you on this after I look at the math some more.Matthew Ackerman (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Matthew, thanks for the comments, but this is intended to be a relatively non-specialist introduction to the whole of evolution. I'm personally still a little dubious about even mentioning the HW equation, but I suppose it is very important in modern evolutionary biology. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly tried to argue, it's totally not important in modern evolutionary biology. It appears in primitive textbooks as an introductory point, but it's very rarely used to settle questions about actual evolving populations, other than possibly the existence of invisible population structure. As for evolving populations being in HW equilibrium, this is definitely possible, if you define HW equilibrium as merely obeying the p, q and 2pq ratios. It takes exactly one generation of random mating to produce that, which happens in many closed populations on a regular basis for a given allele. Even if you're dealing with a relatively large selection coefficient (say s=10^-3), that's not going to perturb the equilibrium too much. You're not going to care if p is 1.001p instead. Heck, you probably wouldn't even notice s=10^-2. Graft | talk 21:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The current article states: To understand the mechanisms that cause a population to evolve, it is useful to consider what conditions are required for a population not to evolve. The Hardy-Weinberg principle states that the frequencies of alleles (variations in a gene) in a sufficiently large population will remain constant if the only forces acting on that population are the random reshuffling of alleles during the formation of the sperm or egg, and the random combination of the alleles in these sex cells during fertilization. Such a population is said to be in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium - it is not evolving.

To my mind this is out of context with the article. The HW Equilibrium does not help anyone understand the mechanisms that casue a population to evolve. The second sentence has a confusing negative in it and isn't that much different to the first. Stating the HW Equilibrium doesn't particularly help (that's what links are for). The model is quite old and useful as a learning tool and as a theoretical basis for understanding when a population is evolving

I think that a passing reference is needed at best and with an historical slant to it. --Candy (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that Hardy-Weinberg is passe. Molecular biologist still use to characterize polymorphisms,SNPs, etc. Thousands of articles mention its use on PubMed (even 09 articles). Apparently no one mentioned to molecular biologist HW is "primitive" or no longer in use. GetAgrippa (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

HW may be used by many biologists, but it is NOT of primary interest in evolutionary biology. SNP density and allele frequency distributions, selective sweep signatures, linkage disequilibrium, genome-wide association studies and so on all come way before HW in tests for selection. No one in their right mind would use HW disequilibrium as a test for selection or even its absence. It gets used for things like detecting genotyping errors and for assuring that your population is unstructured. That is useful (well, there's some argument about its utility for the former), but it's hardly a critical focus; it's a good way to check that your data is clean before proceeding to something interesting. I think it deserves mention in the article, but I've never been happy with the current formulation. Graft | talk 20:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please rewrite it, Graft, I'm not all that happy with that section either, but population genetics are really not my thing. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Good posits Graft. I agree with Tim it would be nice to have a bona fide evolutionary biologist write this section. My point was that it isn't passe and relates to population structure, and is historically relevant as these articles attest: 1: A century of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.Mayo O.Twin Res Hum Genet. 2008 Jun;11(3):249-56. 2: Calculation and use of the Hardy-Weinberg model in association studies.Ryckman K, Williams SM.Curr Protoc Hum Genet. 2008 Apr;Chapter 1:Unit 1.18..The first articles is a nice review article concerning HW. I agree with many posits but I still feel it would be remiss not to mention it. GetAgrippa (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Replacing Natural Selection with Selection

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

My question here is should the article talk about selection instead of just natural selection or at least say something to the point of natural and artificial selection serve the same purpose. I bring this up because both artificial and natural selection have the same effect and they both are parts of selection. Also artificial selection is not covered in the mechanisms section even though it is the same type of mechanism as natural selection.

*This might also help to clear up the misconception that artificial selection through breeding is not evolution.

*I know that doing this would mean that it would be linking to a start class article instead of a GA, but that is not a reason for this not to go through. (ie. we could link to Flag of Armenia because it is a higher quality article than Natural Selection , but it does not completely cover the information that is needed.)

Artificial selection is (a) very different from natural selection in its manner of operation, and (b) doesn't occur in evolution, which is what this article is about. Graft | talk 22:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Adaptation

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Now has a satisfactory first para, I hope. Last two paras are rather confused: one talks about species splitting, the other about evo-devo. I'm inclined to think they should both be cut. It has troubled me that this section was so far removed from being a summary of the parent article. It is basically trait-centered rather than process-centered (which is why I inserted the present first para). I'm wondering whether the definitions I trawled from Dobzhansky would be a welcome addition here. Well, maybe I'll put them in... Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Evolver Zone

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This looks like it would be a useful external link - T. Ryan Gregory's new Evolver Zone. Thoughts? Guettarda (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Evolutionary biology documents the fact that evolution occurs, and also develops and tests theories that explain its causes."

Latest comment: 15 years ago32 comments9 people in discussion

This is a lovely sentence and would make a great first sentence of the Evolutionary Biology article. But what is it doing in the introduction to this article? It doesn't even fit as a topic sentence for the paragraph that it begins. What do you'all think about removing this sentence from this article? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It is there for the very specific function of reducing the number of "but it is only a theory" comments on this talkpage. Judging from the frequency with which this still happens, this is a very common misunderstanding. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Making the fact and theory point is a worthy goal but I wonder whether this sentence does a very good job of accomplishing it. Maybe a rather simple change would draw out the intended meaning (changing the focus from the work currently being done by by evolutionary biologists to the results those biologists have obtained) - how about: "Evolutionary biologists have documented the fact that evolution occurs, and have also developed and tested theories that explain its causes." To me that seems a better lead-in to the text that follows. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The field is still a very active area of research, so I don't like the use of past tense. The paragraph that follows moves from the past accomplishments of the field to present research, so casting this section as simply "history" is incorrect. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, casting it as simply a current event is incorrect as well. Hmmm.... Let me think a bit about that. Or maybe someone else will come up with an elegant way to say "has documented and continues to document" etc. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this: Past and on-going research documents the fact that evolution occurs, and also develops and tests theories that explain its causes - am I closer? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We could probably find some small difficulty with any sentence in an article on a complex topic like evolution, but I'm happy with the text as it is and see no reason to change it (particularly since the lead has had intense scrutiny over quite a period). --Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please make it clear what kind of evolution you are talking about- microevolution, as in small changes within a species, or macroevolution, where Darwin claims that species can change into different species. Microevolution, aka adaptation, is a proven fact- macroevolution is a theory. See this page. -The Skeptical Student --71.116.162.54 (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Macro-evolution" is a scientific fact. Please read the rest of the paragraph and the cites provided therein. See also Evolution as theory and fact. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Pehaps ButwhatdoIknow is not a native English speaker. he seems to think that the present tense excludes anything in the past. That is not true. the main tenses in English are present and preterite. The preterite describes actions completed in the past. The present tense often describes habitual or routine acts (for example, "I eat breakfast every morning" - this describes an act that occured yesterday, today, and tomorrow). The use of the present tense in this instance is not at all inaccurate or wrong. the sentence that butwhatdoIknow wishes to change is absolutely correct. There is no point in changing it. ButwhatdoIknow suggests e change it to the perfect tense. This in fact would be a mistake, because the perfect tense describes an act completed in the past. But this is not true. Evolutionary scientists did not complete there work in the past. Scientific research is an ongoing activity. The use of the present tesnes is quite correct here. It correctly describes a habitual or routine activity. That Butwhatdoiknow thinks that the present tense is "wrong" and the perfect tense is better only sugests that he does not understand English Grammar. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I will ignore the gratuitous insult in the final sentence of your comment. Turning to the merits of your posting, I think your example is a very good one: "I eat breakfast every morning" says when breakfast is eaten. However, "I eat breakfast" leaves the reader ignorant regarding when the speaker eats breakfast - yesterday? today? tomorrow? all three? The current sentence that concerns me is like the "I eat breakfast" sentence and, I suggest, should be re-written to be like the "I eat breakfast every morning" sentence. Or is there some reason we want to leave the timing unclear? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I intended no insult, I was just trying to make sense of a post that is just wasting our time. Of course we have to leave the timing unclear, because we cannot list or predict every specific date in which an evolutionary scientist has published or will publish research. It would be absurd to have a sentence saying "Evolutionary scientists published articles on the facts of evolution in October 1952, February 1953 (and so on) ... and will publish articles on evolutionary theory in June of 211, July 2011, December 2011, January 2012 (and so on)" No, the present tense is absolutely correct in this case. I was trying to figure out your misunderstanding o English grammar and being a non-nativ espeaker seems the most generous. You opened with the statement that this sentence would be lovely in an article on evolutionary biology but why is it here, and the answer of course is that evolutionary biologists are the scientists who produce the vast bulk of research on evolution. I honestly do not know why you want to muck around with a sentence that is simple, accurate, and informative. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The insult was not the speculation that I am a non-native speaker. (Since I was born and raised in Indiana your guess was not far off.) Rather it was the unnecessary statement that I "[do] not understand English Grammar." Regardless, I accept your apology.

Another aside: I don't think you are advancing this debate by ignoring my response to your "I eat breakfast every morning" example and changing to a reductio ad absurdum example. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The two primary reasons I want to muck around with this simple, accurate, and informative sentence is that, as written, (1) its subject is "evolutionary biology" and not "evolution" and (2) it is not an accurate topic sentence for the content of the paragraph that follows. While you - as a native speaker with a firm grasp of grammar - may be comfortable that the sentence is fine "as is," at least one reader (that's me) finds that it can be improved. And your own analysis indicates that you would agree that non-native speakers may find the sentence to be less than clear. So let me ask you: Why are you opposed to efforts to try to improve it? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that your intention is to improve the article. Do you doubt that this is my intention? You explained why you thought your suggestion was an imporivement. Tim and I each explained why we disagree. All of us are acting in good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A proposed solution

Perhaps the perceived problem is with the join between the two sentences, rather than any problem with the sentences in isolation? What about "Scientists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes. This study of evolutionary biology began in the mid-nineteenth century, when studies of the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms had convinced most scientists that species changed over time." Tim Vickers (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And that still begins the sentence with people as the subject. I think if we are going to say scientistsd we may as well say evolutionary biologists. I see no problem with making human beings the subjects. We say that "evolution" is the subject of this article, but actually in grammatical terms it is an object, never a subject. When people say "subject matter" they really mean "object of study" and I see no problem with a setence in which the grammatical subject is the principal field of science that studies evolution, and evolution is the grammatical object of human interest. When people say "I read a Wikipedia article" grammatically people are the subjects and the article is the object. I just think this is as it should be. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that simplifies the flow of the ideas as well. "Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes. The study of evolutionary biology began in the mid-nineteenth century, when studies of the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms had convinced most scientists that species changed over time." Tim Vickers (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, TV, for thinking outside of the box to come up with a solution to the "why are you telling me what evolutionary biologists do?" problem. I believe your proposal is a definite improvement over the current text. (Which is not to say that, in the future, some Wikipedia editor won't muck around and come up with an even better approach.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Added to article. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Except natural historians began to think that species change over time in the mid 18th century (Lamarck developed his theories at the very end of that century). Also, I am not saure that the discipline or field of "evolutionary biology" existed in the 19th century - wasn't most of this work done by zoologists? Is the second sentence necessary? Couldn't people just click on the link for Evolutionary biology to learn more about the discipline, and its origins? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the purpose of this paragraph is to provide a brief summary of the history of thought regarding the fact and theory of evolution. If I am right ("a dubious proposition" I hear you say), then the second sentence should be retained. Perhaps, to solve the problem SLR points to, we are back to substituting "Scientists" for "Evolutionary biologists" in both sentences (or, at least, the second one - but then we are back to my question of whether the first sentence is even necessary). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well even if they called themselves zoologists at the time, they were still zoologists studying Evol. Biol. so in general I think that is an acceptable simplification. As to summarising the timeline, I'd defer to you or User:Rusty Cashman since the history of science isn't my field. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Well, we just described drift and selection, I think that we need a sentence saying that evolutionary biologists study all this stuff, with a link to the article on evolutionary scientists as they are the reason "evolution" is a significant topic, and it is their research that provides most of the sources for the article. Also, we definitely need a sentence that says "evolution" is both a theory and a fact. Since it is evolutionary scientists who develop and use the theory, and establish the facts, it makes sense to put them in the same sentence. Specifying "evolutionary scientists" and making clear they research the theory and the facts of evolution, all of which seem highly important in our article on evolution. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

SLR, I agree it is very important. What about somehow moving that information into the first paragraph? (Leaving this paragraph to cover some of the historical background.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally think there shouldn't be any historical background in the introduction, it should be a section in the body. What do others think? Tim? Graft? getAgrippa? orangeMarlin? Anyone else? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The new work from Tim Vickers is good (although no changes would have been good too). Is someone suggesting more changes? Please no (unless there is a really good reason). Every word added detracts from the lead because quantity baffles comprehension. The lead is no place for more historical background, or more fact/theory confusion. --Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Tim Vicker's original sentence. Historical background should be section with the main article being History of evolutionary thought. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh boy, I appreciate the efforts of all but after a while it gets a little inane. My concerns tend towards content rather than presentation. Perhaps we should just model this article as Supermodel for Evolution. We can start with the beginning then follow all the "traits" that have shifted through time. All I can say is natural selection can be a bit@h. hee,hee,hee. GetAgrippa (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I would refer to evolutionary biology rather than evoultionary biologists, and indeed the link is to the former, and get away from the somewhat facetious term "the fact of evolution"

The study of Evolutionary Biology documents evolution as a real process, and also develop and test theories that further explain its causes. The study of evolutionary biology began in .... see below Craigmac41 (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I still see a serious problem

Scientists do not "develop and test theories." We may develop theories, but we test (and develop) hypotheses.--71.242.143.108 (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We still test theories, the process never really stops. See for example, Tests of general relativity. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Evolution and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I must be reading this article poorly; how does Evolution follow the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? I am failing to understand this... 173.79.127.205 (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the theory of evolution. It should not address creationist canards. David D. (Talk) 15:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. Evolution is not a "system", let alone a closed one, so its relationship to evolution is essentially non-existent. Not even the entire earth is a closed system. In fact, the only true closed system in existence is the entire universe, and it is the overall entropy, not the entropy of specific regions that must increase over time according to the law. In other words, the article mentions nothing about the 2nd law of thermodynamics simply because the two things are completely unrelated.Farsight001 (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A common creationist myth, but nothing more. See also Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_violates_the_second_law_of_thermodynamics. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Unresolved issues" section

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Since most of this is a discussion of group selection (which is discussed in the last paragraph of the Natural selection section and the section on Co-operation), or the evolution of sex (which is covered in the section on Sex and recombination), I've removed it as redundant for now. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've also added a bit more discussion of the evolution of sex to the Sex and recombination section. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This article doesn't really discuss the Evolution of ageing however. This is an interesting topic, but it isn't nearly as prominent as, for example the evolution of sex, or group selection versus the selfish gene. Do people think we need to discuss this topic? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The proposed addition discussing issues with the process of natural selection (User:Igor233) may certainly be too long. However, in addition to group selection it also discusses evolvability, which as far as I can see is totally ignored in the present version of evolution. I also did not see any discussion of the current genetics issues. These issues while possibly not mainstream are certainly getting increasing scientific attention. (Try a PubMed search on "evolvability.")Igor233 (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, evolvability might be a useful addition, which would probably fit best in the Adaptation section (since evolvability is an adaptation). Tim Vickers (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a sentence on this hypothesis to the second paragraph of this section. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

My PI (a professor at Harvard Medical School, so that lends him some credence, hopefully) was fond of knocking me down whenever I would posit evolvability as the source of something, because (he would say) there is no mechanism by which you can select for evolvability; that is, you can't select for shit that might happen in the future, you can only select for the stuff that happens to you now. This probably comes up frequently in discussions of, say, evolution of sex and the like, where "evolvability" is a clear (eventual) advantage, but not one that's supported by the theory of natural selection. Graft | talk 20:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think those changes are helpful. Here is a relevant philosophical note: There are two extremes in thinking about the process of evolution (as opposed to the existence of evolutionary events). The first is that it is impossible to understand evolution in scientific terms. We all have to deal with these folks. The second, polar opposite extreme is that the evolution process is completely understood and that any observed discrepancies are the result of observation or interpretation error. Scientific advancement is not possible under either view and both are self-fulfilling. The existence of the first group tends to drive scientists toward the second extreme. There is a feeling that any expression of uncertainty gives aid and comfort to the enemy and that there has to be unity in the scientific view. Writings intended for wide distribution (encyclopedia articles, text books) tend to imply or state that any disagreement with conventional theory is in the past. Experimentalists write articles about discoveries which, on careful reading, conflict with conventional theory but are careful not to say so publicly. I think it is fair to say that privately, a substantial and increasing fraction of the scientific community now thinks conventional theory is inadequate but there is no consensus on a replacement. Wiki in keeping with its goal and ability to more rapidly disseminate new information should be watching these developments closely. Igor233 (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we last discussed this here, but this didn't come to anything at the time, since the issues involved are still of uncertain importance and also perhaps a bit technical for such a general article. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to Igor, I think there is a third position (perhaps orthogonal to the two he suggests): one sign of a powerful theory is its creativity. People often get focused on its explanatory power, but the reason explanatory power is important is because the theory is creative i.e. continues to generate research questions or new hypotheses (what Pierce called abduction). Science, as it is institutionalized at least in the US, UK and France (I am less familiar with other countries) is not so much the old fashioned natural historian wandering out across some landscape, noticing interesting phenomena, and looking for some poweful explanatory device. We write grant proposals and usually are expected to have hypotheses or fairly well-defined research questions. One think that makes the theory of evolution (neo-Darwinian) so important is that it continues to provide a foundation for scientists to come up with new questions and hypotheses. A section on precisely this would have two purposes: it would illustrate current debates, cutting-edge trends, and so on (which seems to be how people have been looking at this section) but it would also be the final point explaining to lay people what one of the criteria for a strong theory is, and how exactly the theory of evolution meets that criteria. I think this is important. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There is the beginnings of such a point in the section on Applications, where the role of understanding evolution in making predictions about biological systems is touched on. However, this presently lacks a broad view and instead focuses on specific examples. Is there a good source that could help put this in context? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I added this to Scientific theory:

Philip Kitcher agrees with Popper that "There is surely something right in the idea that a science can succeed only if it can fail." ^[1] He also takes into account Hempel and Quine's critiques of Popper, to the effect that scientific theories include statements that cannot be falsified (presumably what Hawking alluded to as arbitrary elements), and the point that good theories must also be creative. He insists we view scientific theories as an "elaborate collection of statements", some of which are not falsifiable, while others—those he calls "auxiliary hypotheses", are.

According to Kitcher, good scientific theories must have three features:

Unity: "A science should be unified…. Good theories consist of just one problem-solving strategy, or a small family of problem-solving strategies, that can be applied to a wide range of problems" (1982: 47).
Fecundity: "A great scientific theory, like Newton's, opens up new areas of research…. Because a theory presents a new way of looking at the world, it can lead us to ask new questions, and so to embark on new and fruitful lines of inquiry…. Typically, a flourishing science is incomplete. At any time, it raises more questions than it can currently answer. But incompleteness is not vice. On the contrary, incompleteness is the mother of fecundity…. A good theory should be productive; it should raise new questions and presume those questions can be answered without giving up its problem-solving strategies" (1982: 47–48).
Auxiliary hypotheses that are independently testable: "An auxiliary hypothesis ought to be testable independently of the particular problem it is introduced to solve, independently of the theory it is designed to save" (1982: 46) (e.g. the evidence for the existence of Neptune is independent of the anomalies in Uranus's orbit).

Like other definitions of theories, including Popper's, Kitcher makes it clear that a good theory includes statements that have (in his terms) "observational consequences". But, like the observation of irregularities in the orbit of Uranus, falsification is only one possible consequence of observation. The production of new hypotheses is another possible—and equally important—observational consequence.

The book cited is recent, he has written others that I assume go into further detail (I do not have access to my copy and won't for a couple of months); several of his books are specifically in relation to the theory of evolution. He is a philosopher of science and from what I gather (1) is trying to take into account the many philosophical criticisms of Popper's widely known view, and (2) trying to develop a model fo scientific theory that applies as well to the life sciences as to the physical sciences. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I added an article Evolution issues and a proposed link from History section on Evolution. Igor233 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sense

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Does this sentence make sense?
"Another advantage of duplicating a gene (or even an entire genome) is that overlapping or redundant functions in multiple genes allows alleles to be retained that would otherwise be harmful, thus increasing genetic diversity." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.122.152 (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this not clear? It is a reference to genetic redundancy allowing a gene family to diverge into multiple new functions. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not the least clear. I suspect it explains nothing if you don't know what it is suppoesd to mean already, because it's still confusing for me. "Harmful" sounds like toxic at a glance, and why such things be retained... I'd remove the sentence. Narayanese (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What about "Another advantage of duplicating a gene (or even an entire genome) is that it can increase redundancy; this allows the duplicate gene to acquire a new function while the original copy of the gene still performs its original function." Tim Vickers (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps make reference of articles which suppose asexual organisms avoid Muller's ratchet by gene duplications and then mutations which generate unexpected diversity and adaptations. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Tim's version is very good see e.g. this. The meaning of "harmful" is that it would be harmful if the one gene was changed, leaving no gene to fulfill the old function (in homozygotes). With a duplicate gene the old function is provided for, while at at the same time a new function can be experimented with. --Ettrig (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I also like Tim's version; much clearer, and gets the idea of divergence of function across. Although, strictly speaking, there's three ways for a duplication to resolve - a copy is lost, a copy acquires a new function, both copies acquire new function (probably sub-functions of the original gene). I'm not sure there's a pithy edit that still conveys the utility of duplication. Graft | talk 17:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

An excellent free-access review! Thank you Ettrig, I shall add this immediately. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

History

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Can we move the history section up to the beginning? Faro0485 (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

To me, the article makes more sense as it is - this article is primarily about the science of evolution, explaining what it is and how it happens, and the history of evolutionary thought is dealt with in its own article. The topics are related, obviously, that's why it has a section here, but I think the order of the article as it is makes sense. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dawn Bard. The history of the idea isn't central to understanding the idea, so it makes more sense to address what it is first, and where it came from second. Guettarda (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Critism section

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

I'm not a creationist. I am an atheist. And I am a believer of evolution, But still, I think we should discuss in the article how evolution has been criticized by people such as Kent Hovind. KMFDM FAN (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sections are strongly discouraged. Criticism, if it's pertinent, should be given throughout the article when related points are being discussed. You might be interested in objections to evolution. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There is already an article on Objections to evolution in which Hovind is cited Tmol42 (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

ummmm, then why isn't objections to evolution listed in the see also section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.204.248 (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It was listed in the evolution template on the top, right of the article, I've added a second link in the "Social and cultural responses" section. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the criticism section, but why wasting time with people like Hovind? Coincidentally he "debated" Hugh Ross some years ago, who is actually an acomplished scientist (and has real degrees from real, prestigious institutions) and yet critical on evolution. Not to mention he's not the only one in that category! 81.96.127.72 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - whether im a 'evolutionist' or 'creationist' is not relevant. Just like any other scientific concept there should be a section on the criticisms of the fact/theory of evolution. We dont need the nut jobs like Hovind, but general problems such as the holes in the fossil record. I think it would also help to include something that evolution contradicts religious claims such as genesis etc... There is also debate within evolutionary biologists on the details, so something on that i feel would add quality to this already great article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark gg daniels (talk • contribs) 20:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What journal articles are you proposing as sources? I'd recommend PubMed as a good way of finding references. Here for example is a list of sources on the fossil record. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out three times above your statement, there is already an article called Objections to evolution. DKqwerty (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Lions

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"Male lions leave the pride where they are born and take over a new pride to mate" should be "Male lions leave the pride where they reach maturity and take over a new pride to mate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.187.236 (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Do young lions move between prides before they reach maturity? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded this a bit and added a reference. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

length? + origin of life

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is horribly long with a long list of redundant sources. Also it's understood that evolution is a theory about the progression of life and not it's origin. The current origin of life section doesn't say enough to convey that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsome (talk • contribs) 21:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Superiority of men

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Hi. I would like to add to your FAQ a topic that was missed in the Charles Darwin FAC. Maybe nobody else is interested but I attended the University of Minnesota where I studied the history of science as an undergraduate and nobody at the time even taught this. I propose the following text and will add it in a week or so if nobody here objects. Thanks for a lot of work you've done!

Is it true that Darwin's theory of evolution takes place in the male of the species?

Yes. In the Descent of Man, Darwin writes that males, "transmit their superiority to their male offspring".^[2] -SusanLesch (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What a quaint idea. Maybe a mention in History of evolutionary thought, but that isn't anything that forms part of modern evolutionary biology. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim Vickers. I had no idea so many people contributed to this field (this list of notable contributors to evolutionary biology seems to be all male though). So no I don't know this belongs in the FAQ anymore. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Which FAQ is that, Susan? Where is this mentioned at present? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly several contemporary women worth noting in evolutionary biology, like Rosemary Grant and Deborah Charlesworth. GoEThe (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Good, that helps to hear two women's names, GoEThe. Tim Vickers, the FAQ is at the top of this page and linked or described at the top of the talk page on a bunch of evolution articles. It is not mentioned anywhere yet. I added it to Charles Darwin this morning but it has been removed. So I am waiting on that talk page. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So you are proposing adding that question and answer to the evolution FAQ? I don't think that is a good idea, since the FAQ deals with questions that are asked frequently, whilst I have never come across anybody on this talkpage asking this question before. Perhaps you could have a look through the talkpage archives and see if this question has ever been asked in the past? It would also need a more accurate answer, since this article tries to explain the modern evolutionary synthesis, not historical accounts of evolution. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I was, a long time ago at 18:39, 12 June. I don't think it needs to be there now though. And you added a link to sexism to the main article which helped, too. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I searched the fifty some archives for "women" and "male" and you're right. This question didn't ever come up before. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This issue was also discussed at Talk:Charles Darwin#Role of women and superiority of men. I suggest any follow ups should be on the Darwin talk page because the matter is fully explored there, and the misunderstanding about the Darwin quote is explained. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Johnuniq. I will try to talk in one place but perhaps not there. Wikipedia's article on sexual selection has one sentence in a section titled "Criticism", "Cultural critics have noted that Darwin's ideas about sexual selection were strongly shaped by Victorian mores and at times reflect a distinct chauvinistic bias."<ref>For example, see Ruth Hubbard, “Have Only Men Evolved?” in The Politics of Women’s Biology (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1990), pp. 87-106.</ref> Whoever wrote that must be a rare editor. I followed its citation to Amazon who left the book open long enough to quote a few lines.

“

It's just as hard for man to break the habit of thinking of himself as central to the species as it was to break the habit of thinking of himself as central to the universe.--Elaine Morgan (1973, pp. 3--4) quoted in Hubbard, Ruth (1990). The Politics of Women’s Biology. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. p. 95.

”

“

The ethnocentric bias of Darwinism has been widely acknowledged, but its blatant sexism--or, more correctly, anthrocentrism (male-centeredness)--although noted by a few nineteeth century feminists, went largely unexplored until the 1970s, when feminist scientists and historians became interested in Darwin. Within Darwin's lifetime, feminists such as Antoinette Brown Blackwell and Eliza Burt Gamble called attention to the obvious male bias pervading his arguments.^[3]

”

“

The Victorian picture of the active male and the passive female becomes even more explicit later in the same paragraph. "The males of certain hymenopterous insects [bees, wasps, ants] have been frequently seen by that imitable observer, M. Fabre, fighting for a particular female who sits by, an apparently unconcerned beholder of the struggle, and then retires with the conqueror.--Hubbard quoting Darwin, 1990, p. 94 or so

”

“

Make no mistake, wherever you look among animals, eagerly promiscuous males are pursuing females, who peer from behind languidly drooping eyelids to discern the strongest and handsomest. Does it not sound like the wish-fulfillment dream of a proper Victorian gentleman? --Hubbard

”

In any case, the suggestion above is not a FAQ only because nobody ever asked it. But I don't think it is a misunderstanding (and like I said this work all happened since I graduated). -SusanLesch (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I know it's a probably a bit rude to do it this way, but I feel obliged to point out that the "F" in FAQ stands for FREQUENTLY. If no one has ever asked the question, then we may conclusively assume that it is NOT a Frequently Asked Question. Thanks, 67.173.185.224 (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading this section is a little confusing because based on the quote, "Darwin writes that males, "transmit their superiority to their male offspring"", I immediately thought that Darwin was implying the Preformation theory of Genetics, which I have to agree TimVickers, is quaint. However, reading this text of Descent of Man, even with its many typos, leads me to believe that the quote is taken rather out of context. My understanding of what Darwin is saying is that when a species is very sexually dimorphic, in general the male shows exaggerated characteristics such as greater size, antlers, colouration etc and the more successful a male at mating leads that male to "transmit their superiority to their male offspring". I think Darwin is talking about males superior to other males not males superior to females. Of course Darwin is writing without the aid of modern genetics but he is also aware that the preformation theory is incorrect. .... or am I completely off base here? --Candy (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

PNAS colloquium

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

n the Light of Evolution III: Two Centuries of Darwin

A wealth of excellent new free-access sources! Tim Vickers (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Explanation

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Could someone explain this sentence from "Extinction" in simple English to a non-specialist? Thank you.

"If competition from other species does alter the probability that a species will become extinct, this could produce species selection as a level of natural selection." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.122.152 (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this better? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"If one species can out-compete another, this could produce species selection, with the fitter species surviving and the other species being driven to extinction."

That's very clear. Thanks. Can I try you on another one in "Speciation"?

"Selection against interbreeding with the metal-sensitive parental population produces a change in flowering time of the metal-resistant plants, causing reproductive isolation."

If there is selection against interbreeding doesn't this mean that there is already reproductive isolation before the change in flowering time?

Thanks again
Joe Pule' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.167.109 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

How about:

"Selection against interbreeding with the metal-sensitive parental population produced a gradual change in the flowering time of the metal-resistant plants, which eventually produced complete reproductive isolation."

No problem Joe, it is very useful indeed to have somebody reading through the article and finding the pieces that are not very clear, your help is much appreciated! Tim Vickers (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Theory vs Observed Fact (Law)

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think somewhere near the top, in the first sentence, that it should be stated that this article is about the Theory of Evolution, which is a single explanation of the observed fact that evolution happens. Jamesia (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In the lead - "Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes." Tim Vickers (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Thank you. I was just looking for a separation of Scientific Law vs Scientific theory, which the typical layperson might not understand. Kind of confusing that the theory and observed fact are given the same name (evolution); I guess that's where a lot of the political confusion on the topic comes from. Jamesia (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hipporoo's additions

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

This user's additions were certainly in good faith and should not have been identified as vandalism. In fact, Raeky and TimVickers even added a template to the user's talk page asking for references when in fact the user had attempted to do so with the initial edit. I've pointed out on the user's talk page the grammatical issues, but that alone does not constituent vandalism. I know this is an article prone to vandalism, but let's be a little more careful in the future about what we qualify as vandalism, especially when the user offered a citation for one of their edits. DKqwerty (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The evolutionary potential and future direction of all species is based on their present genotype and pheontype, even if phenomena like symbiosis may open up for new possibilities. What is biologically possible for a species, like insects with lungs and an inner skeleton, could be evolutionary very unlikely or impossible.

This is just typical creationist defacement, ergo vandalism. What part of "good faith" is adding a typical anit-evolution statement that evolution is "very unlikely or impossible" are you even remotely considering? Such statements is defacement, not productive and quite simply vandalism. The template I added to his page was a warning for adding deliberately false information to a page. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What? No, that's not creationist defacement, that's perfectly true - your evolutionary history constrains your ability to explore the fitness landscape. Sure, whales MIGHT develop gills, but given where they're starting from it would be very difficult for them. You're misunderstanding what he wrote, methinks. Graft | talk 07:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Graft. It seems to be talking about this kind of thing. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Raeky, you're out-numbered here. The user made, though unsourced, a valid point that is hardly "creationist defacement" and is certainly not stating that evolution as a whole is "impossible". As the user pointed out on their talk page, English is not their first language, so perhaps the wording confused the content. DKqwerty (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, a bacteria into a whale is just as unlikely, but happened. To start labeling changes as "impossible" is totally against the idea of evolution. Changes happen over millions and billions of years, what those changes ultimately be is unpredectable. Just because you can't see the outcome doesn't mean a result is impossible. It's possible his intentions was not to inject doubt about the theory, but that is how that last sentence reads to me. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that while bacteria to whale is possible, whale to bacteria is not. Graft | talk 18:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well your interpretation is diametrically at odds with ours, I suppose that is were we'll have to leave the question. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hipporoo is perfectly right. If we found a population of Koala bears with green leaves growing out of their backs tommorow, it would be an indication that the ToE may have some problems. The theory explains (among other things) the nested hierarchy in the phylogenic tree of living things. If we found creatures that don't fit into that hierarchy there would be a problem. Indeed the theory explains why we do not find creatures like that. It's actually one of the more compelling arguments for the theory. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In a related topic, I see we have no article on developmental canalization, and I don't know enough about developmental biology to write one. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll redirect it to Canalisation (genetics). Tim Vickers (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

One problem with th edit is that it does not acknowledge the importance of time. That one may speak on the scale of millions, rather than thousands, of years is one of the things that made ToE possible and an estimation of the likelihood of anything is usually relative to the time given. I also suspect evo-devo is relevant here; when one is simply calculating the possibility of a random mutation that increases fitness the odds can be low. When one adds the possibility of a mutation that switches on a good deal of genetic material that was already present but inactive, perhaps the possibility increases? Anyway, while I am not disagreeing ith the edit (and by extension, Graft and others) I think it is way too simplistic. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That was my problem with it. You can't say that it is impossible for "Koala bears with green leaves growing out of their backs" to exist, because who knows where evolution will lead that branch of life in another million or billion years. My example of "bacteria into whales" is a good example of it's hard to tell what time will result in. Simple single celled organisms has evolved into everything we see now, including whales. To say a single cell could never be a whale is definitely a false statement. To state any kind of change or variation is unlikely or impossible is just as false, unless you attach a time frame to it. If you leave time open ended ANY variation is possible under the theory. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I love this article. I think it is a model for other Wikipedia articles. It takes a complext topic and explains it clearly without simplifying, and it brings together a massive amount of information from different subfields. But I have always thought it has one major weakness: inadequate atention to current debates among Evolutionary scientists. There is really just one sentence that mentions this, with the linke to the article on Current research in evolutionary biology which is frankly a well-conceived but anemic article. I think there are two reasons for this: first, the temperment of the people who have put the most time into this article (this is NOT a criticism) most of whom are practicing scientists and working within what historians and sociologists of science call "normative science," who understand the importance of minority views as they may open up new lines of research, maybe, but who are otherwise uninterested in what the popular media portray as controversial debates, perhaps because they are so speculative or philosophical that they have noimpact on how working biologists do their work. Besides, this article is long enough. And it is a delicate job, explaining to lay-people that there can be fundamental divisions among scientists and that these divisions actually signal the strength of a science and not a weakness. But I really do wish that ikipedia had better coverage of debates among evolutionary scientists. Dawkins vs. Gould (what is the level of evolution) is th main one I know of. I think Hipporoo's edit may signal another ... certainly there have been debates among scientists committed to neo-Darwinism over teleology and directionality. I do not think this article is the place, but I do wish that we had another article, or more linked articles, covering debates in evolutionary theory. These debates may not seem so important to most biologists who probably anticipate lives filled with research to be done that comes out of what we are already pretty sure about, and see no need to get into these debates. But for historians, sociologists, and philosophers of science I bet (no, I really am not sure, this is not my own field of expertise - but I really do think this is likely) that they see meaningful debates among scientists who are equally committed to the modern synthesis or Darwinian thought. These debates deserve coverage. I know I would like to learn more about them! Slrubenstein | Talk 09:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Co-evolution or coevolution?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The links here to Co-evolution are a redirect to coevolution which has presumably been renamed: does anyone know which is the preferred form? May I also suggest that as parhaps the earliest study on the subject, Darwin's Fertilisation of Orchids would be worth a mention. The article is well developed, and indeed is at FAC right now where it's attracted very little attention so far, perhaps because few people realise that it was the first thing Darwin did after publishing the Origin. Something worth having a look at in this centennial year of our Darwin... dave souza, talk 12:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote bloat

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To me the multiple hatnotes make the page look unpolished, as if it were a work in progress. Couldn't they be compacted down to just a couple of lines?—RJH (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

^ Philip Kitcher 1982 Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Page 45 Cambridge: The MIT Press
^ Darwin, Descent of Man p. 291
^ Hubbard, Ruth (1990). The Politics of Women’s Biology. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. p. 93.

[1] Philip Kitcher 1982 Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Page 45 Cambridge: The MIT Press

[2] Darwin, Descent of Man p. 291

[3] Hubbard, Ruth (1990). The Politics of Women’s Biology. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. p. 93.

[1]

[2]

[3]