Talk:Evolution/Archive 63

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

→

Archive 67

New considerations about the common ancestor and the origin of Darwinian evolution

I would like to submit the following article to autoconfirmed users:

Thus, the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that all extant and past terrestrial systems stemming from Darwinian evolution are descended from a common descent, a primordial ancestor. Besides all these systems belong to the class of self-sustained and self-organizing systems that process in dissipative structures. As stated by Prigogine, in his Nobel lecture in 1977, dissipative systems or structures are thermodynamically open systems that operate in non-equilibrium thermodynamics and exchange energy, matter, and information with the external environment. As pointed out by Schrödinger, reconciling self-organization with thermodynamics, maintaining a local level of organization is only possible in the context of a non-equilibrium setting., In addition, as emphasized by Prigogine, only dissipative systems or structures may have the potential for offering an enough large number of possibilities to be the source of increasing organization, i.e. evolution. Within the paradigm of simple thermodynamic processes, such as the energy flowing from source to sink through a population of intermediate systems and the entropy dissipation in non-equilibrium thermodynamics it is possible to envisage three necessary and minimal conditions only that would permit such a population to evolve by natural selection: 1. Local conditions allowing the emergence of dissipative systems, organized on a macroscopic level, generated by a flow of matter and energy that is continuously supplied. These open far-from-equilibrium systems are self-sustained and thus can maintain themselves far-from-equilibrium because they are able to exchange energy, matter, and information with the external environment; 2. The systems must be able to reproduce; 3. The systems must be capable of acquiring heritable structure/function properties that are relatively independent from the local environment, i.e., the fact that they belong to a specific lineage should not depend on the nature of the nutriments they receive from the local environment. This last condition is required for the emergence of distinct lineages allowing natural selection. A possible fourth condition, which corresponds to a form of mutation, could be considered: the properties can change sporadically while remaining transmissible to the descendants. Actually such a condition, although favoring a much more efficient and faster evolution, is not necessary to allow room for selection if there is a potential for the emergence of new distinct lineages. The interesting feature of this set of three conditions is that it does not formally require a genetic component related to nucleic acids even though it would have been at the origin of Darwinian evolution. Marc Tessera (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Evolution in society

Could or should something like the following video [1] be added? If not, I'm sure my fellow evolution enthusiasts will appreciate the video nonetheless.Thompsma (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Also WP:NOTAFORUM--Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with "no": the video seems low value (looks like a montage of copyvios from TV documentaries, with an instrumental background). However, significant contributors to this article are entitled to post an occasional dubious link on the talk page, so I removed the collapsing of this section. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, rules are rules. It shouldn't matter if someone has made significant contributions to the article or not. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as a forum post - I put it up as a serious question. There are few rules on video content - see Help:Video and [2] and suspect that it may become more common in the future. This video in particular might not have been the best example, but there are others that go into details on evolution. However, the video explains many of the evolutionary concepts by notable experts in the field in a short clip. It is also a modern example a social and cultural response to evolution and science. I doubted that it would be accepted in here, but thought I would post it out of general curiosity on the issue of videos in wikipedia. I can envision some well designed clips that could be used to visually demonstrate key concepts.Thompsma (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the video is meant to be artistic in nature. It's a song auto-tuning various scientists. It can't really be used as a reference. You would use the original video for a reference. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I raised the question in here of a more general nature, because I have come across other videos that can help to clarify misconceptions - such topics as whale evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2C-3PjNGok&feature=related), or evolution as fact and theory (e.g., [3]). I agree with you Harizotoh9 that the first video is meant to be artistic in nature, which is why it might be an example of evolution in a social cultural context. Anyway, if anyone has information or thoughts on the appropriate use of video in articles, not just about legal permissions, but if they actually help, and if we should seriously consider putting key pieces of video to explain the more complex issues into articles, I am interested in this kind of media related discussion; as it relates to the topic of evolution or its sub-articles.Thompsma (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Divergent, convergent, and parallel evolution?

I would like to know why there aren't dedicated sections on these topics, or are they already covered within some other sections? Cadiomals (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree Cadiomals and those topics would be covered under a section on phylogenetics. I've been tinkering on just such a section for a while and will post it here in the near future. This article is missing a section on evolutionary trees explaining how evolutionary biologists map out characters to retrace (abductively infer) the phylogenetic history of DNA and morphological changes through time.Thompsma (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Thompsma. I feel like these three topics (as well as coevolution which is already covered) should go under a section called "types of evolution" or something like that, or it go under the current "outcomes of evolution section." I just feel like these four distinct forms of evolution should all go under the same section. Cadiomals (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

John Avise appended a sentence to Dobzhansky's quote on nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution, in his now famous book on molecular markers[4] - that "much in evolution makes more sense in the light of phylogeny." All these concepts (divergent, convergent, and parallel evolution) can be explained simply, spanning all scales of evolution, from molecules to morphology, through the convenient use and description of an evolutionary tree and how it works. Convergence or parallel evolution not only occurs in the classic example that comes to mind, that of marsupial vs. mammal morphology (e.g., [5]), but touches on the very foundational notions of homology, homologues, and evolution across the hierarchy of life. It amazes me that after all the debates in the archived threads on this article, for all the ideas that have been thwarted, denied, rejected, argued, and diffused that we still have an article on evolution in 2012 that excludes even the most basic introduction to the systematic tool that evolutionary biologists have used since Darwin to infer pattern onto phylogeny. Only one figure sits prominently in Darwin's Origin and it was an evolutionary tree. This article glances over this in its myopic genetic reductionist slant. Try breaking that barrier and you will be faced with a barrage of editors that will have you writing in circles until you end up with the confusing mess we are faced with. Critique this article in this form and you will have a fleet of editors telling you how well it is written and your ideas are welcomed. Phylogenetic trees are the bread and butter of evolutionary hypotheses and they can help to organize all the principles of evolution, but we wouldn't like to see that kind of organization entered here because this article is already too big. The kind of organization that a phylogenetic perspective can bring is exactly the tool that can simplify the essentials of evolutionary theory to serve as a scaffold for ideas to follow. Unfortunately, there is a fleet of population geneticists guarding the reductionist status-quo of the content of this article.Thompsma (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Gee wiz, dude. i just wanted dedicated sections created for these forms of evolution. I'll do it myself. Cadiomals (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't directed at you Cadiomals. There is history on this issue.Thompsma (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Evolution Template proposals:

• Proposal to Merge Evo and Paleontology templates:
• Articles to add t template

Leave replies at the links above. For some reason no one replies to the talk page for the Evolution template. For that reason, I am posting a notice here. The template is very important because it serves as a gateway for many people for evolution articles and it is featured in this article. It's one of the first things people see when they look at an article. If you do not have the Evolutionary Biology template on your watchlist, add it now. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Need high quality references

The first two sentences in the History section of this article are in need of high quality references. I have access to a few references, but they do not discuss Empedocles or Aristotle's view of "natural things." Plus, I am not an expert on Greek history and I would prefer editors with access to more comprehensive references to take the lead on this. Previous attempts have been made to buttress both statements with a reference to a UC Berkeley website<http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html>. I reverted the addition of this reference for several reasons. While I hold UC Berkeley in high regard, there are several problems with referencing this site. For one, it is a self-published site and is not peer-reviewed. From what I understand, WP:RS does not encourage the use of self-published sources, especially for good or featured articles like evolution. Plus, it sets a dangerous precedent. If we can accept this as a reliable source, then similar arguments can be about the use of self-published sources from say, Bob Jones University. Finally, it is not clear who the authors are for this site. As you follow the links, it points to a webmaster named Ben Waggoner. I have never heard of him. I don't know if he is just responsible for maintaining the site or if he wrote its content as well. Thus, the credentials of the site's author(s) remained unclear. Furthermore, if we take credentials of whoever wrote this site at face value, then similar arguments could be made with respect to quoting the theoretical physicist, Jim Al-Khalili on the contribution of Al-Jahiz to the history of evolutionary thought. See archive for details. danielkueh (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability states that "Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form)". This citation is. Thousands of articles on Wiki have less reliable sources than this, take your crusade there. --Judgeking (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you should also read on what constitutes reliable and unreliable sources. danielkueh (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A few more clicks show that the author moved on from Berkley to the U of Central Arkansas He has published dozens of peer-reviewed papers, many of them in Evolution. --Judgeking (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he does. But I am not sure if the written work on his former website constitutes the widely accepted version of the history of evolutionary thought. Plus, it is still self-published and not peer reviewed. danielkueh (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree that higher quality citations are preferable, but disagree that high quality citations are the only citations that can be used. The citation appeared to be acceptable under WP:SPS as the institution is not a personal web-site, but run through a University.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Even though it is hosted by an institution, its contents are written by an individual. The content may or may not be endorsed by the institution. Plus, if we follow that logic, then citations from say Liberty University would be just as acceptable. Unless of course we have a policy to decide which institutions are acceptable and which aren't. I suspect such a discussion would open up a whole new can of worms. danielkueh (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you're both talking past one-another. Yes, it's probably a reliable source. But we really should aim for better. So, instead of debating things here... Guettarda (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. danielkueh (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Then until or unless another is found,why is the citation being removed?--JOJ ^Hutton 21:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Because this is a featured article that is need of high quality references per WP:FACR. That website is not it. And for the other reasons that I brought up. danielkueh (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The articles on Anaximander and Empedocles themselves (reminder: that's what this discussion is about to those who are just arguing for arguing's sake...) state their views on animal & human origin. Why is there even a need for further citation here? --Judgeking (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I hate to sound repetitive, but see WP:FACR and WP:V. Plus, that article on Anaximander does not even have a reference to support the weasel statement, "...some people consider him as evolution's most ancient proponent." danielkueh (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Then go and start an edit war over there, there's no such statement here. All this citation does is state a fact that seems to be fairly well established. --Judgeking (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be presenting a moving target. I am assuming you brought up the articles on Anaximander and Empedocles because you wanted to know "Why is there even a need for further citation here?" I responded to that question. Look, if it is a well established fact, then it should not be hard to find high quality sources. danielkueh (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Jojhutton, could you specify the chapter as well for that Bertrand Russell reference that you inserted? I looked at p. 696 of A history of western philosophy and I am not seeing the corresponding text. P. 696 in this pdf version seems to be discussing Rousseau's system of government and social contract. Plus, I don't see explicit mentions of evolution as starting with Empedocles in this book. Granted, I did a quick flip through so I could be wrong. danielkueh (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

These citations should suffice. - if anyone requires the specific details, I can cut and paste the pertinent details.Thompsma (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Thompsma, I will replace the existing Russel reference with these these two references. danielkueh (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Daniel as one of the authors of that section I can say the real source I used for the first sentence, and it is better than a general history. In fact I do not think a better source is possible: Kirk, Raven and Schofield (1983 second ed.) The Presocratic Philosophers , Cambridge University Press. Anaximander is chapter III (pp. 100-142)and Empedocles is chapter X (pp. 280-321). Because each chapter is an overview of fragments with discussions about how to interpret them I believe it is best not to cite individual pages. For the second sentence about Aristotle it is definitely no problem to find a source, but more of a question about what type of source would be best. A general history might in fact be better for that type of sentence? Aristotle's preferred term was eidos, traditionally translated as species, but today most often as form. The form or species though visible to humans as a visible category of thing was actually a cause of natural things such as animals, but outside of the normal physical causality (efficient causes) we study today.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew. I was gonna drop a line on your talk page for this. I inserted the reference you gave me. As for the Aristotle reference, any would do, as long as it is reputable and it matches very closely what the main text in this article is saying. Which book did you or Dave use when you guys wrote that second bit? danielkueh (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we were just trying to get the sentence right. It is a fairly general sentence. So I do not recall having one particular source in hand. At the same time we were working on that I had lots of sources in hand for several Aristotle articles I work on, such as potentiality and actuality, but the sourcing for that article is a bit specialized. So if someone has found good biology-relevant articles that is probably the best solution. I do not have access to JSTOR so I can not comment on the specific ones chosen.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, as mentioned I can not see the sources for the second sentence. OTOH, I wonder if they also cover the 3rd sentence, which kind of continues the same thought?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

hey Andrew, the Torrey et al. reference not discuss Aristotle's views of species. Instead, it devotes a lot of effort to interpreting different passages from Aristotle as being "evolutionistic" or not. The Hull reference does discuss Aristotle's views of species, but it does not say that Aristotle viewed objects as "imperfect actualisations of different fixed natural possibilities," at least that is not the impression that one gets from reading that reference. One could potentially come to a similar conclusion like the third sentence based on the Hull reference, but it is a stretch. Terms like teleological have very specific meaning. My suggestion would be to remove third sentence and perhaps modify the second sentence to describe Aristotle's views of "essences" as being fixed and immutable. My two cents. danielkueh (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have limited time on this at the moment but I will make a perhaps over-obvious remark that we want to make sure we do not change the meaning of a sentence too quickly coming out of a fairly routine request for better sourcing. Improvement is the aim and I don't see anything in the paragraph which should be un-sourceable. I wonder if Dave S has time this week? I am not sure your proposal of saying that Aristotle viewed essences as fixed quite gives the right balance. And the term teleological is actually debated quite a bit when it comes to Aristotle. What you describe sounds a little more like where Aristotelianism ended up by early modern times, but one thing Dave and I were going for was at least a hint of the debate about differences between Aristotle and Aristotelians. Aristotle is interesting, and we should let readers see that with appropriate linking to other articles. He is both the inspiration of modern science and also the man who inspired most of what modern science is opposed to. Perhaps draft ideas can be dealt with here on the talk page so as to keep a conservative pace?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, I think that is a reasonable suggestion -- taking our time on this. I agree that Aristotle is a significant figure. My only concern is that whatever we say should correspond closely with what is said in the sources that we cited. At the moment, it is just not clear if one would come to the same conclusion that is similar to the present text if one read those two sources. That is a potential problem, especially if issues of WP:OR were to be brought up. I will see what I can come up with. Like you, I am terribly busy at the moment, and so will not be able to devote as much time to this for the next couple of weeks. If Dave S. or anyone else wants to take the lead, that would be fine too. danielkueh (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would defer this matter to Andrew who certainly knows more about Aristotle on evolutionary matters than I do. However, I wanted to correct danielkueh that the Torrey et al. reference does discuss Aristotle's views on species on pages 12-13 in particular reference to "forms" with quoted reference to Aristotle's works that specifically addresses the material in the sentences of this article: "Which is not surprising, when it is remembered that to Aristotle species were immutable...Royce has already been quoted as saying that the Aristotelian 'forms' which are responsible for the evolution of individuals are as eternal as the Platonic ideas. They therefore do not evolve...To him [Aristotle] the eternity not only of Matter but also what he called Form,-that is to say, the collection of attributes giving definiteness to natural aggregates, more especially those known as organic species-was an axiomatic certainty. Every type, capable of self-propagation, that could exist at all, had existed, and would continue to exist forever...To the problem of variation Aristotle gave no consideration except as it concerned individual modifications that altered in no essential degree the specific type. " --> Reading carefully through the rest of that article, it was entirely appropriate to include it as a citation for the following sentence: "In contrast to these materialistic views, Aristotle understood all natural things, not only living things, as being imperfect actualisations of different fixed natural possibilities, known as "forms", "ideas", or (in Latin translations) "species"." --> the article has five pages that discuss Aristotle's views on "forms" species and hybrids. I wouldn't put up a random citation unless I had read it first and thought it through.Thompsma (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thompsma, you are right. I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out. danielkueh (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Exterrnal link - Evolution in a big city

Seeking consensus to add the following educational external link from TED Education having Creative Commons License (CC BY 3.0):

• Jason Munshi-South (11 March 2012). "Evolution in a big city". TED Ed (Lessons worth sharing). TED Education (on YouTube). Retrieved 16 March 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

AshLin (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Error in FAQ

The following statement is in error: "The great majority of modern evolutionary biologists consider macroevolution to simply be microevolution on a larger timescale; all fields of science accept that small ("micro") changes can accumulate to produce large ("macro") differences, given enough time." That statement is absoltely false. A great majority of evolutionary biologist have equivocally rejected this notion, some of the most notable being Stephen J. Gould, Richard Lewontin, Niles Eldredge, Ernst Mayr, and many others. See [6] for a review. Ecologists have also recently been writing about the importance of ecosystem engineering modulating macroevolutionary selection pressures.[7] The subject is still debated, but it is false to say that a "great majority" consider macroevolution to be microevolution writ large. That goes against many of the macroevolutionary theories that have been proposed to date.Thompsma (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I can provide multiple quotes that show that the FAQ statement on macroevolution is false. The reality is that the issue has not been resolved and in some cases there is empirical evidence supporting a distinction (but I'll leave that debate to the peer-review process). Here is a quote from Sean Carroll supporting my claim:

Many geneticists assert that macroevolution is the product of microevolution writ large, but some palaeontologists believe that processes operating at higher levels also shape evolutionary trends...A long standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the largerscale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution). Outsiders to this rich literature may be surprised that there is no consensus on this issue, and that strong viewpoints are held at both ends of the spectrum, with many undecided. (Sean Carrol [8])

Thompsma (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not include the conclusion of that piece: "The subdivision of evolution into two scales no longer reflects our understanding of the unity and diversity of evolutionary mechanisms. However, more important than redefining macroevolution is recognizing that discipline- or scale-bound considerations of only one component of evolution, or of solely extrinsic or intrinsic mechanisms, are inadequate. Long-standing boundaries between evolutionary disciplines are dissolving, to allow richer concepts of evolution to emerge."

And the debate is not whether "microevolution" leads to "macroevolution", but rather whether the former is sufficient to lead to the latter without competition between species, and this only from palaeontologists. Palaeontologists of course operate within a structure of differentiating between species rather than the nuances within a species, so that is why they are concerned with what some might call "macroevolution". Ninahexan (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The point was not that Sean Carrol agreed with the hierarchical view. The quote shows that Carrol recognizes that the debate is far from settled. Moreover, the debate is not only about competition between species. Species selection as the mechanism explaining punctuated equilibria is one theory among others. Niche construction is a macroevolutionary theory where ecological inheritance is included in its model.[9] Evo-Devo has also presented macroevolutionary theory,such as the mechanism of Riedl's burden[10] with hypotheses explaining developmental stasis and evolutionary constraints. There are macroevolutionary hierarchical theories of Gould, Niles Eldridge and Elizabeth Vrba[11], [12], which offers an expansion of "the traditional view that equates sorting among organisms with selection upon organisms", sorting as an alternative mechanism (not selection) operating across the hierarchy. There is also multi-level selection theory, which has several mechanisms that bypass the naive group selectionist theory and have offered various mechanisms, including metapopulation dynamics and an expansion of Hamilton's coefficient of relatedness (r)[13]. Templeton, Carson, and Mayr's founder flush mechanistic models that are cladogenic (macroevolutionary) in content[14], and the models and mechanisms on multilevel selection that Samir Okasha[15] has published extends beyond species selection. There are other examples in recent literature still debating, testing, and theorizing about this issue. It is not only paleontologists. "Palaeontologists of course operate within a structure of differentiating between species rather than the nuances within a species" - that is false and irrelevant to the peer-reviewed analyses in the scientific journals where scientists have presented their evidence on macroevolutionary theory. Of course, there are many different theories "above the gene" with different names that the simple distinction micro- to macro- spans, but for the beginner that marks out the polarity between anagenesis and cladogenesis.Thompsma (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your points seem to relate to taxonomy more than actually addressing whether macroevolution is the product of microevolution. Can you find a reference to either an evolutionary biologist or a palaeontologist who directly suggests that you can have macroevolution without microevolution? Your Sean Carroll reference addressed the issue of whether it makes any sense at all to talk about macro and micro evolution as distinct spheres when the only strong reason for doing so relates to taxonomy (relying on arbitrary demarcation) more than explaining phenomena). In fact that reference pointed out that far from being a debate about whether microevolution leads to macroevolution, the debate was about the inadequacy of using the terms at all as if talking about different things. You said that "a great majority of evolutionary biologist have equivocally rejected this notion", the notion that microevolution leads to macroevolution if given enough time. I'd like to see a reference to support that assertion. The Erwin reference you gave earlier doesn't actually support the claim that macroevolution isn't the result of long-term evolution, what it does say is that the nature of the interaction of the organism and the environment can create a broad variety of organisms. In other words, it is the result of aggressive forces influencing selection (and sorting) as much as long time frames. This matter really does seem to relate more to taxonomy and nomenclature than anything else. Ninahexan (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that this issue requires cautious consideration of what the FAQ is trying to say. I think that in its aims it is not in conflict with the papers Thompsma cites. The FAQ was clearly written in order to help less informed readers, who have heard about micro and macro evolution from creationists, to understand that even if biologists ever make such a distinction, they do not make it in such a way that they would ever accept that the theory of evolution could only apply in isolation to one of them. It would be like have different laws of nature at different times. If you accept the distinction between micro and macro as useful, then real biologists would still all say that microevolution has no limit, and can lead to speciation. What the creationists were spreading about was the idea that microevolution can work within some sort of natural fixed limits, and can exist in such a way that macroevolution might still be impossible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ninahexan states: "Your points seem to relate to taxonomy more than actually addressing whether macroevolution is the product of microevolution." - That is absolutely false and suggests that you have not read through that literature to any great extent. The entire premise of many researchers cited in the literature is precisely that you cannot explain evolution through a simple microevolutionary model, i.e., evolution is change in gene frequencies within populations that diverge. It seems that you are forwarding a myth on this issue, because clearly we all know that the debate between micro- and macro-evolution has not been resolved. Papers are streaming out regularly that address this very problem. "I'd like to see a reference to support that assertion." - OK, try Douglas Erwin's paper titled "Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution"[16] (See here[17] for contemporary debates in evolution on this topic). Other examples: this paper[18] has a section titled: "Is macroevolution something special or just cumulative microevolutionary changes?" Eldredge and Cracraft [19] also argue that microevolutionary processes cannot logically be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary patterns. "A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution – whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution."[20] "A major question for evolutionary biology is whether the ecological, populational and genetical processes that can be studied in the present (microevolution) are sufficient to explain evolution over timescales of, say, more than 10 million years (macroevolution)."[21] - The debate is ongoing, such as this recent publication in Evolution[22] discussing this problem in context of developmental modularity and macroevolutionary mechanisms involved, or this publication in Journal of Biogeography[23] looking at macroevolutionary explanations from an ecological perspective.

In response to Lancasters post, I disagree that the FAQ as it is currently framed says or implies what you are saying after. "The great majority of modern evolutionary biologists consider macroevolution to simply be microevolution on a larger timescale; all fields of science accept that small ("micro") changes can accumulate to produce large ("macro") differences, given enough time." - That is false - specifically the first component of the sentence, I have no issue with the 2nd clause. Debates in science are part of the productive process. I am not concerned about creationists misinterpretation of the information, what I am concerned about is the honest disclosure of what is really taking place. The sentence in the FAQ needs to be worded in a way that is an honest reflection of what is taking place in the literature. I'd like to see the stats on The great majority of modern evolutionary biologists - sounds like special pleading for a cause rather than a fact about science. That does not sit well with me.Thompsma (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ninahexan's statement that the points relate primarily to taxonomy issues (less about mechanism) is particularly worrisome when you read in depth the work by Alan Templeton and Hampton Carson's transilience and founder flush models - clearly flagged as a macroevolutionary model by those authors (See [24]). That point is a bit patronizing to the authors that are doing the work who know full well the range of taxonomic issues and have contributed significantly to our fundamental understanding of taxonomy, speciation, and evolution. Templeton has stated that there are three different models for peripatric speciation that cannot be explained solely on the grounds of the simple accumulation of changes in gene frequencies among populations that are separated and then diverge. These authors propose specific mechanisms that leads to cladogenesis that are incompatible with peak-shift conditions and relate to ecological processes (not population gen) leading to relaxed selection constraints in the founder populations. There is also the "functional synthesis" [25]with experimental evidence of macroevolutionary steps [26] that cannot be explained by a smooth transition using microevolutionary population genetic models (for example, see [27]). Thompsma (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ninahexan is also twisting my comments so that they do not express what I am actually stating. For example "'a great majority of evolutionary biologist have equivocally rejected this notion', that microevolution leads to macroevolution if given enough time" - I am NOT making this claim. Of course microevolution can lead to macroevolution. The point is that not all macroevolution can be explained by microevolution and there are specific models, theories, and experiments supporting this claim that have been cited.Thompsma (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thompsma, you misquote me above?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrew - did I? The quote I put in response to your statement is from the FAQ - not quoting you. Is that where the confusion is?Thompsma (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully recognize that this is a controversial issue. I have some ideas of my own on macro- v. micro-evolutionary theory, but I'm not interested in forwarding my own ideas rather to express in fairness what others (experts) have published. Just to be clear - my contention is with the following component of the FAQ statement: "The great majority of modern evolutionary biologists consider macroevolution to simply be microevolution on a larger timescale..." That statement cannot be substantiated. It may be that there is a majority, but I would leave it up to the evolutionary biologists to decide and comment on this for themselves. Unless there is a peer-reviewed publication that has done a survey on evolutionary biologists expressing their opinion on this matter, I contest that there is a "great majority" and there is certainly enough evidence to suggest that many evolutionary biologists have given alternative theories that do not "consider macroevolution to simply be microevolution on a larger timescale."

How about: "All fields of science accept that small ("micro") changes can accumulate to produce large ("macro") differences, given enough time. However, a major question for evolutionary biologists is whether microevolutionary processes studied by population geneticists in contemporary populations are fully sufficient to explain all macroevolutionary patterns that paleontologists study in the fossil record."Thompsma (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that we are writing an FAQ and not the article itself, I am not sure what the point of the second sentence is. BTW the creationist way of using the term macroevolution means any evolution radical enough to create clear speciation. That is a widely used term, and I am pretty sure we do not want it being mixed up with more meaningful biology.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not a scientist, but my understanding is that the question among evolutionary biologists is whether speciation (which is what distinguishes macro-evolution from micro-evolution) is a process that requires a distinct explanation, or whether speciation occurs simply by the accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes. I will leave it to the better-informed to correct me. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thompsma is correct in that the Modern Synthesis has always been a limited consensus. Recent articles in Science and Nature relate the sentiment how the Synthesis needs to be continued to incorporate new ideas and information. Whereas I can produce a Science reference to the general consensus at a evolutionary biology meeting that the LUCA was likely already complex (and bacteria likely evolved from gene loss) but that alone doesn't support that all evolutionary biologist agree (just the ones at that particlular meeting). Thompsma has produced a significant literature contrary to the first part of the sentence (in fact there is confusion what Macro and micro mean- some say related to amount of change and others the tme scale or both)-seems a no brainer to tweak the sentence and take a NPOV. GetAgrippa (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

TomS TDotO - you are partly correct, there are different kinds of theory and causal levels of explanation in evolution. Willi Hennig (1966), for example, specifically broke his theory into different parts. There is biological systematics of which phylogenetic systematics is a part. Hennig specifically distinguished phylogenetic, tokogenetic, and ontogenic theories of relationship. Phylogenetic relations specifically refer to relations among species and can help to explain how they come to be, i.e., cladogenesis. Tokogenetic relations specifically refers to relations within species and can help explain the distributions of characters within them, i.e., anagenesis. Ontogenetic refers to the developmental biology of organisms. Each one of these hypotheses (phylogenetic, tokogenetic, and ontogenic) has a distinct kind of causal relation: "The significance of pointing out the distinctions between ontogenetic, tokogenetic, and phylogenetic inferences is that the goals of each are different in both the nature of the causal questions asked relative to the effects observed, and the theories invoked for inferring possible answers."[28] There are different semantic issues on the term microevolution. Does it just refer to evolution on a recent "ecological" time scale, or does it refer to tokogenetic relations as a population geneticist might explore; similar semantic issues exist for macroevolution? The key point in the debate, as I understand it, is if microevolution (i.e., tokogenesis of mutations accumulating in populations) can be extended through time to provide a causal explanation for the macroevolutionary patterns we see in phylogenetic relations. I have no doubt, as in the case of ring species, that microevolution can extend out through time to produce different species, but there is sufficient literature (experimental evidence) suggesting that the transition is not always smooth and there are specific circumstances that explain speciation (i.e., claodogenesis) that cannot be explained by changes in gene frequencies and accumulated mutation over time (anagenesis). The FAQ is worded poorly and gives incorrect information on the nature of the science on this particular issue.

In response to Andrew Lancaster's question on the point of the sentence - I imagine it has to do with questions that have been raised on the micro- to macro-evolutionary debate, where some creationists will accept that we can observe evolution on a microscale, but that alone is insufficient to explain the full scope of events we see in the fossil record - hence, they imply that evolution is a "just a theory" that is limited in scope because it cannot provide a universal explanation where ID fills in those gaps. The flaws of ID have been addressed elsewhere in this context and it might be worthwhile drawing on that literature for this particular point. It is also noteworthy that the NAS defines "Microevolution: Changes in the traits of a group of organisms that do not result in a new species."[29] - they do not discuss macroevolution.Thompsma (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So the error is still contained in the FAQ. The claim being made is erroneous and I have provided ample evidence proving it false. Take, for example, the perspective given by Fitzhugh[30][31] on the inferential basis of species as hypotheses. As I pointed out in the quote above, there are distinct inferences and explanatory accounts being made at different levels in the biological hierarchy. Hence, it is erroneous to state that a "great majority of modern evolutionary biologists consider macroevolution to simply be microevolution on a larger timescale" for several reasons. Firstly, no survey of this nature has ever been taken to substantiate this claim and second, a survey of the literature shows that many evolutionary biologists who have published explicit claims to the contrary. Causal events related to ontogenetic development of individuals (e.g., heterochrony, semaphorants), tokogeny of events within a species (i.e., anagenesis), and phylogenetics (i.e., cladogenesis) have consistently drawn inferences as separate hypothesis claiming different kinds of causal explanations relative to the specified domain of interrogation. This is how the history of science in evolutionary biology has played out despite the claims by some that their field of explanatory inference (e.g., population genetics or modern synthesis) has dominion over all other explanatory accounts outside of their area of research, whereas many researchers in evolutionary-developmental biology, palaeontology, and phylogenetic systematics have categorically rejected this claim.Thompsma (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Second FAQ concern

"The evolution of the eye and the evolution of flagella are well-understood, and "irreducibly complex" structures can evolve through mechanisms such as exaptation, in which a structure is adapted to serve a different function." -> The preceding sentence has a grammar problem, but my main concern is the "irreducibly complex" link. The way this is put together might suggest that there is some merit to irreducibly complexity. This should be reworded. Perhaps: "The misquoted "irreducibly complexity" of the eye and the evolution of flagella are often used falsely as examples of things that cannot be explained by the mechanisms of natural selection. However, many papers and studies have reported on the exact nature of these structures from the genetic level, from simpler to more complex structures, through developmental biology, and through the fossil record to explain to the range of patterns and transitions spanning the diversity of life. Exaptation, for example, is one mechanism that explains how structures can become adapted to perform new functions as selection builds on the raw material of pre-existing traits of a different kind."Thompsma (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I see the problem, but don't think "misquoted" is the right word. I would suggest a simpler solution: "The term "irreducibly complex", sometimes applied to flagella and to the eye, is not a scientific term. Indeed, the evolution of these structures is well understood and involved such mechanisms as exaptation, in which a structure is adapted to serve a different function." By the way, what's the grammar problem? I see only an orthographical issue (the hyphen in "well-understood"). garik (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Garik - another suggested tweak: "The term "irreducibly complex", sometimes applied to flagella and to the eye, is not a scientific term. Adherents to the notion of "irreducibly complexity" might argue or ask how you can evolve flight from half of a non-functional wing? Details on the evolution of these structures, however, are well understood to involve the mechanismsmechanics of natural selection. For example, exaptations explain how an ancestral structure having a different utility (e.g., fluffy 'feathers' for warmth) can become selected in descendants for a different kind of adaptation (e.g., strong feathers for flight)."Thompsma (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we're better not without the "adherents ... might ask" bit. I'd make the following further tweaks: "The term "irreducibly complex" is not a scientific term. It is sometimes used to imply that such structures as flagella, eyes, or wings, could not be the product of natural selection because they would not be functional at earlier stages in their evolution. However, the details of how these structures evolved are in fact well understood. Through exaptation, for example, a structure having one function (e.g. fluffy feathers for warmth) can come to be used for another function (e.g. strong feathers for flight) in descendants." garik (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay Garik...like your changes, however it lacks some of the finer details to give it the explanatory punch that is needed. We may have stripped this back too far that the meaning is being lost. This next proposal extends it out longer to get the precise wording from the arguments that are made by ID proponents: "The term "irreducibly complex" is not a scientific term, but stems from theological arguments that predate the theory of evolution. It is used to argue that natural selection could not account for the step by step stages needed to evolve complex structures, such as the flagella of a bacterium or the vertebrate eye. For example, how could half a non-functional wing become adapted for flight at earlier stages in bird evolution? In contrast, biologists have studied these cases in precise detail in living and fossil forms illustrating evolutionary precursors from the molecular scale, through developmental biology, and up to their full anatomical form. Exaptation, for example, explains how an ancestral structure (e.g. fluffy "feathers" for warmth) can become evolutionarily co-opted in descendants for other functional adaptations (e.g. strong feathers for flight)." --> I put the first "feathers" in quotes, because technically they may not have been a true feather until flight evolved.Thompsma (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. I see what you're doing, but I think there's a little more detail than is necessary. And the bit about natural selection accounting for the step by step stages isn't quite right: The people who make this argument don't think that a step-by-step process was involved at all. How about the following? "The term "irreducibly complex" is a non-scientific term that is sometimes used to argue that complex structures, such as bacterial flagella, vertebrate eyes, or wings, could not have evolved through a step-by-step process like natural selection. For example, while the utility of evolving a functional wing is immediately clear, it is not so obvious what advantage the intermediate stages of wing development might have conferred. In fact, biologists have studied these cases in detail, and there is little mystery as to how such structures might have come about gradually. Exaptation, for example, explains how one structure (e.g. fluffy "feathers" for warmth) can become evolutionarily co-opted for new functions (e.g. strong feathers for flight)." garik (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Garik - a few problems I'm catching here. First - "irreducibly complex" is two words, so it is not a term. Second, I have a problem with "there is little mystery" - that goes against the very premise of science going back to Francis Bacon, "Those who have taken upon them to lay down the law of nature as a thing already searched out and understood, whether they have spoken in simple assurance or professional affectation, have therein done philosophy and the sciences great injury" - scientists love to keep the mystery alive. Third, "might have come about gradually" does not sound convincing. Science does not work in absolute terms, but this sounds like we might know or we might not know, but science is about knowing and this puts this on the same playing field as belief as opposed to scientific inference and acceptance of theory. Hope you don't mind my strong critique. My aim is to create a strong statement that can explain the concept while at the same time staying true to the science. Here is my counter offer: "The argument of "irreducibly complexity" is neither scientific nor recent. It is an old theological argument for intelligent design pre-dating the theory of evolution. Its proponents claim that complex structures, such as bacterial flagella, vertebrate eyes, or wings are wholly functional and could not have evolved through intermediate stages in step-wise fashion by means natural selection. The claim to "irreducibly complexity" must instead be the work of an intelligent creator. In contradistinction, biologists continue to probe at these cases by applying the scientific method while gathering detailed factual observations from fossils, genes, and whole organisms. Natural selection has repeatedly proven to explain how these and many other complex patterns evolved through their functional adaptations. Exaptation, for example, explains how primitive structures (e.g. fluffy "feathers" for warmth) can become evolutionarily co-opted for new functions (e.g. strong feathers for flight)."Thompsma (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries Thompsma, but what makes you think a term can't consist of two (or more) words? In fact, I think calling it an "argument" is less appropriate. People make an argument that a structure is irreducibly complex and a further argument that this means it cannot be the product of evolution. But the term "irreducibly complex" is not itself an argument.

A fair point on "mystery", however, and I see your point about "might", although my intention was not to imply uncertainty. But I still think your version is somewhat too long and, in places, too wordy. For example, I think we want to emphasise that "irreducibly complex" is not a scientific term, but I don't think there's any need to talk about it predating evolutionary theory. In any case, the term doesn't. The related argument does, but I don't think it's necessary to say so. Similarly, I think other sentences, like the one starting "in contradistinction", go into too much detail for the FAQ. In addition, there are a few somewhat unclear phrases and sentences. I would avoid the phrase "wholly functional", for example. First, it's ambiguous ("functional as an irreducible whole" vs. "completely functional, with no non-functioning parts"—indeed, the second seems the more natural meaning, and I don't think it's the one you mean). Second, it could be true of a structure regardless of whether it evolved through step-by-step processes or not. I'm also not quite sure what you mean by "The claim to "irreducibly complexity" must instead be the work of an intelligent creator." That implies to me that God (or aliens, or whoever) came up with the claim that eyes can't have come about through evolution, which I don't think is what you intended.

We need to get clear on what we're trying to do here. And what I think we're trying to do is explain, as concisely as possible, that "irreducible complexity" is not a scientific term, that anti-evolution arguments based on supposed irreducible complexity don't stand up, and that we actually have an evolutionary explanation for structures that are claimed to be irreducibly complex (and therefore inexplicable in evolutionary terms). While staying true to the science. The current version of the FAQ does a fairly good job in two sentences and 75 words. And, as far as I can see, the only real problem with the it is that it implies that irreducible complexity is worth taking seriously (i.e. it's not very true to the science). I don't think we need 63 extra words to solve that problem. If people want to find out about the origins of the notion of irreducible complexity, or about the evolution of bacterial flagella, they can click on the links. The FAQ is not the place for that kind of detail. garik (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, maybe it's time to go back to something closer to the current wording:

1. Evolution can't create irreducibly complex structures like the eye, or the bacterial flagellum.

"Irreducible complexity" is not a scientific term. The evolution of many structures that are claimed to be irreducibly complex, such as the eye or the bacterial flagellum, is well understood and involved mechanisms such as exaptation, in which a structure is adapted to serve a different function. Moreover, it does not follow that, if we do not fully understand the evolutionary history of a biological structure, that it did not come about through evolution a less than full understanding of the evolutionary history of a biological structure is not evidence against evolution, any more than The fact that a less than full understanding of the gravitational orbit of every astronomical body is not fully understood is not is evidence against gravity.

garik (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC) edited by garik (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Garik...yes I went into too much detail and I see where I made errors. According to Wikipedia, however, it is an argument and the National Academy of Sciences also calls it an argument (see [32]). You can have compound words as a term, but saying it is a term carries far less meaning than saying it is an argument, which it is. More than an argument (and I realize this will be controversial, but readers should visit Kirk Fitzhugh[33] who has written more extensively on this nature of evolutionary scientific philosophy than anyone I know), like ID it is a theory - but, it is not a scientific theory that can be tested. "Beyond Behe’s (2006) admission that an ID theory is not testable, let’s be clear how he has misrepresented the very nature of testing."(See [34]) However, "only natural selection or ‘descent with modification’ has withstood repeated attempts of refutation by way of testing. In other words, the empirical evidence amassed for descent is substantial, whereas no such evidence has yet been provided for causes involving the intelligent agent(s) referred to by ID advocates."[35] I posted these quotes here because I think that we can use this information in the sentence structure. When I compiled my proposal above, I tried to use wording from external reliable sources to avoid my personal bias. I think the definition of exaptation in the proposal is too vague. This paper on the evolution of the eye[36] also provides a nice summary on the evolutionary sequence. It is also my understanding of the IC argument is that a whole structure could not have evolved its functional utility from a sub-set of its parts. How about:

"Evolution can't create "irreducibly complex" structures like the eye, or the bacterial flagellum.

Irreducible complexity" is not a scientific argument. The vertebrate eye or the bacterial flagellum are claimed to be irreducibly complex. In fact, they are adaptations that evolved through a logical sequence of transitions from simple to complex. For example, genes and structures in the development of the vertebrate eye occur in vertebrate ancestors, such as sea squirts having simple photosensory organs called an ocellus that are the basis for more complex eyes.[37] Complex biological traits can evolve as exaptations, where simpler ancestral structures that evolved for different reasons become coopted for new adaptive functions. Moreover, a less than full understanding of the evolutionary history of a biological structure is not evidence against evolution, any more than a less than full understanding of the gravitational orbit of every astronomical body is evidence against gravity. The empirical evidence for evolution is substantial, whereas no evidence has ever been provided for irreducible complexity.

Thompsma (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Irreducible complexity" isn't a compound noun, it's a phrase composed of an adjective and a noun, but that doesn't mean it's not a term. Both words and phrases can be terms. I also still think argument isn't quite the right word (including in the intro to the Wikipedia article)—indeed, I'm happier with calling it a (pseudoscientific) theory—but none of that's really important. I won't quibble any further over it.

I think the newest version you've suggested is pretty good, by the way, although I still think we can cut it down. For example, we don't need the sentence "The vertebrate eye or the bacterial flagellum are claimed to be irreducibly complex." The reader can get that from the question. I'm also not sure we really need to give as many details about the evolution of the eye. So how about:

"Evolution can't create "irreducibly complex" structures like the eye, or the bacterial flagellum.

Both the vertebrate eye and of the bacterial flagellum are well understood to have evolved from simpler structures. Indeed, simpler eye-like structures (such as the sea squirt's ocellus) can still be found in existing species.[38] Complex biological traits can also evolve as exaptations, where ancestral structures that evolved for different reasons become coopted for new functions. "Irreducible complexity" is not, in any case, a scientific argument is, in any case, neither a scientific concept nor a coherent argument: A less than full understanding of the evolutionary history of a biological structure is not evidence against evolution, any more than a less than full understanding of the gravitational orbit of every astronomical body is evidence against gravity. The empirical evidence for evolution is substantial, whereas no evidence has ever been provided for irreducible complexity.

garik (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC) edited by garik (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've thought of a good alternative to "scientific argument", which allows us to separate two points that I think were being conflated. garik (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, if everyone's happy with this version that Thompsma and I have thrashed out, I'll make the change. garik (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. danielkueh (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I like it. Good job!!Thompsma (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You could strengthen the argument for eye development by pointing out that Pax genes regulate eye development in such diverse organimism as cnidarians like jelly-fish, arthropods like fruit flies, and chordates like humans. Demonstrates a conserved gene for eye development in invertebrates and vertebrates. Gives a link between morphological changes, genes, and evolution. Just a suggestion. GetAgrippa (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Other FAQ concerns

My remaining concerns for the FAQ deal with the following sentences:

• "Proof has two meanings: in logic and mathematics, it refers to a proposition that has been shown to be 100% certain and logically necessary; in other uses, proof refers to a proposition that is well-supported by experimental evidence (much like the colloquial meaning of fact)."
• "Evolution, as a fact, is the gradual change in forms of life over billions (1,000,000,000s) of years."
• "So, although the entire evolutionary history of life has not been directly observed, all available data supports the fact of evolution."

What available data? Supporting the "fact" of evolution is subjective. What one sees as evidence for evolution (such as archaeopteryx) another will see as evidence against evolution. And data from fields like molecular biology does not give credence to evolution, but rather makes it look impossible. ~~Blaze~~

With all due respect, absolute rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Proof

Proof does not refer to a proposition, proof stems from its Latin roots to test or probable. In this way, proof refers to the experiment. There are two aims to a proof, 1) explain the proposition through peer and public review , and 2) to convince others of the facts by means of a rational demonstration of the experimental cause-effect inference. Edward Wilson discusses this in Consilience, and you can read more about this in the following citation: .

Fact

Some evolutionary biologists have claimed that evolution is not a fact. I will post a quote that I put in Evolution as fact and theory that speaks to this matter in a very clear way:

Therefore, we should not call a true factual proposition a 'fact'. (The view that facts are theory-dependent or else empirical data rather than thigs "out there" is rampant in the philosophy of biology...In other words, a well-confirmed hypothesis, such as the hypothesis of descent with modification, is not a fact: it refers to a fact, i.e., a process or, more precisely, a number of processes. Similarly, there are no "scientific facts": only a procedure to attain knowledge can be scientific (or not), not the object of our investigation. Accordingly, scientists neither "collect" facts nor do they come up with or, worse, "construct" facts, but advance hypotheses and theories referring to or respresenting facts. Of course, some of these hypotheses may turn out ot be false, either for referring to purely imaginary objects, or for describing incorrecly realy facts.

Here is a contrast of facts as used by evolutionary biologists:

1. "Confirming evidence cannot change the status of a hypothesis to a fact" (Fitzhugh)[39]
2. "In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." (Gould)[40]
3. "US National Academy of Science (NAS) (1998), one of the most prestigious scientific societies in the world, a scientific fact is “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed, and for all practical purposes, is accepted as ‘true’."(Gregory)[41]

There is a bit of a discrepancy here, because "As we will see next, observation and confirmation are irrelevant to facts (but not vice versa)."[42] It is also important to note that there is no such thing as a scientific fact, facts exist outside the realm of science and they are the worlds data and I have yet to find an evolutionary biologist who disagrees with this claim. We can also be certain that a hypothesis is not a fact, "And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty."(Gould, [43]) What is being confirmed? Does this mean that the hypotheses has been confirmed? We can't confirm hypotheses, they can be falsified, rejected, or corroborated. Confirming evidence is related to inductive inference. Hence, some researchers can make statement like so: "To say ‘evolution is a fact’ is just an inexact reference to what is thought to have existed, which are organisms and the events in which they were involved. While evolution is not a fact, it is also not a single theory, but a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions."[44] Darwin's five theories on evolution include four nomonological and a singular historical theory (i.e., common descent)[45]. None of these theories are facts, that's not possible. So what is fact?

Facts refer to events that occur, processes in things, or the states of things. Scientists can observe the facts, but they are represented and referred too by way of theory. Hence, evolutionary theories refer to facts, but it in itself is not a fact. There are many facts that evolutionary biologists refer too, including natural selection, which is a process so it can be a fact. Hence, when scientists say that evolution is a fact, what they are really referring to are processes or states of things. We can observe states of things and our observations refer to those facts, but they also "exist regardless of their being perceived".

Returning to natural selection as a process and facts refer to processes. So is natural selection indeed a fact? Unfortunately, it is not a singular fact, but a deduction based on the three part syllogistic core of natural selection: 1. superfecundity, 2. variation, 3. differential survival, which are facts about populations of organisms that evolutionary theories refer too. Gould, however, sees evolution as a historical fact and natural selection as its mechanism; and by this I believe he is using evolution in short-form ignoring the four nomological theories and focusing only on the historical inference (common descent). He views Darwin's unique enterprise through the use Whewell's consilience of inductions as the proof that Darwin used to claim the historical inferences of evolution as fact. Gould claims that Darwin would refer to a long list of facts to arrive at a reasoned conclusion of descent with modification as a scientific exemplar of consilience. So what is factual? Descent with modification is a two part hypotheses (1. descent, 2. modification) and hypotheses can't be facts. Common descent is a theory, modification is not a thing nor the state nor an event occurring in a thing, so it can't be a fact either. Some evolutionary biologists, like Gould, appear to be using fact in the colloquial sense of referring to statements instead of things and in this sense they claim that evolution is a historical fact without referring to the facts themselves as an inexact short form. Gould is claiming that Darwin's exemplary use of consilience of inductions is a proof of evolution that makes it factual, but once again - we see that there is a discrepancy between Gould and Fitzhugh, because Fitzhugh claims that no amount of proof could ever convert a theory or a hypotheses into a fact. Gould is making a bit of a logical error here, because he has also claimed that facts and theories are different things, but yet he seems to turn theory into fact by means of overwhelming confirmation.

These discrepancies cannot be sorted out here - but I thought I would include some of these comments about evolution as a fact, because at some time people may have to account for Fitzhugh's claim that "evolution is not a fact". I imagine creationists will catch onto this and we need to have an understanding of how to respond effectively. I am not convinced that the FAQ addresses fact well enough. Perhaps other editors could pick through some of this information on fact and contribute their own knowledge to improve the explanation that is given.Thompsma (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Any Change?

The first line of the article: "Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations." is incorrect. "Successive" implies consecutive rather than "across many" which was probably the intended meaning. As it stands the change in average size of organisms in a population from one generation to the next could be called evolution evolution, or one could infer that this year's caterpillars are an evolved form of last year's butterflies. 131.251.254.71 (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC) emt1001

Change in individual size is, indeed, a commonly observed and commonly discussed trend seen in evolution. As for your second example, I don't want to sound mean, but it's a stupid concern. Evolution is about heritable changes across generations, and the average reader of this is/should be aware enough that the adults of one generation can not transform into the larvae of the following generation, given as how, among other things, a) adults can not physically revert back to a larval stage, b) and if they could, then they would all be the same generation, and it would not be evolution as evolution is about changes inherited across successive generations.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The changes in the sizes of organisms you refer to are surely over many generations, and not, as in my example, from one season to another. The second example was intentionally stupid to make a point. The point is that "ANY change across successive generations" is very different from "heritable changes across generations". Removal of the word any would be better, and make it clearer to the "average reader" (who might be an 15 year old creationist).131.251.254.71 (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC) emt1001

The first line is correct. You don't need many generations for evolution to occur. Technically you only need one generation. Your example of comparing an adult to a juvenile is irrelevant because the sentence specifically refers to "the heritable characteristics" and a juvenile stage has heritable characteristics that would not be compared to other kinds of heritable characteristics in an adult phase, by definition. The sentence refers to the change in heritable characteristics in biological populations. Hence, a population in one generation with its set of heritable characteristics and then a subsequent generation with a different set of heritable characteristics culminates from events (e.g., natural selection / drift) that caused the different population states (i.e., change in the suite of heritable characteristics) in subsequentsuccessive generations, which is evolution.Thompsma (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it was JoannaM that wrote that sentence and I'm certain that she knew exactly what she meant by including "successive" in that sentence and I agree with this. It is consecutive because the idea is that the minimum requirement for evolution is from one generation to the next successive generation.Thompsma (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to labour the point, but, whilst heritable variation clearly is a minimum requirement for evolution, the inheritance of those characteristics from one generation to the next is not evolution, which occurs over a longer time scale. I maintain that the phrase "ANY change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics" implies just that. Removal of the word any would inprove the situation, but the first line should also be more specific about the minimum time scale, to avoid the inference by our "average reader" that he or she has evolved from his or her parents. 131.251.254.71 (talk) 09:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC) emt1001

Can you specify (define) the number of generations required for evolution then? (If a reader believes that individuals evolve, I think the phrasing of this particular sentence is the least of his/her problems when it comes to understanding evolution.) - Soulkeeper (talk) 10:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Can of worms here IMHO. I don't think it is possible to be specific about the time-scale needed for evolution to occur. Acquisition of a mutation may be passed on one generation, = potential evolutionary event, but may be lost again from the population several generations later with no lasting evolutionary impact. The criterion is not that an innovation is passed on to a few individuals of the next generation, but that it results either in heritable change in the population as a whole or in speciation. Isolated populations may evolve (diverge from a parent population, speciate) fairly quickly, while the large, more widespread and diverse parent population will evolve more slowly. Removal of the word ANY makes the statement more generally applicable and therefore less subject to conflict Plantsurfer (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"Heritable change" is the primary requirement for evolution to occur. As for generations, it can take hundreds of thousands of generations before any dramatic changes can be seen or noticed, like how the different populations of apple maggot flies have been genetically isolated from each other for 2, 3 centuries since Europeans imported their domestic fruit tree hosts into North America, but are still morphologically identical to each other, or, it can take only one generation, like how scientists recreated the honeysuckle maggot fly by breeding its ancestors, the blueberry and snowberry maggot flies, in a laboratory setting. In other words, no, it would not be wise at all to define or specify the minimum number of generations needed for evolution.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Evolution does not necessarily take place over longer time scales. The mechanisms described by Darwin and the core of the theory of natural selection: superfecundity, variation, differential survival --> only requires at minimum one generation for the effect to take hold. Scale this process over successive generations and this basic mechanism explains much of the diversification of life. Population geneticists run evolutionary models on these principles. There are three factual errors in the statement provided by the user launching this critique: "1) heritable variation clearly is a minimum requirement for evolution, 2) the inheritance of those characteristics from one generation to the next is not evolution, 3) which occurs over a longer time scale." It is fair to say that this is not opening a can of worms, but this thread is going nowhere of value. The first sentence in this article is factually correct.Thompsma (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is an: "inference by our "average reader" that he or she has evolved from his or her parents" - I highly doubt that they will gain anything by reading this article. The first sentence does not make this claim. Specifically, it refers to population level processes. This is not only a straw-man argument, but demonstrable incomprehension of the sentence. Please see -> introduction to evolution.Thompsma (talk) 17:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Last attempt: As a definition of evolution, the phrase "any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations" is at best vague, at worst simply incorrect. Short term changes in population numbers, physical characteristics, sex ratios etc, caused by seasonal, predatory, migratory effects etc. all produce "changes across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations." Evolution concerns the longer term fixation of such changes in populations in the form of adaptations or speciation. A definition that says populations breed and change over time is not good enough. 88.109.39.228 (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)emt1001

Once upon a time, the definition we provided was something like: changes in allele frequencies in a population over time. Can someone quickly explain toi me why this is wrong or inadequate? But in response to 88, I think "long term" is just a succession of "short terms." Whether changes in a shor period of term have efects over the ong term can only be discovered in retrospect. When studying a population now, how can one know which changes will have what long term effects? Moreover, it sounds like you are talking about the evolutionb of species. Speciation is a very important form of evolution, but I am not sure that it is synonymous with "evolution." You are right that seasonal, predatory, migratory effects all produce changes in heritable characteristics ... but so what? Aren't you simply providing some examples of "natural selection" which certainly is one important mechanism of evolution, no? It is vague, but how is it incorrect? I still do not get the problem you see. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This lead was heavily debated and the reasons for using what has been dubbed in the literature as the "standard genetic definition" of evolution (see [46]) was rejected for not being general enough to cover the whole of evolutionary theory as represented in the wider literature (scientific and 2ndary sources). The lead sentence is not vague - it is exacting and precise in its meaning. Moreover, it could only be considered vague (in one sense) if you read the first sentence in isolation - the sentence is part of a paragraph. Read the rest of the paragraph. "A definition that says populations breed and change over time is not good enough." --> Hence, the lead sentence states something else.

To the user/editor launching this thread -> please stop using straw man arguments. Understand the sentence and then launch your counterpoint. Do not make false claims about the sentence and then claim it to be inadequate based on those false claims. Perhaps you are having trouble understanding the rates of evolution in the present versus the effect extended over time as Slrubenstein alludes in relation to speciation? Stephen Palumbi - for example - addresses this conceptual misconception about evolution in his book "The Evolution Explosion"[47]. There are many introductory evolutionary sources that discuss this matter in terms of drug resistance, for example. Douglass Futuyama defines evolution using the standard genetic definition like so: "The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next."(Evolutionary Biology, 1986) Hence, the claim being made by this user that "Short term changes in population numbers...is not good enough" is neither a good description of what the sentence says, nor can the "too short on time" claim be supported. A widely adopted and sourced textbook definition states that things considered evolutionary occur "from one generation to the next". This thread is going nowhere.Thompsma (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It is actually a great lead sentence and we had a huge consensus on this after a really long debate by many of our most experienced editors on evolution. This does not mean that people are not free to try to knock the sentence from its perch, but I would recommend that this would have to be achieved by someone who has a grasp of the concept to begin with. Not intended to be a snide remark or anything (please do feel free to comment), but there are some problems with the users posted reasoning on the way that evolution works that concerns me.Thompsma (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but misunderstanding of the concept is not a reason to change it. Evolution does occur from generation to generation. Can we easily observe it? No. But that does not make it absent. If changes do not occur each generation, you cannot accumulate them over generations and you cannot have evolution under that scenario. So, the lead sentence is actually more correct than the older sub-theory specific. 69.244.220.253 (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Thompsma hit the nail on the head. 88 comments:"Evolution concerns the longer term fixation of such changes in populations in the form of adaptations or speciation" You are equating evolution as synonymous with adaptations and speciation. That is incorrect as they are just two outcomes of evolution. Evolution is change in heritable traits of a population (genes or memes) over successive generations (the generation time of animals vs bacteria differ so time will differ too, but we can see evolution happen in bacteria, fruit flies and reptiles as has been published)the outcome could also be selection to stablize traits like living fossils that remain mostly the same. Variation within a population will always occur due to sexual reproduction and recombination but then the processes of evolution (drift, selection, gene flow) will filter the population traits to produce outcomes-which may be an adaptation or speciation or the status quo. GetAgrippa (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems spurious to me. Fixation of traits is something that happens, by definition, across a single generation. As soon as a trait goes to 100% frequency, or 0% frequency, it is fixed. The previous generation it was not fixed. Also, any change in allele frequency over a single generation is evolution. This is why we model mutation and evolution as a Markov process - it has no memory from one generation to the next. What happens in the next generation is determined entirely by the state in the present generation. The lead is fine as is. Graft | talk 18:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Poor definition of Evolution as used in article.

I find this article starts with an unsatisfactory definition of Evolution. I suggest a wiki reader would be looking for information on evolution as used in "Do you believe in evolution?", in which case the question would usually be interpreted as "Do you believe the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form."

I note that CreationWiki says "The general theory of evolution should not be confused with biological evolution" (http://creationwiki.org/Theory_of_evolution) and that is exactly what seems to be happening here. It starts with "Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations", i.e. biological evolution, and by the third sentence has already advanced to the general theory.

This article deals with the general theory of evolution rather than biological evolution and the distinction should be made clear at the start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.2.245 (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's fine the way it is. We shouldn't tailor our articles to some presumed creationist audience. (We're not likely to change their minds anyway.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You're conflating evolution with abiogenesis. If you take a biology class the definition you will read in your textbook will be roughly equivalent to what we have in the article. Creationwiki should not be your source of information if you are looking for an accurate understanding of the subject. SÆdon^talk 08:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You are misinformed. The creation wiki web page is riddled with errors about the topic. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the sentiments of other users. It is the creationwiki that is in error and needs fixing, not this one.Farsight001 (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• The scope of this article is clear, it is about biological evolution, but it needs to use evolutionary theory in order to explain that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Misconception

The Misconception section got removed, after it was cleaned up by another user. It said:

Contrary to popular misconception, the process of natural selection is not random or blind and nor is it directed or intelligent. The evolution of organisms through natural selection occurs over generations, as beneficial mutations that contribute to the survival of an individual propagate through reproduction, while harmful mutations are naturally eliminated.

Pulselli, R.M. (1 June 2009). "Self-organization in dissipative structures: A thermodynamic theory for the emergence of prebiotic cells and their epigenetic evolution". Biosystems. 96 (3): 237–241. doi:10.1016/j.biosystems.2009.02.004. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Schrödinger, E. (2000). What is life? With mind and matter and autobiographical sketches. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Skar, J. (2003). "Introduction: self-organization as an actual theme". Philos.Transact.A Math.Phys Eng Sci. 361: 1049–1056.

Andrade, E. (2000). "From external to internal measurement: a form theory approach to evolution". Biosystems. 57: 49–62.

Tessera, Marc (1 June 2011). "Origin of Evolution versus Origin of Life: A Shift of Paradigm". International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 12 (6): 3445–3458. doi:10.3390/ijms12063445.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Tessera, Marc (15 October 2009). "Life Began When Evolution Began: A Lipidic Vesicle-Based Scenario". Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres. 39 (6): 559–564. doi:10.1007/s11084-009-9175-4.

Torrey, H. B.; Felin, F. (1937). "Was Aristotle an evolutionst?". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 12 (1): 1–18.

Hull, D. L. (1967). "The metaphysics of evolution". The British Journal for the History of Science. 3 (4): 309–337.

Gold, B.; Simons, R. A. (2008). Proof and other dilemmas: Mathematics and philosophy. Mathematics Association of America Inc. ISBN 0883855674.

New York Times. Is Evolution Truly Random?

PBS: Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution

I added this section so I could later add the misconception to List of common misconceptions.

Could the section be added again?

Oct13 (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I support the addition. I can imagine that many people who come to this article hold this misconception and it's an easy way to dispel it. I'm not too attached it it being it's own section (though I don't object), so perhaps it can be integrated elsewhere. SÆdon^talk 09:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Sorry, two sentences do not justify a whole new section, especially in a featured article. However, I (and I suspect others) would be open to those two sentences being integrated into the section on natural selection. danielkueh (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I added it to the section. Oct13 (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't do that without consensus Judgeking (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This paragraph is pointless. The mechanism of evolution is described again and again in the rest of the article, just in different language. --Judgeking (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Archelaus

"abiotic evolution" ~ from mud and 'the mind' == 'information' as basis of live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Anaxagoras

Incompleteness. Missing Anaxagoras: "that animals originally came into existence in moisture, and after this one from another". Also Anaximander elaborated on origin man and Empedocles folow Anaxagoras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have a citation I would imagin another name could be added to the list of pre-socratic philosophers. 140.182.222.99 (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Part of the text above is in quotes. Do you recognize it as quoted citation? [48] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2012

Indead I do, so if you would like to change the sentence in the article, (to read, "such as NAME1, NAME2, NAME3 and NAME4"[1][2][3][4]) I recommend that you do so, given that you add a citation to an appropriately scholarly source. I don't think the list of pre-socratic philosophers should exceed more than say four names. If you find more than that you will have to cull the list to the most important pre-socratic philosophers as determined by a secondary source. 140.182.143.221 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Every article in Wikipedia is incomplete and links to other articles where subjects can be read about in more detail. In this case, Evolution is a large article which long ago hit the point where we have to be more careful about having too much than too little. So please have a look at History of Evolutionary Thought. Does that resolve the issue?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The lead needs a more succinct definition of the fact of evolution

It appears that a bunch of evolutionary biologists got ahold of this article and turned it into a bad Ph.D. thesis on evolution (I would have thrown the writer out of graduate school and tell them to find another education path like law school), totally unreadable by the average person. I'm a scientist, and I find the article bordering on unreadable tripe. I keep finding that around Wikipedia, possibly because anti-science types get way too much weight or because there are arguments brought by individuals who have some good faith or bad faith agenda, there are just too many badly written articles. This article used to state simply, in the first sentence, something like "evolution is the change in the characteristics of a population of organisms over time through the mechanisms of natural selection and genetic drift." I'm doing this from memory because I can't be bothered digging through a year or more of changes pushed by certain people, getting reverted by others, with the occasional creationist crap thrown in for good measure. I used to refer to this article in my writing, because it used to be one of the best. I now use the RationalWiki article because it is succinct and clear, without a few hundred additional words just to amuse the needs of some pseudo-scientist here with a minimal science education (don't care if I'm not assuming good faith, because the low quality of this article is sufficient). Of course, to add something that actually makes the lead readable would cause everyone to get a hard-on, and it would not be fun. This used to be a great article. Now it's a not worthy of anything but some glorified attempt for a few editors to show off their lack of writing skill and actual knowledge of evolution. This article is so bad, you might as well throw in some creationist claptrap, because no one can read this nightmare.

Why can't there be a much simpler lead that actually provides a succinct, readable, accurate, and repeatable definition of the fact of evolution? Why is it that some editors think that readability is using as much jargon as possible because it makes them appear to be intelligent (which it doesn't, it's just ego)? Why is it that some writers get turned on by making this article so complicated? The lead should attract a reader to read more, not having to re-read the sentence 5 times, then give up. The lead should give enough information that the reader can get a one or two paragraph understanding that is sufficient to allow me or any other writer to use this article as a true reference. Why is that so difficult for some of the editors here to understand? I feel that some editors are abusing others into writing it their way, because of ego or whatever (again, don't care about good faith, because this article is so bad). And don't point me to the kid's version of this article, because that's insulting to the intelligence of me and those who read my writing. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, why don't you float some rewrites here and see what people think? Or, better yet, be bold and rewrite the lead as you see fit?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree I tried to improve readability during the writing of the lead, but it wasn't really high on the priority list of most of the collaborating editors I must say.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I've seen how the owners of this article treat anyone who doesn't salute the flag that they raise. I keep reading comments from certain individuals who lie, exaggerate or flog their credentials to win arguments. Essjay anyone? Seriously, it's not worth it. I'll stick with RationalWiki for real science, and come here when I need to be amused. It's kind of ironic since RationalWiki tries to be snarky. But their definition of evolution is spot-on, easy to read, and useable in a discussion with someone who doesn't understand evolution. Pseudo-intellectualism is rife in this article, which makes it impossible to read. Don't warn me about AGF, how can you AGF when the article is so shitty? And trying to write here would require a vicodin addiction.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen ownership at work here, but many good editors with good knowledge of the topic who are willing to collaborate in ways that require compromises. But it is difficult to influence change when many editors with strong opinions are collaborating - that is not them same as ownership though - just inertia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I tend to agree that the rational wiki first sentence is neat. It would be good to get comments about it. Here it is: "Evolution refers to the change in a species' inherited traits from generation to generation." We have, currently, "Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations." So the difference mainly comes down to using "inherited traits" instead of "heritable characteristics", which is maybe not an enormous change, but the words are simpler. I think some of the rest of that lead is a bit too geeky though. For example, why "at least on earth", and why try to turn evolution into an algorithm, and the emphasis upon strength in competition is also more based on sci-fi misunderstandings than science.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, I would also suggest that you change the corresponding wiki-link to heredity, which is technically different from heritability.

Orangemarlin/SkepticalRaptor, nice to see you back. danielkueh (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is that link preferred in this particular context? Not sure what the thinking is on this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Why the change from "population" to "species"? TomS TDotO (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean why would we make that change? (Currently we still say population.) We used to have species, I think, but I do not personally think it would be an improvement to return to it. It is not "simpler" English and it is not technically correct. Evolution does not just happen at some mythical point in time called speciation. It is always happening.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, inherited/heredity refers to the passing of traits from one generation to the next. Heritability on the other hand, refers to the proportion of an observed trait within a population as being due to genetic differences. Once you change the term "heritable" to "inherited," you are referring to the former, not the latter. I believe the latter was chosen because it was perceived as being more inclusive. danielkueh (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Actually I kept the same link, and it goes to heritability.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, no you already fixed it, so it was not originally heritability I guess. Anyway seems fine.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The mention of any references to classification hierarchy in the definition of evolution is superfluous and misleading. Evolution is simply the change in frequency of heritable traits in a population of organisms over generations of reproduction. That's it - simple and succinct. JohnArmagh (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

JohnArmagh, this issue has been discussed extensively. The current lead is the outcome of that long discussion. I recommend that you go through the archives, starting from 60 and gradually work your way to 62. This will get you up to speed. danielkueh (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Getting me "up to speed" is not the issue - I have several nearly half-a-century of familarity with the subject, sufficient for me to be as up-to-speed as necessary to enable me to state clearly, concisely and categorically what the subject is about. Reading through archives of discussion will not materially add to my knowledge of the issues - especially in view of the number of discussions I have had with both proponents and (self-appointed) opponents of the subject over the past several years. I am no mere novice-with-a-passing-interest in this field. JohnArmagh (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

JA, the subject DK is referring to is the history of discussion about the pros and cons of different wording in the sentence you are concerned with. I do not think anyone can have 50 years experience with editing anything in WP :) . DK is just pointing out that you are not the only one with concerns about how to word this sentence. WP wordings do tend to be compromises on things like this, so it is important to try to work out what others can or can not accept, even if they are wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew for clarifying that for me. Indeed JohnArmagh, I am not questioning your knowledge of evolution, which I am sure is reasonably good. I am simply making the point that articles in Wikipedia typically require consensus (see WP:cons). The current consensus among the editors of this page is that the current lead is the best one. danielkueh (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

To add to what you say: that does not mean we can not improve it. It only means that anyone wanting to make proposals can save some frustration by first looking at previous discussions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. danielkueh (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Putting this in religion categories

I've just been involved in a tiny edit skirmish over the addition of the two categories FA-Class Religion articles and Top-importance Religion articles here.

One revert of my revert was with a somewhat rude Edit summary saying that it doesn't matter what I think. I won't play that game, but I'll say that I KNOW that religion has nothing to do with evolution.

Why add those categories? HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'm curious about this too. Biology is as related to religion as is chemistry or physics; that is to say they aren't related. SÆdon^talk 23:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. Evolution has nothing to do with religion. Really don't see why that project should have an interest in this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for appearing rude - i was reacting to your own edit summary which struck me as similarly dismissive. John Carter is adding all the article to WP:RELIGION that have a separate entry in the Encylopedia of Religion. Whether or not something is added to a ikiproject is a question about the inclusion criteria of the project not about any individual editors ideas about what is or isn't related to the topic around which the project is organized. Adding it to WP:RELIGION does not mean that it is categorized as an article about religion or that it means that belief in evolution is a religion or anything like that -it just means that it has been identified by a wikiproject as being of interest to that project. Now I am sure e can all think of a lot of reasons for why WP:religion might consider the topic of evolution to be of interest, and why it would have an entry in the encyclopedia on religion. If someone wans to change the tag it should be done by going to WP:RELIGION and questioning the inclusion criteria, not by simply removing the template from the talk page.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

John Carter provided no reason at all for his addition of the categories. That's hardly good manners. And I make no apology at all for my completely factual Edit summary. That religious folk think that they should have any claim at all on the content or categorisation of this article because of ancient fables and fairy tales is one of the unhealthiest aspects of Wikipedia. Evolution is completely independent of religion. Those categories simply do not belong. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

John Carter didn't provide a reason because its basically nobody's business but the wikiprojects whether it is marked for inclusion in the project - and so he probably didn't think he needed to. any one can make any kind of ikiproject and mark articles as being of interest to them. The template is not a category it doesn't categorize the article and doesn't establish any claim by "religious folks" over any part of the article. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree that religion categories don't belong here. --John (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not a category.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Look below. What does that word at the start of the list say? HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Look it is really not my fault that you don't understand the difference between categories and wikiprojects.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for not responding to my demonstration that Wikipedia says it's a category. That's not MY fault! HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Also note that while it may be possible that religion is of no relevance to evolution that does not mean that evolution is of no relevance to religion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not just possible that religion is of no relevance to evolution. It's a fact! That you even countenance another possibility makes your contributions here unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The notion that the two are completely separate is basically disingenious - hundreds of books treating the two topics together have been written since Darwin's time. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You're playing with words. The facts of evolution may impact on religious beliefs, but religion never impacts on evolution, and that's what THIS article is about. If the religious folk want to discuss the evil threat of evolution "over there", fine, but don't corrupt this article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, some of you fundamentalist Dawkinites really are just as obtuse as your opponents. It is of course possible to be a member of WP:RELIGION and not be "religious folks". And yes the the fact that evolution is relevant for many religions makes it a nobrainer that this article should be included in that project and it doesn't mean that this article will be "corrupted" (funny choice of ording makes it sound almost like the word religion magically corrupts the holy purity of science)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

My objection isn't in line with Hilo's hyperbole above, I just don't know that there is/should be interest in this article from a wikiproject that deals with much different subjects. But I believe you are correct, it is up to each project to determine their scope. I'm honestly not familiar with policy here but if it's the case that only the project has a say then I'm fine with the addition, it just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't object, for instance, that this article is part of a creationism category because I can understand the relation there, but it seems like a specious and marginal connection to religion in general, at best. SÆdon^talk 00:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolute absurd to add this to the religion wikiproject. Also absurd that people do not use the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Maunus, could you please use the WP:BRD cycle for sensitive article s like this one? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted once and discussed with a bunch of science fanatics who obviously have no clue about what wikiprojects are for several hours. I think I've followed BRD quite fine. This is not an editorial decision for Darwin's sake - it is a matter of internal process in the wikiproject. It has no bearings what so ever for the article content or scope. It simply means that those who run the project have identified the article as being of interest to them - which is bloody obvious since it is difficult to be religious these days without engaging intellectually with the concept of evolution. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you did not folow it. It was added, reverted, and then you READDED it again. You should have not readded it, but started the discussion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Irrespective of suggestions that my posts are hyperbole (sometimes firmer language is needed to make people notice things here), I still see a list at the bottom of this page that says that this article is in the categories FA-Class Religion articles and Top-importance Religion articles. Maybe it's a fault with Wikipedia, but it makes no sense. HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It says that the TALK PAGE is in the category which simply meaqns that it has been identified to be within the scope of that wikiproject according to its guidelines. Take it to the wikiproject ffs. I know that some of you are so allergic to the concet of religion that merely seeing the word makes your eyes bleed but I am sure you can develop a script to suppress the word or blacken it out. Meanwhile religion exist and some people are interested in the relations between evolution and religion. That is not about to change in spite of all you mini-dawkinses. Deal with it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Drop the sarcasm. It helps neither your case nor Wikipedia. There is no connection between evolution and religion. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll drop it when you drop the hysterical hyperbole. Deal?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with the statement regarding hysterical hyperbole. The work in question is perhaps the most highly regarded reference work in the broad field of religion. It in fact won an award from the American Publishers Association as the best book of any kind for the year it came out. And it should be noted that the authors and writers are not fundamentalist Christians or anything similar. To the extent that their article is likely about the same topic as this one, it almost certainly will provide, if nothing else, an indication as to which books are counted by the author of the article as being among the best in the field, and the ones which might be useful here. Now, considering the book has about 3200 articles in the two editions, I will acknowledge that I have not in fact gone through each article to determine the exact scope of them. First, there is the issue of seeing if we have such articles - in many cases, as can be seen from the numerous redlinks at User:John Carter/Religion articles#Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones, we do not yet have articles on all of them. However, I do note that, with a few obvious exceptions mentioned in the reviews, all of the articles are written by experts and all have reference sections. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Semantics. Of course religion plays a part in how evolution is accepted - Evolution#Social_and_cultural_responses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Thanks for pointing out that connection. I still think we need to be very careful about how it's represented in the article, and the blunt instrument of the list of "Categories" at the bottom of this page is not very elegant. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any further mention of religion is warranted in the article beyond what is there presently. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've mentioned this discussion at ANI - not because I think we need any administrative action but because I didn't know where else to request input regarding the principles of how to determine the scope of wikiprojects.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've also mentioned the question of principles for handling scope conflicts at the Meta wikiproject here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this discussion and wanted to opine. snunɐw· is entirely correct regarding the categories and their relation to the WikiProject. Projects should be diligent in posting {{Wikipedia category}} atop their respective tracking categories to minimize the mis-characterization as an article category; which it is not. If you look to the bottom of the article page you will see the categories which the article belongs to. You will not see the Wikipedia categories for their purpose is different. I am taken aback by the inference that a projects right to be interested in an article should be delegated by some third party. My76Strat (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's just the dumb behaviour of that list at the bottom of this page that's the problem. Right now it effectively tells me that evolution is part of religion. If it's a "mistake" by an editor that causes that, maybe the tools are too hard to use. HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

We are all editors, and perhaps we all have or will make mistakes; even if our mistake turns out to be calling another mistaken; who was not. I do think more discussion, is appropriate, and frankly I can envision similar complaints if atheist projects tagged religious articles, or LGBT tags were upon mainstream heterosexual biographies. I would certainly support the content creators of an article if they stated a desire for any particular Wikipedia category to be hidden. Perhaps all Wikipedia categories should be hidden? IDK - My76Strat (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, actually, it is my intention to go through and make a list of the relevant encyclopedias for all religion related projects, including Atheism and Mythology, available for the editors of those projects. The beginnings, still just the beginnings I am afraid, are at User:John Carter/Religion reference. But, yeah, if a highly regarded reference work on Atheism had an article in it on Thomas Aquinas, and the content is either newer or not redundant to that of other works, I full well anticipate adding the Atheim project banner myself. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you John, I understand your position and tentatively agree. My comment asserts the likelihood that some might oppose that paring as well, and like I said LGBT tags on heterosexual biographies would likely draw ire. That is why I am keen to see this question answered; in mutually accepted terms; even if they require arbitration. IMO My76Strat (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Shit yeah, I've made mistakes, but I haven't tried to defend the indefensible, such as making it look like evolution is part of religion, which the list below is still doing. Are the posts above suggesting that it shouldn't look this way? If it can be fixed, I'm not enough of a Wikipedia nerd to know how to do it. Can somebody with greater knowledge please help? HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I do however think that you might have in fact made hard to defend judgments, and then attempted to defend them. I also notice that you clearly jump to assumptions not warranted or even indicated by the circumstances. I am however grateful that you acknowledge that you could use help from more knowledge of how things work here. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

More or less what I said at AN/I... People who are experienced on Wikipedia know that categories like Category:FA-Class Religion articles actually means "FA articles bannered by, and therefore of interest to, WikiProject Religion". The category is clearly marked as an "administration category" and the actual article on Evolution does not appear in the Religion category tree. But I agree, the wording might be potentially misleading to a new user, assuming they get as far as the talk page and then click on the categories. Not sure what, if anything could be done about it, apart from renaming those talk page categories, e.g. Category:FA-Class WikiProject Religion articles. Projects have the right to define what is in their scope, i.e. of interest to them, so the addition of project banners can't really be restricted.

Having said that, I often find misconceptions about these issues with even experienced editors conflating categories and projects. They serve entirely different purposes, and are subject to different guidelines.

• Categories are for organizing articles. They help readers and editors to find and navigate sets of related articles and topics.
• WikiProjects are for organizing groups of editors and their work. What constitutes "their work", i.e. scope, is defined solely by a consensus of the project members themselves in terms of what the project's priorities are, the expertise and intererests of its members, and setting realistic goals. It is not defined by article categories, "key words" or what anyone else thinks they ought or ought not to have in their scope.

Voceditenore (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, it seems rather odd that editors involved in a project to improve coverage of religion think this science article is of "top-importance" when it barely mentions such social views. Possibly project creationism giving "top-importance" to this article is more understandable, and at least the talk page category serves as an alert to expect more attempts to push creationist issues here. Sigh. . . dave souza, talk 10:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That basically amounts to an assumption of bad faith editing by an entire wikiproject.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, your presumption of bad faith is unwarranted. My assumption is that members of these wikiprojects will in good faith Do Something to change this article's coverage of religion and creationism. Something to watch out for, with interest. . . dave souza, talk 12:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

AH, the old "mirror"-schtick. It doesn't work. I never attribute to malice what can be explained by extreme narrowmindedness or prejudice.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, "malice" or "extreme narrowmindedness or prejudice"? An odd translation of my interest in the topic. . dave souza, talk 06:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Im not talking about your "interest in the topic", but about your apparent notion that the main reason to me a member of wikiproject religion is to push a creationist agenda. Which is an odd assumption in an era when eve the Pope of Rome accepts evolutioin as fact.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, have you edited in the creationism topic area? See my clarification below, and please read my words more carefully. . . dave souza, talk 14:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would only note that, if they do, they would have to probably face my own opposition in doing so. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Depends on what they do. If it tightens our coverage of creationist issues, both pro and anti, well and good. . . dave souza, talk 06:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Religion

I haven't read through the whole kerfuffle here, but has anyone ever asked WikiProject Religion members if they feel this article is in their scope? Often times these project banners (and their ratings) are added not by project members but by random editors trying to be helpful but who mistakenly think Project="Anything Remotely Related to the Topic". Other times, they're added by bots based on key words in the article. In any case it's rather poor form for non-members to remove a project's banner unless it's so off-base that it was obviously a mistake, e.g. adding the WikiProject Women's History banner to this. That isn't the case here. Voceditenore (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The categories appear to have been added by John Carter, and I've asked him to clarify his reasons on this talk page. He's taking a short wikibreak just now, but in response to similar tagging of Chaos theory explained that it was based on the the Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones having an article of that title, without having reviewed the specific content of the relevant article. He says "I will also look over the articles myself, and see what, if anything, strikes me as being necessary to note in our articles, based on the content of those articles. But, basically, it seems to me that the articles about subjects which have articles in what is probably the best extant reference source on religion are probably of "Top" importance to religion." In the next week or so, he "should be able to offer more substantive comments". It's not clear if he added the creationism categories. . . dave souza, talk 14:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I may have assessed the article for that project when adding the Religion banner, but I do not remember specifically adding the banner. I think it was already there. I think. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, John. Did you find time to check that the encyclopedia article refers to biological evolution, and not broader concepts such as social or stellar evolution? In your page listing the encyclopedia articles, you've described it as "Evolution - ambiguous". . . . dave souza, talk 19:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm virtually certain it isn't stellar evolution, actually. ;) Regarding the individual article, no, it is at a branch library I don't expect to get to until Tuesday at the earliest. And, yeah, I have second-guessed myself on several listings on that page already, not expecting anyone to actually look it over but myself. Does anyone think we could wait until Tuesday or Wednesday for a response? Alternately, virtually every library I've seen (except some branches) has either the Jones or earlier Eliade edition, and if anyone else has them readily available and finds the article is about something else, no objections from me for removing it. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't have the time to read all the responses, but I'll chime in. I don't know the exact rules, but for me if an article has a section that is relevant to a WikiProject, then I add it. The Social_and_cultural_responses section of the article deals with the religious controversy over evolution. That section would fall under WP Religion. So therefore, I think adding this under that WikiProject is valid. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hidden categories

It seems to me that's a perfectly valid criteria for a project to use. Not all projects would broaden their scope to such an extent, but that's up to them. Given that the criteria is well-defined "Encyclopedia of Religion having an article of that title" and that it appears to be being applied across the board. I don't see this as an indication that (a) the project is equating Evolution with Religion or (b) that it intends to start "skewing" the article, any more than does their "Top Importance" banner on Alphabet (also recently added and presumably using the same criteria). Voceditenore (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I found some clear guidance on this issue and it seems that the best recommended practice is to construct the categories as hidden. This does not detract from a projects ability to track the tagged pages in any manor but does preclude them from being displayed to readers of the page unless they enable their preferences to display hidden categories. Category:Hidden categories states, "Categories should be hidden if they are concerned with the maintenance or administration of the Wikipedia project itself, rather than being part of the content of the encyclopedia." Based upon this guidance, I will hide the categories and they will soon be gone from novice sight. I'll post when I am done and you may need to purge your browsers cache to complete their removal. My76Strat (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)  Done

It still shows in the project boxes in the header. Evolution is not a religion nor does it address a religious topic, so it SHOULD NOT be in religious projects. We have plenty of pages that address the religious implication of evolutionary theories but this page is not one of them. I strongly oppose this being in religious projects, hidden or not. STRONGLY. — raekyt 17:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

@ My76Strat. First of all, those guidelines basically refer to article space and maintenance (clean up) categories. More importantly, by doing that you have now hidden Category:FA-Class Religion articles on every single talk page bannered by that project, including all the ones which are obviously key articles for them, e.g. Talk:John Calvin. I don't think that's an appropriate solution at all. In fact, it's highly discriminatory to single one project out for that treatment. This is irrespective of whether that project should banner this talk page in particular. Voceditenore (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Your point is valid, I will reverse the action. My76Strat (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that an RfC should be initiated regarding this topic. And perhaps it should be discussed at some other location. In saying this, I don't mean to imply that we couldn't achieve a consensus here, but rather that I feel the implications are far broader than the scope of this single matter. I am in favor of seeking the broad consensus, as it relates to all WikiProjects. Honestly I fear this will require Arbcom intervention. I am interested who agrees or disagrees on this. My76Strat (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

addendum: I suggest the RfC be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. My76Strat (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think an RfC would be a good idea, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories deals primarily with article categories, not talk page bannering by projects, which generates administrative categories of use to particular projects but not affecting article categorization. This is really a dispute about project bannering. In my view, the best place would be via WP:WikiProject Council. Editors might find this set of guidelines/best practice from the Council useful, particularly this one. Voceditenore (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comments are very astute and the link you've shown is compelling. Normally it would be sufficient to resolve the matter, but I doubt that it will. My76Strat (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Me again. I started all this. I know there are some good faith posts above, but some are couched in very technical language and are discussing issues that, on the surface, seem completely unconnected with Evolution. And that's our core problem. I still see a list at the bottom of this page that says to most readers (those without deep understanding of Wikipedia's technicalities) that this Evolution article is part of a couple of sets of articles on religion. That is nonsensical. It's a very bad look for Wikipedia. There may be some marvellous technical solution, but I'll just say, as I did in my first post, that I tried to revert the addition of those categories, and was told by Maunus that it doesn't matter what I think. To those who do care even a little about others' opinions, I still think the "categories" as they currently appear are just plain stupid, and make a plea that, until this ideal solution is found, we temporarily remove those "categories". Right now they just look silly. I would do it myself, but have already been told that my opinion doesn't count, and hope for a little support from more rational people who care about how Wikipedia looks to our general readership. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Categories in general are a way of finding pages, and are not supposed to be a way of labelling them, though they tend to have that side effect. The project banners at the top of this page are hidden unless you click on "show", and so don't have that obvious "bad look" - the box explains how they show projects interested in the article, so doesn't imply the article is about religion. Could something similar be done to collapse the categories at the foot of the page? Preferably with an explanatory heading. . . dave souza, talk 05:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Some editors here have taken the view that they don't want "religion" associated in any way with this topic, even on the talk page via a project banner. Others have expressed the fear that somehow the project banners will encourage religious interference with the article. I find the first view pretty pointless, especially given that the article has a section on "Social and cultural responses" which uses the "R-word". In any case, This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects, doesn't imply anything other than what it says. Re the second view, if editors want to interfere with or slant an article, they don't need a project or a project banner to do it. I don't know if the category list can be collapsed. But it is possible to have note which always appears directly above it. See my experiment below. Feel free to re-word or remove it. (the code for it is at the very top of this page) Voceditenore (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a big improvement. But this whole thing still seems to be arse about. It's fine if religious folk want to get concerned about evolution. One hopes it will do them some good to think down that pathway a little. But evolution is not part of religion, and those "categories" make it look like it is. We could have evolution appearing on the religion pages, but we should not have religion appearing on the evolution page. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The above comment is, frankly, arrogant, judgmental, and does nothing to address or improve the article. I very sincerely urge that editor to perhaps read WP:TPG]. It might do him some good to think about conforming his actions to policy a little. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Um... editors interested in religion as an encyclopedic topic are not necessarily "religious". If the problem is the actual titles of these adminstrative categories then renaming all those cats to Category: WikiProject Foo articles is a possible solution, but, like it or not, "banning" a particular project from a particular article talk page is not a possible solution, nor is removing the categorization parameters from their banners. They're there to help projects keep track of articles of interest to them. Incidentally, I'm not a member of any of the projects listed on this page. My areas are WikiProject Opera and WikiProject Women's History. Both those projects have had experience of issues surrounding scope and bannering, although they have been primarily about deciding how to realistically limit our scope and trying to get other editors to stop bannering out-of-scope articles with those projects. Voceditenore (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to be understood here? I'm not trying to ban any project from having an interest in any page. I just don't like the stupid Wikipedia mechanism that makes it look like evolution is part of religion. The list at the bottom of this page is STILL titled "Categories". In that list of "categories" is an entry called "FA-Class Religion articles". Irrespective of what that may really mean, it makes it look like this article is in a category called "Religion articles". Apparently it's not (nor should it be), so why do we make it look like it is? HiLo48 (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well then, as I said, if it's only the talk page category names you disapprove of, the solution is to request a category re-name to make it clear that it refers to a WikiProject and not the subject in general. WikiProject LGBT studies already has a name like that for their administrative cats: Category:WikiProject LGBT studies articles. I would imagine that one of the reasons for it is that they have in their scope some bio articles whose subjects are not themselves LGBT persons, e.g. Barbra Streisand and want to avoid misinterpretation of the cat by inexperienced editors/readers. The thing is, WP is set up so that you can't remove the categories (whatever they're called) unless you remove the banners which generate them. But doing that without the consent of the projects whose banners you are removing, isn't really on. - Voceditenore (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You really can't solve this issue with a category rename. The category is generated by {{Template:class mask}} which produces the category as an amalgamation of the articles class rating + the WikiProject name + articles and if the importance parameter is used, importance rating + project name + articles. The template uses the {{SUBPAGENAME}} variable to draw the WikiProject name and essentially would require the Project to change their name in order to change the generated category names. HiLo48 the biggest fallacy you are operating under is the assumption that the article talk page is where you should look to find the categories which represent the article. You must be on the article page to view the article categories. The talk page is an avenue for improving the articles, WikiProjects endeavor to improve articles within their delineated scope, and naturally they use the talk page to facilitate their efforts. The only mechanism that makes you see and interpret what you see are the eyes that have evolved in your head, and whether or not sufficient brain function exists to interpret the data. My76Strat (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right about the class mask, My76Strat. On closer inspection, Category:WikiProject LGBT studies articles is an additional cat. The ones for their assessments are like those for all other projects, e.g. Category:FA-Class LGBT articles. Voceditenore (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Please drop the personal attack. I am NOT operating under the assumption that the article talk page is where I should look to find the categories which represent the article! I am describing what Wikipedia seems to be telling me. If that is due to my "inexperience", don't shoot me. If you really think I'm stupid, find the appropriate place to report me for that, and go for it. Most readers of Wikipedia are less experienced than me. It's obvious that it's an idiosyncrasy of Wikipedia that makes things look the way they look. It's certainly not the best way it could work. But then, maybe I'm just stupid.... HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you are stupid at all, This is an interesting discussion, and mostly you have carried yourself well. I think you are mocking religious people with comments like this: "It's fine if religious folk want to get concerned about evolution. One hopes it will do them some good to think down that pathway a little" and wondered if the color would look good on you; it does not. I think we both can do better, and that we should. My76Strat (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A minor clarification, having had a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Creationism it doesn't seem very active, and a large proportion of those signed up have examined creationism from a scientific viewpoint, as opposed to trying to support creationism. . . dave souza, talk 12:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I am very content with this clarification. The same is obviously true for Project:Religion (except its more active, and in a much wider range of topics).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

@HiLo48. If it's any comfort, I honestly doubt that there will be many "general readers" who will wander all the way down to the cats at the bottom of this page, read them, and then start thinking that evolution is a religion or is about religion. In fact, one of the problems with Wikipedia is that the vast majority of general readers, especially new ones, are unaware of what the "Talk" tab is even for and do not visit the talk page either before or after reading an article. It's too bad, because seeing the Talk page discussions might make them more critical readers of some articles. Ditto with most new editors. Voceditenore (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but while the Talk pages continue to contain cryptic, misleading content like that list down the bottom, we're unlikely to attract more enthusiastic participants here. HiLo48 (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we are more interested in having competent, reliable sources for material than "enthusiastic participants," aren't we? FWIW, the entry in the second edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Lindsay Jones, is as I have already said the basis for the inclusion of the tag. The article on evolution is broken into three sections, on "The Controversy with Creationism," "Evolutionism," and "Evolutionary Ethics," and runs from pages 2907 through 2920. The first section runs to page 2913. It provides a fairly accurate and lengthy description of Darwin (5 paragraphs), the Darwinian model (5 paragraphs), "The Modern Synthesis: Neo-Darwinism and Twentieth-Century Biology" (5 paragraphs), and encounters between evolution and theology (6 paragarphs). The section on "Evolutionism" also contains quite a bit of material about the development and influences on "evolutionist" thought, is presented in a much more neutral way than some of the comments on this page are, and probably also would be useful in developing and maintaining the article. To the extent that material related to the content of this article, whether certain editors have knee-jerk emotional reactions to the use of the word "religion" or not, I believe that it would offer a useful and valuable point of reference. I also note that it contains a bibliography of about two dozen books. It may also be worth noting that of the three articles sections above, the first was new to the 2005 edition, the "evolutionism" article was substantially revised for the 2005 edition, and the "evolutionary ethics" article was new to the 2005 edition. On that basis, I think it may also include some of the more recent and comparatively up-to-date material on the subject in encyclopedic sources.

And, finally, I am frankly appalled by the arrogant, judgmental, and clearly biased attitude of at least one of the editors above. If anything is likely to detract from the possibility of more enthusiastic editors, or even editors interested in developing the content in an encyclopedic manner, I would think that particular editor may well be number one on the list. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi John, I see you've added the top-class WikiProject Religion template to both Talk:Evolutionary ethics and Talk:Evolutionism. Talk:Creation–evolution controversy was already rated as high importance to wikiproject religion, but for some reason Talk:Creationism has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
On the basis of your description above, the inclusion of these topics seems entirely appropriate. I remain puzzled as to why the high importance template applies to this overview article, which as a result of consensus from previous discussions has a very short section merely noting that there are social and religious issues. The encylopedia appears to focus on these detailed topics and presumably discusses the science to explain it to [religious] readers. While it may indeed prove a useful source for scientific aspects, that doesn't make the science a top-importance topic to religion . . dave souza, talk 12:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You will note that the tags are basically added on the basis of existing articles on the subject existing in the ER mentioned above. The list of the article titles is at User:John Carter/Religion articles. Several articles have comparatively ambiguous titles, and I haven't gotten to them yet. The two articles you mentioned are both, as distinct subarticles, included in the list. Creationism may be one, and I'm fairly sure Sabbati Zevi, for instance, is included in the list as well, although I think his name is spelled differently in the ER, which is why I hadn't tagged it yet. There are quite a few such articles in the list page linked to here. But, yeah, I tend to think that, if a topic is considered sufficiently important to have a major article in an encyclopedia on that topic, it is presumably of top importance to the project. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing the point completely. HiLo48 (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, then, perhaps the esteemed editor above could actually make an attempt to actually indicate what the point actually is? So far as I can see from his own edits, it is that he believes that people who deal with content related to the topic of religion should not deal with this article. That seems to violate WP:OWN, much like several of his own comments earlier seem to indicate WP:POV problems. I provided a detailed, reasonable, response, indicating that editors who work with the topic of religion have a very highly regarded and useful source for this topic. I have also indicated that the tagging is not yet complete by me. Evidently, however, none of that seems to matter to the above editor. Would it perhaps be possible that an editor who has already indicated he has made mistakes might still be doing so? Yes, as anyone who would actually bother to look at the article list I linked to, I haven't yet finished all the review. Is he somehow now indicating that I have no right to do anything until and unless his own particular preferred practices are followed? Let me be honest to the above editor. The only point I have personally seen of his own posts is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If editors have anything of substance to say, as opposed to the basically usless comment above, I would welcome dealing with such reasonable comments instead.

P.S. The only real objection I can see is, basically, an almost paranoic one. I do understand that this page has been regularly "attacked" by religious POV pushers. If certain editors were to actually perhaps read the source before commenting, they would notice that the "religion" encyclopedia not only presents the topic of evolution in a basic neutral tone, it also allocates it a comparatively small section in the article grouping. I'm not sure anyone else has actually decided to look at the source yet, despite its fairly easy availability. Basically, if certain editors would both AGF and maybe actually read what I had written earlier, the encyclopedia in question actually probably serves to reduce the amount of religious material in this article, given the weight issue in it itself. Some reasonable people who are guided by something other than their own biases might come to the conclusion that having a religious source which can be used against the religious POV and UNDUE pushers might be useful. I guess that might be asking too much of some editors though. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If a source is a good source about science, that's because it's a reliable source, whether or not it's a religious source is irrelevant. Where we're describing issues of religion, we use reliable sources that describe it, without worrying whether or not the sources are science based or religious. The religious aspects of this article are a small pointer to topics dealt with in more detailed and specific articles about these aspects, it seems a bit incongruous to make this article Top-importance to religion but then I'm not in that WikiProject. . . dave souza, talk 22:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if some of you are fucking morons who refuse to make any fucking attemept to understand what others are actually fucking saying. I have absolutely no problem with what topics those interested in religious topics decide are are also of interest to them, including THIS one. My ONLY concern is that your action leads to us having an idiotic list at the bottom of this page that SAYS (even if it's not intended) that this Evolution article is in a category called Religion articles. I know that's not your intention, nor your fault, nor even what it's supposed to mean, but it's fucking happening! That appearance is completely unaceptable to me. (I have now said this many times. DO try a little harder to comprehend this time. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And the ONLY argument you have presented for that list of categories being unacceptable to you is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I rather suspect you are right that there are morons around here. I think you might find on staring at you in the mirror. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nah, you don't get it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

True.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't expand lead diagram

Hi, I was checking out the new Central Feedback Page, which collects all the responses from all those feedback boxes in the bottom of the articles. I saw this response: User:Deselliers wrote "How can I see an enlargement of the image in the top-right box?". This should have been posted here. I tried this and it just redirects to this page. How can this be resolved? Thanks. Jesse V. (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The image can be found here in the file namespace. It seems kind of odd that both the template's main title "Evolutionary biology" and the image redirect to this article and not "Evolutionary biology" (possibly because of article quality?). Perhaps the image's accessibility through the template should be discussed on the template's talk page. – Jonadin (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonadin. I just created a discussion item on the template's talk page as you suggested. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Evolution v. Evolutionism

I thought I would chime in with a bit of reflective commentary on this article and some of its flawed directions. This article is about organic evolution, but the evolution of life is a special case of a more general world view called evolutionism. "Evolutionism as a world view, the belief that all natural and social systems were in a constant change of change, was the general principle, of which organic evolution was only an example (and, historically a late one at that)...The present state of a system is seen as different from its past states, and its future states are predicted to again differ from the present. But the simple assertion that past, present, and future differ from one another is not in itself an evolutionary world view" (Levins & Lewontin, 1985, The Dialectical Biologist [49] - see pages 3-9).

I posted the preceding quote because it gives a general account of evolutionism, which was widespread before Darwin. Note that the wikipedia evolutionism article states that: "Evolutionism refers to the biological concept of evolution" - which is false (or not the entire story - e.g., Spencer's Social Evolutionism [50] - or Carneiro, R. L. 1973. Structure, Function, and Equilibrium in the Evolutionism of Herbert Spencer. Journal of Anthropological Research , 29(2), pp. 77-95). Evolutionism is the simple recognition or general proposition that the past was different from the present and the future. It is the recognition of the historical pattern transforming from homogeneity to heterogeneity and "an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion" (Spencer, 1896). "There is, however, another aspect to evolutionism which may be at least equally and possibly more important. It sees the whole universe, and everything in it, in the process of change and development. The universe is on its way to somewhere. Where is it going?"[51]

Darwin's intellectual revolution was not that organisms evolved, because that idea had already been floating about, nor was it yet another transformational theory of historiical change, that is, systems viewed as changing over time as elements in the system individually transformed during its life history, but his special insight was that the theory of variation places organisms as the materialistic object of evolution rather than subject to some ideal type. It might be helpful to incorporate some of these ideas to put Darwin's theory better in context of its history. It would be helpful to note that Darwin's evolutionary theory is materialist (not idealism) and it created an important shift in concepts of change, order, progress, perfectibility, integration, and adaptation that were all considered in historical texts prior to Darwin. Darwin's theory changed how we perceive the mechanics, laws, and theories underlying each of these concepts as they relate to living systems.Thompsma (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, this may be a bit offtopic, and maybe, for all I know, wrong. However, I think that we may well have problems with the term "evolutionism". I say this because the Encyclopedia of Religion, which was subject of some discussion above, includes "evolutionism" as one form of "methods of science of religion" in its synoptic outline. I have some difficulty seeing that the "evolutionism" you refer to above is the same as one which could be described as a method of study of religion. I unfortunately don't have that book right here, but the term does have a specific article of some length in the above book. Is there a possibility that the usage of the term in that book, and the usage of the term in our article Evolutionism, are different? If they are, then, maybe, we should create one on whichever isn't here, which I under these circumstances would have to think is probably the usage of the term in the Jones encyclopedia. I also think it might be a really good idea to consult an encyclopedia of philosophy. The Paul Edwards 1972 Encyclopedia of Philosophy has "evolution" as basically a redirect to Darwinism and Emergent evolution.

Sorry if I am in any way complicated things. But I do agree that it might be useful to incorporate some material about the context of Darwin and the materialist nature of evolution as he saw it. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Variation

Most of the section on variation is a fairy-tale and gives very little insight into the concept, which is critical to a proper understanding of evolution. For example, "Variation comes from mutations in genetic material, reshuffling of genes through sexual reproduction and migration between populations (gene flow)." - Alert, alert, this is an alert. Variation is much more than mutation - or why not just call it mutation? The gene flow migration part is just an extension of the limiting gene perspective on variation that is given. For years we have known that there is the interpenetration between genes and the environment that leads to a range of phenotypic variance (norms of reaction). Variation is not just from mutations in genetic material, but that is only one source of variation that is quantitatively accessible and conducive to Cartesian reductionistic analysis - hence, its popularity. Variation also comes about through the complexity of interaction in a changing environment (e.g., evo-devo anyone?), the juxtaposition of things, the allometry of parts, and the timing of events scaled accordingly. This section and the statements within it are nothing more than genetic reductio ad absurdum.

And it continues: "Natural selection will only cause evolution if there is enough genetic variation in a population" - reference please. Does natural selection cause evolution? What is this about "enough genetic variation"? Huh? How do you measure this (enough?) and what law or theory is this referring too? Theories tend to describe cause-effect relations - so this sentence obviously proposed some kind of nebulous theory on the cause of evolution - but natural selection is not the cause of evolution, but a process describing how evolution occurs. The causal relation as proposed in this sentence is nonsensical.

Even more: "The frequencies of alleles (variations in a gene) will remain constant in the absence of selection, mutation, migration and genetic drift." Alleles are not "variations in a gene" and when will you have an "absence of selection, mutation, migration and genetic drift" leading to constancy? This is enough to confuse even the advanced reader of evolution. What does this sentence even explain? It is an abstract sentence taken out of context from some population genetics textbook that is empty in meaning without its context - an idealist null-model. Remember, "Genes, let it be noted, are carried mostly, though not exclusively, in the chromosomes, and a definition of evolution must accordingly be framed to include the chromosomal and the cytoplasmic heredity" (Dobzhansky, 1965). Even Dawkin's has stated this: The Williams gene is only incidentally made of DNA. He later (1992) called the generalised version (what I would call a replicator) a codex, adding, “A gene is not a DNA molecule; it is the transcribable information coded by the molecule.”[52] Hence, this section confuses the concepts of mutation and genes as they relate to variation, which is an informational concept. Information is contained in the precise arrangement of nucleotide sequence or it could also be in the arrangement of a developmental sequence.

It would be far more valuable to explain how Fisher, Haldane, and Wright's quantitative theories lead to the understanding that even under weak selection and a small mutation rate, populations could change drastically and new genetic variations could become fixed rapidly. Wright introduced the concept that there was a higher order randomness due to accidental fixation in small populations that creates inter-population variation that determines the background where selection continues. Concepts of canalization, randomness, stochasticity, novelty, additivity, and analysis of variation would be useful to include contextually in this section. Canalization, for example, that is, traits that do not vary among individuals nonetheless have a genetic basis for variation. There are zones of canalization where there is little effect of either genotype or environment on the phenotype, but outside this zone phenotypic variation becomes sensitive to both.Thompsma (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Human evolution

This article craves attention from all of you evolution buffs.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Superfluous history

The history section is still far too long and superfluous. Do we really need to state: "...but Aristotle did not demand that real types of animals corresponded one-for-one with exact metaphysical forms, and specifically gave examples of how new types of living things could come to be." - that's kinda a side issue. I think the history section could and should be broken down to a much more succinct overview in three paragraphs max! For example, this sentence: "In the 17th century the new method of modern science rejected Aristotle's approach, and sought explanations of natural phenomena in terms of laws of nature which were the same for all visible things, and did not need to assume any fixed natural categories, nor any divine cosmic order." - does that really ring true? Why "laws of nature", which links to physical law?? What is the "new method of modern science"? I did not realize there was a new method, but rather a culmination of social and technological events that changed how things were understood and this process has yet to cease.Thompsma (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've drastically shortened it. Let me know if I took out too much or too little (it's still at four paragraphs, all of which are on the long side). It's was a bit rough around the edges after, so I also made a few other changes to try accounting for that. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the edit not because I oppose the shortening. In fact, I support it. But I think a large edit of that size should be discussed first. danielkueh (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, no edit ever needs discussion first. If everyone here supports it, then AdC should be able to make it. I'm going to revert for now, without substantially reviewing the edit. If anyone has a serious objection to AdC's edit, feel free to revert me without prior discussion. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think no one objects because they have yet to be given time to see the edit. I don't want to start an edit war, so I am going to revert your revert only once and my reason would be WP:preserve. danielkueh (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BRD recently? The 3rd step is discussion not to reverse the revert, that's counter-productive and goes directly against WP:BRD. — raekyt 03:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@Daniel Do you object to the content for any reason? If you don't, then reverting was not the right step forward. If you do, then please say what it is. WP:Preserve doesn't say to revert edits with which you agree.

@Raeky, were you talking to me, or Daniel?   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Daniel, of course, he reversed the revert. — raekyt 03:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Raeky, Did you read Mann Jess's comment above? I was just taking up his invitation to revert him.

Mann Jess, no I do not object to the content, which is why I would like to preserve it because removing such large chunks would be disservice. Unless of course the new WP:consensus is that it should be removed. danielkueh (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Daniel, I'm still having some trouble following. I asked if you objected to the content in AdC's edit; that is, the additions, removals, and reordering he made here. Are you saying you do not object to that edit? Or, are you saying you do not object to the content in the article before, which was removed in that edit? If the latter, could you perhaps discuss the change and detail why you prefer the previous version? It's not going to be possible to discuss AdC's edit if there's no objection to discuss. Please read through the part of BRD I linked on your talk page again, if you haven't done so recently. Particularly, "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work", and "No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion." If you have an objection, please elaborate. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind waiting for a while to see if anyone identifies parts they think should be kept (or additionally removed, for that matter). Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Mann, Two things. 1) I think we are speaking pass each other and 2) Please stop trying to teach me to suck eggs. Anyway, here is the summary. ACD removed 5,046 worth of information because he and Thompsma believe they are superfluous. I on the other hand disagree and believe they have value and should be retained unless of course the general consensus among the editors here is that it should be removed from this page for being superfluous. With respect to the reordering, I don't think it is an improvement. danielkueh (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

ACL, I would suggest that you post your proposed edit here so that every other editor can see it quite clearly. You are more likely to get greater participation and consensus from the other editors. Just a suggestion. danielkueh (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The only reordering I did was to give Darwin's proposal of the theory and publication of Origin prominence in the second paragraph, as a topic sentence to replace the "critical break" statement that I removed. More generally, I think a lot of the current version is not directly relevant to the topic of evolution, and furthermore that the length is getting in the way of the actual description of the theory.

Anyways, this is the version after I edited (unindented - I also left off the reflist since it's very long itself). Of course, I have no feeling that this particular revision is anything special - I was just trying to address a problem in the way I best saw fit.

Summary of the major things I removed: most of the first two paragraphs (mainly about philosophy: teleology, the original definition of the word "species," divine order, the idea of laws existing in nature, etc); description of scientists who proposed changes in species before Lamarck (I just left a list of their names); reference to Paley's watchmaker argument; topic sentence to third paragraph, which seemed to not be very useful; reduced the information about Wallace; contracted Weisman and de Vries into the same sentence; rewrote the part on Dobzhansky to lead with the reasoning rather than the quote; took the two-sentence final paragraph, removed the second, and put the first on the end of the previous paragraph. I also made a bunch of edits for concision which I didn't think changed any content but which shortened its length. I think that's most of it. (Oh yes, also some wording changes that I made semi-automatically while in copyedit mode and which I suppose might also turn out to be important.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Extended content expanding on changes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The proposal that one type of animal could descend from an animal of another type goes back to some of the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles. Although evolutionary changes of species had been discussed by Maupertuis, Buffon, and Erasmus Darwin, the first full-fledged evolutionary scheme was Lamarck's transmutation theory of 1809. This envisaged spontaneous generation continually producing simple forms of life which developed greater complexity in parallel lineages with an inherent progressive tendency, and that on a local level these lineages adapted to the environment by inheriting changes caused by use or disuse in parents. (The latter process was later called Lamarckism.) Other scientists, such as Georges Cuvier, continued to maintain that species were unrelated and fixed. Charles Darwin proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species describing it in detail and in a way that lead to an increasingly wide acceptance of Darwinian evolution. Influenced by his observations during the voyage of the HMS Beagle, as well as An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Robert Malthus, Darwin noted that population growth would lead to a "struggle for existence" where favorable variations could prevail as others perished. Each generation, many offspring fail to survive to an age of reproduction because of limited resources. This could explain the diversity of animals and plants from a common ancestry through the working of natural laws working the same for all types of thing. He worked on developing the theory from 1838 onwards, delaying publication of his work until Alfred Russel Wallace privately sent him a similar theory in 1858. Thomas Huxley applied Darwin's ideas to humans, using paleontology and comparative anatomy to provide strong evidence that humans and apes shared a common ancestry. Some were disturbed by this, because it implied that humans did not have a special place in the universe. At the time, the precise mechanisms of reproductive heritability and the origin of new traits remained a mystery. Although Darwin developed a theory of pangenesis, most of it was eventually supplanted by Mendel's laws of inheritance; in 1865, Gregor Mendel showed that traits were inherited in a predictable manner through the segregation and independent assortment of elements (later known as genes). August Weismann demonstrated that heredity passes through the germline, and Hugo de Vries proposed that Mendelian traits corresponded to the transfer of heritable variations along the germline. To explain how new variants originate, De Vries developed a mutation theory that led to a temporary rift between those who accepted Darwinian evolution and biometricians who allied with de Vries. At the turn of the 20th century, these problems were resolved by researchers in population genetics, such as J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, and Ronald Fisher. In the 1920s and 1930s, the modern evolutionary synthesis connected natural selection, mutation theory, and Mendelian genetics into a unified theory that applied generally to all branches of biology. The modern synthesis explained patterns observed across species in populations, through fossil transitions in palaeontology, and even complex cellular mechanisms in developmental biology. Further advances were made with the publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, which demonstrated the physical basis for inheritance, the advent of molecular biology, which improved our understanding of the relationship between genotype and phenotype, and phylogenetic systematics, which mapped evolutionary history through the use of phylogenetic trees. In 1973, evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote that the success of the theory in coherently explaining and predicting observable facts about life on Earth was so great that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Since then, the modern synthesis has been further extended to explain biological phenomena across the full and integrative scale of the biological hierarchy, from genes to species.

@Daniel, I'm just quoting policy on the matter, which is so far contrary to your actions here. Could you please elaborate on your objections? So far you've only gone as far as to say you don't like it. I can't convince you to like it (or fix it) if I don't understand what you don't like. It would be helpful if you picked one part of the edit, and described why you think it is not an improvement. Thanks.

@AdC, thanks for explaining and posting the content here. I've hatted it so it doesn't interfere with the section formatting. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Jess, Forgive me if I sound aggressive but what is it that you don't understand? Instead of misidentifying my position as WP:IDLI, why don't you look at the two texts (original and proposed). You will see that there are major differences between the two. For instance, the proposed text omits critical information such as the change of the species concept from an essentialist view to a Darwinian view. This was one of Darwin's major contributions in the history of evolutionary thought. Also, the first paragraph in the proposed text is not as coherent as it rushes to introduce a number of names without providing much needed context for the reader. There are many more of course. As you can see, a large edit of this kind is not trivial and needs to be thought out more carefully. I have nothing against editors being bold. I am suggesting that we don't edit for the sake of boldness, but to WP:improve the article instead. Finally, I recommend that you look at archive 58 for previous consensus as to why the current version was chosen. I think it would help put all of us on the same page when discussing this issue. danielkueh (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@Daniel, that didn't seem aggressive. I only wanted you to explicitly give a reason for reverting the content, which would allow us to discuss the issue and potentially resolve any problems. You've provided one such issue just now. Thanks!

Taking a look at the proposal, I don't see too much rushing at the beginning. It seems AdC has taken the time to list and briefly discuss those names which are relevant to the history of the concept. We also have links to each name, so if the reader wants to know more, they can click on the link and find the entire biography. Do you feel that extensive discussion of these people should be warranted in the top-level article about Evolution, generally? Personally, it seems to me that might be too specific to fit comfortably in our scope. In terms of the "change...from an essentialist view to a Darwinian view", if we included that content in the proposal, would that satisfy your concerns about that section?

By the way, if there's too much content in this particular section, we always have the History of evolution article we can merge into. This article really should only give a summary of that one, which will necessarily cover much more detail than we can even touch upon.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I am not opposed to shortening and concision. But I don't think the proposed text by ADC is the best one as it omits critical information. I agree quite a few things can be removed. But each paragraph contains so much information and context, that I think it should be done carefully. For starters, I recommend that we go through one paragraph at a time, starting with the first one. Here is my suggestion:

The proposal that one type of animal could descend from an animal of another type goes back to some of the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.[10][11] In contrast to these materialistic views, Ancient Greece. For example, Aristotle understood all natural things, not only living things, as being imperfect actualisations of different fixed natural possibilities, known as "forms", "ideas", or (in Latin translations) "species".[12][13] This was part of his teleological understanding of nature in which all things have an intended role to play in a divine cosmic order. Variations of this idea became the standard understanding of the Middle Ages, and were integrated into Christian learning, but Aristotle did not demand that real types of animals corresponded one-for-one with exact metaphysical forms, and specifically gave examples of how new types of living things could come to be.[14]

danielkueh (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to say I do think Daniel is right to ask for careful talkpage discussion for this shortening. (And doing one revert when requesting this is quite normal.) This is also how we have shortened other sections in the past in this article. It should be remembered that this is a heavily worked article already, which has to cover lots of different types of reader and editor interests in this subject. Each section has a big history of debate behind it, and sometimes words have been included to cover misunderstandings or controversies that the article has confronted. No doubt pruning is always still possible but just because one editor does not see the point of something immediately is not necessarily a very convincing reason for major edits on an article that is so intensely watched and edited. So discussion, often very good discussion, on this talkpage has been quite important to the way this article has come to be maintained.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I also agree to some extent with the reasoning for preemptively reverting. Anyways, I don't object to your proposal for the first paragraph, although I'd recommend a rewording to make it clear that Aristotle was actually talking about changes in species over time. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain a bit more what you mean? Was Aristotle clearly talking about "changes in species"? I think these 3 words are hard to apply to Aristotle in any simple and uncontroversial way, so they would not be the ones we would add in? You have to keep two problems in mind. One is that he saw causation differently than you and I, and so he would not like your wording, because for him a "species" is by definition fixed, and only the expression of individual phenotypes is not. The other is that even translating into different terminologies, I fear he is a little unclear on whether he thinks living types of animals and plants should normally be thought of as expressions of one fixed species each, or whether he thought they were all some type of mixture of different species. FWIW my own feeling is that Aristotle would not see his theories as compatible with Darwin, and he did tend to think most animal and plant types were expressions of one species each, but this is not the end of the discussion because your theories can be compatible with a theory you do not like even if you do not want them to be. Some things that he said do seem compatible, and it is not certain that he ever came to a final conclusion on these matters. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I'm not sure that Aristotle was talking about changes in species (or as the current version puts it, "the proposal that one type of animal could descend from another"), and I was hoping that if he was it would become clear through Daniel's response. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Daniel can comment but I think he has just attempted to compress based on the logic of the paragraph. Concerning Aristotle there has been a lot of discussion which can be sifted through in the archives of not only this article but also the corresponding History of Evolutionary Thought article. In short, Aristotle had no clear theory of evolution and the argument comes down more to whether he was clearly a supporter of something like "intelligent design" today. He and the other Socratics are certainly a major source of it, and for all types of essentialism, but he is also a major source for lots of other things. It was pointed out by someone, I think User:Dave Souza, that Aristotle makes an isolated comment allowing that new types of living thing can come about through hybridization. This at least raises some doubts to make us hesitate from being too strong in what we say about him.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

AcD inadvertently brought up an important point. That current first sentence is potentially troublesome as Aristotle's worldview is different from Darwin's. I suggest we change it as follows: "Prior to Darwin, the prevailing worldview of species was essentialist, which can be traced to Ancient Greece.<ref to Futuyma> For example, ..." danielkueh (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I am not sure about that. I think that this is precisely one of the points which has been discussed a lot in the past, and I think the consensus was that this is also something that is less clear than popular accounts (or accounts of scientists who might not have much time for this historical detail) might have it. Essentialism in general might have been common, but the specific type of essentialism where you say that animal and plant types are more or less pure expressions of metaphysical "species" (Aristotelian formal causes) was not clearly any kind of consensus. That seems to some extent to have actually been a reactionary modern thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, why don't we just skip right to Aristotle. Here is a suggestion: "Prior to Darwin, Greek philosophers such as Aristotle understood all natural things as being imperfect actualisations of different fixed natural possibilities, known as "forms", "ideas", or (in Latin translations) "species"." danielkueh (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The concern that I have is that is misleading and arguably plain wrong. i know such caricatures abound in potted histories but that does not make them right. Evolutionary theories go back before Aristotle, as do arguments against essentialism. Also, before Darwin, in fact, essentialism was already pretty much dead for centuries due to people like Bacon, who also cited Greeks. And the difficulties about making simple statements about essentialism are a pandora's box.Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, I don't understand. Aside from the "Before Darwin," the rest of the text are from the current text. I merely skipped the beginning. danielkueh (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand your aims as good ones but I think the changes are big in effect when I consider how a reader will now be informed by us. By removing context, we change the narrative so that we are saying or implying that there was no Greek evolutionary theory, that there was no Greek or even pre-Darwinian opposition or subtility to essentialism, and so everyone before Darwin was more or less a follower of intelligent design in biology. But actually it could even be argued that the type of essentialism in modern biological intelligent design is of about the same modern vintage as modern evolutionism. I am of course a bit biased towards an interest in the history of evolutionary thought, but I would think many people might agree that:

• It would be quite odd that we would delete all mention of the earliest evolutionary proposals, in our section which is about the history of evolution theory. Surely many readers will come here for exactly this?
• It would be just wrong to imply by deletion that everyone before Darwin was an essentialist, with regards to biological species or any type of essentialism. It would also be wrong to say everyone before the modern era was, or that all Greeks were.
• Your proposed deletions remove a reference to the fact that there is doubt about whether Aristotle himself was an essentialist with regards to animal and plant species. That implies that there is no doubt, and helps propagate a simplified story that is widespread. For Aristotle, a species was a type of metaphysical cause within nature, and not a type of animal or plant, and not to point to this will mean we allow people to think that Aristotle's species are definitely known to be the same as modern biological species. I think we have a sort of duty to avoid this common misunderstanding?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There wasn't any Greek evolutionary theory, at least in a sense that is meaningful to the concept today. While I know that "evolutionary thought" is much broader, I question its place in a science article beyond a brief mention that some philosophers had previously proposed that species could change. (Why is the section called "History of evolutionary thought" instead of "History of evolution," anyways?) Arc de Ciel (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, I am not questioning that there are subtleties and nuances, but I think in the interest of concision, some things have to give and that we should emphasize the main essentials and direct our readers to the main article on History of evolutionary thought. Otherwise, the current length stays, which is also fine. danielkueh (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

@AdC, yes a brief mention is also what I tend to think is appropriate. Right now we are talking about deleting all mention or not. (I see no point arguing about whether there was a Greek evolutionary theory, but I would say there was. The problem is that we only know about it from surviving criticisms. But they make clear that there was quite some discussion and thought.) @DK, the problem is that removing material can change what we say and make it wrong. You also have not demonstrated in any clear way why there is a major problem that requires this section to be collapsed even at the expense of accuracy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

AdC makes an important point. There is no Greek evolutionary theory. At least not according to mainstream sources. They might have proposed ideas about evolution, but those are different and are not part of a coherent scientific theory. Whether you agree with modern scientific interpretations or not is not the issue. The issue what do the sources say. And the sources are clear, prior to Darwin and others, the Greek worldview was essentialist, which could be traced back to Aristotle. Provide a reliable and world accepted source that explicitly says otherwise, then the issue is resolved. Bear in mind, I have no strong stake here about shortening this section. Either way, I am fine with keeping it the way it is or with shortening it to the bare essentials. So there is no "major problem." This section was initially expanded by Thompsma, who now proposes shortening it. IF the consensus is to shorten it, then of course, I would propose a solution whereby we present information that is often found in reliable sources. Cheers. danielkueh (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think anyone is suggesting deleting all mention. Also, I said that there was no Greek evolutionary theory in a sense that is meaningful to the concept today. The relevance of Greek philosophy to evolution is no more than that some philosophers thought species could change (as a philosophical position), and it turns out that they do. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• @DK. That the Pre-Socratic Greeks theorized about evolution is according to mainstream sources cited in this article and also the History of Evolutionary Thought article. (It is notable that your proposed compression would remove most of the cited materials and create what I would call a summary of the standard "folk" ideas that scientists have about the history of this subject.) The sources used are the absolute standard in the field of Pre-Socratic studies. You say on the other hands that the opposite position is what is found in mainstream sources, but you give no source. I have my doubts.
• Perhaps more to the point, the real argument in both posts above seems to be that these early thinkers should only be mentioned to the extent that they are a direct and well-known source for modern evolutionary thought. I do not see why. Readers coming to this article will sometimes wish to know whether there was pre-Darwinian evolutionary theorizing, whether it survived or not. What would the reasoning be for dropping a notable and well-studied subject for this type of reason?
• Secondly, it can at least be argued that the Pre-Socratic philosophy did have an influence on modern evolutionary thinking, at least indirectly. Aristotle's arguments against earlier evolutionary ideas did survive and were widely read until Darwin's time. I believe Darwin cites some in his preface? But this is perhaps a less important point.
• Finally I will just return to my most basic concern: there is no clear need to compress, just a post by one person, so we can certainly discuss the possibility, but on the other hand if compression causes less accuracy I think many editors will be concerned. For example if we imply that no evolutionary theory existed before Darwin and the immediately preceding generations, or if we imply that everyone before those times was an essentialist concerning biological species, we will be spreading information which is demonstrably wrong, for the sake of making a section a bit shorter. I do not think that is tenable. Compression is fine, but not at that price.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Some mainstream sources at all levels: Futuyma, Evolution; Reece et al., Campbell Biology; Walsh, Evolutionary existentialism. Just to name a few. I think you misunderstood my point. If you have sources describing "descriptions of Aristotle's essentialist worldviews" as being "incorrect" or "folk," then I think you should put them here. None of the sources in this article or in the History of Evolutionary Thought article contest this description. So unless you have sources that explicitly call this description a 'myth, folk, or incorrect," there is no need for us to quibble about this point.

If you don't think this history section should be condensed, then that is fine by me. I will leave you to continue this discussion with AcD and Menn Jess and defend the front-line. :D danielkueh (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't have much time to work on articles right now, so I would just wait to see if anyone objects to the rest of the condensation and then add those changes if not. Arc de Ciel (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

DK, like AdC I do not have a lot of time right now, but I do know that the point about Aristotle is something that has been discussed a lot before, either on this article or the history of evolutionary thought article, and it was not originally my own position but something which was demonstrated by others using good sources. Furthermore the sources you name are not people who study Aristotle or Pre-Socratic sources as far as I know? But even if they are it is not clear to me that the change of meaning you are promoting in the compression that you propose is based on any sources, as opposed to just what is easier to write and explain - which is how you yourself have explained it. Seems to me that if your aim, as you have explained it until now, is to compress, then the compression should avoid changing the story in important ways. If this is not your aim, then you have not yet explained what your aim is in any clear. Does your mentioning of these sources mean that you now argue that the history section is actually wrong, as opposed to just being a bit long?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew: First, I am not asking you to do anything about the section of the article. If you don't think it should be changed, then we can leave it. But if other editors would like to continue to discuss shortening it, then I'll leave it to you to convince them otherwise as I'm just exhausted. Second, my "compression" doesn't change any story whatsoever. It is the same as the one written by you and Dave Souza. The only difference is that it omits the mention of the presocratic philosophers, which is not central to a small section on the history of evolutionary thought. Plus, the emphasis on Aristotle's essentialist worldview are based on reliable sources, which I've given. Third, you're presenting a moving target. Initially you demanded sources, I gave them. Now you question their credentials. FYI, Denis Walsh (author of one of the sources I gave) happens to be from the Philosophy Department at the University of Toronto. He studies the history and philosophy of science, specifically biology. I think his credentials are perfectly adequate. Anyway, questioning their credentials is dubious and a red herring. I think you forget that this is an article on evolution, not ancient Greek philosophy. Finally, where are your sources? You are the one who is still claiming that the essentialist worldview is incorrect, a myth, or a folk tale. That has never been demonstrated. I have read the arguments on this talk page but I have never seen one single source given to back it up. So until you provide at least one reliable and high quality source, I think this issue should be dropped. danielkueh (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is no rush, then my main request is pretty much like yours: let's bring this down to a review of the sources. As mentioned, I was not the key player in the previous discussion and I am struggling to give this discussion the time it deserves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Since nobody has made any other objections, I'll wait a couple more days and then re-insert those changes which haven't been contested (right now, that's everything except the first paragraph), and then bring the current section to the talk page. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If you read my previous posts, you will see that I did contest the changes. I did not provide an exhaustive list as the changes were numerous. Andrew also does not appear to support those changes as well. I strongly suggest that you don't rush this, especially if you want the changes to be long lasting. We haven't even got passed the first paragraph yet. So try again for consensus. In fact, it would really help this discussion if you could post a side by side comparison of the original and proposed versions. See this archive discussion for an example on how to do that. Also, I recommend that you invite long time and familiar editors of this article such as Dave Souza, Thompsma, Joannamasel, Maunus, KimvdLinde, etc to this discussion. danielkueh (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll just stop pursuing this instead. As I said, I'm busy right now, and even if I weren't I'd rather not spend as much discussion time as this seems to take. If the discussion continues, I might make some more comments but only as interjections. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• When time permits, I'd like to review this section with the aim of tightening and focussing it as an overview of the most significant points. Having looked around, Chapter 6 in Bowler, Peter J.; Morus, Iwan Rhys (2005). Making modern science : a historical survey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-06861-7. seems a good overview to provide a framework for this section. It's titled "The Darwinian Revolution", but covers the topic widely and doesn't just focus on Darwin's contribution. . . dave souza, talk 19:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Phylogenetics - where are you??

I am still dumbfounded by the absence of a section on phylogenetics, yet this article has a section titled: "Outcomes"? Why outcomes? That seems very directionally orientated to me. Is adaptation really an outcome of evolution? Is an organism adapted or is it becoming adapted? Phylogenetics or a simple description of evolutionary trees can put the polarity of these concepts into their appropriate frame of reference. I suggest that the title "Outcomes" be removed and a simple paragraph on phylogenetics, evolutionary trees, or something on systematic methods or taxonomics be inserted and described at the forefront. Every concept that follows can be explained and simplified in context of phylogenetic relations. This would do a great service in the effort to reduce the size of the article.Thompsma (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I have to say that at 170K, the article is far longer than the semi-optimum 60K or so. And I can't see any clear objection to Phylogenetics getting a bit more direct coverage in the article than it has. And "Outcomes" seems to me, honestly, to be a very problematic section title, as it doesn't clearly specificy which outcomes of what. As long as the content removed from this article is basically reproduced (or moved) to some other article directly linked to this article, either phylogenetics or some other article, I can't see any real objections to reducing the unwieldy length of the article myself. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thompsma I have to give you credit with your persistence and well referenced arguments. I've tried to be supportive but still I see you are met with resistance. Mind boggling to some degree. If you can make progress I'll buy you a virtual steak dinner :) GetAgrippa (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my earlier comment was one which could be taken as resistance to the idea. I thought I was agreeing to the proposal, actually. If the proposal would help bring the article down to a more managable length while still not getting into problems of POV, WEIGHT, or similar, I would have no objections whatsoever. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem John Carter - I will at some point be putting a phylogenetic section in here. Just need to work on it carefully before I throw it into the lions den here.Thompsma (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

New FAQ in evolution as fact and theory

I spent yesterday putting together a new FAQ header in Talk:Evolution as fact and theory/FAQ. I would be very interested in hearing some critical feedback from evolutionary editors.Thompsma (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks great. danielkueh (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Impossible to read. A creationist looks at it and thinks, "they're lying", and ignores it. Why do some editors try to over complicate such simple concepts. If I had just a high school degree, maybe you could say "you just don't understand." I have quite an advanced degree in the biological sciences, and that FAQ made as much sense as a physicist trying to describe string theory to me. A FAQ should be quick and easy. That FAQ was written like someone intentionally making it more complicated. I hated it. But I've complained frequently about how this article has been made into a complex, impossible to understand article. Obviously, people want it almost inaccessible. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not purposefully try to make it any more complicated than need be. Put a lot of work into that in good faith, so thanks for your not so kind and unhelpful feedback. You might want to try putting in some "constructive criticism" - where I can work off the suggestions. Just saying "I hated it" is juvenile and unhelpful. The topic of evolution as fact and theory is a complex one and feel free to chime in. The FAQ was a listing and response to actual questions that have popped up in that page for the past year or so. It was researched thoroughly and I consulted with several evolutionary biologists on the topic to put it together. "That FAQ made as much sense as a physicist trying to describe string theory to me" - Well string theory is as advanced a theory as evolution, in terms of acquiring an understanding of the topic. Who better to describe string theory than a physicist, you make that sound like a bad thing. When I took physics I had a physicist explain it to me. It was difficult at first and then I studied and eventually got it. Same goes for advanced topics in evolutionary biology - except in this case I am an evolutionary biologist, not a physicist.Thompsma (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That's just not how encyclopedias are typically written - because they are supposed to provide information that is immediately accesible to lay people. We are not trying to educate a generation of professional biologists here, just to make lay people better informed. Confusing them with superfluous details and excessive precision doesn't achieve that goal.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack Thompsma, but whatever. It was impossible to read, so I hated it. You asked for an opinion, I gave it. Someone agreed that it was confusing. Relax my friend, if you're going to take everything so personally, you'll not last long. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Thompsma that just saying "I hate it" is juvenile and unhelpful.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. – Maky ^« talk » 03:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Except I explained my reasoning. So, I guess not so much on the juvenile and unhelpful. But I guess personal attacks are acceptable on this page. Whatever. I still think it was impossible to read, still was confusing, and still was written in a manner that was targeted for someone who may have written it rather than individuals who are genuinely interested in the topic. But again, that's just an explanation, and those of you who like personal attacks will continue to use them. :) SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Somehow complaints about personal attacks from you have a hollow ring to them. People tend to respond in kind, and you generally aren't. If you had limited yourself to explaining the reasoning then you would have received a different response. In any case I agree with your reasoning, if not the tone of delivery.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is more with the article itself - that it is written more like a philosophy article than a science article (and the FAQ is just a reflection of this). I know it does contain a lot of philosophy, but that doesn't mean it has to be written like a philosopher would write it. It's hard to untangle such language to pick definite statements out of it, so it's hard to make specific suggestions. However, a couple that come to mind are: start with something similar to this page's Q3, and provide a clear answer to Q5 in the first sentence (i.e. trivially no, but that it doesn't affect evolution's validity). Q4 has a similar issue to Q5 but I can't figure out what it's trying to say, so I'm not sure what suggestions I could offer for that one. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It used to be easy to read when it was written by an editor who is no longer around. Just click on a version say from 3 years ago. See what you think. It was well written, made sense, and didn't have the confusing language that has been inserted over the past few years. Oh well. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I found the FAQ to be just fine. Admittedly, I have a degree in evolutionary biology, but I didn't have to apply what I had learned in college to understand what was being said. Evolution is attacked using semantics—a deliberate tactic. The FAQ addresses the semantics, even if it comes across as "philosophical". The article should be written as a science article, while the FAQ should address the semantics. – Maky ^« talk » 03:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty is with the article itself. It is an odd kind of offshoot on evolutionary biology - based largely on a single article by Stephen J. Gould who stated that evolution was a fact. Of course there is always the argument that "oh, it's just a theory" - but I do not think that the purpose of an encyclopaedic article should be a place to combat creationists or other obtuse arguments. The article was written in a way a few years ago to set out and prove a point - that evolution is a fact. Unfortunately, that is not the way it is laid out in the literature. Some evolutionary biologists have claimed it to be a fact, whereas others think that is the wrong use of the word fact and claiming that evolution is a fact is a very general claim. Exactly what part of evolution is being called a fact? Facts are usually things that are manifest and quite obvious, but evolution is complex and large. The reason I put the FAQ together was to also help editors gain some bearing and to clarify that the article is not a "go to" to thwart off the local creationist to say "see, it is fact". It should be an information resource disclosing what fact is. The reason why it comes across as philosophical is because the title of the article makes that kinda necessary - Fact & Theory is about as deeply philosophical as you can get in science. I've spent the past few years reading every paper and evolutionary book where fact and theory are used to refer to evolution and it is always philosophical. Any constructive suggestions on how to simplify it otherwise would be helpful.Thompsma (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Arc de Ciel - your feedback was helpful. Thanks!Thompsma (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

page biased

Offtopic: no proposals here to improve the article, as required by WP:TALK.dave souza, talk 19:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
i think this page accepts evolution as 100% fact. any edits to the page which add any suspicion are quickly removed. you would have to agree with me that virtually all edits on this page are by people who think evolution is 100% fact and they hence control the page. it would be good if we come to an agreement that this page needs a clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.236.84 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC) You are mistaken, both on your understanding of fact and that this is written by people who think that evolution is 100% fact. In fact, your statement makes no sense whatsoever. Many of the people who contribute this article are scientists who do not subscribe to absolute certainty (i.e., 100% fact). This is actually an opportune time to send someone to the new Talk:Evolution as fact and theory/FAQ page - see Q4. You can read through the FAQ on fact and theory and the actual article to gain a better understanding on what fact and theory refers too. The people contributing to this article are using WP:V sources to provide an informative source on the scientific understanding of evolution.Thompsma (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC) As soon as people find evidence contradicting evolution, we'll post it, until then, Wikipedia is under absolutely no obligation to pander to anti-science propaganda victims and know-nothing knowitalls who are dumb enough to believe the Bible is a science textbook.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC) I would probably disagree with some of the language of the above post, because I've seen some fans of science who believe things that are even dumber than the Bible, but not the general idea. I haven't seen many such dumb ideas recently, admittedly, but some. All the "evidence" against evolution I have ever seen is, really, reduced to the basics, conjecture which is seemingly based on supporting the pre-existing beliefs of individuals who don't like evolution and are basically grasping at straws to find a way to oppose it. And I think some of the editors around this page might consider me one of the dumbest people around, because I tend to support some religious ideas in general around here. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Now, be fair, the page is biased. Towards reality. Of course, reality has a well-known liberal bias. . . dave souza, talk 23:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC) a perfect example of biased this can you fail to say my post is 1% correct this talk is not for discussing the bible i mentioned nothing of the sort. think about it around 80% of people who have read the entire article are evolutionists. i hate to bring god into this but the way you defend your beliefs is unreasonable the same as many creationists. enough about that. the way this article read by paragraph is like so. this is fact this is fact this is the only fact and this is fact etc. even the first line of the article. Evolution is any change across successive generations. what exactly does that mean? does it mean a child looking different frin its parent? looks in a person can be defined as any change.or does it mean biological change? do you get the just of what im saying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.155.56 (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC) No, but despite the appalling grammar and (lack of) punctuation, I think I get the gist. The point is that evolution is science and has to presented as such. Contradictory material based on the religious beliefs of a minority simply does not belong. There is no way to sensibly include it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Well yea religion does need to totally be excluded from this article. My main problem with this is how in religious articles for example a line from the article "god" "God is often conceived of as the supernatural creator" if i was to change it to God is the supernatural creator,it would be changed in less than a few minutes . take the start of this article. "Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor" it states it as absolutely fact. Can you see the problem? They are both beliefs and should be written as such. evolution has flaws so does god, none can be proven as absolute fact and so they should not be written as such. Now about being biased evolution is allowed to be stated as fact not belief,god is allowed to be stated as a product of the imagination and not belief. You see what i mean now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.174.80 (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Evolution has been proved to be an absolute fact as close as anything in science can be, there's more evidence to support it than any other theory in science I contend. Your opinion to the validity of the theory is irrelevant and incorrect. — raekyt 19:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Ok i can understand incorrect but irrelevant? what i was trying to get at was this article needs to be re written.If evolution is absolute fact how is it i have read the entire article and still not been convinced? Maby its a little hard to understand,that can be fixed by being re written. Okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.174.80 (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Because this is just a very brief overview of the theory, to have a good understanding you can spend years learning and still not be able to cover everything. I'd start say with the biology courses at MIT's online courses if you go through those you'd have a better understanding. A encyclopedia's article can't give you all the knowledge of a subject, and you need education to understand some topics. I'd recommend Richard Dawkins's book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution or Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution Is True. — raekyt 20:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

These edits are just plain vandalism. If you don't like my characterization of the edits, I'll accept being slapped about side the head, but check the editors contributions in other articles. There's an agenda there. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm right with you. Obvious creationist nutter on the loose. HiLo48 (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Just deleted most of the article. I hope an admin gives him a time out in the corner. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Now now! That particular mistake is actually easy to make with a 166KiB article that takes several seconds to load. It can be caused by not allowing the whole edit page to load before making the change and hitting "Save". Uncle G (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh huh. That might be true, except for User talk:Jinxmchue and several of his edits to other evolution-related articles over the past few days. AGF doesn't count after 5 years of doing the same stuff over and over again. :) SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ipse dixit claim

Offtopic: no proposals here to improve the article, as required by WP:TALK. Just another Soapbox speech.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago." It is in the unobserved and unobservable past. Ipse dixit in the highest. Find the relevant literature and cite it. NPOV Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources Verifibailty In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. "Life on Earth is hypothesized to have originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago." is scientifically accurate. Jinx69 (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC) You may want to consider taking biology classes at your local community college. Sædontalk 18:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Oxforddictionaries.com Science the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: It is in the unobserved and unobservable past. It is ipse dixit in the highest. Written history goes back 6,000 years ('recorded history' wiki). We have no documented evidence pre 6,000 years ago. Any claim before that is ipse dixit. "Hypothesized to have" is scientifically accurate. Then the relevant peer reviewed literature with radioisotopes can be employed. Jinx69 (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC) I must concur with Saedon here. You may want to consider taking a basic science class. Your understanding of how it functions is, for lack of a nicer term, deficient. For example, when scientists talk about observation, they do not mean direct observation with their eyeballs. Also written history goes back far further than 6000 years. Heck, we have written BEER RECIPES that are 11,000 years old.Farsight001 (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Maybe people need to learn how to read or understand words. Oxforddictionaries.com Science the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT: OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT. Anything in the past is not prone to OBSERVATION or EXPERIMENT and is therefore not science. We can only observe and experiment on artifacts from the past in the PRESENT. For the past we have written history which based on wikipedia 'recorded history' It starts around the 4th millennium BC, with the invention of writing. The claim is the height of ipse dixit. Jinx69 (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. — Scientizzle 18:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC) The issue here is whether or not the sources say "life on Earth evolved" or "life on Earth is hypothesized to have evolved". The cited sources say the former, and as an encyclopedia we report on what the sources say. There are other articles which discuss the origin of life from other perspectives, and those articles report what those sources say. To alter the meaning of the sourced material, or to synthesize some statement from multiple sources is original research and is not what we do here as editors. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Maybe YOU need to learn how to read or understand words. I said that scientists do NOT mean direct observation with their eyes. Citing the generic dictionary definition of observation or science does not change this simple fact. Repeat yourself 10,000 times, and you change nothing. You think anything in the past is not prone to observation or experimentation? Then we have to let all the criminals out of prison because no one directly observed them committing the crime, so it is ipse dixit to claim they did it. Oh, the police have evidence left behind at the scene of a crime you say? THAT is scientific observation.Farsight001 (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A better lead sentence?

The current lead sentence has been agreed upon by many - I know, I was embroiled in the huge debate that developed into the current lead. However, the sentence is still kinda awkward - even though it captures the broader essence of evolutionary theory. I would like to propose an alternate (below), because there is a problem with the way that the term change is used, as Kirk J. Fitzhugh has noted: "‘Change’ is not the pertinent quality of interest in evolution..."[53]. Hence:

• Evolution is the gradual departure across successive generations in the constituency of the inherited characteristics of organisms in biological populations.

This proposal has the advantage of giving the original and lasting gradual thesis of evolution (i.e., Darwinian materialism of cause-effect relations), it removes the term change (hinting on tautological, plus see Fitzhugh (2007) click here for free pdf), and it puts the emphasis on organisms in populations, which is where evolutionary research is directed.Thompsma (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

or to make it read a bit better:

• Evolution is the gradual departure in the constituency of inherited characteristics of organisms in biological populations across successive generations.Thompsma (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In further support of the proposed wording, biologists frequently refer to the "genetic constituency of populations".Thompsma (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• No thank you, this is just more obscurantism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's wp:V, not obscurantism, consistent with the history of the science. Not much thought goes into conceiving that "Evolution is change", but if you are asked to think past this and call it obscurantism in your critique, it is a strange response. Obscurantism: "is the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or the full details of some matter from becoming known" - ironic that this applies more aptly to your rejection.Thompsma (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Your obsession with providing the most scientifically accurate and current definition of evolution prevents the average reader from having a chance at understanding this article. That is obscurantism. It is not WPV, because that definition is not by a longshot the most commonly used, and specifically it is entirely unsuited for works meant to be read by lay readers. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The idea was inspired from a passage I read from Charles Sanders Peirce - one of the great philosophers of science - and proves that it is not current:

This Darwinian principle is plainly capable of great generalization. Wherever there are large numbers of objects, having a tendency to retain certain characters unaltered, this tendency, however, not being absolute but giving room for chance variations, then, if the amount of variation is absolutely limited in certain directions by the destruction of everything which reaches those limits, there will be a graduate tendency to change in directions of departure from them.[http://www.jstor.org/stable/27896847 Peirce (1891)

The term departure in reference to the constituency in populations is more apt and consistent with the actual evolutionary concept than change, because "Different properties among organisms cannot then be explained via any notion of change: ‘When one thing is put in the place of another, each ... undergoes a change of place, but neither is changed into the other’ (Coffey 1938: 61). Thus, if we can speak of evolution being a fact, it must be by way of some connotation other than ‘change’." (Fitzhugh, 2007) If this is a deliberate attempt to prevent the facts to prevent the full details from becoming known (as you claim), then I guess I will have to stop doing research and wipe my slate of knowledge clean to improve on my argument. Strange that I'm being critiqued from "providing the most scientifically accurate and current definition of evolution" - only in here would that be counted as a negative. Unacceptable. You have to do better than this.Thompsma (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a general encyclopedia, not a graduate level evolutionary biology course. Keeping it simple so that people can understand what we write without having an advanced degree is a good thing. So no, let's keep the lead as is. Yobol (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I realize it is not a graduate level evolutionary biology course, I'm not a newbie. I want to keep it simple and correct. There is a logical error in the current lead sentence as I have studied it for quite a long time before entering here. Change is not the correct word. My proposal is no more complex than what is already presented, which is wrong. Using the simple wrong default common response is certainly going to appear more simple to understand - because it is what everyone expects. As an educator of science, I study this kind of stuff - that is what is called the effect of the common misconception, where people default to the simple common answer.Thompsma (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read again and compare:

Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations.

Evolution is the gradual departure in the constituency of inherited characteristics of organisms in biological populations across successive generations.

Mine is more explicit and no more complex. Is the word contituency too hard to handle? Is that the concern? The other problem with the current lead is that it implies that the inherited characteristics are properties of the biological populations and not the organisms where they exist in reality.Thompsma (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that "change" is a fundamentally incorrect word to be used in the definition of evolution and and also disagree that the substitution of the word "change" with "gradual departure in constituency" is at all simple. Yes, the word constituency is not a word I would use to define something in the first sentence, but the entire phrase and verbiage used is enough to turn me off from reading any more of the article. Let's not fix what's not broken. Yobol (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree, but I can provide (have given) the literature to support my claim. It is broken, so it needs fixing.Thompsma (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And I disagree. Clearly there are now two editors now who disagree, let's see if you can get a consensus to make a change from other editors. Yobol (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Yobol - I will do my best. I realize this will be a battle. Change might work for evolutionism - which is a much more general concept dealing with the broader philosophy things and the recognition that history does not, in fact, repeat itself - things do change (see here). However, in reference to Darwin's theory - change is not the right word in the way it is currently being applied. The current lead sentence is obscure in its meaning, implying that evolution refers to a singular thing that changes, but that is incorrect because it is a multitude of organisms within populations that are referenced in the theory. It is true (in an abstract kinda way) that populations transition from one state into another (i.e., change), but that is not what evolutionary biologists really study - except, perhaps, when modelling or projecting. When I study salamanders, I look at individual organisms and measure characteristics in body form. Evolution by means of natural selection (or some other mechanism) is a measure of departure or divergence, not change. If it was change, then we would be talking about development or the morphing of an organism into another species, the later does not occur (obviously). I think that the current rejection to my proposal (although I would certainly accept alternative proposals) has more to do with prior conceptions, which is one of the barriers that educators of evolutionary biology face when teaching on the subject matter (see here, for e.g.)Thompsma (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ernst Mayr uses the term change appropriately: "Evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms over time." He does not say "any change" and he also emphasizes that it is the properties of organisms in the populations, where the current lead implies that it is the properties of populations having inheritable traits. I agree with George Gaylord Simpson and a host of other evolutionary biologists that populations are the primary units of evolution and change occurs within populations through the properties of organisms. However, evolution is actually a measure of departure or divergence from an ancestral state (i.e., descent with modification along the way).Thompsma (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

To summarize, there are two problems with the current lead. Problem 1: It treats populations as a singular unit having the quality of traits. It is the organisms in the population that vary with the traits. I prefer the term "individuals" over "organisms", but I already fought and lost that battle months ago. Adding organisms would be a definite improvement. Problem 2 (the more difficult battle): While most evolutionary biologists and the mainstream of scientific literacy finds the pseudo-synonym between change and evolution appealing and common, it is technically not the correct term of reference. The obvious fact of common ancestry that jumps out when seeing the similarity between a fossil ancestor representing an ancestral state and the descendant species is not change, but transition or departure from one form to anther that took place (selecting and sorting) in populations. The ancestor did not change into its descendant. It is the divergence (a multi-vergence really) or statistical departure of trait distributions in populations from ancestral initial conditions to descendant states and it is also a meta-theory referring to laws, facts, and hypotheses that cover topics beyond the content of the first sentence.Thompsma (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposals:

1. Current: Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations.
2. Pa: Evolution is the gradual departure in the constituency of inherited characteristics of organisms in biological populations across successive generations.
3. Pb: Evolution is change that occurs across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of organisms in biological populations.
4. Pc: Evolution is the divergence that occurs across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of organisms in biological populations.
5. Pd: Evolution is a departure in the constituency of inherited characteristics of organisms in biological populations across successive generations.
6. Pe: Evolution is divergence in the constituency of inherited characteristics of organisms in biological populations across successive generations.

Working through this and seeing the options, I have a preference for "6. Pe". Key points: 1. drop the "any" in front of change, 2. it is organisms in populations that have the traits, make this clear, 3. change is not the best term to convey the proper meaning. I can live without the reference to gradualism to simplify matters - or perhaps it could be added, e.g., "gradual divergence" or "gradual departure".Thompsma (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Pa is not good writing, so I would argue against it.
• Pb is a minor tweak and covers your first concern. I doubt anyone would have big issues with it.
• Pc-Pe are all trying to deal with your second concern, which as you say yourself is a more difficult battle. I think all of them are pretty un-readable, and more to the point I think your second concern is a difficult one to cover. If I understand you correctly you want to distinguish change during the life of one individual, from change in the typical inherited characteristics which are spread throughout a population. Is this really necessary though? Will people really be confusing these two issues? In any case, any attempt to clarify which makes the lead harder to understand will be a failure obviously. Just an idea but what about:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Pf: Evolution in biology is change, over successive generations, in the typical range of inherited characteristics, found amongst the members of particular biological populations.

Hi Andrew - thanks for your response. I agree that Pa was not well written. The point about change is perhaps even a bit deeper. First, there is the broader problem that the dialectical evolutionary biologists (and there are and has been quite a few of them to take notice, e.g., Gould, Lewontin) would cringe at the definition given, as though evolution were nothing more than the endless shuffling of traits. Second, there is the problem of defining or circumscribing a population with exactitude and then giving it a state to change by, from one state to another. It is an abstract thing to conceptualize and not really what evolutionary biologists study nor is it what happens in reality. The way an organism develops through its life is change - from one state to another there is a thread of continuity, but a population is not a thing that can be treated in this way, many have argued that species can (but no need to go into that debate). It is individuals in populations that change and to suggest that populations change gives the wrong idea about evolution. Evolution works in dimensions of space and time - populations, meta-populations, demes, or any other kind of unit other than an organism, does not in itself undergo change. If a species range is spreading and assembles phenotypes through space rather than time, where and what population is doing the change? Plus, stating that the past, present, and future differ from one another is not in itself sufficient to define the concept of biological evolution nor does it capture the theory entailed in natural selection nor any other evolutionary theory. Does it really matter? I do not know, but there is a definite problem with the way the current lead refers to populations rather than organisms. Perhaps it would be better to think of evolution as a theory that refers to facts:

• Pg: Evolution in biology refers to change, over successive generations, in the inheritable characteristics of organisms in biological populations.

This gets us out of the mess of saying what evolution is and puts the emphasis on what it refers to, which is what theories do. It also gets out of the quagmire of having to debate one group of famous evolutionary biologists who see evolution in the dialectical way versus those who view it in way it is currently defined, because both groups would agree that evolution refers to the things described - it is not an exclusive definition. I am not fond of the way you use the words "found" or "particular" in your proposal. Should it be inherited, inheritable, or heritable?Thompsma (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I see Thompsma's point-change isn't refering to just any change but specifically heritable changes (change has no context so a reader might assume an artic fox changing hair color coats with seasons is evolution or a single mutation in one individual is evolution). Perhaps we should say what it does and what it is first and then expand. "Evolution describes how all life is united by common descent and by modification of heritable traits". Then be more specific as to what all this means:what is being modified, now you have a modification so what-what has to happen with the trait, etc. Describe that a heritable traits are emergent properties of genes and memes. I like examples too so an example of shifts in gene alleles in Stickleback fish or how memes function in evolution would be a great addition. Just a suggestion. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks GetAgrippa - The problem with your proposal is that evolution does not describe things, evolutionary biologists do. This critique could be launched against my proposal, but evolution is a theory (a network of meta-theory really). Theories refer to facts, observations, phenomena, or effects and specific in this instance, evolutionary theories refer to these things in biology. I would not include memes in this article on biological evolution, perhaps a brief note on a sub-section on cultural evolution - even though I realize many people would not support that idea. Like Richard Lewontin I agree that there is a problem with "cultural evolution" and I also think Stephen Pinker gives the more productive conceptualization to refer to a cognitive niche instead of cultural evolution. It should not be at all surprising to find problems when taking a theory developed for biological phenomena and then dropping it onto a whole other domain that it was not originally designed to address. It took Darwin countless hours to develop the theory in reference to material phenomena and it was designed with that intent in mind. However, the concept of cultural evolution has been explored a great deal in the literature with some evolutionary biologists seeing more than an analogy and this is certainly something that could be mentioned in a paragraph. First, a paragraph on phylogenetics is more desperately needed and some day - perhaps when I get ecology up to FA status - I will bite into that project. In the meantime, you are correct that the current lead could be interpreted exactly as you have indicated - a fox changing hair color coats with seasons - falls exactly under the definition given for evolution: "any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations." Coat color is an inheritable, is changes with seasons across successive generations, and it occurs in biological populations - yet it is not evolution.Thompsma (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Gee didn't mean to open a can of worms with the memes but at least I see your point with problem with "change". If change isn't in the proper context it is misleading. My hopes is you will get phylogenetics in the article too. I'm still fond of examples of evolution though and perhaps I should just write an offshoot article with great examples and models of evolution in bacteria, fungi, protist, plants, and all sorts of animals. There is a rich literature of examples that the novice reader would find interesting like the recent find with fence lizards and fire ants. I think many naive readers believe evolution is only a theory-which often translates to them as a bunch of meaningless equations or ideas and not something real and measureable as shifts in gene alleles in populations of stickleback fish and changes in traits. GetAgrippa (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't open a can of worms with me, but I suspect that the idea would have been knocked down quickly. The problem with memes is that they didn't really survive as well as their name suggests they should have. Suprisingly, genes did - even though the theory of the gene has its own troubled history as an abstraction of reality.[54]Thompsma (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that seasonal coat color change is not within the definition. The inherited characteristic (i.e., a tendency to be brown in summer and white in winter) is not changing from one generation to the next. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends on how you read it. In one generation the coat colour changes. In the next generation the coat color changes. It is changing from one generation to the next. The causal reason for the change is not evolutionary divergence, but rather it is due to ontological / physiological / seasonal factors.Thompsma (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

My most recent proposal covers this, because evolution can refer to coat colour change and offer up an explanation. Perhaps the colour change is an adaptation, camoflauge, thermal advantages, and so on...evolutionary theories can refer to the change. However, the change itself may not be evolutionary - descent, with modification.Thompsma (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The cycle of change is still shorter than fox lifespan; I think your argument would require fox lifespan to be shorter than one year. Also, since breeding is in the spring, they always start off brown (though I think the current definition wouldn't require that to be the case). Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This does not seem relevant to the argument at all. The literal translation of the current definition states: "Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations." - The ontological developmental change in a fox, coat colour, growth, or whatever, qualifies as any change. They are inheritable characteristics responding to and at the same time modifying the environment - norm of reaction. This is not evolution, but evolutionary theory refers to this kind of stuff. Evolutionary hypotheses, such as evolutionary trees, refer to characters that vary and survive in the divergence of a lineage as a result of differential fitness. The current lead is incorrect.Thompsma (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Developmental change (etc) is not change across successive generations; it is change within a single generation. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

break and call for opinion

Given that no one raised any major objection to the direction the conversation took in recent days, maybe we should call for opinions on this proposal:

• CURRENT: Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations.
• PROPOSED: Evolution in biology refers to change, over successive generations, in the inheritable characteristics of organisms in biological populations.

Regards--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I am ok with either one. Nevertheless, I still prefer the current one, only because it is more concise. If it were me, I would reorder the present lede statement and omit the word "any" as follows:

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations across successive generations."

Regards. danielkueh (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I am also OK with either, with only a very slight preference for the current on the grounds of being more concise.Joannamasel (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The current one is better, and the proposal provides no new information. What's the point? Graft | talk 22:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "Evolution, in biology, refers to the modification of heritable traits of organisms within populations over successive generations". It is descent with "modification". Glad to hear from you Graft-long time. Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC).

Less wordy is better, imho, so I lean towards the current phrasing. — raekyt 23:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well if simple is the strategy then : "Evolution is the modification of heritable traits within populations through generations". This addresses it isn't just any change but the modification of an ancestral trait to a new derived trait, "within" populations refers to individuals within the population with new derived traits gaining success within the population, and no need to put successive because generations implies succession. GetAgrippa (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with that definition, any first year biology student is taught that Evolution is the change in allele frequency within a breeding population's gene pool, or something very similar to that, and i concede simplifying it to more public friendly terms to get rid of "allele frequency" and "breeding population" and "gene pool" since they're probably not something an average Joe would know, but I don't think "modification of heritable traits" is accurate to the standard most common definition of evolution. What we have now is closest, but not entirely accurate, but close enough for me to be ok with. The further you get away from "Changes in allele frequency in a breeding population" the more I have a problem with it. — raekyt 02:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well descent with modification and then Dobzhansky's shift in gene alleles and the gene-centric pop genetics definition are popular but that implies that only shifts in gene alleles are responsbile for evolution-wwhich the change can be in noncoding regions and not a shift in gene alleles, it can be epigenetic, and it ignores large genomic duplications and chromosomal differences, and its biased towards diploid sexually reproducing populations and ignores haploid organisms or asexual organisms. GetAgrippa (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the mechanisms of evolution are complex, but the basic definition taught initially is "change in allele frequency of a breeding population." I think the opening sentence should be basic and as little wording as possible the later details can be explained in the body. Unless there is sources showing that top universities introduce evolution to freshmen as a different definition then that, then I think it would be best to stick with the simple definition for the opening sentence. There are of course other things than coding alleles in variation, but the MAJORITY of an organisms traits are from coding alleles, and then transcription factors in the embryo that it gets from the parents, but the majority is from alleles. Unless there is some new evidence that shows that the vast majority of evolutionary change isn't allele frequency then I would be in favor of straying away from the definition I gave, otherwise we should try to be as close as possible for the opening sentence. — raekyt 03:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the current statement as well, although I agree with Daniel that placing "across successive generations" at the end makes it more readable. I'm undecided about the use of "any;" I'm not yet convinced that it's a mistake, but I think perhaps it is not the best encyclopedic style. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight-the posit is all evolution can be explained by shifts in gene alleles through successive generations? So I guess epistasis and gene interactions and networks have nothing to do with it? And then I guess that vast majority of most genomes (what use to called junk DNA)has nothing to do with development and evolution-it is all in gene alleles so mutations anywhere else have nothing to do with it? Is that what is proposed? GetAgrippa (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Did I say that? Evolution is the result of changes in allele frequency in a breeding population. Other factors are at play too, but the MAJORITY of the change is the result of allele frequency changes within the population. Are you proposing that we somehow try to synthesis some convoluted all-encompassing definition that has elements of every mechanism of evolutionary change into one mega-definition of evolution for our opening sentence? All I said is, unless proven otherwise that major universities are teaching a different basic definition of evolution for their freshmen biology majors then we shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel. I would say any definition would need reliable sources and we shouldn't synthesize our own. — raekyt 12:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No one is suggesting reinventing the wheel that would be original research but just put the correct wheels on! There are all kinds of evolutionary biologist some of which are population geneticist but seems undue weight with just a pop geneticist perspective. The human genome has many genes some with no alleles and some with hundreds of alleles-polymorphisms in populations can be both genetic and environmental. I think shifts in gene alleles is too restrictive and it is the trait and phenotype that interested both Darwin and Mendel. Further comparing humans and chimps it isn't so much gene alleles that makes us different but we have one less chromosome and various transpositions and inversions that are different too-shifts in gene alleles didn't produce these differences. Duplication events of genes, or chromosomes isn't a gene allele shift phenomena. Hybridization can give rise to new species and it is gene flow not gene allele shifts responsible for the new species. In the past I too supported the shifts in gene alleles but now I believe it is too restrictive. The differences in freshwater and saltwater stickleback fish is from mutations in enhancers regulating the gene not any change in the gene itself or alleles (Pitx-1 gene is the same in both just regulated differently). GetAgrippa (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

ok, next suggestion

OK then, based on the responses, I think we need to make a new request for opinions about whether DK's tweak is acceptable to everyone?

• CURRENT: Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations.
• PROPOSED: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations across successive generations.

I think it is a simple and uncontroversial improvement. Do others agree? It seems so from opinions above already registered. But I would like to raise a secondary question which is why the "in biology" was ever removed from this sentence. It used to be there. Is it just obvious that evolution is by default the biological meaning? I personally do not think so, and I do not recall this point ever having been widely agreed. I seem to recall that the change slipped through with some other changes? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Proposed is probably better in this instance, it's just geting rid of "any" and reordering it to read better. I think it obvious that this page is about biological evolution, and not some other use of it. We don't need to play into the creationist hand by their assertion that there is crazy things like "chemical evolution" "cosmological evolution" and all the other "types" of evolution that Kent Hovind brings up in his lectures (now his son Eric does). Do university biology textbooks introduce evolution as biological evolution in their opening remarks? It seems redundant and obvious how it's used here for biology. — raekyt 12:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, I agree that the proposed sentence as you stated it above is grammatically simpler for those who read English as a second language, and it is important to remember those readers. Looking back to the previous discussion, I could see including the word "gradual" in the interest of clarity and accuracy, but either way I think this proposal is an improvement. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• What is with the "biological populations" why not just populations? It seems also redundant to state biological here as well.. — raekyt 12:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• PROPOSED#2: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of populations across successive generations.

Raeky stated: "Evolution is the result of changes in allele frequency in a breeding population. Other factors are at play too, but the MAJORITY of the change is the result of allele frequency changes within the population." - Not only are other factors at play, but a great many evolutionary biologists would and have voiced their disagreement on what has been called the "standard genetic definition" of evolution. Evolution is not the result of changes in allele frequency in a breeding population - that is just bookkeeping as Stephen J. Gould (and many others) have stated repeatedly. Ernst Mayr, Richard Lewontin, Niles Eldredge, and many others have repeatedly voiced their discontent with that kind of definition. None of them deny that allele frequencies change in populations, but they would all argue that this kind of definition is inadequate to provide a causal understanding of evolution. I oppose the latest proposals, because they are indadequate. I am not suggesting that we have a definition that covers cosmic evolution, nor am I even taking the epigenetic stance of GetGrippa, although I am sympathetic to those issues in evolution. I can provide enough literature and reason to demonstrate that "Evolution is not the change in the inherited characteristics of populations across successive generations." - This kind of thing happens to organisms in populations. It is not a correct definition of evolution. Once again, populations do not have inheritable traits - organisms (or individuals) do. Evolutionary theory provides a causal mechanism explaining varieties that can be observed and patterns of divergence that can be tested; causal mechanisms involve selection and sorting. Selection and sorting act on the inheritable characterstics of populations across successive generations, but change is insufficient to cover the concept of divergence, speciation, and laws of emergence that have been covered extensively in evolutionary theory. This is why my proposal offers a solution to this problem. I might accept:

• "Evolution refers to change in the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations across successive generations."Thompsma (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Theres not much difference between what you just proposed and I did, instead of is you have refers, that is probably ok, but this opening sentence isn't the whole article theres plenty of space to discuss exceptions and divergence of opinions on the definition. You add the word organisms, which I think is redundant since population specifically refers to populations of organisms and evolution doesn't necessarily have to refer to just biologically alive DNA/RNA based organisms that we traditionally think of... so long as it can pass on variable material that can confer advantage and it reproduces it can evolve, doesn't have to be what we traditionally think of as alive. Computer algorithms can be written to evolve clocks for example, or very primitive pre-life isn't what you'd consider an organism but it would evolve without mechanisms we traditionally think of as being involved. So I would make the case that the word organism should be removed in favor of just a population. The first paragraph doesn't need to be all-encompassing definition of every facet of evolutionary theory, it should be very understandable by a lay-person and therefore needs to be simple. Further sentences would expound on the concepts of non-allele variation I would think. — raekyt 19:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a big difference in stating what evolution is versus what the term refers to. It may be small in terms of # of words, but meaning is critically important here. The word organism is not redundant, because a population is not an organism and evolutionary biologists study organisms. Populations are abstractions and they do not have traits - this was already discussed above and the things changing are the ancestral-descendant sequences of organisms (not populations, although one could make that argument - this is not the place to extend such abstractions of the theory). I have no idea what you are talking about in reference to "what we traditionally think of as alive," plus this is an article on biological evolution, not evolutionism, which would include computer programs.Thompsma (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Once again, populations do not have inheritable traits - organisms (or individuals) do." Well said! Semantics is very important in science so we need to be accurate. I wonder if "in populations" is sufficient or perhaps "within and across populations (coevolution)" is more descriptive? I know, Iknow keep it simple. Hmmmmm. Evolution is the change in heritable traits of populations over succesive generations is confusing. Within a sexual reproducing population, every generation will always exhibit some change because sexual recombination will create new combinations of alleles and so changes in traits is inevitable, however evolution doesn't take place till a trait becomes more prominent in a population because of selection or drift. Evolution acts on the variation of traits within a pop. such one may become more successful. Fruit flies have evolved resistance to synthetic pesticides because of a 35K old transposon but the evolution didn't take place till the last 100 years when natural selection made the trait more prominent. Evolution is the shift in traits of individuals in a population in successive generations. The fact biological organisms have changing traits isn't evolution it is the change in the frequency of a trait is evolution. GetAgrippa (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is why I am making the claim that no person - even Gould (my personal hero) could derive a lead sentence that would define evolution. However, we can create a lead sentence that can define what the theory of evolution refers to and that sentence could be something that gives a very general overview on the topic.Thompsma (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thompsma I couldn't agree more. I believe every reader wants to change the lead sentence-I know I did. I still agree with Thompsma about "change" because it implies the trait changes rather than the preponderance of the trait. I think: "Evolution is the shift in heritable traits of organisms in populations through successive generations" is getting closer. GetAgrippa (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As the sentence stands it can be rephrased to: Evolution is any change in a populations inheritable traits through successive generations. With the caveat that populations consist of individual organisms is implied or understood. That way it is clear it is the population that is changing and not the trait. At present it reads Evolution is any change of inheritable traits so the emphasis is on traits and implies the traits are somehow changing, which as Thompsma and a population geneticist would tell you it is the organisms within a population through successive generations that are changing traits (and sometimes shifting the frequency of allele genotypes within the population too). Good gooly that reads like crap too. You really have to indicate individuals within a population. Evolution is any change in organsims of a population inheritable traits through successive generations. Gee I think I have a brain hemorrhoid. GetAgrippa (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Dang wrong freakin' sentence. It is presently:Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations. Gee I guess it is Ok except maybe changing the end to "charcteristics of organisms in populations". I do have a brain hemorrhoid-it's official. A long list of expletives would make me feel better. GetAgrippa (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

.

Part of the problem is the ongoing dialogue about evolution as fact and theory. By saying evolution is something, it is being treated as a fact and I do not understand evolution in these terms. Evolution offers the best explanation of the body of facts, but it is not in itself a fact no matter how true it may be. A fact is an object or a process, but a true factual proposition is not a fact no matter how much you confirm, corroborate, or even refute a hypothesis or theory. It is a violation of the philosophy of science to claim that theories can transmute into fact. Natural selection is a metatheory, evolution is part of the metatheory. Organisms are facts, and their characteristics are facts. So to say that "Evolution is something" is treating it as though it is a fact, when it is really a theory. It is far more useful to understand and to present evolution as a theory. What evolutionary biologist has not treated evolution as a theory? Some have called it a fact, some have not, all have called it a theory. Theories refer to things, cause effect relations. When Ernst Mayr wrote his book on what evolution is, he wrote about the theory. Trying to summarize evolution as a fact that is "change in a populations inheritable traits through successive generations" is a confirmation of the obvious, but it hardly offers an explanation nor a definition of evolution from the conception of an entangled bank.

The current lead also refers abstractly to a single population as though you can turn evolution into some kind of minimizing principle, where the interactive stuff becomes secondary. Once you understand this minimizing principle, all the rest will follow. I don't buy into this idea. It is surprising to me that so many want to argue in favor of this kind of abstract definition that is contrary to the way that Richard Lewontin, Stephen J. Gould, Elisabeth Lloyd, Niles Eldredge, Ernst Mayr, George Gaylord Simpson, Sewall Wright, and a long list of scientific actors (including Darwin) wrote about the topic. These scientists gave us a very large part of the modern understanding of evolution and it gets thwarted in the first sentence? It would be far easier to argue that natural selection is an epistemilogical theory and an ontological fact. It is presented epistemilogically as a law of theory, a three part syllogism. It is also a process that is a factual part of the world, because variations, inheritability, and differential survival of organisms are facts, effects, and phenomena that occur in populations, that have been observed in nature, and experimentally realized by means of artificial selection. Natural selection is not evolution, but it is a means to it. Hence, I stand by my most recent proposal, re-posted here using an underlined elaboration on the concept:

• "Evolution by means of natural selection is the theory that refers to change in the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations across successive generations."

The underlined part can, of course, be removed. I will continue to read counter-proposals, but restate the claim that the current state of the lead sentence is presenting the reader a factual error about evolution. The cause being described by the actual theory of evolution is the origin of varieties, including genes, organisms, species, traits, or "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Darwin's original thesis kinda laid out the theory for us - we should use it.Thompsma (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a few comments.

• As you know, I don't agree with your definition of the word "fact," but I will save it for when I start editing "Evolution as fact and theory." :-)

• When I read "the inherited characteristics of biological populations," I interpret "the sum of all characteristics within that population and the associated frequencies." I imagine this was the intended sense - the word "of" is interpreted as the word "within." That being said, I wouldn't object to a change to "within;" I'm undecided on "of organisms in populations" mainly on the basis of concision. (Though if it were used I would recommend "of 'the' organisms in populations" for clarity.)

• I don't think there is a semantic difference between "is" and "refers to." Every word in every language "refers to" some concept; I don't think "is" necessarily implies that it is a singular thing that is referred to. E.g. if I say "An apple is a fruit produced by the Malus domestica tree..." I don't think I'm implying that all apples are identical. I could equivalently say " "Apple" [with an extra set of quotation marks] refers to a fruit produced by..." I am adding an extra semantic layer, i.e. I am talking about "apples" instead of apples, i.e. the word rather than the concept, but I don't think this is necessary for accuracy. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am looking forward to your insight on fact. To be clear, it is not my definition - but a definition that I have inherited from literature that I've cited (you know where, e.g., see page 13). The word "is: verb - 3rd person singular present indicative of be."[55] Not only does it imply that that it is a singular thing, the definition states is is singular and we know evolution is not. And apples and evolution are not the same thing, so the metaphor is too weak to comment on. Although, I am a fan of your work and feedback Arc. "When I read "the inherited characteristics of biological populations," I interpret "the sum of all characteristics within that population and the associated frequencies." - You shouldn't interpret it as the sum, but as the multiplication of or division of, because that will give you a new sort of quantity. Combine them, but don't add them. When you do this you have a very different conception of evolution, simple summation is part of the problem here. Richard Dawkin's wrote:

• "“What is the entity about which you may say that an adaptation is good for it?” Is it for the good of the group, the individual, the gene, life as a whole, or what? My own answer to the question—the gene—is not the answer Ernst Mayr would give—the organism."

Dawkins (and others of the genetic essentialism camp) refer to the gene, Darwin, Mayr, (and many others of the dialectic interactor camp) refer to the organism. In last years debate on the lead we settled on traits rather than genes. Organisms have traits and they also have genes. Genes are theoretical entities - sequences of information as Dawkins defines them - organisms are not. Like Lewontin, Gould, and Sewall Wright, I have always found Dawkins' genetic essentialist conception to be a very weak scientific argument, but I'm not here to argue that point. The point I want to focus on is organisms, which were so important to the populationist thinking of Darwin's theory, which undermined the conceptual idea of species stability. I will re-quote the Mayr definition that brings organisms and populations together: "Evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms over time. Let's translate that (gradually) to our definition: "Evolution is change in the inheritable characteristics of populations of organisms over time." The current form: "Evolution is any change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." - My proposal: "Evolution refers to the change across successive generations in the inheritable characteristics of populations of organisms over successive generations." It is true that Ernst Mayr says that "Evolution is...", but I think it is an odd thing to contrive something so plural into a singular. A more inclusive approach - a consensus if you will - of a definition that brackets Gould to Dawkin's is to say that Evolution is a theory that refers to different kinds of change, sometimes it also refers to stability (i.e., preservation), because that is an important part of the theory as well.Thompsma (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If the word is means: "3rd person singular present indicative of be", then it is pointing out the state "to be". Editors want to define evolution as something that changes, yet at the same time define that evolution is something in some kind of state ("to be"). But if it means change, then it must change from one state to another in order to be what it is. It must be a process of changing states, to be in one state and then in another state, character states perhaps? Can all characters and states be treated the same, so they can be summed? If one character increases metabolic rate, while another improves on the beauty of an individual, do we sum these states into a singular definition of what evolution is - changing character states across successive generations? Or does evolution refer to character states, indicative of them, to integrate the science of what is evolving or has evolved?Thompsma (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A few more comments. :-)

-The word "is" is grammatically singular. (Perhaps I could have chosen a better example.) Instead of saying "An apple is," you could say "Humanity is," but this doesn't mean that humanity is a singular thing. It takes the singular "is" because as the English language developed people grouped humans into a single category represented by a singular word: e.g. instead of "Humanity is," you might say "All humans are," but the only difference is grammatical. Further examples would be "Science is," "The Universe is," "Epistemology is," and so forth.

-Unless Mayr has specifically discussed the word "is" elsewhere, I think the quote implies that he thinks the use of the word is valid. :-)

-Yes, when I said "sum" I meant to use the word in the sense "a general accounting for," i.e. the totality including the interactions and so forth (although of course any change can still be fully described by listing all the relevant individual changes). If we were to focus on a single gene I would simply interpret "any change in the relative frequencies of the forms of the genes [i.e. alleles] found within that population." But it seems to me that "biological populations" and "populations of organisms" are if not equivalent, very nearly so. Again, I would prefer the first on the basis of concision but not for any other reason.

-For your last comment, evolution does refer to a process, but analogous to above that doesn't mean it has to be grammatically plural. Weather events are also processes that pass through many intermediate states but we still say e.g. "A hurricane is." (And if you state that the word "is" is incorrect then you must state that the word "are" is correct.) Unless I am misunderstanding you?

-Did I miss anything? It would be great if you could try and increase your concision before posting. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the problem with biology is there are always exceptions to the rule so we have to be general but also inclusive-find a compromise. I apprecite the conciseness of Thompsma's proposal but perhaps "Evolution refers to the change (or "shift" as a nod to shifts in alleles and emphasize that traits are changing in frequencies and not a trait changing) in the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations across successive generations." It is real short :Evolution "describes" maybe rather than refers as a nod to theory aspect. Thus: "Evolution describes the shift in inherited characteristics of organisms in populations across successive generations". Maybe "change" is better, but describes maybe better than refer. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thompsma your last statements really got me pondering. Recently you've probably read about the study of fence lizards interacting with invasive fire ants such that in areas with high pop of ants the lizards maintain a juvenile behavior of twitching and running rather than playing possum' and getting consumed in minutes as most-apparently their limbs are significantly longer morphologically too. This was reported as evolution in action , and I have no idea if any genetic studies have been performed, but it really raises questions related to some of your points. Telling this story isn't just examining lizard morphology but their behaviors and interactions with other species too. What they are observing are differences in character traits and not genetic differences, which I really have my doubts there really is any at this stage. GetAgrippa (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

GetAgrippa, I think you're onto something with the idea of replacing change with shift, because you're right, it's not the trait that is changing, but a shift in the frequency with which the trait occurs in the population. I think it also important to note that while it is the organisms that individually inherit and express these traits, the change is an aggregate shift in traits among the population. Sadly, there are still a lot of people out there who think of evolution as a theory that says monkeys changed into humans. The lead sentence might be the better off for indicating a "shift" rather than a "change" and should focus more on the population than the organism. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What about something like this?

• "Evolution is a shift, over successive generations, in the inherited traits of organisms among a given population."

Or replace "is" with "refers to", I don't care about that. Divergence between populations isn't evolution, it's just evidence of the evolution that has occurred within the diverging populations, so I think "organisms among a given population" covers it. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Shift is not a word I am particularly comfortable with:

1. to put (something) aside and replace it by another or others; change or exchange: to shift friends; to shift ideas.
2. to transfer from one place, position, person, etc., to another: to shift the blame onto someone else.[56]

The key point is that evolution (as theory) provides explanations of the differences between organisms. There is a multi-verse of explanations (natural selection, red queen, genetic drift, founder effect, vicariance, constructal law of organization, Hardy-Weinberg, assembling phenotypes in space, norm-of-reaction, Baldwin effect, niche construction, monophyly, paraphyly, homology, homoplasy, and so on...). To say that there is a shift would imply that there was a discontinuity and if it is just a transfer, then there was no divergence. GetGrippa - you are referring to the genes as followers versus leaders debate, starting with Mark Baldwin's landmark paper - a great read if you're into the history of this stuff. The lead sentence needs to emphasize that it is inheritable traits in organisms that maintain the line of continuity from one generation to the next and it is in populations where selection and sorting occurs. If you want to maintain that evolution is something then:

• Evolution is a natural process where inheritable traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations, which causes divergence across a species range and over time.

This way is refers to a process. The other problem with the current lead is that it refers to evolution over time only, but there is [spatial evolution] to consider as well.Thompsma (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the strategy was just to reach some kind of compromise (between the editors arguing shifts in gene alleles,etc.) but I have no illusions any choice will either make readers happy nor likely stay the same. A little irony the evolution lead sentence tends to evolve. Cheers,GetAgrippa (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My dictionary (American Heritage, 4th ed.) includes a few other definitions of "shift", including a change in direction (as a shift in the wind), and I think several of these are as appropriate as any other word, but the AHD also defines evolve as "to develop or achieve gradually," so it occurred to me that if not everyone is satisfied with either "change" or "shift", maybe "development" would be an option. Thus,

"Evolution is the development of inherited traits of organisms among a given population over successive generations."

Thoughts? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the dictionary def on shift, I was thinking of researching the word shift further, but my dictionaries are packed away. However, I felt comfortable rejecting shift for other reasons that were apparent. It is not the term that is used in evolutionary literature, whereas many evolutionary biologists have referred to sorting (e.g., random genetic drift) and selection (i.e., natural selection). I have heard of niche shift, climatic shift, and of a species shifting in range, but cannot recall reading much about a genetic shift, or an evolutionary shift unless it is referring to something obscure or abrupt. It is not the appropriate term. Evolutionary biologists refer to divergence, as in species or genetic divergence. This is not a case of the lead sentence evolving, it is about correcting a fundamental error that has lodged itself into the very start of this featured article and I would like to see the error corrected.

Wilhelm_meis' next proposal on development is a definite oppose and it does not make sense. I reads like you are just throwing words in that you like, without understanding the conceptual meaning behind them; not to be offensive, but that is what it seems like. Development has a very specific meaning in evolutionary theory, such as it is used in ontogeny or the semaphorant hypotheses. Ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny is an important dictum of evolutionary theory. We can go with inherited, and a few other tweaks:

• Proposal: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations and this causes divergence across generations and throughout a species geographic range.

I lilke the divergence idea (cause it includes HGT and hybridization). Perhaps rather than process call it a phenomena: Evolution is a natural phenomena where inherited traits of ogranisms are selected and sorted in populations causing the divergence across successive generations. Shorten it a bit. Call it a phenomena and refer to the processes???GetAgrippa (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Divergence is general enough to refer to both genetic and species divergence. The concept of "selection and sorting" (and here, and even here) is used widely in evolutionary literature, among genetic essentialists and hierarchical evolutionists alike.Thompsma (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The second part to my proposal is a bit clumsy, how about:

• Proposal2: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations, which causes divergence across successive generations and in a species geographic range.

The terms "causes divergence" has been used with regularity, I think it is useful to adapt bits of phrases and conceptions used by publishing evolutionary biologists to offer a good representation of the theory.Thompsma (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually that is obviously offensive, and I think you knew that. You don't seem to be very interested in collaboration, so just write whatever you want. I have other fish to fry. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 06:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not my intent to be offensive, just pointed out what seemed obvious in all honesty. I've had professional editors say far worse critiques in my manuscript proposals. It goes with the territory and it also helps to make me think a bit deeper about what I am trying to say when a sharp critique is deserved. Your proposal made no sense, suggesting that evolution is development when clearly it is not. Collaborate, but do a bit of research in your proposals for credibility - evolution is not an opinion, it is a science.Thompsma (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

GetAgrippa - I have not yet got around to incorporating text on evolutionary phenomena into the evolution as fact and theory article, but have done the research on this. Evolution is not a phenomena, so that idea will not work (see here for an explanation of phenomena). My only concern with divergence is that it does not cover the branching process. Evolution includes anagenesis(divergence) and cladogenesis(splitting). Hence:

• Proposal3: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations. Evolution causes genetic divergence and the formation of new species over successive generations and biogeographically.Thompsma (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Just an update comment. I think some of the proposals now being discussed are very awkward English and I am not convinced by the logical "necessity" of the added complications. Of course it is up to more people than just me but I just wanted to note some doubts from one person about whether this direction is going to lead anything that will get a consensus. As a second point though, it seems from the above discussion, before it went in other directions, that some non-controversial simplification of the existing sentence is possible and I will try making the appropriate edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What is awkward about the latest proposal Andrew? However, I am not necessarily the best judge of my own writing. If you could be more specific on the problem with the proposal that would be more helpful. Just saying that it is "very awkward English" is not saying very much. I would like to see some guidance in your critique. For example, you could state that there is a split infinitive in the sentence if that is the kind of grammatical problem you can identify. Specific and direct information is useful. The current lead paragraph is very awkward indeed (grammatically and logically), because evolution is not the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations as it claims. It would be more precise to state that evolution is the replacement of inherited characteristics in biological populations. The grammar is awkward because of the use of "the" definite article in front of change. "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics..." Why is this not written in the more general form of the indefinite article? "Evolution is a change..." or "Evolution is change in the inherited characteristics..." Hence, the grammar of the current lead sentence is awkward. Moving onto the logic of it: "In Darwinian theory, evolutionary change is the product of sorting (differential birth and death among varying organisms within a population). Sorting is a simple description of differential representation; it contains, in itself, no statement about causes." Note: evolutionary change contains no statement about causes. Causes are important and as I have stated previously: "‘Change’ is not the pertinent quality of interest in evolution, but rather explanations of the differences between organisms." Hence, I provide citable links to three notable evolutionary biologists making two claims: 1) that evolutionary change makes no statement about causes, and 2) that evolutionary change is not the quality of interest. Yet, the first sentence in this article wants to make the claim that "Evolution is change..."

Moreover, the use of the definite article "the" in front of change implies falsely that there is some very specific kind of change that is evolution. What kind of change? "Change in the inherited characteristics..." It would almost make better sense to write: "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of the biological populations...". Hopefully you can see the grammatical problem with the abuse of the definite article. The current lead sentence is vague and factually incorrect, because it is really the replacement of inherited characteristics that causes evolution not the change in the inherited characteristics. Evolutionary biologists state that: "Biological evolution consists of two processes: anagenesis (or phyletic evolution) and cladogenesis (i.e., splitting). My proposal covers both anagenesis and cladogenesis, where the current lead does not. Obviously, the evolutionary process involves some kind of selection process (i.e., natural selection) and there is also a sorting (i.e., non-causal drift) that occurs and my proposal addresses this. The second sentence in the current lead is an even greater disaster in meaning and in grammatical structure. Likewise, I do see a grammatical error in the second sentence of my proposal where I should have used "or" instead of "and", hence:

• Proposal4: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations. Evolution causes genetic divergence and the formation of new species biogeographically or over successive generations.Thompsma (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thompsma (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

convenience break

First, a quick summary of the more simple proposals so far:

• RECENT: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations across successive generations.
• SIMPLIFICATION: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations across successive generations.
• Raeky modification:Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of populations across successive generations.
• My modification: Evolution in biology is the change in the inherited characteristics of populations across successive generations.

And here is the series of proposals from the discussion of GetAgrippa and Thompsma:

• Thompsma compromise reaction to Raeky: Evolution refers to change in the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations across successive generations.
• Milliam Meis proposal: Evolution is a shift, over successive generations, in the inherited traits of organisms among a given population.
• Thompsma reaction: Evolution is a natural process where inheritable traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations, which causes divergence across a species range and over time.
• William Meis reaction: Evolution is the development of inherited traits of organisms among a given population over successive generations.
• Proposal: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations and this causes divergence across generations and throughout a species geographic range.
• Proposal2: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations, which causes divergence across successive generations and in a species geographic range.
• Proposal3: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations. Evolution causes genetic divergence and the formation of new species over successive generations and biogeographically.
• Proposal4: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations. Evolution causes genetic divergence and the formation of new species biogeographically or over successive generations.

Now here are my comments on why I do not prefer the evolution, so to speak, represented in the latter discussion.

1. Firstly, I believe that basically all terms in the first sentence should be ones which do not need long discussion or special study in order to understand in one clear way for a reasonably well educated English speaker. Consider whether "natural process" and "sorted and selected" meet this criteria. If they do, then they can be replaced with simpler terms. If they don't then it is not clear what they are supposed to mean. The style can sometimes work in lectures: you start with a technical sentence and then you go through each of the technical terms. But it does not suit the opening line of a Wikipedia article, partly because different parts of the article are written by different people at different times. We need a very modular way of writing.

2. Secondly I think that the push to try to solve supposed logical problems is over-stretched. I see no reason to say that this Wikipedia article is about "the term" evolution, and not about evolution as such. I see no reason to specify that characteristics inherited within biological populations are inherited by the individuals within those populations. I see no reason to replace characteristics with traits. And so on.

3. Just in general, these proposals are demonstrably going to get longer and longer, and try to do more and more. They are trying to do to much in one sentence. This is a classic problem on Wikipedia: over-worked openings, which try to fit everything at the start of an article. If we want to modify the lead as a whole or the article as a whole, then we should discuss those wholes, and not try to work only on the opening sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, simple is good, and we don't want to get overly technical in the opening sentence. We have the whole rest of the article to explain things in further detail, but most of this article's readers are not geneticists (and English is a second language for many of en.Wiki's readers), and we don't want to lose them at the first sentence. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with some of Andrew's points, but agree with Wilhelm that simple is beneficial to reach a wider audience. First off, however, as an educator on evolution I would like to know who is the adjudicator of what is simple? I teach evolution to high school students and have been studying feed-back responses using an instrument for a number of years. I have used Ed's Tools (see also) on evolutionary and ecological concepts and most of the terms I use are acceptable to a grade 10 level - testing the terms I have borrowed on a sample size of 178 students at that grade level. I think some assumptions need to be checked on what people can and cannot grasp. If someone comes to a page on evolution and has a problem with the concept of "natural process", then they should go to introduction to evolution, because natural and process are relatively simple concepts to integrate. Sorting is not difficult. Selection is not difficult. The alternative, Andrew, is to retain an introduction to the concept of evolution that is factually incorrect, but simpler to understand. A factually incorrect view may be simpler to understand, but if this is so, then the concept is not truly being understood, which does not make it simpler, but wrong. I will not accept factual inconsistencies and nobody in here should agree that this is an acceptable practice for the sake of simplicity.

I work with other biologists who have an interest in the public outreach of this and other scientific topics. We meet regularly to discuss the possibilities of public-outreach in wikipedia, but evolution is a problem that we have flagged. I realize that there are evolutionary biologists working in here, but there is something very peculiar in this article because there are is lot of sloppiness. Your point #2 about the term evolution vs. the concept is not what this is about and it is a peculiar interpretation of what is going on here. Clearly, I am writing about evolution, not the term - whatever that means.

I fully agree that the rest of this article has much work to improve on and yet here we are. I have worked and worked on this article much harder than any other article in wikipedia and I cannot get a simple edit to repair a factual error on the stupid lead sentence! I am left to conclude that something else is fundamentally wrong here with this particular article. What is going on with the social editorial dynamics in this particular article? Why is there such a barrier? Is it an American thing? A response to creationism? It is weird whatever it is and even worthy of investigation. Contributions are being thwarted without good justification. I work diligently in other articles, find great collaborations, and other editors note improvements, but in evolution the work is unjustly rejected. Evolution is something I am passionate about and I disappointed to find a few stubborn ring-leader editors who do not want to collaborate, but would rather perform arm-chair rejections without offering substantive assistance.

Your point #3 is exactly the problem I am trying to solve. You have misplaced your critique, because it is the current lead sentence that is trying "to fit everything at the start", which is a good reason to suspect why the factual error exists. Your point that these proposals are going to get longer and longer is incorrect. In fact, the final proposal is a truncation of the first paragraph in the current lead. I have not proposed anything that is longer and longer. This is hyperbole, a sloppy critique. I am fine with using characteristics instead of traits, that must have been a copy paste transition that occurred - I would have retained the former for simplicity. I absolutely want to work on the rest of the article, but once we find a way to work together and fix the first glaring error - then I will be willing to go into the meat of this article. I am fine with the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs of the lead - it is the first paragraph that is incorrect and it needs to be repaired.

For your question, I would say "a response to creationism." My first thought is that a high-traffic article like this one has the potential to change thousands of lives through education, and the lead is the most important part of all, and the first sentence is the most important part of the lead. When I was first taught evolution, the definition we started with was "change of species over time" - using no words that an average person wouldn't know. I couldn't have understood the definition we have here until we had actually finished.

Although I hope I'm not in the group you're calling "stubborn" - I'm just making whatever observations I think would lead to the best result. :-) It's true that I'm not offering suggestions, but there are already a lot being discussed and I tend to not pay as much attention to pages that already have a lot of editors. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Proposal5: Evolution is a natural process where inherited characteristics of organisms are selected and sorted in populations. Evolution causes genetic divergence and it explains how new species originate in different places or over successive generations.

I am looking forward to constructive collaboration and not another lame statement equivalent to - "I don't like it." My six year old can give better feedback than this. This proposal is shorter than the current first paragraph to the lead. Please put some legitimate thought into the feedback and offer constructive assistance. Rejection is simple. Working with others is the more difficult road, but at least roads can lead us somewhere.Thompsma (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of getting a little more complicated, but in the interest of collaboration toward something that works, here is my feedback on this proposal. I think breaking it into two sentences could be a reasonable solution. By simple I don't mean dumbed down to the point of inaccuracy. I mean grammatically simple (such as avoiding stacking too many dependent clauses into a single sentence), mostly for the sake of 1) young readers and 2) ESL readers. I think I was the one who introduced "traits" in the sentence, partly because traits was in the name of the linked article and partly because I think "traits" is as easily understood as "characteristics", but I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other on traits vs. characteristics. Technically it is the traits (e.g. blonde hair) rather than the characteristics (e.g. hair color) that are being selected and sorted, is it not? So here is what I would change about the latest proposal:

Evolution is the natural process of selection and sorting of inherited traits of organisms across populations over successive generations. Evolution causes genetic divergence between populations in different places, and this explains how new species originate.

I also rearranged the words a bit, in order to group some ideas together, such as the logical flow of traits > organisms > populations > generations, and reserving "divergence between populations in different places" ( > new species) to the second sentence. I'm a little ambivalent about "between" populations though, as this implies comparison only between two populations, where the actual comparison is often "among" several populations. That's my thought for now, I'll come back to it later. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 07:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Simplified a little more, here is my new counterproposal:

• Evolution is the process of selection of inherited traits of organisms over successive generations, leading to genetic divergence among populations in different places.

I'm not sure the word "natural" is necessary here and I think it could be construed as false accuracy. I think if we say the process is..."leading to genetic divergence" it has to be "among" and not "between" populations, since more than two populations exist. Origin of species is already covered in the existing second sentence. This proposal still has a huge stack of prepositional phrases, but it's a compromise after all, and I think most people can understand simple prepositional phrases in series. I think it's fairly easy for the layman to understand, and pretty much sums up my understanding of evolution (if I had to state it in 25 words or less). Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 08:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(Further to my comment above, just a brief interjection) I think that's a good structure. I would retain "biological populations" rather than using "populations in different places" though. (Besides, both evolution and speciation can occur without geographical separation. :-) ) Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You raise a good point. There are more factors at play than geographically related variables. While the point does not falsify the sentence as phrased above, there may be merit to leaving it at "populations" (rather than "in different places"). On the other hand, what if we were to shorten it up even more, but cutting "among populations" altogether? Thus:

• Evolution is the process of selection of inherited traits of organisms over successive generations, leading to genetic divergence.

This leaves the results of evolution open to any number of possibilities, which are all detailed farther down in the article. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think "populations" is necessary, since it's a fairly key point that it is populations that evolve and not individuals. Thinking it over a bit (basically a restatement of what I've already said), I would write

• Evolution is the process of selection of inherited traits of organisms over successive generations, leading to genetic divergence of biological populations.

I would keep "biological" because it clarifies that "populations" has a specific use different from the everyday one, and also because otherwise someone will probably put "In biology" at the front anyways (and it's better at the end than the beginning). I also added wikilinks to "selection" and "populations".

Although I also just realized that I have a concern about the term "genetic divergence." It is usually used in the context of speciation, with two different populations diverging from each other (e.g. see genetic divergence). But of course evolution includes more than just speciation. Perhaps "genetic changes of" or "changes in the genetic composition of" would be better? Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Side comment. I just want to note what has happened here. I have given a detailed explanation about what is wrong with this whole direction of discussion. No one has replied to it with any counter arguments. Instead Thompsma has given some comments which imply that my post just says "I don't like it" (ouch) and pretends not to understand how clear English can ever be "adjudicated" in an objective way. Then he has re-started discussion in his original preferred direction, also introducing other issues which have been discussed many times on this talk page before such as making selection a part of the definition of evolution. IMHO FWIW I think this will not lead to a new lead sentence that has any consensus. If we are going to introduce words with unclear or multiple meanings such as process and genetic divergence then we will not have a good first sentence. And what does it really add?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, maybe a suggestion: it might be much better to break the proposals of Thompsma up into separate discussions. There are lots of different changes being proposed. Consider the difference between the current version and the many different versions being discussed. Particular points needing discussion seem to include:

• Whether we should specify that we are talking about evolution in biology and/or populations in biology. I would say that we should specify in the opening words that this article is about evolution in biology. I see no point, if we do that, of making the point about populations.
• Whether we really need to use a more complicated word that "change", and if so which one and why?
• Whether there is really a good reason to change from characteristics to traits.

...and so on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The characteristics change due to the selection of traits. I think if we use selection rather than change, then we should use traits rather than characteristics. IMHO I don't see that process is appreciably ambiguous in the given context. But maybe there's something I'm not seeing. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 13:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I am glad to see that there are some people in here who are willing to collaborate in a productive way. Wilhelm and Arc have brought in some great feedback and contributions. Just to re-affirm Andrew - I am not trying to get things to go my way. I have an understanding of evolution - should hope that I do after all my education in this field. It seems that you feel the current lead sentence is fine and I will go over this one more time so that you can understand why it is factually incorrect. "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." What this is saying is that the inherited characteristics are changing - "change in the inherited characteristics". Inherited characteristics do change, but that is ontological development not evolution. Evolutionary biologists observe and record characteristics of the organisms they study. I could go into detail on character state issues and units of evolution, but for simplicity we can state that a character is a unit of an integrated whole, the organism. Evolution whittles away at organisms that are the vehicles wielding the characters that change during the ontological development of organisms. The whittling is selection and sorting. It is not me who is making this argument, that was Darwin, Gould, Mayr, and even Dawkin's who has made this argument. Even that the sentence states that these characters are in biological populations, it still is operationally infactual and gives a very different contrived outlook on evolutionary theory that cannot be supported by any credible source. Hopefully this makes the subject matter clear to you in relation to the points you have listed. I am not seeking a lead sentence of my own design. I am seeking a lead sentence that is correct and one that does not try to contrive evolutionary theory into a singular statement as the current lead does. Here are my thoughts on the points you raise:

1. Are we talking about evolution in biology or populations in biology? Ernst Mayr and many others have agreed that what Darwin did for evolutionary theory was to turn the science away from essentialism to a form of population thinking rooted in materialism (see here and here for papers reviewing this). The population aspect to the theory was critical. Variations within populations became subject to rather than the object of natural agency. This actually relates to the heart of the problem with the current lead. It misses this critical aspect to the theory entirely by implying that the characters evolve, when it is the selection and sorting of characters in populations that causes evolution.
2. The issue of change relates to the first point. It depends on how the term change is used. The current lead uses it improperly. I am open to the use of the term, but I think that selection and sorting gives a much clearer picture of what is actually going on. Change is vague, whereas many evolutionary biologists (including Darwin) referred to natural selection and sorting of traits (or characters).
3. I am indifferent to character or trait in the lead. Both are loaded terms and synonyms from the point of what is trying to be conveyed here. I can go into greater detail on the character vs. trait conceptions, but it does not really seem to important here. In some ways the term trait is nothing more than the more antiquated term for character.

I have to run, but I will have more to say on the new proposals. Shortly - I thought about "leading to" instead of "cause". I think that "leading to" is not the best choice, because it implies inevitability where most evolutionary biologists speak in terms of probability materialism. The terms selection and sorting should both be introduced, drift in lieu of sorting would be fine. It would be a shame to leave out one of the most valuable theoretical contributions in evolutionary theory since Darwin.Thompsma (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

A few comments on the discussion above. Arc brought a point about genetic divergence usually referring to speciation - that is false. Genetic divergence does not usually refer to speciation, it covers a very broad spectrum from divergence within a population, phylogeographically, and, yes, genetic divergence accompanies the speciation process, but genetic divergence is not the same hypothesis as speciation (cladogenesis) nor are they equivalent in reality. This is covered extensively in John Avise's work on phylogeography and in numerous publications on gene trees versus species trees. I made an error in my previous post on "leading to" versus "cause" - in both cases it should be "may lead to", "may cause", or "is the cause of". I would like to compare my earlier proposal to the current one that is on the table to see if we can find a common ground while retaining a correct meaning of evolution:

• Proposal5: Evolution is a natural process where inherited characteristics of organisms are selected and sorted in populations. Evolution causes genetic divergence and it explains how new species originate in different places or over successive generations.
• Proposal6: Evolution is the process of selection of inherited traits of organisms over successive generations, leading to genetic divergence.

Two problems with 'Proposal6' is that it only covers selection, evolution is both selection (causal adaptation) and drift (random sorting). The final clause in proposal6 "leading to genetic divergence" is also incomplete, because evolution is anagenesis and cladogenesis. Here is my attempt at a merger:

• Proposal7: Evolution is a biological process of selecting and sorting the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations. Evolution can cause genetic divergence among populations and it explains how new species originate in different places and through time.Thompsma (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to include natural:

• Proposal8: Evolution is a natural biological process of selecting and sorting the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations. Evolution can cause genetic divergence among populations and it explains how new species originate in different places and through time.

Natural is very important to the meaning of evolution - natural selection, natural preservation, and the naturalism of evolution in general.Thompsma (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A good source definition on evolution is found in Strickberger's Evolution - cited in the lead; the 2014 edition is soon to be released. This textbook on evolution devotes a whole section on the definition of evolution through its historical development to the modern conception in a sub-section titled "Evolution as a process". The authors for this text suggest that a definition should reflect on genes, organisms, and populations because evolution acts at these levels. Proposal8 is comprehensive in these terms. It might be an improvement to add the term random:

• Proposal9: Evolution is a natural biological process of selecting for and random sorting of the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations. Evolution can cause genetic divergence among populations and it explains how new species originate in different places and through time. It might be interpreted that the current lead is saying that characters change in the populations, but why would we leave it open to interpretation and unclear?~

Looking forward to comments, feedback, and discussion. Proposal8 is simpler in terms, but proposal9 expands on the terms and might clarify the concepts a bit better.Thompsma (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thompsma. One thing I do not see amongst all the above is a clear explanation about why any of these ideas would be better than the existing lead sentence. I think that is what is also making it difficult to get more feedback from others. As you know, on an article like this people will generally say that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Can you clarify a bit about how you would answer that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk)) 10:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no mention of "successive generations" in either proposal. In the effort to be too conclusive forgettin' da basics. It almost borders on conflating natural selection (selecting for) and genetic drift (random sorting) as the definition of evolution rather than processes of evolution. GetAgrippa (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrew - I gave a very clear explanation above why the existing lead sentence is erroneous. The current lead sentences are conflating ontological development with tokogeny and phylogeny. It is saying that development is evolution. Seems like feedback is rolling in. To GetAgrippa - the second sentence used "through time", which is more general and simpler than "successive generations". We could use "successive generations" instead. The first sentence does make it clear that evolution is a process and, yes, selection and drift of variable heritable characteristics in populations are the critical elements to evolution. The current lead mistakenly suggests that change in the characters themselves is evolution, or it implies it. If you want to have a lose reading of it, you might be able to interpret the current lead in a wayThompsma (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Thompsma, I think the average reader may misinterpret through time with through a lifetime so I suggest successive generation. The first sentence should mention what happens to traits: "Evolution is a natural biological process of selecting for and random sorting of the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations such that these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population. These genetic differences can lead to reproductive isolation and the generation of new species. Maybe reproductive isolation is too narrow a species definition but I like the idea that evolution proceeds and speciation "can" be an outcome. I think you are correct the current definition just states traits change without saying why. The traits of synthetic life have changed-although artificially engineered, and this would fit as evolution with the current definition which is incorrect as it is artificial design. Without some mechanisms for the process it doesn't mean anything saying traits change in populations-when they always change because of sexual recombination but it isn't evolution till the processes of selection and random drift make the trait more or less common. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

'Evolution' in genetics textbooks is defined in a number of different ways- Change in allele frequency, descent with modification, speciation, change over time, and the one that has yet to be demonstrated (that copying mistakes during DNA replication can build genomes) that all life on earth shares a common ancestor with a single primordial organism ~3.5 billion years ago. Jinx69 (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop deliberately conflating evolution with abiogenesis.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Sædon^talk 04:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps we should demand that Jinx69 cite a reputable "genetics textbook" (or any other biology-themed textbook) that defines Evolution as being "all life on earth shares a common ancestor ~3.5 billion years ago"? I think it's only fair to do so.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

For information on common ancestry, see: Theobald, D. L. (2010). "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry". Nature: 219-223. IMHO - I disagree with the notion that evolution and abiogenesis should have such a strict separation; some evolutionary biologists concur with this sentiment. There is a continuum of process from the big bang creating the periodic table of elements leading seamlessly into the origins of life; out of chaos to order the transitions are connected. Evolution offers valid theory on the origins of life - such as RNA world to the selection and sorting of molecules in a niche constructed primordial soup. The theory comfortably reaches into the depths of time and even the origins of galaxies. After all, life is star dust. We are the offspring of supernova. However, the scope of that discussion reaches beyond the basic biological theory that is to be covered in this article.Thompsma (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks GetAgrippa - I like your suggestion, but I would tweak it slightly. Lets see if we can build consensus on the following.

• Proposal10: "Evolution is a natural biological process of selecting for and random sorting of the inherited characteristics of organisms. Variable characteristics may become common or rare in and across populations. Evolution explains how new species originate and diverge in different places and over successive generations as populations become reproductively or ecologically isolated."Thompsma (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I like the "explains how new species originate and diverge in different places" and the reference to biogeography which really struck Darwin. This definition is definitely more explanatory than the present definition and more comprehensive (like "in and across populations", and "reproductive and ecological" references are great). I still think most editors don't get why the present definition in the article is really meaningless, but it can easily be misread and is ambiguous. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you GetAgrippa - the current lead sentence is not only meaningless and needs a translator to read the information correctly, it is erroneous in its literal interpretation. Once we can get this fixed, I may start to work on the body of this article, but I am a little reluctant to work on this article. I am thinking I will do this on my own time in my sandbox - because there is too many hesitant 'nay-sayer' editors guarding this article in a ridiculous way, which is preventing progress. Evolution as fact and theory is a project that I have been working on lately and it still needs lots of work. However, it would be great to get the main evolution article repaired - because it is featured, yet lame. If the lead gets passed I will start putting a phylogenetics or evolutionary tree section together, which is the most blatant holes in this article. The article could actually be re-titled "Genetic Essentialism" - because, with a few tweaks it would make a great article on that topic. I'm still trying to figure out where the actual topic of evolution is covered.Thompsma (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The present definition states: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Thus we now deduce that every time sexualy reproducing organims have offspring (successive generations)that their differences (change in traits) is evolution=thus evolution becomes synonymous with sexual recombination or mutations and variation of traits. I won't even bring up the paradox with neutral molecular evolution and this definiiton. A mutation isn't evolution nor variation during sexual recombination. Evolution isn't the change in traits but why certain traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations. It is too simple, ambiguous, and problematic. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Concerning some of the two points being made above:

• All the changes make for a more complex and unreadable opening, not the opposite.
• The theory of evolution, although it did not make the concept of a species useless, converted the word forever into something which is never perfectly possible to define. So evolution can not be defined as speciation. It is the other way around: in modern biology evolution is the more solid fact, and speciation can be discussed in terms of evolution. So in not defining in terms of speciation, the current lead is correct and also not asserting anything controversial, while the changes being proposed are at least controversial.
• Also, modern understandings of evolution do not include the assumption of any direction in evolution. There is just accumulating change, not change of a particular type. So in this respect the current lead is more correct than the proposals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)