Talk:Evolution as fact and theory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Original study?

Hi Filll. I translated into Bulgarian the article about "Evolution as theory and fact". There are people claiming this is an original study. Is it? Please give me some arguments. Thanks. --84.72.81.167 (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Biased towards Evolution

Although I believe the theory of evolution to be correct as far as it pertains to existing data, I personally find this article to be heavily biased. The intention appears to be to clarify misconceptions in scientific terminology, but all I see is a raving defense of evolution in the face of creationism. Wikipedia isn't here to prove whether science or religion or whatever is correct in it's explanations of the natural world, it is here to create a free content encyclopedia. According to your article, scientists have created a special meaning for the word fact in order to disprove doubt about evolution. In fact, all of your sources about a scientific meaning of fact pertain to evolution, and there seems to be no scientific literature outside of evolutionary theory making this claim (prove me wrong). Basically, if your article is true, scientists have redefined fact to fit their needs. Even if this were the case, one should present opposing views (other interpretations of the meaning of fact) and mention that not everyone (i.e. creationists) accepts this definition. All things considered, evolution may be proven wrong, and scientists admit that this is possible, although unlikely. Wikipedians should not be trying to show that evolution is infallible when that is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.209.86 (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"... all of your sources about a scientific meaning of fact pertain to evolution..." Pardon? Did you not notice the analogy with gravity that runs through the article? Snalwibma 08:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. I invite you to read the other discussions on this talk page, until I get time to rewrite this article and incorporate the new references--Filll 02:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

-The article goes out of the way to show that evolution is a fact as much as any other scientific fact and it cites sources to go with it. I cant see anything suggesting the word fact has been 'reinvented'. The point of an encyclopedia is to present to the reader an overview, in appropriate detail, of the current body of human knowledge on each topic. Just because there is a vocal group of people who want evolution to be false for religious reasons does not mean that their interpretation of scientific terms, which the vast, vast majority of the scientific community reject, are an opposing view deserving of a place in the article. We dont suggest that the earth may be flat in an article on the earth, we dont add to the Condom article the Papal belief that HIV can pass through pores in a condom. As it stands, a simple comparison of the theory of gravity to the theory of evolution stands out as a raging defense of evolution because it is convincing. Why are you not trying to get the theory of gravity article changed to include views which believe the holy spirit is actually what stops us floating away? Why are you not trying to get the 'demon theory' added to the article on germ theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexCatlin (talk • contribs) 10:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

While AlexCatlin makes a few good points, I believe his reasoning is flawed. While I am religious, I find evolutionary theory compelling and have no desire to make it false for religious reasons. However I must remind you that theory and fact are not equivalent. The gravity analogy is simply incorrect because gravity is a fact and not a theory at all. Gravity is merely the observations that objects fall towards each other, no one can disprove that. There are many theories of gravity, such as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Calling any one theory simply "Gravity" or even "the theory of gravity" would be incorrect. Evolution is either a theory or a fact, but not both. I was under the impression that most scientists regarded Evolution as a theory that explains adequately both the vast diversity of life and the extraordinary similarities that seems illogical if all life arose spontaneously and independently. I can reasonably see how you could say evolution was a fact (since there is a body of evidence that species change over time), but if you agreed to that you would also say it was not a theory. Instead Natural Selection or something equivalent would be the theory. As for your examples, I would point out that no reasonable person believes the earth is flat, and indeed simple tests such as flying or sailing around the world would prove that or even simply using basic geometry. In fact however, I believe that said theory is mentioned in several articles. Similarly I believe the condom article and the HIV article have sections discussing the effectiveness of said condoms, and the demon theory as an ancient explanation of disease is indeed mentioned in relevant Wikipedia articles (although not the disease article, which is in fact very short). No one has ever mentioned the possibility that the holy spirit holds people to the ground, but that is irrelevant. Your examples are not the same because in the case of evolution there is a sizable population that does not agree with your statements. True, few scientists oppose evolution, but they are not the single and ultimate source of knowledge. The real issue with this article is that it has a tone highly in favor of evolution as opposed to opposing beliefs, and while one must concede that there can only be one correct answer and evolution is the most likely, we are no more justified in attacking religious beliefs on the topic than theologians are justified attacking scientific beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.209.86 (talk)

My mentioning the religious motivation for reducing bias towards evolution is not completely without justification; of the two 'major' alternatives to evolution that I am aware of, creationism is religious by definition and ID was ruled religious in the Dover trial in the country with most significant support for it. I could have put it more delicately or made my point without it, for which I apologise, but the article is as you put it 'a raving defense of evolution in the face of creationism' because proponents of the two (arguably one) religious explanations for the development of life mentioned misuse the word 'theory' to insinuate that fact and theory are mutually exclusive.

This could be put better by a physicist but there is a lot more to gravity than 'objects fall towards each other', and it is far from completely understood, yet there are few widespread movements to attribute gaps in the theory to the divine. At least on wikipedia.

Demon theories of disease are covered as a discredited historical footnote in the germ theory article, yet there is a sizeable population that agrees with them, especially in areas in Africa. Pores in contraceptives being larger than HIV are not mentioned in the condom article, despite the repeated claims by the ruling body of a religious group of over 1 billion people that they exist.

My holy spirit gravity example was hastily pulled out of the air, but a Google search can find many people claiming that Jesus holds protons together since the strong force in the nucleus is poorly understood and various bible passages mention God holding the world together. Still an insignificant example though.

While the flat earth belief is not widely held (assuming public figure Sherri Shepherd is not representative of science education in the US), there are plenty of arguments made against the simple tests you have mentioned, and claiming 'no reasonable person holds the belief that the earth is flat' is equivalent to claiming that 'no reasonable person believes the earth is only a few thousands years old', yet the US has at least one presidential candidate and vast swathes of the population who hold that belief.

Regarding scientists not being the single and ultimate source of all knowledge, evolution is a scientific theory. If you know of a group of people other than scientists (professional or otherwise) who develop scientific theories, please let us know. --AlexCatlin (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but you appear to be badly confused.

While AlexCatlin makes a few good points, I believe his reasoning is flawed. While I am religious, I find evolutionary theory compelling and have no desire to make it false for religious reasons. This is almost always a bad sign when editors make such claims.

However I must remind you that theory and fact are not equivalent. Where does it say that they are in this article?

The gravity analogy is simply incorrect because gravity is a fact and not a theory at all. This is incorrect. I own several books on gravitational theory, after all.

Gravity is merely the observations that objects fall towards each other, no one can disprove that. Huh?

There are many theories of gravity, such as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Calling any one theory simply "Gravity" or even "the theory of gravity" would be incorrect. Why? Physicists do it.

Evolution is either a theory or a fact, but not both. Why? We have multiple sources that it is both.

I was under the impression that most scientists regarded Evolution as a theory that explains adequately both the vast diversity of life and the extraordinary similarities that seems illogical if all life arose spontaneously and independently. Well some call it a theory some call it a fact, some call it both, depending on how they define theory and fact. See the sources.

I can reasonably see how you could say evolution was a fact (since there is a body of evidence that species change over time), but if you agreed to that you would also say it was not a theory. Why?

Instead Natural Selection or something equivalent would be the theory. Natural selection is one of several mechanisms that is part of the theory of evolution.

Your examples are not the same because in the case of evolution there is a sizable population that does not agree with your statements. Science depends on data and evidence, not on what a sizable population of the general public believes. After all, a sizable population believes they have been abducted by space aliens too.

True, few scientists oppose evolution, but they are not the single and ultimate source of knowledge. No but scientists usually have a better idea about what is accepted scientific theory and knowledge than non-scientists.

The real issue with this article is that it has a tone highly in favor of evolution as opposed to opposing beliefs, From WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, this is entirely appropriate.

and while one must concede that there can only be one correct answer and evolution is the most likely, we are no more justified in attacking religious beliefs on the topic than theologians are justified attacking scientific beliefs. Who is attacking religious beliefs here? The article only describes how evolution is both a theory and a fact.--Filll (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading through this entire conversation. I've seen some good points and I've seen points that don't make sense, both in the discussion and in the article. I should point out that I am not here to ridicule, to criticize or to start an argument. There's just a few points I want to make:

First and foremost, "fact" and "observation" are not the same thing, whether scientists changed the definition or not. An observation happens when you see or notice something [notice that nobody has ever actually seen Evolution (referring to the Evolution from one species into another) take place]. A fact is something which we know to be true, such as the fact that the Earth is round. Gravity is an observation and a fact, because we have seen the effects of gravity and we have proven that it's there. UFOs are an observation for obvious reasons, but they aren't facts because we can't even verify that most of the UFOs are even real.

The second point I want to make is that Evolution is not a fact. Evolution isn't even a theory, because there is no evidence for Evolution that can't be disproven. Go ahead, throw one at me. Let's try the fossil record. Scientists claim that the layers of soil fossils are found in got there via millennia of slow processes. However, they could have also gotten there just as easily through a single, catastrophic event, such as a flood. The sea creatures scientists say we came from are at the bottom because they were in the ocean in the first place. The bulky dinosaurs who weren't built for swimming went down next, followed by everything else. The enormous pressure of so much water and mud piling up would have caused the layers and the reason why some creatures are lower than others in the layers is because they drowned first. It's that simple. Yes, I am religious, and yes, I am a Creationist. But that doesn't mean I can't make unbiased statements that prove Evolution or any of you wrong. I can't prove that God exists. I just wanted to point out Evolution is not a "fact" because you can't prove that it exists either.

Also, I'd like to make a quote: "No but scientists usually have a better idea about what is accepted scientific theory and knowledge than non-scientists." A theory is a hypothesis for which indisputable evidence has been found. A law is a theory that has been proven to the point where it could not be disputed. Evolution is a hypothesis. Gravity is a scientific law. And by the way, just because physicists call gravity a "theory" doesn't mean it is. I can call my couch a potato and that wouldn't make it edible.

Finally, I'd like to point out that I'm not saying this without sources. I was taught science with an unbiased science book who has provided me with enough evidence to believe that Evolution is not real. Furthermore, I have also read other sources that provide their own sources, notably: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp Yes, there is heavy religious influence, but it makes good points and cites sources. Zillakilla (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes -- the evolution debate according to an ignorant and raving bigot -- a very reliable source on science. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Chick tract linked, as if that on its own was not enough to sink your argument, has the following sources: evangelist, broadcaster and Christian theme park operator 'Rev Kent Hovind', 'Christian Science Evangelism' and 'The Bible'. That you are disputing the falsifiability of the theory of evolution, asserting that gravity is a law and not a theory and trying to disprove evolution with misinformed 'Noahs Ark' based drivel all without a respectable citation makes it hard to not assume you are trolling. On a minor side note, nobody is trying to prove evolution, proof is reserved for mathematicians.--AlexCatlin (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not working soley on what Jack Chick says. A lot of what I mentioned actually comes from history. All ancient civilizations' histories start with or involve a worldwide flood in which there are always eight survivors. This is a fact. Therefore, I am not trying to disprove evolution with "misinformed 'Noah's Ark' based drivel." I never also said that anyone was trying to prove Evolution. I was merely taking a place in the discussion. If what I said didn't make sense to you, that's fine. It made sense to me. If you wish to expel me from the discussion and insult the sources I cite, that would also be a very biased thing to do, wouldn't it? Zillakilla (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So far we have 'history' as a reliable source, and you appear to be undertaking original research. Unfortunately 'this thing that I know about' isn't really footnotable. If you want to contribute to the discussion fruitfully, check out those two policies, then come back and talk. WLU (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Zillakilla appears to be mistaking truthiness for legitimate history. "If you wish to expel me from the discussion and insult the sources I cite, that would also be a very biased thing to do, wouldn't it?" -- "Help! Help! Zillakilla is being repressed" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You people are all biased hypocrites! Here I am surfing through the internet and I find a website that "anyone can edit" under the condition that it's written from a neutral perspective! I'm under the impression that freedom of speech still exists, so I join and then later decide to take part in a debate as to whether a Wikipedia article isn't written from said neutral perspective! I haven't dished out a single insult since I joined this discussion which I DID NOT START, or even since I started writing for Wikis. You people have been respectful for the rest of what you were talking about, but the minute a Creationist jumps on and cites a Christian source you freak out and start insulting me! You can't slam religion and support Evolution at the same time! I'll have you know Charles Darwin was a devout Christian, what do you think of that? Or did you just not write that in his article because it's "religiously biased!!?" And besides that, what is it that makes a source "unverifiable!?" Does the fact that I've confirmed that A SINGLE ONE OF MY SOURCES was written by a Christian make me or my sources any less reliable!? All you've been doing is proving that you and this article as a direct result are biased towards Evolution!

And another thing! This isn't the article I'm writing for, it's a discussion about the article! I haven't seen one of you cite any sources throughout the entire discussion! At least I said where I was coming from: Genuine science, genuine history, and common sense! What you're basically saying is that those sources are unverifiable because you aren't willing to put up with the fact that there are some Christians on Wikipedia! Zillakilla (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>ZK, I do not believe you are serious. For your edification, please look at my sources here. Also, please note that these talk pages are for the improvement of the article, not for these kinds of debates. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Zillakilla: evolution is a fact, just as the existence of Pluto is a fact. This is non-negotiable. NPOV does not require us to be neutral about matters of fact (like the existence of Pluto). Even if there was a religion which decreed that Pluto does not in fact exist, Wikipedia has specific exceptions to the "neutral point of view" policy (regarding "undue weight" and "fringe viewpoints") such that we are not required to pretend that Pluto's existence or non-existence are comparable positions: we may write from the mainstream view that Pluto exists (and cite reputable sources which also assume its existence), and perhaps mention in a footnote that some people believe otherwise.

BTW, stop equating "creationists" with "Christians". And you are NOT coming from "genuine science, genuine history and common sense", all of which say that creationism is false. You simply don't know the facts: this is not an insult, merely an observation. For instance, your caricature of the fossil record does not explain how flowering plants and ground sloths could outrun dinosaurs, or why no pterosaurs (lightweight flying creatures whose hollow-boned bodies would float in water) made it to "higher ground" in the Flood. Christians (most of them, anyhow) abandoned creationism a long time ago, because real-world evidence has been found to be incompatible with it (and much, much more of this evidence has been discovered since the problems were first noted). --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Zillakilla: my objection to Jack Chick as a source is not that he is a "Christian" (a label whose application to him, many followers of Christ's teachings would dispute), it is that he is a rabid anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-atheist, anti-scientist (and anti- who knows what else) bigot with absolutely no background or experience in science or science education. This means that he is only a reliable source as to the contents of his own absurd religious fantasies, the contents of which he spews in his hate-filled, libellous (and thoroughly un-Christian) tracts. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is written from a neutral perspective. Just because it does not give equal weight to a viewpoint rejected by the vast, overwhelming majority of scientists does not mean it is not neutral, it simply reflects the consensus. You are understandably frustrated that something you believe to be true (or at least convincing) is not being given the respect you feel it deserves but unless the consensus changes among scientists, the people qualified to make judgments about the accuracy of this scientific theory, no respectable encyclopedia is going to put creationism alongside evolution as equal viewpoints. This support for evolution is not 'anti-christian' at all, a huge number of the editors of this article as well as scientists who reject creationism in the US are Christians. Even the Pope and the archbishop of Canterbury support evolution and Darwin was also a devout Christian until he renounced religion. The fact that your sources are 'Christian' is not what makes them unreliable, they are bad sources because they do not represent scientific consensus.

Most of the people contributing to these articles have considered the possibility that creationism is true, but the complete lack of evidence supporting it contrasted to the mountain of evidence supporting evolution has convinced them as well as the scientific community that these articles will not mention creationism as a serious possibility until the consensus shifts. You could argue that there is a giant atheistic conspiracy going on within the scientific community, but it is not up to wikipedia to decide that.

Your versions of 'Genuine science, genuine history, common sense' are all unciteable, unfootnotable, handwaving assertions with no place in an encylopedia. [Creationism is religion], and you are here demanding we insert it into an article about evolution, which is [science]. When you find reliable sources stating that there is significant respect for creationism in the scientific community, we will respect arguments for creationism in articles about this scientific subject. --AlexCatlin (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sikku says:

This article says nothing but Truism. There is no proof to say that it is a fact. It tells that as gravity is fact so is evolution theory a fact.

Proof given in this article:

In the study of biological species, the facts include fossils and measurements of these fossils. The location of a fossil is an example of a fact (using the scientific meaning of the word fact). In species that rapidly reproduce, for example fruit flies, the process of evolutionary change has been observed in the laboratory.

Refutation. 1) Let me tell u one thing there is not a single fossil which has been unearthed till now which can prove that their existed any intermediate species. Its a challenge for u to bring a single intermediate fossil. 2) Fruit fly:

The effects of genes on development are often surprisingly diverse. In the house mouse, nearly every coat-colour gene has some effect on body size. Out of seventeen x-ray induced eye colour mutations in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, fourteen affected the shape of the sex organs of the female, a characteristic that one would have thought was quite unrelated to eye colour. Almost every gene that has been studied in higher organisms has been found to effect more than one organ system, a multiple effect which is known as pleiotropy. As Mayr argues in Population, Species and Evolution: "It is doubtful whether any genes that are not pleiotropic exist in higher organisms."

Source: Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books Ltd., London, 1985, p. 149

It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world- flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.

Source: Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 48

If any organ system itself fails then how can u expect to have a healthy organism which can reproduce one more healthy organism? That too by these experiments they could not prove that a new kind of organism came into existence... How lame is this kind of theory.. huh..

Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:

Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type

Source: Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, River Publishing, London, 1984, p. 70.

I took the concept of mutation because the fruit flies example given in this article was done with the help of mutation. So if I prove that mutations dont produce new kind of evolution then no need to talk about fruit flies at all. Hence proved that evolution is just a Bogus theory.

It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grassé compared mutations to [b]"making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text."[/b] And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information as already exists. Grassé explained this fact in this way:

It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grassé compared mutations to "making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text." And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information as already exists. Grassé explained this fact in this way:

Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.

Source: Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 97, 98

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."

Source: Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88
sikku 07:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What a ludicrous collection of unreliable sources and quote mines. Did you get them from The Revised Quote Book by any chance? They signify absolutely nothing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, pure crackpottery. "Refutation. 1) Let me tell u one thing there is not a single fossil which has been unearthed till now which can prove that their existed any intermediate species. Its a challenge for u to bring a single intermediate fossil" - there are actually more transitional fossils than there are Bibles in the world. Creationists deny that they are transitional, for purely religious reasons (even though they have every characteristic that a transitional should have), but to pretend they don't exist, and then to use that pretense as the basis for a "challenge"... it's idiotic. It's like arguing against Christianity by claiming that no "real" Bibles exist. Get a clue. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Too difficult to edit (better way?)

This article is very difficult to edit.

'''Evolution''' is often said to be both '''[[theory]] and [[fact]]'''. This statement, or something similar, is frequently seen in biological literature.<ref name=Moran>{{cite web | url = http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html | title = Evolution is a Fact and a Theory | first = Laurence | last = Moran | publisher = [[Talk.origins]] | date =1993-01-22 | accessdate = 2007-10-18 | language = english | format = html }}</ref><ref name=gouldfact>{{cite journal | url = http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html | first = Stephen Jay | last = Gould | authorlink = Stephen Jay Gould | title = Evolution as Fact and Theory | journal = Discover | volume = 2 | issue = 5 | date = 1981-05-01 | pages = 34-37}} Reprinted in: *{{cite book | title = Speak Out Against The New Right | first = Herbert F. (ed.)| last = Vetter | publisher = Beacon Press | year = 1982 | isbn = 0807004863}} *{{cite book | last = Gould | first = Stephen Jay | authorlink = Stephen Jay Gould | title = Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes | publsher = W. W. Norton & Company | location = New York | date = 1994-04-01 | isbn = 0393017168}}</ref><ref name=Lewontin>{{cite journal | first = R. C. | last = Lewontin | title = Evolution/creation debate: A time for truth | journal = Bioscience | volume = 31 | pages = 559 | year = 1981 }} Reprinted in: *{{cite book | title = Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy | first = Peter (ed.) | last = Zetterberg | publisher = ORYX Press | location = Phoenix AZ | date = 1983-05-01 | isbn = 0897740610 }}</ref><ref name=Campbell>{{cite book | first = Neil A. | last = Campbell | title = Biology 6th ed. | date = 2002-02-05 | publisher = Benjamin Cummings | pages = 1175 | isbn = 0805366245 | coauthors = Reece, Jane B.}}</ref><ref name=Futuyama>{{cite book | first = Douglas J. | last = Futuyma | title = , Evolutionary Biology, 3rd ed. | year = 1997 | publisher = Sinauer Associates | isbn = 0878931899 | pages = 751 }}</ref><ref name=Muller>{{cite journal | first = H. J. | last = Muller | title = One hundred years without Darwin are enough| journal = School Science and Mathematics | volume = 59 | pages = 304-305 | year = 1959}} Reprinted in: *{{cite book | title = Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy | first = Peter (ed.) | last = Zetterberg | publisher = ORYX Press | location = Phoenix AZ | date = 1983-05-01 | isbn = 0897740610 }}</ref><ref name=Campbell>{{cite book | first = Neil A. | last = Campbell | title = Biology 6th ed. | date = 2002-02-05 | publisher = Benjamin Cummings | pages = 1175 | isbn = 0805366245 | coauthors = Reece, Jane B.}}</ref><ref name = Dobzhansky>{{cite journal | first = Theodosius | last = Dobzhansky | url = http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/light.htm | title = Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution | journal = American Biology Teacher | volume = 35 | date = 1973-03-01 }} Reprinted in: *{{cite book | title = Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy | first = Peter (ed.) | last = Zetterberg | publisher = ORYX Press | location = Phoenix AZ | date = 1983-05-01 | isbn = 0897740610 }}</ref><ref name=Campbell>{{cite book | first = Neil A. | last = Campbell | title = Biology 6th ed. | date = 2002-02-05 | publisher = Benjamin Cummings | pages = 1175 | isbn = 0805366245 | coauthors = Reece, Jane B.}}</ref><ref name=Lenski>{{cite web | title = Evolution: Fact and Theory | first = Richard E. | last = Lenski | publisher = American Institute of Biological Sciences | url = http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html | year = 2000 | accessdate = 2007-10-18 | language = english | format = html }}</ref><ref name=Sagan>{{cite book | first = Carl | last = Sagan | title = Cosmos | publisher = Random House | date = 2002-05-02 | isbn = 0375508325 | pages = 394 | authorlink = Carl Sagan}}</ref><ref name=Mayr>{{cite book |author=Mayr, Ernst |title=Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist |publisher=Harvard University Press |location=Cambridge |year= |pages= |isbn=0-674-89666-1 |oclc= |doi=}}</ref> The point of this statement is to differentiate the concept of the "fact of evolution", namely the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, with the "[[Theory#Science|theory]] of evolution", namely the current scientific explanation of how those changes came about.

Shows up as this:

Evolution is often said to be both theory and fact. This statement, or something similar, is frequently seen in biological literature.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][4][7][4][8][9][10]} The point of this statement is to differentiate the concept of the "fact of evolution", namely the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, with the "theory of evolution", namely the current scientific explanation of how those changes came about.

There has to be a better way.

Part of the problem is the use of {{cite web}} & similar templates which makes for fairly verbose & impenetrable source code. I have used comments to more clearly demarcate the references from the inline text, which hopefully should make this slightly less problematical. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference error

Resolved

^ Dobzhansky, T. (1971). "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophilia". Nature 23: 289-292.

This reference is wrong. It should be 230 instead of 23 and Drosophila is spelt wrong. I'm not sure how to edit it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porsch1909 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. — Scientizzle 22:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is drosophilia a fruit-fly fetish then?81.174.226.229 (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Facts are a judgement call

Is the statement "Apples always fall to the ground" a theory, or a fact? The fact is that in the past, whenever you have dropped an apple, it fell to the ground. However, perhaps, there have been other people who have dropped apples, and they have not fallen to the ground, and maybe tomorrow you will drop an apple and it will not drop to the ground. To determine what happened or will happen during the times you did not observe, you have to come on to theory.

Now, you may have a very high degree of confidence in your theory, so that you are willing to depend on it to the point that you would stake your life on it, but it does not leave the realm of theory. For practical purposes we would consider any knowledge that we would rely on in cases of life and death, as facts.

As such, there is obviously disagreement about which parts of the theory of evolution are facts, and which parts are simply theory. This has to be made explicit in the article. Ezra Wax (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not write it carefully enough, but I believe that this is in the article already. I hope to make this more clear in the rewrite of this article, based on these kinds of comments. The facts are data. The past observations of the apple falling are data. See? What will happen to the data the next time is a prediction. The theory helps you make the prediction. Got it?--Filll (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Phrasing it as 'supporters' makes the article weaselly and unnecessarily apologetic towards those who object to both the fact and theory of evolution. WLU (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It does have that feel to it, but I challenge you to find one source in the whole set which does not prejudge in favor of evolution, that uses those terms in this way. Ezra Wax (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Any reliable source does not 'prejudge', unlike creationism and creationists, evolution is based on evidence. Since the statement is sourced, and based on my examination of the references, they're notable, reliable sources, there's no reason to challenge it. WLU (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Filll: Once you have posted the article, it is public property. That means that you should do any rewrites online and in stages. Ezra Wax (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ezra, I have no idea where this hostility is coming from. I invite you to look back in the history of this talk page to see early drafts of the rewrite. They have been here almost a year. This seems to be ample time for you to inspect, them, does it not? And in fact, I have incorporated parts in the article itself, as I did a day or so ago with the addition of another 5 or 6 or 7 citations. Or maybe you missed that? They were done in public and online, but maybe that slipped your attention. Please do not attack me. What did I do to you? Why are you so angry and about what? Are you paying me to write this article and that is why you want to dictate to me? Please try to WP:AGF.--Filll (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WLU: I have to take issue with your point about creationism. No rational person can take issue with facts. It is whether something is a fact that people take issue with. This article, if it is intended to do its job, should list all the different "facts" in order of their "factuality." In other words, some "facts" nobody rational disagrees with. Other "facts" may be suspect by some people who don't trust the reporters of the facts. Other "facts" may be controversial because the logic used to determine them is suspect. Ezra Wax (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ezra, perhaps you were unaware that the word "fact" is a polyseme.--Filll (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit I am completely confused by the discussion here. Prejudging? Look, scientists get to define what a scientific fact is. And they define it as data. And scientists get to define what a scientific theory is. And they define a scientific theory as an explanation So what? What is the big deal? Evolution is both data (observations of what we call evolution) and the name of the explanation ( the theory of evolution). Same with:

• plate tectonics
• gravity
• quantum mechanics
• stellar radiation
• relativity
• atomic physics
• particle physics
• geocentrism
• celestial mechanics

and on and on and on. There are data, which are called facts, and there are the explanations for the data, which are called theories. This should not be hard for someone to understand. If you cannot understand this, then you might want to go and think about it for a while. No offense intended...--Filll (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused too. The purpose of the page is to document the discussion of the idea that evolution is a fact (i.e. organisms have changed over time) and that it is a theory (mutation and selection are the source of all change). We aren't proving that evolution exists (the scientific literature does that amply), we are reporting on the discussions that have ocurred regarding this point. That's about it. Factuality, listing the facts, evaluating the facts by their factuality, all of that is right out. WLU (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Calling the data the "facts of evolution" is a bit disingenuous the data are facts, but not necessarily of evolution. They only become the facts of evolution when used in support of evolution, but for creationists, they are the "facts of creation." For example, if you see a row of fossils, they might just be various dead animals that lived at the same time, in which case they are facts but not of evolution. Somebody who disagrees with the interpretation would disagree with the classification. Ezra Wax (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Creationists and their publication venues aren't reliable sources. Scientists are. WLU (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is some more confusion evident here and I am not sure it can be cleared up. There are millions of pieces of evidence for evolution. These constitute data that needs an exaplanation. What kinds of data are there? Here are some examples:

1. observations of fruit flies and bacteria and viruses and other things in the laboratory: Over and over, alleles have been observed to change with time. This is called evolution.
2. Observations in the field, such as in Tilapia the different species of related plants on either side of the Great Wall of China, and the emergence of nylon-eating bacteria, and the emergence of superbugs resistant to antibiotics. These are a change of allele over time, and are called evolution.
3. Observations in DNA, such as the teleomere in the middle of one of the human chromosones. Wow, how did that get there? Also, the similarities of different genetic codes of different species is raw data.
4. Observations of fossil records, and location and age etc. It appears that alleles change over time, called evolution.

Now the explanations for all this could include a lot of things, that include:

• magic
• God did it, so don't bother thinking
• natural selection, epigenetics, genetic drift, gene flow such as horizontal gene transfer
• space aliens did it (Raelians, panspermia, etc)
• Omphalos hypothesis, Last Thursdayism, etc
• Orthogenesis
• Lamarckism
• solipsism, The Matrix, etc

You are free to believe whatever you like. However, you are not free, at least in most societies, to impose your beliefs on others by force. And on Wikipedia, we have certain rules for what we allow in the articles. We require WP:RS and we disallow WP:OR. So please provide WP:RS for any of the material you want to include.--Filll (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Article on Facts

There must be an article on the subject of whether the "facts" are facts. If you look at the article Evidence for Evolution, it is one sided. It assumes that all the Evidence that it presents is valid. There is no article that I know of that deals with the subject even handedly. Wikipedia has come down on the side of Evolution so all the articles take it for granted that it is a fact. Even so, there should be an article that presents all points of view without choosing which one is right. It is not for Wikipedia to decide whether the bible as understood by creationists is right or wrong. I don't know how to get this through your heads. Ezra Wax (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you are badly mistaken and confused and have not read what we have written above. Please review WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:WEIGHT for the relevant policies. If you want to write a pro-creationist article that interprets the data the way you seem to want to, please feel free to consider the following wikis:

• Wikitruth
• Wiqipedia
• Creedopedia
• Chains of Reason
• Citizendium
• WikiNoah
• Evolution Wiki
• CreationWiki
• Research ID Wiki
• Conservapedia
• Iron Chariots
• Conservapedia
• Wikinfo--Filll (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RS. Scientists publish in peer-reviewed journals. Peer-reviewed journals are the most reliable sources we have. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. This evolution is a scientific topic, therefore scientific sources are the only ones acceptable for discussing the scientific aspects of the page. The evolution artiles are not 'one sided', in this regard, there is only one side, the scientific one. The culture war is a purely political struggle since the scientific struggle was vanquished more than 100 years ago. Creationist arguments against evolution are badly thought-out theories that assume an answer and look for evidence th justify it. Have a read of Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller. WLU (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find reliable scientific sources refuting the validity of the evidence listed on Evidence for evolution then you should link them and their findings to the article. Better still you could start the Evidence for creationism article, which would provide the even-handed treatment biblical creationism apparently deserves. As long as it is well referenced.--AlexCatlin (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"It is not for Wikipedia to decide whether the bible as understood by creationists is right or wrong."

Wikipedia does need to favor claims that are supported by reputable, verifiable evidence, in order to maintain its accuracy. Wikipedia cannot allow you to suggest your culture's creation myth actually happened just because you or someone else from your culture personally believes in it. Lots of other religions make supernatural claims that differ from your Bible's stories, and without evidence, they aren't given undue weight in a scientific article either.VatoFirme (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Popper's falsifiability

The article says:

The standard of Falsifiability for scientific theories was elaborated by Karl Popper as the main means through which scientific theories should be tested and disproven.

This is misleading as it suggests that falsifiability is "the main means through which scientific theories should be tested and disproven" without making any reference to the controversial status of the Popper's thesis (see Falsifiability#Criticisms).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. What started out as a simpler article gets more and more complicated as people shove stuff into it. I pruned that statement since it is incorrect. There are lots of methods suggested to address the demarcation problem, and falsifiability is just one.--Filll (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is a fact

Part of the lexical problem here is that the phrase "...is a fact" simply means "...is true". This problem combines with shifts in the meaning of "evolution" in different contexts.

In biology, "evolution" has two primary meanings, and these are generally seen as integrated although they are sometimes spoken of an tangible and distinct aspects:

• the appearance of new species which are structurally similar to other species (as evidenced by fossils)
• the theory that mutations and other natural causes gave rise to these new species

Confusion arises when different authors refer to "the fact of evolution". It is not clear whether they mean:

1. the fact that there are fossils with various dates in the geological strata, which everyone (except Young Earth creationists) agrees indicates the appearance of new species.
2. the theory that every living thing of a given species has a common ancestor in another species, and so on.
3. the theory that mutations, etc. combined with natural selection gave rise to new species

This makes communication between, for example, scientists and theologians difficult. Not only is there a rift between materialists and Young Earth Creationists, but there is a semantic barrier between Old Earth Creationists who are scientists, and mainstream "naturalistic" scientists.

While Old Earth Creationists say that they accept the fossils and the timeline of appearance of new species this implies, some of them reject common ancestry and most of them reject natural forces as sufficient to bring about new species.

Let's not get sidetracked: I'm not making any arguments here for or against a position. If reading this far, you see any words which imply endorsement or rejection of a position, please stop reading now! (Quote the offending text to my user talk page, please. :-)

The only problem I'm concerned about here is the language with which the various sides describe their positions. The mainstream (99.8% of biologists, last time I checked) use phrases like "the fact of evolution" to mean more than one thing: that fossils exist, that they represent dead organisms, that carbon dating indicates when they lived; that every living thing had a common ancestor (theory); and that natural forces brought about new species (theory).

For those who accept the theory, it is "a fact". As a student of physics, I regard Newton's law of gravitation as "a fact". It's not a piece of data, but it's a theory which I firmly believe is true. I think of it as "the fact of gravity". But I separate in my mind the sense data that I feel pulled down to my chair as I write this and the "theory" of gravitation, i.e., that the pull is caused by the earth's mass, in accordance with the formula F = GMm / r^2.

I think it would help our readers if we clarified the meanings of words like "theory" and "fact" when they are applied to evolution. Or at least if we could identify some unambiguous terms, i.e., words or phrases which have only one meaning.

This would let people on both sides of the evolution-creation controversy at least talk to each other. They would know where they agree and where they disagree. I don't expect anyone to change their position, but I think it would make it easier to agree to disagree. And it would make the 100-odd articles on evolution at Wikipedia much easier for beginners to read, also! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I thought I had tried to make it clear. In science, a fact=data. In science a theory=an explanation. Evolution is a word used both for the data and for the explanation, so it is both a theory and a fact. Sometimes also, to confuse things, a well established theory is called a fact. When this is rewritten I will go into more detail. I just have a draft but eventually...--Filll (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If it had been clear, I would not have written the above. I used to be a technical writer at ABC, Inc. One time I had to go through 15 or 20 drafts of a document - I mean, I literally submitted what I thought was "finished" to my colleagues that many times! - before the readers of the document were satisfied that it conveyed the meaning correctly.

The problem was that there were many things that were too obvious for words ("...goes without saying"). But when some people read the document, they realized that stuff was missing or ambiguous. So I had to interview the programmers again. It was the most tedious experience I ever had. If I had 10 bucks for every time Andreas said, 'I thought you knew that' ... --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It was much clearer I think before it was rewritten over and over by assorted editors on here, who were frantic to shove more material in it and change the wording. One thing that offends people is they do not want it to be simple. So they make it hard and people are not able to understand it. Eventually it will be rewritten. It just takes time and of course it needs about 100 references. However, no matter what is done, people will be furious. Since they do not want to actually read it, and refuse to understand that to a scientist, a fact is a datum.--Filll (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that's a fact (ducks and runs). --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a disambig page on evolution; see Evolution (disambiguation). I tried to incorporate the two meanings (fact and theory) there, but FeloniousMonk reverted me on the grounds that it promotes ID views as facts

Did I understand you incorrectly, Filll, or are you an ID promoter? (Don't throw things, please! ;-)

Okay, if you're not an ID promoter, then would you agree that the word "evolution" is used in two senses, which Wikipedia ought to distinguish?

Evolution, in general, is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next.

• Some writers distinguish between minor and major changes:

  • microevolution - below the species level
  • macroevolution - at or above the level of species
• Many writers use "evolution" as a synonym for the "Theory of Evolution", which says that heritable changes are caused by natural selection and natural forces such as mutation.

Are these definitions correct, or just pro-ID propaganda? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not an intelligent design supporter per se, at least in the sense of how the Discovery Institute uses it. I do not favor rejecting science and reason to support the notion of intelligent design, as most members of the intelligent design movement seem to. I think that specified complexity and irreducible complexity are amateurish and have been therefore subject to ridicule, and rightly so. I think that there are interesting questions to be pursued, although our level of understanding is so poor that it is silly to claim we have "proof" of God or anything. I have slowly been collecting more sophisticated material to ponder on this question.--Filll (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The word "evolution" is a polyseme, and therefore has many meanings. Micro and macroevolution are not currently used in modern biology; when you see them, they are the signature of a creationist or another variety of scientific fraud. --Filll (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

There are a number of inaccuracies and inconsistencies in this article. One does not measure gravity. One measures distances and angles and counts numbers. Forces, such as weight, are found by measuring the distance that a spring compresses. Weight is not a measure of gravity, but of mass times acceleration due to gravity. Einstein's General Theory is not a refinement of Newton's, but a completely new theory that contains Newton's as limiting case, just like Newtonian Mechanics is a limiting case of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Newton's theory is correct for all objects moving substantially slower than the speed of light. There is no evidence that Darwin's theory is approximately correct in this sense and that it describes all of nature. Until it is possible for the Theory of Evolution to produce predictions for the entire evolutionary process from the primordial soup (and before) up to the existence of mankind, than at best it can be described as an incomplete theory, with a limited range of applicability. A full Theory of Evolution would be able to predict how long it would take for amoeba to form from the primordial soup, how long it would take fish to form from amoeba, how long it would take amphibians to form from fish etc. etc. Experimental scientists could than test some of the theory's predictions in limited instances, in order to validate or invalidate the theory. One could certainly bombard fruit flies with radiation to see how they evolve and in fact increase the radiation far beyond what occurred in the early earth to speed of the process. Simply stating that humans came from amoeba does not a theory make. The article references fact: "a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation", and theory: "In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation." Why not just use these definitions and give examples of facts for each theory and compare and contrast the two theories? Dock312 (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALK and consider posting shorter comments. This might not even get read, it's very long. What specific inconsistencies do you see? Also note that though this page mentions gravity, it is about evolution; gravity is used for comparison. Further, a theory does not have to be perfect in prediction to be used, useful or even true. Calling it incomplete is unnecessary given its universal acceptance (or near anyway) by real scientists. Given the relationship between this page, the culture wars and creation-evolution controversy, it's natural and appropriate that it's going to go beyond fact and theory.

Please be specific in your comments about what needs to be changed, and consider doing so in a new section below this one. WLU (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No theory is complete. And gravity is an extremely incomplete theory. And almost everything else you stated just appears to be nonsense. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, by complete I mean describes all known facts. The General Theory explains all known facts about gravity (i.e. those not involving nuclear forces or electromagnetism). Evolution Theory does not provide that. Sorry again, but the title is about facts and theories, and the text is half about gravity and half about evolution. Just trying to make sure the gravity part is reasonably accurate and the definitions of facts and theory referenced in the text are adhered to. I agree that all theories are likely to be incomplete, but the theories of gravity and electromagnetism are the gold standards of theories, explaining all relevant phenomena and being mathematically beautiful. If you are going to compare to one of those, you are likely to come up short. Perhaps I was too ambitious for the predictions of Evolution Theory. After all, one doesn't use the full quantum theory to make predictions about complex molecules, one starts with the hydrogen atom. Just predict one small evolutionary change that can be replicated in the lab. Dock312 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The General Theory explains all known facts about gravity [...] Evolution Theory does not provide that. How so? Evolutionary theory provides a full framework through which flows an explanation for speciation, if incomplete in all the details, just as general relativity provides a similar framework to explain relevant natural phenomena, if incomplete in all the details. Also, you're mistaken if predicting a future evolutionary change is the only appropriate test of the theory, ignoring that every time a transitional fossil is found in a specific geologic strata or a BLAST alignment of differing species is performed that the theory is tested. (And at least you seem to realize that predicting future events of what creationists call macroevolution is an absurdly tall order given the timescales and chaotic, unpredictable nature of mutation and selective pressures. It'd be easier to predict the exact close of the Dow Jones Industrial Average on July 15, 2084.) — Scientizzle 19:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The General Theory is more than a framework, it contains all the details. If Evolutionary Theory predicted the transitional fossils and their characteristics before they were found, then it could claim to be a predictive theory. Now it is more descriptive, morphing to explain new findings. Many theories start out that way with experiment driving theory. Dock312 (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that the page could use a re-work to be a bit clearer, possibly by removing some of the comparisons to gravity. Incidentally, gravity is still incomplete, isn't it? No understanding of how it works, just a description of how matter attracts. WLU (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried some tweaks to the first paragraph after the lead. I don't actually know why we're using gravity - the page is about evolution, and evolution very ably and clearly demonstrates the difference between the two. Opinions? I don't have time to go through the entire article with similar changes, but I think people can see the route this could take. WLU (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The point of using detailed comparisons to gravitational theory is that only the crackiest of pots accepts the reality of gravity and the general scientific consensus regarding its factual aboservations and theoretical explanations. Despite similar scientific support, evolutionary theory is actively rejected by a substantial portion of otherwise-educated individuals based almost entirely upon nonscientific reasons. Extensive parallels are an attempt to bridge the gap between these two realms. — Scientizzle 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientific theories are for describing how things we see (in the broadest sense) behave, not necessarily how things work or especially why they work, at least at a deep level. I would use the word "describe" rather than "explain" and theories should involve mathematics, models and predictions. I am probably being extra picky here. Even electromagnetic and gravitational waves do not have physical basis. They are simply mathematical constructs. Some people are still working with action-at-a-distance theories. It is not clear if the dark matter problem is a problem with gravitational theory or nuclear theory. I think the reason to compare to gravity is that it is very well-accepted and people can relate to the various observations (an apple falling) and predictions of the theory (predicting how fast the apple falls on the Earth compared to the Moon). Dock312 (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle - putting them together like that looks synthy, and unnecessary given the number of sources here. Dock - I think theories attempt to explain as well, and the rest seems beyond the scope of the page. Still curious what others think about just removing the comparisons to gravity in toto. WLU (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is more of an "argue for evolution theory" article than an encyclopedic article. I don't know enough about wikipedia to know if that is common or not. I generally use it for the encyclopedic-type articles.Dock312 (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with both your statements - it does look like an argument for, and it doesn't look encyclopedic right now (to me). But I think that's because it needs to be re-written - evolution has a huge amount of support, and a huge amount of controversy. This is one of the areas where proof, politics, creationism and the mis-representation of evolution come together (witness) and a valid point of discussion (that there's tons of references means it's also easily notable, meaning we're totally justified having an article on it). It just needs to be changed.

I'm not replying to your above statement - it's about gravity again, and you shouldn't intermix with old posts per WP:TALK. Ok, I'll respond to one thing - evolution does provide predictions about transitional forms. It says there should be forms that bear structures which show changes over time to become new structures. The proof is in finding the fossils that bear this out. That the fossils existed before the prediction was made is irrelevant because they were not found yet. Piltdown man fits with this as well - eventually it failed to adhere to the developing theory of evolution, and was exposed as a fraud because of this. WLU (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow just a spew of nonsense and incorrect information here. I hardly know where to start with such a deluge. But let me make a few points:

• Sorry, by complete I mean describes all known facts. The General Theory explains all known facts about gravity (i.e. those not involving nuclear forces or electromagnetism).

This is pure nonsense. Care to tell me how the GTR explains dark energy? How is it associated with gravitons? Why doesnt it integrate well with quantum gravity? Why are the inertial and gravitational rest masses the same? How about the attempts at unification that are so far untestable? Why does gravity travel at c in a vaccum? Care to describe for me why you think renormalization is any way shape or form well understood or complete? Gravity is far far from complete. Sorry. I am positive gravity will fall well before evolution. And if you do not understand this, you do not know much about evolution, gravity, biology, physics or indeed, science.

And speaking of renormalization, what about EM? And why no longitudinal solutions? Come on you sound like a rank amateur. Sorry. Do not stick your nose in places where you have no idea what is going on.

• Evolution Theory does not provide that. The list of retrodictions and predictions of evolution is huge. Hundreds if not thousands of examples, like the endogenous retrovirus sequences common to primate DNA and the existence of mid-chromosomal telomere sequence in chromosome number 2. It goes on and on and on. You are repeating pure propaganda, probably pulled from some uneducated backwards creationist website full of illiterate lies and nonsense and tomfoolery.

• Sorry again, but the title is about facts and theories, and the text is half about gravity and half about evolution.

The analogies between evolution and gravity go back at least as far as Darwin, and are common in Gould and in Ruse and several other places well. It is essentially a tradition. Learn a bit about science before you spew more nonsense.

• Just trying to make sure the gravity part is reasonably accurate and the definitions of facts and theory referenced in the text are adhered to.

So you disagree with the definitions published by National Academy of Sciences and comparable sources? Good for you, but personal gratuitous assertions do not carry much weight here. Bring sources. From places like Science and Nature magazine and the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

• I agree that all theories are likely to be incomplete, In fact, tentative, and it is a common feature of many demarcation principles advanced and used in jurisprudence including by the US Supreme court.

• but the theories of gravity and electromagnetism are the gold standards of theories, explaining all relevant phenomena and being mathematically beautiful.

Wrong.

• If you are going to compare to one of those, you are likely to come up short. I am afraid you are one coming up short here.

• Perhaps I was too ambitious for the predictions of Evolution Theory. You are uninformed and trying to push an uneducated point of view. Take it somewhere else. Thanks.

• After all, one doesn't use the full quantum theory to make predictions about complex molecules, one starts with the hydrogen atom. I guess you do not know much about computational chemistry, do you? A huge industry. Might want to learn about it a bit.

• Just predict one small evolutionary change that can be replicated in the lab. Has been done many times. In the lab, the field, the genome, and fossil record. And passed with flying colors. Over and over and over and over. Learn a bit first. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

About a rewrite: A rewrite is in progress, but slow. It will be much more detailed with more references.

The comparison with gravity, since it is in numerous reliable sources and has a venerable and respected history, will stay. Eventually I will compile maybe 20 or more examples of luminaries comparing evolution to gravity to stifle those who complain about the comparison. So try to hang on. This is perfectly reasonable, according to the literature and the sources.--Filll (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

About the support for evolution and gravity. Over 99.9% of the scientists in the fields dealing with evolution support the current theory of evolution. This is far higher than the number of scientists in gravitation that support the GTR, I promise you. The attitudes of the public are all over the place. More than half of the public does not know what evolution is and cannot even pick it out of a list on a multiple choice test. And about half or more of the public believe they have been personally abducted by aliens and believe in elves and witches and ghosts and fairies and astrology and every other piece of crap you can imagine, so whatever the public believes is really irrelevant here. After all, about half the American public cannot find the USA on a map of the world and in some US states, more than half of the teachers in grade school are functionally illiterate (cannot read a newspaper and read below grade 8 level). In the Capital, Washington DC, the average adult reading level is grade 3. So do not try to use what the public knows to indicate anything. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So... Filll, what do you think about the changes I've made to date? Is there a need to change anything back, am I on the right track, do you have any objections? I keep meaning to work the page over, but this is the first kick in the ass I've had to actually do it. I respect your opinion so any feedback you provide is appreciated. WLU (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The table changes are fine. However, I would prefer to keep the application of the terms to gravity in, because people are familiar with gravity. I suggest this to be as clear as possible what the terms fact and theory mean, and I think using as an example something people know first before launching into the application of the terms to evolution is useful. However, in the rewrite a lot of this text will be drastically changed. --Filll (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep trying then, I'd like to do what I can about removing the gravity references as I think they're currently excessive, would you mind if I continued to do so, then I/you/we/others could replace them in a sourced version that at least looks less like OR? Perhaps via a section dedicated to comparing gravity and evolution via references to sources that do so? WLU (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I readded the gravitational references. I don't think that section is OR as gravity and evolution are very commonly compared to explain what a scientific theory is. While I agree the section needs rewriting and and could use sourcing, removing it hurts the quality of the article rather than helping it, so it should be kept in the meanwhile. Anyway, this section seems more like an explanation rather than "research" persay so I don't see how sourcing it will help anything as this particular explanation of the scientiic defintion of a theory has been hashd and rehashed by massive numbers of authors. User:Sifaka 04:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.81.59 (talk)

I attempted to clean up said sections. Feel free to aggressivly edit any changes I made. Rewording for clarity is especially welcome. I also have changed many of the quotes around the words "fact" and "theory" to italics because I find the quotes to be annoying and possibly misleading because quotes around words are often used to signify contentiousness or irony. User:Sifaka 05:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.81.59 (talk)

• This is pure nonsense. Care to tell me how the GTR explains dark energy? How is it associated with gravitons? Why doesnt it integrate well with quantum gravity? Why are the inertial and gravitational rest masses the same? How about the attempts at unification that are so far untestable? Why does gravity travel at c in a vaccum? Care to describe for me why you think renormalization is any way shape or form well understood or complete?

A topic such as this is obviously needed. There is a lot of confusion regarding the difference between facts (observations or measurements) and theories and hypotheses and conjectures. Dark energy, gravitons, quantum gravity, unification, and renormalization are not observations, they are aspects of different theories. Scientific theories describe nature and are quantitative, they do not explain "why". For example, "Objects that have mass are attracted to each other" is not a scientific theory, but a fact. "The force between two objects with mass is proportional to the inverse square of the distance between them" is a scientific theory and not a fact (although no experiment has yet found a deviation in the exponent of -2). "The observed motion of the visible portion of the universe is not explained by the current theory of gravity" is a statement regarding a scientific fact and its relationship to a theory.

• Gravity is far far from complete. Sorry. I am positive gravity will fall well before evolution.

Nonsense. Dock312 (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dock312: This is an article about evolution, not gravity. And it is evident that evolution is a subject that you don't know much about (e.g. your false accusation that evolution lacks predictive power: it has indeed been used to predict transitional fossils and suchlike, as you should have known: similarly, you seem to be unaware of the mathematical analyses which allow biologists to determine when specific species diverged from a common ancestor). Evolution itself is a basic fact, and evolutionary theory is in a much stronger position than gravitational theory because the mechanisms responsible for its operation are better-understood. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

...BTW, phenomena such as "dark matter" and "dark energy" are indeed theoretical constructs rather than "observations", but they were nevertheless proposed to explain observations that were not predicted by general relativity: they represent failures of the alleged "predictive power" of that theory. Another example of such a failure is the discovery of 51 Pegasi and the other "Hot Jupiters", which defied the then-accepted theories of planetary formation (a process which is pretty much entirely dependent on gravity until the protostar ignites, and gravity remains of paramount importance even after that). There haven't been any recent upheavals in evolution that are comparable to this. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this topic should be about evolution. But its main focus is on fact and theory and it misses the mark a bit in that regard. A scientific theory should have quantitative predictions. We expect gravity to explain not just that an apple falls but how fast it falls from any height. We expect gravity to explain the orbital period of planets and moons, the structure of the universe, the rate of expansion of the universe, and the force between two masses in a laboratory, all to the highest level of precision that can be measured. Where are references to similar work in evolution theory? That is what would make this article useful, a list of observed phenomenon in evolutionary biology, references to an actual quantitative evolutionary theory, and references to quantitative predictions and confirmations by that evolutionary theory. That is what I was hoping for when I first came to this topic, but was disappointed in the lack of hard information. If the mechanisms of evolution are so well understood, where are the references to quantitative predictions?

Stating that problems with theories of planetary formation means that gravitational theory is wrong is incorrect. Perhaps those theorists have not accounted for things beyond gravity or simply cannot take into account all gravitation effects due to complexity. Comparing evolution and gravity is actually an apples and oranges comparison. Gravity is a fundamental force, whereas evolution (like chemistry, biology, planetary formation, etc) does not deal with the fundamental building blocks of nature, but rather deals with approximations. Actually, evolution is more like astrophysics than gravity, in that direct experimentation is difficult due to time and distance from the relevant phenomena. So, even the observations come with some qualifiers and assumptions.

I admit that I do not know as much about evolution theory as I would like (hence my coming to this topic), but I hope that evolution theory is more than just statements like mutations occur in genetic material and those mutations are passed along to future generations, causing changes in their descendants and that natural forces cause some mutations to be favored over others. (In fact I know that there have been Monte Carlo simulations made and so, there must have been some quantitative equations developed). Perhaps there haven't been any upheavals in evolution theory because it is so qualitative that one can fit any observation to it, and hence it has very little quantitative predictive power. Most of the references in this article are only qualitative statements or opinions. Perhaps I was too quick making comments about the lack of predictive power in evolution theory, because I did not see any references to it in this article, which purports to be about fact and theory in evolution. I am suitably chastened, but awaiting further information.Dock312 (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems with theories of planetary formation do not mean that "gravitational theory is wrong" (unless something comes up that defies the known laws of physics): merely that there are limits on its predictive power (due to complexity etc). The same is true for evolution: your edit mentioned "facts that evolution does not explain", but these are analogous to the issues regarding gravity and planet formation (inability to make sufficiently precise predictions to determine exactly how evolution would unfold on Earth). But evolutionary theory was used to predict (for instance) where to look for Tiktaalik: the fossil-hunters went to Ellesmere Island because the rocks there were of the right age to contain the critter they were looking for. As for "quantitative" results: perhaps the various degrees of "relatedness" of various organisms (predicted by evolution based on how the lineages branched off, and measurable by DNA analysis) are what you're looking for. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

While evolution theory cannot predict all aspects of evolution there should be some process that is sufficiently simple that quantitative predictions can be made, perhaps in the laboratory (in fact, I once came across a description of some experiments in the 60's that attempted to do this, there must be more). Here is what I mean by quantitative: how many generations would it take to cause a certain characteristic to appear or disappear in the population? I would expect the theory to have a model of how mutations appear and be able to predict the rate and probability of occurrence for different mutations. One would need a model of how the mutations would flow to the descendants and be able to predict the probability of the mutation being passed on to the descendants. Lastly, one would need a model of the environment, if it is applicable, that encourages or discourages the perpetuation of the mutation, which would provide the probability that an organism with that mutation would survive to procreate. Since nobody seems to have references for this type of research, I'll see what I can find.Dock312 (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dock, the definitions I am using are from the National Academy of Sciences and several other sources. Where are yours from? Produce your definitions and references.

Also, this page is for improving the article. If you have specific suggestions for improving the article, produce them here with references. Otherwise, go somewhere else. Thanks. --Filll (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am using the first two references in the article: theory and fact, which are supported by Refs[12] and [15]. The reference [13] from the NAS only addresses the definitions in passing and Ref [11] is not there any more. Dock312 (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but to be honest, I cannot understand what you are getting at, if anything. And reference is still on the web, if you use your computer skills.--Filll (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

One and the same claim can be both fact and theory

WP:SOAP userfied to User talk:Axel147. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How the word evolution is used

The word "evolution" is used in two senses, in the quotations the article presents:

• change in populations
• the theory explaining those changes

Thus it is not clear sometimes, when someone says, "Evolution is a fact", what they mean. The article should distinguish between those who mean:

• Populations have indeed changed over time (which Young Earth Creationists agree with, and Young Earth Creationist deny due to their religious faith)
• The theory of evolution is correct, i.e., natural causes suffice to explain the appearance of all new species

Within the physical sciences, of course, this sort of sloppy language is acceptable. No one cares if a writer confuses "the fact that heavy things fall when you drop them" and the "theory of gravitation".

Wikipedia has one article for gravitation which cover the phenomenon and the theory which explains it. Same for evolution; there is no separate theory of evolution article.

It is perhaps only important for people who accept the "fact of evolution" (i.e., that new species have arisen over time) but who at the same time deny the "theory of evolution".

Of course, the religious side sometimes plays the double meaning game, too. ("Evolution is not a fact, just a theory.")

The article should clarify ALL significant uses of the term, so that readers who come here to find out what's what can do so. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed, this comment is incoherent to the point of being "not even wrong". I would suggest that you clarify (as well as correct the typo that made your statement about YECs self-contradictory) before you expect any comment on it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the word evolution is a polyseme, and this is covered in Wikipedia in evolution (term), not in this article. This article deals with a couple of meanings of the term. Also the phrase "evolution is a fact" has multiple meanings, as described in this article. However, knowing your past history Ed, just being forced to tap dance around repeating what is in the article over and over and over is just a waste of time.--Filll (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you are missing the point. I'll try once more to clarify.

For many opponents of theory of evolution, there is a distinction between two things: (1) that observation that new species of life have gradually appeared and (2) the theory that explains this observation.

Wikipedia has one article which tries to explain both the observation and the explanation. For the creation-evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate), there are two major groups of opponents:

1. The old earth creationists AGREE with the observation but DISAGREE with the theory
2. The young earthe creationist DISAGREE with both.

This is significant when evaluating sentences such as "evolution is a fact" (does it mean the observation, the theory or both?) and "X accepts evolution" (does X accept the gradual appearance of new species alone, or both gradual appearance and the naturalistic explanation as well?). --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your description of OEC and YEC is much much too simple. There are probably upwards of 100 different variants of creationist, or more. After all, we describe about 8 in our creationism article, but you brought us the outline of a course that described another 20 or so, remember?

I do not believe all OEC believe you claim, or all YEC believe what you claim. I do not think even that most of these groups subscribe to the views you claim. And when someone says "evolution is a fact" they might be referring to data (as described in this article), or to the theory being so well established (as in some of the quotes and references in this article). And all of this and other things causes confusion, but has to be found from context and further information.--Filll (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Trying again for Hrafn:

The word "evolution" is used in two senses, in the quotations the article presents:

• change in populations
• the theory explaining those changes

Thus it is not clear sometimes, when someone says, "Evolution is a fact", what they mean. The article should distinguish between those who mean:

• Populations have indeed changed over time (which Old Earth Creationists agree with, and Young Earth Creationists deny due to their religious faith)
• The theory of evolution is correct, i.e., natural causes suffice to explain the appearance of all new species

Within the physical sciences, of course, this sort of sloppy language is acceptable. No one cares if a writer confuses "the fact that heavy things fall when you drop them" and the "theory of gravitation".

Wikipedia has one article for gravitation which cover the phenomenon and the theory which explains it. Same for evolution; there is no separate theory of evolution article.

It is perhaps only important for people who accept the "fact of evolution" (i.e., that new species have arisen over time) but who at the same time deny the "theory of evolution".

Of course, the religious side sometimes plays the double meaning game, too. ("Evolution is not a fact, just a theory.")

The article should clarify ALL significant uses of the term, so that readers who come here to find out what's what can do so. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well this article is being rewritten. And the word "fact" has multiple meanings, the word "theory" has multiple meanings and the word "evolution" has multiple meanings. This will be covered in the rewrite. Just the simplest description is in the present article, and if you want more, you have to go to cited references at present.

The rewritten version will still include the simple version in a simple in the LEAD and introduction and then a much more involved discussion. These things take time, and of course while I try to do it, assorted people who want to contribute shove nonsense into the article, just like you want to do. After round after round of people "helping", the article slowly devolves into a pile of crap with all kinds of incoherent nonsense and other stuff in it. Pat yourselves on the back.

The comparison with gravity is standard material that goes back to Darwin at least, and maybe before that. We only have one article, evolution, that includes both the data and the explanation. We only have one article, gravitation, that includes both the data and the explanation. We only have one article, plate tectonics, that includes both the data and the explanation. Of course, specific details of assorted theories are in general relativity or orthogenesis, but the current theories and data supporting them are in the main articles (although one might have some data in evidence of evolution or bending of starlight).--Filll (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, don't put words in my mouth. I am not claiming anything. I was referring to polls saying that 85% of Americans believe either (1) that God created all forms of life gradually over millions of years or (2) that God created all forms of life less than 10,000 years ago. I have heard views #1 and #2 called Old Earth and Young Earth respectively. Is this your understanding?

If so, then the article needs to clarify that "evolution" has 2 aspects: when the various species came into being and how they came into being. Group #1 (whatever they are called) is around 40% of Americans, and Group #2 is around 45%.

However, it seems to depend on how the question is asked. Here is a Pew Research Center poll in which the percentage varies from 26% ("evolved through natural processes") to 13% ("Evolution, God had no part in the process"). Note that the section presenting these figures is entitled Confusing Concepts.

Would you agree that it would be a service to our readers to sort out this confusion? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That is too complicated for this article and we have no sources for any of it. It is all essentially WP:OR unless you have sources for it. And no you are incorrect in your statements above and do not agree with any of the polls I have seen. The largest group of the American public are believers in theistic evolution. There are another 7 or 8 major types of creationism, and then atheists and agnostics of various stripes. And if you get more complicated, maybe 100 or 200 types of creationist. But the largest group is theistic evolution which has no trouble with the mainstream scientific position, but also believe in God. And about 15 or 20% of the American public do not believe in God or unsure about God, but also believe in the mainstream scientific position (except for a teeny tiny group of panspermia supporters etc). The remaining 40% or so is divided into many many types of YEC and OEC. However, even among the YEC, only about 50% believe in biblical literalism in anonymous surveys, so the true genesis accounts (although there are maybe 100 or 200 different literal interpretations of genesis). So the number of people in the US who believe in a particular version of the genesis account, word for word, is maybe a few per cent. Miniscule. Because no creationists agree with each other. Anyway this is all far far too complicated for this article, and not the topic of this article. But thanks.--Filll (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Ed's expectations are unreasonable. I would suspect the most frequent use of the bare word "evolution" would be to mean both the facts and the resultant theory collectively -- i.e. the whole body of knowledge surrounding the issue. Further, lacking the speaker/author's explicit statement as to whether they meant fact/theory/both, any attempt to delineate this would be (as Filll says) pure WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought

Just a thought, and I am unable to figure out where to place this comment, but I believe that the argument of the fruit fly may contain flawed premises and should not necessarily be used. While the fruit fly can undergo a mutation in which it grows an extra set of wings in a laboratory environment, these wings actually form without muscles, rendering them not merely useless, but in fact, detrimental to the fruit fly. I suppose this does support that organisms can mutate, but evolution implies an actual change which is passed on from one generation to another genetically. The fruit fly is actually singled out as undesirable based on the detrimental effects of the extra set of wings, and is unable to propagate its genetic mutation, thus rendering its evolutionary purpose useless. This is merely a question of the wisdom in using the fruit fly as an example when there are many other evolutionary processes which take place and are not shown to be flawed. Any response on this subject would be appreciated. Eoheomili (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not include that study. I am not familiar with this study. Is anyone else? Do you have suggestions for a better study to quote?--Filll (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Both the primary author (Theodosius Dobzhansky) and the publication (Nature (journal)) for this citation are high-prestige, so any criticism would have to be similarly authoritative -- can you supply WP:V & WP:RS for it? Also, the "extra set of wings" aspect is not mentioned in the wikipedia article. Have you any evidence that this is the sole/central claim of the Nature article? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Define what is meant by "evolution"

WP:SOAP userfied to User talk:76.167.179.6 per WP:TALK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is not a bad suggestion. I propose a reference is added to the beginning of the article, similar to the article on evolution itself:

For more information on the mechanisms of evolution, see Evolution.
For a generally accessible and less technical introduction to the topic, see Introduction to evolution.

Gralgrathor (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The very first word in the article is a wikilink to Evolution. I think anybody wanting to know what the word means could follow it to that article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant

This article makes me smile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qc (talk • contribs) 00:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Me too! Great job to whoever worked on this! 71.197.87.105 (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

To: 65.87.184.50

Nothing you said had any relevance to this article. Clearly you did not read this article. Wow.--Filll (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did and here it is again, improve the article. In the section 'Evolution as theory and fact in the literature', the author is on a soapbox and trying to state that evolution is fact by the quotes chosen:

'Despite the scientific certainty embodied in these excerpts, Creationists refuse to accept the evidence.'

WP:NOT Soapbox

R. C. Lewontin wrote, "It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory.

WP:NOT Soapbox and a respected biologist saying it is a fact is not proof.

Carl Sagan wrote "Evolution is a fact, not a theory"

Carl Sagan is not a biologist and should not even be quoted in an article like this. He's had associations with genetics early in his life but his PHD is in astronomy.

The article should cover the difference between fact and theory, as it does and state what the facts are if it wants to make the claim evolution is a fact. The facts are skulls and their brain capacities, or the relationships and links found in DNA, and many other things. A common ancestor and evolution is one theory explaining those relationships.65.87.184.50 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, 65.87.184.50. I'm not sure what the problem is here. How exactly do you think the article should be improved? Can you suggest some specific wording to add, remove or alter? It seems to me that it already does pretty much what you are asking for. It does explain the difference between fact and theory, and it does briefly enumerate the facts and theories relating to evolution (with links to further detail elsewhere). The quotes you object to are in a section clearly headed "Evolution as theory and fact in the literature", and are presented as examples of the use of the words, not as proof of anything. Snalwibma (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, some of the quotes are soapboxing. Another person wrote:

'Evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time".'

That is the kind of quote to have in the article. Quotes that someone says it is fact (especially non-biologists) or choosing quotes that dump on creationists are off topic and sloppy.65.87.184.50 (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

65.87.184.50: Evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time". And that is a fact, directly measurable in many situations. Common descent is so well supported by the available evidence that it is also considered to be "fact": to argue otherwise is like arguing that round-Earthism "isn't fact" because the actual "facts" are photographs from space or whatever. The theory is that the fact of evolution is responsible for the fact of common descent: that's why evolution is "also a theory". --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

'Evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time". And that is a fact', then state it that way and cite the article, if there is one.

'Common descent is so well supported by the available evidence that it is also considered to be "fact". Then state it that way. However, 'considered to be a fact' is a far cry from 'it is a fact'. In the context of the article, a fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation. If someone has observed speciation (not micro-evolution) then cite it and put it in the article.

Quoting Carl Sagan that evolution is a fact or choosing quotes that dump on creationists is off topic and soap boxing.

You will also notice from the comment below, some seem not to be interested in improving the article.65.87.184.50 (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-reading what you wrote, 'Evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time". And that is a fact', actually, that is a definition. The facts or data are what the change is, how much did it change, and over what period of time.65.87.184.50 (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You are free to argue with the National Academy of Sciences and get them to change their documents. But for now, we will go with what the NAS says. When you get them to change it, we will of course change to state what the NAS states. Fair enough?--Filll (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The NAS has many references to books one can buy and read and it also says:

'Evolution is one of science's most robust theories, and the National Academies have long supported the position that evolution should be taught as a central element in any science education program.'

Note the word 'theory'. What was not there was the statement, 'evolution is a fact' as this article seems to claim. This article needs preciseness and should reflect what the current state of evolution is.65.87.184.50 (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to throw up smoke screens when you are unable to argue the technical aspects. If your idea of a well written, precise article on 'Evolution as Theory and Fact', is quoting an astronomer then good for you.65.87.184.50 (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to reproduce the entirety of the Introduction to Evolution article, or the Evidence of common descent article, or the Macroevolution article, or the Speciation article, in this article. That would be superfluous, and outside the scope of this article. --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That is fine but don't make the claim that it is fact, in the words of another person, above, 'xxx is considered to be a fact'. That is not a fact.

If you choose not to reference that info then cut the article down to the difference between fact and theory. Quoting Carl Sagan and choosing quotes that dump on creationists is not a presentation of facts of evolution in literature. It is soap boxing and off-topic.65.87.184.50 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You are confused. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You've already said that. Since you are unable to argue the technical aspects, you fall back to,'you are confused', revert edits, or some other irrelevant action.65.87.184.50 (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Our friend 65 is badly confused. Facts are data (i.e., measurements, or observations). Theories are explanations for that data. That is all. If you do not understand that, you have not understood the article. And everything else you have stated is basically ignorant nonsense. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is about scientific facts and scientific theories. Micro and macroevolution, as used by most people, do not exist. These are creationist fantasies. See microevolution and macroevolution.--Filll (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point, you are funny, above, you said 'macro-evolution does not exist and is a creationist fantasy.'. It seems Berkley disagrees with you. It is clear to me why the article is and will be so imprecise and sloppy. Just because others quote an astronomer to make their evolutionary points and are sloppy in their writings does not mean you have to do the same.65.87.184.50 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That article also says, 'details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data.'.

This article is about observable data, changes are observed and recorded over time, and another fact is 'the overall theory behind macroevolution . . . has been . . . consistent with empirical data.', is also a fact. That is as far as it goes. Quoting Carl Sagan does nothing for the article

65.87.184.50, see NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Making necessary assumptions. .. dave souza, talk 22:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would rather see you add preciseness to the article and remove irrelevant quotes about what creationists believe or not believe. If you have a fact to add then add it. It is a real simple equation, you want to make the statement that evolution is a fact then show me the fact. That does not mean, show quotes where data fits evolutionary thinking, or 'data fits so well, it is considered to be . . .'. If that is the evidence then state it that way, 'data fits', or 'it is considered to be' (quotes from above).65.87.184.50 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT WLU (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

'Do not feed the trolls' link also says:

'Criticism of the project, made constructively, is welcome from contributors when shared in an appropriate place.'

The article is imprecise, sloppy, and makes claims it can not support for the reasons listed above. It also has irrelevant quotes about creationists and from people like Carl Sagan, who is an astronomer. Improve it per the above comments.65.87.184.50 (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl Sagan holds degrees in Physics. Many campus departments are titled "The Department of Physics and Astronomy". As a physicist, astrophysicist, whatever title you want to call him, he is qualified to make statements in these types of articles.Bridger.anderson (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You want preciseness? No problem. Evolution is the statement that cells change, and that is a fact. A few years ago a robot went into Chernobyl and brought back some black sludge. They have discovered this sludge was bacteria which absorb Gamma Rays the way plants do sun light. Before Chernobyl, no such bacteria has even been found. Animals do change, and that is a fact. As in the article, Evolution Theory refers to how people evolved into what we are now. You posts don't seem to make any sense, or you seem to just be ranting because you don't want to accept evolution is a fact. Saying that evolution is not a fact is saying that cells and animals don't change, which they have been observed to do.Bridger.anderson (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Before you get too excited

The thing about Wikipedia is, everyone can edit it. Now if a person is very dedicated they can fight everyone who comes along and keep it from changing very much. But let me tell you, that is incredibly exhausting. A lot of what you object to was added by people exactly like yourself; someone who came along and wanted to change the text one way or another.

Look at how the article read a year ago or more and compare it to how it read now. See the differences? All that stuff about macro and microevolution was not in the original (which I wrote); someone came along and wanted to add it. And the part about creationists is below. See the difference?

I read the original article and it seems correct because it talks about the observed data, fossils, genetic data, etc. and then says the theory of evolution is the most widely accepted theory to explain those facts. Those words, 'theory of evolution' match what the National Academy of Sciences say.

As the article was edited, quotes and statements were added which said, 'evolution is a fact'. Then later, quotes added dumping on creationists.

Yes, everyone can edit an article and that is a blessing and a curse. People can add useful information but sometimes, others misrepresent the subject. Misleading people, especially people new to a subject is not very good but if you put the article back to its original form and/or build on that then it would correct many of its current flaws.65.87.184.50 (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution IS a fact. It is a fact that the frequency of alleles in populations tends to change over time. The theory of evolution explains how this happens. The article explains all this: it explains why evolution is a fact AND a theory. --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Then write it that way, 'Evolution is defined as the change in frequency of alleles over time.'. The changes that have been documented are . . .' and add references.

Simply writing evolution is fact just like gravity is fact, grossly misrepresents/underrepresents the subject.

Gravity is a fact, you throw something out the window it'll fall down. Evolution is a fact, there have been tons of examples where animals have changed. The analogy properly represents the subject.Bridger.anderson (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

One other thing about that statement, 'evolution is fact', those words won't be found on web pages like the National Academy of Sciences. There are words that say it is a robust theory, and best explains the data scientists have observed (skull changes, genetic research, etc.).

The last thing is, drop all the useless quotes about what creationists refuse to believe or what an astronomer thinks, etc.65.87.184.50 (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you are mistaken. Of course the NAS says that evolution is a fact. In several huge publications. And the analogies with gravity have a long illustrious history. Going back to Darwin himself. But do not panic; this article will be scrapped and rewritten.--Filll (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

65.87.184.50: Once again, I will point out that this article is NOT intended to provide comprehensive coverage of evolution! We have other articles for that. And, yes, the analogy with gravity is appropriate (and frequently used), and shouldn't be dropped just because you don't like it (for whatever reason: you don't actually provide one). You also need to clear up your misconceptions regarding the scientific usage of the word "theory". Yet again I will point out that evolution is a fact AND a theory, therefore your comment regarding the use of the word "theory" by the National Academy of Sciences completely misses the point. Do you not agree that there is a "theory of gravity"? Does this mean that you don't consider gravity to be a fact? --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Writing that evolution is a fact like gravity is a fact then talking about apples does not provide enough depth. I also said *NOT* to repeat the whole of all evolution articles but to make a point and add the link/reference.

As for the statement, the NAS says evolution is a fact, people say that but fail to show anywhere where it is written. It is not written on their own web page either.

You can write all you want that '50 is confused' but you fail to show the relevant quote that it is a fact. That does not mean show a quote that says it is considered to be a fact, nor it fits well with data, nor from a person outside the NAS who says he believes the NAS says it is fact. User:fill keeps repeating this, the NAS says it is fact, either put up or shutup.

I quoted above, in the other section, the NAS' statement about evolution. Stop repeating the same words and show the reference which has words to the effect of 'the NAS' official position on evolution is it is fact'.65.87.184.50 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the NAP which is linked to from the NAS:

'the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.'.

'. . . the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.'.

First that is not the NAS saying it, they say it is a very robust theory, and secondly, it in effect says it is considered to be a fact because of strong supporting evidence.

This article uses gravity as an example, gravity can be observed and tested directly not through supporting evidence. That is what the article needs to state, 'scientists consider the supporting evidence strong enough to be consider evolution a fact.'. However, in doing that, the article fails to mention the other views, the NAS web page says it is a robust theory.

Having the article state outright, 'evolution is a fact' and compare it to gravity is a tremendous disservice to newcomers to the subject.65.87.184.50 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Evolution is a theory and fact"..... There are 10 references for this statement in the article and no doubt many more could be found....that's good enough for me.Teapotgeorge (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

65.87.184.50, let me put it this way: do you accept that populations of organisms change over time? Do you know that dogs are descended from wolves? Do you know that the different breeds of dogs are genetically distinct (despite being of the same species) so that a pair of poodles will produce a litter of poodles rather than Dobermanns? Do you understand that if there are poodles and Dobermanns in the same town, a new litter of poodles will increase the overall frequency of poodle-specific genes in the local dog population? If you answer "yes" to these questions, then you accept that evolution is fact. And it can indeed be "tested directly not through supporting evidence" (not quite sure what you're getting at there, because gravity is invisible and cannot be directly observed). Mutations, natural selection, and speciation can also be "observed" in real-time. You still have not explained why the comparison with gravity is invalid, and the article itself explains the many parallels very clearly. You have not explained why "evolution is a fact" is a "tremendous disservice to newcomers", nor have you explained why the comparison with gravity is likewise a "tremendous disservice" to them. And, as Teapotgeorge has pointed out, there are abundant references for evolution being "theory and fact": therefore that WILL stay in the article. --Robert Stevens (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

'. . . because gravity is invisible and cannot be directly observed'. Gravity can be observed using three main instruments, but using one of them, a spring with a weight on it, I can measure gravity on earth's surface, and I can fly a plane in a parabolic path and mathematiccally tell you what that measuring device will read at each pooint along the parabola. Evolution is no where near that developed, if it were, you would be able to tell me when and where and what the next speciation event will be. Some of the attached articles, where wording was copied from for this article, are sloppy, especially the article that quotes an astronomer to make his evolutionary points. Does that mean you have to reflect the same sloppyness in this article?65.87.184.50 (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What you claim to be abudantly clear, it is a fact, is not so clear to the NAS, they say it is a robust theory. No one has shown a quote from the NAS that says, in effect, 'the official position of the NAS is evolution is fact.'. Instead, I read explanations and see red herrings. At the very least, the article is cherry picking sources, people who say it is fact, and not including the other side of it, such as the NAS saying it is a robust theory. That is misrepresentation of the subject and misleads newcomers.65.87.184.50 (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time: evolution is a theory AND a fact. The NAS saying it's a "theory" doesn't mean it's not ALSO a fact! Why don't you try reading the article (or the many references supporting it) which explain this point to you? Why aren't TEN existing references good enough for you? Why are you still trying to pretend that the NAS is giving "the other side of it" when there is no "other side" here? Do you not understand the meaning of the word AND? Why are YOU misrepresenting the subject? I can only conclude that you won't accept that gravity is a fact either (because it's a "theory")! --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Write it your way then but you expand on what the NAS says, etc. I am sure the NAS is very capable of explaining their own views and the one view/opinion/belief that is not an official position of the NAS is 'evolution is a fact.'. Cherry pick away the sources, and be one sided. Really a shame.65.87.184.50 (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You seriously want to maintain that the National Academy of Sciences would not know the basic facts about (for instance) dog breeds, that I described above? They wouldn't consider it a "fact" that the birth of a litter of poodles in a town would increase the frequency of poodles in that town? Some facts are so obvious that they don't need to be stated. If they have no statement that "gravity is a fact" either, are you prepared to argue that it is not their official policy that gravity is fact? --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The NAS says that the theory of evolution is robust and best explains observed data. You have something different on their official position then show it and stop with the long line of reasoning.65.87.184.50 (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement "either put up or shutup" is of course a gross violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL for which 50 should be summarily banned from further editing of Wikipedia. Thanks for the personal attack. Would you like to be sanctioned now, or should I wait until you have another outburst?--Filll (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement "either put up or shutup" is of course a gross violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL . . . Thanks for the personal attack.

And your statement that 'you are confused' is not a personal attack? So, lets see, to review, you made the statement that the NAS says evolution is fact. I said show that quote from the NAS. Your responses throughout all this are:

- Revert edits.

- Your declaration more than once that 50 is confused.

- You own brand of reasoning as to why you think it is fact.

- A call to ban from editing, effectively shutting up a person.

The one thing you do not do is show the quote from the NAS. You are fantastic at throwing out red herrings.65.87.184.50 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm content to wait on Filll's re-write rather than, as the section header says, get too excited about this. The split between fact and theory is confusing, but I trust that Filll will do a good job of re-writing. Keep in mind, anon, the purpose of the page is to demonstrate that the word 'evolution' in terms of biology, has two related meanings. One is factual (evolution is a fact - living things have changed over time in visible morphology; simple and unquestionable), one is theoretical (the 'theory of evolution' - how this change in morphology over time is explained via alterations to genes through mutation, sexual selection, sexual recombination, how the speed of evolution may vary i.e. puncutated evolution; complicated, contested, political and subject to falsification and rejection). The purpose of the page is to make this distinction, and explain the difference between the two. As part of the scope of the article is how these two different meanings are confused, either through simple error, or deliberately as a tool in a political and cultural conflict (by creationists). Anon, your statement above "Then write it that way, 'Evolution is defined as the change in frequency of alleles over time.'. The changes that have been documented are . . .'" suggests that you've missed that this is only one use of 'evolution', the theory part. You're missing out on the fact part and appear to be trying to challenge the theory of evolution. Whole different kettle of fish and a different talk page. No responsible scientific authority would say X theory is fact (except perhaps as a polemic) due to the criteria of falsifiability. They might say 'X theory is the best explanation to date for Y data'. In this case, Y would be the 'fact' of evolution - the change in living things over time. The analogy with gravity is similar - gravity as a fact (things fall down when dropped; uncontestable) versus gravity as a theory (mass bends space or whatever the lastest theory is; testable). Evolution gets a lot more traffic and grief because of the culture wars, while no-one that I know of has ascertained the bible's position on gravity. WLU (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a long response but deleted it because I am not going to pulled off topic. The statement was made that the NAS says evolution is fact. Show the quote where that is their official position. Despite all your explanations, the NAS says evolution is a robust theory that best explains observed data. Stop the long line of reasoning and show where they state it is fact in their official position. If you can't show it then saying it is fact in the article is misleading.65.87.184.50 (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it "misleading" to state that evolution is a fact when the "fact" part (clearly specified in the article) IS unquestionably a fact? Regardless of whatever the NAS either says or doesn't say about that specific part? The changes over time don't become "un-factual" if the NAS doesn't happen to mention them in the cited reference. Therefore the article will continue to state facts as facts (well-supported by the many other references provided). --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

...Actually, the NAS article does point out that the theory is "supported by so many observations and confirming experiments..." and so forth. Those are the observations of the FACT that evolution is occurring: the theory is what accounts for these observed facts of evolution. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As I thought, you make claims but when challenged, you can't support them. You offer up your brand of reasoning and try to go off topic. The claim is, 'the NAS says evolution is fact'. Show the reference from the NAS showing that is their official position.

The NAS does say evolution is a robust theory that best explains the observed data.65.87.184.50 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, my claim is that evolution IS fact. And I have supported that position. And you have repeatedly demonstrated your inability or unwillingness to confront my arguments. You cannot actually refute the case that the "fact" of evolution IS fact, as the article itself makes clear. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Then the only answer I can give is, the NAS disagrees with you. They state that the theory of evolution is robust and best explains the observed data. The NAS' official position is not what you claim, 'evolution IS fact'. You should not be misleading people.65.87.184.50 (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Then "the only answer you can give" is clearly wrong, because the NAS does not disgree witn me in the slightest. They would never be so stupid as to deny the fact that evolution has occurred, and is occurring: despite your ongoing misrepresentation of them. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And there is the problem, you talk, opinions, reasoning but fail to show the quote/official position. I showed it above, the link and the statement, it is a robust theory and should be taught in schools and best explains observed data. Do the same, show the quote that supports your opinion. Otherwise write the article and mislead people new to the subject.65.87.184.50 (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the "observed data" mentioned in your quote IS the "factual" part of evolution: the observable FACT that evolution IS happening. Your ongoing inability to understand this is, frankly, not MY problem. This talkpage is for suggesting improvements to the article: because you evidently don't understand the issues here, you evidently have no actual contribution to make. Meanwhile what the article says is accurate and supported by multiple references. End of discussion. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not clearly distinguished in the article. A skull found from 1 million years ago and a skull found from 200,000 years has differences, that is facutal, evolution is a theory to explain it. However, in the 'evolution in literature' section, it has quotes, 'the word theory is no longer appropriate', Carl Sagan, 'evolution is fact'. Very sloppy and misleading.65.87.184.50 (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote from National Academy of Sciences...."There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution." http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=52

Teapotgeorge (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I quoted that above and the NAS also says evolution is a robust theory. This article says things like, carl sagan, 'evolution is fact'. Very sloppy.65.87.184.50 (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There you have it then; the two quotes from the NAS togther describe evolution as both a "robust theory" and as "basic facts" - evolution is both theory and fact at the same time - precisely the purpose of the whole article. --Pbrione (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Then distinguish it in the article, in the article, in the quotes cherry picked, the word 'theory' is not appropriate, carl sagan says evolution is fact. Does that sound like, 'robust theory and . . . basic facts'? The group here will be proud at all the newcomers the article will mislead.65.87.184.50 (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon is wasting our time and trolling at this point, and completely missing why the page exists. WP:DNFTT. The page is not about defending the theory of evolution, so let's stop pretending it is. Anon is not even trying to understand, not reading replies, or baiting us. No matter what, the page will not change based on these comments, so there's no point in replying. This isn't a soapbox or a place to debate. Filll, take it away with the new version, huzzah! WLU (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Original wording

In spite of all the enthusiasm evident in these excerpts, considerable confusion remains in some circles.

Changed to

Despite the scientific certainty embodied in these excerpts, Creationists refuse to accept the evidence.

New version

I am also planning to rewrite this article completely. A rough draft is in the sandbox now. It will be much cleaner and easier to read. A lot of the things people added over the last 18 months will be discarded. People just like yourself who wanted to add things.

So do not get upset; the reason the article looks the way it does is not because someone wanted to annoy you and wrote a biased article and then fought off all people coming along. It is because it was written, and the people over the last 18 months changed it to this. You see?--Filll (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Section on "Evolution as theory and fact in the literature"

I have attempted a rewrite of this section. Here is why. The purpose of the article (AFAIK) is to set out clearly the difference between a theory and a fact, and to show how evolution, like gravity, is both. The first quote (Gould) is fine, as is the Lenski one - both of these reinforce the point made by the article. But the quotes from Campbell ("...evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate.") and Mayr ("most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact"), and the briefer extracts from Sagan, Simpson, et al, confuse the issue by setting fact against theory. Then there is a reference to "all the enthusiasm evident in these excerpts", which is a mere appeal to authority, and which appears to be trying to "prove" that evolution is a fact as opposed to a theory. I hope my rewrite (mainly just reorganising the material a little) makes it both clearer and more accurate. I hope I have not strayed too far into WP:OR or WP:POV. Any thoughts? Snalwibma (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly like it and agree with it. And I agree that not only do people get confused about theory (I forget the article where some editor more or less screamed, correctly, that the word theory was being used for hypothesis -- I fixed that and do it where I can) the fact issue gets confused also. I like the Gould and Lenski quotes. I don't understand why Campbell thinks the word theory doesn't apply as it clearly does.Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need to make that distinction. Evolution is a fact, a theory, and a fact! There's the basic fact of evolution (creatures evolve: undisputable), the ToE itself (explains how), and the more colloquial use of "fact" (the ToE is evidently correct), as something so thoroughly well-established that "it would be perverse to withold consent". IIRC, Stephen Jay Gould said something like that: if we can find and source it, let's add it. There are two sorts of "fact" here. --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm... the section does read a bit OR-ish to me; I think an there's a valid case to be made that there is a three-way fight occuring in the section: That biologists recognize that species-over-time-evolution is a fact separate from genes-change-over-geological-time-evolution theory (quotes 1 and 2); that the Modern Synthesis is so well proven that it's treated as a fact, despite being a theory; and that creationism has exploited the fact/theory distinction to foster its own political/religous agenda. I'd say that sub-sections on each would be a good way to separate the now-mixed ideas. WLU (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Boltzmann H Theorem

Irrelevant rant on time asymmetry.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As physics underlies chemistry and biology, is it ok to discuss the physics of time asymmetry in this article? The positive H-theorem supports the forward movement of time (to some extent), while the negative H theorem supports time reversal. Without a scientific basis for time moving forward, it would seem to me that the basic physics for evolutionary time is either lacking or reversible. Prigogine and the Second Law of Thermodynamics could also be discussed for open systems, but I think Boltzmann is cited as being more basic. There is also an old Russian experiment that claimed laboratory (experimental) reversal of time in a nonlinear optical system. I think that made it into a Scientific American article. Do you agree that it is important to lay the groundwork for evolution on firm physics or do you argue currently unknown vital force in nature that have yet to be identified? If so, we might want to reference Stu Kaufmann and his postulated "complexity force". Doug Youvan (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there now some doubt that time does indeed pass? And why did you take out a referenced section twice without discussion?--AkselGerner (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

laws and proof

The below is being challenged, it seems. I've restored it as they are accurate points. However a citation may be in order. Does anyone have a good source to attribute these claims? If not, I'll go look up one. Btw, to respond fuller to the IP editor, Gravity is an instance of both a theory and fact, in that there are certain factual things that are observed but it also involved a theory (actually there have been different theories, ie. Aristotles, Le Sage's, Nordström's, Newtons, Whitehead's and, of course Einstein's theory of gravitation.) Since the theory is so strongly supported by all facts that best explain the predicable observations, its considered a law. That math is involved as a tool to show this, does not provide absolute proof (which does not exist in science as science is based in inductive logic)--except the kind of proof that equations show within mathematics. Anyway, the section removed that I restored is:

• "Proof" of a theory does not exist in science. Proof only exists in mathematics. Experimental observation of the predictions made by a hypothesis or theory is called validation.

• A scientific law is a concept related to a scientific theory. Very well-established "theories" that rely on a simple principle are often called scientific "laws". For example, it is common to encounter reference to "the law of gravity", "the law of natural selection", or the "laws of evolution."

Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I too saw that anon deletion, and I wondered... I agree that the first of the two points has correctly been reinstated, but I'm less happy with the second. I think it does confuse the issue somewhat, and does appear to mis-define "law". Maybe change to something like:

• A scientific theory is distinct from a scientific law. A scientific law states what occurs, generalizing across a set of conditions, while a theory proposes an explanation of why it occurs. Sometimes, however, theories that rely on a simple principle are referred to as "laws". For example, it is common to encounter references to "the law of gravity", "the law of natural selection", or the "laws of evolution."

But I don't (yet) have a citation for this. Snalwibma (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think law implies something more specific than a theory, a theory is an ordering of the facts, but a law is a formalization of the implications of that ordering... a scientific law to me seems to be the predictive potential of the theory. The theories with the most predictive power are also most likely to be associated with a law of science. Of course, I don't have a source for that either as it's drop-of-a-hat-OR. A historian of science might be able to say better, I think that older sources (like 1800-1900s) use law a lot more, especially in physics, it might also be a leftover from a previous paradigm that has been simply absorbed into mainstream language and expanded beyond it's original meaning.--AkselGerner (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources for the article use gravity for comparisons and quote non-biologists to make points which put the development of the idea on weak ground. If the article is going to throw around words like 'the law of evolution', that would make it silly. The understanding of gravity is much more refined and gravitional readings can be predicted for various situations such as a plane flying a parabolic path. Someone mentioned time. The rate at which time flows can also be accurately predicted and tested with the famous experiment where an atomic clock was placed on a plane and then compared with its twin on the ground to see if the math and theory holds up.

With evolution, no one can predict the rate of evolutionary change, nor can anyone predict accurately the next evolutionary event(s). The article needs to stay with the theory/fact idea. The more it pushes beyond that, the sillier it sounds.65.87.184.50 (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you look for predictions made by evolutionary theory, there are many many predictions, both qualitative and quantitative. And there are also places where gravitational theory falls down; maybe many more than evolutionary theory actually.--Filll (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Gravity as fact

The claim that gravity can be interpreted as a fact seems incredibly misleading; only the most archaic uses of the word "gravity" refer to its original factual meaning of the intrinsic "weight" or "gravity" of an object. In all modern usages, the word gravity, in a scientific context, amounts to referencing one of the many theories of gravity, generally Newton's conception of a mysterious force with strength proportional to the square of the distance, or perhaps to Einstein's conception of a curved space time. But I again contend that it is incredibly misleading to say that measuring an apple falling is measuring the "fact" of gravity; rather apples falling, or satellites orbitting, are factual evidence for the theory of gravity. Whether the case is different for evolution, so that evolution really does have a factual meaning, I'm not qualified to say. Lewallen (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are confused a bit by semantics. Do you not think we have any "facts" of gravity, or any observations of gravity?

Also, gravity has been used over and over in scientific publications as an analogy for evolution, in publications by the NAS and the AAAS and even as far back as Darwin.--Filll (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Logic

It would seem that nobody has considered logic in all this discussion. I would simply like to point out that in logic, a theory is a proposed idea that has not been proven. A fact is something that is true...period. Saying that evolution is a theory and fact is simply using the word "evolution" to blanket a variety of things, some true and some false, to muddle the ability to debate it, thereby breaking the Logical Law of Analogical use of Language, where definitions must remain constant throughout an arguement. Saying that evolution is the actual process and the theory is how the process happens is just logically nonsensical. In raw terms, it is saying that evolution is fact and it is not fact, which is a gross violation of the Logical Law of Non-Contradiction.

Now, if you are still reading, I would also point out that logic is defined as the "Science and Art of Reason", so it applies to everything that is not opinionated. So to anyone who would say that logic does not apply here...yes it does. If anyone would say anything, please do so. I am fully prepared, and expectant, to get railroaded here (it's happened before) but somebody's got to say something about the elephant in the room.98.196.76.228 (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Man, I have never heard these arguments before. Oh wait a minute I have...about 435 million times. The elephant evolved from single celled organisms, so yeah, it's in the room. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got a question for you: how do you know that?98.196.76.228 (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A combination of the available evidence perhaps? Shot info (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Such as?Prussian725 (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Type in "evolution" or some other such words in the box on the left hand side (the one under "search") and have a look at the references referred to in those articles. Or just accept it's an evil atheistic plot :-) Personally I prefer the latter LOL. Shot info (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic or not. I will look those up though and I will get back to you on them. In the mean time, nobody has addressed what I said earlier. Like I said I will look up the references you gave me, but if the idea of evolution being theory and fact at the same time is illogical, then it doesn't really matter what science says about it because anything contrary to logic defies reason and is invalid and therefore not true.Prussian725 (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article. The whole point (well, OK, the main point) is that there are two separate things: (1) the fact of evolution, as seen in the laboratory, in the field, etc; (2) the theory called evolution (shorthand for evolutionary theory) that provides an explanation for the observed facts. Nothing illogical. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now we have something. Two things actually. Number one, could you please list a couple references for evolution being observed in the field/lab. And number two, which derives from number one, I have read a little bit about "evolution" being observed in the field and whay you define as evolution I define as adaptation, interbreeding, and the like. I have read about the so-called evolution of yeast in a laboratory that were selectively bred and the end result was a population that was %70 larger than the original. That is not evolution. All that happened was some yeast specimens were taken into a lab and turned into frankenyeasts.Prussian725 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Evolution article lists a few hundred references. Choose a couple. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent). Indeed, we are getting somewhere, and you make it clear that it is not the logic that you are objecting to. No, I will not list some references for you. They are plentiful, and you are well capable of finding them for yourself. I suggest a search of Medline might be a good place to start. I think this discussion can now be brought to a close. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And what would you say is evidence? I think both you and I agree that peppered moths are an example of natural selection but natural selection selects from existing traits; it doesn't create new ones. an animal that just doesn't have it in its blood to survive an arctic climate will never survive in one. Genetic diversity in natural selection actually decreases diversity rather than conduce it. Also, most creatures have systems in place that correct unhealthy changes in their DNA, so if a trait hadn't already existed in a creatures genes it would be quickly fixed, unless the creature did not have such a system in which case it would be horribly deformed and disfunctional. I'll stop for now and hear what you have to say.Prussian725 (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate evolution, it is the place to discuss improvements to the article. If you want to continue with this sort of debate I suggest you go to talk.origins. Lots of people there happy to take you on. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Poor kid. It's not going to be pretty if he does. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it was nice knowing him... Sort of.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I can honestly say that I feel more sorry for you all than you do for me.

Have a nice day believing you're right. I knew I'd get railroaded, oh well.Prussian725 (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if im wrong but if an article is full of untrue information wouldn't it's removal be an improvment? And as far as talk.orgins goes why would he go to a website full of biased evolutionists that will do nothing but tell him hes wrong, becuase if they argue like you guys,neither side will gather anything, all ive seen from you guys is a constant reliance on "science" which is fallible, as in the early theories of earths geography.you wont even give him your rock solid referances, this shows a fear of loss or just plain arrogance. and please, if you deliver a rebutle, no sarcasm.Metal9383 (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Gents, you may wish to have a close look at WP:NOTFORUM. Shot info (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but if an encyclopdiea said that george washington was an alien, would it not improve the encyclopedia to have it removed?Metal9383 (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please then feel free to point out what in the aticle is specifically incorrect - And then propose replacement text coupled with reliable and verifiable sources. BTW Metal, welcome to the project. Shot info (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) hehe, I've heard you guys talk about verifiability before. If you have the same views as some other wikipedians I've spoken to, then I must tell you that you are wrong. Verifiability is directly related to truth, which is intolerant.Prussian725 (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, here in Wikipedia WP:V is what verify means. And it says in it's first sentence "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If you have a problem with this, then you have a problem with Wikipedia, not with this particular article. Can I recommend you discuss your suggestions to change the policy at WT:V rather than here? Shot info (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely correct. Wikipedia is not about truth but verifiability. The problem is there are so many versions of "truth" and they disagree with each other. Wikipedia has decided, after a lot of trouble, that what appears in certain kinds of mainstream publications (in particular mainstream academic references) are going to be the main source of Wikipedia's information. Otherwise, Wikipedia would turn into a religious tract for one faith or another (none of which agree with each other by the way) or a venue only for conspiracy theorists or for paranormal promoters. If this happened, it would not be useful for most readers. There are many places on the internet for promoting religious beliefs or these other nonmainstream agendas. However, there must be a place where readers can have a mainstream academic resource, and Wikipedia is that place.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that is fine. Although I would consider a little additional wording to the policy such as "verifiability of sources" or "verifiability of agreement" because the word verifiability means something can be verified whether it is the color of a rock (bad example) or the verification of somebody's point of view; logically speaking, if you can verify something, then it is true. Now, verifying someone's viewpoint is a different matter because logic does not apply to what people think. I read the policy and I see what it says, which is perfectly fine. I think what the problem is is that most people don't know what WP means by verifiability. Thank you for clearing the air Filll.Prussian725 (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually verifiability relies upon WP:RS. Because we can't have these endless arguments, we go to reliable sources that verify a statement. So, if I could find a few reliable sources, peer-reviewed and such, that says George Washington was an Alien, well, that would be that. The fact is there are literally a few hundred thousand peer-reviewed and reliable articles that verify Evolution is a fact. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You just won't let it go will you? Did you hear what I said? We had the issue resolved but you just keep pushin it. Let it go.Prussian725 (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Because, I wanted to be as helpful as I could. And since I'm reading this, it's more or less impossible for me to hear it. Enjoy your evening. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Can this section be archived since has evolved into a talkfest rather than a discussion about improving the article? Shot info (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest.Prussian725 (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)