Talk:Modern synthesis (20th century)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

As Lexor has rightly observed, this article needed a lot of work. My main objection was that it asserted that most people faulted Darwin for not explaining the mechanics of inheritance -- I do not think that is why most people faulted Darwin, and in a limited sence Darwin does not need a principle of inheritance (that was part of the beauty of it, and a major reason why his thought has had tremendous influence outside of biology). I still consider this a stub, and hope Lexor and others will develop it, Slrubenstein

Good to add references, but it appears in reformatting you deleted the year of publications of the relevant books/articles which you had in earlier edit, also add publishers and ISBNs (if you can find them) as wikipedia will automatically translate them into links, e.g. ISBN 0-8424-932-1 (this is a randomly generated ISBN, btw). -- Lexor 23:53 22 May 2003 (UTC)

What is the connection between Neo-Darwinism and the modern synthesis? Martin

Well spotted, they're the same thing. i.e. the Neo-Darwinian modern synthesis. Neo-Darwinism should be a redirect. Duncharris 10:25, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

I've added just a bit, because I felt like this article was misleading about the gist of the evolutionary synthesis. Neo-Darwinism and Modern Synthesis don't always mean the same thing. Generally Neo-Darwinism, as described, means just the combination of genetics and natural selection. But the evolutionary synthesis more often refers to not just that, but also the incorporation of various other disciplines (and, conspicuously, not some others, particularly biochemistry, embryology, and morphology). -ragesoss, July 4, 2005.

Debate on Lamarckianism never settled?

"Wallace rejected the Lamarckian idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics, something that Darwin, Huxley et al wouldn't rule out. The mechanism of inheritance wasn't discovered in Darwin or Wallace's time, however, so the debate was never settled."

I think it's misleading to say that "the debate was never settled", since AFAIK no one knowledgeable in the field seriously advances Lamarckianism today. Instead we should say "the debate wasn't settled in their lifetimes" or, if possible, "wasn't settled until about year XXXX" -- 200.141.108.170 05:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There are still a few supporters of things in the sense of "lamarckian inheritance" (which preceded Lamarck anyway, but that´s how it´s usually called), such as Jablonka. My suggestion would be something in the sense of

Wallace rejected the Lamarckian idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics, something that Darwin, Huxley et al wouldn't rule out. Mendelian genetics were mostly unknown at that time, so lamarckian inheritance was not overwhelmingly rejected by the mainstream scientists.

I also would change "The mechanism of inheritance" to "Mendelian genetics", since there is in fact epigenetic inheritance, i.e., genetics are not the only one mechanism of inheritance, even though is the most important for evolution (while epigenetics have more to do with embryologic development, but can have some effect on progeny in certain organisms, but usually short lasting effects). And "moslty unknown" because Mendel himself had already discovered (also there are even more unknown Mendel´s precursors with similar ideas), and, I recall reading that somewhare, he even wrote a letter to Darwin to tell about it, but Darwin never opened. I´ve also read that had some of Mendel´s works on his private library.

--Extremophile 14:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hold the phone. Are you seriously suggesting that there are respected and reputable scientists within the post-Mendel, post-Watson&Crick, post-Dawkins community who still believe in the inheritance of acquired characteristics? I'm not getting at you at all I'm just flabbergasted. Are these serious scientists who we can justify mentioning or pseudoscientists with an agenda? What a different world it would be if one's tattoos and scars were passed on!AlanD 17:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I gather that this idea has been revived and seriously considered in the last few years. It does appear that certain experience you have can effect your genome in certain ways. And you can pass these on, of course. I do not know how well established it is and how much evidnece there is for it yet. But yes, it is real. And it is not pseudoscience. It is emerging now because of our sophistication in mapping DNA, apparently.--Filll 17:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to get more information, look in the article on Lamarckism.--Filll 17:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are making an old mistake AlanD in thinking that tatoos and scars would be passed on. They are mutilations. Lamarck believed that aquired characteristics that were adaptive, and the result of 'trying' or 'use' were passed on, not mutilations. Wiessman made the same mistake, chopping of mouse tails, and some texbooks now credit him with 'disproving' Lamarck's ideas, while the better ones point out his error. --Memestream 21:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No I'm sorry I still can't see how any adaptions could be passed on genetically. A giraffe stretching for food may stretch its neck but that is not going to have an effect on the gametes. An organism has no mechanism for deciding to incorporate useful adaptations into its genetic structure. Such a claim is very, very suspect. Are you seriously suggesting that organisms have a method of picking and choosing which phenotypical changes are incorporated into the genotype? This flies in the face of all modern work on natural selection and would require a very complicated mechanism to decide what is mutilation and what is useful. The only standard by which adaptations can be said to be useful are whether or not the organism is able to reproduce. Such a mechanism would be unable to distinguish between an organism with a broken limb that has managed to reproduce and an organism that has caused a useful phenotypical change (such as a slightly streched neck). Again I'm sorry if I sound abrupt but this, to me, flies in the face of all modern understanding of genetics and natural selection. AlanD 10:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the're talking about epigenetic modifications. It's not really Lamarikian but close. The gene expression and, hence, possibly the phenotype, can be modified without changes to the DNA sequence. The likely change would be a reduction or elimination of gene expression due to DNA methylation and changes in chromatin structure. Consequently, natural selection MIGHT act on a given epigenetic phenotype despite no actual change to the DNA sequence. By the way, it is known that these epigenetic imprints are heritable for multiple generations. David D. (Talk) 14:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes but as you said epigenetic changes do not effect the genotype and are (on the whole) reset when gametes are produced. Even those that aren't do not cause changes to the genotype and even the most significant of them go after a few generations. There is no method for this to cause adaptation through natural selection. Maybe I'm missing something vital here but I can see no evidence for Lamarck's theories in this. Sorry.AlanD 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

But they do change the genotype if left long enough. 5-methylcytosine is unstable, can deaminate and change to a uracil. Thus C-->A transitions can become permanent in a silenced locus. Thus, in theory, it is possible for a metastable epiallele to become a stable allele and new genotype. If an epiallele has an adaptive advantage then it will be in the population for longer. The more time it is in the population the more chance for a deleterious deamination to occur. Certainly conventional wisdom is that animal imprinting is reset during meiosis. But this is being challenged by recent research. In plants it is very common for silenced alleles to be be maintained through meiosis. Whether one thinks this is another mechanism for evolutionary change is another thing but there is no mechanistic reason why it could not occur. I'll add there is no good example of an epiallele being selected in a population and later becoming fixed. David D. (Talk) 08:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting yet still a stretch. More to the point, however, we're moving further and further from Lamarckism. In effect this is another method of mutating DNA which is a known part of natural selection. I'm sorry but this does not seem to support Lamarck, if this is the evidence for it then I'm afraid we can put Lamarck to bed for now, surely? AlanD 23:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why I prefaced my comments with "It's not really Lamarikian". However, the proposed epigenetic mechanism is distinctly different to regular mutations in that the phenotype can be selected for prior to the genotype being fixed (that is the link with Lamarck). A stretch for sure, but so were transposon, introns and RNAi at the start. David D. (Talk) 03:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't getting at you, I note you made that point too. I was just saying that the original arguement was that the Larmarck debate has never been settled and that this mechanism was then introduced as proof. I think we've both dispelled that. Can we say that Lamarck is put to bed now?AlanD 08:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and I didn't interpret it as you getting at me. Just trying to note the basis of the "neo-Lamarckian" sentiments which definitely exist. David D. (Talk) 21:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Image

Why is the image not fair use in this context?--Nectar 03:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• A fair use image of a person is only really fair in an article about that person, a picture of related scientist does not significantly add to the text, nor was the image used in any of the ways required for fair use to apply (parody, critical commentary etc).--nixie 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Darwinism and Modern Synthesis are not quite the same...

At least according with the site Talk Origins. According with the text "how to be an anti-darwinian", Neo-Darwinism was a earlier theory, that lasted only from rhe 1880s to the 1930s, and was almost solely focused on natural selection acting upon genes, but neglecting or even denying the importance of drift and other populational genetic events; even sexual selection was denied, according with the site. The modern synthesis, I guess that is referred as Synthetic Darwinism in the text, came in 1942, bringing the acceptance of population genetics, the role of random populational events in the genetic frequencies. --Extremophile 14:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Darwinism may have had a different meaning in the past, but it is certainly synonymous with Mod Synth today. Perhaps include a short sentence on the past use of the term, but its meaning has changed over time (no pun intended). --Switch 07:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that it would be fine. But I wonder if there would not be enough material to make an article about neo-darwinism in the first historical sense... however, while it does not happen, a paragraph mentioning that will work. If eventually a article about the other neo-darwinism is created, then it would link to that, and that could have also a introductory paragraph serving as a disambiguation, as many people may search for ND when actually looking for MS... I wonder if this change in the term meaning has something to do with outdated creationists asking or talking about neodarwinism, and "modern-synthesists" just answering without paying much attention for the term... --Extremophile 05:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the old use of the term is a historical curiosity, but that there is now a new use for it. Neo-Darwinism seems to me to refer to the current ongoing and changing theory of evolution based on Darwinian natural selection, which includes modern revisions to the Modern Synthesis. The 'Modern Synthesis' refers to the set of ideas that came together in the 1930's and was summarised in Aldous Huxley's book Evolution: the Modern Synthesis. Huxley invented the term, and so defined it and fixed it back then. I'd like to see a page on Neo-Darwinism in it's current sense, with reference to the early use in its history paragraph. --Memestream 21:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Some objections

The part dealing with horizontal transfer, etc. is perhaps a bit irrelevant in this context, it should be placed in a separate article. The contribution of Haldane and Wright is not properly emphasized. In the section about further advances a mention to Kimura and the neutral theory should be considered.

192.84.212.96 10:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, I was wondering why Clausen, Keck and Hiesey were not credited in this article for much of their material support for the modern synthesis as their work on the study of evolution in nature came about before the 1947 meeting held at Princeton that established the main tenets of the synthesis.

Dual inheritance theory

Would it be appropriate to include dual inheritance theory into the Further advances section? I only thought of it since there was a brief mention of memes. EPM 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Orphan" paragraph on HGT

I was just doing a copy-edit of this article, which for the most part seems pretty well-written, but I stumbled on the last paragraph. It seems kind of "orphaned" to me, stuck in with no connection to the rest of the article. There's no flow between it and the preceding paragraph, and it certainly doesn't work as a closing paragraph. Does it really belong here? If it does, it could use a little help "fitting in" with the rest. Also, starting with a quote on the topic with no introduction is poor style.

"Increasingly, studies of genes and genomes are indicating that considerable horizontal transfer has occurred between prokaryotes." Horizontal gene transfer is called by some "A New Paradigm for Biology " and emphasised by others as an important factor in "The Hidden Hazards of Genetic Engineering". "While horizontal gene transfer is well-known among bacteria, it is only within the past 10 years that its occurrence has become recognized among higher plants and animals. The scope for horizontal gene transfer is essentially the entire biosphere, with bacteria and viruses serving both as intermediaries for gene trafficking and as reservoirs for gene multiplication and recombination (the process of making new combinations of genetic material)." This approach is taken to its logical extreme by Lynn Margulis in her theory of symbiogenesis, with symbiosis as the major source of inherited variation, in which entire genomes are combined.

--Margareta 17:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say, no, horizontal gene transfer does not belong in an article on the modern synthesis. The precise definition of the modern synthesis may be fuzzy, but it's not that fuzzy.--ragesoss 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Modern synthesisis is not defined

"There is no canonical definition of neo-Darwinism, and surprisingly few writers on the subject seem to consider it necessary to spell out precisely what it is that they are discussing. This is especially curious in view of the controversy which dogs the theory, for one might have thought that a first step towards resolving the dispute over its status would be to decide upon a generally acceptable definition over it. ... Of course, the lack of firm definition does, as we shall see, make the theory much easier to defend." P.T. Saunders & M.W. Ho, "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable? - And Does It Matter?", Nature and System (1982) 4:179-196, p. 179.

The article states that it does'nt cite its sources and this is common problem in the theory of evolution: "We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc., p.2 TongueSpeaker 08:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed no references banner

I think this article now has appropriate sources and citations.Rusty Cashman 08:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Micro-evolution does not add up to Macro-evolution

The entire basis for this statement is based on the assumption that multiple, successive small changes in a population result in changes on a large scale, eventually resulting in the entire collection of genetic diversity that exists on the planet.

Micro-evolution accounts for relatively minor variations within a population. For example, Darwin's finches developing varied beak sizes and shapes, or color changes in the infamous peppered moths experiment. There are possibly an infinite number of examples of this kind of evolution that can be documented, experimented with, or otherwise proven.

But micro-evolution is far different from the kinds of major changes that are required for macro-evolution. Macro-evolution requires a single-celled organism to develop legs, eyes, ears, muscle, bones, lungs, hair (or fur), skin, and all of the other organs and functions necessary to produce the wide array of life we have today. No new part on this scale has ever been shown to be capable of developing from a "lower" form of life. Only examples of micro-evolution have been shown to happen. Macro-evolution is merely proposed, with no physical evidence to support it.

There is no reasonable, verifiable proposed method for how a series of changes on the micro-evolutionary scale could result in any significant advancement in a species on a macro-evolutionary scale.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogrun8 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 25 July 2007

See here. This should address your comments. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that they are not equivalent. My point was that many small changes does not make a major change. For example: with Darwin's finches. The beaks of the population change in shape and size, primarily along with environmental changes such as droughts. However, the beaks are always beaks, and the finches are always finches. Those types of changes do not explain such things as how the bird developed the beak in the first place. That is what I mean by micro-evolution (slight changes in beak shape) not producing macro-evolution (developing a new beak).Dogrun81 02:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

T.H. Morgan

I don't know any authority that lists Morgan as contributing to the evolutionary synthesis, let alone giving him the prominence he gets here. You could list him as an important obstacle to the synthesis, that would make more sense! The absence of a Morgan ref below is appropriate; and in any event Bridges and Sturtevant did almost all the important work.

Why not actually read Mayr and Provine's Evolutionary Synthesis 1980, in which the whole issue is gone over in detail? This is a disappointing stub on a very important topic. Macdonald-ross 17:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is definitely in need of expansion, since as you say it is an important topic. I don't think the treatment of Morgan is a problem however. It is true that, like most of the pioneers in genetics, Morgan was an opponent of natural selection, but he was a major contributor to the development of both Mendelian genetics and the chromosomal theory of inheritance, which was one of the streams of biologic thought combined in the synthesis. The treatment of him in this article is consistent with the prominence he is given in recent histories of the theory of evolution such as those by Bowler and Larson (both of which are used as sources for this article). I think the article should probably mention some other contributors to the development of genetics, in particular Hugo De Vries, whose ideas (saltationism, rediscovery of Mendalian inheritence) are mentioned in a couple of places without mentioning his name. The article states that the synthesis began with Fisher, Haldane, and Wright not with Morgan, but I think this could perhaps be made more clear by breaking the history section into two subsections, one for developments leading up to the synthesis (De Vries, Morgan, the biometricians and Bateson) and one for the synthesis itself (starting with Fisher's 1918 paper). I will make these changes over the next couple of days if no one beats me to them, but the article could definitely use more expansion and more hands are welcome. Rusty Cashman 19:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, a bit of a rewrite is under way now. The intention is to concentrate on the actual sysnthesis, and limit the long run-up; otherwise it becomes a page on 'Evolution in the 20thC' and that's far too broad. Personally, I don't think Larson is much of an authority on the synthesis, and intend to stick fairly close to what the participants themselves said. This gives weight to Ernst Mayr, who wrote more than anyone else about the synthesis. And apart form the principals, Provine is excellent. That Morgan got the Nobel Prize and Bridges didn't is one of the great injustices; but anyway the date criterion means our little disagreement over Morgan can be suppressed. Wel, I think so. Macdonald-ross 15:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you are working on a rewrite and I will be glad to help out. There are 2 problems I see with what you are doing so far. One is that you really can't tell this story without a little historical context and in particular you can't leave out Morgan and the fruit fly work (and the change in the perception of what mutation was and how it affected the genetic variability of the populstion from the ideas of the earlier Mendalians such as De Vries). So at some point something about it has to go back in. The other is that most modern historians of science (Larson, Bowler, Gould) treat the foundation of population genetics as the start (Gould calls it the first phase) of the modern synthesis, not part of the run up to it. I realize this view differs somewhat from the view of Mayr who emphasizes more the later parts of the synthesis that involved the integration of other fields of biology with population genetics as the actual synthesis, but on this point I think, the article needs to follow the views of most current historians of science rather than those of Mayr or the other participants. There is a reason why historians do not rely exclusively on first person accounts of the participants in an event, and the biggest has to do with perspective. Hopefully we can resolve these issues with compromise inline with the best traditions of Wikipedia rather than the worst traditions of Wikipedia (edit warring) :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusty Cashman (talk • contribs) 02:55, 1 August 2007 UTC

We may be suffering from deficiencies in the History of Genetics page. It shouldn't be necessary to go over so much ground for what is just an episode in a never-ending saga. We should be able to point elsewhere for the history of genetics, but as I've seen it that page is quite incomplete at present. Let's see where my postage-stamp summaries of the synthesisers takes us; I want to get their opinions and contributions as correct as I can. Then we can see better what sort of an intro they need. The history of genetics page does the ancient world<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">, then jumps to DNA! Exhaustion set in, perhaps! Macdonald-ross 21:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have made some edits that finesse some of these issues in ways that I hope we can both live with. I even managed to work Morgan and his observations on the nature of mutation in in a way I don't think you will find so objectionable as it is brief and fits in the flow of the section. I do think the article has been much improved. This sort of tag team editing can be a little awkward but it can be very effective especially if the editors involved are using slightly different sources. I do see a couple of problem with what we have done so far. One is that we are mixing harvard style references with inline citations. This is considered poor form. Another is that we have an awful lot of short paragraphs. Some editors object to this on the grounds that it makes an article seem choppy and hard to read. The most important thing now of course is to get the content right, but I think these stylistic issues will have to be addressed at some point. I want to thank you for the major reorganization you did. It is much easier to edit an article once it is organized. I am still a little unconfortable with the idea of the population genetics stuff being treated as a precursor rather than as the beginning of the synthesis but the difference is largely semantics, and I will live with your organization. Rusty Cashman 07:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm OK with the Morgan note. I have to stick to my old-fashioned refs for the moment because a) I don't begin to understand the other way, and b) I like to see what I've referred to as I read the preview. I've done a bit to E.B. Ford page; he, like Darlington, is an important satellite. I'm planning to write a para on the other Russians of the Dob. vintage, whose work is now so much better known. Incidentally, you may already have read Kohler's Lords of the Fly, but if not, give it a look: it's a wonderfully readable account of the history of Drosophila genetics (even though it doesn't tell me whether Calvin Bridges died of syphilis - see his stub). Regards Macdonald-ross 19:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it took me awhile to get comfortable with inline citations as well. They are nifty once you understand how they work though. Perhaps, if you don't mind, when you are done adding content I will make a pass and organize the citations and references. You can't be too careful with sources and citations on an article like this, not only will it face criticism from the Genesis as literal truth crowd but some aspects of the modern synthesis has been a controversial topic among professional scientists and historians (just look at some of Gould's more extreme statements). I appreciate the reading recommendation. I find one of the benefits of editing on Wikipedia is the interesting sources I end up reading that I would not otherwise every have been aware of. I doubt I would ever have read any of Martin Rudwick's stuff on the history of paleontology and geology if I hadn't gotten sucked into the Cuvier article long ago...Rusty Cashman 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the things biographies and histories do is explain how a scientist's views change over a lifetime. Sometimes this is really crucial, yet the space available on a page limits what can be said. So I like to find a way to recommend the good stuff; on T.H. Huxley I did read or skim-read all the biogs, and left brief annotations in the biography section. In practice maybe only 1% of readers will actually search out the literature, but they may be an important 1%! Macdonald-ross 16:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

This article has been totally fucked up. References that were well laid out well for easy linking are now a mess. Edits without edit summaries make it unclear as to what was accomplished. I'm impressed. Oh, maybe not. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care for your way of expressing yourself but you do have somewhat of a point. Overall the article has been improving but there are a few significant problems.

• The reference section is a mess. It should only have the references used to construct the article, which given the emphasis on citation at Wikipedia usually only means the cited sources. Everything else should be listed in a separate section entitled further reading, or key publications or something, but not in the same section as the cited sources.

* The section on the synthesis itself is very large and detailed. It is not going to be easy for someone without a lot of background knowledge to find the most important points and understand why they are important. I am not sure whether it has to be pruned, but if it is not, it needs to be organized by breaking it into subsections with headings (possibly a subsection for each of the major players) and some summarization text has to be added to emphasize the most important things and why they were important. Some such text was present in previous versions of the article and seems to have disappeared.

• As it now stands the article has some POV issues. This is definitely apparent in the "Some confusion" and "after the synthesis" sections. This is not a huge issue as for one thing the views reflected in the article are mostly consistent with the majority position, but some wording needs to be changed and some additions made so that the views of critics of the synthesis and of people who have expressed different ideas about what the synthesis actually was are treated a little more fairly.

None of these points is going to be too difficult to resolve, and I plan to help out as soon as things settle down a little. I think the article has actually been improved more than it has been screwed up by recent editing, but some problems have been created that need to be addressed.Rusty Cashman 03:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

After further reading, this article now has taken on a Creationist POV. But I agree Rusty, the POV has shifted. I'll be reverting as soon as I get into my office. And I'll be using edit summaries, because you know, I know how to be a good team player to this project. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference section does have three or four refs that don't appear in the text, so they could come out. The rest of the refences were and are being used to 'construct the article'. Apart from that, the references are completely appropriate, though they're not 'in-line'.

Content in the main section is already under the constraints of space (compare the Huxley and Mayr books!). I think a reader should be able to ask "What was it these people did?" and be able at least to get some kind of answer, not in detail of course, but also not so general that the science disappears.

'Some confusions' could go, though it does address real issues relevant to the topic. Readability needs to be improved, but not, I hope, at the expense of the scientific content.

Overall, the space given to the main section on the synthesis seems well justified: after all, it's what the page is supposed to be about. There are other pages that deal with the broader scope of evolution, its history, &c. Macdonald-ross 13:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I read the main section after it has stabilized. I realize it is pretty good and actually rather readable for such a complex subject. So I am retracting my comment about it (I should not review important stuff so late at night). You really derserve credit for greatly improving this article. I do think that the references need to be squared away, and a few edits are needed to make things a little more NPOV (I agree the Some confusions section is the main culprit, it needs to be either replaced or supplemented with a section describing alternative view points about the synthesis). I can't understand for the life of me how anyone could look at this article and claim "this article now has taken on a Creationist POV". I hope he or she isn't serious about reverting stuff, rather than fixing. I don't want an edit war, but this article shouldn't move backwards. It is moving forward too nicely. Orangemarlin seems to be a completely reputable editor, so hopefully he/she will reconsider once he goes back to his office and reads what you have written a little more carefully.Rusty Cashman 20:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll provide some refs for the After the Synthesis section. Macdonald-ross 13:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Impression

Glancing at this article, my impression is that it has taken on a slight creationist slant, as OrangeMarlin stated above. Also, the English is singularly poor. It is a bit of a mess. I am stunned to see people congratulating themselves over the state of this article. Oh my gosh...--Filll 17:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A couple of months ago, it was pretty readable and reasonable. Now, although there is a lot more information in the article (which is to be expected, since it is now 3 times the size it was 2 months ago), The new material is chatty, and disorganized. The sentences suffer from heavy overuse of semicolons. Many are not really sentences at all. There are disjointed lists. Please, lets try to aim a bit higher.--Filll 18:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not contribute to this article, but want to counter what might seem as thankless jibes with recognition. Kudos to those who contributed to this project. Spa toss 20:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The prose can certainly be tightened. I have to ask though, what in the current article could be said to have any kind of creationist slant? I am not trying to pick a fight. I just want to understand the comment. Rusty Cashman 21:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tightened? It is at present an embarassment, more suitable for a Junior High School book report than an article in Wikipedia. Sorry, but that is how I see it. I just cringe at about 90% of the text. And as I said, there is a slight creationist slant. I have certainly seen much much worse. Here are a couple of examples.

• Also, Darwin did not quite offer a real theory of how new species arise; strange, given the title of his book. For example, he did not explicitly suggest that geographical separation might be the start of speciation.

This comment on Darwin I am not sure is even correct. After all, I do recall the Galapagos Islands as part of the voyage of the Beagle. Then the implication that the title of his book was inaccurate or misleading somehow, when I do not think it was any such thing. At the very least this violates WP:NOR. And geographic separation is of course only one mechanism that can lead to speciation; there are many many others. So this implication that it is the only one is just plain wrong. These suggestions just smell like something a creationist would make, because in general they do not have a clue as to what evolution is, just that they hate it with a passion. And Darwin too, and they want to belittle him and paint him as an incompetent and/or a demon. None of them are referenced properly. They are doubtful. They just give a certain impression.

• Often a palaeontologist would believe that if he, personally, could not see a function for some structure, then it actually did not have a function!

This is a very common creationist claim. Emphasizing it with an exclamation point just makes the sentence seem even more biased and POV, and totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. And it is one of the main points of attack by creationists on the vestigial and atavistic structures claimed by evolution biologists and paleontologists in the past, and figures prominently in the creationist literature.

I could give many other examples of attrocious grammar, POV bias, lack of citations (just about every second sentence makes a crazy outrageous claim and needs to be checked or at least a {{fact}} tag). The baggy lists. The lousy reference format. A reasonable article has been turned into a bloated amateurish mess. Sorry. This will take months to fix, if ever. One wonders if it should just be discarded and the effort started over again from what we had a couple of months back.--Filll 21:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The writing is at best Junior High level. The Creationist POV is insulting. The messed-up references is unbelievable. The style is so far out of WP:MOS, to get this to a GA stage is impossible. It is an embarrassment. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I count 19 uses of the semicolon ";" and 3 uses of the exclamation point "!" (one in a reference even!!!) in a 35 Kbyte article. There should not be a single exclamation point in an encyclopedic article, IMHO. There should be sparing use of semicolons. Most of these are superfluous and are joining together two clauses that should be separate sentences. There are rhetorical questions (there were two, but I deleted one). There are 47 colons ":". Some of these are in book and article titles, but at least half of the colons have got to go. --Filll 22:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As for "Also, Darwin did not quite offer a real theory of how new species arise; strange, given the title of his book. For example, he did not explicitly suggest that geographical separation might be the start of speciation." This should just be removed as commentary, whether or not it is creationist. Spa toss 22:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course. The problem is, there are many many similar statements. The article has degenerated into a disaster.--Filll 22:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Section that read like an essay moved to talk page for work

“ The biological sciences changed materially after the second world war. The fields of cell biology and molecular biology grew almost from scratch; the discovery of the structure of DNA lead to the complete genetic analysis of many different types of organism. The realisation that RNA is heavily involved, not just in protein synthesis, but in gene regulation and in embryonic development is opening new worlds. Microbiology has grown from an off-shoot of medicine into a fundamental part of our modern view of life; we are now aware that the genomes of prokaryotes, both bacterial and archaea, have contributed to the eukaryotic cell, of which all higher forms of life are built. The field of palaeontology opened up after many years of stagnation, with a vast array of important discoveries, especially in China. Discovery of significant pre-human fossils (hominid or hominin) in Africa has also grown hugely. Much of this has to do with the invention of new techniques and technologies, at least in the area of cell and molecular biology. Also, the huge increase in funding for the biological sciences should not be underestimated.

Almost unnoticed amidst these great advances, the evolutionary synthesis has survived quite well. Another of Mayr's pronouncements went "The evolutionary synthesis... was clearly the most decisive event in the history of evolutionary biology since the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859 (Mayr 1982 p569). New problems, such as altruism, kin selection, the evolution of sex, have arisen (Cronin 1991; Hamilton 1996-2005; Maynard Smith 1978, 1988); old problems have returned, such as sexual selection (Cronin 1991), mimicry (Naisbit et al 2003), speciation (Mallet 2006).

One or two apparent challenges to the synthesis faded somewhat after a time, for example the idea of punctuated equilibrium (Eldredge and Gould 1972). Eldredge and Gould claimed that the gradualism espoused by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species, punctuated by rare bursts of adaptive radiation. Now, gradualism in evolution is an ambiguous idea: it might mean evolution is small steps (as opposed to larger jumps), or it might mean constant slow development. The first version is absolutely consistent with the evolutionary synthesis. The second version is inconsistent with the fossil record.

In an article Can we complete Darwin's revolution? Stephen Gould said "Evolutionary events are concentrated in episodes of branching speciation within small, isolated populations" (Gould 1996), which is completely orthodox so far as the evolutionary synthesis goes; indeed much the same idea of speciation had been put forward by Mayr long before. Another example, from W.D. Hamilton, perhaps the greatest innovator in evolutionary theory in recent times: "I was and still am a Darwinian gradualist for most of the issues of evolutionary change" (Hamilton 1996, vol 1 p27). The synthesis is in good health, though that certainly does not mean that all evolutionary problems are solved.

”

Okay, OM and Filll

I agree, this article is a mess. Start over. But let's be nice to the contributors who may need some help. No need to be mean about their contributions. It would probably be better to move the article to a talk page, replace it with a paragraph, and then add back stuff to the article. The topic is outside my expertise, aside from being able to recognize an essay and uncited material. Spa toss 23:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I just took a snapshot of the article and put it here. Spa toss 23:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the article to a previous version edited by OM. Spa toss 23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to demean the efforts of the editors over the last couple of months. My first few efforts here were pretty bad. I still do not produce such great articles. However, the contributors need constructive criticism, not just encouragement. And that is how they will aspire to do better, which I sincerely hope they do. I know they can produce better articles. But to do so, they have to know what is wrong with this current article. I am sure that some of the material that has been added is useful. However, it is a HUGE amount of effort to filter out the bad material and get to a reasonable article again. And to be honest, it is just overwhelming.--Filll 23:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I just took a snap shot of the article and moved it here. Then I reverted the article. I think it will be easier to add back in stuff. That is, I agree that it would have been difficult to individually remove. If you think the current version of the article is still too new, feel free to search for a basic starting point. Spa toss 23:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, my good faith with the editors went down the tubes when I asked that they provide edit summaries, stick with the current referencing format, and a couple of other points. The bad writing was unimportant. BUT, after reading all of the edits, the bad writing means it's going to take weeks of work. We'll see what we can do about adding back in. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I just fixed much of the text and converted several of the citations in 20 minutes of editing. Of course the inline citations I use are not the clickable ones that OrangeMarlin loves, but they are consistent with the references and citations that were in the article before Mcdonald-ross started improving the article. In a couple of cases he cites a book without citing specific pages. That is bad form and I would like him to make the citations more specific if he can. If people will work on this in good faith it should be possible to fix the problems without reverting or edit warring. There is good content in this article, much of it added recently. I think the format and prose issues should just be fixed rather than trying to revert to old versions and then add stuff back in. Rusty Cashman 10:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your work, but thanks for doing it. I don't know that anybody is edit warring. The inline citations without links is not good. It should be fixed. Citations to books without page numbers are suspicious, and fail verifiability in my opinion (requires speed reading skills, an ability to read an entire book and figure out from which page a statement is backed up). These should be moved off the page and unverifiable. Spa toss 16:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that we revert back to the 2 month ago version that Rusty Cashman tried (and was unfortunately this move was mistakenly reverted). And that the present page be moved to a sandbox for further editing. We can slowly try to introduce material from the sandbox version to the version from 2 months ago, and build it up. This has to be done carefully, while respecting proper reference formats, NPOV, verifiability, RS sources, WP:MOS etc. We have to try this. Or else just delete this article. To fix it is almost impossible in its current state. Another option is to move the 2 month ago page to a sandbox, and to edit it there, expanding it with whatever usable material we can find from the current version. Then, at the appropriate time, replace the main version with the sandbox version. Comments?--Filll 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert. Period. This article needs to be restarted back to the last stable version. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Revert and move information back in. I thought there was already concensus on this. Spa toss 17:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Ok, ok... Calm down. As someone said above there is no need to be nasty. Several editors have clearly put a lot of work into this article. I agree that even a scan read of the article reveals uncited statements, essay writing, POV comments and poor grammer and sentance structure. Those are the primary problems. BUT Wikipedia is a growing and living encyclopedia it depends on editors to put the time in to contribute content as well as to tidying up. It is grossly unfair to take such a nasty stance with folks who were probably doing their best work. You two are very naughty folks and should hang your heads in shame, go sit in the corner and think about... I don't know, oh yes WWJD (What Would Jimbo Do?):P :pppppppp

Please can we proceed in a calm and constructive manner? I would agree that a revert to last stable version may be the best course of action at this time BUT only with the entire article as it currently stands being preserved somewhere for folks to use as a basis for additions to the article (but rephrased and sourced). It isn't right to leave it as it stands but it is also not right to discount all the hard work that has gone into it.

Oh and please excuse my sarcasm. I can understand why you are annoyed and I'm not picking a fight but at the same time it is important to recognise the work of others and not to be so... nasty, sorry.AlanD 17:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we can be nice. The article has been moved for reference and slavage, and reverted back to a previous version. See below. Spa toss 18:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reversion made of main article, and snapshot of enlarged page moved

The snapshot of the enlarged page is at Talk:Modern evolutionary synthesis/NeedsHelp. Please go there to get material to include back in the main article, which was reverted back to a version about 2 months ago before the massive expansion in June and July and early August.--Filll 18:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reversion reaction

Hmm I thought the purpose of making a proposal was to see what reaction it got (preferably from all sides of a dispute). Not to make the proposal and then a few hours later implement it without waiting for feedback. However, since that is what your have gone and done all I can do is point out the problems with the version you just reverted to that had already been fixed in the version you reverted away from.

• The version you reverted too does not correctly define its subject. It treats the foundation of population genetics as the synthesis rather than as a key precursor to the synthesis. This is one of the things Mcdonald-ross and I argued about when he started his edits. I argued (on this talk page) for the view expressed by Gould and others I had read. After carefully rereading my sources (especially Bowler) I came to the conclusion that the current view of most science historians was closer to that of Mayr. In my opinion the intro of the article you just reverted away from handled this issue very well, where as the one you reverted to uses a bad definition of the topic.
• The version you reverted to does not have a reasonable structure that separates the historical developments leading up to the synthesis from the history of the synthesis itself. This is probably partly because it suffers from confusion over what the synthesis actually was.
• The historical treatment of events leading up to the synthesis in the version you reverted to is far inferior to the one you reverted away from. For instance it discusses T.H. Morgan at length (probably too much length see earlier arguments on this talk page) but didn't cover the part of his contributions that mattered most to the synthesis, which were that most mutations were smaller than the Mendalians believed and that they served to increase the genetic variability of the population. It also didn't handle the 19th century neo-Darwinism debate nearly as well. In my opinion the History of developments leading up to the synthesis section in the version of the article that you just discarded was a shining example of what can be achieved when editors compromise and move forward rather than revert.
• The historical treatment of the actual synthesis in the version you have reverted to is little more than a stub compared with the comprehensive treatment you discarded.

So now that I have started to calm down a litte I ca start redoing the work that had already been done. It is not like I could have anything better to do. Rusty Cashman 19:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, don't get worked up. The latest version may have some admirable traits, but it is really very difficult to figure out how to improve it. It would be better to work on it out of article one paragraph at a time, and add back in, unless a paragraph is too small of a unit. Thanks for your time, by the way. Spa toss 19:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edits were not lost. The version is available, just as it was. You are free to edit either or both of these as you see fit. I just ask that people keep in mind the standards we are aiming towards here. Enough people were unhappy with the expanded version that something needed to be done. And anyone looking at it was just overwhelmed by the mess. Sorry, but that is the hard ugly truth. We all appreciate the work you put into including more information. And this information is not lost. It is still here, in a sandbox. And we will use it. So do not panic. I would agree with Spa toss. The answer is to take one paragraph at a time, bring it to the talk page, and discuss it. By the way, my reversion followed on a previous reversion last night about 2300 hours UTC, which did not hold. And this has been discussed repeatedly here on the talk page and in the edit summaries for the last few days. You did not see that? I see that this topic has come up since at least August 13th. So I do not think I acted precipitiously. For gosh sakes, even the justification of the references in the previous version was uneven! I had no idea if that was done for some purpose, to keep track of assorted articles, or just was the result of capricious editing. But to be honest, it looked awful. And the references were not in alphabetical order. These things are not rocket science, you know. And not having clickable links consigns the article into stub class or start class at very best. However, I would not even put it at start class with those kinds of problems. I gave a few examples a day or two ago of strange punctuation I found, just with a cursory look. That was not sufficient evidence of problems with the article? OM has been complaining for about 4 days, and maybe longer, about the quality of the article. That was not enough warning or time? You wanted more?--Filll 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

First sign of trouble was on the 11th of August by OM: [1]. He might have been a bit aggressive about his comment, but he had been a regular editor on this article and was dismayed to see what it had become. I have to admit, even I, who is not the best at using the modern reference method, was underwhelmed when I saw the state of the article.

It is great to introduce new material. It is great to expand a short article. But if you expand it and reduce the quality drastically by adding uncited claims, nonEnglish "sentences", grammar problems, weird parenthetical remarks, strange punctuation (including lots of "?" and "!" and ":" and ";" and "--" and so on), offhand POV comments, unencyclopedic remarks, etc then all your hard work is not presented in the best possible light.

I feel bad for telling you this, and I apologize if it seems harsh. I just know this did not reach not the standard of quality that Wikipedia articles should attain. And although you feel bad, and might feel "dissed" or your contributions not appreciated, this is not the case. One has to remember the thousands upon thousands of other editors that are contributing here and do not want to see their work destroyed, or engulfed in sloppy edits. And in addition, we have literally millions of readers per day. This is one of the most highly visited sites on the internet. We have to try to do our best to present the material as clearly as we can, according to WP:MOS. I am sorry if any of this hurts your feelings and I truly apologize for it. None of us wants to make you feel unwelcome or unappreciated. We just have to take a sideways step here in order to mine your contributions for material to use in the mainspace article. Fair enough?--Filll 19:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the previous reversion did not hold (and was reverted out by a 3rd party not connected to the dispute) might have suggested something to you as well. As should the fact that I am sitting here defending a bunch of edits that are not my own. I feel bad not for being dissed (as I say it was not my work). I am feeling bad because the way this was handled was uncivil as well as totally unnecessary. It wouldn't have taken a good copy editor with OrangeMarlin's skill more than a couple of hours to fix the format issues that McDonald-ross had introduced while preserving the information. Heck I could have done it if I wasn't so buisy with other articles and I would have done it within a few days if OrangeMarlin hadn't flown off the handle that way. You can see my comments to that effect about the reference issue if you bothered to study the talk page a little. Incidentally, I think the comment "And the references were not in alphabetical order" just about sums up the format over content dynamic that is a big part of my complaint here. I have found articles with that problem before. You just fix it, and that was all that was necessary with this article. The same thing applies to unencyclopedic phrases. It is not as though there was questionable or unsourced material in the article. It was all formatting issues. Formatting is important but correct verifiable content is more important.Rusty Cashman 20:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

1859-1899 onward paragraph

Sandbox version

Problems

Two of Darwin's theories were widely accepted: evolution itself and the idea of common descent. However, two other ideas met with 'determined resistance': gradual change and natural selection (see T.H. Huxley). Variations of Lamarckism, orthogenesis ("progressive" evolution), and saltationism (evolution by "jumps" or mutations) were discussed as alternatives.<ref> Bowler Evolution:The History of an Idea pp.236-256 </ref> Also, Darwin did not quite offer a real theory of how new species arise; strange, given the title of his book. For example, he did not explicitly suggest that geographical separation might be the start of speciation.[Citation needed] As part of the disagreement about whether natural selection was sufficient by itself to explain speciation, George John Romanes coined the term "neo-Darwinism" to refer to the version of evolution advocated by Alfred Russel Wallace and August Weismann with its heavy dependence on natural selection.<ref name="Gould216"> Gould The Structure of Evolutionary theory p. 216</ref> Weismann and Wallace rejected the Lamarckian idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics, something that Darwin didn't rule out.[Citation needed]

Evolution and common descent are accepted but natural selection and gradual change are not? This doesn't make any sense as presented. Less than sophomoric commentary

I have many many problems with this paragraph. For instance, my impression was that natural selection did not meet with much resistance, but common descent did. Common descent is the crux of the objections by creationists and others, since it says Humans are related to all other species. That two species that look widely different like a tree and a dog are closely related and had the same origin. It is a startling outrageous statement, and my impression was that THAT was the main problem that Darwin's theory faced, at least in the public sphere and possibly in the scientific realm as well. No?--Filll 19:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds better. But I guess we have to map it to the context of modern synthesis. What does the mainstream view of science have to do with modern synthesis? Anything? If something, it is not clear from the original paragraph. Spa toss 20:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To be really honest, I am confused about why this excursion into the history of evolutionary thought is relevant to the modern synthesis. We already have an article on that. Am I wrong?--Filll 20:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I just added a {{main|history of evolutionary thought}}. Spa toss 20:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This discussion shows why articles should be edited by people who have done the resarch to understand the topic. Anyone who had read the intro to History of evolutionary thought let alone the body of the article or any of its cited references (or even the references cited by the current truncated version of this article) would know that while the Origen of Species was highly successful in convincing people that evolution had taken place, it was much less successful in convincing people that natural selection was its root cause. That is relevent to this article because the main point of the modern synthesis was to establish that natural selection was the driving force of evolution. You can get this from Larson, Bowler, Gould, or Mayr. It is fundamental to the history of evolutionary thinking. Rusty Cashman 21:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if we had a subject matter expert editing here. And maybe we can recruit one. However, I am not a subject matter expert. And we have a couple of people who purport to be subject matter experts but have produced a disaster. All I know is, I come and look at the expanded article, and I have a sinking feeling.--Filll 21:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm time to tone down the rhetoric a little. I agree that the paragraph is not well written, especially the start. I propose the followinig:

The Origin of Species was successful in convincing most of the scientific community of the fact that evolution had occurred, but was much less successful in convincing naturalists that natural selection was its primary mechanism. In the 19th and early 20th centuries variations of Lamarckism, orthogenesis ("progressive" evolution), and saltationism (evolution by "jumps" or mutations) were discussed as alternatives. Also, Darwin did not offer a precise explanation of how new species arise. As part of the disagreement about whether natural selection alone was sufficient to explain speciation, George John Romanes coined the term "neo-Darwinism" to refer to the version of evolution advocated by Alfred Russel Wallace and August Weismann with its heavy dependence on natural selection. Weismann and Wallace rejected the Lamarckian idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics, something that Darwin had not ruled out.

I think that should be encyclopedic enough, verifiable enough, and accurate enough. Rusty Cashman 21:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, your version appears better than the one in the table above. 22:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the first and I hope least controversial part of the "Devlopments leading up to the synthesis" I have edited it a little and added some references to make it even less controversial. Although since I just saw one editor here call mentioning "neo-Darwinism" creationist cruft (despite the fact that the term has redirected to this article for many months) I am not sure anything is going to be easy. The next phase (the population genetics stuff) is going to be harder. I think I will wait a day to begin. If someone else wants to get started on it. You won't hear me complain (unless they just mangle it). Rusty Cashman 01:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the population genetics stuff went easier than I thought, and in the process I think it got a pretty good edit. I don't think the resulting text will be too controversial. One problem is that population genetics is now covered in 2 paragraphs while the real synthesis itself is only covered in one (a balance problem I may add that this article had for a very long time). Fortunately the "banished" version will provide plenty of material that can be mined to expand the coverage of the synthesis. It was that section of the "expanded" article that it really bothered me to loose. Alghough very little of it was my work I admired it even if it was a little breezy in spots, because it is not easy to convey such complex ideas in a reasonbably small space as I have learned from my work on History of paleontology and History of evolutionary thought. As soon as you try and convey any of the complexity of the historical situation, someone who doesn't understand the topic in detail accuses you of wrtiting "creationist cruft". Rusty Cashman 04:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just produced a version covering the actual synthesis in a way that I think may represent a good compromise between those who felt that the relevent section of the "expanded" version was too detailed, a little unfocused and written in a somewhat unencyclopedic style, and those who felt that the version that we reverted back to was little more than a stub in this area. There is still more valuable stuff in the expanded version( including the stuff on E.B. Ford and the Germans), but lets see if this holds as a start. Rusty Cashman 18:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Need for a correct definition in intro

When I first looked at this article, it began with "The Modern Synthesis refers to a period of about a decade (1936-1947) when ideas from a number of biological specialities came together in a unified theory of evolution which was agreed and accepted by the great majority of working biologists." Note, incidentally, the phrase "was agreed", not 'is agreed'.

I pointed out on Evolution that this definition was quite wrong, as the synthesis cannot be a period of time (it fails linguistically apart from anything else), after which I noted that the intro changed to "The modern evolutionary synthesis refers to set of ideas from several biological specialities that were brought together to form a unified theory of evolution and accepted by the great majority of working biologists." I liked that.

Now the intro reads, "The Modern Synthesis generally denotes the integration of Charles Darwin's theory of the evolution of species by ....." and I now see, looking back through the history, that this had been the definition for a long time, prior to which it was "generally denotes the combination of Charles Darwin's theory of the evolution ....

I suggest that this latest definition, which has in fact been revived from earlier ones, fails linguistically again, because the synthesis does not denote the integration (a transient act), rather the synthesis is a theory.

I actually think that the version in the second paragraph above is the only one that comes close to the truth, referring to "a set of ideas that were brought together", which is exactly right. I have a remaining problem though, which others seem to have been unsure about. Is the synthesis something that exists now? Is it the currently accepted theory of evolution? Is it Neo-Darwinism, or is that subtly different (ignoring the brief historical use of the term). Or WAS it a "set of ideas that were brought together" but which have now been superceeded. Finding a definitive answer to those questions is not easy, and I suspect there is much confusion over the term out there in the world.

To me, the Modern Synthesis refers to the set of ideas that were arrived at in the 1930's and summarised in Aldous Huxley's Evolution:The Modern Synthesis - I believe he invented the term. To regard the Modern Synthesis as 'modern' in the sense of 'current' and hence a developing set of ideas, is not helpful or workable, as it clashes with the historical use of the term, established long ago by Huxley. I would suggest reserving the term Neo-Darwinism (which I do not think is just another term for Modern Synthesis as this article says it is), for the current set of generally accepted ideas (I would get rid of the re-direct and write a page on that topic). Do you agree that it's important to get this right. If we really think this article is about the current generally accepted theory of evolution, then surely we should say so in the intro. I don't think that it is. --Memestream 21:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you meant Julian Huxley not Aldous. I agree that the modern synthesis (and the related foundation of population genetics is a historical event, but it is also the foundation of the current understanding of evolutionary biology, as several of the sources cited by this article assert. I also agree that the definition in the current lead is unacceptable. It would be a better definition of population genetics. Rusty Cashman 21:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course I meant Julian Huxley, sorry. --Memestream 21:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and restored the lead. That at least should be fairly uncontroversial as I do not believe there is anything unencyclopedic about it. If anyone thinks it needs tweaking it can be tweaked. I would like to also start restoring the history of the lead up to the synthesis, but there is still some debate going on about it in the previous section of this talk page.Rusty Cashman 21:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've 'tweaked' it back to the one I liked, originally by TimVickers, as the one you added made the Modern Synthesis the currently accepted theory. I see some support above for my claim that it is historical, though I agree that it was the starting point for modern theory. --Memestream 21:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am happy with the result. Rusty Cashman 22:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks better. But you might want to find a reference for "for which the term Neo-Darwinism is sometimes preferred". 22:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good, and I agree, but I'm finding conflicting stuff on the Web, hence the 'is sometimes'. I'd be glad if this were left for now, so that others can consider this line of thought and perhaps come up with citations. --Memestream 22:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just added a cite linking to a video by Dawkins which opens with the sentence, "I'm calling it Neo-Darwinism". I need time to study this video fully, but it does demonstrate current use of the term by a key figure. --Memestream 22:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Jay Gould also uses the term neo-Darwinism. There is a citation to this effect in the 1859-1900 subsection that has just been worked back into the article where it discusses the historical origin of the term. If you read the talk page carefully you will see that there was once a separate article on neo-Darwinism but that it was merged into this one. I don't pretend to know if that was wise, but as long as it is true this article needs to discuss the term. Otherwise the redirect is just too confusing. Rusty Cashman 01:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the "neo-Darwinism is creationsist cruft" editor has struck again. Although fortunately he seems to have missed the historical discussion of the term lower down in the article. I think it should be mentioned in the lead for the following reasons:

• "neo-Darwinism" redirects to this page, and it is confusing if the lead doesn't give any indication of why.
• There are perfectly respectable sources (such as Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory, and Larson's Evolution) that link the term to this subject, and I believe another editor found a video source of Dawkins using the term (though I didn't get around to watching the video).
• Just because a group with a strong POV, such as creationists, have used a particular term in a derisive manner, doesn't automatically make that term illegitimate.

So I will now wait a few hours for other people's response before I act, because, unlike some other editors, I believe that is the correct procedure after having made a "proposal" on a talk page. Rusty Cashman 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I will note again that about 4 days passed from the initial suggestion that there was as a problem with the article, and maybe some reversion was appropriate. Almost 24 hours passed from the serious discussion of reversion (with a temporary reversion) and the current major reversion which I performed. We could have waited a week, of course, or more, but really, with the overwhelming consensus that something had to be done, sometimes one has to just be bold. We all want an article we can be proud of, and we were not going to get there from the previous article. I am sorry, but that is my strong feeling and those of several others. I do not mean to hurt anyone's feelings and we certainly appreciate all the effort you went to, to bring in more information.--Filll 19:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack. I'll remember that in the future. As for neo-Darwinism, when Behe and Dembski use it, then I know it's crap. A google search mostly comes up with Creationist bullshit. Since I have nearly every book by Dawkins and Gould on my shelf, I'll see how they use it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

How frequently does "Neo-Darwinism" get used by the scientific community versus "modern evolutionary synthesis" (or "synthetic theory" or other synonyms that aren't mentioned in the article). If it is used only very infrequently, then it probably should not be included (particularly as many consider calling a scientific theory an "-ism" to be pejorative). Hrafn42 18:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree completely with Rusty here. Just because creationists have attached certain connotations to the term, doesn't mean it should be scrubbed from history. More could be said about this after the intro, since the terminology was something the framers of the synthesis argued about at the time. If I recall correctly, Dobzhansky and others were in favor of "neo-Darwinism", while Mayr thought the new understanding of evolution was different enough from Darwin's that "neo-Darwinism" was a misnomer. In any case, "neo-Darwinian synthesis" and "neo-Darwinism" were in common use well before creationists started trying to paint all of evolutionary biology as their own oversimplified and out-of-date picture of "neo-Darwinism". Trying to remove the term as inherently creationist is conceding to the creationist distortion of the term, a relatively recent development.--ragesoss 19:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Creationist code-words infiltrate scientific articles in a manner to demean the science. "Evolutionist" and neo-Darwinism are used by the Creationists to make negative connotations about the science of Evolution. Neo-Darwinism is used frequently by Behe and Dembski. That does it for me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Some data from google hits (admittedly not the best or definitive):

• neo-darwinian 219,000
• neo-darwinism 170,000
• neodarwinian 14,200
• neodarwinism 39,300
• modern evolutionary synthesis 15,600
• modern synthesis 169,000

--Filll 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look where most of those lead. Creationist rantings. That's why most scientists I know do not ever use the term neo-Darwinian, mainly because it has no meaning, but also because of the creationist crap. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that explains it. I didnt look close enough at the hits. If a good fraction of the Neo-Darwinist or Neo-Darwinian hits are creationist sites, then it tells us something.--Filll 19:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we are not interested in references to modern evolutionary theory as "neo-Darwinism" (terminology which is mostly used by creationists), but references to the result of the the historical synthesis (i.e., evolutionary theory in the 1940s, 50s and 60s, particularly) as neo-Darwinism, and references to the historical event/process as the "neo-Darwinian synthesis". The term was in wide use at least until the 80s to refer to evolutionary theory, and is still in use by non-creationists to refer to the historically specific context of this article.

Since we're on the topic of names, I think this article would best be title "evolutionary synthesis" rather than "modern evolutionary synthesis". "Evolutionary synthesis" and "modern synthesis" are both far more common terms for it than the combined "modern evolutionary synthesis", and that's what it's called in the titles of the two main secondary sources about it (Mayr and Provine's The Evolutionary Synthesis and Smocovitis's Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology).--ragesoss 19:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support this. When one talks about "modern evolutionary synthesis" one creates confusion as to whether one is talking about the synthesis as it was originally proposed (when it was still "modern") or the (currently modern) Theory of Evolution that this synthesis evolved into. Hrafn42 06:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd support Ragesoss and Hrafn in this direction. It's important that this article not be turned into a Creationist POV fork. That would be offensive, since evolutionary synthesis is, at its core, the merging of several fields of biology into one unifying theory. We need to flush out the Creationist POV as quickly as it is added, especially where it violates WP:WEIGHT. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please hold back on changing the title. I have been researching the use of the term and am now happy that it refers specifically to a landmark consensus that formed over twenty years and was complete by the 1950's. To call the article "Evolutionary synthesis" would add greatly to the confusion, because that phrase has a purely linguistic meaning which could justifiably be said to apply to a current synthesis of ideas. I would be happy to call it the "Modern Synthesis" or "Modern Synthesis (Evolution). The point is that the phrase comes from the title of the landmark book by Julian Huxley, and as such has a special meaning that takes precedence over any assumed linguistic meaning. The book is called Evolution:The Modern Synthesis, not The Evolutionary Synthesis. I am not suggesting that this page is about the book (there is a page on that already) but that the phrase 'Modern Synthesis' has a special meaning which derives from that book. I think this is sufficiently important for us to insert a new section straight after the intro, headed 'The Modern Synthesis is not Modern' (unless anyone has a better idea), to make the meaning very clear once and for all, as there are quite a few articles on the web that mis-use the term. I have some very good quotes that I would like to use in that section, taken from the Introduction to Genetics and the Origin of Species by Dobzhansky in the Columbia 'Classics in Evolution Series', by Stephen Jay Gould, who went out of his way to make available the main texts at the heart of the Modern Synthethis and explain exactly what it was and why it remains important. --Memestream 12:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

On neo-Darwinism I think some editors are making a big mistake in deducing from the fact that the term appears mostly in creationist writings that it is somehow a bogus term. Creationists have a perfect right to write what they think, however mistaken they may be, and they have to refer to something which they are opposing. That thing is the current scientific consensus, and it is conveniently called 'neo-Darwinism', because it is, broadly speaking, Darwins ideas on natural selection modified by current genetic knowledge. We cannot refer to today's consensus as 'the modern synthesis' because that term is reserved for a special meaning, as per this page. We cannot refer to it simply as 'evolutionary theory' because evolutionary theory is ongoing and still very much a matter for debate among scientists. So neo-Darwinism is a good term for it. I think many scientists use the term neo-Darwinism, especially perhaps in the UK, where we do not have a big issue with creationism, which is very much an American phonomenon. If I can get agreement on this, then neo-Darwinism has no place on this page, as it has a different meaning from the Modern Synthesis, and I suggest restoring the page on neo-Darwinism in its own right, but with a line at the top reading "this page is about the current consensus on Evolutionary theory. For the landmark consensus that founded genetics see Modern synthesis, for more detail see Theory of Evolution". I would rename the curent Evolution to Theory of Evolution, and then create a page on Evolution which took a broader view incorporating the very important topic of social evolution (currently only a poor stub), (leading into evolutionary psychology) which began with Compte and Benjamin Kidd and Herbert Spencer. Herbert Spencer is commonly described as 'the second most important figure in evolutionary theory after Darwin', yet he never gets proper treatment because he had nothing to do with genetics. He gets no mention at all on the current Evolution page, nor on History of evolutionary thought, even though he invented the phrase 'survival of the fittest' and was received as a hero on his visit to USA! --Memestream 12:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Creationists can believe whatever bullshit they want, we don't care. This article is called "Modern evolutionary synthesis" not Rantings of creationism. Memestream, if you want to use your terminology, go to Creationism, Creation science or wherever you want. Of course, we'll probably revert you there as we have in a number of articles where you went with a Creationist POV, but at least it's so much less offensive. Done. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That's totally inappropiate Orangemarlin, and personal abuse. You have totally failed to understand what I said. I am not in any way supporting creationists, but simply pointing out that I believe neo-Darwinism to be a proper term for currently accepted evolutionary theory, as used by, for example, evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins. You do know that Dawkins is, like me, totally anti-creationist don't you? --Memestream 19:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, so why would I care what you believe. Personal abuse? I don't abuse anyone, just the philosophy of Creationism. Done. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, nonexistent personal abuse of an anonymous editor who can't even figure out how to sign is still nonexistent, but even more so. Ridiculous. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a habit of breaking the link with logged-in users in the UK, leaving then thinking they are logged in. I fix the problem by logging back in and signing over the IP - simple and routine. Please stop the abuse.

Please look into the actual history of the phrase "Survival of the fittest". It was created before Darwin published his book, and referred to economics. It was only later co-opted by the popular media and applied to Darwin's theory.--Filll 17:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't even bother responding to this creationist BS any more. Why bother Filll? Just revert the articles to keep them NPOV, and if a reasonable editor questions the reversion or edit, then answer and find a consensus. It's impossible to form consensus with anti-scientific editors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this abuse Orangemarlin. I am an atheist, in England where creationists are almost unknown, and I specialise in modern genetics research. I do not understand why you are attacking me.

Filll: look at survival of the fittest where you will see at the top of the page a portrait of Herbert Spencer and read "Originally applied by Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology of 1864". You'd better go there if you dispute the fact. I have a special interest in Spencer, who was closely associated with Darwin. Darwin used Spencer's phrase, but later regretted doing so, as it became associated with social Darwinism. --Memestream 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, to summerize my thoughts on some of these recent comments. I don't think there is a good solution to the name problem so I think name of the article should stay what it is now and the alternate names should redirect to this article. The lead of the article should briefly mention the alternate names so that somone who is redirected to this article understands why.

On Memestream's comments about Spencer and History of evolutionary thought. It is always hard to know how much philosophy to include in an article like that. The lead makes it clear that the article is about the history of evolutionary thougth in biology. It is true that the philosophers have influeced the scientists and vice versa over the years, but with an article like that I am always worried about defocusing it. Its topic is broad enough as it is. A Evolution and philosophy article might be interesting. It could cover historical figures like Spencer and also more contemporary figures like Ruse and Dennett. However, I am not going to volunteer to star one. PS being logged out automatically is a problem in no way ristricted to the UK. It happens to me all the time. Rusty Cashman 19:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Memestream. See WP:IAC. In your case, after your reverted Evolution edits, I am going to ignore all of your credentials, period. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Memstream, your constant push in changing Evolution to Theory of Evolution is an Creationist tactic. NO ONE, including those whose credentials have been proven to me, supports you. Richard Dawkins doesn't support you. Stephen Gould doesn't support you. NO ONE. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we could change the names of other articles to match memestrean's penchant for the word theory: Theory of Gravity, Theory of Acceleration, Theory of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Theory of Newtonian Physics, Theory of the Speed of Light, Theory of Digestion, yadda-yadda-yadda. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Memestream, it is a common creationist tactic to claim to be an atheist etc when editing these articles, to be given more leeway in editing articles. In fact, I have never seen "real" atheists claim to be atheists on Wikipedia; I can just tell them from their edits. The only people I have seen claim to be atheists here are invariably creationists; you are about the 10th or 20th creationist I have seen do this. It is by now a red flag for a creationist, frankly. I do not care what you claim to be, if you are making edits like a creationist would. Always calling "evolution" the "theory of evolution" is one of them for sure. And the survival of the fittest article did not always read that way. I have read plenty of sources that claim otherwise, and everyone knows that Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles. And I might note that the UK has plenty of creationists. After all, you have Truth in Science, and the British Center of Science Education was not formed to lobby against just no one, after all.--Filll 04:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, creationists have co-opted and effectively redefined many terms and phrases, including most obviously creationism and intelligent design. Sensitivity to these nuances is greatest in the US, for obvious reasons. An interesting example is "evolutionist", which was used quite blithely by those supporting evolution in the early 1990s, for example Eugenie C. Scott here, and Stephen Jay Gould here, but is now mostly used by US creationists. While British scientists are still comfortable with such terms, Wikipedia has to communicate clearly to an international audience and to avoid misunderstandings we should take care not to make unnecessary or ambiguous use of these terms and phrases. As an aside, the survival of the fittest article reads the way it does now because I researched what Spencer's earlier books actually said, and confirmed that he didn't use the term until after reading The Origin of Species. Of course it was a while after that before Darwin used the term, giving full credit to Spencer for originating it. .. dave souza, talk 09:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Dave souza. I am astonished by the tone being taken towards me, and the trap I seem to have fallen into quite unexpectedly. I speak plainly and truthfully, but it seems that I cannot point out the ridiculousness of accusations against me of creatonism by simply saying that I am an atheist, because that is what creationists do! When OrangMarlin deleted the word Neo-Darwinism from this article, apparently furious because I had introduced a 'creationist' term, he failed to realise, ironically, that it was not there because of any edit that I had made, but was introduced long before I came here, and was left in because another editor pointed out that it would be wrong to not have the term here while ever the redirect from neo-Darwinism is present! What can I do? I feel I have been mugged.

I cannot say I am happy with your interpretation that because some words or phrases come to be flags for outbursts of fury in the USA we should not use them here. On the contrary I think US readers need to realise, though Wikipedia, which is worldwide, that the whole world does not think as they do. To censor the use of words in an Orwellian way is to reduce the possibility of proper discussion, as I feel has happened here. If 'neo-Darwinism' is 'creationist language' (despite being used extensively by top scientists like Dawkins and Gould), just because it appears mostly in 'creationist' websites, then I suggest that a search for the word 'abortion' might well show that it appears mostly in 'anti-abortionist' websites. Are we to stop using the word abortion because it is 'anti-abortionist language'? Where does it all end?

While it seems futile for me to try to say anything now, let me just explain why I think some people have got the wrong end of the stick. My reason for wanting to use the term 'theory of evolution' as a heading has nothing to do with it being 'just a theory' - a misguided allegation I undertand is used by creationists. Science progresses by theories, they are the best we have, no problem at all and no need to demean the concept of a theory. My point is that Evolution is the phenomenon studied, and what is described on the Evolution page is the current theory or explanation. The explanation is not the phenomenon. The practical consequence is that the page is limited to genetic theory, and misses much valid science concerning social evolution which developed alongside Darwins ideas. In fact it misses Darwins work in his 'Descent of Man', and 'Expression of Emotions' which was also evolutionary theory, was it not? It misses out Spencer, who was of course a complex and much misrepresented man. I particularly like the recent work 'Herbert Spencer and the Invention of Modern Life' which does much to correct the misunderstanding, and the very title of which suggests that he warrants a major place in science. Someone objected that we do not have much space to give to 'philosophers'. Until recently there were only Philosophers of course, they were the 'scientists' before the term came into common use after the Enlightenment. Newton, arguably one of the most significant figures in science was a philosopher and alchemist, not a scientist! Not much room for him on pages about science then?! I hope you see where I am coming from. I just like to get things right. --Memestream 14:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For info, the term "scientist" was coined by William Whewell in the 1830s. .. dave souza, talk 18:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've watched the Dawkins video (link sadly removed now from this article) of his lecture on the cruise-ship to Galapagos, which is entitled, significantly, Neo-Darwinism. He does in fact equate the term with the 'Modern Synthesis', and 'modified Darwinism'. I felt that Neo Darwinism was a less specific term, covering all variations of the Darwinian theme, but there you are, Dawkins uses it that way. How are we to square this with the statement in this article about Dawkins having a 'particular version of neo-Darwinism'. Either it refers specifically to the historical 'Modern Synthesis' or it doesn't. Which is it? --Memestream 14:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is getting really tired. Whether or not Dawkins has used the term, it is more often than not a creationist strawman, and per WP:UNDUE we should avoid misrepresenting it as a common scientific term. ornis (t) 14:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm so tired of this bullshit about neo-Darwinism. I'm this close to finding a friendly admin to ban his fucking ass from the project. Shut up about Neo-Darwinism already. No one supports it's being used in this article. STOP. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I spent some time last night looking at the sites that google turned up for "neo-Darwinism" and most of them are indeed creationist. However beside the Dawkins video one of the first page of hits are the slides of a 1984 Tanner lecture by Gould [2] entitled "Challenges to Neo- Darwinismand Their Meaning for a Revised View of Human Consciousness". So clearly the term had some scientific usage in recent times (perhaps I am showing my age but 1984 is still reasonably recent to me). Perhaps more importantly besides the creationist sites there are still a number of dictionary/encyclopedia type sites that are essentially defining the term as the modern synthesis Here is a sample from the Farlex free dictionary site "Modern theory of evolution, built up since the 1930s by integrating the 19th-century English scientist Charles Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection with the theory of genetic inheritance founded on the work of the Austrian biologist Gregor Mendel." So how about a sentence like this for the lead. "The ideas of the modern synthesis have sometimes been called neo-Darwinism." That explains the redirect without giving the term too much authority or undue weight. There is actually a good explanation in the body of the text for the historical usage of the term anyway.Rusty Cashman 17:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So Memestream wants to reeducate the American unwashed masses that spawn like a pestilential pox upon those of us with the capacity to comprehend reality and think independently? Good luck, dude, I've been trying that for years and it is something of an exercise in futility, less successful that jousting at windmills. The hoi polloi in this country, the vulgus that controls the dissemination of information to their offspring, are pompous holier-than-themselves fundies who are smug in their knowledge that the only book of interest, the only book of truth is the Bible: all else is the work of drunken, depraved disciples of Beelzebub. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Rusty, that seems a good idea to me. Memestream, it's not censorship, it's communication. It would be easy to find a source from any time before the late 1960s along the lines of, say, "Fred had a gay outing", but citing that without translation nowadays would be most misleading. It's a shame, but there it is. .. dave souza, talk 18:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I hope Memestream has access to a dictionary and look up consensus. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, we have to deal with the realities of pejoration, the dysphemism treadmill and similar mechanisms. Look, Colored people became negroes became blacks became Afro Americans became African Americans, and some now call them people of color. The N word in the US is now a far worse term and can get you far worse fines if broadcast than anything else (unless the person doing it happens to be African American). Pejoration happens. Fags at one time and in some places meant cigarettes. Faggots in some places at one time meant bundles of sticks. We have to just do the best we can, given these constraints that exist.--Filll 19:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why the past tense? The Sun Online - Bizarre: Britney becomes a fag hag, also BBC NEWS | England | Family of faggot fans fly the flag and BBC - Food - Recipes - Faggots with onion gravy for starters.... dave souza, talk 09:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Move 'Tenets of the Modern Synthesis'

The intro to this article says a lot about things being resolved, but fails to say what the modern synthesis consists of. We have to read the history and reach the end before we get to that. I suggest putting 'Tenets of the ...' straight after the intro, and expanding it. This is important because it's not easy for the average reader to find a full and definitive statement of what the synthesis represents anywhere. --Memestream 11:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Following a revert without comment here I'm persisting with the change. I'm not saying it's ideal as it stands, but I propose that this section should state clearly the fact of a vigourous debate after Darwin, amounting to a complete crisis according to many, and the simple reasons for that crisis, followed by an explanation of how the various contributors to the synthesis contributed towards bridging the gap. Nothing controversial or subversive, just an attempt to put over this most difficult of subjects to the average reader. William Bateson is said to have originated the debate that led to the synthesis, and part of that vigorous debate, yet he had no mention here (until I added a bit). He also invented the term Genetics so he was no insignificant figure. --Memestream 20:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Distinguishing Neo-Darwinism from Modern Synthesis

I have restored and expanded the article on neo-Darwinism with many citations that I believe help establish the distinction between this and the modern synthesis. Accordingly I have wiki-linked neo-Darwinism in the intro of this article, and expanded with a citation from a significant specialist encyclopedia which states clearly (as is confirmed in many places) that neo-Darwinism is the modern accepted theory of evolution. There have been attempts to make Neo-Darwinism into a redirect to this page, but unless neo-Darwinism is just another name for the modern evolutionary synthesis then such a redirect, without further qualification here, is just not appropriate. Given the confusion that exists over the term, I think ne-Darwinism needs a page of its own where the subtle details can be discussed and sorted out. I wish to emphasise that this is not an attempted POV fork, and certainly not an attempt to distract from or attack in any way the content of this page. Rather, I believe that with the matter properly separated out it becomes possible to make this page more accurate. As things stood, this page suggested that neo-Darwinism was another term for the modern synthesis. At the same time it stated clearly that the modern synthesis was a historical event. Yet neo-Darwinism existed before the modern synthesis, so something had to be wrong.

I ask that other editors please carefully examine the new page, and its citations, and comment on its own talk page rather than attempt to revert without discussion. I've tried hard to get to the truth and write it up, and want only to clarify the real position held by the modern synthesis, not challenge it. --Memestream 16:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Darwinism? I see a couple of cites there, not many, and the article is far from neutral, violates WP:UNDUE. AFD-bait at best. Your edits are just as problematic. Odd nature 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There are seven cites, which is pretty good for a newly created article, is it not. Give me some credit, and don't trash a day's work in such a nasty way please. --Memestream 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As someone who is quite familiar with evolution as a lay-person, but not an expert, I can't say that I understand where you think the Neo-Darwinism article violates WP:UNDUE. I don't follow any BBS-style debates on the topic, so perhaps I'm missing something. Could you be more specific? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin (and Odd Nature): you didn't even revert, you took out the reference to neo-Darwinism that had been much debated and reinstated following consensus by others which I had nothing to do with. You seem to have an irrational hatred of the term neo-Darwinism, which I think it would help if you were to explain, because I really think you must have confused something. Please explain how you think I am saying anything controvertial or in any way different. It's not as if I'm arguing some new theory, I'm just getting the historical context and useage right.--Memestream 16:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd Nature: You have stated Undue weight. Please explain what exactly you think I am giving undue weight to, because I see no difference in argument, just an attempt to distinguish the meanings which I feel was well supported in the citations. Are you challenging the ISCID [3] citation which defines Neo-Darwinism as the currently accepted theory of evolution? If so, on what grounds? It's hardly a dubious source is it? --Memestream 17:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this. Neo-Darwinism has been taken over as a perjorative term by creationists. It is clear to me that you're attempting to add Creationist code-words into the article. I would suggest if you want to own this article, then let's do it NPOV and without violating WP:WEIGHT. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the code-word was already there. He attempted to clarify it. Also, no one has yet explained how it violates WP:WEIGHT. It might (I'm really agnostic on this issue), but I'd like to hear an argument stating why it does. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Memestream: the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design don't even come close to being a WP:RS. It is a group of ID-Creationists put together by William Dembski, and has no more credibility than he does. Tabloid newspapers have higher editorial standards than this group has. Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 17:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Hrafn42. After noticing that many of the non-video links link to ISCID, I now understand the other complaints made here. I'd still like to assume good faith about Memestream (not that you aren't), as from a casual look at the web-site itself, it wasn't clear to me that they were IDers. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, what is the status of video links (and particularly links to video.google.com, which would seem to be a tad fluid and unverifiable) as wikipedia sources. Are they considered to be WP:RS? Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 18:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

They can be, but they must not violate copyright. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• See also: WP:YOUTUBE Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:YOUTUBE is part of WP:EL, which covers different issues from WP:RS, and has different standards (something can be a legitimate WP:EL without being a legitimate WP:RS). Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 18:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but on the talk pages (especially Wikipedia_talk:External_links/YouTube), you'll find a good discussion about the reliability argument. Obviously, this does not make it policy or even guideline, but it seems (to me) the consensus is that if the YouTube source itself is a reliable source (i.e., the video was posted by NBC themselves), then it is reliable. Most videos on YouTube or Google Videos will fail this criteria. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as a reasonable position to take. Is the video cited (twice) in Neo-Darwinism posted by Dawkins himself? Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 18:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think so. I'm not that familiar with Google Vidoes – all I see is a link to http://richarddawkins.net/. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

<RI>Yes, it has been established that Dawkins uses that obnoxious term. Sadly for him and the rest of science, "neo" has become a pejorative term. Neo-Darwinism (in fact anything Darwinism) has become a way of belittling the science of evolution. Look, we've been down here before. It is POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that, since there is clearly room for discussion regarding neo-Darwinism, the proper place to discuss it would be at neo-Darwinism, rather than cluttering up this page. No, OrangeMarlin, we have not been through this before, there has simply been continual restatement from you that the term is, to use your latest version, "obnoxious". That's pure POV if ever their was. Thanks Benhocking for suggesting good faith. Though it is irrelevant, I have said before, and will say again, since I have been repeatedly libelled by OrangeMarlin, that I am an out and out scientist very much involved in modern genetics and with little time for creationists, other than to try to persuade them that they are wrong. To do so, we have to be honest about what science says and what terms it uses, not shy away from valid terms because creationists use them (correctly) when referring to the object of their opposition. My main aim in discussing neo-Darwinism is to get out of the nonsense that, according to this page, neo-Darwinism is the modern synthesis, while at the same time it existed (coined by Romanes) before the synthesis came into being. That has to be nonsense, doesn't it? Perhaps you would join in on Neo-Darwinism Benhocking, as you seem to want to get this right, and support the existence of the article in its own right, even if you would like to change it. --Memestream 20:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Repair of article

I thought the article had deteriorated as a result of recent edits so I made an effort to restore it to what I thought was the reasonably good shape it was in a few weeks ago without throwing out all the changes. Specifically, I did the following:

• I restored the brief non commital reference to neo-Darwinism in the intro that had been agreed to previously on this talk page and linked to the new short version of the neo-Darwinism article. I did this because besides the earlier consensus, while I was doing a little research on Bernhard Rensch I found an instance where a reasonably respected historian of science, Charles H. Smith, had used the term "neo-Darwinian synthesis" in something he had written as late as 2006. Combined with what I had read in Gould, Bowler, and Larson, convinces me that historians of science are still using this terminology in some cases. This could be because historians tend to live in the past, or it could be because they have more sense than to read much of what is written by creationists... In anycase I think the brief mention of the usage is still appropriate in this article.

• I restored the old "Tenets of the moderen evolutionary synthesis" section back to its original place in the article. Somehow in all the debate about whether to move it, and how to change it, it got completely deleted. I think some such text is necessary for the article to be complete.

• I fixed a citation that was showing up as blank because it was a 2nd ref to a named citation and someone had deleted the earlier citation with the defintion.

• I cut back (but did not completely eliminate all of) the new text on William Bateson because I thought it was out of proportion to the treatment of other comparable figures in the article. I also fixed the citation added with the text to be a standard inline citation.

• I added a brief sentence on some of the contributions of Bernhard Rensch because it has been bothering me for weeks that he was mentioned in the lead but not in the body of the article. It still bothers me that the names in the lead are not linked but they are linked later in the article (sometimes more than once). Based on the MOS I would thing the opposite should be true. If nobody objects by telling me I have misunderstood the MOS (certainly possible) and if I can overcome this phobia I have developed of OrangeMarlin jumping out of the shadows and breaking the [ and ] keys on my keyboard, I will probably try and rationalize the use of links in this article. Note that the last comment was intended as a joke not a PA. Rusty Cashman 09:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Violation of talk page consensus?

Previously on this talk page a consensus was reached on making a brief non-committal allusion in the article lead to the fact that for a long time it was common place to refer to the ideas of the modern synthesis as neo-Darwinism. The text in question is one sentence which says: "The term neo-Darwinism has sometimes been used to refer to the ideas of the modern synthesis." Despite that consensus one particular editor has persisted in deleting the text by calling it creationist POV. I reverted his/her deletion once and he/she has just reverted it back. Rather than risk running afoul of the 3-revert rule I have decided to bring it up on the talk page again so that we can have a new consensus. To summarize some of the arguments in favor of the text that have already been made.

• Historically the term has been used by well known scientific figures such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins.

• The term is commonly used in fairly recent writings by prominent historians of science. Peter J. Bowler, and Edward Larson have used it in their well known recent histories of the theory of evolution. Charles H. Smith (historian of science) refered to the neo-Darwinian synthesis in something he wrote as recently as 2006.

• The term is still defined this way by a number of dictionary/encyclopedia web sites for example [Farlex].

I realize that creationists have hijacked the term as a derrisive name for modern evolutionary theory, but I think it is important for the article to be historically accurate. I am hoping we can resolve this without the edit warring and lack of civility that have characterized the recent history of this article (and this talk page). Rusty Cashman 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is surely important to leave the reader in no doubt that modern evolutionary synthesis ≠ neo-Darwinism, and the lead section would be the best place to make that crystal-clear. At present you have to read between the lines of the article, lower down, to realise that they are not the same thing. Can we regain consensus by making the non-identification clearer, by means of a less neutral mention of neo-Darwinism? I would suggest ending the lead section with something like: Modern evolutionary synthesis is also referred to as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, and the evolutionary synthesis. The use of the term neo-Darwinism to refer to the ideas of the modern synthesis is now considered incorrect. Snalwibma 06:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the mention of neo-Darwinism, and with much of the last two contributions. My gloss is:
1. Neo-Darwinism was born in the Romanes/Weismann era before Mendel had been rediscovered,
2. New/modern/evolutionary synthesis was born round 1940 and achieved a noteworthy integration.
3. Nevertheless, the term neo-Darwinism still does occur, and is then usually meant as a synonym for the new/mod/ev synthesis.
4. I note the clumsiness of new/mod/ev synthesis as a term and believe that is why writers use the older term. What wouldn't we give for something like evo-devo which solved a similar problem?!

We may need to explain some of this, and we need to select the wording we prefer to use for the synthesis itself. We can't simply leave out the term neo-Darwinism entirely on the grounds that some people mis-use it: that would not be an accurate history of these ideas. Overall, I incline towards the previous contributor's position because, in general, the participators in the synthesis did not use the term neo-Darwinism, though I agree that more recent commentators have done so. Macdonald-ross 19:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Recombination

We've now got an account of recombination that doesn't seem to jibe with the specialist articles on recombination and crossing-over. I think we must use terms well-understood by most readers; this is, after all, an overview article. This is the rationale for changes I'm about to make. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)