Moved from Talk:Evolution --Brion 23:16 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)
Content of Evolution and Theory of evolution
editIf we are refering to the biological concept of evolution, and not some other kind of evolution (such as cultural evolution) then we have to state that we are discussing the biological concept. Then we state the referent.
- Clearly don't need the word 'biological' as 'genetic' implies this
- An encyclopedia article aims at clarity. Clarity states, it does not imply. We state what we are discussing, then we state the referent.
- Redundant none the less - it is meaningless to talk about non-biological genetic change. Clarity may indeed state, but this means true clarity never implies, and thus there can be no truely clear encyclopedias.
- not true. artificial life, genetic programming, genetic algorithms, machine replication, all involve non-biological genetics and evolution. Unless one considers having genetics to automatically classify something as "biological," which strikes me as somewhat unusual when discussing computer programs and machinery.
Guys, I find this a bizarre debate. Evolution is a process; one can also speak of the concept of evolution. You can reasonably say that the subject of an encyclopedia article titled "evolution" is either the process of evolution or the concept of the process of evolution. It doesn't matter.
- For my part, I think "A biological concept that refers to" is poor strictly on copyediting grounds. I suppose that whenever we mention anything of which we have a concept, we should begin the article in this format? -- "A [field that studies X] concept that refers to X". So: "Validity is a logical concept that refers to..." "Animal is a biological concept that refers to..." Etc. Jeez. Why not just say "Validity is.." or "An argument is valid iff..." and "An animal is..."? I don't see what the "A [field that studies X] concept that refers to X" construction gains you.
It clarifies which concept of evolution we are refering to, the biological one. The text flows from the general to the specific. That is proper. That maxmizes clarity. There is no other way to unambigously show what we are talking about without using more words. There is a reason why this principle is used by every other encyclopedia.
It is not the case that every other encyclopedia begins articles about things of which we have concepts with the words, "A [field that studies X] concept that refers to X"--or anything like those words, either. Yes, text ought to give something like genus and species when defining a thing. That does not entail that we need to refer to the concept in describing the thing carefully.
--LS
Should evolution and theory of evolution be merged? -- The Anome
- I would prefer not to merge them
- 'evolution' is somewhat introductory (and the entry where one starts reading)
- 'theory of evolution' gives details
- Shorter articles are easier to read on the screen (it is easier to grasp the information structure if one has a chunk of information and then specific links with additional information; for printouts it is the opposite)
Kwaku
- But (as they presently stand, at least), the page on the theory of evolution feels rather like an afterthought. The evolution page has a lot of details and technical talk, however. I agree that there should be two separate pages - one for the concept of evolution in general, and another for the theory (and mechanisms) of evolution. But the way the information is distributed at the moment doesn't seem right.
I don't understand how the "concept of evolution" is separate from the "theory of evolution". Also, if we want to discuss the detailed mechanisms by which evolution is thought to occur, then we can discuss them in articles dedicated to each specific mechanism. I think that there should be two main articles; one that addresses evolution as a natural process (describing the current state of the theory), and one that addresses it as a social phenomenon (with history, opposing personalities, reactions against it, etc.) Perhaps these could be evolution and theory of evolution, respectively. We should start discussing outlines for the two pages. adam
- Hi adam; I like your idea a lot, and think it would help separate out the mess, except for one sticky issue: it's difficult to discuss the current state of the theory without including some of the opposing voices, especially creationist voices, because we can't simply say, "This isn't scientific", and relegate it to a separate article. This makes it difficult to simply lay out theory in one unsnarled page, because of the necessity of discussing where opposition is coming from. If you can think of a way to resolve this, then I think your framework is much better than what we currently have (which is a mess). Graft
- If I had my way, creationism would only be a footnote in the discussion of evolution, but perhaps the political realities of Wikipedia don't permit that. I would like the article to explain the things that are commonly agreed upon by scientists, such as what we've already written about the common ancestory of all life, the sources of variation, and selection & drift as mechanisms determining which variants survive and which fail. It is legitimate and worthwhile to point out limitations and gaps in that "universal theory of evolution" that I described above, however I don't think that all of those discussions can be placed in one article. There are several limitations for any particular theory, and there are several theories, and each one of those could make an interesting article in their own right. Creationism/ID has no scientific value in itself. The criticisms that are used by creationists are either completely off the mark or nothing more than criticisms that real scientists target at each others' theory, combined with the attitude of "since we can't find a complete naturalistic explanation right now, there must not be one." adam
There is a need for a more general opening to the article -- the fact, is MANY people OFTEN use the word "evolution" in a non-biological context -- recent debates in the talk pages of early infanticidal childrearing and circumcision are good examples. slrubenstein
- I agree. If you want to revert, go ahead. Ed Poor, Monday, June 24, 2002
I made some editorial changes in the beginning, contextualizing the use of the word "evolution" -- my goal was simply to make it read better.
I also added some specificity that I believe is necessary to avoid the revert war that has been going on over the past few days. I know that much of this war owes to a serious misunderstanding of the relationship between "fact" and "theory" that others have already addressed. But I think it is also important to distinguish between "evolution" and Darwin's theory of evolution which, strictly speaking, is not a theory of evolution per se (Mayr's work could be presented this way) as a theory of "the evolution of species through natural selection." That is, Darwin's work is more specific. In any event, "evolution" and theories of evolution (or "the theory of evolution" are not the same. Evolution is a natural process observable either directly or indirectly, and theories of evolution are models that attempt to account for evolution. The article should be clear about this distinction. Slrubenstein
The begining of this article is very confusing with how it talks about evolution as a general concept and then says "we're talking about biological evolution"...then talks more about evolution as a general concept. Also that last paragraph about evolution in general is good, but it doesn't fit into the rest of the article. I propose that most of the biology stuff be moved to a new page and we leave the general discussion of evolution on this page. What should we name the new page? Evolution (biology)? adam
I recommend that the reference to biological evolution in the third paragraph be moved to the top of the article, thus firmly establishing biological evolution as the central topic. When I first read the article I found the jumps in historical perspective in the first few paragraphs a bit confusing since it wasn't clear where the article was headed. Otherwise I appreciated the organization, straightforward language, and presentation of differing views. -- Rethunk
- I don't agree -- evolution does mean a number of things and the first paragraph provides links to other articles; more importantly, how people (mostly lay-people, but some scientists) talk about Darwin and the evolution of species is colored by the other uses of this word.
- As to the question of where the article is headed -- most articles on Wikipedia are works in progress so it is hard to say where any of them are headed. Personally, I would like to see some more discussion in this article of how 19th century non-Darwinian notions of evolution have affected the more general debates about the evolution of species.
- The organization of the first three paragraphs do not bother me. But if others agree with Rethunk, I have a counter-proposal: rather than switch whole paragraphs, add another sentence or two to the first paragraph to clarify things, Slrubenstein
I'm wondering why the origins of life is even mentioned in the article. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. If it's to be included, then at least it should be clarified that it has nothing to do with evolution. I tried to edit it, but someone keeps deleting it. TheAlphaWolf