Talk:Evolution/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Add web link

I suggest you add the link <http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk> to the web links in the article on Evolution. The website is of the Darwin Correspondence Project, which is publishing all of the correspondence of Charles Darwin. Since Darwin did a very large part of his work through his correspondence, the development of his thought, including his ideas on evolution, can be studied by studying his correspondence. I am not editing the page itself, since I work for the Project. Eadp 11:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following link for addition to the "External links" section:

Synthetic Theory Of Evolution: An Introduction to Modern Evolutionary Concepts and Theories

Greeneto 14:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Pro/Con section?

This link should be included in the Con section...

• Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory Discovery Institute February 20, 2006

Why? Almost none of these people are biologists, let alone evolutionary biologists. This is about biology, not religious politics, so that link is irrelevant. Guettarda 06:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The Con section is awaiting some scientific evidence against this cornerstone of biology and related sciences. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't make any difference to you if it did. Scorpionman 17:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would probably make all the difference to him in the world, and I know it would to me and just about every other regular editor here. If some faction was making the unsubstantiated claim that gravity didn't exist, that would deserve minimal coverage in the article, as it's chiefly about the scientific force of gravity itself, not about random and arbitrary opinions regarding it. If, on the other hand, solid and verifiable evidence surfaced which strongly suggested that gravity didn't exist, that would deserve an extremely prominent position in the article, conceivably even in the lead section, as it would cast the entire field of physics into doubt. Likewise, unsupported and unscientific claims about the process of evolution not occurring are of negligible significance, but solid, serious (and, to satisfy WP:NOR, well-referenced) evidence against evolution, were some ever to appear, would be astoundingly important to treat in the article, as it would call into serious question the entire field of biology. So, your claim is baseless and incorrect: evidence makes all the difference in the world. :) -Silence 19:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Silence, you explain the position nicely. Scorpionman, having never observed such interactions, you are ill-equipped to make such predictions about my interest. And it is irrelevant whether I personally would be interested—my lone opinion is irrelevant—but if there were referenced evidence contradicting evolution, it would certainly be important to include in the article. Please don't pass judgments on other editors. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay friends, let's relax. How bout we include a section called "criticism of evolution" or something. I think there's tons of evidence for natural selection and whatnot, but what would it hurt to acknowledge that criticism exists, acknowledge that a great number of persons (educated and not-so-educated) doubt the validity of evolution as we understand it today. Something like "A small but vocal group of scientists and activists claim ____ because of _____." The gravity comparison isn't fair - nobody actually thinks gravity doesn't exist. In this case, we've got a lot of people who say they have evidence against it, and I don't think it's our place as editors to decide what is and isn't "solid." Much Love. Ryan 07:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)webbrg

I am quite relaxed; thank you for your concern. No, it is not our place to decide what constitutes solid evidence. That's the job of the scientific community. Perhaps you could share some well-sourced criticism from peer-reviewed journals that we could include in the article. Criticism is already acknowledged in the "Social and religious controversies" section, which is the source of all current criticism, as far as I am aware. Incidentally, I think the gravity comparison is fair: Silence's whole point was "If some faction were making the unsubstantiated claim that gravity didn't exist..." — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that "Almost none of these people are biologists, let alone evolutionary biologists. This is about biology, not religious politics, so that link is irrelevant." Kindly go through the list again, and you will see many biologists. It would be great to include reference to this group in the controversies section. It'd make that section more factual and up-to-date.

I strongly object to the comparison with gravity. Everybody experiences gravity. It is commonsense and common sense the beginning stage of wisdom and of science. Nobody has experienced Darwinism in action. That's why you can have 514 scientists around the world disputing Darwinism, and the list includes highly prestigious biologists.

There are 154 biologists in the list. Prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and a researcher at the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum --the oldest still published biology journal in the world-- Giuseppe Sermonti; and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.Ran9876 04:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, and yet there are more Steves than by almost an order of magnitude. And we still have the problem that the statement is vague and at least two scientists on the list didn't even realize that what they were signing was meant to be against evolution in general, but its a nice try. JoshuaZ 04:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone experiences evolution as well. Evolution is a fact, like gravity. The modern synthesis is a family of theories, like gravitation. Have you experienced gravitation? It's a perfectly reasonable analogy. Where are the publications of these prominent biologists challenging evolution? Rivista di Biologia has a crackpot reputation and isn't ISI indexed - being the editor of that journal hurts ones credibility. Assuming that there actually are 154 biologists on the list (< 1/4 of the names), that's still trivial - that's on the order of three departments at a large university (and land-grant universities can easily have 5-15 biological departments). Guettarda 04:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I know about 454 biologists named Steve who think that "evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry". So,... how many biologists named Steve are on your list?--68.107.9.240 22:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Everybody experiences gravity..." - No - what everybody experiences is falling to earth. Without knowing the theory of gravity you might explain this in a number of ways. You might think (like people pre-Newton) that only the earth had gravity, and not realise that every single object creates gravitational pull in proportion to its mass. I don't believe you are really claiming that you can personally "experience" the gravitational pull of a book, for example. And as even far as the earth, or the sun's gravity is concerned, you can only experience the effects - you can't see the "process". Ditto evolution. --Danward 18:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Danward. It is not a far stretch to compare evolution with gravity because the equations central to General Relativity show us that gravity is not the simple "falling apple" action at a distance that we associate with Newton, and for which our every day experiences account. Appropriately then, the continuing development of technology is allowing us to further probe evolutionary biology. And thanks to the hard work of scientists, evolution has in fact been observed, but like any scientific model - it will always be subjected to peer-review and subsequently refined so that it reflects observations and testable hypotheses. This is a valuable reminder to all of us that science is a process. So as far as a Theory - Pro/Con section goes, my professional view as a scientist is that if we have a Pro/Con for one scientific model on Wiki, we should fairly put one on them all, including gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Astrobayes 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I find that some of the statements in the "Arguments against Evolution" seem to present anti-evolutionist arguments far more strongly than they deserve. For example:

Darwin himself posited in his _Origin of the Species_ "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (but fails to review possible theories for how IC structures could have evolved, e.g. removing of scaffolding)

Behe has noted several cellular systems that are irreducibly complex, including the cilium, the Crebb cycle, and the flagellum. (but cilia and flagella are not IC, several variants are found with many different numbers of substructures and even some with missing substructures, plus the identification of the TTSS as possible precursor)

Though Neo-Darwinism absolutely requires genetic mutation as the key component and driving force behind evolution, it has yet to be observed even one beneficial, information-adding mutation. (but creationists have yet to introduce a suitable gauge for genetic information content under which a mutation cannot increase information, and fail to address the issue that since mutations are reversible if it is possible for mutations to decrease information it is also possible for mutations to increase information)

DNA is only useful if its information can be read. Unfortunately, the enzymes required to read DNA are formed by other, identical enzymes already reading the DNA. (ignores ribozymes)

Doesn't this give the misleading impression that these creationist arguments are actually being given serious credit in the scientific community? Shernren 05:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Though Neo-Darwinism absolutely requires genetic mutation as the key component and driving force behind evolution, it has yet to be observed even one beneficial, information-adding mutation."

That statement simply is false. We've observed thousands of them. Look at sickle cell-anemia; it is a beneficial mutation (well, in certain regions of the world). The very existance of life is evidence of it. Claiming "we've never observed one actually happen" is also horribly false; look at antibiotic resistant bacteria, which without a doubt have developed beneficial (for them, at least) mutations. It is a fallacy to say we've never observed it. Titanium Dragon 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As per the argument above, I'm not a biologists myself but I'm fairly certain that bacteria flagellum are not irreducibly complex. The confusion tends to arise when people consider evolution to be linear, ie, only adding things on one at a time. Terry Pratchett, not a scientists but quite knowledgeable, put it very well in his Science of Discworld III book. If you give me until tommorrow I could look up the correct quote. Weenerbunny 14:54 29 June 2006

Okay I had a look and it's actually way too much to put in here, but isn't the concept or irreducible complexicity bunk anyway? I'm sure that was the argument that went "what good is half an eye?", which falls apart totally when you realise that evolution doesn't tack things on like a mechanic souping-up a car. --Weenerbunny 10:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the concept of irreducible complexity is "bunk". If you haven't checked it out already, the irreducible complexity is a good start to seeing why. -Silence 10:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Bunk"? Certainly, you're entitled to your opinion; but I would argue that sufficient evidence does not yet exist to state that the theory of irreducible complexity has been scientifically debunked, certainly not experimentally. True, a somewhat plausible reconstruction of possible past events has been proposed to explain the evolutionary history of the eye (i.e. gradual depression of photosensitive cells, bestowing progressive survival advantage), but this has by no means been studied experimentally (nor could it, I imagine). I think Behe would argue that the photoreceptor itself; and indeed any primitive visual system capable of recognizing and responding to incoming signals from the photoreceptor; would themselves be classed as irreducabilly complex. For the record, I'm agnostic on the whole matter; though I think that these arguments from analogy do hold some intuitive appeal. Jgarth 03:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it has, using information theory, you can proof that irreducible complexity only can exist when there is infinite amount of data on which the structure is based. As a DNA strand is limited, it is finite, and as such, deducible. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A beautiful example of why Bahe's theory is deeply flawed can be obtained from the cross examination in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. The lawyer brings up all the philosophical and scientific problems (and there are many) to Bahe (the leading proponent of IC) and he is unable to reply to any of them in any satisfactory manner (besides blaming the scientific community for blaming his theory). The most embarresing moment comes when Bahe claims that science has not done anything on the evolution of the immunte system, whereupon the lawyer heaps 25 advanced books on evolution of the immunte system and Bahe has to admit that he did not read any of them. In short, in sciece you must publish your theories (be they right or wrong) in peer reviewed journals before they can even be taken seriously. Bahe has not done so and has continued to propose the same arguments for the last five years even though they have been debunkt as early as 1998 (he admits as much under cross examination, and, unbelievingly says that he finds in more profitable to write more books that to sit down in the lab and get journal articles out).

--Roland Deschain 13:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that irreducible complexity, in it's very essence, simply asks the same question over and over again, long after someone has worked to prove that the question is irrelevant. I may be wrong, so please correct me if I misunderstand, but doesn't irreducible complexity require that evolution occur in single steps, all adding something, rather than the convoluted dance that evolution actually is?

You are right, though that it would probably be impossible (at least with existing technology) to experimentally disprove the various examples of possible ID. I suppose we could only do it once our genetic engineering technology allows us to create a very basic, fast-breeding and rapid-mutating organism which we could expose to various stimuli to simulate early Earth environments. Judging by the way genetic technology seems to have stalled lately that could be a while away! Weenerbunny 14:34 7 July 2006

Genetic technology has far from stalled. Great advances in sequencing technology in the last 5 years have made sequencing faster, but most importantly cheaper. Don't be suprized if in the next 5 years, a project is announced to sequence the genomes of many many humans. Even de novo genome synthesis has greatly advanced, and is still advancing, with each year larger and larger partial genomes being synthesised de novo. Developmental biology alone is a huge field of biotech advancment with TAP tagging being the newest wave to figure out how proteins interact. So, far from being stalled, genetic technology is finally coming into its own. (Wow, sorry for the preachy tone there, didn't even notice it as I was writing).

--Roland Deschain 15:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Weenerbunny, my understanding is that it is indeed impossible to disprove ID, in the same way that it's impossible to disprove Flying Spaghetti Monster theory, which is why it's not science. It essentially claims that there are things we can't find out about, and as soon as we find out about one, it retreats to another. Not terribly useful. ..dave souza, talk 18:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A picture?

Cyde's picture

Is this picture good for anything? I'm sort of shaky on the exact details but I think some of you may know where I'm going with it. Please fix anything with the image that may be wrong (including fixing the description, maybe cropping it, whatever). --Cyde Weys 07:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What the bloody hell is it? Salva 16:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Click through to the description page. Guettarda 22:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but it sure looks angry... — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What do altered isotopic signatures look like anyway? --Plumbago 09:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, very interesting. Salva 15:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just thought it was interesting and wanted to share :-P Cyde Weys 01:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I do think it's interesting; I just lack the knowledge to properly evaluate its value. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could, I dunno, seek some out?  :-P Cyde Weys 05:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I would, but the mouth scares me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If I squint my eye and tilt my head a little bit, it looks like my uncle Oscar. gunslotsofguns 05:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A little rewording perhaps?

In the article it states:

"A related conflict arises when critics combine the religious view of people's status with the mistaken notion that evolution is necessarily "progressive": if human beings are superior to animals but yet evolved from them, these critics claim, inferior animals would not still exist, but they do exist, hence the incorrect inference that evolution is false."

This suggests that the creatures from which humans evolved are still alive. Perhaps it should be made clear that the theory states that we and other extant organisms are not evolved from one another, but rather from a common ancestor. CheesusChrist 21:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Could I also suggest that the first sentence is really quite awkward? That first sentence should be a grabber. As it stands it is needlessly wordy and runs-on.

Evolution vs Natural Selection Definitions

I've been observing both of these excellent articles for some time; I consider myself to be an intelligent layperson, and I know that evolution and natural selection are not the same thing, but it seems to me that the definitions of evolution and natural selection provided in the first paragraphs of the two articles are essentially the same: they both describe how the accumulation of favorable traits leads to biological diversity. Some revision perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.167.162 (talk • contribs)

Here are the first two paragraphs.

In biology, evolution is a process by which novel heritable traits arise in populations and are passed from generation to generation; over time, those traits that help an organism reproduce in greater numbers than its peers gradually gain dominance in a population. Its occurrence over long stretches of time explains the origin of new species (speciation) and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world. Contemporary species are related to each other through common descent, products of evolution and speciation over billions of years. The phylogenetic tree on the right represents these relationships for the three major domains of life.

The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, which was first set out in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. Natural selection is the idea that individual organisms which possess genetic variations giving them advantageous heritable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce and, in doing so, to increase the frequency of such traits in subsequent generations.

I have bolded the two elements of evolution. Only the second part relates to natural selection. The first part, how the novel traits arise, is not part of natural selection. Does this make sense? Armed with that information can you write it more clearly for the layman? David D. (Talk) 02:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Evolution = (Genetic) Variation+ (Natural) Selection. Kim Bruning 15:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Or Evolution = (Genetic) Variation+ Selection (including natural selection). David D. (Talk) 15:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hence the parentheses. You can do evolution in silico, for instance. Think of things like evolutionary algorithms. Kim Bruning 21:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, evolution by means of Natural selection is what you described, but evolution by means of drift, founder effect, geneflow etc does not fall intio that category. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I always saw those as exceptions that prove the rule. Drift occurs on traits over which selection is neutral; founder effect is an edge or corner case by definition; geneflow is actually not strictly evolutionary per-se IMVVHO, but rather it's one of the factors leading to variation. Feel free to disagree if your view differs somewhat, YMMV. Kim Bruning 22:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand, it is mind boggeling at tomes to get down to a definitoon that covers all those options.... Geneflow, drift etc can be evolutionary, just as natural selection does not has to result in evolutionary change when there is no inheritable variation. Drift can be really strong, and we use that concept all the time to estimate whether traits have evolved randomly, or that natural selection has played a role, by comparing the phylogenetic tree and the times that speciations occured, with the difference in the trait that we are interested in. If they have the same structure (e.i, time change equals trait change), drift is responsible, while if they do differ, natural selection is more likely to have played a role. As for founder effects, they are crucial for evolution, think about island species, in which large changes can be achieved just by having a non-random selection of the parent population. So, yes, you are right that they are edge or corner cases, but important for evolution none-the-less. Geneflow by itself is not evolutionary, but it can for example counter the effect of Natural selection because the genes that are selected against flow in from the side. Through that, it changes the pattern in the change, and through that, it changes the path of evolution in that population. Defining evolution in such a way that it covers all the possibilities is a difficult task, and even people like Fuytuma have not gotten to a very clearcut definition. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Theory of Evolution" --> "evolution"

I believe that this article would be improved if the term "theory of evolution" were removed from the article. As noted at the top of the article, evolution is an observed process in biological systems. There are theories such as the theory of natural selection that have been created to explain observed details of the evolutionary process; but evolution is not itself a theory.

We should remove the inflamitory term "theory of evolution" and stick to the facts. Certainly the article should contain explanations of the various theories that explain the kinds of change and the rates of change observed in evolution, but we need to be a little more careful about our language.

--F3meyer 04:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

1. The phrase "theory of evolution" is only used once in the article, in a context which attempts to clarify some of the misunderstandings surrounding the word.
2. Inflammatory? Guettarda 05:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Spoken version is old

The spoken version of this page is over a year old. Do we have anything in the pipeline for recording another spoken version? --Cyde Weys 02:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Over 500 high-level scientists are skeptical

Perhaps people here have already seen this, but if not this can help: [1]

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

You can find more here: [2].

Hope this helps. Ran9876 04:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing about this statement is that, as written, most evolutionary biologists would tend to agree with it because "random mutation and natural selection" is a gross oversimplification of evolutionary theory, and even of "Darwinism". No evolutionary biologist believes that random mutation and natural selection alone can account for either speciation or the origin of higher-level taxa. For one thing it leaves out extinction, and mass extinctions in particular have been extremely important factors in generating the diversity of life. Any evolutionary biologist would be rightly skeptical of somebody who claimed that RM&NS was the entire answer... but note that this statement never quite says who is supposedly making such claims. MrDarwin 21:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't mass extinction fall under the general category of natural selection? - FlyingOrca 21:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In a way yes, but I think it would be better to point at gene flow, bottleneck, and drift as other potential evolution mechanisms. KimvdLinde 21:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Which makes what percentage? —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 04:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Old news - 500 people (with lots of engineers, physicists and all sorts of non-biologists) which DI has compiled over who knows how many years...who have apparently signed a very vaguely worded statement that "Darwinian" evolution should be "carefully examined" (a far cry from rejecting evolution). As opposed to 7733 scientists who who signed a petition in support of "Darwinism"...in four days. Pretty trivial stuff. And, if there are 500 scientists questioning Darwinian evolution where are all the publications? Guettarda 04:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I dont see the relevance of these links. It just contains two sentences and a bunch of names, nothing more. However if there are links to the studies made by these scientists where they are examining evidence for evolution, I would like to see them. Also I would like to note that this should belong in the Darwinism page, since Darwinism and Evolution are not exactly the same.--Jonthecheet 04:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are not exactly the same but "the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life" is what evolution is mainly about as the article on Evolution itself explains. Ran9876 04:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The best scientists approach every scientific issue with skepticism and ask to be funded to carefully examine evidence. WAS 4.250 04:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There are 154 biologists in the list. Prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and a researcher at the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum --the oldest still published biology journal in the world-- Giuseppe Sermonti; and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologis Lev Beloussov. Ran9876 04:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

but how many [Steves] are on your list!? --146.244.137.156 20:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, nice link Joelito (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

While their expertise in science/biology is noted, I strongly suggest that you find some of the studies that have been made by these same people about their examination of Darwinism. A single statement does not mean anything unless there are actions behind it.--Jonthecheet 04:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are you spamming this page? The same people read this part of the page as read the section higher up this page. This list is trivial; it was trivial in February, it was trivial higher up this page, and it's trivial now. Guettarda 04:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please keep things in one section, every response still applies, Project Steve, the vague wording of your precious statement and a hundred other problems. Please stop repeating the same things over and over. Repetition does not make something more true. JoshuaZ 05:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

For those who don't know what Project Steve means, I suggest you check the page.--Jonthecheet 05:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm amazed Stephen Hawking joined Project Steve... I didn't know he was skeptical of evolution. But anyway... "Project Steve"? That takes creativity. Gerafin 01:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Steven Hawking is not skeptical of evolution. Those who are involved in Project Steve agree to the following,.."Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools." As such, I don't know why you would think that someone who has joined project Steve would be skeptical of evolution. By Joining project Steve, Steven Hawking has clearly conveyed that he is not skeptical of evolution.--146.244.138.210 01:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

My bad!!! That was just a misreading on my part. I feel much better now I have that cleared up. Gerafin 01:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, looking at the wording, who here wouldn't agree with the second sentence "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."? How odd that people consider that a sign of dissent from evolutionary theory. Skittle 18:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

the science show - Eugenie Scott talking to Robyn Williams (not Robin Williams) about project steve.--146.244.137.147 21:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

See Teach the Controversy, like the Dissent from Darwinism list, also brought to you by the Discovery Institute. FeloniousMonk 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia - "Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views on a subject, factually and objectively, in an order which is agreeable to a common consensus." Gravity is a fact. Life is a fact. Life has never been observed (in any forum) coming from non-life, information has never been observed (in any forum) coming from non-information, DNA has never been observed (in any forum) coming from non-DNA. Adaptation is observable and is good science. The changing of one species into another species has never been observed (in any forum) and can not be considered science. There is no amount of brain power on earth that can change these facts. -unsigned

Yawn. Did you even read the article? --Plumbago 12:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Your conclusions (that you call facts) are incorrect. WAS 4.250 12:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How about the fact that many of them have been observed? The emergence of nylon waste eating bacteria is information emerging, DNA is routinely made from base pairs in a cell or in a lab and speciesation has indeed been observed. A few minutes of scientific research would have told you all of this. In future check the talk.origins archive before repeating fallacies from creationist websites. Jefffire 12:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the Discovery Institute's Dissent from Darwinism. A specious attempt at an argument from authority if there ever was one. How many signees on the list practice in the fields relevant to evolution, the life sciences? Not many; 73 as of last year. More indicative of the actual level of acceptance for evolution is the The Four Day Petition, "A Scientifc Support For Darwinism And For Public Schools Not to Teach Intelligent Design as Science." It ran from September to October 2005, and collected 8040 verified scientists' signatures. This represents a 1,200% increase over the Discovery Institute's petition at a rate 640,000% faster than that achieved by the Discovery Institute. FeloniousMonk 15:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Link suggestions

The following were suggested in the context of the "intelligent design in schools" debate. They may be useful here or in related articles:

http://millerandlevine.com/ http://www.natcenscied.org/ http://www.becominghuman.org/

Source: http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=teaching_the_science&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&ref=rss

Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Not useful on this page. Perhaps the Teach the Controversy article? Jefffire 12:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I thought the site http://www.becominghuman.org/ was very good. The "documentary" part itself is clear and full of interesting pictures. While the activities are pretty simplistic, the amount of information you can access is fairly large. There are also links to many different sites based on topics such has bipedalism and evolution. This site focuses very strongly on human evolution, development, and culture so I'm not sure how well it would fit in here, but I do believe it should be used somewhere on wikipedia.--Jonthecheet 07:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins pic

How about some discussion on whether Dawkins' pic should be included? I'm strongly in favour, as I think he is arguably the most influential current writer of (popular yet scientific) books on evolutionary theory. However, I don't want to step on any toes by reverting Samsara's changes, so what does everyone else around here think? - FlyingOrca 13:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm weakly against the inclusion of the picture. I'm a bit fan of Dawkins but he is chiefly a populariser. I'd prefer pictures of people who are involved at the ground level instead. Jefffire 13:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Jefffire. I also have a concern that given Dawkins's strong views about tangentially related subjects, putting a picture of him here would reinforce in the popular mind the confusion between evolution and atheism/anti-religionism/scientism/whathaveyou. JoshuaZ 15:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Jefffire and JoshuaZ. KimvdLinde 16:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points, I'm convinced. - FlyingOrca 17:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the picture since there are far more adequate and relevant pictures that may be added. Joelito (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of Dawkins but would oppose the pic purely on the basis that he isn't even mentioned in the article. josh (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with including him, but I think he should be called "popular evolution writer" or something to that effect, not "evolutionary biologist", as he was really never notable as an original scholar - he is merely a disseminator - if quite a successful one. And his picture should be in an appropriate section, something like "Public perception of evolution" - the "Social and religious controversies" section might be appropriate, as he's recently thrown himself into that arena. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness his papers are quoted quite heavily in my textbook of Behavioural Ecology. Jefffire 13:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Why not include a picture of Richard Dawkins (as a major spokesfigure, of sorts) and a picture of a leading evolutionary biologist? We have more than enough room to include both in the "Science of evolution" section, and we can, at the very least, keep an image of Dawkins as long as we don't have any better images to illustrate that section, as we don't have any other images of modern evolutionary biologists anywhere in the article. I just don't see how removing the image benefits the article. -Silence 23:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not a picture of Stephen Jay Gould, who made notable contributions to evolutionary theory and was also a notable popular proponent? --Davril2020 16:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

We actually used to have that picture in the article, in the "history" section. I'm not sure why it was removed. -Silence 20:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Please see this. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 10:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Evolution doesn't care about Creation according to Genesis. Why try and drum up votes here? Jefffire 12:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

new section

as you may have noticed, I just added a new section (problems with macroevolution). sorry if it seems POV but the whole rest of the article seems somewhat POV in favor of evolution so I thought there should be a small area that didn't consider macroevolution a proven fact, which it isn't. Jedi of redwall 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

See talk.origins. Jefffire 18:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Every other article in wikipedia that has any evidence that the subject isn't real says so. why doesn't this one! Jedi of redwall 01:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence? There are testimonies but evidence is lacking. Joelito (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

don't get angry at me for talking about this, someone asked me, but: 1, it's all a mater of faith, whether it's your belief in evolution or creation, it's mainly what you were taught as a child. We wern't there, so we don't know. 2, it isn't very likely. Before you start saying that neither is creation, it seems to me an alimighty creator without any explanation is just about as likely as a ball of matter that pops out of nowhere, blows upfor no reason, somehow-or-another turns into stars and planets, produces life, and then with all the blind luck in the world some how breeds all the genetic diversity in the world. plus theres how it ever happened, you can't breed something beyond it's gentic limits without some sort of mutation. and though mutaions have been observed, never one which actually made the creature gain genes, and very rarely one that is actually benefical. and before you ay that "well, there were like a hundred billion years" thats just the a matter of faith again. Jedi of redwall 00:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

At this point I'd like to remind everyone that cosmology/Big Bang theory is a different subject and has nothing to do with evolution : ) Gaviidae 13:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not a matter of faith anyway; evolution is science, and thus based on facts, experimental data, ect. Creationism is entirely a matter of faith, particularly as it contradicts directly with facts, experimental data, ect. Big difference. Titanium Dragon 02:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Faith is the equivalent of closing your eyes and saying "I believe in golden unicorns" despite the fact that no golden unicorn has ever been observed and recorded, no remains of golden unicorns have ever been found and the only literature containing golden unicorns is fiction. Science is saying "Might golden unicorns exist?" and going out, searching for evidence, debating the evidence for and against, and performing experiments to catch a golden unicorn, then finally saying "I have found no evidence to support the existence of Golden Unicorns". Weenerbunny 15:39 29 June 2006

macro vs micro evolution

I think that there should be some division in this aritcle between microevolution and macroevolution Jedi of redwall 18:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a section covering the social contoversies but within science there is no debate on evolutions validity - hence the apparent pro POV. There are missing link fossils which show the current theory of macroevolution to be valid so I'm afraid your section can't be placed in the article as it is incorrect. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 18:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Such an artificial division isn't recognised in science, except as a rarely used subjective term. Jefffire 18:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, not completly true. It is used, also in science articles. However, the line is between the two is blurred, and the clear distinction that creationists make is is not recognized by biologists. KimvdLinde 04:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be as "a rarely used subjective term" then... Jefffire 07:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call it a "subjective term". It's a scale issue - if you are studying evolutionary trends in groups of species, it's clearly a macroevolutionary question, and you will probably call it that. On the other hand, if you are looking at speciation, incipient speciation or hybrid zones, you are probably asking macroevolutionary questions, but are unlikely to call it that. Guettarda 12:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, not subjective at all. There are two issues at hand. One is the distinction perse, and that is one of species and above versus within species. No issue here. The trouble starts with the implication that some (especially critics of evolution) put un the term, namely that microevolution mechanisms can not result in macroevolution changes. And that distinction is to a degree wrong. The same mechanisms CAN do the job in both, however, most of the time, the mechanisms that result in speciation are a subset of the mechanisms leading to adaptive change. KimvdLinde 14:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No division is required; as explained in the misconceptions section. Also the notion any specific biological mechanism is "nearly impossible" to have evolved, relies on assumptions regarding evolution and biology that are simply not valid. Further questions on this topic can be directed to talk.origins or the reference desk. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which: "The difference between them is primarily one of scale; that is, qualitative differences between species is the result of quantitative differences in gene frequencies."

I'd like "qualitative" and "quantitative" removed and replaced with straight forward language. I'll take a crack at it, but I'm pretty tired right now; but that is the key sentence, and its mired in unneccesarily non-specific wording. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Iagree with Guettarda that it is in and of itself a matter of scale. Given that "species" are themselves statistical phenomena, this still holds. There may be complex theoretical debates over the object of natural selection (the gene, the organism, the species) and this or a linked article should cover such debates. But as far as i can tell, all textbooks define the difference between micro and macroevolution as one as scale, the fundamental processes are the same and frankly I thought the article was quite clear about that. it used to be. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is the dividing line is deeply subjective. It is the same problem of "How much money makes one rich?" there is just no objective dividing line. Even speciesation could be considered "micro" evolution in some cases. Jefffire 16:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

See my comments above. The distinction is as controversial as to which species concept to use because it uses the same criteria. We have a Marcoeevolution reading group at my work, and it is really clear what we mean by it.KimvdLinde 16:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Marcoevolution? Is that a study of the edits of Marcosantezana? Guettarda 17:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, another Marco.... (Sorry, I am dislect) Kim van der Linde ^{it's a girl} 00:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC) To add, it almost is as a freudian slip :-) LOL Kim van der Linde ^{it's a girl} 00:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if you can source a definition that is objective and supported by the majority of the scientific community by all means make changes, but local reading group definitions are irrelevent to Wikipedia. Jefffire 16:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just an aside; some of the trouble may be caused by the WP's article on macroevolution itself. It seems to be more of a problem to me than the evolution article, since it seems to obscure the general point that macroevolution = microevolution + microevolution + microevolution + ... Just my two cents. --Plumbago 16:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Tweaked it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Roy. That helps somewhat. I think, however, that the article may need more than a tweak. It's really quite long-winded, and at the moment is quite confusing regarding the use of macroevolution (as a term) by biologists like Gould, and by creationists. It's described as "controversial" vis-à-vis these two groups but there are really two completely different controversies going on there. Anyway, I'd better watch out before I volunteer myself to fix it ...  ;-) --Plumbago 17:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that macroevolution has never been observed and there is no "proof" that it actually happened. thus it should be noted that it's not a fact, or even a scientific law. it's still a theory, and thus should be treated as one, and yet this article treats it like a scientific law Jedi of redwall 23:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Macro evolution has been observed. Your ignorance in the matter does not undo the knowledge of the rest of us. WAS 4.250 23:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

O, in that case, you are at the worng place. This article is based on science, not religion. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Since macroevolution and microevolution are, as I think several editors pointed out above, really a matter of distinguising between relatively personal/subjective views on what counts as macroevolution, isn't it a bit harsh to call people ignorant and knowladge suppressors when they may very well not have the same idea on what macroevolution is as everyone else does? Subjective differences between people's POVs do not a religious vs. scientific polarized discussion make. Homestarmy 00:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ignorance means a lack of knowledge, not stupidity. Since large changes are observed in the fossil record it is perfectly acceptable to say that "macroevolution", by whatever definition, has been observed. Jefffire 08:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I might have jumped to conclusions (mea culpa), because this page is so frequented by religious people who based on their believes want to deny macro-evolutionary processes. To much exposure to that kind of arguments does erode my asumption of good faith. So, I will ask it to Jedi of redwall what scientific proof s/he has that macroevolution has not been observed. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who says that macroevolution has never been observed and that there is no proof for it is beyond ignorant. This very artivcle explains that it has been observed. This is just too obvious to make it a written rule, but it is obvious to me that until one has read an article, one has no right commenting on it. I consider someone who adds ignorant talk without having read the article to be almost a troll. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's extremely harsh, and uncalled for. If an individual believes that they know a good deal about the subject they are going to contribute, even after skimming the article. It is also entirely possible the person read the article, but misunderstood it. That doesn't make it acceptable to be rude. Jedi, if you want to learn more about these issues before coming back to the issue I suggest you use the link to Talk Origins at the top of the page. Please don't take the comments here personally. --Davril2020 11:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it not at all possible that some people may be of the opinion that the fossil record merely contains creatures which all went extinct a long time ago, and not creatures which ever passed on genes which evolved into other kinds of creatures? I would say from that sort of POV it would be possible to have a definition of macroevolution which does not include first hand observation of the events in question, whether or not such a definition is labelled as heresy(I couldn't resist) un-scientific and bad by a consensus of biologists or not. It would seem to me that the issue here is indeed one of different definitions of the word "macroevolution", irregardless of whether one side has all the consensus among the scientific community for one definition. Homestarmy 12:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it not at all possible that some people may be of the opinion that the fossil record merely contains creatures which all went extinct a long time ago, and not creatures which ever passed on genes which evolved into other kinds of creatures? It's perfectly possible for a person to believe anything. But there is absolutely no scientific evidence for that assertation. This is and remains a scientific article. Religion goes elsewhere. Jefffire 12:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I meant that, as an example, were a person to believe what I said, then it would possibly give them grounds to have a POV which does not assume that if something looks like it falls into a patten, that it is indeed indicative of a pattern, in this case of macroevolution. I don't think the original creator of this section was asking to put a sentence along the lines of what I said inside the article. Homestarmy 13:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's just it though, it is a POV. In this case a POV that is held despite reliable and verified evidence to the contrary. This article does not need to give any credence to such a view except under the sections dealing with religion here. Jefffire 13:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It goes back to the word "ignorance". If a person chooses to interpret the fossil record as merely a wealth of dead ends, is this actually an informed interpretation? For many people who oppose evolution, their position cannot be called "informed opposition". In the last few days we had someone using the "Nebraska man" and the "Piltdown man" as evidence of flaws in evolution. One was an intentional hoax, one was a single person's over-exuberance (which was not supported by man of his colleagues) - and both are ancient history. A hundred years ago palaeontology was not a science in any real sense of the word. Scientific rigour in evolutionary biology starts with Fisher, Haldane and the rest. Anyone who knows anything about modern science would realise that even if the mainstream had embraced the "Nebreaska man", it would still have no bearing on modern science. Most of the public doesn't understand science and believes what they are told - often by well-meaning people who themselves don't understand science. Granted, there are some (too many) charlatans who know enough to realise what they are saying is false, who realise they are spreading misinformation. But that's a different issue.

If a person set out to interpret the fossil record independent of modern science they will be in deep water immediately. To begin with, there's the scope of material out there. To take something that I know a little about (just enough to get myself into trouble), I recently spoke to a palaeontologist who inherited thousands of fossils from his former doctoral advisor. Another guy spoke of the hundreds of fossils you can get out of a few square metres of Cretaceous mud.

Plant families are circumscribed by certain sets of characteristics. If flowers belonging to a certain family are absent from older sediments, and then show up and and present in most newer sediments, it makes sense to say that this family existed by time T, and is probably older than time T. The alternative explanation is that species sharing the characteristics of this family were created around this time, and the ones which were preserved went extinct, while unpreserved members of the family have lived on. Alternately, one can attribute the appearance of that family in the fossil record to chance - after all, not finding something is more likely than finding something, and outside of a band on either side of the K-T boundary, the fossil record isn't all that well searched. In fact, the assumption in palaeontology is that the first appearance of a species in the fossil record is not when it evoloved, but rather some random amount of time after it evolved. The problem is that the origin of a clade (a family, for example) can be determined using molecular data. Based on the divergence of transcribed and non-transcribed parts of the genome, it is possible to determine the age of a clade by comparing the ancestry of traits present in all members of a clade. Based on estimates of the rate of evolution of coding (ie, subject to selection) and non-coding (not subject to selection) parts of the genome, you can estimate the age of a clade. While you cannot be certain that such a system will give you absolute ages, it will at the very least give you relative ages. And, for the most part, these relative ages have supported the pattern of appearance of these clades in the fossil record.

To reinterpret the fossil record de novo without taking into account all of this is to interpret from ignorance. Guettarda 15:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

yes actuslly there IS a sharp dividing line. in macro genes must be GAINED and in micro it is the use of genes that the organism already has or losing genes. but organisms gaining genes (A.K.A. DNA) has never been observed. in darwin's time they thought that there were no barriers as to what a creature could be bred into, because they did not completely understand DNA. now they say that creatures mutated, and mutations have been observed BUT mutations where the organism gains genes has never been observed. Jedi of redwall 00:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Genes aren't the same thing as DNA. Genes are made of DNA. Increase have been observed in both DNA and genes. Aneuploidy is the name for one type of mutation where this happens. It has even led to observed instances of speciation in plants. It is covered on this educational website and talkorigins covers it as well. - JustSomeKid 01:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where you got the idea that "genes must be gained" for macroevolution, or why you think that hasn't been observed. Human evolution is believed to have involved the formation of several pseudogenes, so rather than gaining genes, genes have been lost in this case. On the other hand, polyploidy has been involved in many plant speciation events - which obviously do result in the gain of genes. Not sure who you are getting your information from, but whomever it is, they don't know much about evolution. Guettarda 02:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Grin, nice try, but that supposed shape dividing line is not observed by scientists. Speciation can occur with as much as two mutations (there is even a one mutation model, but the evidence for that is much weaker). Novel traits often involve changes in regulatory genes, and single mutations in for example hox-genes can result in additional fingers and toes, or chenges link frame shifts. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is pure ignorance. Genes are gained all the time. See gene duplication. In fact, one can OBSERVE this gain. Not sure if we have an article on the subject, but there's actually several examples of gene duplications that currently remain unfixed in the human population (that is, some people have two copies and some people only have one). You might want to google "copy number polymorphism" for some reading on the subject. Also, please, PLEASE open an actual science book on the subject of evolution instead of reading crappy creationist websites. Graft 13:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am getting lost trying to figure out who is responding to whom. Could participants please try to identify those to whom they are referring or responding explicitly, when possible? thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone's responding to Jedi. Guettarda 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Indentation is a signal of who is being addressed. Thus, because both Guettarda and I are on the same line of indentation, we are both addressing you, Slrubenstein.--146.244.137.49 23:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

hawthorne fly

I trust people agree with me that the hawthorn fly case is a very important example, among other things it addresses creationists who do not understand the relationship between micro-and macro-evolution, or who claim evolution is a theory and not a fact. That said, i have mixed feelings about where i put the material. It certainly is evidence, and as such belongs in that section. But the first three subsections are abstract mechanisms or processes, not examples. It seems to me that the two (process/mechanism versus example) should be presented at different levels of a hierarchy. I am speaking ONLY of presentation and organization, not content. Any ideas? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hawthorn fly: evolution?

I don't think so. A new food source was introduced, and the population that ate it had more food and therefore survived more than the population that didn't

It seems this is going to be another peppered moth case, isn't it? Anyway, I've given up on this anything I contribute that claims evolution isn't a perfect theory is written off as incorrect and edited. I think I'll stop bothering you guys who are rooted to what you believe and go edit other stuff C$ 17:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"A new food source was introduced, and the population that ate it had more food and therefore survived more than the population that didn't" is precisely one of the main ways evolution occurs. "It seems this is going to be another peppered moth case, isn't it?" Perhaps, but that too illustrates natural selection, a pillar of evolutionary theory. I fail to see your point. Unless it is of course "There can be no evidence, therefore, if this happens, it is not evidence." Quite the open mind. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Arrogance is an especially endearing trait in people who don't know what they are talking about ;) I think everyone should be rooted in a belief of verifiable facts, at least when contributing to an encyclopaedia.

The new food source was exploited by some of the flies. Whether that was due to a mutation that led them to be less attracted to their ancestral food source or whether it was just opportunistic in an area where the natural food source was rare is impossible to say, but members of the complex are attracted to their host (hawthorne or apple) and not attracted to the other hosts [3][4]. That's at least one, probably two mutations there which were then acted upon by natural selection. Secondly, flies with different hosts don't interbreed in nature: "Differences in host choice based on fruit odor discrimination therefore result in differential mate choice and prezygotic reproductive isolation, facilitating sympatric speciation in the absence of geographic isolation," and experience disruptive selection based on maturation rates and timing of emergence from pupa (apples and hawthornes mature at different times).

The difference between this and the peppered moth is that while the peppered moth is a good example of natural selection acting within a species, there's no disruptive selection in the population - different colour morphs don't (AFAIK) discriminate in mate choice. With Rhagoletis, there is good evidence of disruptive selection. If you have two populations which don't interbreed in nature (despite being sympatric) and you have disruptive selection (selection against hybrids between the two races) you've pretty much met the conditions for speciation. "Incipient macroevolution". Guettarda 18:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the yearly timing of the food sources were different, members of the species with a MUTATION that allowed them to utilize the new food source were MORE FIT to live off that new food source and now we have two GENETICLY DISTINCT populations with different yearly timing cycles due to those genes; and who since they no longer interbreed continue to GENETICLY DIVERGE. Evolution. Before your eyes. WAS 4.250 19:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Now be fair to C$, in one line he, she or it has given a neat example of natural selection. All it needs is a little appreciation of how such gradual shifts can lead to speciation and we're there! ...dave souza, talk 19:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this raises interesting thoughts as to what certain people are taught evolution actually is. "A new food source was introduced, and the population that ate it had more food and therefore survived more than the population that didn't" Yes, that's true. And it's bloody obvious that it will happen, and what the effect will be. It's also evolution. That's what evolution is. This is why people don't take you seriously when you claim that evolution doesn't/can't happen, because it is bloody obvious. The only way it could really be untrue is if organisms didn't actually inherit characteristics from their parents, and all appearances of this have been a massive coincidence over the whole of human history. What do people get taught evolution is? Skittle 08:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is what I was taught in church. One selected passage: " The Bible is true and evolution is the lie. If you are a Christian who has been confused by this gobbledygook, get you head on straight and do it now. The purpose of evolution is to deny the Bible and blaspheme God. You do not want to be found in that camp when the Lord returns or when you die— do you? And I am not talking now about what you tell your friends when you are full of booze, high on drugs, or trying to preserve your ego before the worldly crowd. I am talking about what you tell yourself. Make no mistake about it, evolution exists for one reason and one only and that is to destroy any confidence in, and belief in, God and the Bible. It lies in its slimy birth place of the primordial ooze and feeds off the Bible and truth. Because its prehistoric digestive system has not had evolutionary time to develop, every thing it swallows turns to gas. If you took that motive away, the hot air would go out of its bloated and grotesque form and evolution as an explanation for origins would die of starvation and disappear. For Bible believing people that simply cannot be doubted. The dragon, that old serpent the devil, gave the beast, which is secular humanism and the second beast which is religious humanism or false religion, their assignment, in Revelation 13:4-16. And what was that assignment? It is spelled out in verse 6. It was to blaspheme God. The public education movement in America had this goal as its stated purpose." WAS 4.250 15:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. It's heartbreaking that people who claim to be followers of this guy spend their time teaching lies and deceit. Guettarda 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So unless one teaches all parts of evolution to be true, then your a liar and deciet-spreader? Harsh...just...just harsh. Homestarmy 00:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, just the people who set out to teach that it's false, when it isn't, and tell people all sorts of lies that they then come back and repeat here, believing it to be true. Some people seem to think it's ok to lie to unbelievers, but it's most definitely wrong to lie to believers, to your own flock. And yet there are lots of churches which seem happy to do so. Snake oil salesmen posing as men of God. I find it despicable to lie to your congregation, to lie to pastors...yeah, it's harsh, but I believe that if you are lying to your flock (as these people are), you're working for the other side. Guettarda 01:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, I'd think in that big paragraph above when the pastor person is saying "Evolution is a lie" Their probably not referring to simple speciation, because that's sort of not contradictory to the Bible at all, I mean, they are still the same kind of animal. Natural selection and speciation isn't exactly a universally known distinction after all, why not give the benefit of the doubt? Homestarmy 02:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Benefit of the doubt? For people who either knowingly or through inexcusable ignorance spread misinformation and lies, usually in the language of hate? For people who intellectually impoverish their congregation, their community, and--if they have their way--their country, the land of my birth? There's no benefit of the doubt from me for people who willingly shackle the minds of others. To stubbornly cling to one's own ignorance is farce, but to impose it on others is tragedy. - FlyingOrca 14:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You make it sound as though people will regress into a primal state of genocidal lunacy simply because they do not believe natural selection to be true. And what about people who just don't care one way or another about Evolution, what if they have a profession which simply doesn't require it, are they intellectually impoverished because they want to cling to their non-caring attitude? Now seriously, these pastors are undoubtably trying to defend people's faith, that means anything which contradicts the Bible does indeed deserve condemnation or they'd be a hypocrite for asking their congregations to give all their trust to someone who is recorded in a book with "lies" in it. This means whatever contradicts the "give birth according to their kind" verse should be condemned in a church or they would be a blatant hypocrite. Which is better, people "lying" in terms of the scientific consensus, or leading people on a compleatly hypocritical ride promising them eternal salvation from a book which they "know" is lying? Not all of evolution contradicts the Bible though, critters can speciate all they bally well please and it won't do a single thing, because their still the same kind of critter. So when pastors or whoever condemn evolution and talk about how it contradicts the Bible, what are the chances that they are intentionally teaching people that speciation specifically is a lie even when they know it doesn't contradict the verse in question anyway? Homestarmy 15:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I shouldn't post before I've had coffee--I realize this is probably not helping to improve the page. Homestarmy, if you'd like to continue this discussion, perhaps my talk page would be a better venue. - FlyingOrca 15:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Kinds

To begin with, evolution refers not only to the development of very different "kinds", it also refers to changes in allele frequencies within a population. Redefining the concept to remove the patently obvious is dishonest. In addition, saying that the development of different "kinds" is a lie is still dishonest, because it most claerly isn't a lie - it's an observation. Whether evolution is true, or whether the world was created in 4004 BCE to look like life had evolved, it's still dishonest to call it a lie, since a lie is an intentional mistruth; if the scientific method is applied honestly, the results can be wrong, but they can never be a lie. Right or wrong, evolution isn't a lie, and someone who says that it is a lie is either an intentional deceiver, or is repeating a statement without bothering to verify its veracity. Either way, they are serving deception. Guettarda 15:19, 13 May 2006

I think you are confusing Evolution with Neo-Darwinism. The Theory of Evolution discusses the appearance and development of different species- it does not specifically refer to alleles (or more broadly, genetics) as the mechanism for this development. There are many scientists, such as Fred Hoyle, that accept the Theory of Evolution, but reject Neo-Darwinism (i.e. random genetic mutations) as the main driving force. The main reasoning for this is that it is difficult to assume that life becomes increasingly more complex and intricate due to what are basically "random errors". This goes against basic scientific principles, such as the Second law of thermodynamics.

-Sangil 16:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It is important that we remember the Second Law is a tendency for energy to spread out into systems, but this tendency can be slowed, and completely halted by things as simple as chemical potentials, electric and magnetic fields, gravitational potential energies, and on and on. (Also, many people refer to this as the "energetic sense" of the 2nd law but there is no other. This is how it is defined in physics, and is the only sense of the word that in fact makes any sense.) Everything doesn't become disordered over time - that is nonsense taught by non-scientists who do not understand these fundamental concepts. I realize that the popular definition of the 2nd law has been made to sound equivalent to "disorder" or "randomness" but we have writers who are not scientists to thank for that. As a physicist and a teacher, I have had a completely uphill climb trying to teach my students that Entropy is a quantifiable exchange of heat from one system to another at a specified temperature. We violate the 2nd law every day inside our bodies - it is held off by millions of chemical potentials, capillarity and on and on. Please, please people... learn about this concept - it hurts your credibility when you speak incorrectly about these ideas. Saying the 2nd law is about disorder is equivalent to saying gravity is caused by magnetic fields. It's nonsense. If you are confused about this concept, go here, or you can even email me at shale_d2010@yahoo . Astrobayes 16:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you've read the article? Guettarda 17:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you read it? The article presents unproven theories as fact. Nevertheless, at any given moment there are deviations from the average, and it is the natural selection of specific deviations that leads to a new species - what is this statement based on? Naturally there are deviations from the average, but assuming these 'statistical deviations' are the basis for the creation of new species is pure speculation.

-Sangil 21:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

First, Sangil, your distinction between evolution and neo-Darwinism ignores the crucially important modern synthesis. Second, that you believe that the modern synthesis (e.g. the claim you singal out) "goes agaisnt" the second law of thermodynaics suggests either you did not read the article or you do not understand it. The modern synthesis (nor the theory of evolution, Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism) does not go against the second law of thermodynamics. This article explains why. If you think this article's explanation is wrong, it only means that you (1) definitely do not understand the second law of thermodynamics and (2) maybe do not understand science in general. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Before replying, I wish to say that it is quite sad you resort to personal attacks to prove your point. All it does is make me respect you less. I have made no personal attacks. If you believe I have made a personal attack, file a complaint. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Now regarding your reply- rest assured I did indeed read the article. I think you are confusing "read the article" with "agree with the article", assuming you have read the article yourself, which is not apparent at all (are you even aware that "Modern evolutionary synthesis" and "Neo-Darwinism" are the same thing? It seems you are not). There is a section in the article attempting to prove that Evolution is not contradicted by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. This section is wrong, unsupported and misleading, as I have already stated in my previous reply. It appears you are not familiar yourself with the 2nd Law, otherwise you would not so rigoriously defend the appearance and development of new species from these statistical "deviations from the average". You would do well to present sources to base the claims made there, instead of personally attacking users. As for modern synthesis, it is a quite controversial theory with little scientific proof. For example-

According to the modern synthesis as established in the 1930s and 1940s, genetic variation in populations arises by chance through mutation (this is now known to be sometimes caused by mistakes in DNA replication) and recombination (crossing over of homologous chromosomes during meiosis). Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection. Speciation occurs gradually when populations are reproductively isolated, e.g. by geographic barriers. (my emphasis)

This statement has never been proven, and indeed is in direct contradiction to the existence of major "jumps" in evolution (Punctuated equilibrium), which are the major driving force for the appearance of new species- all it does is show how an existing species gradually evolves (e.g. how a small horse becomes a big horse).

Also, since you plainly consider yourself to "understand science in general", I am quite amazed you take by faith the unproven, and quite unscientific, claim that all the infinitely complex and diverse life forms around us arose "by chance" due to "random errors". -Sangil 23:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not take anything on faith, nor have I said anything to suggest so. I did however say that you misunderstand the second law of thermodynamics. You say I am wrong, and then provide a quote ... that does not have to do with the second law of thermodynamics. The fact remains that the modern synthesis does not conflict with or violate the second law of thermodynamics. If you want to argue about this, bring forward your evidence. Instead of providing a quote about the modern synthesis, let us stick to one topic at a time. you say the article is wrong about the second law of thermodynamics. Quote what the article says about the second law, and explain how it is wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I already did, but for your convenience I will copy here my previous response:

The article presents unproven theories as fact. Nevertheless, at any given moment there are deviations from the average, and it is the natural selection of specific deviations that leads to a new species - what is this statement based on? Naturally there are deviations from the average, but assuming these 'statistical deviations' are the basis for the creation of new species is pure speculation.

In other words, there is an implicit assumption in the article that because the 2nd law permits "deviations from the average", than it also supports the claim that "it is the natural selection of specific deviations that leads to a new species" which is in fact it does no such thing. On the contrary, the 2nd law states that a closed system tends to reach, and then stay in, an equilibrium. "New Species", especially since they become increasingly more complex with time, are obviously the very opposite of equilibrium. In fact, had evolution operated according to the 2nd law, these various 'deviations', being random, would cancel each other out, and a species would remain relatively unchanged in time (specific individuals never being indentical, of course). In reality, however, life forms tend to become increasingly more complex (i.e.- contain more information) over long periods of time. This process is contradictory to all other known phenomena in the natural world, and thermodynamics are at a loss to explain it.-Sangil 23:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Now I understand your mistake. you have things backwards. The point of this section of the article is not that the second law of thermodynamics proves that the theory of evolution is right. The point is that the theory of evolution does not violate the second law. These are two distinct propositions. When you write, "because the 2nd law permits "deviations from the average", than it also supports the claim" you are suggesting that the claim is that the second law supports the theory of evolution. This is not the meaning of the example. The explicit meaning of the example has nothing to do with the second law supporting any claim of the theory of evolution. The second half of your comment is however relevant in that you are trying to explain why the theory of evolution contradicts the second law. Yet here it is evident that you did not read the article carefully. The article makes clear that the evolution of species does not occur in a closed system. Moreover, the second law is about the statistical tendancy towards a thermal equilibrium. The creation of new species does not violate this. You misunderstand the meaning of statistics. That variations in energy levels may cancel one another out statistically does not mean that they disappear. That is not what canceling out means. Similarly, the evolution of different species does not mean that one change cancels out another. Finally, your whole understanding of science is clearly wrong. "Laws" like the second law are generalizations of observed phenomena. They are not "laws" in the human juridical sense. The existence of a law of science does not mean something literally cannot happen. If it happens, (like the evolution of a new species) then it happens. It is then up to scientists to revise their models (i.e. laws) accordingly. Words have multiple meanings. Just because law has one meaning does not mean it always means that thing. In fact, in science it means something very specific. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If we'll put aside the rather patronizing tone in your comments (I happen to have an Academic degree in Bioinformatics, a field directly dealing with Genetics, Probability, and Statistics, as well as Computer Science), it is rather obvious you have not understood my arguments at all. I'll try to make it clearer for you.

I have tried to make two points regarding the section dealing with thermodynamics:

• The article stated as "fact" that

  at any given moment there are deviations from the average, and it is the natural selection of specific deviations that leads to a new species.

  This is just pure speculation, as there is no proof that these 'statistical deviations' are indeed the driving force for the creation of new species. You have certainly brought no such proof. Random deviations in any system will always cancel out. I believe you do not quite understand what "cancel out" means. It means the differences cannot be observed over time- they disappear (Otherwise what exactly has been canceled out?). When a plus cancels out a minus, you are left with nothing- a zero. It's the same with deviations in species. For someone who thoroughly understands science, I am surprised you are confused by such an elementary mathematical principle. And even more surprising is how someone who claims to "understand the meaning of statistics" can accept the hair-brained idea that a system can consistently evolve (some would say improve), increasingly becoming more complex, more intricate, more diverse, more intelligent, all because of some random statistical deviations. In my opinion, this is indeed where scientific reasoning ends, and religious dogma begins.
• It is true the 2nd law deals mainly with energy. However, many other types of systems have used the 2nd law as a "guiding principle", since many natural phenomena appear to behave in a similiar way (i.e. that with time the disorder in a system increases). It is in this broader sense, and not in the strict energetical sense, that I refer to it. The article refers to it in the same way (Darwin's theory of natural selection operates in an analogous fashion). For this reason the claim that the Earth is not a closed system is misleading, since the system in question is a biological one- energy from the sun does not make the system "open", and is completely irrelevent. The sun's energy is uniform at any given time, and so does not provide any new information to the system. It in no way assists the "positive" deviations in overpowering the "negative" ones and thus create a new species. Or if you prefer another way to see it- consider the whole solar system. Now it is certainly "closed", is it not? Biologically speaking, we are still dealing with a closed system (unless you believe that there is interaction with living organisms from space, such as bacteria. This indeed would make the Earth an 'open' system).

To sum it up- when you put together the two points I have described above, it becomes clear that the 2nd law (again, in its broader sense) does contradict the neo-Darwinist theory. Random deviations cancel each other out statistically, This does not mean they don't exist. It does mean they have no lasting effect on the system, and thus clearly cannot be the driving force for new species. What's more, while Evolution Theory in general is taken for fact by the vast majority of scientists, the neo-Darwinist theory is far from rock-solid, as it lacks any evidence and is at odds with statistical principles that are widely accepted in many fields of scientific study. I believe that the article should reflect new-Darwinism's rather numerous misgivings.

-Sangil 22:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

(I happen to have an Academic degree in Bioinformatics, a field directly dealing with Genetics, Probability, and Statistics, as well as Computer Science) You display no such knowledge. You display gross ignorance. Who gave you the degree? Genesisversity? WAS 4.250 00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, Sangil, you keep going on about random deviations, but you seem curiously silent on selection. Are you suggesting that selection pressure does NOT drive deviation toward a "lasting effect on the system"? Or don't you believe in selection? It's quite simple to model... - FlyingOrca 00:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

WAS - the fact that you resort to attacking me personally (and very immaturely, I have to say), only proves you have nothing of value to say to counter the points I have raised.

FlyingOrca - What to you mean by selection? Natural selection is a very misleading term, since natural usually implies 'random' (i.e. not guided by an intelligent force), while 'selection' implies someone (some 'intelligence') is doing the selecting. These two terms are contradictory, of course. Now everyone will jump up and shout "natural forces are not random! An individual better suited to the natural environment has a higher probability of survival, and thus to spread his genes etc.". This is true. However, natural forces are in themselves "random", in the sense that they do not 'direct' evolution in a particular direction (i.e. greater complexity, more information). Small deviations would cancel each other, since they do not greatly effect the chance of survival of the individual (e.g. one deviation causes a horse to have a slightly larger heart, so that it can run faster, and another causes another horse to have a smaller heart, but neither has profound effects, and so both horses survive and pass on their genes. The two random deviations cancel each other out, like random statistical "noise"). If 'Selection' was indeed 'Natural', we should be seeing some life forms becoming more complex, others not changing, and others still becoming less complex. While this is true for individual species (e.g. sharks), it is not what actually takes place on a large scale. As we all know, ever since life appeared it has developed consistently in the direction of greater complexity, higher levels of intelligence, etc. This hardly looks like 'random' selection.

And just to be clear - I am not a religious person. I do not believe God almighty designed all the species on Earth in six days. I DO consider myself to have my eyes open, which allows me to see the many misconceptions in "modern" evolutionary thinking (read - Neo-Darwinism). Unfortunately, the proponents of this theory tend to blindly rush in to defend it from attack by 'religious fundamentalists', without allowing any debate ragrding their beloved beliefs, and so they are themselves acting in a similiarly 'fundamentalist' way.

-Sangil 06:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are indeed credentialed in bioinformatics, I suggest you write a simple random walk simulation. Although our intuitive expectation of a random walk is that it will stay at its point of origin, in fact this is not the case. On average the walk will move away from the origin. This is the relevant behavior in this case, when you're describing a purely stochastic process in a space with no boundaries. Of course, we're not discussing a purely stochastic process, and this analogy is highly inappropriate at the level of entire species. You're making a pretty specious argument: "natural selection is undirected, and therefore random. It must obey the dictates of a random process, which (incorrectly) must average out at zero." This breaks down at just about every step. I'd suggest reopening your textbooks on statistics. Graft 07:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sangil, your problem seems to be in seeing "natural" as random, which it isn't. Gravity isn't random, nor is the effect of climate. Both select heritable variations, and the resulting organisms contribute to the environment which in turn selects future variations. We don't " all know, ever since life appeared it has developed consistently in the direction of greater complexity" - see devolution (fallacy) and take as an example sightless cave fish: less complex by eyes than their forebears. However, while this does bring up material for common misconceptions, here ain't a forum for debate, so no more handy hints. ...dave souza, talk 10:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Several problems with Sangil's claims:

1. Gradual speciation does not conflict with punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium just says that sometimes evolution occurs more gradually than others.

2. Speciation does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, it is not even covered by the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is about the behavior of atoms and energy, not classifications of biological organisms.

3. Fred Hoyle was an astronomer. His opinions on biology are as relevant as Gould's opinions on astronomy. thx1138 09:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

For starters, I suggest everyone here go read WP:Civil. It is painfully clear most of the editors here will be looking at this page for the very first time. The examples of rude behaviour on this page are so numerous I doubt there is a need to bring examples. Assuming you guys are older than 15, it is rather disappointing seeing such childish behavior in Wikipedia.

How curious that although all my other points got instant ridicule as a response, this part, which I find the most important, got no response at all. Maybe considering the emotional maturity of some editors here, it shouldn't have come as such a surprise. Going by what was written below, it is quite clear that my comment regarding WP:Civil has not even by read by anyone (selective vision?), not to mention the Civility Policy itself. Pathetic.

-Sangil 14:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the more relevant replies to my edits:

• Graft - Although our intuitive expectation of a random walk is that it will stay at its point of origin, in fact this is not the case.... Are you really suggesting the development of life on Earth, from simple procaryotes to men walking on the moon, has been a "random walk"? Are you aware of how unlikely this is? It's like hitting a hole-in-one from 100 Km away. But that's not even the point. Tell me- if you perform more than one random walk- if you perform 100, or 1000, or 1000000 - what would be the average final position? that's right- the same as the starting one (assuming it is indeed random). And that's what happens in reality- every single species performs its own little "random walk". And yet what we see is a consistent increase in complexity. Some species may remain unchanged, and others even 'undevelop', but the the whole the picture is quite clear.

All Graft is saying is that a random walk, despite allowing for steps backwards and forwards, typically moves away from its start point. You were suggesting that random change would remain in the same place. And that's before we consider if there's a selection gradient running across the field of play. Regarding your "increase in complexity", are you sure that previous periods of Earth's history (e.g. the Mesozoic) are less complex than the present Cenozoic? Can complexity not just saturate? --Plumbago 08:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read what I said about performing numerous random walks? it is quite obvious you have not. The greater the number of walks performed, the closer the average result would be to the starting point. Regarding "previous periods of Earth's history" - yes, I am pretty sure no creature we know of from the Mesozoic is close to the level of complexity of the human brain. If any evidence of works of art, architectural masterpieces or super-computers dating from the Mesozoic has recently been found, I stand corrected.

-Sangil 14:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• dave souza - Gravity isn't random, nor is the effect of climate - Gravity isn't random because it's uniform, and so its effect on the development of life is completely irrelevant. You can't really say people are more adapted to gravity than bacteria. As for climate - last time I checked it was very random. Did you read the book Chaos? And one certainly can't say a physical force "selects" anything. Just a reminder- Google's definition of 'select' is: choose: pick out, select, or choose from a number of alternatives. Does a magnetic field "choose" particles with a certain charge? To select something over something else denotes an intelligence is involved, just like Maxwell's demon. All a natural force can do is 'affect', or 'influence'.

While dave introduced a tangential example, he was countering your ridiculous statement that the "natural" part of "natural selection" was random. He may not have chosen the best example to counter this, but you seem to have completely misunderstood this point. --Plumbago 08:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous example? it is you, my friend, who is ridiculous, since you bring no evidence to the contrary, preferring instead to use childish insults as a response. I still don't see why 'natural' isn't 'random'. the fact that you are convinced to the contrary is hardly scientific proof.

-Sangil 14:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• dave souza - We don't " all know, ever since life appeared it has developed consistently in the direction of greater complexity" - you quoted me, yet you responded to something I never said. I never qualified evolution with terms like "progress" or "improvement". All I said is that life has become more complex since it appeared. Are you seriously claiming otherwise?

Erm, yes. It's not a known fact that life has continually become more complex as time has passed. This generally appears to be the case (i.e. if one starts from zero, the only way is up; if we're positive definite), but there aren't any fixed rules on this point. Unless you know of some you'd like to share. --Plumbago 08:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice you are contradicting yourself within the space of three sentences? First It's not a known fact that life has continually become more complex as time has passed and then This generally appears to be the case. I have no idea why you think there should be "fixed rules". All I am doing is to make an observation regarding cuurent knowledge of the development of life.

-Sangil 14:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• thx1138 - Speciation does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, it is not even covered by the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is about the behavior of atoms and energy, not classifications of biological organisms. - had you actually read what I wrote, you would have encountered the following passage: "It is true the 2nd law deals mainly with energy. However, many other types of systems have used the 2nd law as a "guiding principle", since many natural phenomena appear to behave in a similar way (i.e. that with time the disorder in a system increases). It is in this broader sense, and not in the strict energetical sense, that I refer to it."

That's complete BS. thx1138 07:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's universally known that thx1138's (rather vulgar) personal opinion is equivalent to scientific proof. How sad. Like I said before, if you have nothing intelligent to say, better not say anything. This particular response of yours makes me quite embarrased for you.

-Sangil 14:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You posted a blatant lie. What kind of response did you expect?thx1138 07:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Bringing the 2nd Law to a discussion on evolution is tantamount to arriving wearing a pointy hat with a "D" on it. The 2nd Law has nothing (beyond the trivial) to do with evolution. It certainly doesn't illuminate any part of it usefully at all. We are not dealing with a closed system : energy pours into the Earth from space, drives the chemistry of life, allowing for increases in complexity, then escapes back to space as heat. Which part of that isn't clear to you? Drawing weak parallels using the 2nd Law as a "guiding principle" is not appropriate to the system at hand. --Plumbago 08:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

energy pours into the Earth from space, drives the chemistry of life, allowing for increases in complexity - where on Earth did you pick up this claim? Energy "pouring from space" allows for "increase in complexity"? Is there anything even remotely similiar to a scientific basis for this claim?

-Sangil 14:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Light from the sun allows photosythesis generating complex molecuels such as glucose from water and CO2. I had thought that was so obvious it would not need pointed out. Pointed hat principal at work? Jefffire 15:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus, additional energy coming from an outside source (the sun) and leaving through the atmosphere is the reason why the Earth is not a closed system. Since the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, this is why it doesn't apply, on top of the fact that 'more complex' things are not necessarily thermodynamically more 'demanding', if that makes sense. After all, snowflakes form all by themselves and they're 'more complex' than ice-cubes. Skittle 15:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• thx1138 - Fred Hoyle was an astronomer. His opinions on biology are as relevant as Gould's opinions on astronomy. - so you are saying an astronomer is prohibited in researching other fields of science? Geez, I guess someone should tell Isaac Newton, who was a "mathematician, physicist, astronomer, alchemist, chemist, inventor, and natural philosopher".

Hoyle was free to investigate it, sure. He was free to do research and publish it. But he didn't. So whatever opinions he had about evolution are irrelevant to the scientific discussion of it. thx1138 07:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can't see why introducing the opinion of an individual scientist has little bearing on the debate at hand, you're lost. Hoyle was a clever astronomer who had some strange ideas about biology. I'm a biologist and, I'm sure, have strange ideas about physics. But I shouldn't (nor expect to) carry any weight in debates on physics. Not least because I've never published (though there was a pub involved) any of my strange ideas. --Plumbago 08:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hoyle was a respected scientist, and wrote several books on the issue. You can find contradicting evidence, and proove him wrong. I see no reason why his ideas should be ignored, unless you are afraid of your dogma being shattered and so insist in there being no debate whatsoever. And you are right about one thing - I do feel lost. I thought I was debating with mature adults, but it seems I am surrounded by kindergardeners instead.

-Sangil 14:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Slrubenstein and everyone else - then we have done the best we can and just have to ignore people like Sangil who come to the article not wanting to learn - besides the rather condescending and patronizing tone, I feel I should say that it is my custom to alert editors on the Talk page before i make changes to an article. If no one responds, I will take it as an approval of my actions. Any reverting done after I have been ignored on the Talk page would be cause for mediation. And given your rather uncivil behaviour, I would not recommend you this course of action.

Which part of "response" are you missing in the above debate? You come with a suggestion, it is rejected because it is at odds with science (and has been seen here dozens of times before). Just because you don't like that, doesn't mean that it wasn't debated. Read the above, think about it, then come back with an improved suggestion. By the way I love the "everyone else" tag : what a catch-all. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read what Slrubenstein wrote? I am not bothered by my ideas being rejected (for good reasons- calling them "BS" is not one of them). I am human, and can make mistakes like the next man. I am bothered by Slrubenstein's remark "then we have done the best we can and just have to ignore people like Sangil". But I guess you missed that part.

-Sangil 14:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

-Sangil 22:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguing with you is like trying to hit a puppy by throwing a live bee at it. Graft 03:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If this is the best response you could come up with, I feel sorry for you.

-Sangil 14:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any useful contributions to the article? If all you want to do is debate evolution then take it to an appropriate venue, like talk.origins. Wikipedia is not a forum. Jefffire 15:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. This thread has gone on long enough. Take it to my talk page, if you want. This is not the appropriate forum. Graft 15:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Misconceptions sections

I was going to do what WAS did and insult Sangil's education, but no need. Now, as to his (oblique) point: I've always hated these misconception sections, and this perfectly illustrates why. I think the writing in those sections could stand some improvement, but I think they're also lacking in a clear target. The section Sangil picks on begins somewhat aimlessly, failing to adequately introduce what the misconception is, before launching into a rather abstruse attack on it, ending with the disputed sentence, which I must also admit confuses me. I'm not sure what the purpose of these sections is - a sort of talk.origins FAQ in miniature, I guess - but I don't think they succeed at whatever it is they intend. Graft 00:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Imagine that. A free encyclopedia that anyone can edit with shortcomings. Will wonders never cease.

Graft, everyone here respects you. Why do you complain rather than fix the problem? I know you can't fix everything. But what I don't get is why don't you make a start. Your reputation is such that others would eagerly follow if you would but lead the way. What am I not getting? I'm ignorant on the issue that I have just addressed. WAS 4.250 01:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I complain rather than fix the problem because I didn't write these sections, and I don't understand their purpose, as I've indicated above. If I edit them, my edits would be, essentially, to eradicate them. I wanted to give someone who likes them a chance to state what they're there for before I started doing that. Actually I was in the middle of editing those sections when I decided to write the above comment instead. So... if someone wants to mount a defense, I do want to hear it. Graft 03:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I read through the Talk archives - this seems to have been mostly RoyBoy's initiative. Is there a lot of support for this section still? Do other people love it? Hate it? I'll tell you why I don't like it - there's a lot of ways for people to be ignorant, and if someone has a dearth of knowledge that makes the unable to grasp the (rather a lot of) concepts necessary to understand evolution, then we're certainly not going to be able to make up that lack here, in a few short paragraphs. What we ARE doing in attempting to do so is refuting specific, mostly Creationist talking points. This is what talk.origins is for, frankly, and we send people away from this talk page for the same all the time. Why, then, should we do it in the article? Graft 04:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In most cases, I'd say that an expansive "Misconceptions" section that was dedicated to correcting, rather than primarily to just repoting on, common misconceptions, would be a pretty bad idea. However, in this specific case, the "misconceptions" stuff seems relatively reasonable: some better implementation (e.g., get lots more references to demonstrate that these misconceptions are so common) would be helpful, but the concept seems decent. I would not oppose removing the section, though, as long as we don't lose the valuable information it contains: we might want to consider integrating much of it into the rest of the article, and simply address misconceptions in the sections dealing with those topics themselves (for example, address misconceptions regarding genetic drift in the genetic drift section). -Silence 04:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Graft, you and I may just disagree on this. I see the function of this section as this: to single out the fundamental misconceptions concerning science in general, or the modern synthesis in particular, that are involved in the most common criticisms of the theory of evolution. I see this function as valuable because: it is in effect a "teaching moment" taking opporunity of one situation (an attack, confusion, whatever) in order to lay out important information about science in general or the theory of evolution in particular. If you feel that this can be done more effectively by either reorganizing sections or rewriting sentences, so that the fundamental elements of science or evolutionary theory that are often misunderstood are more clearly explained, please by all means do so. Ibelieve any part of Wikipedia can always be improved. This does not, of course, mean that Wikipedia will ever be perfect. In this specific instance, this does not mean that the article will ever explain to everyone enough about science or evolution so as to clear up all misconceptions and deflect all criticism. There will always be stupid or dogmatic people who refuse to learn, and who will systematically misconstrue what the article says and then spew out their own misconceived and confused thoughts. This will always happen and there is nothing we can do to stop it. So whether or not we stop it or prevent it is an unreasonable standard for deciding what stays in the article. But just because what we write will never prevent all stupid comments - or, indeed, what we write willl I believe always provoke and invite stupid comments - doe snot mean we should not write it. We do our best, and get useful information out there, and some will learn. Here is my criteria for the misconceptions section. First, have we succesfully identified major misconceptions of science or evolutionary theory that frequently crop up on creationist diatribes? Second, for each major misconception, have we written a paragraph or two that provides clear and useufl content i.e. more information about science or evolutionary theory a reader can learn from? If the answer to either is no, we need to do more work on this and I hope you will help. If the answer to both is yes, then we have done the best we can and just have to ignore people like Sangil who come to the article not wanting to learn. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, misconceptions can flow from either the difficult nature of the science - some concepts are simply harder to grasp than others, maybe - or from deliberate misinformation. The first, perhaps, does require special attention on our part. But the latter does not, I suggest. Deliberate misinformation can target pretty obscure corners of the field (as with the "second law" attack on evolution, which is clearly not a misconception that proceeds from a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of evolution, but of a wholly unrelated field of study). I fail to see why it's the job of Wikipedia to respond to such arguments. We have a responsibility to fact and education, yes, but this is bordering on becoming partisans in the culture war. Even if we believe we're on the side of science or truth or whatever, this doesn't seem like the correct role for an encyclopedia to take.

The fact that these issues come up all the time on the Talk page doesn't necessitate that this debate should spill over into the article. We've made it a policy to restrict this page to discussion of the science, and have more or less shunted debates about creationism off to other pages. This ought to include these misconceptions points, I think. Or else we're inviting a whole mess of ugly debate against Creationism onto this page, which I think would do it harm. Graft 18:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we disagree on this: think there is still value to being able to tell ignorant dogmatics like Sangil that their points are addressed in the article. You may consider that either ineffective - and while I disagree, I cannot argue against that, I know you would have grounds for that argument - or not appropriate for the article. As far as appropriateness, I still disagree but again see it as a judgement call and can't argue against you so much as just present my reasons. Our articles are aimed at the general public. Creationism is embarrasingly popular in the US, and, apparently, other countries as well. For this reason alone, I think the contents of the article should take into account ID arguments because our readers are aware of them. Now, Sangil may never be educated by the article, but smarter or less dogmatic readers who listen to creationist (or "ID") arguments because they are very open-minded or naive may indeed be educated by our article. Reading the section on "misconceptions" may help them when they read ID arguments or get into an argument with an ID missionary. We agree that difficult concepts are worthy of careful explanation. But I really do disagree with you about our responsibility concerning deliberate disinformation. While I think it would be graceless style and ineffective to address deliberate disinformation in an argumentative style, I do think it needs to be corrected. Encyclopedias are meant to educate the ignorant. Ignorance is not just the absence of knowledge, it is the presence of false knowledge. Sangil may be old enough or may have had the educational opportunities such that he has to accept responsibility for his clinging to false knowledge. But many of our readers are younger and have not had many opportunities. Wikipedia can be such an opportunity and I think we have a responsibility that it be so. PS wit need not be expressed by originality; proper timing is at least as important. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

a more effective teaching moment

Can we appropriate some of this into the appropriate section to make it a more effective teaching moment? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The real "teaching moments" in Wikipedia are on the Talk pages. In all the discussion about Wikipedia versus whatever, the beauty (and ugliness) of the talk pages is ignored. For my money, some of the best material for students is on the Talk pages-- the give and take, passion and reason, are all right there to be seen. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

My point precisely - except I think (with respect) you turn it around. The PURPOSe of talk pages is to improve the articles. Can we abstract from this discussion specific elements to imcorporate into the article to improve it in this regard? What? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, my feeling is that if you clean it up for the article, you clean all the life out of it. There's a reason kids are bored out of their skulls in school, and it is that textbooks are sanitized to the point of mind-numbing dullness. Many of our articles share that dullness (encyclopedias aren't really supposed to sparkle). But many of our Talk pages do sparkle (fitfully). So why not have students study the Talk page along with the article? What could be a better teaching tool? -- Mwanner | Talk 17:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I recommend whoever wants to take this and to transform it, to begin by copying what you wish to transform onto a subpage and opening it up to editing. I would help, but you have to begin it. WAS 4.250 23:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If it matters, I think this page is definently helpful for teaching too, learned a little something about the law of entropy last archive :/. Homestarmy 01:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Further molecular/genetic evidence

Protein functional redundancy, DNA functional redundancy, transposons, redundant pseudogenes, and endogenous retroviruses appear to provide some of the strongest evidence for evolution[5], yet most of these aren't mentioned (pseudogenes are mentioned only very briefly). I think the "Genetic sequence evidence" section needs to be expanded to include some or all of these evidences, and to expound upon pseudogenes.

Also, I'm new to significant participation in the community, where is it customary to locate new sections on talk pages (e.g., on the top)? FAL 19:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom, just like you did. Also with regard to the issues you just raised about article content; we have the following and we mean it:

Thank you for your suggestion regarding the strongest evidence for evolution! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. WAS 4.250 20:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks...I don't think I'm nearly knowledgeable enough about the subject though. FAL 01:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Should some of these topics be incorporated into the article?

• Kin selection, inclusive fitness, W.D. Hamilton, parent-offspring conflict, parental investment, reciprocal altruism, Robert Trivers, r/K selection theory, George C. Williams, group selection unit of selection EPM 20:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• • George C. Williams, group selection, and unit of selection are in the article already. Kin selection could probably use a mention along with the creation of the field of sociobiology, which has produced a lot of work relating to evolutionary psychology and the like (I'm surprised it isn't mentioned anywhere at the moment). I'm not sure all of those other things should be mentioned in such a top-level article as this one, but I'm happy to defer to judgment from others. --Fastfission 21:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think parental investment, reciprocal altruism etc. may be a bit much for such a general article. To deal with the topics appropriately, even in brief, would require a great deal of space and might make the article unwieldy. --Davril2020 21:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added sociobiology, parental investment, reciprocal altruism & kin selection to the See also section as a simple(-minded?) solution. Inclusive fitness, W.D. Hamilton, parent-offspring conflict, Robert Trivers & r/K selection theory could be put there as well, pending someone writing a summary with main article link for each. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

On a slightly related note, the list of "see also" articles could actually be trimmed a bit to remove things like teratogenesis, HeLa, niche construction, etc. It's bloated a bit, and several of the items on the list above are better candidates than items already in "see also". Otherwise, I agree with Fastfission and Davril2020 that the items are perhaps a bit specialist for this article. --Plumbago 16:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentalist Christianity link added

In the Social And Religious Controversies section, I added the following sentence: "Fundamentalist Christian creationists, in particular, find a historical evolutionary origin logically incompatible with the Garden of Eden and The Fall of Man, without which the theology of salvation must be altered." This sentence is important, because without it, the reader is left with an impression that the only major controversy with religion is man's place in the universe, easily seen as a matter of pride, easily called a straw man. The salvation issue, on the other hand, cuts to the core of Christianity. I'm sure there are better places to discuss this, however I felt a need to preemptively defend this edit. BlueNight 20:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to revert but you made more edits than the previous sentence which merit discussion before insertion. Joelito (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. Discussion for the improvement of the article is a good thing, especially with a large and controversial article such as this. I'm used to editing less controversial pages such as gibs and Eru Illuvatar. We need a minor edit, correcting someone's typo "interbred" with "interbreed." (I believe that's in the "Speciation" section.) I also would like to discuss inclusion of the sentence presented before your response.

Farther up in the "Misconceptions" section, there's a pair of sentences that sound POV to me:

Many critics of evolution claim that the theory robs life and the universe of any transcendental meaning. Indeed, one of the great strengths of evolution by natural selection is that it has no need for a supernatural intelligence or any intelligent design.

This is a bizzare response when responding to the charge that evolution robs mankind of significance and the universe of any transcendental meaning. "Indeed" seems to confirm or agree with the "misconception," and if that's the case, should be placed in a "philosophical underpinnings and ramifications," if one existed. (I also have a hard time seeing how the rest of the paragraph ties into the opening two sentences.) We would be better off pointing out that, as a theory in the physical sciences, based on a material physical world, the theory of evolution by its nature does not have any basis for supernatural goings-on, and cannot make any claims as to the breaking of those laws by which it functions. I suggest the following:

However, as with any scientific theory based solely on the physical world, evolution by natural selection can make no statement about a supernatural intelligence, or built-in design.

Whaddya think? BlueNight 03:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Misconceptions heading and intro

What I think is that the intro to misconceptions is a disaster, wandering into an off-topic and historically arguable quote from Menard. Here's my suggestion, incorporating your wording:

Misunderstandings about modern evolutionary biology

While the modern synthesis is almost universally accepted within the scientific community, many people find aspects of it counterintuitive. For some it introduces concepts which go against their perspective of direction or meaning in nature, and which they find difficult to accept. The claim is made that the theory robs life and the universe of any transcendental meaning, though from a scientific viewpoint one of the great strengths of evolution by natural selection is that it has no need for a supernatural intelligence or any intelligent designer. Opposition to evolution is strongest amongst creationists who find it conflicts with their literal reading of sacred texts.

This leads to a readiness to seek and publicise arguments against evolution and natural selection, which usually involve misunderstandings or misconceptions about evolution or about science in general. A detailed discussion of such arguments is available at TalkOrigins, and some of the commoner arguments are briefly examined below.

Not sure if TalkOrigins is the best reference. Comments please. ...dave souza, talk 09:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I also have slight concern over the TO link. I can think of a variety of good sources which advocate one or the other positions but I'm having trouble thinking of a better source that simply discusses it. I'll have a look later. I know some documents published by the Vatican give an excellent grounding in their position, and do address some of the YEC points that have been made but they tend to focus upon theological aspects rather than aspects of evolution itself. If I find something that looks better I'll cite it here. --Davril2020 10:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have questions about two sentences in Dave's proposed revision: first, "The claim is made that the theory robs life and the universe of any transcendental meaning, though from a scientific viewpoint one of the great strengths of evolution by natural selection is that it has no need for a supernatural intelligence or any intelligent designer." I do not follow the use of the word "though." Each independent clause makes sense, but I do not follow the way they are being linked here. Here is why: the fact that for many scientists the strongpoint of evolutionary theory is that there is no need for a supernatural intelligence does not mean that scientists therefore believe that life and the universe have transcendental meaning. Scientists may believe this, but not for the reason that evolutionary theory explains speciation without invoking a designer. So the second clause is not a response to the first one. i do see a link, in that the second clause explains the first one, i.e. the fact that evolutionary theory requires no designer does cause many people to think that it robs life of transcendental meaning. But the word "though" does not signal this link.

Second: "Opposition to evolution is strongest amongst creationists who find it conflicts with their literal reading of sacred texts." Although this is superficially accurate, I do not think it has much substance to it. Although fundamentalists themselves (and not just their critics) may claim to read the Bible literally, they don't - all reading involves interpretation. So there are two questions about fundamentalists: why do they interpret the text the way they do, and why do they claim they are not interpreting it? I cannot answer the second question (nor do we need to for this article) but I suspect that the reason they interpret the Bible the way they do is becuase it gives them a sense of transcendental meaning. In other words, I don't think that people reject evolution because they read the Bible literally. There is something else going on that explains both why they reject evolution and why they read the Bible literally. when I was living in the Bible Belt the local paper published a few creationist/anti-evolution letters to the editor avery several weeks and it seems to me from these letters that what motivated their reading of the Bible was their need for a sense of purposeful order.

In short, while I can't object to improving the intro to this section, I do not think this proposed paragraph is an improvement. Also, if Menand's view is contested, we should just say so and provide other views (conforming with NPOV) and sources for them (conforming with NOR). At least Menand is a well-recognized scholar whose works have been well-reviewed and who has written on just this matter. Isn't citing relevant sources part of our job? If there are other good authoritative sources let's add them (and not delete a verifiable relevant source). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Asserting why Fundamentalists (Like myself) don't think natural selection is acceptable probably varies depending on which "fundamentalists" your talking about, I seriously doubt it's so easy to just lump everybody's reasons together, even though im mostly sure alot of it comes from just one verse. I would say it is not merely a sense of purposeful order that we're seeking, but a rather specific order. But then, my comments are probably not a good citation for this article, but the point is, I would propose anything put in the article be a good deal more specific than just "looking for a sense of order". Homestarmy 19:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mark II

Thanks for the feedback, which I've taken into account in the Mark II version below:

Misunderstandings about modern evolutionary biology

Though the modern synthesis is almost universally accepted within the scientific community, many people find aspects of it counterintuitive. While from a scientific viewpoint one of the great strengths of evolution by natural selection is that it has no need for a supernatural intelligence or any intelligent designer, people often find that it introduces concepts which go against their perception of design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in nature, and so find difficult to accept. As Louis Menand has pointed out, "Darwin wanted to establish... that the species — including human beings — were created by, and evolve according to, processes that are entirely natural, chance-generated, and blind." People can feel that such a theory robs life and the universe of any transcendental meaning.

In the resulting controversy publicity is given to arguments against evolution and natural selection which generally involve misunderstandings or misconceptions about evolution or about science in general. Some of the commoner most common arguments are examined in this section. More are considered at An Index to Creationist Claims.

Note that I've added back in the quote from Menand, which seems a pretty fair statement of Darwin's intent at the time of publication, though at inception his expressed aims were probably more deistic, and the commentary preceding the quote was off-topic. TalkOrigins may have a FAQ which would be worth linking in the last sentence, will think about that. ..dave souza, talk 21:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

revised as discussed below, TO link added ..dave souza, talk 04:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I like this portion. I would feel better if the misunderstandings had a more explicit link to the controversies page. --BlueNight 23:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea...dave souza, talk 04:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Commoner" is not a word that works in that context I think, wouldn't it be more correct to be "more common"? Homestarmy 01:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ta, Better? ..dave souza, talk 04:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a big improvement, Dave - thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. Will now incorporate this version. ...dave souza, talk 15:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Closed" and "isolated" systems

While 203.154.26.196's edits on how the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated have been less than helpful, they do raise an important point: the distinction between a closed system and an isolated system.

According to the respective WP articles, a closed system can exchange heat and work, but not matter, with its surroundings; an isolated system cannot exchange any form of mass-energy. However, this article states that the Second Law of Thermodynamics requires a closed system and that evolution does not violate the law because the Earth is not a closed system. 203.154.26.196 reasons that the Earth is a closed system under these definitions, and is superficially correct (if one does not count the vast number of meteorite, particulate, cosmic ray, and other matter constantly raining down on us - but this is not the point).

My point is that if you go to the Second Law of Thermodynamics page, it specifies the need for an isolated system, not a closed system! I know, I know, I was always taught that the law specified a closed system, and I've never heard the term "isolated system" used in such a context. Still, I think that in order to keep in line with both the closed system and isolated system WP articles, we should change all mention of closed systems to isolated systems in this article. Your thoughts? --TauNeutrino 10:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone more familiar with appropriate usage in thermodynamics would have to comment, but at the moment we get the idea correct (energy exchange is what matters) if not the terminology. Also since the earth is being constantly buffeted by the solar wind, I imagine mass exchange is non-negligible. Graft 15:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My first thought was that our anonymous benefactor had pointed to a discrepancy which should be sorted as suggested, and the question of thermodynamics terminology is one for the experts to be taken up on that page. Unfortunately it's beyond my resources to find external confirmation right now. However the Entropy section at present is rather impenetrable to the layman, pointing to a main article that says nothing about the subject and getting involved in thermodynamics more than clarifying the point. Self-organization#Self-organization vs. entropy clearly covers the issue, and I suggest that should be made the main article, with the subsection title being changed to Self-organization and. entropy. The content of the section should then be modified in that light. ..dave souza, talk 09:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm entirely certain that the Second Law of Thermodynamics necessitates the requirements stated under isolated system. Neither energy nor mass can flow in or out of a system that the Second Law applies to, because mass inherently contains energy (a la $E=mc^{2}$). If one allowed mass to flow into the system, for all intents and purposes it would be the same as allowing energy to flow into the system.

I've also found outside instances of the use of "isolated system" in the definition of the Second Law. See [6] for an explanation at Hyperphysics that states the requirement for an "isolated system," and also see [7] for a description of open, closed, and isolated systems that distinctly says that Earth is a closed system. Since we know that the Second Law does not apply to the Earth and cannot apply to an open system, the only remaining conclusion is that the Second Law applies to isolated systems, as per the Second Law of Thermodynamics article.

The Entropy article seems to also point to the use of "isolated system" in the Second Law (under the section "The second law"). I agree that the Entropy article is a little impenetrable, but entropy is a rather abstract concept compared to most in classical physics. I admit I didn't understand it correctly the first time I learned it. ^_^ That being said... I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean, dave souza. Can you clarify what you're suggesting be done? --TauNeutrino 10:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What I was suggesting was that someone more knowledgeable could reorganise the section, but since no-ones done so, here's a draft by me. ..dave souza, talk 16:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Self-organization and entropy

Main article: Self-organization

Another misconception is the claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics by increasing complexity and order without supernatural intervention. The second law holds that in an isolated system, thermodynamic entropy will tend to increase or stay the same. As a law in science this is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior, not an edict in the legal or religious sense. The misconception mixes up thermodynamic entropy, which is a measure of the amount of energy in a physical system which cannot be used to do mechanical work, with other uses of the term entropy where it can mean a measure of the disorder present in a system. This has led to the mistaken idea that a system that is left to itself will tend to descend into chaos.

Processes of self-organization enable the internal organization of a system to increase in complexity without being guided or managed by an outside source. In open systems the flow of matter and energy through the system allows the system to self-organize, and to exchange entropy with the environment. Even a closed system an isolated system can gain macroscopic order while increasing its overall entropy, where a few of the system's macroscopic degrees of freedom can become more ordered at the expense of microscopic disorder. Life inherently involves open systems as all organisms exchange energy and matter with their environment, and the Earth is not an isolated system because it receives an energy input from the sun and emits energy back into space.

Self-organization occurs on a number of scales. Mineral crystals and snowflakes can and do self-organize. Likewise proteins fold in very specific ways based on their chemical makeup. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. While the chemical conditions on the relatively young Earth 3.5 billion years ago, when life originated, are still being debated, the spontaneous synthesis of amino acids has been shown for a wide range of conditions, in such settings as the Miller-Urey experiment.

draft for discussion. Suggestions welcome. ..dave souza, talk 16:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC) modified as discussion, dave souza, talk 19:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It sounds pretty good to me. I'm not quite sure about the point of the section where you point out that the 2nd law of thermodynamcs isn't a legal or religious law, except I can see the value in general of pointing out that scientific laws are observed rules rather than absolutes. However, I'm not sure it belongs here, since the 2nd law isn't being violated, and is unlikely to be anywhere we've seen. Otherwise, very good. Skittle 16:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. I suggest capitalizing Second Law of Thermodynamics, including the link for closed system, and redirecting the link for open systems to open system (system theory). I also think that the sentence on physical laws isn't necessary - I would think that it might sound like we were getting defensive about Evolution. So, will this replace the Entropy section, and possibly merge with the Organization section below it? --TauNeutrino 18:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad it seems ok. The law bit is in here because it's the only "law" that I can recall being invoked, and it seems that those opposing evolution think that if observed phenomena "violate" a "law", that proves supernatural intervention, whereas at worst it means that the law has to be rethought. It could go in the intro, especially if there are other examples. Yes, it's to replace the Entropy section. The capitalisation of 2nd law is a redirect: don't know which is best. Good points about open systems link and merge with the Organisation section. From the closed system page it means energy can get through, so the second law wouldn't apply. Presumably the Self-organization page is using a different definition, so had better be brought in line. It's a kind of creationist trap to get too involved in the details of thermodynamics, which is a pretty hard subject to get your head around, or so my son doing mech eng tells me! ..dave souza, talk 19:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I didn't even notice the thing about the capitalization and redirect. Well, I don't mind at all about leaving it the way you have it - it was just me being anal-retentive! ^_^; I also can't think of any other places where physical theories could intersect with this article. Perhaps we could change "Likewise proteins fold in very specific ways based on their chemical makeup. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. While the..." to "Likewise, proteins fold in very specific ways based solely on their amino acid sequence. Also, while the..."? It's incredibly astonishing that all of protein folding is specified by the cryptic amino acid sequence (and external conditions and post-translational modifications like phosphorylation... but that's beside the point). If there's nothing else to add though, I'd be happy with just that change. Also... gah I hate thermodynamics! I take Thermal and Statistical Mechanics next spring, and I hear it's one of the worst classes in the Physics major program.  :( Edit: I also hate forgetting my timestamp! --TauNeutrino 20:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Way too fucking long. Cut it down to a single paragraph. Graft 23:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't really be done, everything there is needed for the explaination to function. Hrimfaxi 11:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Graft, couldn't you have made that request shorter? By at least one word ;) .. Always game to try, here's one para covering most of the essentials:

It is claimed that evolution, by increasing complexity without supernatural intervention, violates the second law of thermodynamics. This law posits that in an idealised isolated system, thermodynamic entropy will tend to increase or stay the same. The claim mixes up thermodynamic entropy, a measure of the amount of energy in a physical system which cannot be used to do mechanical work, with "entropy" meaning a measure of disorder in a system. This then leads to the misconception that a system that is left to itself will tend to descend into chaos. In fact, the flow of matter and energy through open systems allows self-organization enabling an increase in complexity without guidance or management. Examples include mineral crystals and snowflakes. Life inherently involves open systems, not isolated systems, as all organisms exchange energy and matter with their environment, and similarly the Earth receives energy from the sun and emits energy back into space.

With reluctance I've left out the "law" point, which might be made elsewhere. Do others think this is still clear and complete enough? ..dave souza, talk 13:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC) tweaked to break up 2nd sentence..dave souza, talk 14:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Further tweak as discussed ..dave souza, talk 16:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was never keen on including the "law" bit here anyway, so that's no loss. You've managed to include the important points fairly well, but the first two sentences feel a little complex. This just seems to be a result of trying to express fairly long points as concisely as possible, so I don't know if it's possible to improve that. Good work. Skittle 14:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, still sounds great. --TauNeutrino 14:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Had an idea to cover the law point: make it "second law of thermodynamics which posits the working assumption that in an idealised isolated system" which should keep the engineers happy, but what of the physicists? ..dave souza, talk 14:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm a physics major, so my word on this may have some weight. Is "posits the working assumption" really necessary? Perhaps we could just replace that with "posits", since I think any ambiguity is covered by "tend to increase or stay the same." --TauNeutrino 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. A third thought was "posits the high statistical probability" which may be more accurate, but unwieldy so I've tried adding idealised and splitting the first sentence with a link added. Improvement? ..dave souza, talk 16:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Much better. I'd only change "meaning a measure of disorder in a system" to "meaning the absence of order". Graft 16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up that definition which I'd nicked from wiktionary without really understanding it. It turns out to be also on the main entropy article, which kind of blows apart the argument, but applies specifically to statistical thermodynamics in relation to "Microstate" disorder which is described as "microscopic", presumably actually at an atomic or perhaps molecular level as it's talking about the movement at that level involved in energy. So here's a redrafted first part of the paragraph:

It is claimed that evolution, by increasing complexity without supernatural intervention, violates the second law of thermodynamics. This law posits that in an idealised isolated system, entropy will tend to increase or stay the same. Entropy is a measure of the amount of energy in a physical system which cannot be used to do mechanical work, and in statistical thermodynamics it is envisioned as a measure of the statistical "disorder" at a microscopic level. The claim mistakenly assumes that this "disorder" applies at a larger scale, creating the misconception that a system that is left to itself will tend to descend into chaos.

Comments welcome! ..dave souza, talk 19:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

My god, that's the best description of the entropy misconception I've ever heard - I even understand it! Haha, great job... sounds very good to me. --TauNeutrino 23:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, since there seems to be a lack of objections I'll change the article to use this para and title. The "microscopic level" might be misconstrued as applying to bacteria etc., so have changed that to "microstate" level, and did think of saying "applies more widely" rather than "at a larger scale", but left that as was. ..dave souza, talk 08:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I stumbled upon this discussion. The description here is marvelous; I can already hear myself repeating it to the next person who is perplexed enough to ask me about the 2LoT. Thanks. Ande B 09:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is more simpel then that: From the second law of thermodynamics it follows that the entropy of an isolated system can not become smaller. Since the biosphere is not an isolated system, the principle of increasing entropy does not apply to it. A fall in entropy in a nonisolated system is not in contradiction with the second law of thermodynamics. End of story I would say... Zarniwoot 01:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the strength of Dave Souza's description is that it can be communicated to those who are resistant to straightforward statements of principles. By giving a bit more background, it doesn't make the resistant but curious questioner feel that they have to simply "take your word that that's how it works." It just seems to give a bit more room for understanding. Depends on the audience, though, so YMMV. Ande B 02:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The need for a more complete description was underlined by the discussion at #Kinds above, and as indicated below someone still won't accept the explanation. Unfortunately misunderstandings are rife about what "law" means in this context, and about how far analogies in other fields about entropy and the 2LoT actually hold up. Disclaimer: I'm an amateur in this field, and don't have an Academic degree in Bioinformatics ;) ...dave souza, talk 08:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

My concern here is that I think a biological systems can (and usually will) decrease its entropy (and not just as a analogy). This is in accordance with the thermodynamic principles because it is not isolated: the entropy of the surroundings will increase more (eg. it will heat them up). Also, I think the terms "left to itself" and "chaos" are potentially confusing. My suggestion is to replace the last sentence with (something like, my English is not fluent):

The claim mistakenly assumes that this raise in "disorder" applies to nonisolated systems, creating the misconception that all forms of self organizations are in conflict with the second law of thermodynamics.

However, you properly have more experience in debating this subject then I have. As a physics student I just have to wonder how strange this entropy argument is. After all, if a localized fall in entropy was not possible, it would take a divine intervention every time we put something in the refrigerator, or for that matter, every time we save something on wikipedia (All hail to Jimbo :-). I think this meets the definition of pseudoscience. Zarniwoot 00:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys I'm new in wikipedia but I noticed a mistake in the article. The entropy section states that "The Sun provides a large amount of energy to the Earth, and this flow of heat results in huge increases in entropy". This is wrong. The Sun is decreasing Earth's entropy. If the external influence to our biosphere was increasing our entropy, we would only go to a state of chaos faster. The Sun is decreasing our entropy because the Earth is receiving high "quality" energy (heat in a high temperature ~5800K, i.e. the temp. of the Sun) and the same amount of energy is radiated by the Earth back to space (that's why the temperature has remained more or less constant, on average, over the millenia), but in a lower "quality" form (heat in a low temperature ~280K, i.e. the average temperature of the Earth). This difference in quality (in thermodynamic terms) is absorbed by the biosphere and results in a *decrease* of the entropy. This external influence enables the existance of complex systems such as living organisms which keep increasing the entropy of their environment (the biosphere) with every action throughout their lives. An interesting paper on this (with a little but too much math maybe) can be found here adanalis 12:00, 07 July 2006 (UTC)

Programmed evolution

There is a small new unsourced article, Programmed evolution. Any ideas about this? I added a missing sources tag to it, and I have my gut feelings about it. Any reponse?-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it, how would gaining resistance to antibiotics not be favorable, am I reading that wrong? :/ Homestarmy 21:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the argument is that it's not favorable for one specific organism to turn on mutagenesis in replication, since that organism will still die -- but, of course, it's favorable for any mutated progeny which survive. bikeable (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My first thought was that it was an ID front, but instead it appears to say that mutagenesis can be switched on in response to environmental cues. Doesn't sound crazy to me, but neither have I heard it discussed before, either. It is unsourced, for sure. I find very few (or none?) relevant hits on the phrase with google scholar or google web; virtually all of the are for programmed (past-terse verb) evolution, as in, "who programmed evolution?". I would give it a couple days to cite, but after that I'd say it could go to AfD. But perhaps I am missing something. bikeable (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've only heard of this theory a little bit. As far as I know, I think it has some valid points, but it's not entirely accepted by the biological community. The point is that only mutagenesis is switched on - meaning that there is a higher likelihood of mutations (mistakes) during replication. Like any mutation, it can turn out to help the organism, hinder the organism, or confer neither good nor bad. The mutations are still random - it's just that there's a higher rate of them, and if there are more mutations, there are more combinations of traits. This increases the likelihood that at least one of these combinations can, say, prove resistant to an antibiotic. And it only takes one surviving bacterium to generate a colony. I only aim to clarify what I know of this theory - I don't know whether it should be kept, deleted, altered, or whatever. --TauNeutrino 21:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like the neo-lamarkist's stuff to me. This article is certainly on an encyclopedic topic. It just needs some time to develop thats all. Barnaby dawson 09:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this term per se, but I am familiar with the antibody development which I believe the article is referring to. I don't remember the details that well, but early in each human's development, the genes for antibody coding undergo very high rates of mutation; cells that don't bind to self-antigens or bind too strongly to self-antigens are induced to undergo apoptosis; cell lines with weakly reacting antibodies survive and undergo further mutation. Like cancer, it's a microcosm of evolution at the cellular level (and indeed, one of the many ways which the study of evolution has assisted the field of medicine). — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean that cells that do bind to self-antigens or bind too strongly to self-antigens are induced to undergo apoptosis. But otherwise I agree. ^_^; --TauNeutrino 00:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'll check my Janeway when I have access to it in a week, but as I recall, cells that don't bind to self-antigens at all also undergo apoptosis; cells that bind strongly undergo apoptosis; and only cells that weakly bind survive. I believe the the reasons were speculated that those that don't bind at all to self-antigens aren't likely to respond to foreign antigens in real life; they may be receptors for nothing; and of course those that bind too strongly must be eliminated so that the immune system doesn't respond to self. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, what they describe is a mechanisms that I heard of in which mutagenesis is turned on in response to environmental stress. However, I ever heard it being called "Programmed evolution". It skirts the topic of evolvability, and maybe it falls under that category. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Size of "controversies" section

I'm aware that this section - and, indeed, the article in its entirity - has been the subject of significant wrangling and tit-for-tat. I don't wish to come and disturb the current consensus, but I have to register my objection to the amount of time spent in this article on objections to evolution. While I accept a degree of Americo-centricity is going to exist on this encyclopaedia due to such a large number of (very fine) American editors, I think the amount of time spent on these controversies is really pushing the envelope when it comes to creating an article that proportionately addresses each relevant issue. While creationism is a matter of considerable debate in America (and certain parts of Australia) it is virtually unheard of elsewhere in the developed world. I think that the three or four rather hefty paragraphs it has achieved here (under an even larger and tangentially related section on misconceptions about evolution) is really not warranted by an encyclopaedia that tries, to my knowledge, to present neutral, academic-minded information with a global perspective. I can't help but think that spending so much time on these paragraphs only serve to legitimise the crackpot ideas of religious extremists, not really further the interests of Wikipedia as a reputable and informative encyclopaedia. I propose shortening the section to perhaps around one medium-sized paragraph which explains that there are religious objections to evolutionary science, and linking it. I really can't see how it deserves more than that. After all, the article on the moon landings devotes only two sentences to the issue of conspiracy theories (though the article itself is a bit smaller), and I think it could be persusasively argued that these conspiracy theories are more-widespread and more in the public knowledge than an issue like creationism. I don't know where to go from here - a vote or whatever. But I certainly wont begin to edit the article until I have some feedback from other users. JF Mephisto 16:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, seeing as there has been no feedback in a week, I'll wait another 24 hours and then go ahead and make the changes to the page I talked about. Please say something if you wish for the section to stay at its current length or otherwise oppose my shortening it to one paragraph and linking to the creation-evolution controversy article. JF Mephisto 13:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please post all new entries at the bottom of the page, as is the custom with all talk pages at Wikipedia. Most readers never look at the top of the page, which is older material. People genreally go straight to the bottom where all new comments are placed. I suspect few if anyone noticed your comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved to bottom for visibility. I agree the controversies section is quite overblown - chop away, but expect resistance. Vsmith 13:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree. Creationism is not just a US thing - it is HUGE in Latin America, at least in many parts of LA. Be that as it may, the issue is relevance. I think the misconceptions section is not about creationism, it is about science, and it conveys important information about science in general and evolution in particular. If someone finds it boring they can skip the section. Including this section certainly does not prevent us from having other sections exclusively on what scientists think about evolution, indeed, much of the article is just that. The question in my mind is not should we cut the section on misconceptions, but, can we make the other sections even better? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I also don't agree. The current section is actually not terribly US-centric -- only a very small part of it refers to the current controversies in the US. The rest of it refers to long-standing controversies which are well represented in the literature of many countries. Not all of the controversies listed in it are about the creationist-evolution controversy at all (i.e. the question of eugenics has nothing to do with that). I don't think having a few paragraphs which gesture towards some of the major philosophical, theological, and social controversies which have come from the theory (and have been prominent in both the US and in Europe, at the very least) is at all a problem, and I certainly don't think it is so long that it warrants being shortened to one paragraph. --Fastfission 14:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mephisto, my first thought was that Wiki is not paper, but of course articles should be concise and to the point. The point is, this is an overview. From someone who's proud to be English (which I'm not) your idea that "creationism is.... virtually unheard of" outside America and certain parts of Australia seems oddly ill informed. I'm glad now never to have got a motor from V-Reg Vardy. You should have a look at The Root of All Evil?, now on internet video, or at least this survey. People exposed to misinformation look at this page to find out more or, as the talk page shows, to try to refute evolution. Saying "this is science, no other discussion allowed" neither satisfies nor informs, and just leads to bleating about bias and NPOV. We should aim to cover all aspects in brief outline. Your North British chum, dave souza, talk 17:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Though of course, if the information can be conveyed more briefly, good work! ..dave souza, talk 13:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal assistance requested

Hi. I note that someone has requested assistance from the Mediation Cabal about this page. I was surprised it wasn't mentioned here, so I thought I'd let you folks know. --William Pietri 07:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In plain English

I changed a phrase in the section on misunderstandings. The sentence read: In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture"...

The phrase "In plain English" is an idiomatic expression that is frequently used to indicate that the speaker is trying to get through to an ignorant or dense person. Rather like saying "Now listen up, I'll try to make it simple for you." At other times the phrase is used to indicate that a document has been drafted for readability by those with a limited command of technical vocabulary or of the English language.

I replaced "In plain English" with "When speaking casually," although "In casual speech" might work just as well.

The only reason I'm bothering to explain this is that edits to the Evo pages seem to cause a few people to get rather worked up, though I doubt the drafters of that section will take umbrage. Ande B 07:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Good call. thx1138 09:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation in progress

I'm not sure that this situation is really appropriate for mediation, but I invite all involved to take a look at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-21_Violations_of_WP:Civil_on_Talk:Evolution, where the issue is under discussion. Thanks. --Xyrael ^T 09:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting reading

[8] WAS 4.250 17:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I got two paragraphs in before my nonsense detector went off.

"They are (1) the "undirectedness" of evolution, ruling out any form of theism;"

So, according to this guy we can't have any form of God, not even one who set the mechanisms of the universe in motion and then left them to run unassisted? Even though many scientists [including Einstein] believed that was exactly what God had done? This is mostly covered already in the article or in the controversy article, what specific part of this would you call 'interesting?' Hrimfaxi 05:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your nonsense detector is slightly off. He is describing traits he believes exist in neo-Darwinism, not advocating them. Indeed, he is contesting them. --Davril2020 11:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"From these metaphysical assumptions and various neo-Darwinian scientific doctrines such as step-by-step gradualism and antiprogressionism, Griffin argues, various philosophical implications — atheism, meaninglessness, amoralism — follow."

"Neo-Darwinian scientific naturalism — sensationist, atheistic, materialist — needs to be replaced by the theistic scientific naturalism of process philosophy, Griffin argues."

In other words, Mr. Griffin is indeed advocating that evolution is an atheist position, and that we must somehow alter it to 'let God in,' even though many Christian scientists have no problem whatsoever reconciling their beliefs and their faith. My nonsense detector is spot on in the case of his position. Hrimfaxi 11:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm, is the article not like a review, in which Griffin is just one author being discussed? Certainly there are a lot more views discussed further down the article that don't have much in common with Griffin's (even those of a rather alarmingly foaming-at-the-mouth Margulis). Or have I missed the context, and Griffin's of critical importance? Cheers, --Plumbago 11:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, most of the stuff there actually about evolution we've already covered...Which only really leaves the rest of the stuff. Which, um, isn't about evolution. And when you can't go two paragraphs without the old 'evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview' cropping up, the rest of it isn't really that good either. I'm still puzzled as to what precisely makes this article interesting with regards to writing an encyclopedia article about evolution. Hrimfaxi 12:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Vestigial organs in humans

An editor has just changed the article read that there are no vestigial organs in humans. [9] Perhaps a brief discussion is in order. -- Ec5618 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to expand beyond human examples in any discussion. Some of the best examples (e.g. legs in whales) lie elsewhere. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be fabulous. It would be compelling evidence if various species had completely useless features, but tailbones don't contribute to the debate if muscles are attached to them in useful ways, do they? I'm not sure the purpose of the argument below about the definition of "vestigial", but I don't think tailbones and wisdom teeth belong in the section on evidence for evolution.ErikHaugen 23:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• It seems that misunderstanding of the nature of vestigial structures is surprisingly common. For any of the editors around here who are interested, there's also an editor on Talk:Vestigial structure who's been pushing for the amusing notion that vestigial structures like ostrich wings are just "protowings", not denerate ones, for a while, and would probably benefit from some further explanation. I'd do it myself, but the user didn't pay attention to most of my previous attempt to explain the issue to him, and I don't feel the need to repeat myself. -Silence 12:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't we put it in an appendix? ;) ..dave souza, talk 17:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

ROTFL. Kudos. --Plumbago 17:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no vestigial structures in humans, if you have any please do show me. I am sure if you research the ones given you will see that they indeed have uses. The edits are correct, and most are layed out in the linked articles. Also these "leg" bones are alleged to show that whales evolved from land animals. However, Bergman and Howe point out that they are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help penis erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females. -BlueFireIce

Does your appendix digest cellulose? Do your wisdom teeth contribute anything to your life? Does your 'tail' serve any purpose? Does the occasional long, thick hair on a woman's chest achieve anything? Is there a reason to have those muscles hooked up to your ears, so some people can wiggle them? Either way, your thoughts and mine are not relevant here. I don't care if you believe His Noodly Appendage created all things as they are today, and I hope you don't care if I fail to believe it. What matters is that this article correctly represents the theory of Evolution and its history, as recorded in reputable, main-stream, peer-reviewed, published literature. Bring a nice, cited source expressing an opposing view, and if it fullfills the 'published', 'peer-reviewed' criteria, maybe it has a place in Vestigial organs. Skittle 18:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A vestigial structure is defined as: (...)anatomical structures of organisms in a species which are considered to have lost much or all of their original function. The cue here is original: the coccyx, whatever use it may have today, certainly doesn't serve to balance a tail like it did in our ancestors. Leg bones in the whale show sexual dimorphism, so what? Leg bones in humans are also sexually dimorphic (less so that the pelvis, but they are, along with several other human bones), and that's how forensic anthropologists can tell the gender of a skeleton when bones are all that remain. Fine, vestigial leg bones in the male whale help penis erection, but they originally helped the animal walk on land (or in marshes). That original function is utterly lost. If you want your edits to stick, please cite a verifiable and recognized sourse that says there are no vestigial structures in the human body. --Ramdrake 18:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

BlueFireIce, please sign your posts using ~~~~, which will add your name and a time stamp to your post. And as above, please realise we have to abide by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you. -- Ec5618 18:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Skittle, The article, as I see it is about Evolution and it was listed as "Morphological evidence". So I ask, is this about telling a story the way someone wants it to be seen, or about truth and error in this article that seems to be more about what Evolution theory is and not about the history.

I did not know I had to sign with a time stamp but if there is a rule for that or if you just want it done, I will do so. I also do not see how I broke any of the rules in Wikipedia:No original research. BlueFireIce 19:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you won't have any trouble finding sensible sources supporting your claim that there's "no examples of vestigial structures in humans" despite examples being cited in the following sentence. Equendil Talk 19:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have any examples of such I would be grateful for you pointing them out, I have yet to be shown one that has yet to be proven or one that has yet to be disproven. If you do not like how I edited it change that part, but at the very least the errors should be taken out and the examples that were listed have been proven to be false. Or if you want put something along the lines of "these used to be thought as vestigial". I am not here to get on anyones bad side, I saw an error and felt it need to be taken care of. BlueFireIce 19:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You have not refuted a single one of the vestigial structures in question, much less every vestigial structure in humans. As noted above, vestigial structures are not structures that "serve no function in an organism", as you imagine, but rather structures that are "considered to have lost much or all of their original function". To show that tailbones are not vestigial, you need to show, not that they have some minor functionality remaining (in being attacher-points, albeit unnecessary ones, for a certain muscle clump), but that they were never tails in ancestor species. If they used to be tails, than even if they became some entirely new structure with a brand-new function, they'd still be vestigial tails, because they'd still be the anatomical "vestige" of what was once a functional tail. The same applies to all your other arguments, which misconstrue entirely the very meaning of "vestigial". -Silence 19:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, please understand that it is not about Truth or Error in so far as you or I see it, it is about truthfully recording what is written in the literature. Wikipedia has to work by a strict policy of No Original Research (and pages that violate this will gradually be tidied up) because otherwise anybody could write anything and there would be no way of knowing how accurate it was. So instead, you find out what is said on a subject in published works, paraphrase it and attribute it. Then, when someone reads the article, they can look that published work up, if they want to, to see for themselves. You may know that the Battle of Hastings was 1066, but the article on it should still provide sources that say so. Skittle 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe I have any misunderstandings. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993) defines "vestigial" as "degenerate or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution." The World Book Encyclopedia 2000 says: "Vestigial organs are the useless remains of organs that were once useful in an evolutionary ancestor". Now if you want to re-define "vestigial" to mean simply "reduced or altered in function". Thus even valuable, functioning organs might now be called "vestigial", and would become meaningless. Also it is not up to me to show they never were tails, the burden of proof lays on the theory to prove that humans at one point had tails. BlueFireIce 20:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read Vestigial structure. "In 1893, Robert Wiedersheim published a list of 86 human organs that had, in his words, "lost their original physiological significance". Theorizing that they were vestiges of evolution, he called them "vestigial"." -- Ec5618 20:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's never a good sign to resort to a traditional dictionary to find a definition of a scientific term. Dictionaries don't even have the right definition of theory listed first. --Cyde↔Weys 20:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Try [10], specifically the bit that is headed 'criticisms'. For example:

"In popular usage "vestigial" is often believed to be synonymous with "nonfunctional", and this confusion unfortunately has been propagated via poorly-worded definitions found in many non-technical dictionaries and encyclopedias. Even some professional research biologists have fallen prey to this oversimplification of the vestigial concept (for instance, Scadding 1981, often quoted by anti-evolutionists and discussed in the Citing Scadding (1981) and Misunderstanding Vestigiality FAQ). The statement that vestigial structures are functionless is a convenient, yet strictly incorrect, approximation. It is analogous to the common, yet strictly incorrect, scientific claim that the earth is a sphere.

Several evolution deniers have falsely claimed that biologists changed the definition of vestigial and rudimentary structures when functions were found for many vestiges (see Bergman and Howe 1990, pp. 2-3; Sarfati, J. 2002). For example, Answers in Genesis' Jonathan Sarfati states:

" The World Book Encyclopedia 2000 says: 'Vestigial organs are the uselessremains of organs that were once useful in an evolutionary ancestor' (emphasis added). ... Some evolutionists, like Dr Meiss, now want to re-define 'vestigial' to mean simply 'reduced or altered in function'. ... AiG isn't going to let evolutionists change the rules at their whim when they are losing the argument." (Sarfati, J. 2002).

"The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993) defines 'vestigial' as 'degenerate or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.' Some evolutionists now re-define 'vestigial' to mean simply 'reduced or altered in function.' Thus even valuable, functioning organs (consistent with design) might now be called 'vestigial.' Creationists should not let evolutionists change the rules when they lose." (Sarfati, J. 1999).

Sarfati's arguments are invalid for several reasons.

First, even if biologists truly had changed the definition of 'vestige', why would that be a problem in science? It would not—all science changes as new data is acquired and theories become clarified. Using Sarfati's logic we would reject modern theories like Einstein's theory of relativity, since "physicists changed the rules at whim when they lost".

Second, Sarfati quotes terse, layman's definitions from a popular dictionary and a children's encyclopedia as if they were scientific authorities. It is highly likely that the person who wrote those definitions was not an evolutionary biologist. For all we know, it even may have been an anti-evolutionist or young earth creationist! Any true scientist (or legitimate scholar of any sort) would consult an advanced scientific text for definitions of technical terms, especially when attempting to criticize them. In this case, the two-volume Encyclopedia of Evolution (Muller 2002), with technical discussions written by real practicing research biologists, would be one of many appropriate sources.

Third, regardless of popular misconception, from the beginning of modern evolutionary theory a complete absence of function has not been a requirement for vestigiality (Crapo 1985; Culver et al. 1995; Darwin 1872, pp. 601-609; Dodson 1960, p. 44; Griffiths 1992; McCabe 1912, p. 264; Merrell 1962, p. 101; Moody 1962, p. 40; Muller 2002; Naylor 1982; Strickberger 2000; Weismann 1886; Wiedersheim 1893, p. 2, p. 200, p. 205). Sarfati's claim is based upon ignorance, and he of course provides no historical references showing that evolutionary biologists actually changed the definition. As an obvious counterexample, Charles Darwin never claims vestigial organs must be functionless. In his famous section on vestigial organs in On the Origin of Species, written nearly 150 years ago, Darwin in fact emphasizes that vestiges can be functional and gives several examples:

"Useful organs, however little they may be developed, unless we have reason to suppose that they were formerly more highly developed, ought not to be considered as rudimentary." (Darwin 1859, emphasis added)

"An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. Thus, in plants, the office of the pistil is to allow the pollen-tubes to reach the ovules protected in the ovarium at its base. The pistil consists of a stigma supported on the style; but in some Compositae, the male florets, which of course cannot be fecundated, have a pistil, which is in a rudimentary state, for it is not crowned with a stigma; but the style remains well developed, and is clothed with hairs as in other compositae, for the purpose of brushing the pollen out of the surrounding anthers. Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object: in certain fish the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Other similar instances could be given." (Darwin 1859 [see text]; also Darwin 1872, p. 602, emphasis added)

"Rudimentary organs, on the other hand, are either quite useless, such as teeth which never cut through the gums, or almost useless, such as the wings of an ostrich, which serve merely as sails." (Darwin 1872, p. 603)

"... an organ rendered, during changed habits of life, useless or injurious for one purpose, might easily be modified and used for another purpose." (Darwin 1872, p. 603) "

It continues on, and before, answering all your points with cited references and sources. Skittle 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

BlueFireIce, is there some reason you are unwilling to type up your own responses and arguments, but must instead rely on Googled copy-pasted ones that other people have made in the past? Most of your change to the Evolution article was a copyright-violating Frankenstein of ill-structured and unsubstantiated text stolen from a variety of sites, and now you're resorting to the exact same strategy in this conversation. Dictionaries are notoriously poor at providing accurate scientific definitions of terms in evolutionary biology; even the word "evolution" itself is invariably misdefined in most major dictionaries, which are meant to reflect common usage in colloquial contexts, not in academic, scientific ones. A much more accurate definition of "vestigial structure", taken from the AHD, is: "A rudimentary or degenerate, usually nonfunctioning, structure that is the remnant of an organ or part that was fully developed or functioning in a preceding generation or an earlier stage of development." By that definition, which is the much more accurate and widespread usage of the term, you have in no way shown that the coccyx, appendix, or wisdom teeth are not "vestigial", much less refuted every example of vestigial structures in humans, which also includes goosebumps, the plica semilunaris, the ear-wiggling muscles, and the variety of sex-specific and genetic vestiges.

Also, "the burden of proof lays on the theory to prove that humans at one point had tails" is a strawman: no one has claimed that humans had tails, but that the ancestors of humans (and, indeed, of all mammals; see therapsid) did, which is based on the anatomical and genetic evidence provided by all the species that are genetically and anatomically similar to humans and have a tail, by the specific formation of the coccyx and its similarity to the tailbones of other species, by skeletal remains of protohumans, etc. We have already satisfied the burden of proof, satisfied it a thousand times over: it now rests on you to refute the evidence by explaining where the coccyx (in its current form) came from, if it is not the anatomical vestige of a tail. And, of course, you must provide verifiable citations to justify your claim. -Silence 20:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that creationists do not accept that humans had ancestors different from humans today in any meaningful way. If they accept the time-sequence of fossil evidence (many don't), they may say this is merely a succession of forms, not proof that one species is ancestral to another. They would attribute mammalian similarities to something other than evolution. In their view, using "vestigial" structures as evidence is begging the question. This issue could be handled in the "Evidence" lead-in by addressing how evidence, induction, and falsifiability work in science. Gimmetrow 16:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, if that is the "true" meaning of vestiges then it truly is meaningless as a word, and could mean any or all parts of the human body. This is also off the topic that is at hand, the truth of the examples given. BlueFireIce 20:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it cannot refer to any part of the human body, only to a part that has lost its primary functionality. We don't call arms "vestigial legs" because they are still equally functional in their new role, merely changed; we call the appendix "vestigial" because its former key functionality (in digestion) is entirely gone, even if it isn't 100% useless by virtue of serving an extremely minor role in aiding the immune system (which is dubious, and regardless doesn't outweigh the harms caused by the 1-in-a-thousand people who get appendicitis). Also, I very strongly recommend that you take some time to read, and reread, the comment by User:Skittle above. It's a superb response to your comment (and the context it was copy-pasted from), much better than my own at directly addressing many of your concerns and misunderstandings. Also, again, your examples fail even a cursory examination. And Wikipedia is about knowledge, not "truth" (or what people claim is truth): provide viable references to back up your claims, or we are simply unable to add them to the encyclopedia, even if we wanted to. -Silence 20:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. Arms -are- vestigial legs, by the given definition. "Functional", after all, doesn't mean anything in a biological sense. It's something we impose on biological structures post facto. The only strictly biological meaning for "functional" might be "maintained by selection", which is true for appendixes (appendices) as well as for arms. If you mean to say that the appendix has no fitness value, then you really are arguing that it has no function, which is the definition favored by BlueFireIce. Graft 04:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think, after reading Skittle's comments, that I was simply mistaken; you can call the arm a "vestigial leg". I suppose I was confused by the common characteristic of biological vestiges that they are "degenerated" or "rudimentary", but what matters more is that its original main functionality has been lost, replaced by new ones. Thanks for clearing up my error, Graft. I agree that "functional" and "vestigial" only make sense with respect to considering biological ancestors, and comparing different related species. What makes the vermiform appendix "vestigial" isn't that it is functionless (which is a common feature of vestigial structures, but not a required one), but that it's the remnant in humans of a much larger and more important digestive organ common in many species related to humans that have a cellulose-heavy diet. It is, properly, a "vestigial caecum", not just "vestigial" in general (much like ostrich wings are "vestigial wings", but may be fully functional mating-dance-performing-limbs), but as shorthand we are more prone to referring to largely functionless or unnecessary structures as "vestigial" than structures that have "changed" more than "degraded", even if this is not strictly accurate usage. -Silence 05:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you follow the link I provided, and provide again [11], you will see all your concerns of 'truthfulness' address with cited sources. Cited sources are what we like here. If you continue to simply claim that your queries have not been answered, rather than addressing certain points in a way that shows you have read this, I will assume that you are not interested in truth, accuracy or Wikipedia. Again I try to say, a vestigial tail is vestigial as a tail. And truth is decided by sources here. Skittle 20:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The information that I used in the post was not "googled" but rather taken from a paper (research paper) and books that I have and had no copyright on them. I used them as it says in the rules to use infomation that can be "verifiable". The part I posted in reply was from a forum I am on and had no idea it was on that site, I used it because those are 2 of the ones I have among others on CD-Rom. but the definition of this term is not what this started about and I could really care less about it's "meaning", if you wish to ignore the information and continue with this dogma that is your choice, but to me this seems almost as bad as christians saying "well you have to prove God isn't real!". It is sad to see that this came along like this as I think science can take care of it's self and does not need to be hidden in this meaningless talk of this or that. I can see that this is going nowhere and you are not going to change your minds on this, as it seems about the only way to do so would be to show you the "proof" in person with an actual experiment. Which I guess is understandable, but research them out if you will not believe what I have to say or post on the matter, hell any doctor can tell you of the importance of the coccyx. Anyway it is off to work, you guys have a fun time bashing me, but try and be nice ;) BlueFireIce 21:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We just pointed out the correct meaning of "vestigial". Where do you see a dogma? Oh, wait, I think I just ran over it with my karma! :>>> (just kidding)

Shame for WP:NOR, or vestigial brain could be added to the list. Equendil Talk 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Footers?

Are the templates at the bottom really footers? Why do they need to be right at the bottom of the article. The whole point of footers in a book is to have the material close at hand. On the web this does not work as there is only one page. It seems the 'footers' would be more appropriate in the See also section. David D. (Talk) 07:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

To my mind they are indeed an extension of "See also", and are best at the foot of the page to make them easy to find and reduce clutter. It would therefore make good sense to make the other "See also" info into the last section, thus appearing immediately above the templates. This would bring "Notes" immediately under the article, which is appropriate. Footers in my limited experience are for date and page number in printed documents, and footnotes can appear at the foot of the page or, as here, at the end of the book / article. ..dave souza, talk 09:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Dave Souza's suggestion to move the See also further down the page. That makes a lot better organizational sense as far as visual layout and the flow of the copy in the body of the article. As to Daycd's comment about "footers," I think he has mixed up the ideas of footers and foot notes. The purpose of either footnotes and end notes in encyclopedias is to provide additional informaton about referenced materials. Whether this is provided page by page or at the end of all the text is primarily stylistic. And this article is a single web page. Ande B. 17:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct i am not correctly distinguishing between these two things. I think that Dave souza's compromise sounds good since then at least the footers appear in the contents at the top of the page as 'see also'. As well as having these two related things together. David D. (Talk) 19:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we make Dave Souza's proposed change by the end of today unless some admin informs us that there is a contrary policy. Ande B. 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC) UPDATE: Hey, looks like you've boldly beat me to it! The page looks much better. Ande B. 20:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually like the change, references etc are part of the article, see also is additional stuff, context, so that should be at the end. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed link: "Mental Evolution"

• Mental Evolution by Rodney Chang 1980

Here is a sample: “As things evolved physically, so did their minds (nervous system). A little more new nervous development had to evolve in order to support a slightly different mutant morphology. It is interesting to speculate what came first... the physical mutation or the mental one?” Dhammapal 03:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is Rodney Chang? Is his book self published? David D. (Talk) 04:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Mental Evolution by Rodney Chang

From "Mental Evolution and Art", Rodney Chang, Exposition Press, New York, NY, 1980

Rodney Chang is a digital artist. Freudian, Behaviorist, as well as Holistic psychological theories are additional conceptual brushes for the digital artist. Source Dhammapal 05:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like original research to me. Worse he has no training in the fields required to make sensible conclusions on this topic. His ideas read like fiction from the mainstream perspective. This really is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, let alone an article on evolution. Sorry :( David D. (Talk) 15:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I cannot see the relevance to this article.--Peta 06:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• The linked article is not of the quality that would be appropriate to list as an outside reference nor does there appear to be any authentication or biographical information. The Evolutionary psychology article may be the link that best suits your interest Ande B. 06:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A link about Mental Evolution would challenge the materialistic view of evolution in this article by suggesting that genetic mutation could be caused by the mind! Dhammapal 09:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So ? How is that necessary or relevant ? Equendil Talk 10:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am no expert but maybe mental evolution would explain what are assumed to be random mutations, the small probability of which is a major argument by Creationists with their view of Intelligent Design. Mental Evolution could also replace the Selfish Gene theory. Fritjof Capra wrote in “The Web of Life” about the recognition of symbiosis as a major evolutionary force:

“Life is much less a competitive struggle for survival than a triumph of cooperation and creativity.” Dhammapal 10:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but maybe unscientific beliefs of creationists do not have to be explained by even less scientific theories ? Equendil Talk 17:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that genetic mutations are caused by "the mind", it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. thx1138 10:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Even if this is a noteworthy or reliable source, it's too specific and out-of-the-mainstream for inclusion here; it belongs, if anywhere, at evolutionary neuroscience. -Silence 11:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be neither here nor at evolutionary neuroscience. It might just about merit an isolated article about itself (category New Age perhaps?), but it's way beyond the fringe. I thought everyone knew mutations were caused by invisible, pink elephants? --Plumbago 12:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hence the "even if" and "if anywhere" in my comment. That's the closest article to the relevant subject matter, and there's no evidence that this is noteworthy enough for a brand-new article. -Silence 12:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Dhammapal is pushing a fring POV, not a scientific position. In fact, there is nothing new to the claim that among humans (at least) the evolution of the mind fed back into the evolution of the rest of the organism - Clifford Geertz, a cultural anthropologist drawing on research by physical anthropologists, pointed this out in 1973 and no one thought it was controversial, but that is because he was drawing on well-established research. Baldwinian evolution provides a model for one way to look at this process. Physical anthropologist Terrence Deacon has written in depth on this issue, drawing extensively on cutting edge work by physical anthropologists and neurophysiologists. In other words, there is scientific research on this and a wikipedia article should draw on that, not some amateur's pet theories. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got to concur with Slrubenstein on this: The basic idea is not new and Dhammapal appears to be solely interested in pushing a POV that is based on his own preferences and OR. Ande B. 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"A professional student, creator, psychologist, artist, and dentist, Dr. Rodney E.J. Chang is the first doctor to include a disco dance floor in his office, dubbed '"Da Waiting Room." Through the use of disco psychology in a dental environment, "The Disco Doc" employs an innovative approach to reducing the patient's anxiety, potential staff ulcers, and client turnover."[12] --Fastfission 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I sounded like a New Age POV. I’ll try to practice restraint in the future. Dhammapal 06:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed: Story of Evolution

The book: The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems by Fritjof Capra has a chapter on the story of evolution. Section headings include: Weaving the Bacterial Web, The Oxygen Crisis, The Nucleated Cell, Evolution of Plants and Animals, Conquering the Land, Caring for the Young, the Human Adventure. Dhammapal 05:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we already have a Timeline of evolution. What are you suggesting, a History of life? That's pretty ambitious... but, go for it, and be sure to summarize everything on the geologic time scale.--Pharos 06:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We already have such an article, essentially, at history of Earth, which mostly discusses the history of life. However, I see no reason not to expand upon that article until it's large enough to merit a daughter article specifically for the history of life in greater detail. Sounds like a superbly useful idea. -Silence 06:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Added Link

In the Speciation section, I have added a weblink which I found to be helpful - in the context of its section. I put it there because it adds to what is a woefully short section on what is becoming an exciting and rich subject matter of discovery. I hope it provides all of you with education and enjoyment. BTW, I found that particular source while exploring the material at this link here. Cheers. Astrobayes 06:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Evolution

In the field of evolutionary biology, poor definitions are the source of many a disagreement and controversy. For this reason clear definitions are extremely important. I have to say that the definition of evolution given in the first sentence of this paragraph is one of the worst I have ever read.

"In biology, evolution is a process by which novel heritable traits arise in populations and are passed from generation to generation;" At best this is a definition of heritable mutability, and aren't organisms involved somewhere?

The article continues: "over time, those traits that help an organism reproduce in greater numbers than its peers gradually gain dominance in a population. " Whilst this describes one of the several mechanisms involved in evolution, it adds nothing to the definition.

My feeling is that an otherwise informative entry is completely let down by this imprecise and incomprehensible definition in the first paragraph.

For an authoratitive versin of evolution readers should see that by Futuyama which is reproduced on the talk origins archive.

Anonymous is right on this I think. I'[ve had a crack at rewording by my new version looks a little clunky and confusing, though it reflects the standard definition better. This is definately something that will need some discussion. Jefffire 13:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the most basic and first-principles definition was that evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Change in actual characteristics is secondary to this. However, I need a cite for this. I could probably find one in The Blind Watchmaker tonight. Skittle 13:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to nitpick, allele frequency is a characteristic of a population, characteristic is a much broader term than phenotype. I think Dawkin's definition would be very helpful though. Jefffire 13:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

True, although Darwin is not the final say on evolution; the theory has advanced somewhat since his day! And I thought of it being a 'characteristic of a population' :-) but it is the only one that biology counts as defining evolution, I thought. After all, if the frequency of only having one leg increases because someone is cutting them off, that isn't evolution :-) Only changes in allele frequency are evolution, as I understand it. Skittle 13:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You say Dawkins, I say Darwin.. You say phenotype, I say characteristic.. Dawkins, Darwin, phenotype, characteristic.. Let's call the whole thing off. -Silence 13:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! Sorry, shall read more carefully in future... Yes indeed, Dawkins's definition would be helpful *blush*. Skittle 13:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's cool, this isn't Usenet afterall. Basically I think the biggest issue is whether the neccessary change is best described as change in allele frequency or "characteristics". I'm fine with either. Allele frequency is more specific whilst characteristics is more plain English (and would cover any concievable type of exotic situation). Jefffire 13:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think anonymous has a point as well. A couple of days ago I suggested (anonymously, though I am not the person above) that I was having trouble distinguishing between the definition here of evolution with the definition of natural election used in the separate article on natural selection. I don't agree with him/her that the definition as it was is "incomprehensible", but I did feel it was a tad confusing. --Ggbroad 19:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• But the problem is, that level of broadness may actually be inaccurate, as shown by the "legs-cut-off" above example. Can anyone provide even a single example of biological evolution which does not involve a change in allele frequency? If not, rather than broadening the definition inaccurately just to find a more accessible word, why not explain, at the very beginning of the article, the meaning and significance of alleles? -Silence 14:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This change by jefffire seems to have jettisoned the selection part. Or is selection a property of the population over generations? I think that this might be a stretch. i do agree that this intro could be improved a lot. See above for some concerns from another user. David D. (Talk) 15:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Selection comes under the second paragraph, and it seems to me a welcome separation of the fact of evolution, the occurrence of change, from the understanding that the process of natural selection from heritable variations brings about evolution. As a layman I'd like to see characteristics come first, probably a better word than properties. Explanation of change in allele frequency should follow, possibly as part of a revamped second paragraph...dave souza, talk 16:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Selection should definitely be crow-barred away from evolution. As to phenotypic change, etc., evolution should properly be defined on the basis of allele frequency changes, since phenotype is the product of the interaction between genes and the environment, meaning that it can change drastically without an underlying change in genotype, which after all is what interests us. Also, much of evolution is completely invisible at the phenotypic level. Graft 18:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Allele frequency changes" is a fine genetic definition of evolution, but I don't think it's a very good biological one. Changes in allele frequency are the genetic mechanism of evolution, but the phenotypic part is also important -- because while it's genes that originally vary, it's phenotypes that are selected. Selection happens on the basis of phenotypic characteristics, not on alleles themselves.

Much of what we want out of evolutionary biology is an explanation for the variety of organism phenotypes we see around us. "Allele frequency changes" is too low-level, too gene-focused. We need to describe evolution in a way which encompasses both the gene level (where variation originates) and the phenotypic level (where selection takes place). --FOo 19:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Phenotypes are indeed where selection takes place, but we are discussing a definition of Evolution, Not Selection. Evolution is gene-focused, because it is variation in allele frequency. That this leads to phenotype variation allows natural selection to take place, driving the evolutionary change of genotypes. We need to be clearly differentiating between evolution and natural selection right from the beginning, before bringing the ideas together, because many people find the difference confusing. Skittle 19:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other a little there. It seems to me that selection is widely recognized as a component of the evolutionary process. Darwin writes of evolution by natural selection; Dawkins and Gould refer to selective and non-selective evolutionary processes; and so on. Alleles don't get selected for how pretty the pattern of their base pairs is, after all. Rather, they get expressed, and the resulting organisms live or die, reproduce or fail to. It is only on the basis of selection among phenotype instances -- organisms -- that favored alleles are reproduced into the next generation of the gene pool.

So far you haven't actually given a reason for defining evolution solely as "variation in allele frequency". You've only asserted that repeatedly. Argument by repeated assertion is not very strong.

I suggest that we can offer a stronger and more complete explanation of evolution if we describe it as the processes by which change occurs in biological populations over generations. Evolution explains both genome change and phenotypic change over generations. --FOo 04:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason: neutral theory of molecular evolution. Graft 04:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

All this article says is that there is more than one mechanism for the 'selection' of alleles. That does not mean that selection is not part of evolution. I too find the focus on allele frequency too restrictive. Clearly you can't get evolution with out changes in allele frequencies but this does not mean it is the only aspect of evolution. David D. (Talk) 05:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Urgh. This article says there is more than one mechanism for evolution; selection is one. Drift is another. And that's precisely the point - evolution IS only the change in allele frequencies. Without that, there is no evolution. Phenotype, as I said, is the product of the confluence of genes and the environment. It can change either as a result of change in the environment or as a result of change in genes. The former is not evolution; the latter is exactly what we're describing here: change in allele frequencies. Graft 06:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If a new environment is required for the phenotype (in some cases) why is this not a requirement for evolution too (or at least some evolutionary events). i though the whole point of evolution is that it encompases more than just the genetic. ? David D. (Talk) 06:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a requirement because evolution doesn't suddenly "stop" if an environment stops changing. -Silence 06:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Biology.

• Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
• The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny." American Heritage Dictionary (Not really a good source for this)

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974 (Slightly better source)

Point it, we're talking about genetic evolutionary change, aren't we? Phenotype is completely secondary to this. Skittle 20:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the definition of evolution is quite simple: descent with modification. Talk of alleles is particularly out of place, as the concept of evolution was understood perfectly well before DNA was discovered. Phenotype, too, is overspecified, as modification does not logically entail modification in phenotype.Timothy Usher 06:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

From the originator of the "definition of evolution" discussion.

The discussion so far highlights the root of many of the problems that arise when people start talking about evolution. Everyone thinks that they know what evolution is but find that either they don't or that what they believe it to be is something different to what the next man believes. I think that we can safely assume that the topic of a precise definition has been discussed long and hard by experts who know exactly what evolution is and their conclusions are worthy of consideration. The definition proposed by Futuyama which I alluded to above is as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

See also: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html for a broader explanation. EMT1001 07:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)EMT1001

And this illustrates one of the major dangers of Wikipedia:Futuyma's definition: "Biological evolution...is change in the properties of populations" ... our defintion: "In biology, evolution is change in the properties of a population". If one of my students did that, I'd call it plagiarism - in fact, I'd be required to under my institution's plagiarism policy. It's nearly verbatim and uncited. --64.231.167.162 10:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's fair usage. Jefffire 10:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's categorically not "fair usage" if the author isn't given credit, otherwise I could compose an entire article from five or six word passages of other peoples' writing.

What does fair usage even have to do with this? It is good practice to cite sources. It allows a comment to be verified and it gives a statement credability, or not, as the case may be. David D. (Talk) 15:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is a widely used definition then Futuyma doesn't own it. In any case it is an exceptional easy matter to reword it if it bothers you. Jefffire 15:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Better still, use a direct quote and cite him. David D. (Talk) 15:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That would work too, although personally I think Futuyma's language is a little inelegant. I'll reword it slightly as I think it could be put better anyway. Jefffire 15:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Adaptation/selection

Yo - I hate the second paragraph. The modern theory of evolution isn't "based on" natural selection - selection explains adaptation, not evolution generally speaking. Can we tone that down some? Graft 17:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Graft. Natural selection is only one process which drives the direction of evolution. As I stated above, evolution is the mere fact of descent with modification.Timothy Usher 21:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

peppered moth evolution

I'm in dispute with someone who is trying to delete the Peppered moth evolution article and replace it with an article claiming that it is a hoax. Can anyone provide further infomation? --Michael Johnson 08:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this claim is older than the claim that the earth is flat. I suggest that you read up on print sources and journal articles on the debate but this is a good overview. --Davril2020 09:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, now I see that you have already used that reference yourself. If he has forwarded it to the 'mediation cabal' they will deal with it. In addition, the person didn't say exactly why they thought the source was biased - if its a dispute about facts let him list why the source is inadequate, if its a dispute over the origin of the source then it's just an ad hominem attack. --Davril2020 09:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've rewritten most of the article in question, merging and expanding it a fair amount and adding more references. There's still a ways to go, but at least now there's no longer a POV fork (Creationism and the peppered moth, severely biased and moved to Natural selection and the peppered moth by User:Ed Poor) for the creationist claims to hide at; they're all being fully treated by the article itself now. Aside from problems in the text, it's also too bad that we don't have any images to use, as this is one of the topics in evolution where it's most important to have a visual aid, in order to understand the dramatic coloration difference between the types of peppered moth...
• Also, I wouldn't worry too much about the hoax claims. As long as they aren't backed by reliable references, it doesn't really matter what our personal opinions are; we should apply the same principles at Talk:Peppered moth evolution as we apply here at Talk:Evolution, and worry only about NPOVing the article with respect to the current noteworthy and relevant sources, not with respect to individual editors' fancies. -Silence 14:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Add a "google video" link of evolution science

I'd like to add this link to the "external links" section of the page: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=science+evolution&page=2&so=0

There are extremely interesting scientific videos about recent events in the world of science from evolutionary perspective. Many 2-sided documentaries with evolutionists and creationists. Very interesting, for those who like to watch and listen, in addition to just reading articles. Plus it's free (In most cases). Thank you.

It would probably be better on the Creation evolution controversy page. Nowimnthing 19:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, one wonders why point the search to the second page of results, which is predominantly a series of pro-creationist videos? Besides, one would think people know how to Google by now if they want to. --Ramdrake 19:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first page is even worse. Hovind and interesting folk like that. Almost nothing to do with evolution. Mostly just the standard anti-evolution deceit. Guettarda 20:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The second page has first video of BBC documentary program on the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution dispute, where evolution wins.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyotchyk (talk • contribs)

Hence, "almost nothing" (1/20 is "almost nothing"; 0/20 would be "nothing"). Guettarda 20:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to put links to video searches for the same reason that we don't include links for Google searches. A link be highly relevant to the article and point to a single source, not search results. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Google search results are not a source of consistently reliable information, regardless of whether it's a video-search, an image-search, a text-search, etc. -Silence 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I clicked on that link and Hovind's face appeared on my web browser, then I clicked on one of them "collapse of evolution" links, and moved forward to the middle of the movie, and there's that cow with two more legs than it should have, and the commentary goes on about mutations being harmful and see how that poor cow has trouble walking, never mind that those additional legs most likely result from parasitic twinning in the first place ... not what I call scientific videos. Equendil Talk 20:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's nothing. Did you see the video that starts with "You know, people say evolution is not a bad philosophy. But at the same time, it was Hitler's religion during the Third Reich in Germany."? Hilarious. Most of these videos belong on a list of links on Uncyclopedia, not Wikipedia. -Silence 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The BBC documentary programme on the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution dispute is The War on Science which has Dawkins, Miller, David Attenborough and Coyne of the Vatican obervatory all on good form, with the ID case as usual being put by the usual suspects, and culminates with the Kitzmiller verdict. Some nice turns of phrase, worth watching for anyone who's not seen it. ..dave souza, talk 21:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh my god (!), thanks for drawing my attention to that little corner of the Internet polluted by crackpots. Hovind sure has been busy: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=hovind&page=1&so=0. Equendil Talk 21:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have moved Lyotchyk's comments claiming that evolution is "unfalsifiable" to his Talk page, as this is the page for discussing the evolution article, not the process or theory of evolution itself, as is made clear by the message at the top of the page. Please reserve such discussions, especially uncited ones, for other pages where they will not get in the way of the important work here. -Silence 22:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• At 10:45, 16 June 2006 Kim Bruning deleted an equally off topic discussion about Interpretation, which in a way is a shame because I was about to thank our anonymous friend from Cardiff for a constructive contribution, why not get a user account?, and point out to 84.160.4.135 that pseudoscientific "critiques" which don't comply with WP:NPOV can expect prompt removal. ..dave souza, talk 11:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Heritability section

Hi, the edits (and this explanation) are unsigned because I couldn't get an account, because six other people from singapore have already gotten new accounts today. who would have thought? for now I am "singleton", and I'll likely be back with a username later.

"Gregor Mendel first proposed a gene-based theory of inheritance, discretizing the elements responsible for heritable traits into the fundamental units we now call genes, and laying out a mathematical framework for the segregation and inheritance of variants of a gene, which we now refer to as alleles."

"gene-based theory" - anachronism; he didn't know what the units were. "fundamental units" - nucleotides are more fundamental. "laying out a mathematical framework" - back to front; the laws were how he inferred the units (i.e., genes). "variants of a gene, which we now refer to as alleles" - suggests that we call "genes" "alleles".

second para: mostly just to get it to flow better and be a little more precise. "largely faithfully maintained within organisms" - is copied just as faithfully within organisms as when organisms make gametes (between organisms).

third para: "epigenetic modifications" are not necessarily "non-DNA based"; in fact, "epigenetic modifications" usually refer to modifications of chromatin (i.e., DNA and its packaging proteins (and possibly RNAs)) such as DNA methylation and histone methylation and acetylation that don't change the nucleotide sequence of genes, but do change their expression. the epigenetic modifications usually studied are directed by genes, not really by the environment or other stuff.

the last para doesn't belong in this section; it should be with linkage disequillibrium.

sorry about making the section longer.

singleton.

Firstly, thanks for bringing this to talk and using a helpful edit summary. Things would be a lot easier if every editor did so. As for the changes themselves they appear good to me, but I will check them more thourally later. On a side note, the section on non-genetic inheritable (which was there before) look like it needs some references. Jefffire 13:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into the references. non-gene inheritance is kinda cool, but not very important, and possibly should be chopped down to a single sentence, as it seems to be off topic.

next edit: "The current understanding of the mechanisms of evolution differs considerably from the theory first outlined by Charles Darwin. Importantly, advances in genetics pioneered by Gregor Mendel led to a sophisticated understanding of the basis of variation and the mechanisms of inheritance. In addition natural selection has come to be seen as only one of a number of forces acting in evolution. A notable milestone in this regard was the formulation of the neutral theory of molecular evolution by Motoo Kimura."

"understanding of the mechanisms of evolution differs" - does not differ, rather, we now know what some of the mechanisms are. "natural selection has come to be seen as only one of a number of forces acting in evolution" - about the only forces I can think of off the top of my head are called natural selection, sexual selection, and artificial selection. I like Kimura, but he doesn't belong here, as neutral evolution deals with sequence change that doesn't affect anything, that is not adaptive - all the rest of the article is talking about adaptive evolution.

singleton.

Mutation

Mostly edits to clear up technical stuff.

"ultimate source of all genetic variation is mutations": how ultimate is ultimate? and mutations are not the source of genetic variation, they are the genetic variations.

I replaced the first line like this: "Natural genetic variation arises as random mutations that inevitably occur at a certain rate in genes", to more accurately bring out what mutations are, and their dynamics.

I removed the bit about somatic mutations and cancer, because that's not relevant to evolution.

second para now opens: "Mutations that do not affect gene function..." because that is why they are neutral.

"frequency [of neutral mutations]... is governed entirely by genetic drift and gene flow" - really by gain (mutation rate) and drift (fixation or loss); gene flow is out of place here - it describes varation going from one population to another.

I deleted "It is understood that a species' genome, in the absence of selection, undergoes a steady accumulation of neutral mutations" - there is never an abscence of selection, and the amount of neutral mutations is probably at equillibrium (i.e., not changing, not accumulating) in most organisms.

"The probable mutation effect is ... an aspect of genome degradation." looks out of place and should probably be deleted.

last para: chromosomal rearrangements are out of place here. the rest of the section is talking about mutations as a source of variation on which selection can act; rearangements are not primarily variation, but rather constitute a reproductive barrier: they cause speciation only becuase the progeny of cross between the normal organism and an mutant will be sterile. should probably be shifted elsewhere in the article.

recombination

merged sections on recombination and linkage; same topic. also was repetitive.

"Many organisms reproduce ... egg and sperm." moved to section on recombination.

"The mechanisms of evolution include mutation, linkage, heterozygosity, recombination, gene flow, population structure, drift, natural selection, and adaptation." deleted: tangential, and linkage, heterozygosity, population structure and so on are phenomena, not mechanisms. Would like to delete para on H5N1, but looking for somewhere else to put it.

I'll explain the rest of the editing in more detail if anybody asks, but I was clearing up confusions over relationships between independant assortment of alelles and chromosomes, recombination and heterozygosity, and so on.

....

woohooo!!!!

I now have an account!!! good for Monday mornings!!

in a day or two, I'll outline some of the further changes I propose making to the article here, so that people can comment on them before I go ahead and write them and make them to the main page. they are substantial, but nobody has raised a murmer about the substantial changes I have already made, even though several biologists are patrolling the page like wolves on speed.

if they are OKed, the article will be long enough that it'll have to spawn some daughter pages.

Sillygrin 02:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The article has numerous "daughter pages" already, if you'll note. Nice edits; I'll take issue with a few things to satisfy your desire to be savaged by methamphetamine-addicted wolves.

• Regarding the statement above, linkage and heterozygosity are phenomenon, I agree, but population structure is not, it is definitely mechanistic. It shapes the course of evolution, rather than being the product of evolution (although, obviously there's some interplay).
• You deleted a discussion of heterozygosity that should go back in - changes in heterozygosity are not the same as linkage.

put it back in. the text may also have been trying to make a point I didn't catch.

Sillygrin 09:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• More generally, I take issue with your willingness to delete tangential asides. If they're very brief, they don't hurt too much, and arousing interest in other articles and subjects is good for Wikipedia.
• This (from above) is just wrong: "I deleted "It is understood that a species' genome, in the absence of selection, undergoes a steady accumulation of neutral mutations" - there is never an abscence of selection, and the amount of neutral mutations is probably at equillibrium (i.e., not changing, not accumulating) in most organisms." - Genome-wide there may never be an absence of selection, but this is true for at least some portion of the genome in most species. Also, neutral mutations are constantly occurring and accumulating, otherwise we would see no neutral divergence between species, which we obviously do.

I think I'm probably mostly responsible for the prevalence of neutral theory on this page. Partly this is my own bias, since I study molecular evolution and this is my bread and butter; but I absolutely don't want this page to become strictly about adaptation, because this is absolutely not how evolution is understood these days; the interplay between drift, selection and population structure is inseparable in its effect on evolution and should, in fact, be made even clearer than it is right now in the article.

Anywho, I'm looking forward to seeing your proposals. Graft 14:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

you can't imagine how delighted I am that one of the wolves turned up. by the way, I didn't mean to edit the article, but halfway through reading it, the chainsaw got a mind of its own.

and then...

nothing. here I am on one of the more contentious pages, and the dogs of war, the vandals, the antivandal bots are screaming aound in there stratosphere, totally ignoring me.

I agree with everything you've said, I think. one of the things I am writing at the moment is about Kimura, junk DNA, Force and Lynch and so on.

grinning from ear to ear,

Sillygrin 08:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...Sounds good. But would the usercat be Category:Methamphetamine-addicted wolf Wikipedians or Category:Wikpedians who are methamphetamine-addiced wolves? Maybe I'll add m:Association of Methamphetamine-addicted Wolves or AMaW. Any of the regulars here want to join? Guettarda 16:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I realise this is not very modest, but the MethWolves are right here to do something about it.

here is the sort of damage that I am contemplating:

I am currently writing some stuff on punctuated equillibria (this would expand the first para under speciation and extinction) and neutral evolution, as I mentioned already. also perhaps a little current evodevo, their morphogentic fields and so on.

I also started some other stuff about ideas contemporary to Darwin.

Evidence of Evolution.

I think even the title is a little snivelling and defensive. in fact, methinks quite a few lines in the page protest too much. it is not obvious how to restructure this, but perhaps something along the lines of why it is a good theory, what it explains and predicts. I'm not going to touch this anytime soon. it is not going to be easy, I think, to explain to the layman that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", or how oppressive and dispair-inducing microbial taxonomy was before Carl Woese figured it out, or how helpful it is that "what is true for the elephant is true for E. coli."

History of life

I'd follow up the chemical evolution bit with a sentance or so on the RNA world, citing Crick and Orgel. actually, I think it deserves a paragraph, since the insight was pretty spectacular, and then, you notice there are relics all over the place: the messenger is RNA, the adapter is RNA, the translater is RNA, dNTPs are made from rNTPs, the energy carriers are nucleotides... "don't look at the light!! don't look at the light!!" "...its sooo beauuutiiifuuuullll..."

I think the Carl Woese's progenote is worth a mention, as is his heroic work sequencing those RNAs enzymatically, and as a leper, too. obviously his phylogeny should go in there, and a note on how it makes such wonderful, liberating, sense of microbial taxonomy.

obviously, the phylogenetics needs to be sorted out carefully, so that the right bits of it are in the right sections.

"emergence of oxygenic photosynthesis..." and the stuff that follows is nice, but is, as it stands, I think, more "history of life on earth" than "evolution", and I'd be inclined to look for another page to shift it too. although, it could be trans-subjected to evolution, but I couldn't write that.

"The evolutionary process can be exceedingly slow..." that needs to be rearranged to avoid stating the obvious. the guppies are cool, but they don't belong there. I think it would be better to cite one of the reviews on rates of evolution, or observed instances.

Horizontal gene transer.

somebody else already trimmed the quote. the section needs to be rearranged so that this follows the universal phylogenetic tree.

Modren Synthesis

still needs work, but I need to think about it.

Recombination is introduced in the wrong way; I think for the purposes of this page, the important thing is how recombination shapes the dynamics of evolution; I think it needs to be pointed out that bugs are effectively asexual (apart from mobile DNA). also notable are ancient asexuals and incipient extinction or otherwise; the puzzle of why clonally reproducing things have species at all; cost. I think Christolph Adami might already have published an experiment.

puzzles like the strength of purifying selection, truncation selection, mutational load, what the mutation rate is, and so on might be brought out, too.

Horizontal gene transfer is important and needs to be expanded, I think, in view of the probable ubiquity of phage-based transfer and integenic recombination. I feel this is important in view of AssilomarII and the modern hysteria over genetic modification.

Selection. I think this needs to be dealt with lovingly and unhurridly. its the guts of the whole thing (no disrespect meant to neutral evolution, but there wouldn't be any neutral evolution if there was no selection and adaptation). I don't yet have an opinion about where this should go, but I think right at the top would not be an outrageous place for it.

then all the rest of the selection section could come under a subheading.

thats about where my opinion ends at the moment, although there is contentious stuff in there: "One of the most common misunderstandings of evolution is that one species can be "more highly evolved" than another," why would one species displace another? why are ungulates blowing horses away? why are there only two extant groups of jawless fishes?

there is so much fascinating, puzzling, cool stuff in evolution, and it'd be nice for the page to reflect that a bit more, rather than be a venue for the defensive defence of ideological purity.

oh, and a question: does the page improve over time, or was it once great (FA status) but is being continually degraded by a blizzard of bad edits from johnny-come-lately editors?

Sillygrin 14:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I like this cat.

The article improves over time. FA is only a marking point on the great chain of article status - the fact that it happens to be the highest one WP has designated doesn't mean it can't get better.

I think your final sentiment is great: there is so much fascinating, puzzling, cool stuff in evolution, and it'd be nice for the page to reflect that a bit more, rather than be a venue for the defensive defence of ideological purity. This article has been shaped lately by the ongoing culture war (as will become clear to you if you hang out here), which is somewhat lamentable. I think that explains why so much article space is devoted towards being defensive.

Anyway, I'd start hacking away, if I were you. If you show too much ankle, someone will bite it, never fear. Graft 14:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

actually, the way I got sucked into wikipedia was following controversial pages like facism and intelligent design, and especially some of the trolling, which I enjoyed very much. ID was the page I meant to edit - I only glanced at evolution just in case there was anything contentious here, but then couldn't help myself editting the science. prepare to see lotsa ankle. Sillygrin 04:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Variation

Regarding WAS's deletion - I'm aware that balanced polymorphisms can exist, potentially, indefinitely. However, this is a minor case; probably few balanced polymorphisms last forever, either - maybe HLA polymorphisms, but I'm not even sure about those. And I think it's more critical to introduce the concept of fixation clearly. Graft 14:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Theoretical simplifications should not only be identified as such but should also be properly sourced. I apologize for deleting rather than supplying a sourced comment on the issue, but this is not my field. WAS 4.250 19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm not aware of any example that counters my claim, so maybe it should just stand as is. Graft 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow what you just said. However if you will simply source your replacement for what I just deleted (again), I'm sure all will be fine. I'm not looking for a fight or an argument. I just love truth. By the way, thanks for helping to make this article great. WAS 4.250 20:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm merely saying that I think it's true that all polymorphism has a finite lifetime - I dont know of any examples of polymorphism that has lasted indefinitely, even for all mammals or all primates or something. As to a source, I dunno - take any text on diffusion. I doubt I'm going to be able to find a source saying exactly what I said, because it's not strictly true according to any model - obviously fixation is a stochastic process and so there is some finite probability of any arbitrarily long fixation time for any new mutation. But in real terms, variation, ultimately, gets fixed. I'm unclear on the value of obfuscation on this point - perhaps you'd like to clarify your qualms? Graft 20:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

check out [this] on mindblowing persistence of MHC heterozygosity. Rivulus is a self fertilising hermaphrodite - only vertebrate known.Sillygrin 04:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What I deleted as being both false and unsourced was The ultimate fate of all variation must be fixation - when it either reaches a frequency of zero and disappears from the population, or reaches a frequency of one and replaces the ancestral allele. The phrase "ultimate fate" works for a mathematical simplification but not for a scientifically accurate evidence based sentence. "all variation"

have a look at Kimura's book "neutral theory of evolution" or one of the papers. polymorphism will be lost in finite time unless it as a fairy godmother maintaining it. I cannot remember, but he may even say it has a half life. nothing is perfect in this contingent world. the polymorphism doesn't have to be binary for one of the alleles to be fixed - i.e., go to homozygosity. Sillygrin 04:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

is unsupportable by any possible actual evidence. "must" is a math or logic concept, not an evidence concept. You want to introduce the concept of fixation - so go for it - find a good source that defines it and its relevance. Finally, even if it does reach zero or one at any point in time, that point in time is not "final" or "ultimate" and further mutation can possibly reintroduce it. I agree with the importance of the concept. I disagree with both its presentation and lack of a source. WAS 4.250 21:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If further mutation "reintroduces" it, that is a new allele that, coincidentally, is identical to the other. This is a separate matter; when variation is fixed, it is fixed, and final. New mutation events are new mutation events, period. If we could perfectly understand the evolutionary history of a site we would properly consider two separate novel but apparently identical mutations as having separate allele frequencies if they had seperate points of origin in time. As to whether "all variation is fixed" or not, all possible actual evidence supports this notion, since there is no example I know of of polymorphism that exists in all species, and it's somewhat absurd to imagine that there could be. I'll try some different language and see if you like it better. Graft 23:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The phrasing bothers me a little too. While theoretically for any pair of competing alleles one must "win" eventually, the term "fixation" suggests that there are only two possible alternatives (allele A or allele B). While I have no numbers, are such binary pairs the norm? Doesn't fixation imply homozygosity? Guettarda 23:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

They're pretty rare, if you're not considering private variants. I could maybe do the math on how many there should be tomorrow - even so, a particular allele must fix, even if it has to replace two other alleles to do so. Graft 07:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the latest version Variation disappears when it reaches the point of fixation - when it either reaches a frequency of zero and disappears from the population, or reaches a frequency of one and replaces the ancestral allele entirely. as it introduces fixation as a concept without making unsupported claims for it. I suggest the addition of a sourced claim for the importance of the concept in understanding evolution. Perhaps an example of fixation being used in a specific case of analysis. WAS 4.250 16:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Evolution and devolution

I think we should give a specific example here of a claim made due to this misunderstanding of evolution. We could mention either the "why have monkeys stop evolving" statement or the "why doesn't everything evolve into a human" statement Nil Einne 20:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Evolution itself answers all of these questions. If that doesn't satisfy you, then allow me - as a scientist - to point you in the right direction to explore your great questions; the answer is that quite simply the statements you mention are misunderstandings of the actual science. In reality, monkeys have not stopped evolving, nor have numerous other species, _including humans_ :). In fact, speciation has and continues to be observed, in both the animal and plant kingdoms. It is very important that as this discussion on the specific content of the article proceeds, that the suggestions for changes be considered from the point of view of reading the entire article (because it is a very good article), and then keeping current on the latest research pertaining to the suggestion so that redundancies and fallacies can be avoided. I wish everyone luck on their quest and thirst for knowledge. Astrobayes 20:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this editor was proposing to include this objection as an example in the objections section to refute it, not because the editor thinks the objection has merit :/. Homestarmy 22:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If the editor Nil Einne had written what you just did it would have made so much more sense. As such, the editor didn't and in the interest of education, I provided some useful links. I would be all for including such a statement, but the chances for it being reverted would be pretty high if it didn't lean on peer-reviewed sources. Perhaps Nil can suggest something more specific than the general ideas already mentioned in the statement above. Astrobayes 06:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Nil did say that, unless someone has edited their comments since you replied :-\ Note their use of the word misunderstanding. Skittle 17:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Antiscience

There is a dispute on antiscience concerning the matter of whether certain religious and conservative groups have traditionally been critical of science. Since this article concerns related conflicts, perhaps some editors might be interested in helping break our deadlock. Al 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they've typically been critical of "science" itself, I'd say they've been critical of science that contradicts their personal beliefs. This article seems kind of dubious; I've never heard the term "antiscience" before (unlike, say, anti-intellectualism), and it seems like a less neutral way to compose a page like "Criticism of science". -Silence 20:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The scientific method is widely dismissed by New Agers and others who describe themselves as postmodern. Scientifically based medicine is denounced in the name of spiritual healing. Reason is discounted as one inadequate "way of knowing," among many. Guettarda 21:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Much better. That statement is much more specific, and much more reasonable. Wouldn't stuff like that fit better as a section of the Anti-intellectualism article, though? The New Age approach, as you point out, is more "anti-rationalism/logic" than "anti-science", though the latter is a common result of the former. -Silence 21:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I am very suspicious of quotes like the one Guettarda provides above - that talk about postmodernists who are anti-science. Such statements are invariably made by positivists who are taking an explicitly reactionary or defensive posture, not made by people who self-identify as postmodernists. I know this debate well, I have heard it in various forms since I was in graduate school. What bothers me is that it is sloppy. Scholars who are meticulous in their study of cranial morphology, genetic structure, or whatever, give little time to trying to understand a position they do not understand and then make inaccurate generalizations based on their inadequate understanding. The main founders of postmodernism, Lyotard and Baudrillard, do not "dismiss the scientific method," they simply observe that science is not the only path to the truth, and that scientific beliefs and practices are shaped by the material conditions of their existence - not the same thing. (By the way, I do not consider myself a postmodernist and in fact see myself as opposed to it. I just think that my opposition has to be based on understanding what postmodernists actually claim). This makes me suspicious about debates concerning religion and science too. I do think that there should be a serious debate, but I seldom see evidence of it. Instead, I see debates between people who identify themselves as scientists, but who know little about religion and frankly not that much about the history of science itself, and people who identify themselves as religion who do not know much about science and also know little about the history of religion. These debates are like "Crossfire" - entertaining in brief spurts, but not really illuminating or satisfying. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. The point of the quote I dug up was to answer Silence's question - that there appears to be a real movement by that name. Over at Talk:Antiscience someone made the point that there are actually two movements by that name - one right wing and religion, the other left wing and largely academic in its origins. That said, the article I quoted from rang true to me. Religious fundamentalists can be annoying, but at least everyone is clear about their "Truth". Someone who says that no knowledge is independent from its cultural context, that's fine too - it's useful try to take that into account (not that it's a valid criticism of the scientific method, just of its use, IMO, but again, I plead ignorance). But the New Agers? That just annoys me. Science is an incomplete way of knowing, and their pet "way of knowing" (be it crystals or intelligent design) with no shred of evidence, should not only stand on equal footing with science, it's also correct. And don't forget the conspiracy by "the Man". BTW, Steve, can you recommend a starting point to cure my ignorance? Guettarda 14:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

From my usual position of blithe ignorance it seems that the fundies and ID squad are not anti-science, their problem is that they have an undue reverence for science and want it altered to give validation to their religion to overcome any inadequacies in their faith or their ability to get others to share that faith without, dare we day, evidence. ...dave souza, talk 17:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a very savvy point, Dave. But I would add that the "science" they want validation from is not the science that scientists actually adhere to. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Distinctions between theory and fact

minor but possibly contentious edits.

"In this same sense evolution is an observed fact..."

• This looks a little strong to me. response to selection has been observed, but it is not quite the same as having seen modern life descend from the progenote. the observed facts are the relationships between extant taxa, the molecular homologies, the fossils which appear to be common ancestors of modern species, etc. evolution - almost certainly a fact (but inferred, not observed) - is the apparent explanation...

"...the modern synthesis is currently the most powerful theory..."

• this is an unusual usage; the theory is usually called 'evolution'.

"...including Lamarckism and creationism."

• "creationism" looks subtly out of place: it is not a scientific theory, and it is perhaps, in the modern usage, an anachronism here. besides, it is unecessarily provocative.

cheers, Sillygrin 13:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I don't think anyone would claim that there is available observable evidence for the development of the single-celled organism to the human which we can see before our eyes. That would be ridiculous. However, we have witnessed speciation in response to selective pressures. Therefore evolution through natural selection is an observed fact. If you want to define evolution so narrowly that one would need a time-machine and a spare three billion years, I think you're stretching the bounds of credibility: no one would claim that we could see a lizard-like creature become an ostrich-like creature within the bounds of our lifetimes. Significant enough changes that the emergence of a new species takes place is possible, however, and observed (go to Google Scholar and type 'speciation' for hundreds of papers). Second, the name of the theory is the 'modern synthesis.' While it might be known as 'evolution' to laymen, 'evolution' only refers to the factual observance of how all creatures appear to share a common ancestry. The theory which explains it is the 'modern synthesis.' Cheers. JF Mephisto 11:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't recall if I've said this before, but that bit about the "fact" and "theory" of evolution has always made me uncomfortable. What exactly is claimed as "fact"? Common descent? Natural selection? All of these consist of an explanatory framework for mere observation, as that grinning fool points out. Why does this transcend and attain the level of fact?

As to 'Lamarcisk and creationism', it's there quite deliberately. In fact we had quite a long argument over whether creationism constituted science; ultimate reason it's retained is because creationism was the predominant explanation for the origin of species when Darwin first proposed his theory, since many of the time had no commitment to naturalism, and the scientific method had not gelled into a coherent system of epistemology. For this reason I think the inclusion is appropriate. Also it may be provocative, but it's worthwhile to state that it's been definitively rejected up front. Graft 14:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Evolution as a fact is really the common observation that biological organisms do indeed evolve, that is, descendants are often genetically modified when compared to their ancestors." It means that changes in genotype occurs over time, which has an affect on the phenotype. This is just an observation -- what exactly that means, and how it happens, is where the theory comes in. Darwin's greatest achievement in his time was to establish the "fact" of evolution for his contemporaries (that evolution of some sort had occurred), and propose a theory to explain it (natural selection, which was relatively unpopular until the modern synthesis). Personally I agree that philosophically speaking there are no facts which are not theory-laden (pace Kuhn) but if one is going to accept a real distinction between theory and fact at all then I think this works. --Fastfission 15:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

it might be necessary to point out that I am neither a creationist, nor attempting to pollute the page with ID. however, since the point of the "theory and fact" section was to clarify a ticklish point, pedantry is probably OK.

if we are going to have problems here, we might have to find an agreeable definition of "fact". I think that the definition will be pretty close to "something directly observed". "inferences which are very proximal to direct observations" might sneak in, but "extrapolations from those" probably will not.

I am not making the point that observations are theory laden (though of course they are (and this realisation goes back well before Khun)); I am meaning that evolution cannot be directly observed by a being with the lifetime of a human. what does "evolutionary time" mean? electrons cannot be observed (we observe phenomena from which we think the only reasonable conclusion is electrons), but I also believe in them (whatever they turn out to be).

to take the case of the guppies cited on the page, response to selection was not actually observed. they got guppies from a high predation habitat, with known relevant traits, transferred them to low predation habitats, took reasonable precautions against contamination, and came back years later and examined those traits in the presumed descendants. then they inferred the intervening events. their conclusions are probable beyond reasonable doubt. but the response to selection was not quite a direct observation: they really observed guppies at the begining of the experiment, and the end. response to selection was inferred.

but when we are talking about evolution, we are extrapolating well, well, beyond such adaptation in traits we already knew to be plastic: all the way back past the progenote, past the RNA world... we are saying there few definitive barriers to adaptation by natural selection, and none in between living species and the progenote. I believe this firmly; that it is beyond reasonable doubt, that one can generally assume that "what is true for E. coli is true for the elephant". but I think that is standard usage to call it a "theory", not a "fact". calling it "fact" is claiming too much, and probably doesn't strengthen the case in the minds of people who are somewhat sceptical, and inclined to suspect scientists of hubris and intellectual overreach.

Graft: "creationism" - if we are going to include a non-scientific, or pre-scientific assumption in the same breath as a scientific hypothesis (Larmarkism), perhaps we might call it "direct creation", because modern creationism may not be quite the same beast.

"...the name of the theory is 'modern synthesis.'" perhaps it is a grammar thing; I have never heard anybody say "the theory of the modern synthesis".

"Darwin's greatest achievement in his time was to establish the "fact" of evolution " - perhaps "establish the events of evolution as probable beyond reasonable doubt". Sillygrin 07:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

it is a "fact" that life evolves with every generation and that the remains of billions of years of cumulating evolution exist in every living cell and every major continental geological formation

• I hope I have answered this fully enough above.

This theory is powerfully predictive, and geologic exploration (e.g. oil) and major medical research (involving trillions of dollars yearly) relies heavily on it.

• I do not know anything about oil exploration, so I have left this in, even though I suspect that it relies more heavily on geology than biology. biomedical research... well, it relies on homology and other footprints of evolution, but would it collapse tomorrow without the unifying theory?

Sillygrin 07:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a great deal of observable evidence for evolution, both in the sense of it occuring and in the sense of the progress from a single-celled organism to modern lifeforms, including humans. I think the article speaks of observed examples of speciation, but for evolution as progress we have a ton of evidence. It is called the fossil record. Though we don't have a continious lineage there, we do have a relatively complete one. We have direct ancestors of other things, evolutionary dead ends, more primitive forms turning more advanced over time, ect. Look at the descent of man or of horses; we have a great deal of evidence from fossils. It is readily "observable". You can't exclude that as observation of evolution, because that's how Darwin came up with the idea in the first place - by looking at bones and modern things (as well as by comparing modern things). It is very good evidence for it.

Genetics are also extremely strong evidence of evolution, and that is readily observable. Compare humans from different regions, from different times, or just different animals and look at their genes and DNA and how it has changed. Our very DNA shows evolution and is extremely strong evidence for evolution. You can even figure out how long ago creatures diverged from their DNA. Arguing we haven't observed this descent is silly; we have. Moreover, we know we're all of common descent due to the basic encoding process of DNA itself; pretty much everything uses the same system, and those that do not use a VERY similar one, with just a few changes. That alone is strong evidence for all extant life on Earth being of common descent from a single common ancestor.

Evolution is fact; the descent of creatures from a single common ancestor is also essentially fact, and the general order of descent is fact, particularly for animals - we know where turtles, lizards, snakes, birds, mammals, crocodiles, amphibians, fish, ect. diverged. We may not know all of the smaller things for sure, but the general pattern of descent is pretty indisputable. In any event, we can't see anything at the present, and stars and such we see far away in the past; do we say they aren't "fact"?

Really fact is pretty much a worthless word anyway, as people don't really use it to mean the same thing. Really, though, the descent of living things and their change over time is fact - it is directly observable via DNA and the fossil record, as much as we can observe stars by the light they gave off 2,000 years ago which is only now reaching us. So, evolution is fact, and common descent is fact, because these are readily observable from DNA, at least under my definition of fact. A theory is "how". Gravity is a fact, but how it works is a theory. Common descent and descent with modification are facts, and these are often conflated with evolution, though technically evolution describes the "how", the theory of how it works. It just has become conflated, probably because the one fell out of the other and they're intristically linked.

If people are confused about this, maybe we should either include it in this page or make another page called Evolution as fact discussing/clarifying it. Heck, maybe there should be a universal definition of the word fact as used in wikipedia. Titanium Dragon 08:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the claim that fact and theory exist inrelation to one another and are not independent was made as early as Auguste Compte, the father of Positivism (on which modern science is founded). Slrubenstein | Talk 09:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rubenstein, I enjoyed your previous comments, but I don't understand what you have just written. could you please clarify?

Titanium Dragon, if you have a more leisurely look at what I have written, you'll see that I do not deny evolution, in fact I regard it as true beyond reasonable doubt.

I have not personally observed the 'genesis' of a new species, and I don't think anybody else has either (I am not counting things like reproductive isolation due to chromosomal rearrangements or polyploidy, which I think are only speciation by a quirk of Mayr's definition (i.e., reproductively isolated populations)). sure, response to selection is a fact. but that idea that response to selection is part of a larger phenomenon, evolution, is based on inference, not observation. therefor, evolution is theory, not fact.

fact is more or less knowledge based on direct observation; theory is more or less knowledge based on inference. "fact" and "theory" signify the epistemological status of knowledge, not its truth or falsity. of course, "facts" are more certain knowledge than "theories". simply being true doesn't make something a fact rather than a theory; note that standard usage agrees: people say "the theory of evolution", not "the fact of evolution".

I think getting this section right is somewhat important given the "evolution is only a theory" argument. Sillygrin 13:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine how I can be clearer. I was simply pointing out that the idea comes from Comte. Just read his The Course of Positive Philosophy, he makes the argument within the first five pages. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

the attribution was obvious; what was attributed - "fact and theory exist in relation to one another" was what I found oracular. you presumably mean something beyond the obvious. and I doubt I'll find time to read the book anytime soon. Sillygrin 14:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

From Comte's essay, "positive philosophy:"

All competent thinkers agree with Bacon that there can be no real knowledge except that which rests upon observed facts. This fundamental maxim is evidently indisputable if it is applied, as it ought to be, to the mature state of our intelligence. But, if we consider the origin of our knowledge, it is no less certain that the primitive human mind could not, and indeed ought not to, have thought in that way. For if, on the one hand, every Positive theory must necessarily be founded upon observations, it is, on the other hand, no less true that, in order to observe, our mind has need of some theory or other. If in contemplating phenomena we did not immediately connect them with some principles, not only would it be impossible for us to combine these isolated observations, and therefore to derive any profit from them, but we should even be entirely incapable of remembering the facts, which would for the most part remain unnoted by us.

I think this is a pretty well-established principle in both the natural and social sciences. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks. yes, it certainly appears to be. Sillygrin 01:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)