Talk:Evolution/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions about Evolution. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

→

Predictions of evolution

Tarinth came up with a great idea. How many predictions of the Theory of evolution can we come up with? If I can get a bunch, I will use them to make another chart for another article (maybe this one but I doubt it since we dont have that much space here).--Filll 21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, please, please, please ... Evolution does not predict in this way. It explains. Prediction in this scenario only gets to make it seem like there is some directional guide. There is not. The decreased effectiveness of antibiotics is not a prediction. Candy 07:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The commentary linked here essentially agrees with Candy: Evolution and Philosophy: Predictions and Explanations ... dave souza, talk 09:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice link Dave. Was interesting to read. I thought a little about predictive power of evolution. There is a way in which it is predictive but so far the only case I can think of is when there is a lack of intermediate fossil ancestors but an early ancestor is known. Evolution can be very predictive if it is known which environmental changes took place to other organisms in the same geographical region. It can also be predictive when this is known ie this is what an intermediate should look like looks like ... do we find it? I have to confess I haven't studied this part of evolution at any depth so anyone with more understanding please feel free to point me to some readers.

However, to restate, my feeling this article needs to differentiate between to two. Candy

Here are some suggestions (from me, a nonbiologist, so please criticize away; citations welcome as well.):

the creeping antibiotic resistance of many bacteria
dangers of not taking antibiotics properly to breed new deadlier strains
emergence of new viruses
prediction of various transitional forms which were later found in the fossil record [1]
overuse of triclosan and other antibiotics creating resistant strains of bacteria
prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains in hospitals
predictions pre-Mendel of many features of inheritance and genetics
prediction that no species would be found with features that were independent of those in other species (not sure I got that one correct; copying from tarinth).

I think what you're remembering is when I stated that Darwin predicted that no organism would ever be found that creates anything for the exclusive benefit of another organism. So far this has remained true (Darwin even claimed that it could falsify evolution). In other words: trees make nectar, which other organisms eat--but they don't make nectar -just- so that it can be consumed. They gain benefits from it (attracting pollenators). Tarinth 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This has more or less been discredited; a good example of something produced exclusively for the benefit of another organism is altruism (a behavior). The reason for this has been set out by Dawkins (though he was not the originator of it); basically, altruism can exist because close relatives have a lot of genes identical to yours, so by acting altruistically towards them you'll promote your own genes' survival, even if not your own survival. Titanium Dragon 23:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

But then altruism benefits your genes. I think we're talking about a case where the altruism is incapable of providing the organism's gene with an advantage in natural selection. Tarinth 23:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW. Altruism is a heck of a complex issue which has roots in society, government as well as science. This is a very interesting illumination on Altruism. It doesn't delve that heavily on the evolutionary aspects but as Dawkins is one of the talkers there is enough to whet one's whistle. [2] Candy 14:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

prediction of human ancestry in africa
several more technical predictions at [3]
ability of chimps to engage in sign language and even typing on computers to communicate indicate that they are not so far removed from humans
new research results indicating dogs have hundreds of unique vocalizations that can be communicated to dogs they have never met and communicate information, indicating dogs are not so far removed from humans

Sounds interesting but also sounds more like an observation than a prediction. Tarinth 22:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

stratigraphic record shows a progression of species as predicted (no precambrian fuzzy bunnies)
DNA similarity corresponds to phylogenic similarity [4]

What else can we dig up?--Filll 21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are a couple good links to harvest from:

* http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html

* http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_doesn't_make_predictions

Tarinth 22:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

yes but you are missing the point. IDers believe in evolution. there is no conflict. this is all good stuff. how ever IDers believe that somewhere along the line between bacteria and us there was an intelligent intervention. all the above would be true if we were seeded by aliens during the cambrian or if God helped arrange the DNA for the eye

raspor 21:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm clueless to what you're debating. I don't think anyone here is really interested in including a critique of ID or panspermia in an article on Evolution. Evolution has nothing to say about those subjects. Tarinth 22:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Do I have permission to move raspor's posts to his own special page?

This has been done in the past for similar editors. --Filll 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

sure just say you moved them and that i made a response

thanks

raspor 21:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

dave, please stop the personal attacks and follow wiki guidelines. i am not 'deluded'

raspor 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Who said you were? If you associate yourself with those poor deluded folk who ignore Filll's useful information, so be it. Evidently it's a good time to move things to a subpage before paranoia gets out of hand. .. dave souza, talk 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

weight of earth

You're claiming that Fill doesn't know scientific history and that the Greeks calculated the weight of Earth? I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader as to what is wrong with that.-Psychohistorian 18:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do I have permission to move raspor's posts to his own special page?

are you saying the greeks did not calculate the weight and volume of the earth?

isnt this comment off subject? could it be considered trolling?

raspor 18:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not trolling. It is off topic, but you brought it up and I wanted to make sure that noone misunderstood.

Weight is the gravitational force one object exerts on another. Typically, because we are most concerned with how much things weigh on Earth, weight is the gravitational force Earth exerts on another object. Weight is dependent on the mass of the object which is exerting the force on the object whose weight we want to know. So, what does "the weight of the Earth" mean? The gravitational force it exerts on itself? You did NOT say "the weight of some part of the Earth on some other part". "Does the weight of the Earth" refer to the gravitational force the Sun exerts on the Earth? The moon? "The weight of the Earth" is a phrase which has no meaning - its just babbling. In the future, when you feel the urge to criticize someone (such as your insinuation that Fill is not up to speed on the history of science) take care that you are not, in the same post, showing your ignorance.-Psychohistorian 18:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea if any Greek ever came up with a figure for the weight of the earth. I do not know that the artistotlean notions of gravity were very different from our own. I do know what Erastosthenes did to measure the size of the earth, assuming a spherical shape. There might have been others who did it before Erastosthenes, but he is the first recorded instance of this that we know of, over 2000 years ago.--Filll 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we know what people mean as the 'weight' of something: hint take the diameter of the earth and calculate the volume and then pick a probable density and then multiply. thats what they did in ancient greece.

please stop trolling

I have no idea if any Greek ever came up with a figure for the weight of the earth. I do not know that the artistotlean notions of gravity were very different from our own. I do know what Erastosthenes did to measure the size of the earth, assuming a spherical shape. There might have been others who did it before Erastosthenes, but he is the first recorded instance of this that we know of, over 2000 years ago.--Filll 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

yes they came up with a figure for the weight (mass) of the earth. they were quite a bit off i think like 70% but thats not bad.

why do you keep bringing this up? this is very off subject.

we should concentrate on improving this horribly biased article

raspor 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please move discussions regarding the mass Earth to Earth. It has even less to do with Evolution than exogenesis does. Tarinth 20:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous coincidence

At 04:32 on 2 January 2007. 74.33.109.35 "Restructured and added evolutionary related articles to See Also list". By a remarkable coincidence the links I've looked at relate to creationist claims. The list appears to be excessively long anyway: surely it should be confined to major topics? . ... dave souza, talk 05:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

recent edits by 68.201.144.11 (talk · contribs)

There's some good work being done here, but this editor seems to have a penchant for adding parenthetical (and non-parenthetical) notes that are either extraneous or dubiously NPOV/verifiable. I don't have time at present to comb through all these edits and clean them up, but somebody ought to. N6 10:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not a biologist, but as an outsider and glancing at it quickly, I do not think he has necessarily damaged the article. There might need to be some more references for this material. The English might need to be cleaned up. But it is not as obviously POV as some of the edits, that is for sure.--Filll 15:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the sections I removed was a parenthetical definition of artificial selection right after a wikilink to Artificial selection. Another section was an unverified, weasel-wordy (and, frankly, unnecessary) comment about eugenics. There's damage to the article, and to the article's clarity, that can be done without adding creationist propaganda. N6 17:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well these edits need to be checked very carefully then.--Filll 17:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I (68.201.144.11) now have an account: DNAunion. I have a BS in Biology and wanted to correct a few minor 'issues', but didn't know about the rules for editing or that what I was doing was questionable. I don't want to mess up again, so here are some things I'd like to add or change.

1) For the edit I made dealing with macromutations where I added the material about internal selection and internal coadaptation, the general reference (I could find a page number range if needed) is Wallace Arthur, 'The Origin of Animal Body Plans: A Study in Evolutionary Developmental Biology', Cambridge University Press, 1997.

2) For the edit I made dealing with the vestigial ball-and-socket joints in manatees for their "ghost" femurs, the general reference (I could get more info from this DVD, such as the specific lecture title) is David M. Kingsley, 'Evolution: Constant Change and Common Threads', Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 2006

3) For the edit I made dealing with human embryos starting off with the fish arrangement of 6 pairs of aortic arches, then remodeling during further embryonic development of humans bringing about the human configuration, the general reference (I could get page numbers if needed) is George C. Kent & Robert K. Carr, 'Comparative Anatomy of the Vertebrates: Ninth Edition', McGraw-Hill, 2001

4) I tried a couple of times to make a change to the Artificial Selection part but they were undone. Artificial Selection is NOT a form of Natural Selection: the two are essentially opposites. Either: a. The part about Artificial Selection should be deleted b. The part about Artificial Selection should be moved so that it is no longer under Natural Selection or c. The part about Artificial Selection should be qualified: for example: "Artificial Selection, which is not a form of natural selection, ..."

Welcome back!

It's great that you have references for statements of fact. By all means, add the references to the article. There are numerous examples of how to do so present in the article already.

As for whether artificial selection and natural selection are disjoint, there is a discussion on this topic ongoing below. Feel free to join us. For my part, I disagree with the claim that the two are mutually exclusive. N6 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like EVERY change I made was undone. It was a waste of my time to try to improve the page. --DNAunion 00:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Lateral Gene Transmission and hybridization

In the subsection on lateral gene transfer, there is discussion that this can be caused by hybridization. I'm confused as to how this is so. By definition, lateral gene transfer is transfer of genetic material other than from parent to child. Hybridization (per the linked article) has to do with interspecies (intergenus, etc) reproduction and the resulting children - nothing lateral there that I can see. Also, the linked lateral gene transfer article doesn't mention hybrids as a method.

I would recommend either clarifying HOW hybridization can contribute to lateral gene transfer or rewording the paragraph to remove the reference. As it reads, I'm just confused trying to figure out how they relate.

Muffinsmomusa 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Stephanie Barr 1/2/07

It is an artifact of editing. Initially it was worded as Gene flow-HGT and hybridization. The Gene flow article includes both. The sections were reorganized and hybridization found itself in an odd position. Perhaps we should change the subsection title to HGT and Hybridiation. I'll look at it. Article needs some clean up after reorganziations. Really in the classic Gene flow sense it is confusing to put HGT and hybridization. Perhaps each should have their own sections and pull Hybridization out for a subsection. GetAgrippa 21:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Restructure of sentence

Feeling that it may be good to explain my every edit even when soooo small. "All life is a result of such speciation events and thus all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor. " was rearranged. I hope it is clearer now and is a bit weightier to express that:

1. There was a single ancestor of all organisms. (NB I myself sometimes say "living organisms" when speaking but only in the context that I want to be precise and differentiate say from a biomass of dead organisms. Therefore I left the living out as it is superfluous although often used. I linked common descent and organism as well. The organism link is actually a nice article as it clearly shows some of the interesting debate about the definition of an organism and may get some people interested in reading this article. I'm certain though that the use in this contect makes it clear that it refers to all living things.)

and

2. We are all descendants of this original life due to the process of speciation (and therefore evolution). Candy 22:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's clearer, but is there any way to connect it to what came before? As it stands, it's making the right claim, but doesn't explain why evolution implies that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well GetAgrippa has edited it since. It probaly reads better. However, there is an issue with the new edit. "All organisms are related by common descent, having evolved over billions of years of cumulative genetic changes from a single ancestor." is the new version. However, my version said all organisms and was correct. This one says all organisms and is incorrect becasue a time frame has been introduced- It should be modified so that it clearly states all extant organisms. Candy 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)fogot to sign. And messed up the italics. But you know what I mean.

"I haven't edited that section in weeks as I recollect so it probably has been modified several times.GetAgrippa 01:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies then. Must be my blurry eyes or my disfunctional processing 8) Candy 13:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

User conduct RFC: Raspor

For interested parties, FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor

Anyone who has tried to resolve his issues through policy and reason will need to endorse the RFC if you agree with the summary I've provided, or add your own. FeloniousMonk 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

dave, thanks for removing the link to haekel, as everyone knows he has nothing to do with evolution

raspor 14:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd better read the history of evolutionary thought article. Enjoy, .. dave souza, talk 14:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

holocaust denial

i noticed in the holocaust article there was a section on 'holocaust denial'

can we have a section on 'evolution denial' in the evolution article?

raspor 16:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Already there: Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies--Roland Deschain 16:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I think I am almost happy with the introduction. It seems clear enough without being over-technical. I just have one last issue with the sentence:

"This leads to the propagation of useful traits, and the weeding out of counterproductive ones"

Apart from the redundant comma I feel this doesn't sit correctly with the tone of the rest of the article? Perhaps it's the term "weeding out" which grates because it seems to imply and external force in the removal of traits. Then the term propagation which refers to reproduction where as I lean on the side of thinking of traits as being replicated. Anyway, I'm editing it to ......

This leads to the increase of useful traits and the reduction of counterproductive traits. Candy 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thinks – how about "Over time this results in an increasing proportion of the organisms having useful traits, and fewer organisms with counterproductive traits." ... dave souza, talk 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to advantageous and disadvantageous as these are common words used in the biological sciences.

I thought about the "Over time" addition and it was quite interesting. I immediately convinced myself it shouldn't be there. Then swung back to thinking that without it the meaning may be misconstrued. However, I went back to the whole paragraph (I'd only been reading the previous sentence) and it is clear to me that it can stay without it. The gene frequency of a population can change in one generation quite rapidly so the sentence is correct. What makes it clear is the following sentence which states, "Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions." The time factor is in the paragraph for clarity. What do you think Dave? Candy 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good points. However, it still seems to me that "This leads to the increase of" could be misconstrued. How about "Thus, more of the offspring will have advantageous traits and fewer will have disadvantageous traits.[2][4][5] Given enough time, repetition of this passive process..." ,, dave souza, talk 19:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Have modified. Would you be so kind as to check it? Thanks Candy 19:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am really impressed with the first few sentences. They are beautiful.--Filll 19:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Excellent piece of work. --Guinnog 19:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, as now it reads "Given enough time, this passive process can result..." – didn't you like "Given enough time, repetition of this passive process can result..." ? .. just seemed a bit more explanatory to me.. dave souza, talk 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps it should be "Given enough time these passive processes ...? as it refers to both natural selection and genetic drift. Candy 01:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Basic Processes

Another troublesome sentence. I need help with this one please.

In natural populations, there is a certain amount of phenotypic variation (e.g., what makes you appear different from your neighbor).

I think the writer mean i.e what makes you appear ... However, I'm not happy with that because the implication to me is that it perpetuates a concept that many people have that phenotype is largely about what a person looks like. Whereas, the the far greater amount of phenotypical variation is biochemical in nature or concerns the internal organs (those not visible externally that is). Is the part in parenthesis actually necessary anyway? Candy 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How about, "In natural populations, there is a certain amount of genetic variability." And I agree with Candorwien, in that "what makes you appear different" sounds more like morphology, whereas phenotype could include something like a gene for sickle-cell anemia which wouldn't be immediately apparent. Tarinth 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

For people like me who have to look Phenotype up, probably good to have something. Adapting the linked page's intro, how about –

In natural populations, there is a certain amount of phenotypic variation, meaning differences in traits such as physical appearance and constitution including such aspects as size, eye color, or behaviour.

Probably better to USify the spelling! .. dave souza, talk 20:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I am British, living in Austria and I used to live and work in the US and Bermuda. My grammar and spelling sometimes go awry if I'm not focused on which one I'm writing in. 8) Not too happy with "constitution" as it doesn't tend to be a word used in this context. What about "In natural populations, there is a certain amount of phenotypic variation, meaning differences in traits such as physical appearance, physiology or behavior."Candy 01:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologise, what happened was that the computer spell checker underlined behaviour, and I let it change the spelling then couldn't remember the original spelling which presumably is from the US to match color. Your version looks good, the "constitution" came from the phenotype page and I'm no expert. Ta, .. dave souza, talk 01:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Done! Made change. Put the explanation in backets. Candy 12:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"abbot Gregor Mendel"

I see no reason to include general biological information about Gregor Mendel (or any other figure) in this article. That he was an abbot does not help anybody to understand evolution. Interested readers are free to follow the wikilink to his article if they wish to know more about him. N6 20:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we crossed lines, and were doing things at the same time. It is true if you wanted to know more about Mendel you can click the link - but that single word "abbott" may be the thing that piques interest in his biography. If you really don't know about Mendel, then he is just another name. If you do know about Mendel, then to me it seemed odd that he remained undistinguished from the list of scientists' names.

Trishm 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The edits are happening thick and fast today! N6, While I was writing this note to you, somebody else reinstated "abbott". Trishm 21:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mendel's occupation is indeed relevant

The introduction of Mendel was changed from "Abbott Mendel" to Mendel, with the comment that his occupation was not relevant.

I suggest otherwise, because in this case a profession speaks a thousand words. It says that he was extremely well educated - the church education system in Austria was exemplary, and priests were the most highly educated profession there was. He had time, and a good deal of autonomy.

It is also relevant that he was not a scientist as such - it indicates that the scientific method is not limited to the "club" of scientists. We treat his work as science because he was so systematic in what did, recorded and his analysis.

The fact that he was a churchman doing science is a connection that is worth making, for the benefit of those who believe that science is only for atheists.

Finally, I have never seen any article or documentary about Mendel which did not introduce him by his profession.Trishm 20:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect to establishing verifiable facts for use in an encyclopedia article about evolution, Mendel's work stands on its own. Mendel's biography may well be of interest to those seeking context to his work, but that context has no specific relevance to our understanding of evolution itself, and as such it has no place in this article. The proper place for this information is the article on Gregor Mendel, which is already linked for anybody wishing to learn more about him. It is not our job to pique anybody's interest in reading other articles or to prod them toward our preferred point of view with circumstantial evidence--"Well, if even an abbot's work supports evolutionary theory, then it must be on solid footing."

It's worth noting that the word "abbot" was only added a few hours ago by an anonymous editor. I reversed the edit because I did not agree that it was an improvement to this article. I still don't.

Would other editors care to comment? I sense a potential edit war over this, so it would be good to get a 3rd opinion. N6 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I always knew him as the "monk gregor mendel". Did he do his work only when he was an Abbott? how do you spell abbot/abott? Why remove the philospher disignations for others, who are less familiar?--Filll 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Trishm (talk · contribs) and 199.62.0.252 (talk · contribs) are the same editor. Given the edit history, I suspect the latter is an incarnation of VacuousPoet (talk · contribs).

I most certainly am not 199.62.0.252. I do feel that if you don't put in Mendel's profession, you automatically imply he is a scientist. That is misleading. And for that reason alone, the fact that he is a churchman is important. Filll, I believe he did most of his work as a monk. I first became involved when I saw "Abbott" being removed.Trishm 21:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The implication is that he was doing scientific work, and certainly he was. What specific misleading implication do you see? N6 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The implication is that he was a scientist, which he was not. By the way, the implication of his churchman status in my eyes is not ""Well, if even an abbot's work supports evolutionary theory, then it must be on solid footing.", it is "The religious controversy doesn't seem to have been a concern to Mendel". I'm not being anti-creationist here. Trishm 22:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

By what definition of "scientist" was he not a scientist? Certainly he was not under the employ of a research institution, but this is hardly implied.

If your intent is not to bolster the credibility of his scientific work by mentioning his profession, then what is your intent? What I don't understand is why you feel this is necessary to the reader's understanding of evolution. I won't disagree that it is relevant to the reader's understanding of Mendel himself, but again, they are free to read his article if they desire such understanding. N6 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

For 199.62.0.252: Please stop mangling the article in defiance of WP:POINT. Being an ancient philosopher is a specific qualification for discussing the scientific origin of species. Being an abbot (or a monk) is not. There is a clear-cut difference here. I do not oppose the inclusion of all biographical information--just information that does not have specific relevance to the topic at hand. N6 21:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is an interesting fact that he was a monk, in the same vein that Darwin received theological training. JPotter 21:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

While it may be interesting, I think the place for it is Mendel's own article. Note that Darwin's theological training isn't mentioned either--and shouldn't be, I think, for the same reason. N6 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

He did most of his work as a monk. When he was promoted he was unable to continue his studies. So call him Monk Gregor Mendel, or Gregor Mendel, a German/Czech/ etc monk.--Filll 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is another thought. If we consider that social and religious controversy is worthy of inclusion in the article, which we do, because there is an entire section devoted to it, then Mendel's occupation is directly relevant to the topic. Trishm 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a reputable published source that makes the point that Mendel didn't see his results as controversial to his religious beliefs, this would be an excellent addition to the controversy section, and I would be all for including it there. Making this point without a source, however, is a clear violation of WP:NOR.

If I've given you the mistaken impression that I subscribe to religious creationism, I apologize. I think evolutionary theory is one of the great triumphs of science. My stance on the inclusion of the word "abbot" here is solely based on my principles of Wikipedia editing :) N6 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's clear we have similar views on evolution. As for the reason for my stance, it's the same as yours. :) We were just educated in different countries. Let's agree to differ.Trishm 23:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I took a good 10 or 15 courses in Genetics as a graduate and undergraduate student at renowned research universities--I don't recall ever calling Mendel anything but Mendel. Abbot or Monk is not an honorific title (Brother would be the appropriate one)--An abbot runs the monastery. I think this probably qualifies as one of the more silly discussions about edits I've ever seen. It doesn't belong. Orangemarlin 22:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't we give Peas a chance

If Medel's profession is not relevent as a non-scientist, why is a philosophers? Also, regarding friar/monk/abbot, don't you refer to people by the title they achieved, unless you say "then-monk" or something. 199.62.0.252 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Vacuous poet

I agree (I forget who with - I'm confused!) that Greek and Indian philosophers really need identifying labels (to leave them unidentified is perverse), and that Mendel probably does not need one. But it is at least of interest to know his profession (or whatever you call it), and it seems a shame to "censor" it! Given the heated debates, one suspects all sorts of impure motives... Why not leave "abbot" out of the main text but use it in the caption of the picture of Mendel? Snalwibma 21:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

His profession is not "censored" by leaving it out of this article. It's still mentioned in his own article.

My main point here is that there is all kinds of extraneous information we could pull over from every wikilink in every article if we wanted to make each article a million words long, but that doesn't mean we should do so. This is just one of many pieces of wikilinked information that is just that: extraneous to this article.

I don't think it's any more necessary to include his profession in the caption to his picture than it is to include it in the main text, but I would accept that as a solution if it is preferred by most other editors. A caption is at the least a less inappropriate place to include random biographical facts.

My side of the debate is "heated" because my position on this admittedly minor point is clear-cut and obvious to me. I'm not in the habbit, as a general rule, of capitulating on even minor points just to avoid conflict. N6 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't avoid conflict either. But for me the issue is different, and equally clear cut and obvious - you lose context by defining relevance too tightly. It's a little bit like the fact that Aristotle was Alexander the Great's tutor. It is obscure, because it is not relevant when studying the philosophy of Aristotle, and it doesn't figure in Alexander's military campaigns. But it explains a lot about how Greek thought spread so thoroughly around Alexander's time, especially into India, where the leading philosophers found Alexander worth talking to. I am wary of packaging the topic so tightly that a single word indicating a relationship that you might not suspect otherwise (i.e. the church doing science) is considered off-topic.Trishm 22:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

a single word -- the length of the edit is not meaningful. If a single word doesn't merit inclusion in the article, then it should not be included. If it were the policy of editors to allow any small edit because it doesn't do much damage to the article, there would be an awful lot of damage done to the corpus of all articles by such small increments.

You overestimate the need to include "interesting" information from wikilinked articles. If the reader is skeptical or curious about Mendel's qualifications, they will follow the link to his article. N6 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If Medel's profession is not relevent as a non-scientist, why is a philosophers? -- because ancient philosophers could hardly be called "non-scientists" given that ancient philosophy was largely concerned with scientific thought. N6 22:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Clean slate/unofficial request for comment about "abbot"

The discussion above is getting hard to read, so I'm providing this space for other editors to weigh in on whether Gregor Mendel ought to be referred to as an abbot (or monk) in the body text (and/or the caption to his picture). N6 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(Side note: I'm going to take a break from debating this point for a day or two. Arguing such minutiae at length is tiring and endangers my sense of perspective. N6 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Having looked at the biography, the following passage (slightly trimmed) shows two things about his profession:

"Mendel read his paper, "Experiments on Plant Hybridization", at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brünn in Moravia in 1865... published in 1866 in Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brunn... Elevated as abbot in 1868, his scientific work largely ended as Mendel became consumed with his increased administrative responsibilities"

So Mendel was a Naturalist. As was Darwin. The term "scientist" largely gained its present meaning after publication of The Origin, and many of Darwin's colleagues were Reverend clergymen, Cambridge Dons, which was his aim until he was diverted into being a wealthy landowner and amateur naturalist. Point two, as has been pointed out, Mendel was not an Abbot at the time of his notable work as a naturalist. Best left out. ... dave souza, talk 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not care what you do. When I learned about Mendel I was probably about 10 or 12 years old and never stepped into a biology classroom again after that. I like to call him Gregor Mendel the monk, but that is because that is how I learned it. Abbot sounds weird to me. He is very famous anyway. George Lemaitre, the guy who did the Big Bang was a Belgian Preist, so it is all sort of funny. --Filll 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It does seem a big discussion for a little thing. Still, heated discussion as it was, there have been no personal attacks. Nor is there any pushing a POV or an agenda on the topic. It is about the general question of what constitutes a good article. We can take heart in that. Trishm 23:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling him Abbot Mendel does seem strange. I understand he did his work as a monk, and then dropped out when the duties of abbot took all his time. Did monks have a title, for instance Father Mendel. That would be appropiate. Otherwise "Gregor Mendel, Austrian monk," seems appropiate. --Michael Johnson 00:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is part of good communication and data retention to create a word picture with multiple associations. Giving the reader something more than a mere name helps. If we find it relevant and useful to include an image of a man's face then why not also a single descriptive word that helps the reader distinguish him from others of the same name, that helps the reader form a mental image, that helps the reader form multiple associations for better memory retention, and humanizes an otherwise dry subject. WAS 4.250 01:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

He should not be referred to as abbot Mendel for several reasons. First off, we don't typically refer to people that way; we just use their name. Second, he's most commonly known as Mendel, NOT Abbot Mendel, and as he was not an abbot at the time it'd be inappropriate to refer to him as such anyway. A mention of him being a monk is alright, but calling him Abbot Mendel is just silly. Titanium Dragon 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Gregor Mendel was a scientist. He was also elected Abbot at Brno after he did his work on genetics. He received training in natural sciences at the University of Vienna (which is about 3 km from where I am sitting now BTW). It doesn't help to explain who he was in this article. He has his own wikibiography. Here is a link in English for you to find more about him in a simple narrative style - [5]

By clicking on the his name in evolution I assume that there is a plethora of information about the man which is why it is hyperlinked to make it easy to find.(I haven't done so.)

Using a name to describe someone in this way except in their biography (and some of those examples are a bit harsh although true - and I really liked the man BTW) is pushing a POV imho. Examples:

Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman ...
LSD taker Richard Feyman ...
Topless bar frequenter Richard Feynman ...
Drummer Richard Feynman ...
Physicist Richard Feynman ...

All have different connotations. Hope I haven't laid that on too heavy. Anyway call the man Gregor Mendel. If the issue of the philosophers is still niggling anyone open a different topic for that. Candy 03:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should discuss linkage disequilibrium, pop. genetics, and evolution. Spend more time on molecular issues, since that is the modern definition. Selfish DNA and noncoding DNA-junk DNA, transposons. Where is the level of selection-the gene (Dawkin),orgnanism (Darwin), population, deme debate? The gene number paradox- gene number and complexity. Why sexual reproduction?, etc. GetAgrippa 03:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My Vacuous Response

I have seen the Right Reverend Gregor Johann Mendel referred to in the context of his pea experiments both with and without religious titles such as friar, monk, and abbot. The reason I think it is important is that there is a POV being pushed by a few editors that science and religion are incompatible. E.g., some of the editors and talk contributors on this article have attempted to label the Noah’s Ark article pseudo-science. They have refused to allow a fair characterization of a cited poll that college graduates are three times more likely to believe, and I use the word believe literally, in intelligent design than non-college graduates, in an article on intelligent design and/or creationism.

Unless or until we get the pro-science POV out of this article, and make it more encyclopedic (e.g., by removing the straw man arguments used as a soapbox regarding scientific theory versus the laymen connotation of the word theory when the more difficult and almost as common if not more common contention is that that evolutionary origin of species is just a "scientific theory" and not a "scientific law", a scientific theory that is based on definitions that are still subject to debate by scientists, not falsifiable (or at least not as readily falsifiable) as "scientific laws" such as Maxwell’s equations, the Laws of Thermodynamics, Newton’s Laws of motion, and Gravitational Law. And yes, the theory of gravity has been modified to describe observed behaviors at the boundaries, but here on planet earth, in ad-hoc laboratories around the world, the modifications for most real world experiments are in the noise of measurement error, and as such, undetectable. That is to say, in regard to the law of gravity, it still stands unmodified unless you have some extra-ordinary circumstances and equipment.

Enough of the rant. If you’re not pushing an anti-religion point of view, the interesting piece of information, being friar, monk, or abbot, deserves to be in the article because:

It is true
It is citable
It is pertinent as an exception to the colored view presented in these evolutionary articles that the church and science were enemies. (The truth is much more nuanced, with the church not only exhibiting strong opposition to some scientific theories, but also in fact being responsible for the promotion of other scientific advancements.)

Trishman wrote: I suggest otherwise, because in this case a profession speaks a thousand words. It says that he was extremely well educated - the church education system in Austria was exemplary, and priests were the most highly educated profession there was. He had time, and a good deal of autonomy. It is also relevant that he was not a scientist as such - it indicates that the scientific method is not limited to the "club" of scientists.

I concur whole heartedly. As I have said, other commentators do include the title abbot, monk, or friar when referring to Mendel in the context of evolution.

Personally, I think this article should be scrapped entirely, and an objective person, such as a person who is not so interested in exaggerating the tensions between religion and science, were allowed to write an NPOV article in its place. The anti-God crusaders, and you know who you are, should refrain from modifying this or any science/religion based article except in the clear case of vandelism (e.g., replacing a whole section with DARWIN WAS A SATANIST, read the Bible for the truth).

Meanwhile, resistance to the reference to Mendel's profession/training/background is strong evidence of anti-religion POV, as well as a POV that wants to characterize science and religion as having only tension.

170.215.15.99 05:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Vacous Poet

P.S. In the interest of intellectually honesty, don't merely respond to what you consider my weak points; tackle the most difficult. P.P.S. In any event, having the photograph's caption refer to him as Abbot or Monk (depending on when the photo was taken) will help explain his dress.170.215.15.99 06:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Vacuous Poet

Have you noted that biologists rarely use laws while physicists often use laws? These are different sciences and to consider the theory of evolution to be lesser just becuase it is not "called" a law seems to miss the point. You appear to be trying to use a hierarchy of certainty from a rule book of science that does not exist. ~~An aside, was Mendel ever the Abbot of his monastry? Or is Abbot just a title without rank?~~ (re: the strike out; I just caught up reading above.) David D. (Talk) 06:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

VacuousPoet has been disrupting this article and its talk page with the same crap for quite a while now. I would suggest not feeding the troll while we wait for this latest sockpuppet to be blocked along with the rest of them. N6 06:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

N6 nice way to dodge the points. Talk about sockpuppet. 170.215.15.99 06:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

David D. You are right, and even fill, if he is trained in physics, should be able to admit that there is a bit of a rivalry among scientists regarding hard/soft science, and that in fact some physicists look down on those who take up biology as having the skills of being able to learn Latin and being able to memorize, as opposed to being able to precisely quantify and refine a theory, even if it does have a gravitational constant fudge factor. While no rule book exists, the fact that some scientists, e.g., many physicists at campuses across this country, believe that their field's scientific laws, being readily verifiable, repeatable, etc., are a higher quality of scientific theory than "life evolves, and sometimes this can lead to speciation, Genusiation, Familyation, Classation, Phylumation" and so on and so forth. Indeed, even with physics, there is the view that certain pursuits are futile in that they are not falsifiable. If physicists were as loose with science as biologists, we’d have gravitational theories like “objects with mass attract.” To what extent, who cares, it is a scientific fact, and not a conspiracy theory.

In any event, the soapbox on gravity is a theory, evolution is a theory, etc., is just that, a soapbox intended to slay an easily slayed straw man.

I still think reference to whatever position Mendal held at the time the picture was taken is encyclopedic vis-à-vis the science/religion controversies and their affects on the coloring of these articles. So do a non negligible number of authors who have written on the subject of science in the 1800s.

170.215.15.99 06:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Sigh, now you're editing "Abbott"--an incorrect spelling, an incorrect capitalization, and just plain incorrect when referring to his work on plants--in front of his name in other articles. You seem to have no respect for any of the policies of Wikipedia, in particular WP:SOCK and WP:POINT. N6 06:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, another red herring, or should I say orange marlin. Talk about sock puppetry. Also, please do correct any contribution in which I misspelled abbot. Regarding capitalization, I've always thought that a title was capitalized, most especially if it is the first word in a caption.170.215.15.99 06:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Vacous Poet

I've sidestepped your points only in that you made them after they had already been addressed--and numerous times on this very page when it comes to your general ranting about an anti-God crusade. If you suspect me of being a sockpuppet, by all means open a case.

In general, don't expect anyone to take you seriously until you stop brazenly flouting Wikipedia policy. N6 07:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls, he's a banned user. Revert vandalism appropriately. Titanium Dragon 11:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, while he's blocked and in clear violation of any number of policies, I wouldn't call most of his edits vandalism. Apart from the obvious violations of WP:POINT I don't see true bad faith in all his edits. WP:BAN supports categorically reverting edits by banned users, but WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK don't seem to support similar action against suspected sockpuppets of merely-blocked users (VacuousPoet is not actually banned). I'm personally inclined to treat such edits as part of relevant content disputes until we see a decision on the sockpuppeting case.

On the other hand, if you want to categorically revert his edits, I'm not going to stop you, and I doubt a 3RR case brought against you would succeed. However, given his past behavior, this is likely to lead to endless edit warring. N6 11:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Very few people are pure trolls, but people do troll and I'd categorize his behavior here as trolling. Just because you make a few good faith edits doesn't make you not a troll or a vandal, just as an established user vandalizing a random page rarely doesn't make them a vandal. The main issue is that he is being disruptive and it is obvious to everyone that he just isn't going to "get his way", and he continually posts just to incite responses, or make edits which get a rise out of people. He does sometimes do constructive things, but he's been banned and has no respect for the rules of Wikipedia. If he had just sat and cooled his heels until he got unbanned, we'd not be having this discussion, but his utter disregard for the rules and general disruptiveness make him a troll. Titanium Dragon 12:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I should not even answer this, but there is no anti-God conspiracy here. I think that it is just a matter of taste as to whether to include "monk" or "Abbot" or not. I learned him as "Gregor Mendel the monk" so I feel comfortable with that. Others did not. I bow to whatever is standard usage in biology. For the purposes of shoving their ludicrous attitudes in the face of creationists, I am glad to demonstrate that evolution is not antiGod by the fact that Darwin was a trained minister, and the author of the Big Bang George Lemaitre was a Belgian preist. So how can these two scientific theories be anti-religious or anti-biblical or anti-god? They are not. And creationist denial of these two theories of science on that basis is unfounded, willfully ignorant and aggresively stupid. I think that Mendel is so well known that there is little reason to put his profession in his title, as is true of Darwin. The philosophers are less well known, so a title is more appropriate. The nonsense above about fact and theory and gravity are just that; pure nonsense. I do not think there is any value to going over it again; there never is.--Filll 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Artificial selection section

It is an odd distinction to say we humans artificially select. I remember a Praexis test exam a few years ago was about hybrid corn and the question asked was it Darwinian evolution. The answer was no because it is artificial selection and not natural selection. I understand, but it struck me as odd. Are we humans not natural? Are we distinct from the other animals such that our interactions with nature and effect on evolution is deemed artificial? Not only did we domesticate plants and animals and mold their evolution but it also altered our evolution. Much like hummingbirds and orchid evolution in they both impact each other. Behavioral choices play a huge role in evolution nor do we fully understand why animals often make choices. It seems we still see ourselves as the apex of evolution and outside other animals. Maybe biodesign is a better word choice. Just a weird thought.GetAgrippa 03:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at T.H.Huxley's Evolution and Ethics Prologomena. Probably the best treatment of that, evolution of ethics, Social Darwinism, and human society as part of the natural world I know of. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a weird thought at all. Much of human thought, language, religion, morality, and choices is based on thinking of humans as different in essence from most of the rest of the world. In our lifetime we will create our intellectual successor and find kinship with our pets. WAS 4.250 06:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is an odd distinction at all. Part of the issue that GetAgrippa has is to do with a misconceived paradox. The paradox runs:

I am human. I make a change. This is an artificial change. I am natural (part of nature). The change I made is natural. Natural = artificial. There is a paradox.

You should be able to see the trap there because it is linguistic. Artificial is a term we use to describe something created by humans. Artificial selection in this context is very useful because it describes humans consciously selecting traits. This is quite different to the concept of selection pressure working blindly in nature. With artificial selection the the selection pressure becomes much stronger and genetic drift becomes genetic push (pardon the use of genetic push I don't know if there is a term for this so I just made this up).

Artificial selection is a special case of natural selection. It's nothing really to do with being elitist as a species it's just that one species (human) has an enormous influence on selection pressure for species it chooses. In the case that artificial = unnatural then its seems to be mostly valid and a fair term to use.

I considered putting it in the intro for a moment but as it is a special case and there are many special cases it doesn't help the reader identify and become involved with the process. Candy 17:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In theory, it doesn't -just- refer to humans; it refers to anything making conscious decisions about selecting a group for traits. So aliens could practice artificial selection as well. Titanium Dragon 01:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In practice (that is by biological definition and common definition) it means created by humans. Even hypothetical aliens wouldn't count. Candy 12:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My point was the Praexis test question states that artificial selection is not natural selection nor Darwinian evolution. I think it is a capricious distinction and it is still natural selection. GetAgrippa 23:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to say that it was not natural selection but is part of Darwinian evolution. Darwin used artificial selection as both evidence and a justification for his theory of modified descent. The argument would be that because humans can do it so can natural selective forces. Candy 12:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Animals make behavioral choices that can select upon traits (like sexual selection birds plummage and lion's mane). The trait gains reproductive success in the population because of the choice. Is a lion choosing a dark maned mate artificial selection? I understand the distinction but biodesign seems more appropriate nowadays anyway.GetAgrippa 14:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Traits control behaviour. Unfit behaviour will eventually lead to the genes being eliminated from the gene pool. I'm not sure what selection of a dark maned mate means in this case though. Can you explain more please? Candy 20:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to lion research on why females choose dark maned males. I believe that generally the darker manes is associated with maturity and good health, but it comes with a cost for the male lions of inefficient heat loss. I think game theory is now being applied. GetAgrippa 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Um. Maybe the hybrid corn isn't Darwinian evolution as it's changed through hybridisation rather than variation and selection, whether natural or artificial? Another thought: does Darwinian evolution refer to his ideas or to the modern synthesis? ;) .. dave souza, talk 15:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the Darwinian evolution specific is a good point. Variation is variation. Hybridization in wild sunflower or snapdragon populations is still evolution by natural selection (it is heritable genetic variation that results in fitness differences and speciation). GetAgrippa 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in and agree with GetAgrippa here: selection pressure is inextricable from behavioral choice by members of a huge swath of the animal kingdom. Humans may be the only organism known to exert selection pressure for the explicit purpose of encouraging favorable genetic traits, but don't feel that this justifies a strict dicotomy between natural and artificial selection. Human brains arose from nature, and human minds are subject to natural influences from their bodies and genes as well as from the natural environment. It is entirely reasonable to define artificial selection as it has been defined, but I think it is a proper subset of natural selection. N6 19:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, I believe, both are subsets of selection. Candy 20:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Artificial selection is not natural selection.
Artificial selection has humans making conscious decisions about which traits are selected for or against, and which particular members of a population will mate, in order to hit a target phenotype. So:
1) In artificial selection, the traits we humans choose to select for are not necessarily beneficial to the species: for example, in dog breeding we have retained some traits that make the breed less fit over time. Thus we override natural selection.
2) In artificial selection, we humans override sexual selection because we force certain members to mate. If we want male X to mate with female Y, it doesn't matter if X finds Y completely repulsive: we make the decision and they have no say .
3) Artificial selection is teleological ... it is goal based and looks to the future with a plan. Current decisions are based on the future, with the goal of trying to hit a particular target phenotype.
Darwin used artificial selection as an analogy to natural selection. His logic was something like, "Look everyone, you can see that humans have selectively bred dogs into various different breeds, and I believe that an analogous process occurs in nature, where the conditions organisms find themselves in perform the selecting by retaining individual differences that are beneficial to the organisms' survival and reproduction, and eliminating those that are not".
As far as the "humans do the selecting, humans are part of nature, therefore, artificial selection is natural selection" logic, then isn't everthing natural? Is a car natural? Well, it's produced by humans, so it's natural?!?!?! If everything is natural, then the word is superfluous and meaningless. --DNAunion 00:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Natural selection" is an idiomatic phrase. You cannot break it down into "natural" and "selection", define those two terms, and then compound the definitions into a definition for the whole phrase. If natural selection is presumed to encompass artificial selection, this does not bear on the definition of the word "natural". This portion of your argument is entirely rhetorical and has no real merit.

1) They are certainly beneficial to the species, because offspring exhibiting desired traits are more likely to breed. Wolves are not fit to live with humans, but this does not mean that wolves are "less fit" than dogs. Similarly, the fact that dogs are not fit to live in the wild does not make them "less fit" than wolves. Dogs and wolves live in different environments and subsequently have different requirements for fitness.

Not certain this was a good analogy. It seems to confuse natural and artificial selection. Domesticated animals will also become feral (eg Dingo to keep on the same theme) which then are subject to natural selection. Candy 15:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't confuse anything; I'm making an argument that artificial selection is a subset of natural selection. I'm only "confused" if you assume a priori that this is false, which is a kind of silly thing to do considering that's the subject of the argument. ;) N6 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

2) Is voluntary sexual selection required for natural selection?

Use of the world volunatry inplies "free will" and should be kept out of arguments. Natural selection certainly includes sexual selection. Candy 15:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course natural selection includes sexual selection. The question was whether the absence of sexual selection means, in and of itself, that natural selection is not taking place. N6 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

3) Again, does this contradict the principles of natural selection? That there may exist a long-term plan is not meaningful: there must also be a short-term plan used to exert the same short-term selection pressure seen in any other arena.

It's possible that the accepted definitions of these two terms really are mutually exclusive, but if so I think this represents a flaw in scientific thinking, an artificial distinction (if you will) between selection pressure exerted by humans and selection pressure exerted by anything but humans. I'd be interested to see published references that make it clear that the two are considered separate.

It's not a flaw in scientific thinking. It's a descriptor of a process where selection is artificial (created by humans). It's really very clear (honest).Candy 15:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm disputing that this is the case. You're begging the question. N6 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As a final illustration, if artificial and natural selection are indeed disjoint, then to which class does antibiotic resistance in bacteria belong? It meets every possible criterion for artificial selection except that it is only an unintended side-effect of artificial selection pressure. Is this dividing line really to hinge on the state of mind of those agents making the selection?

It belongs to natural selection. That's very clear again. Artificial selection is purposeful. Natural selection is not. Humans didn't try to create antibiotic resistance. Candy 15:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If the definition of artificial selection requires us to know the intent of the agents of selection, it's pretty much intractable. It's possible that some members of the medical community could have acted deliberately to encourage antibiotic resistance, but there is no way for us to know this. (I'm not alleging conspiracy, just pointing out that it is possible. Other examples doubtlessly exist that require less ridiculous "what if"s.) A cogent definition ought to make clear statements based on observable fact without reference to fuzzy and unknowable factors like intent. You don't want to make reference to free will in regards to sexual selection, but making free will an integral part of the definition of artificial selection is fine?

If artificial selection and natural selection are mutually exclusive, then the definition of natural selection hinges on the definition of artificial selection. This, too, is troublesome. What is natural selection? "Selection based on environmental pressures, provided those pressures are not exerted by humans, except when humans exert those pressures inadvertently (or on purpose but not with the intention of selecting for the selected traits)"? Perhaps this is really the consensus of the scientific community, but it seems a much more useful definition would be "selection based on environmental pressures". N6 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

--N6 01:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow lots of excellent discussion over a trivial thought. I understand that the domestication of plants initially selected on plants that retained their fruit and didn't sporadically disperse as usual. The longer the fruit sets the easier to harvest. I would presume that humans stumbled onto it more so than any planned selection and alterations as nowadays. I would suspect that the domestication of wolves into dogs was similar. We selected natural traits from wild type to generate the domesticate through time. This success is cooperative as we maintain the lines of plants and animals and we reap the benefits. Some ants farm specific fungi, so they have domesticated a wild type fungus to some degree. The wild type is successful in nature, but the domesticated is also successful. Fitness is the capability of certain genotypes to reproduce so the fact that humans propagate and are responsible for the fitness should not disqualify it. I think the domestication of most plants and animals has been via artificial-natural selection, but nowadays we have ventured into the realm of biodesign and are adding or creating traits into organisms. Roundup resistant cotton, lysine corn, etc. GetAgrippa 01:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

However, genetic engineering is not the same as selection. Candy 15:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Having posted that I thought about it. Maybe I was too hasty. Genetic engineering could be modification of artificial selection or a third category such as Engineered Selection. However, I think that this would be a discussion outside Wikipedia. Candy 18:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)