Talk:History of evolutionary thought/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Question

I want to have the answers to this question:

1. How could life have arisen from inanimate molecules while lifeless things, like rocks, are made from the same inanimate molecules?

--69.137.148.159 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an appropriate place for this sort of discussion. However, you may like to read the information available at the article on abiogenesis. Regards, --PLUMBAGO 16:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If you ask your question at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science you may people there happy to share their ideas with you. Thincat (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. From what you think, is it rational to think that something or someone created life after reading my question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.148.159 (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• sigh* I can see where this is going... Brutannica (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Augustine of Hippo

Wasn't the 5th century Augustine of Hippo one of the first Christian thinkers to suggest that not all animals had been created ab initio, but that some had instead evolved over time? I think it's worth a mention — Augustine was at least as influential on early Church thought as Lucretius was on Epicureanism. --Grimhelm (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I scaled back the coverage of Augustine that was added to the article. It is clear that Augustine argued against too literal an interpretation of Genesis. It is not at all clear to me from the quotations provided about small creatures arising from the decomposition of other living things is actually talking about a form of evolution. Rather it sounds to me that he is suggesting a form of spontaneous generation, that is the idea that animals like maggots and flies might arise spontaneously from decomposing meat, a concept common fromm ancient times down to the 19th century. I left in the claim from a Vatican theologen that he had claimed some form of evolutionary concept because it is clearly sourced. I am still not completely comfortable with the text but I can live with it for the momment until there is a chance for more research. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Link to Modern evolutionary synthesis

{{editsemiprotected}}

I think that the section "Modern evolutionary synthesis" should include a link to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis page via a "See Also" at the top of the section.

The "see also" link to modern evolutionary synthesis is under the main section header "1920s-1940s". That is the most appropriatre place for the link because that article covers both the development of population genetics and the modern synthesis as those two topics are closely coupled. However the term "modern evolutionary synthesis" is linked in the subsection with that name. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In a related question, the wording relating to Darwin's theory, "but the specific mechanism he proposed, natural selection, was not widely accepted until the 1940s", has been questioned in relation to the Charles Darwin article where we state "while his theory of natural selection came to be widely seen as the primary explanation of the process of evolution in the 1930s". That's sourced to van Wyhe, who states "Natural selection's canonisation had to wait until the modern synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian genetics in the 1930s." It was coming to be widely accepted in the '30s, and was widely accepted in the '40s, so both are reasonable. Comments? . . dave souza, talk 15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, clear and logical, well done Dave!Tmol42 (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus: No unclear and illogical. It is unclear who makes the claim "It was coming to be widely accepted in the '30s, and was widely accepted in the '40s,”, which is not included within the van Wyhe quotation marks. And Souza’s conclusion from this statement that both datings of when it first became widely accepted that natural selection is the main selector of evolution are reasonable is itself unreasonable because “coming to be widely accepted” obviously means ‘not yet widely accepted’ here. Thus the reasonable conclusion from this statement is that the theory that natural selection is the main selector in evolution first became widely accepted in the 1940s. And this dating is in line with what this article claims, but contradicts what the Darwin article currently claims. Thus on this basis Logicus’s proposed edit to ‘mid 20th century’ becomes more reasonable. And also Darlington’s implicit post 1950 dating becomes more plausible.

So will Dave souza please kindly clarify who makes the statement “It was coming to be widely accepted in the '30s, and was widely accepted in the '40s” ? Is it van Wyhe or Dave souza himself? (Note that canonization and wide acceptance are not necessarily the same thing.) --Logicus (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

When did the theory of natural selection first come to be accepted by a great majority of the scientific community ?

[Logicus here copies this discussion from Talk:Darwin where Guettarda challenged the reliability of this article's dating of the natural selection revolution to the 1940s, in conflict with the Darwin article's 1930s dating. (Logicus currently suspects it was more likely the 1950s on Darlington's testimony.) Consequently Logicus restores the source flag in this article, previously deleted by David Souza without valid justification.]

The article’s first paragraph currently claims

“[Darwin’s] theory of natural selection came to be widely seen as the primary explanation of the process of evolution in the 1930s,[1 “

But contrary to this, the Wikipedia article History of evolutionary thought claims the theory was not widely accepted until the 1940s:

“The debate over Darwin's work led to the rapid acceptance of the general concept of evolution, but the specific mechanism he proposed, natural selection, was not widely accepted until the 1940s.”

And Darlington’s 1950 report on Darwinism in academia in the immediately above section suggests it was not until after 1950.

I therefore flag the current dating for a reliable citation.

I propose a vaguer dating to ‘until the mid 20th century’ might be an easy resolution.

But I suggest the reference should be to ‘THE theory of natural selection’ rather than Darwin’s inasmuch as it was not specifically Darwin’s theory of natural selection that came to be accepted. --Logicus (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This article has a reliable source (John van Whye), while the history of evolutionary thought article lacks one. As the modern synthesis took hold over a period of time, it's difficult to draw a clear line as to when an idea could be considered "the primary explanation". Nonetheless, van Whye has a better perspective than did Darlington. I'm going to undo the tagging, since the statement is already cited to a reliable source...that isn't a comment on your concern, but the tag you added is inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus: This article has a source, but who is to say it is reliable ? I have the impression the 1940s is quite widely accepted. And in what respect,. if any, does van Whye have a better perspective than Darlington? Surely Darlington was much closer to the event than van Whye, with a consequently better perspective ?

I am going to put a clarification tag I hope you find more appropriate. I request the actual quote from van Whye and also his reliable evidence, if any, for his 1930s claim. Otherwise I propose my suggested edit.

--Logicus (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As Guettarda mentioned, there is no point at which one could say that natural selection (or any major new explanation) switched from being "rejected" to "accepted". The John van Whye reference concludes "1930s". Perhaps it wasn't until a few years later, but it would be misleading to say "mid 20th century" because that suggests a date which is too late. A reader would want an indication of when natural selection was accepted, but it is an inconsequential point as to whether we can prove it was 1930 or 1940 or 1950. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

--Logicus (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Both are OK, I've modified the statement a bit in accordance with Bowler pp. 178 and 333–339. The points are well referenced in the body of the article, for Bowler see refs 64 and 27. . 13:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus here posts a relevant discussion mistakenly posted in the immediately above section:

In a related question, the wording relating to Darwin's theory, "but the specific mechanism he proposed, natural selection, was not widely accepted until the 1940s", has been questioned in relation to the Charles Darwin article where we state "while his theory of natural selection came to be widely seen as the primary explanation of the process of evolution in the 1930s". That's sourced to van Wyhe, who states "Natural selection's canonisation had to wait until the modern synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian genetics in the 1930s." It was coming to be widely accepted in the '30s, and was widely accepted in the '40s, so both are reasonable. Comments? . . dave souza, talk 15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, clear and logical, well done Dave!Tmol42 (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus: No unclear and illogical. It is unclear who makes the claim "It was coming to be widely accepted in the '30s, and was widely accepted in the '40s,”, which is not included within the van Wyhe quotation marks. And Souza’s conclusion from this statement that both datings of when it first became widely accepted that natural selection is the main selector of evolution are reasonable is itself unreasonable because “coming to be widely accepted” obviously means ‘not yet widely accepted’ here. Thus the reasonable conclusion from this statement is that the theory that natural selection is the main selector in evolution first became widely accepted in the 1940s. And this dating is in line with what this article claims, but contradicts what the Darwin article currently claims. Thus on this basis Logicus’s proposed edit to ‘mid 20th century’ becomes more reasonable. And also Darlington’s implicit post 1950 dating becomes more plausible.

So will Dave souza please kindly clarify who makes the statement “It was coming to be widely accepted in the '30s, and was widely accepted in the '40s” ? Is it van Wyhe or Dave souza himself? (Note that canonization and wide acceptance are not necessarily the same thing.) --Logicus (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's funny what happens when you actually read a source. The phrase, "Natural selection's canonisation had to wait until the modern synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian genetics in the 1930s," seems to support the articles' current wording. It's also funny what happens when you read an entire discussion and see that someone else has already (and more articulately) made the same point. Quietmarc (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Evolution only widely accepted after Darwin ?

This article currently claims

“The debate over Darwin's work led to the rapid acceptance of the general concept of evolution,…”

But surely the evolution thesis, publicly propounded by Lamarck from 1800, was already widely accepted well before Darwin’s work The Origin.

I therefore flag this claim for a source with some reliable evidence that evolution was not widely accepted by scientists before Darwin’s work.

--Logicus (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. See Bowler p. 95. . dave souza, talk 13:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Also no. The question of whether evolution was widely accepted before the Origin has been treated many times by competent historians of evolution. Mayr (The growth of biological thought) tackles it specifically in the section The Pre-Darwinian lull, p391. Also, in What evolution is (a book for non-specialists) he produced these comments on page 12:

"The pre-Darwinian theories of evolution had little impact".

"... the Biblical story of Creation... was virtually unanimously accepted not only by lay people but by scientists and philosophers. This changed overnight, so to speak, in 1859, with publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species."

Note also Bowler p139-140. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Macdonald-ross:But also see the Wikipedia Lamarck article: "Stephen Jay Gould argues that Lamarck was the "primary evolutionary theorist", in that his ideas and the way in which he structured his theory set the tone for much of the subsequent thinking in evolutionary biology, through to the present day.[28]" Seems to conflict with Mayr's account, so to speak, and no doubt Bowler's. Be aware, instead of doing sociologically competent statistical history of ideas, academic historians of science tend to project their own ideological fancies onto history and when and to what extent theories became accepted in the scientific community, which they typically even fail to identify properly. What is Mayr's evidence for his dramatic claim of an overnight change of belief from creationism to evolution in 1859 ? None whatever ? Is it not just more mindless Darwin hagiography ? --Logicus (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no conflict between these accounts. Whether or not Lamarck's work set the tone for future work on evolutionary theory is unrelated to the extent of the acceptance of his theories. The Lamarck article itself says that Darwin rejected inheritance by acquired characteristics while praising his scientific approach to variation. It also refers to "general rejection of his proposed mechanism for evolution" and some its rejection by some specific peers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubathy (talk • contribs) 16:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus, accusations that respected historians are incompetent and mindless is, at best, original research, and you'd do better to find reliable sources supporting the argument you're making. Gould's argument that Lamarck set the tone for many evolutionary ideas does not mean that these ideas were scientifically accepted before Darwin. . dave souza, talk 16:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Macdonald-ross, Cubathy and Souza: Well, well ! Most amusing what an hour or so in the British Library can reveal ! Inter alia, the following statement by an eminent Harvard University academic expert surely conflicts with Mayr’s statement quoted by Macdonald-ross that

"The pre-Darwinian theories of evolution had little impact"... the Biblical story of Creation... was virtually unanimously accepted not only by lay people but by scientists and philosophers. This changed overnight, so to speak, in 1859, with publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species."

For contrary to this, the Harvard expert I consulted wrote:

“[T]here is little doubt that [in ‘’The Origin’’] Darwin is guilty of a good deal of naivete and a lack of generosity. Considering that evolutionary ideas, however vague, were widespread in the middle of the century, it surely appears naive for Darwin to refer to the concept of evolution no less than ten times as “my theory”, while his own theory of evolution by natural selection is designated as “my theory” only three times.” [My italics]

Notwithstanding the disrespectful slogan ‘Park your brain in the Harvard yard all ye who enter there !’ of some 40 years ago when I first cut my intellectual teeth tying up Harvard Professors in their own knots, surely on Wikipedia’s slavish respect for university academics as reliable sources on the history of science, you guys should surely accept the testimony of this Harvard expert that evolutionary theory was already widespread c1850 before Darwin published, against that of Mayr quoted by Macdonald-ross that pre-Darwinian evolution theory had little impact and creationism was virtually unanimously accepted, even by scientists. Especially since it is also supported by Gould's statement that Lamarck set the evolutionist framework in the 19th century.

But can you say who this Harvard expert is ? And where they said that ? More later....☺)

--Logicus (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus:Well that Harvard expert who apparently contradicts Mayr was Mayr himself, writing in his Introduction to the 1964 Harvard Uni Press publication of The Origin,page xxii. So according to Mayr "pre-Darwinian theories of evolution had little impact" but "evolutionary ideas, however vague, were widespread in the middle of the century". Surely that's a big impact ?--Logicus (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus. Once again this is no contradiction of the article content. Accusations of naivete in Darwin's acknowledgement of previous work bear little or no relation to the Mayr quotation or the subject of this thread. Quoting every irrelevant criticism of Darwin's work does not justify these changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubathy (talk • contribs) 00:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify - assuming the validity of the claim: 'evolutionary ideas, however vague, were widespread in the middle of the century,' does not require the assumption that these views were widely accepted (the subject of this thread and the Mayr quote). As far as I'm concerned there is no argument over the significance of early evolutionists work here; only on the acceptance of evolution after The Origin.Cubathy (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear the article currently says: "By the 1850s whether or not species evolved was a subject of intense debate, with prominent scientists arguing both sides of the issue." The cited source for the statement is Larson (2004), but Bowler (2003) also amply supports it. This article is more than fair in its treatment of the influence of Lamarck (the lead says: "...Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed scientific theory of evolution..."), Buffon, Robert Grant, and most importantly of all (at least in the English speaking world) Robert Chambers's Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. However as the article says: "Ideas about the transmutation of species were associated with the radical materialism of the Enlightenment and were attacked by more conservative thinkers." (with Larson 2004 as the source but again Bowler 2003 would have done as well), and the argument (especially in scientific circles) was fundamentally changed by the publicaion of On the Origin of Species. Incidentally Darwin added a historical sketch to the 3rd edition of Origin that treated his predecessors very generously. It should also be mentioned that Darwin's (and Wallace's) ideas were very different from earlier versions of transmutation in that they postulated a branching pattern of divergence rather than the linnear patterns proposed by almost all the transmutationists, and it proposed a purely material scientfically testable mechanim in natural selection. Given the extreme controversy over transmuation of species it is not surprisng that Darwin didn't go out of his way to draw a connection between his theory and the earlier ones. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A little more needed from the 18th century.

The page is too weak in this time period. I think both Kant and Geothe deserve more discussion.

Kant, for example, wrote a little known book called "Anthropology" which described his theories of evolution, including, the proposition that man evolved from apes, that all animals and plant life were related and had evolved from inanimate matter 'until mankind was reached'(although he doesnt use the word 'evolved'), that comparitive anatomy showed that there was a 'primal matrix' for all animal and plant life (in 'Critique of pure reason') and he identified the organutan and the chimpanzee as being capable of evolving into man (in 'Anthropology'). Goethe, another German, mentions the relationship of humans to animal and plant life, and talks about 'hereditry transmission' and the 'continuous process of transformation' which produced 'new aptitudes and forms', from 'a single primal image', which process, was 'the highest conception to which Nature has risen' etc. These, and others, are outlined in 'I looked for Adam' by Herbert Wendt, for example. I don't have time to add these in detail, but I'm sure that more needs to be discussed from these philosophers. The idea of evolution was relatively widespread in latter 18th century Europe, what the idea lacked, was a mechanism (although Kant does mention the struggle for existance, I believe, and 'the means of social cultivation' (foreshadowing Darwin's extensive discussions on domestication).

I disagree with the assertion therefore, that Kant's and other's ideas were relatively minor, rather their influence was relatively minor, mostly because there wasn't a mechanism (much like early ideas about continental drift). 'Anthropology', by Kant was universally ignored, but contained most of the ideas about evolution that rose to prominance later.58.169.187.245 (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

They're interesting, but you need to find reliable sources interpreting the evolutionary significance of their work and showing its influence on later authors. Also remember that this is an overview of the most salient points, so it's something to develop in more detail on the sub articles before trying to get it all in this article. It's tricky, as for example Goethe occasionally hints at evolution, but is largely concerned with immaterial processes intuitively grasped rather than historical development open to empirical examination, all of which is way off track in terms of our perception of evolution. . dave souza, talk 11:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few more extracts from Goethe from Wendt, although Wendt doesn't say where they come from. Goethe called evolution 'metamorphisis', and another quote: "We should then have reached the stage of being able to declare without fear that all complete organisms, among which we may include fish, amphibian, birds, mammals, and at the head of the latter, mankind, have all been formed in accordance with a single primal image, the component parts of which alone undergo more or less imporant changes in one direction or another and which is still day by day developing and transforming istelf by propagation". This is evolution. The 'single primal image' may be ??DNA?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.108.134 (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Kant

The recent Kant addition was not mine, but I disagree with removing it. Kant's "Critique of Judgment," for example, has many insights relevent to contemporary evolutionary theory. He speculated about a future "Newton of the grassblade," which some have seen realized in Darwin. There is a lot of material relevant to the history evolutionary thought in Kant.StN (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why the section starts by linking to "Main article" Evolutionary ideas of the renaissance and enlightenment. Those interested in the contributions from that period can see it there. If something specific from Kant's work can be seen in the current understanding of evolution, it might be worth mentioning it in this article. I suspect that's not the case, and there are many other details already in the article, so further information should only be added if really required. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, and for the record Kant said that there would never be a "Newton of a blade of grass", because he felt that biology would never be reduced to simple rules the way physics had been during the Enlightenment. In that regard Darwin proved him wrong not right as the first commentor seems to be suggesting. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree; my remark was imprecise. Kant's speculation about a Newton of the grassblade was that there would not be one. And although some, like the previous commentator, believe that Darwin gives the lie to this, my comment that "some have seen [the Newton...] realized in Darwin" was not meant to endorse that view. Some evo-devo theorists see Darwinism as completely failing to address Kant's teleological conundrums. Newer work, moving beyond the Modern Synthesis, is more responsive to the Kantian critique, in the form of what is now referred to as self-organization (a term that itself has roots in Kant's "Critique of Judgment").StN (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This article briefly alludes to the developmental issues you mention in the subsection on evolutionary developmental biology near the end of the article. It is still somewhat of a minority view in that even many people actively working in evo-devo, for example Sean B. Carroll, think that understanding how a multi-level genetic hierarchy (with genetic switches etc.) interacts with the environment in the production of a phenotype will only end up enriching Darwinian evolutionary theory much as ideas like horizontal gene transfer and endosymbiosis have. As for Kant himself, he is treated as major figure in histories of the philosopy of biology like Greene and Depew (2004), but is given only brief attention in general histories of evolutionary theory like Bowler (2003) and Larson (2004), so I think discussing him briefly in the Evolutionary ideas of the renaissance and enlightenment article but not in this one is appropriate. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right, for the time-being. In 3 or 4 years I believe things will look different. The strain of evo-devo you mention is one of the most conservative and gene-centric ones, despite focusing on regulatory rather than structural sequences. Self-organization and other dynamical properties of developing systems, the phenomena most relevant to Kant's views, do not figure into it at all.StN (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The first biological species concept...

Is dated here to 1686. We don't mention John Ray, but his introduction of the biological species concept, his idea that by definition species meant breeding true and were fixed, with a range of variation within the species, and his ideas of natural theology, seem to me crucial for the developments of the following century and a half. Bowler 2003 covers this without being so specific about the biological species point. A blog entry, but Wilkins has published on the subject.[1] Something to consider. . dave souza, talk 20:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ray's contributions to taxonomy are mentioned briefly in the 17th century section of history of biology. Although it doesn't specifically mention his species definition. We sort of made a consious decision not to cover the history of biological classification in this article for reasons of space, which is why the only mention of Carolus Linnaeus is a brief note that he grouped humans in with the other primates. I think a little more detail on Ray's contribution, including a brief mention of his species concept, in history of biology might be in order. I don't think we need to use the blog for a source; we can just use the source the blog cites, Mayr (1982), which is a reliable source (even if later historians have picked some nits with a few of Mayr's ideas). We really need a history of taxonomy article to compliment this article and history of biology the same way history of paleontology does. I have had starting one on my Wiki to do list for many months now, but I hope someone beats me to it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, will add it to my extended to-do list! . dave souza, talk 09:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This has the makings of a really good idea. We'ld need to think about whether to limit it to biological taxonomy (probably wise); and whether a history of biological classification is needed to run parallel (there's quite a bit of history on the biological classification page). Are we agreed that taxonomy is the theory/science/philosophy of classification, and classification is the result of applying a taxonomy to a set of objects or ideas, so placing those in sets or categories? If not, pl. offer your alternatives... How about systematics, then? That's a really slippery word! Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, you are correct that biological classificatin has a whole bunch of historical information, including info on Ray; though not his species definition, which it probably should. In fact it has so much historical information that I suspect it is probably misnamed. I would have expected it mostly to be about the modern taxonomic system/ classification practice, and much less about historical development but the modern stuff seems to be mostly covered in Linnean taxonomy and cladistics. I suspect it came out this way because those other articles already existed. Perhaps the course of least resistance is to improve the historical info already in biological classification (for one thing it lacks citations). Mayr (1982) and Bowler would probably provide pretty good sources. "History of taxonomy", "history of biological classifcation", and possibly even "history of systematics" could then be redirects to that article. I understand your impulse to separate the history of taxonomic systems from the history of classification, but I suspect in practice they are best treated together. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the gist of Ray's definition of species:

"... no surer criterion for determining species has occurred to me than the distinguishing features that perpetuate themselves in propagation from seed. Thus, no matter what variations occur in the individuals or the species, if they spring from the seed of one and the same plant, they are accidental variations and not such as to distinguish a species... Animals likewise that differ specifically preserve their distinct species permanently; one species never springs from the seed of another nor vice versa". Mayr Growth of biological thought p256; original was Ray, Hist Plant. 1686, trans E. Silk.

Well, Ray's definition has its obvious weaknesses, but I suppose the most interesting thing is that he realised some sort of formal definition was necessary. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fragment from Biology

I removed the following from Biology:

Historically, it wasn't evolution that was theorized to be the reason for biological speciation. Up into the 19th century, spontaneous generation, the belief that life forms could appear spontaneously under certain conditions, was widely accepted. This misconception was challenged by William Harvey, who even before the invention of the microscope was led by his studies to suggest that life came from invisible 'eggs.' In the frontispiece of his book Exercitationes de Generatione Animalium (Essays on the Generation of Animals), he expressed the basic principle of biogenesis: "Omnia ex ovo" (everything from eggs).

I think it is true and that it fits in this article, but I dare not meddle with this FA. --Ettrig (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed one reference for the al-Jahiz quotation

I've removed a reference that was added to this article in support of the claim about al-Jahiz's ideas on evolution: "Science: Islam's forgotten geniuses, The Daily Telegraph". This article has clearly copy-pasted this quotation from either Wikipedia or from the original site (Gary Dargan, Intelligent Design, Encounter, ABC). Since it repeats the misquotation that was originally just on Wikipedia (i.e., that the words are a quotation from al-Jahiz rather than an alleged summary of his work's contents), it is safe to assume that it used this page as a source.

I've made similar edits to Early Islamic philosophy and to al-Jahiz. –Syncategoremata (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, as Wikipedia becomes more influential, it is becoming harder and harder to avoid becoming self referential. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted text on Thomas Aquinas

I deleted some recently added text on Thomas Aquinas, because I did not believe the cited sources supported the implied interpretation. In particular it seems to me that the first passage quoted has more to do with spontaneous generation of life from non life than with evolution of one species into another and the 2nd one is actually an effort to minimize the importance of variations or mutations by refuting Empodocles' arguments. Aquinas did say some things about the nature of creation and natural processes that would be relevent to this article so I am going to try and provide a better summary of his relevent ideas using a different source. Here is the text I deleted:

Saint Thomas Aquinas

Saint Thomas Aquinas reasoned that animal life may have emerged from inanimate matter and plant life during the course of Creation. In his Summa Theologica, he wrote the following: -

-

Since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it was not incompatible with the first formation of things, that from the corruption of the less perfect the more perfect should be generated. Hence animals generated from the corruption of inanimate things, or of plants, may have been generated then.

- - Additionally, Aquinas considered Empedocles' theory that various mutated species emerged at the dawn of Creation. Aquinas reasoned that these species were generated through mutations in animal sperm, and argued that they were not unintended by nature; rather, such species were simply not intended for perpetual existence. This discussion is found in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics: -

-

The same thing is true of those substances which Empedocles said were produced at the beginning of the world, such as the ‘ox-progeny’, i.e., half ox and half man. For if such things were not able to arrive at some end and final state of nature so that they would be preserved in existence, this was not because nature did not intend this [a final state], but because they were not capable of being preserved. For they were not generated according to nature, but by the corruption of some natural principle, as it now also happens that some monstrous offspring are generated because of the corruption of seed.

Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Rusty Cashman, since Empedocles is referenced in this article as an historical forerunner of evolutionists, Saint Thomas Aquinas' commentary on Empedocles is relevant. I'm re-inserting that reference. Also, Aquinas saw God as immanent in the natural world, so the development of life did not occur apart from God, according to Aquinas. I'm adding a reference to reflect his thought. --Ryan.vilbig (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

While its unsurprising that Aquinas would have theological reflections on the ideas of Empdocles, these are of dubious if any significance in the development of evolutionary thought. The section was sources entirely to primary sources, and lacked a reliable third party source making the connection Ryan seems to see in the text. I've therefore removed it again. If this has theological or antievolutionary significance it may be suitable for other articles, provided a secondary source is provided showing that significance. As far as this article is concerned, the addition appeared to give undue weight to something of no proven significance to the subject. . . dave souza, talk 21:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Cardinal Schonborn discussed this passage of Aquinas in his book "Chance or Purpose". The Catholic Church supports evolution (see Catholic Church and evolution), so I'm not sure why you think this is anti-evolutionary. And as I have already stated, Empedocles is mentioned in the article as expressing evolutionary ideas, so Aquinas' discussion on this topic is relevant. I will add a quote from the secondary source, and I hereafter expect you to respect Wikipedia's vision to "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge" (see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision), including historical documents relevant to an article. --Ryan.vilbig (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is that while Empodocles' views can be considered a crude foreshadowing of "survival of the fittest" or at least "non survival of the least fit" combined with randomness as an explanation for the appearance of design in the living world and thus deserves at least a very brief mention in the ancient section, as Dave says, Aquinas' comments dismissing Empodocles' conclusions are not particularly relevant here. His views on the relationship of divine creation and natural mechanisms are somewhat relevant because they show that not all medieval christian philosophers viewed the universe as essentially unchanged from a recent creation as described by an unsophisticated reading of Genesis and other scripture, and that some felt that divine purpose might unfold through natural process rather than miraculous creation. As such they are also worth a brief mention, but given the length of this article it is important that any new material added be kept cut pared down to the minimum needed to cover the most relevant and essential and not be overweighted in comparison with the attention given other topics. I don't want an edit war, and I am going to make another effort to come up a compromise that hopefully everyone can live with. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Rusty, you need to re-read the Aquinas quote. You're not understanding it. Aquinas said the ox-man species died out "because they were not capable of being preserved." He described natural selection. He simply saw it as providential. Just as Catholics do now. I'm putting the quote back up. --70.238.174.104 (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read the quote several times. I have also read the (very good) source you provided as well as the other source you had originally provided and the one I found. The all say that the thrust of Aquinas's points were that he thought that scripture should not be interpreted in way that constrained natural philosophy and that God created by making the universe capable of developing itself through natural processes, and that the existance of such natural processes in no way contradicted the concept of divine design. This makes the self assembling ship timber quote (which I think you for finding) far more representive of Aquinas' ideas than the comments on Empedocles. The text you quote now makes a far stronger claim for Aquinas foreshadowing natural selection than this article allows for Empecoles (or Aristotle's comments on Empedocles). The text on Empodocles says:

Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC) wrote of a non-supernatural origin for living things.[2] Empedocles suggested that adaptation did not require an organizer or final cause. Aristotle summarized his idea: "Wherever then all the parts came about just what they would have been if they had come to be for an end, such things survived, being organized spontaneously in a fitting way; whereas those which grew otherwise perished and continue to perish ..." although Aristotle himself rejected this view.[3]

You will notice that no where does it mention natural selection. This is not unintentional. There was considerable debate on this point and it was decided that this was too strong a claim to make, and in anycase the main thrust of Empodocles' point was that adaptation did not require an intelligent organizer or what Aristotle would have called a final cause. This is the central point that both Aristotle and Aquinas are challanging in there commentaries on Empedocles. I am very unhappy with the latest edits you made with its explicit comments on natural selection (which are very similar to some excessive claims currently made in the Islamic philosophy section anbout al Jahiz that are the subject of an ongoing research effort to find good sources to justify paring them back), but I don't want to edit war with another editor who is editing in good faith so I am goling to wait for a response from you. If we still can't agree I am going to start a poll on this talk page to solicit the opinion of other editors interested in this topic. In the case of Thomas Aquinas (unlike the case of al Jahiz) there are plenty of good English language sources on which to base a decision. Just for the benefit of any other editors who want to comment. Here is the alternate text I proposed:

However, Aquinas disputed the views of those like the ancient Greek philosopher Empodocles who held that such natural processes showed that the universe could have developed without an underlying purpose. Rather holding that:

Hence, it is clear that nature is nothing but a certain kind of art, i.e., the divine art, impressed upon things, by which these things are moved to a determinate end. It is as if the shipbuilder were able to give to timbers that by which they would move themselves to take the form of a ship.

"

I still believe that this text better reflects the thrust of Thomas Aquinas' views as expressed in the cited sources. Hopefully other editors who watch this page will chime in.Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm about to delete the material on Aquinas and Empedocles here. As User:Rusty Cashman says, the quote from Aquinas is simply recording his agreement with Aristotle against Empedocles. If this argument is sufficiently important to this article, it should be discussed in a section on Aristotle, not Aquinas.

Also it just is not "apparent that Aquinas described the process of natural selection" in that passage. He is speaking hypothetically there and has no commitment to the existence of such monsters: he is only saying that if Empedocles were right and there were such monsters, they would not be a counter-example to Aristotle's theory. And that sports of nature die because they are not viable is tenuously related to natural selection, and again, is neither new nor particular to Aquinas. –Syncategoremata (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is not sufficiently important to the article; rather, it is distracting. Tuxedo junction (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is terrible. Empedocles believed in two divinities: Love and Strife. He referred to them as gods. (see line 59 in his fragments http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/GrPhil/EmpedoclesText.htm). Why is it that you can't accept that Aquinas believed in both evolution and the one, true God? And why do you censor reasonable ideas? When you're burning in hell, you're going to wish you reconciled evolution with Catholicism, just as Aquinas did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.173.15 (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how Empedocles' belief in strife and love as the driving forces in the universe is relevant to this article. What is relevant is that he suggested that what appeared to be design in the natural world might not have required a designer (or if you prefer Aristotle's terminology a final cause) but rather could be produced by a combination of chance combined with the fact that only those organisms that happened to be formed as if they had been designed would survive. This view was disputed by Aristotle and also Aquinas who much admired Aristotle. This article does discuss the fact that Augustine and Aquinas did not believe Genesis should be read literally in a way that constrained what natural philosophers could learn about the universe, and that Aquinas in particular was open to the possibility that the universe might be quite old and might have developed through natural process. These were important philosophical ideas and it is worth mentioning them in this context because all too many people believe that all Christians before Darwin necessarily subscribed to the sort of literal reading of scripture as both history and science typical of some early protestants like James Ussher and some modern fundamentalists. I hope that, within the limited scope of what is relevant to this article, both Augustine's and Aquinas' views are treated fairly. They are major figures in the history of philosophical thought and they deserve to have their ideas explained and understood as they intended them to be by their contemporaries, not stretched and twisted to fit into some modern debate. Incidentally, you are more likely to find people willing to rationally discuss issues with you on a talk page if you stay away from "while you are burning in hell" rhetoric. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Diego Valades

This edit is supported by this page among others – the Latinised name seems to be unique to Wikipedia among online sources. We don't seem to have an article on Diego Valades, but there are bios on other language wikipedias. . . dave souza, talk 19:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. My research also shows that the non latinized form is far more common. I took the latinized name from the original description of the image. I suspect that version was used originally because it is the form that was used when the book was originally published, but it is better to use the more common form. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Eastern European Heterodox theory

This article doesn't properly capture historical and contemporary Eastern European theoretical diversity. There was a tendency to reject several aspects of Darwinist thought in the 19th century and there also developed a diversity of theorists (some of whom have made significant findings that are likely a result of their different orientation eg, Shaposhnikov). Too often we seem to lose sight of the fact that many non-darwinist theorists were not Lysenkoists. In fact that battle between Lysenkoist and Neo-Darwinist factions may have lead to a reaction against political interference and more tacit acceptance of heterodox research in the 1970s-2000s. It would be nice to see this diversity reflected. --Hrimpurstala (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-Western roots of evolutionary thought

Dear,

I wanted to ask for some attention for the following passage from H.P. Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled, p. 620-1. (http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/isis/iu1-15.htm):

". . . Name to us any modern discovery, and we venture to say, that Indian history need not long be searched before the prototype will be found of record. Here we are with the transit of science half accomplished, and all our ideas in process of readjustment to the theories of force-correlation, natural selection, atomic polarity, and evolution. And here, to mock our conceit, our apprehensions, and our despair, we may read what Manu said, perhaps 10,000 years before the birth of Christ:

"The first germ of life was developed by water and heat" (Manu, book i., sloka 8).

"Water ascends toward the sky in vapors; from the sun it descends in rain, from the rain are born the plants, and from the plants, animals" (book iii., sloka 76).

"Each being acquires the qualities of the one which immediately precedes it, in such a manner that the farther a being gets away from the primal atom of its series, the more he is possessed of qualities and perfections" (book i., sloka 20).

"Man will traverse the universe, gradually ascending, and passing through the rocks, the plants, the worms, insects, fish, serpents, tortoises, wild animals, cattle, and higher animals. . . . Such is the inferior degree" (Ibid.).

"These are the transformations declared, from the plant up to Brahma, which have to take place in his world" (Ibid.)." (bold added)

I would like to see that this is looked at seriously.

With kindest regards, --Gulpen (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: Manu's book can be found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=UQM3AAAAIAAJ&ots=QCNadRaLS-&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false --Gulpen (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Helena Blavatsky I presume. Certainly vivid, but not really a reliable source about evolutionary thought. Assessment by a reliable modern academic would be in order. . dave souza, talk 21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this a better source: http://books.google.com/books?id=7aiN7MNCstYC&lpg=PA40&pg=PA45#v=onepage ?

--Gulpen (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems rather obscure and offtopic. . . dave souza, talk 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

From Talk:Evolution#Misuse of sources (permanent link to earlier version) Jagged 85 has been adding dubiously sourced information to articles. This includes edits to this article: see that page for further guidance. . . dave souza, talk 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC) update, link to live discussion. . dave souza, talk 09:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Jagged 85 cleanup for a quick introduction. The cleanup item for this article is:

History of evolutionary thought: (80 edits, 11 major, +1456) (+51)(0)(+69)(-4)(+21)(-1)(+483)(+62)(+3)(+4)(0)(+1456)(-8)(+696)(+2)(+29)(-46)(+717)(+52)(+6)(-149)(+29)(0)(+4)(+140)(+37)(+4)(+35)(-1)(+2)(+12)(0)(-55)(0)(+4)(-10)(+6)(+41)(+61)(+2)(+66)(+1)(+2)(-69)(+1)(+30)(+1)(+165)(0)(+68)(+8)(+142)(+84)(+1)(+7)(+18)(-51)(+37)(+31)(0)(+187)(-13)(+12)(+25)(+3)(+1)(+80)(+13)(+34)(-14)(+8)(0)(+12)(+43)(+966)(+9)(-4)(+259)(-4)(+337)

This indicates that Jagged made 80 edits to this article, and they need to be checked to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed. We do not need to check each edit, but sampling them will show the sections impacted and some of the claims/sources. We need to check what the current article says about these. I will try to inspect the diffs and summarize the situation here later.[Done, see following.] Johnuniq (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now looked quickly at each of Jagged's edits and am fairly confident that the only material remaining that needs to be checked is the following.

Section Islamic philosophy and the struggle for existence

Paragraph on al-Jahiz was started by Jagged who introduced these two sources (claims sourced to these need to be checked):

• Conway Zirkle (1941). Natural Selection before the "Origin of Species", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 84 (1), pp. 71–123.
• Mehmet Bayrakdar (Third Quarter, 1983). "Al-Jahiz And the Rise of Biological Evolutionism", The Islamic Quarterly. London.[2]

This current text, and the two sources, were introduced by Jagged:
Ibn Miskawayh's al-Fawz al-Asghar and the Brethren of Purity's Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity (The Epistles of Ikhwan al-Safa) set forth ideas on how species developed: from matter into vapor and thence to water, then minerals into plants and then animals, leading to apes and, finally, humans.

• Muhammad Hamidullah and Afzal Iqbal (1993), The Emergence of Islam: Lectures on the Development of Islamic World-view, Intellectual Tradition and Polity, pp. 143–144. Islamic Research Institute, Islamabad.
• Eloise Hart, Pages of Medieval Mideastern History. (cf. Isma'ili, Yezidi, Sufi, The Brethren Of Purity, Ismaili Heritage Society)

Jagged introduced many other names and ideas, but I believe these have been cleaned out. Recently TimVickers edited the al-Jahiz section (diff of two edits). I notice that the current text "Al-Jahiz was also wrote" needs fixing. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the refs in this section. Insofar as they give translated text from original authors, they should be interpreted as passages on natural history rather than evolution. Insofar as they give interpretations by present-day islamic authors, these summaries seem overstated, sometimes wildly so. Referring back to previous discussions, natural history includes such ideas as the struggle for existence, which was noticed by many before the 19th century without making the explicit connections made by Darwin & Wallace. Adaptation is also, in its origin, a natural history concept (see Ray, Paly). Aristotelian 'chain of life' also comes up. Many such natural historians did quite definitely not believe in evolution as we understand it. Some of the refs are unsound and unreliable, others are sound enough, but don't quite say what the text wants them to say. On those grounds, I will water down the claims in the text. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be very helpful. When you're done, I will update the "cleanup" page for this item to record that it has been done (the cleanup pages are found at WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Johnuniq (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

First, if I may, a bit of scene-setting. The title of the article and its first sentence troubles me. If it refers to the theory of evolution, it claims too much; but if not, then what is it saying? Clearly, evolution is not just change, and much good natural history was done by people who had no inkling that it could be put together as it is today.

Coming to section 1.2 Islamic philosophy, I approve of the title. Most of the texts quoted are about the struggle for existence, and we know (eg Malthus) that this does not necessarily mean the author believed in evolution. The second sentence goes much too far in summarising "In the Islamic Golden Age of the 8th to the 13th centuries, philosophers explored ideas about evolution". And repeated in the second para. Al-Jahiz is mainstream natural history observation: good on its own terms, but not supporting or denying any connection with evolution.

The "from mineral to plant, from plant to animal, and from animal to man" quote is from Abu-l-Hasan 'Ali al-Masudi. I don't know how reliable the translation is. It is hard to interpret, as is much of the Greek thinking. Let's say they had some thoughts about change and progression. Such views have certainly been held by theists who did not believe in evolution. I would recommend careful non-interpretation. All we really know is that some people had thoughts of change and progression. Take out the word 'evolution'. We do not have to find complete solutions to difficult, amibuous or vague texts. We would do better to admit the difficulty of understanding what people meant, as they wrote hundreds of years ago, in another language and in another culture! We should avoid over-statements and over-interpretation. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The section on Islamic philosophy in the middle ages has long been the problem child of this article with a long history of expansion followed by pruning followed by more expansion and then more pruning. A big part of the problem is that some rather extravegant claims made by some Islamic scholars have been published in the news media and that has been hard to deal with because there are no good English translations of the primary sources which are in Arabic. I had extensive conversations with Syncategoremata about this on my talk page. There were similar problems with the sections on Thomas Aquinas and before that with Augustine of Hippo and also some now removed text about Kant. Those problems were easier to resolve quickly because authoritative English translations of and commentaries on the primary sources were easy to find. I think that you and Tim Vickers have finally pruned the Islamic section back to reasonable claims supported by reliable sources, and I am glad to see it. As for your broader comment about the article mixing discussions about early pre-scientific philosophic ideas about the development of living world with later truly scientific theories of evolution, you may have a valid point, but this has been discussed since before this article went through FAC, and the consensus has usually been that the older material provides a useful bacground showing how ideas about the origin of living things have developed over time, and that the article worked pretty well structured as it was. I do agree that we should avoid anachronistic language that makes the ideas of ancient natural philosophers sound too much like modern scientific theories. Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Text on India removed

I reverted edits that added the following text on India:

India

One of the most intriguing stories of evolutionary thought in Antiquity is in the Indian Hindu scriptures of Dashavatara. It refers to the ten principal avatars. In Vaishnava philosophy, an avatar (Sanskrit: अवतार, avatāra), most commonly refers to the 'descent' and daśa refers to 'ten' in number. The ten most famous incarnations of Vishnu or sometimes Krishna are collectively known as the Dashavatara. This list is included in the Garuda Purana (1.86.10-11) and denotes those avatars most prominent in terms of their influence on human society.

British geneticist and evolutionary biologist, J B S Haldane, observed that the Dashavataras are a true sequential depiction of the great unfolding of evolution.[citation needed]. The first few avatars of Vishnu show an uncanny similarity to the biological theory of evolution of life on earth.(http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/101713)

According to Dashavatar the first avatar of Lord Vishnu was in the form of Matsya (fish) on this earth. If we compare it with biological evolution on different Geological Time Scale first developed life was also in the form of fish which originated during Cambrian period.

Second avatar was in the form of Kurma (Tortoise(reptiles)). In geology also reptiles comes as second important evolution which originated in Mississippian period just after Amphibians.

Third avatar was in the form of Varaha (Boar). In Tertiary period all the big mammals originated including the first land animals.

Narasimha, the Man-Lion (Nara= man, simha=lion) was the fourth avatar. similar to the concept of the Ape Man (considered to be the first kind of man). The term may sometimes refer to extinct early human ancestors, such as the undiscovered missing link between apes and humans.

Fifth avatar was in the form of Vamana, the dwarf man. It may be related with the first man originated during Pliocene. It may be related with Neanderthals. Neanderthals were generally only 12 to 14 cm (4½–5½ in) shorter than modern humans, contrary to a common view of them as "very short" or "just over 5 feet".

Parashurama, the man with an axe was the sixth avatar. It has the similarities with the first modern man originated during Quaternary period or the man of Iron age.

Lord Rama the prince of Ayodhya, Lord Krishna and Lord Buddha were the other avatars of Lord Vishnu. It indicates the physical and mental changes and evolution in the man from its time of appearance.

Once can see that most of the sequence of evolution is same.

Discussion of reversion

I deleted the text because it seemed overly detailed for the scope of the article, most of it cited no particular source, and the one source that was cited seemed unreliable to me. The problems with the cited source seemed to me to be that the material seems to be self published (the web site explicitly denies responsibility for any of the material) and the contributor doesn't seem to have any professional expertise in history of science, biology, or Hindu theology. This issue has come up before. The problem is that Hindu ideas on evolution seem to be spiritual rather than biologic, and few sources that explicitly tie Hindu theology to biologic evolution seem to all be very dubious. If someone can produce a high quality source that discusses this topic, we can then consider how much coverage of it would be appropriate for this article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The same editor who added the material originally added very similar material without discussing it here. The same questionable source was used, but this time it was cited in a misleading way as it does not even support the statement it was cited for (that J.B.S. Haldane claimed the Dashavatara reflected the evolution of life on earth). Furthermore another source [3], which might be more reliable, was added, but it is also not used correctly as it does not make the direct connection between biological evolution and the 10 Avatars that the added text does. Therefore I am going to revert out the text again and request that it not be added back until there has been some discussion on this talk page. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter Mundy

Just came across this excerpt from Peter Mundy's The Travels of Peter Mundy (1656) in which he writes about St. Matthew Island (phantom island):

Soe now againe concerning the Ascention birds allsoe, thatt can neither fly nor swymme. The iland beeing aboutt 300 leagues from the coast of Guinnea and 160 leagues from the iland of St Matheo, the nearest land to it, the question is, how they shold bee generated, whither created there from the beginning, or thatt the earth produceth them of its owne accord, as mice, serpentts, flies, wormes, etts, insects, or whither the nature of the earth and climate have alltred the spape and nature of some other foule into this, I leave it to the learned to dispute of.

— Peter Mundy, The Travels of Peter Mundy

Surely worthy of mention in the article on history of evolutionary thought? David (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Diderot

(Just asked this question on the main Evolution page, but here seems like the better place to go first.) I was wondering whether Diderot's proto-theories on evolution (in the 1746 "Letter on the Blind", and more developed in the 1769 D'Alembert's Dream) are notable enough to be mentioned in the "Renaissance and Enlightenment" section. The Diderot article already contains a a short note about the 1746 ideas on natural selection. Noamz (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added a very brief mention of Diderot's ideas to the section. I will add a more extensive material on Diderot and Baron d'Holbach to Evolutionary ideas of the Renaissance and Enlightenment when I get a chance. Thanks for the suggestion. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Another one from that period worth considering is Rousseau. Rousseau did not describe a process of evolution but he did, in a very well known work, propose that some great apes in forests (he named the species as Pongo) were humans in a state of nature. Must be seen as a crucial step to the shock idea that humans might descend from animals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There were a lot of this sort of thing in the late 18th century especially among French and German thinkers. Rousseau is more associated with philosophical ideas about social development and the human condition than with biology. It might be worthwhile to mention him in Evolutionary ideas of the Renaissance and Enlightenment but I don't think it belongs in this article any more than the ideas of Goethe and Kant do (see a previous discussion on this talk page). Diderot is a different story because he addressed biological species directly and more importantly because respected histories of evolutionary theory like Bowler (2003) devote space to discussing his writings on the topic and connecting them to other transmutational thinkers of the time. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Rousseau did not do anything I know of concerning evolution in general. It depends how important we see the idea of man descending from apes is to the history of evolutionary thought, because concerning that particular topic he is much more notable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Huxley et al

A picture of Huxley was recently introduce (by me) and removed. This picture ha been tolerated for a while in Evolution. The Evolution article is too long but it is difficult to reach agreement on how to shorten it. One way to ease that process would be to save the stuff in articles about sub-topics. This is what I tried with Huxley. --Ettrig (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As I explained in my summary of the edit where I removed the photo, the image crowded the section (which already had an image connected to Huxley) and it was not consistent with the style of the other illustrations in this article, which emphasize historical texts and ideas rather than individuals. Consistent with that philosophy I chose an image from Huxley's book rather than an image of Huxley for that section. If we include a photo of Huxley, it would be strange not to have images of Darwin, Wallace, R.A. Fisher, and many others who have played important roles in the development of evolutionary theory. There is no room for this without removing some of the images already in the article. Like Evolution this article has had problems with excessive length. I had to pare it down considerably to get it through FA (hence the existence of spin-off articles like Evolutionary ideas of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, and The eclipse of Darwinism). That is why I deleted the image you added of Huxley, but I did think the caption to the photo made an important point about the impact of Huxley's work so I merged that info into the caption of the image that had already been in the section and found a source to cite for it. I don't think there is a problem with moving some information into this article from the evolution article (as you did with the bit about the history of the historical use of the term "evolution"), but any such moves need to be consistent with the material in/purpose of this article and not clutter this (already lengthy) article with redundant information or images. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

To good effect, this article is rather un-wikipedian. It consistently exhibits a personal style. I will try to support you in maintaining this. There may be one exception to this. This article has a tendency to pile successes and skipping over controversies. But I will start by reading a couple of histories that are on their snail mail way. --Ettrig (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Redundant categories

Normally only the lowest category is included. If more should be included, an exceptional motivation is needed. --Ettrig (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

A new section on "post modern synthesis"

I would like to raise a doubt about whether we should keep the new section about a "post modern synthesis" which doubts all kinds of things. Of course there are lots of articles about doubts about all kinds of things and always have been but (a) which reliable source has named them as all being one big monolithic criticism? (b) even if these criticisms are one movement, and mainstream and notable enough, then we clearly are not reporting it properly because the criticisms all seem unrelated, and some seem wrongfully reported. For example the first paragraph is written as if it would be a failure of the theory of evolution to explain abiogenesis, which is not an aim or claim of the theory. This looks like someone putting together their own case using a scattering of sources in a distorted way?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In one word: Agree. --Ettrig (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm moving it here:---Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

===Post modern evolutionary synthesis=== Modern research is pointing out that perhaps conventional theories including [[On the Origin of Species|Darwinian]] adaptive natural selection as also [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|Modern Evolutionary Synthesis]] only explain microevolution but do not explain the [[Abiogenesis|origin of life or its diversity]]. Several scientists are also openly saying that conventional theories are fundamentally flawed and a new theory is needed to explain the diversity of life. [[Michael Lynch (geneticist)|Michael Lynch]]<ref name = "Lynch"> Lynch, M. (2007) The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity. PNAS 104(1), 8597-8604 </ref> from the [[Indiana University]] has commented that viewing biodiversity in adaptive terms amounts to an increasingly narrow view given the recent findings from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory. Kirschner and Gerhart<ref name = "Kirschner"> Kirschner, M., and Gerhart, J. (2005) The Plausibility of Life. Yale Univ Press, New Haven, CT </ref> have argued that [[evolutionary biology]] has been ‘‘woefully inadequate’’ with respect to understanding the origins of complexity and ‘‘an original solution to the long-standing puzzle of how small random genetic change can be converted into complex, useful innovations" is needed. Koonin<ref name = "Koonin"> Koonin, E.V. (2009) Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics Nucleic Acids Research. 37(4), 1011-1034 </ref> from the [[National Institutes of Health]] had written that the [[Tree of life (biology)|Tree of Life]] concept has been undermined given new findings from comparative genomics and systems biology. He in fact describes this as Forest of Life, with each unique genome having a "diverse collection of genes with different evolutionary fates". He asks "is a Postmodern Synthesis conceivable and, perhaps, even in sight?" coining the Post Modern Synthesis term. German scientists, Tal Dagan and [[William F. Martin|William Martin]]<ref name = "Dagan"> Dagan, T., and Martin, W. (2006) The tree of one percent. Genome Biology 7(118) </ref> call the [[Tree of life (biology)|Tree of Life]] as the The tree of one percent, pointing out that Tree of Life explains only the 1% commonality among [[genes]] from diverse organisms. They suggest that biologists need to depart from the conventional thinking that all [[genomes]] are related by a single bifurcating tree. Biologists [[Michael R. Rose|Micheal Rose]] and Todd Oakley<ref name = "Rose"> Rose, M.R., and Oakley, T.H. (2007) The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis. Biology Direct 2(30) </ref> from the [[University of California, Irvine]], have said that 21st century [[genomics]] has forced [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|"Modern" Synthesis]] to crumble forcing evolutionary biologists to fundamentally revisit evolutionary mechanisms. A few theories have surfaced that attempt to explain the origin and diversity of life in the light of the findings from modern genomics. [[Periannan Senapathy]], president of Genome Life Sciences, has argued that spliced [[eukaryote|eukaryotic]] [[genomes]] are far more likely to be found in [[Primordial soup|prebiotic random genetic sequences]] than [[prokaryote|prokaryotic]] [[genomes]]. His theory of [[Parallel Genome Assembly]] claims that complex genomes of multicellular organisms could have independently and in parallel developed from the [[Primordial soup|primordial pond]]. It argues to have eliminated several classical dilemmas being presented by the conventional linear branching evolutionary theories such as the [[On the Origin of Species|theory of evolution]] <ref name="Nature Preceding Article 1">[http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5384/version/1 Nature Preceding article on the "Origin of biological information"]</ref>.

The new section is under the heading of 21st century updates. And it is not that the section doubts all kinds of earlier hypothesis. It is just presenting the findings of most research papers that have been published in this domain over the last 5 years. As more and more genomic data is being sequences and power of comparative genomics is being used, several researchers have presented alternative hypothesis and it is widely being accepted that conventional theories have certain fundamental flaws. For the reader, when presenting information about the history of evolutionary thought, it is increasingly important that we present all sides of the story and present an independent and neutral view of the same. Several research papers, some written by some of the most eminent evolutionary researchers have been referenced and it is only appropriate that this section be presented.---Rahul R (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2011 (IST)

Most? If by "most" you mean, hardly any, then sure, you're right.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I also wanted to bring to the notice that Andrew Lancaster has written on his user page (through user boxes) that he believes that evolution is a biological fact. This would mean that he accepts Modern Evolutionary Synthesis as a biology fact. I do not this it is appropriate for him to delete any arguments based on scientific research that provide alternative hypothesis as to how organisms evolved form the primordial pool. It would not be an independent view because of pre-biases. ---Rahul R (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2011 (IST)

Evolution is a scientific fact. And once again, abiogenesis is NOT evolution. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RR, a couple of things:-

• Maybe I was quick to move the new section here to the talk page, but at least one other editor experienced at editing in this area agreed with me, and on the other hand if you want to change an article in a big way you should always expect to confront the need for discussion. That is how WP works. For that reason, and here is the critical point, it is not normally considered a bad idea to revert an edit quickly like you just did. It is best to wait for discussion to proceed, as there is a clear question raised by more than one author.
• Your two postings above seem to indicate, especially when read together, that your new section is intended to be a deliberate attempt to put together an "anti evolution" argument from various sources, in order to balance Wikipedia and avoid it having a position biased to the mainstream. Is that correct?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

One fragment of criticism: The non-tree article on phylogeny looks nice. But that material was already in this article, in chapter Microbiology, horizontal gene transfer, and endosymbiosis. --Ettrig (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe worth pointing out that one obvious question about this new section is not only what unites the material it covers, but also what, out of the betters parts of it, is not already covered?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with the removal of the suggested new section. It is definitely not mainstream, and seems an unacknowledged synthesis. Much of the material has not yet been peer assessed and reviewed in good class secondary publications. There is at pressent no consensus that the evolution of eukaryotes has been affected in a major way by horizontal gene trannsfer: quite the reverse. Readers expect and deserve to be given the mainstream opinion. The normal processes of criticism and debate will make it clear if new ideas are valid. We are nowhere near that stage at the moment. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This new section should be removed. As Macdonald-ross says this section violates WP:UNDUE by giving undue weight to tiny minority interpretation of recent results, and as Andrew Lancaster points out it is duplicative with material already covered by the sub sections on "Microbiology, horizontal gene transfer, and endosymbiosis" which already discusses the impact of horizontal gene transfer on the "tree of life" simile, and "Evolutionary developmental biology" that discusses challenges to the strong adaptionist strain of the modern synthesis in a much more NPOV way. In short this new section adds nothing much new to the article except for what appears to be deliberately inflammatory rhetoric. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear the only points the text of the section makes that were not already covered elsewhere in the article are about micro and macro evolution and statements like: "Darwinian adaptive natural selection as also Modern Evolutionary Synthesis only explain microevolution but do not explain the origin of life or its diversity." and "Several scientists are also openly saying that conventional theories are fundamentally flawed and a new theory is needed to explain the diversity of life." are decidedly extreme minority views that per WP:UNDUE don't belong in this article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest deleting this section and replacing it with a few sentences added to the evo-devo subsection about recent debates about micro and macro evolution based on sources like these, [4], and [5]. which provide some high level synthesis of developments and arguments. It is a mistake in a article like this one that provides an overview of the historical development of a large discipline to depend too much on individual recently published scientific papers, which are in effect primary sources and depending on them invites problems with over reaching synthesis and undue weight. You need to rely on publications that survey the literature and provide context and synthesis. By the way I apologize for attributing comments made by Ettrig to User:Andrew Lancaster in my original comment. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there is no controversy about including some criticisms, if they are not already included, in the article. But is there by now any defense at all for keeping the section? It seems like there is a pretty good consensus for removing it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the creationist screed for a bunch of reasons. First, no real evolutionary biologist distinguishes between micro and macro evolution. Those are traditionally "code" words that creationists use in their literature. They are both evolution, and no real scientist makes a distinction between the two. I believe both articles on Wikipedia say it's evolution, that is, the change in populations genetics...blah blah blah. Second, abiogenesis is NOT a part of evolutionary synthesis, biology or thought. Abiogenesis is clearly that borderline between chemistry and biology. Third, agreeing with Rusty Cashman's comments on undue weight, the section makes use of a few creationists "biologists" to make it appear that there is some debate about the mechanisms of evolution. The only debate is in the minds of Dembski, Ham and a few others. If you attend a convention of biologists, they aren't debating evolution or its mechanism. I was bold and removed the section because it violates WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, and WP:UNDUE. I could also throw in stuff about verification, etc., but I'm tired. I won't edit war about this, but the default position should be that we discuss adding in a controversial section to an FA article, rather than deleting someone's attempt to create a POV section. I say the consensus is to delete, and have the author move it to a creationist article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I have taken the liberty of adding a couple of sentences to the evo-devo section on the macro vs micro evolution issue since, as the sources I cite show, some "real evolutionary biologists" really do spend time discussing whether other factors come into play in macro evolution, and as Stephen Jay Gould used to say we shouldn't let concern over the distortions and quote mining of creationists affect our coverage of real scientific debates. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I probably deserved that snarky response, but what I meant (and that's what I get for posting at 2AM) was that "real" evolutionary biologists don't claim one exists and the other doesn't. I'm an "evolutionary biologist", and other than refuting creationists, I haven't heard a discussion about macro and micro-evolution ever. But, I don't attend every lecture, and I don't read every article in every medical and natural science journal about micro or macro-evolution. I've probably read more about micro and macro economics to be honest. Your point is made, and I slink back into my hole.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You are certainly correct about real biologists not claiming that either doesn't exist and I think you were also probably right about the deleted material being a creationist screed — it was just a more subtle than usual bit of quote mining that misused what were probably legit sources to make it harder to delete. My previous response was a little snarky. I couldn't resist, but I probably should have. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Rusty, you're one of the good guys. I enjoy a well-written snark. Much harder to write than say "go f yourself". LOL Now someone else is putting in micro vs. macro evolution. I'm going to have to read the original Evolution article to see if these issues are being discussed there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I had been out a few days and have not been able to respond back to the above views. It appears that if a few editors feel that a particular section should not be there, there is nothing much that can be done. I am apalled that most points that have been presented above in this discussion are themselves baseless and without references (in fact saying sentences such as "I think this is not mainstream or that is mainstream". I think anyone who would have gone through the Post Modern Evolutionary section would agree that there is nothing creationist within it. These are scientific thoughts, all the published literature is scientific and has got nothing to do with the creatinist point of view. Just because certain scientific findings find that the origin of life may not have been through a single tree does not mean it is creatinist. I would sincerely request editors providing such baseless allegations to go through the literature provided below before forming any responses to this view I am writing here. Almost all references provided below are published in scientific journals, many of them in reputed peer reviewed scientific journals by well known evolutionary biologists.

• In the paper, "Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics", published 12 Feb 2009, Eugene Koonin commented that "Now, 50 years after the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis, evolutionary biology undoubtedly faces a new major challenge and, at the same time, the prospect of a new conceptual breakthrough"....."By contrast, the insistence on adaptation being the primary mode of evolution that is apparent in the Origin, but especially in the Modern Synthesis, became deeply suspicious if not outright obsolete, making room for a new worldview that gives much more prominence to non-adaptive processes"......"Collectively, the developments in evolutionary genomics and systems biology outlined here seem to suggest that, although at present only isolated elements of a new, ‘postmodern’ synthesis of evolutionary biology are starting to be formulated, such a synthesis is indeed feasible. Moreover, it is likely to assume definitive shape long before Darwin’s 250th anniversary." This paper by Koonin, published in NAR, clearly laying out the basis for the new conceptual breakthrough alternatively termed post modern synthesis.

• Michael R Rose and Todd H Oakley, in their research paper, titled "The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis" published on 24 November 2007 in Biology Direct, have written that The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the "Modern Synthesis" which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that "Modernist" biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st Century"

• Micheal Lynch in a 2007 research paper (The fratality of adaptive hypotheses....) published in PNAS, writes "The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population genetic theory"....."Because it deals with observations on historical outcomes, frequently in the face of incomplete information, the field of evolution attracts significantly more speculation than the average area of science. Four of the major buzzwords in biology today are complexity, modularity, evolvability, and robustness, and it is often claimed that ill-defined mechanisms not previously appreciated by evolutionary biologists must be invoked to explain the existence of emergent properties that putatively enhance the long-term success of extant taxa".

• Tal Dagan and William Martin in their 2006 paper titled "The tree of one percent" in Genome Biology have argued that the similarity between genomes in the same tree is as little as 1 percent and new concepts would be required to explain these hard facts

• Eric Bapteste, William Martin et al in a 2009 publication titled "Prokaryotic evolution and tree of life are two different things" have written that "The prokaryotic tree of life is dead". "It was far easier to envision and defend the concept of a universal tree of life before we had data from genomes. But the belief that prokaryotes are related by such a tree has now become stronger than the data to support it. The monistic concept of a single universal tree of life appears, in the face of genome data, increasingly obsolete. This traditional model to describe evolution is no longer the most scientifically productive position to hold, because of the plurality of evolutionary patterns and mechanisms involved. Forcing a single bifurcating scheme onto prokaryotic evolution disregards the non-tree-like nature of natural variation among prokaryotes and accounts for only a minority of observations from genomes".

• The above publications clearly laying out that especially since 2007 and 2010, in the light of several genomic analysis (because of modern techniques and new data), conventional theories are unable to explain the hard data. And the field is searching for a new theory that can adequately explain the origin of life. This new field of thought has been labelled as Post Modern Synthesis. To ignore all the above published literature (published by eminent scientists in this field) and to label them as creatinist and saying "I think it is not mainstream / I have never heard it so it is not mainstream" is clearly biased if not coloring the articles based on the original POVs of a few editors. The section at no point is discrediting any of the most celebrated evolutionary thoughts that have been written. But I think it is also important to highlight if there is any change in thinking pattern in the last few years. I rest my case. Rahul R (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2011 (IST)

Ok let me respond directly to your points.

• As to your first bullet, this article, which is a high level historical overview of the development of a large discipline, is not a good place to be covering very recent developments. Evolution would be a better place. Having said that, this article already covers many challanges to tenets of the modern synthesis, including challenges to the adaptionist paradigm.
• As to your 2nd bullet, see my comment above about the article already covering various historical challenges to the modern synthesis.
• For your third bullet consider the quote "The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms." WP:UNDUE requires articles to represent the views of the vast majority of experts in the relevant field, and the inclusion of views of small minorities of exports in the field is discouraged (and more significant minority views need to be covered in ways that don't give them undue weight). This is policy is central to Wikipedia and it exists despite the fact that everyone recognizes that in some cases the small minority may eventually prove to be correct, but this is an encyclopedia, not a journal for the publication of cutting edge research. Now the one area where your proposed new text covered something that was not already adequately covered in the article was the issue of whether factors not apparent at the level of microevolution needed to be considered in macroevolution. After some debate (see the talk page section below this one) this has now been rectified.
• As for your fourth and 5th bullets, the challenge posed by horizontal gene transfer to the venerable tree of life simile was already covered in the article.
• As for your last bullet, again let me emphasize that this sort of "history of" article is a particularly bad place to try and address the most recent developments in a field. It is certainly possible that the emphasis of the article and the coverage of certain topics will change with time, as happened for example with epigenetic inheritance and macroevolution, but for that to happen you will need enough time for secondary sources to appear that provide synthesis and historical overview. Again, remember this is a "history of science article" not a science article. Finally I want to make the point that even perfectly respectable scientific papers sometimes use strident, even inflammatory, rhetoric in order to attract attention to their conclusions. Just because such language appears in a legitimate scientific source does not make it appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Transhumanism

We should take out this small section, on the grounds that it is not about organic evolution, and is not within the scope of the article. If we start to include topics like cultural evolution, technological evolution or futurism there will be no end to it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sure there's a cultural evolution article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Saltational mechanisms of macroevolution

The recent interest in saltional mechanisms of macroevolution, though critical of aspects of the modern synthesis, has nothing to do with creationism, as can be seen from these recent papers and commentaries: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19469859 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19224263 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18581157 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20164895 StN (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Four publications is giving undue weight to creationism. I'm reverting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole of this section is dreadfully verbose, with long passively-phrased sentences. Don't we just mean "Some biologists think that gradualism produces macroevolution (Carroll ref), but others do not (Erwin ref)". Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the first sentence drives me crazy. I actually am not sure I even get the first sentence. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) :So, I decided to give StN the benefit of a doubt and see if saltation has any relevance in today's modern evolutionary theory. The main article, Evolution does not mention it once. Not a single time. And that article was co-written by numerous biology experts. Then I decided to see who pushed this idea. Couldn't find anyone in recent history who had of any note. Again, you are giving undue weight to something that isn't widely accepted. Moreover, the continued commentary on micro-and macro-evolution, which just isn't discussed by "real biologists" continues to be problematic. I'm reverting. Period. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No, there actually is debate among scientists on this question, not much of which has been incorporated into Wikipedia. (Encyclopedia articles, by the way, are not supposed to be the main source for other encylcopedia articles.) Here are some other articles from the scientific literature, each of which calls into question one or more aspects of the gradulaist model of evolutionary change. None of these articles proposes a creationist solution to the problem. However post-synthesis scientific interpretaions are employed in some case, some from evodevo, some from symbiogenesis, and a few of the papers just describe the contradictory issues. There is a lot of ferment in macroevolutionary theory, which should be reflected in this article.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19720426 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17023657 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16773337 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20685705 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20102733 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19472370 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21425442 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16373569 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20459869 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18387075 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21210945 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20796293 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20435033 StN (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, place your creationism in the Evolution article. If it flies there, I'll have no problem with your edit warring and disruptive editing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, is everything critical of Darwinian gradualism creationism? This sounds dogmatic. Much of what is said in the offending paragraph is well-discussed in the Evolutionary developmental biology article. There is nothing to fear from a naturalistic critique of Darwinism.StN (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have taken another stab at it by following the 2 good sources I originally cited. I connected the discussion back to other related topics (such as punk-eek) and by actually briefly mentioning some of the possible macroevolution mechanisms proposed I hope I have made it clear that non of the scientists invololved have proposed anything even remotely resembling creationism or intelligent design, which I hope will take some of the heat out of the debate. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If this were Facebook, I'd give you a Like. But it isn't a social network, so let's just say good job. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ref is against refed statement

"Several ancient Greek philosophers discussed ideas that involved change in living organisms over time. Anaximander (c.610–546 BC) proposed that the first animals lived in water and animals that live on land were generated from them.[1]" from ref "Some authors have, rather anachronistically, seen in these scattered statements a proto-evolutionist theory." Bulwersator (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is not claiming that Anaximander had an evolutionary theory, merely that he suggested that living things had changed over time. I believe the source cited is more than sufficient to establish that fact, although I have other sources that would work just as well if needed. None of the individuals discussed in the antiquity or middled ages sections are really talking about anything remotely like a modern evolutionary theory. The purpose of discussing them is to provide background on how ideas about the origin of living things changed over time, and to show that not everyone, not even all early Christians, shared the static view of natural world that arose out of natural theology, especially following the Protestant reformation, to dominate European thinking. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ibn Khaldun

This section suffers from all the faults associated with Jagged78's contributions, yet is by another user.

1. The long section was not discussed here first, and should have been because it is not self-evidently appropriate for the article.
2. The section is excessively long in relation to its (and his) worth. Completely out of proportion.
3. Contributions are greatly overclaimed, and amount to little more than routine comments of a natural history kind, and made better by many other historical figures. The observations are not of an evolutionary nature, and do not belong in the article.
4. The text is not science. The author simply makes claims, and quotes no evidence. It is just chain-of-being/ladder-of-creation speculation, and nothing to do with evolution.

It should all come out. I would rate Al-Jahiz as more to the point because, as the text says, he had a grasp of the struggle for existence. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts. A big difference between this and the previous material that was deleted from this section is that this material is better sourced. Your first 2 points are valid. The section is now a little over long and out of proportion to the coverage of other ideas in the Antiquity and Middle ages sections. Your other 2 points are less valid in that they could apply equally well to most of the material in those sections. In particular the 2nd block quote seems to go beyond just the usual chain of being rhetoric by implying that the lower rungs of the ladder are prepared for transformation to higher stages. The first block quote is less on point as you are correct that it is just static chain of being stuff like Aristotle. I also agree that the stuff on human race is off point. I think I will try for a compromise edit that will hopefully everyone can live with. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I pared it back considerably. I think it is now proportional and the sourcing seems good. In particular I think the coverage of Ibn Khaldun is now comparable to the coverage of figures like Augustine and Aquinas.

Essentialism Story

We should remove mention of essentialism before the 18th century. It is false (as I argue in my book Species: A History of the Idea, along with many others), and was invented around 1959 to make Darwin seem to present a novel metaphysics. I know it is repeated in many texts, but they are almost always scientists or uncritical (e.g., Bowler) of the received essentialism story. I cannot do this myself as it is in part my researchJohn Wilkins (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you were to indicate the exact passages you object to, and suggest alternative wording. I think this may be a difficult issue for us, as it has been on the essentialism article, which is not in a good state. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree, it will be very useful with references, either to page numbers in Species: A History of the Idea (first edition, if poss) or to other sources: essentialism#In biology names some authors, but I don't have access to these sources. There's also the aspect of the changing definition of species, from a defining unit of anything to the modern use in biology which appears to have originated with John Ray. Much to be done. . dave souza, talk 09:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The word essentialism is perhaps the problem. There was a real metaphysics of forms (or species) which Darwin's theory confronted, but the biological manifestation was in a sense just the last pin standing because Bacon had started the demolition job some centuries before. (For several hundred years after Bacon it was almost a tradition for the big names like Hobbes, Hume, Kant etc to explicitly say that they were completing another step in the programme of Bacon to make science which is based on no assumptions about formal or final causes. I think Darwin may have been the last?) Whether this should be referred to under the newer word essentialism is not clear to me. It often seems to me to lead to misunderstandings when we use newer words for older classifications. This discussion comes under the category of Wikipedia problems which happen when a subject is old and often written about, and therefore has too many modern secondary sources which all say different things, some wrong or trivial. On WP we generally try to use modern secondary sources, but when we talk about subjects like this it is often simpler to at least start writing looking primarily at the original debate, and only secondly at modern sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As discussed briefly at Talk:Evolution, part of this complexity is due to shifting definitions of species, in particular the post-Baconian concept introduced by the pious Ray that species in biology are fixed by design. The subsequent history of evolutionary thought involved disputes over whether transmutation of these species was scientifically, politically or theologically acceptable, with an interesting shift in the (idealist?) ideas of Owen reflecting findings making species fixism less tenable, and Vestiges opening wider public acceptance from 1844 onwards.
For a possibly rather dated overview of the "essentialism" issue, John Wilkins in 2006 wrote Species, Kinds, and Evolution | NCSE but this is superseded by his recent book. . dave souza, talk 10:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "post Baconian" is an important point, and it is a new type of position, affected by Baconian science. Plato and Aristotle and the like actually rarely tried to argue about any particular formal causes. Aristotle at least does seem to believe that each type of animal has a "nature" of its own, but I do not think he ever tried to deal with any unclear cases. Formal causes, natures of different things, were just "out there". Indeed, Bacon could soften the rhetoric here and there by saying his way of doing science still has a type of formal cause in it, just very broad ones (the laws of nature are causes, but there are not separate laws for different types of things). I like the sentence from the url you give "The issue of evolution was, in fact, impossible to suggest until the claim was made that species were fixed, and as soon as it was suggested, so too was evolution."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that Mayr has his limitations as a historian, and that the essentialism traced to Plato story has to be replaced with a mention that ancient natural philosophers had varying opinions on the fixity of species. Also a brief mention of Ray's influence on the issue is appropriate. If no one beats me to it I will do some revisions tonight based on the NCSE piece of John's that Dave found, which I think is suitable for our purposes. We don't want to go to far down any philosophic rat-holes nor digress too far into history of taxonomy in this article. The only thing in John's article that I would not agree with (and it isn't really relevant to this discussion) is his characterization of Cuvier's attacks as being completely not for religious reasons. Cuvier may have avoided any explicit religious references in his work (in part because of intellectual climate in revolutionary France) and based his arguments on the lack of evidence, but I believe Bowler and others are correct in asserting that his motivations in making those arguments were, at least to a large degree, ideological and probably partly religious. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I took a stab at a compromise which I hope should do until I get a chance to read John's book, which I have just downloaded onto my kindle. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rusty. I expanded it a bit, and maybe that requires explanation. The point of the expansion was to "admit" that modern "essentialism" is based upon Aristotle. That does not mean that I do not agree with the important point of Wilkins about it being new also. It might be helpful if I give some potted Aristotle for the benefit of editors:-

• Firstly, a lot of people who don't spend time on Aristotle are under the impression that his basic way of thinking about causality is the four causes. This is a genuine Aristotelian thing, but it is effectively something he explains when he is building up from previous ideas to his real model, which is to see all causality in terms of actuality and potentiality.
• If you look at our articles on those two versions of his explanation of causality you'll that it is really true that he thought all types of living things, especially all living things, had their own type of nature. Most famously, he often talks about human nature, but it would be hard to argue against the idea that he did not believe in a different type of nature for every different type of living thing.
• These natures he talks about can also be confusing. We are not talking about nature as a whole, but natures for each type of thing. People reading Aristotle and looking for terms like "formal cause" won't find it very often, because he speaks most accurately in terms of his own model when talking about potentialities and actualities. The nature of an individual real thing is a term which is messy for Aristotle, because in reality different things have different potential possibilities which have achieved different levels of actuality, often in conflict with each other. If you really want to understand this, please try to follow Aristotle's definition of motion. Remember that his worldview is deeply different than the modern one even though modern physics, because of Liebniz, took over some of his words, such as potential.
• Anyway, back to practical stuff for this article, even if there are fixed natures of different species, Wilkins makes a very good point in the URL Dave gave, by reminding us that evolution is not about individual animals changing their natures but about what happens when new animals are born. Evolution is also about real individual animals, and not about types as such. I'll be interested to look up what Aristotle said about hybrids, but presumably they cause him no problem, just as knowing that all rocks are not falling causes no problem for him saying that the nature of rocks is to fall. In the real world, different individual things get in the way of each other.
• Modern biological essentialism makes very specific demands concerning the nature reproduction.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked the relevant paragraph on Evolution itself also, but thought it might be a good idea to ask feedback from editors involved in this discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Drumming up support from main evolution article

Hello historians (I see some familiar "faces in here" - Mr. Lancaster)! I would like to reduce the history of evolution section in the main evolution article. In previous attempts to do this the message got jumbled and the original meaning was lost. Some while back several of us went through the history section and improved on the content. However, the length is still a problem. Some of the information that was added is relevant to this article. Hence, I am wondering if we could form a task force or a team that would be willing to comb through the material with the intent to reduce the history section in the main evolution article and to bridge or integrate some of the information into this article? Of course, the intent would not be to increase the length of this article, but perhaps to strengthen some of the sections and to give this article a bit of an "update" so not to discard useful information and well written text. I opened this request in the evolution talk pages and hoping to see editors from here give their input. Thanks!Thompsma (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with previous efforts to do this is that they have always ended up adding text to this article that duplicates information already here. I just did a quick read through of the history section of evolution, and the only thing I could find that was not already here was that August Weismann's theory, the germ plasm theory is called out by name rather than just saying that he argued that characteristics acquired after conception could not be inherited. However, that was part of material moved out of this article into the child article the eclipse of Darwinism in order to reduce the length of this article as a result of comments at FAC, and I don't see much value in reintroducing it. So I don't see a lot of value for this article in what you propose. Rusty Cashman (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for extra comments at Natural Selection, for its history section

The above-mentioned article, in it section on Pre-Darwinian thinking about natural selection, has been noted to be apparently saying something different about Aristotle than both this article and Evolution. See initial discussion. After some circular discussion I have started a new section aimed at trying to improve the wording in order to avoid controversy as much as possible. I think this needs some wider participation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have responded at length on that talk page. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

An early advocate of human evolution?

I came across this lecture by R.D. Hanson, given in May 1849 and printed in the South Australian Register a week later as Mr Hanson's admirable Lecture on "The Theory of Development, as illustrative of the History of Creation," delivered last week at the quarterly conversazione of the South Australian Library and Mechanics' Institute. (The text has been scanned as part of the National Library of Australia's online Trove collection, where members of the public can participate in cleaning up the OCR errors.) The text contains the following passage:

"These facts form the materials from which different individuals have from time to time endeavoured to construct a natural history of creation. One of the first who attempted to deduce a theory from these facts was Lamarck — for we may pass over the speculations of Manthodds, who derived the human race from a family of apes, who, getting rid of their tails, and by some undescribed process turning their hind hands into feet, continued to acquire reason and language, and the ideas of morals and religion." (My emphasis)

The scanned image of the article is a little blurry, so I can't make out whether Manthodds is the correct spelling; or perhaps there might even have been an error in the original typesetting - but I can't find any reference to this name (or various permutations thereof) using Google, or in the limited hardcopy sources available to me. Perhaps he's a minor figure now overlooked by modern historians; but I'm curious whether anyone can shed any light on this. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The blurry "Manthodds" and the mention of ape ancestry rather suggests Monboddo. . . dave souza, talk 16:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Montboddo" seems to have been a common alternative spelling for Monboddo in the late 18th and early 19th century.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the ideas expressed seem very typical of Lord Monboddo. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it does fit in, particularly as Hanson's background in the law must have made him familiar with Monboddo. Incidentally, it's not really surprising to find Hanson giving a such a lecture in Adelaide, just a dozen years after the founding of the colony of South Australia - it was a free settlement without convicts, based on the theories of Edward Gibbon Wakefield, and it attracted quite a few religious frreethinkers, becoming known as the "paradise of dissent" and the "city of churches". Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)