Talk:Evolution/Archive 29

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 25

←

Archive 27

→

Help with fact and theory

Some authors say evolution is fact and theory, others fact and NOT theory. Er? Help. It's total linguistic confusion. No wonder because there are 2 principal meanings of "evolution", "fact" and "theory".

EVOLUTION

The hypothesis that species change in their average composition from one generation to the next
The hypothesis that man and monkey share a common ancestor (or similar)

FACT

Something which is directly observed
Something for which there is overwhelming evidence

THEORY

Something capable of explaining, interpeting obervations and making predictions
Something yet to be proven, not fully established

Not realy surprising we have this mess!!! Axel147 16:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are right we have a mess. That is why I and Orangemarlin wrote Evolution as theory and fact. Let me try to summarize what will be in the rewrite:

A lot of scholarly sources
evolution as a process and as a theory
theory as a scientific explanation for data and theory as just a guess that is probably not true
fact as truth and fact as scientific datum
theory so well established it is regarded as fact because it would be perverse not to.

There will also be discussion of scientific hypotheses, laws, truth, predictions etc. All with lots of references and examples and quotes.--Filll 16:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Google hits:

"Theory of evolution" 1.08 million
"evolutionary theory" 1.03 million
"Darwin's theory" 0.627 million
"Process of evolution" 0.527 million
"theory of natural selection" 0.486 million
"Darwinian theory" 0.319 million
"evolutionary theories" 273 thousand
"theories of evolution" 177 thousand
"fact of evolution" 68.6 thousand
"theory of biological evolution" 38.2 thousand

So...it does appear that the phrase "theory of evolution" is heavily used by someone. Perhaps incorrectly, but someone is using it. --Filll 01:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due resp

I sincerely doubt that Google hits mean anything approaching a marginal level of relevance when it comes to this matter specifically. It is not unfathomable to conclude that many of the hits for "theory of evolution" originate from creationist websites hellbent on casting animadversions upon evolutionary theory and evolution itself. The best that you have done is to show the sociological component behind thinking of evolution as a "theory." Regardless of all this, I support your efforts in the upcoming version of the article, at least as you have highlighted them here. I was particularly impressed with the point talking about evolution as process and theory. To keep some semblance of the status quo, but to also recognize that it is incomplete, I am fine with talking about the controversy and the problems surrounding the use of the term "evolution." Thanks Filll.UberCryxic 20:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A question that might clarify the issue. How would you (that is, anyone involved in this debate) classify the statement: "The diversity of life that we see today and in the fossil record can be explained by descent with modification from a common ancestor over a period of billions of years"? I would call that a statement of the most basic "theory of evolution". Natural selection, et al, are _specific_ theories of evolution, proposed mechanisms for the modifications that the basic theory requires, but there is, I would argue, such a basic theory distinct from the specific theories, the facts which support it (morphological homologies, genetics, stratigraphy), and the process it requires (descent with modification). Tevildo 21:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The best that you have done is to show the sociological component behind thinking of evolution as a "theory."

The phrase "theory of evolution" is not necessarily an assertion that the process of evolution is non-factual. Your continued insistence that this is the only possible meaning for this phrase is becoming preposterous. "Theory of evolution" is commonly used as a synonym for "evolutionary theory", to signify a theoretical framework built around the process of evolution.

Please acknowledge and address this point instead of continuing to ignore me completely.

--N6 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

N6, I think he is fine with it now. See my talk page.--Filll 21:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

He's fine with your proposed solution, true. But this debate has still been framed from wire to wire by the assumption that "theory of evolution" must mean something that it often doesn't actually mean. There are perfectly correct and uncontroversial uses of this phrase even under the strict definition of evolution as factual process, and yet UberCryxic continues to declare all such usage categorically wrong.

Also, it's been exasperating attempting to make such a simple point that more or less defuses the entire debate and receiving no recognition from either side that I've even said anything at all. N6 21:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This debate has been framed with the context of Wikipedia in mind. However, I have nothing more to say now, as I'm quite happy with what Filll will do. There can be no purpose to continuing this conversation within a wiki context, but I would be glad to discuss these issues with you either through e-mail or through our talk pages.UberCryxic 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive time?

It strikes me that it might be time to archive chunks of this page that are inactive now.--Filll 21:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead

With all respect, can we please stop changing simple words to more difficult words in the lead? The lead needs a reasonable amout of opernness and simplicity, and it must say that it's by no means horrible, but here's my thoughts:

Evolution is the process in which inherited traits become more or less prevalent [Why not common? We surely have enough difficult words as it is.] in a population over successive generations. Over time, this process can lead to speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All extant organisms are related by common descent, having evolved over billions of years of cumulative genetic changes from a single ancestor. [This doesn't really tie in very well with the previous sentences]

The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection and genetic drift; these two mechanisms Replace with "which", to simplify phrasing? act on the genetic variation caused by mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow. [These terms are meaningless to the layperson, I suspect] Through genetic drift, the frequency [Not a horrible word, but given the difficult words we have to use, why include ones we don't?] of heritable traits changes randomly. Through natural selection, organisms with traits that help them to survive and reproduce will have more offspring, passing these beneficial traits on to the next generation. This leads to advantageous traits becoming more common in each generation, while disadvantageous traits become rarer. Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.[5]

The theory of evolution by natural selection was first propounded in detail in Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with the theory of Mendelian heredity to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, also known as "Neo-Darwinism". The modern synthesis describes evolution as a change in the frequency of different versions of genes, known as alleles, within a population from one generation to the next. With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, eusociality [This is a particularly specialist term] in insects, and the biodiversity of Earth's ecosystem.

Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam, I am completely behind you on this one, as I am sure you probably guessed. I do not care if there is fairly heavy technical material in the body of the article, but the LEAD and the introductory paragraphs of the sections (or at least the introductory sentences) absolutely must be readable by a high school student, or a junior high school student if possible. If you cannot make the entire LEAD that way, at least the first couple of paragraphs should be readable by anyone off the street. I know we have an Introduction to evolution article, but that is no reason not to try to make at least the first few sentences of this one accessible. That is all 99% of the readers of this article will read anyway, so we should at least make sure they can understand what the article is about before they move on. I am willing to sit and wait to a certain extent as the rewrite progresses, but I am definitely going on record as advocating accessibility. The fewer big words the better. No need to try to be pedantic, at least in the first few sentences. You can exhibit all kinds of circumlocution later in the article and be as abstruse as you like, but not in the first few sentences please. Thanks.--Filll 22:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For example, why not replace extant with living? Or instead of cumulative, accumulated might be better? Or maybe something simpler yet? and so on.--Filll 22:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea it really slows you down when you have to go to a dictionary to look up every word:

pe·dan·tic [pə dántik] adj. Too concerned with formal rules and details, e.g. in language Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. --Random Replicator 22:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Very funny. But it does prove my point...--Filll 22:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm generally behind the sentiment that simplifying the language in the lead is a good thing. Changing "prevalent" back to "common", for example, is a slam dunk--it was only changed recently, anyway.

On the other hand, I don't see any problem with mentioning "gene recombination and gene flow". My personal philosophy is that it's perfectly OK to use useful wikilinked jargon in a WP lead when no suitable and compact lay terms exist. A print encyclopedia might be obligated to tortuously define its terms in the lead or to remove important introductory information from the lead in the interest of accessibility, but the wiki format allows us to explain unfamiliar terms just by linking them. Others may disagree with this philosophy.

If we must avoid jargon in the lead, the wording should be changed in a way that retains the general meaning. Here's one example I feel is somewhat lacking: "the genetic variation caused by mutation and other processes." I'd prefer the existing wording.

--N6 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but Gene flow is, effectively, migration, so we could say "The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection and genetic drift, which act on the genetic variation caused by mutation, migration from other populations, and the reshuffling of chromosomes during sexual reproduction." instead.

This is moving in the direction of "tortuous" sentence structure, but I wouldn't object too strenuously. Removing "during sexual reproduction" would save some words without compromising accuracy: the sentence doesn't claim that all these processes occur in all species. N6 01:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've applied some of the changes. I don't think anything is contentious, but here are the few that could be:

"All extant organisms are related by common descent" to ". All known organisms are related by common descent": The first is quite possibly wrong, as there's no particular reason to believe panspermia, so life on other worlds, if it exists, is almost surely not related by common descent to our organisms. The second says exactly what we know. If a stronger statement is desired, how about "All known organisms, living and dead, are related by common descent"?
Cut the phrase "of cumulative genetic changes" - it seemed only to make the statement more confusing.
"Genetic recombination" to "the reshuffling of chromosomes during sexual reproduction" - it might not be explicit enough in including crossing over. Tweak? N6 suggests removing the reference to sexual reproduction, though I worry that without it it makes it unclear when the reshuffling happens.
Cut "also known as 'Neo-Darwinism'" - trivial, and was damaging paragraph flow, and we've trimmed the history section anyway, so why elabourate on alternate terms in the lead?
"eusociality in insects" to ~~"social structures in insects" - reasonably accurate, but perhaps not ideal.~~ "the orginisation of colonies of insects" - Are we using British or American spelling conventions, by the way?

Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It does make it unclear when exactly the reshuffling happens, but I don't think that "when" is something that needs to be clear in this lead. We're just providing some context for the origin of genetic variation. For our purposes, mutation, recombination, and gene flow are processes that occur under some unspecified circumstances in some unspecified species. The particulars can be explained in the linked articles and/or in the body of this article. N6 01:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

True. Think any of the other changes might be problematic? Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just about everything looks good. I've made a small change to the wording about insect colonies and changed to "organization" ("ize" endings appear to be preferred by the rest of the article). N6 01:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Gene Flow

The statement that Ernst Mayer thought gene flow to be counterproductive to speciation is true, but he was incorrect as more recent finds indicate:Hey J. Recent advances in assessing gene flow between diverging populations and species. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2006 Dec;16(6):592-6. Epub 2006 Oct 19. Also HGT and hyridization produce speciation so Gene flow occurs during speciation. GetAgrippa 21:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

become more or less common

The first sentence. Become "more or less" common. Is there an alternative to "more or less" that doesn't carry the baggage of the phrase "more or less" that translates to ~~maybe, maybe not~~". On second thought, maybe more or less has a 'feel" of indecisiveness. For example: No big deal, I could "more or less" give a crap whether it's changed or not. But seriously, no big deal so please don't beat me in the ground with endless paragraphs of why my thoughts are "more or less" befuddled.

An addendum: 100% of my high school research papers (science topics) used Wikipedia as a reference. There are many reasons why they shouldn't ... I already know this and it will be addressed. But the fact that they did, demonstrates that it is a primary tool among high school students. My guess is that few with a masters or phd's use Wikipedia for research. Your focus has been on the introduction; the hardest part to simplify, but please read through the entire article. There are many places there that could be crystalized. I'm guessing it would be easier than it has been on the intro. So ... if you feel a sense of ownership to any particular section, would you consider rereading and perhaps re-writing with at least some empahsis on simplification of vocabulary and perhaps breaking-up some very long sentences; not dumbing it down; (we did that next door in the intro) but, with an eye to readability; unlike this sentence that I am using to describe the delemia!

This is still one of my favorite lines: "Thus, over time even in the absence of selection upon the alleles, allele frequencies tend to "drift" upward or downward, eventually becoming "fixed" - that is, going to 0% or 100% frequency."

I did tell my students when viewing an entry to look over the discussion page. It would give them insight into the credibility of the article. I am so impressed with your commitment to excellence ... and you are not even paid. Cheers --Random Replicator 16:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, since it's "More or less common relative to others", we could probably change to "more common relative to others" without much loss of meaning. The rest of the article is the next project. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually like "more or less common". In this case it isn't "more or less" common, it's "more common or less common". In any case it's now "prevelant" not common. Losing the "less" part of the structure though Adam implies that evolution or variation only happens when an allele frequency increases which is not so. Candy 18:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That is an awful sentence by any standard. Unreadable by high school student and PhD alike.--Filll 18:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the term "blueprint" misleading? As discussed below. I used it in the Introduction Article: Evolution occurs through changes in genes, the "blueprint" for constructing the organism. Should I change it to "instructions". Also. "inherited traits become more common or uncommon over successive...." Would "more common or less common" work for balance. Or perhaps just "increase or decrease" which takes fewer words. --Random Replicator 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to resolve the issue by changing it to "less or more common", but that was awkward-sounding. So I changed it to "more common or uncommon". But I still actually prefer "more or less common". I don't think that the connotation of triviality is significant here, and its irrelevance is sufficient that I don't think anyone will be led astray by it. It's also a lit simpler and smoother than other possible wordings, and avoids their ambiguities. So, I agree with Candy. -Silence 00:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

intro

Although Silence seemed to want to simplify the intro, his last edit involved adding an unnecessary sewntence. Moreover, that sentence used the very very problematic and misleading "genes as blueprints" metaphor - putting "blueprints" in quotation marks doesn't help; it is a bad metaphor and can only mislead people and we just shouldn't use it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye, It was an unnecessary addition. Candy 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the "blueprints" metaphor; any other way of conveying the same information in a clear manner will be adequate. If the purpose of the lead section of evolution is to explain evolution as clearly as possible to non-specialists, it is vitally necessary to explicitly state, at some point or other, that evolution operates through the hereditary unit known as the gene—and, ideally, we should explain, at least very briefly, what a gene is (briefly mentioning DNA is also something to consider, because of its importance and relevance). Waiting until the end of the third paragraph (after genetics has already been discussed in-depth in the second para, with much less common and less important terms like "genetic recombination" being referenced), and then only explaining and linking "alleles", rather than genes themselves, is unhelpful if we expect many of our readers to be unacquainted with genetics, which seems like a fair expectation.

I was prompted to make this addition by the recent comment noting how much more accessible the lead section of Introduction to evolution is than the lead section to Evolution. Although we shouldn't "baby" our readers as much as the Introduction article does, we should at the very least explain the same fundamental ideas that that article does, which includes explaining, either near the end of the first pragraph or near the start of the second one, the genetic basis of evolution. -Silence 18:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I might also mention if anyone is feeling ambitious, we have the same problem at genetics, gene and mutation. I think all of these could do with a more accessible lead, and possibly an introductory article. I have a stub for Introduction to genetics already that needs work.--Filll 18:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The most exact definition is in the third paragraph, which explains alleles and genes, to some extent. Perhaps a little bit more on Mendelian genetics in that paragraph would be best? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've now heavily revised the lead section of the article, removing some unnecessary details or roundabout wordings and trying to convey the basic ideas as simply and directly as possible. Feel free to revert and discuss the changes; we may end up implementing some and rejecting others, which is fine, but I wanted to see how they looked and to get the word out quickly. The major changes are:
- I redefined evolution in terms of genetics rather than traits. This definition seems to be more common (cf. dictionary.com), and more direct. Modern evolution is extensively concerned with genes, much more so than traits; a cursory look at the article will show that the entire "processes" and "mechanisms" sections (i.e., the heart and soul of the article) are concerned with genetics, which is unavoidable. If the reason this was avoided in the first paragraph was because of concerns over scaring people off with technobabble, then the concern is misplaced; someone who isn't immediately introduced to the gene will be confused for the entire rest of the article by the subsequent central focus on genetic change. Simplification should not be pursued to the extreme that it leads to inaccuracy, as is the case if we try to brush genes under the rug in the lead section. By the modern, biological definition of evolution, organisms' inherited traits can hypothetically change over successive generations without evolution being involved, as long as the unit of heredity is non-genetic; in turn, change in a population's genetic composition over successive generations is evolution by definition, even if the population's phenotypes or traits remain unchanged.
- I greatly shortened and simplified the lengthy listing of mutation, gene flow, genetic recombination, and genetic drift, which will be of minimal value to anyone completely new to the topic. Now that only a few words are consumed in referencing them, anyone interested will be able to either read further in the article or click on the individual links to find out more, but anyone not interested will be able to understand everything that the second paragraph is saying without needing to be familiar with genetic terminology. Plus it's greatly shortened, thanks to removing some redundant "genetic"s.
- I shortened the third paragraph by simplifying the allele reference (because genes are already mentioned now in the first paragraph) and removing the unnecessary minor examples of antibiotic resistance and eusociality, which, though interesting, are likely to confuse new readers (as it has been noted recently that these are not common terms, especially "eusociality"), and give them the misleading impression that these are somehow central or vital aspects of evolutionary research, when they're really just meant to be interesting side-notes. By leaving such side-notes and examples until later in the article, we avoid cluttering the lead seciton and can give more much-needed time and space to truly central aspects of evolution, such as its explanatory value for the biodiversity of known life.
There are also some other, more minor changes, which can be viewed in the differences. -Silence 20:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't like the new lead sentence: It's perfectly accurate, but defines it in a much harder to understand way, in my opinion. I'd rather have the old-fashioned top-down definition first, as being easiest to understand, with the bottom-up modern synthesis definition - which requires more knowledge of genes - in the second or third paragraph. Others may disagree. 84.19.233.186 21:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC) (Adam Cuerden)

"rm gene-centric view -- evolution is observable in populations even before we were able to look at the gene level" - The first sentence of my change was removed with this comment.
Two points in response: First, the entire rest of the article is clearly written from a 100% gene-centric view. We are only deceiving ourselves, and our readers, if we do not acknowledge this. If the rest of the article is not 100% "gene-centric", then neither is "Evolution is the change in a population's genes over successive generations". It should also be noted that it is entirely undeniable that genes are always involved in, and critical for, evolution; noting that this is true at the beginning of the article, for the sake of not confusing our readers later, is uncontroversial, and needn't constitute being "gene-centric", which some would say implies that phenotypes aren't as important (which is contradicted by the very next sentence; if you want, we can even combine the two sentences into one, if being sufficiently neutral is more important than keeping the sentences simple and short).
Second, the claim that "evolution is observable in populations even before we were able to look at the gene level" is trivially true, and profoundly irrelevant. This article is about modern evolutionary biology, not about the history of evolutionary thought, and as such it should reflect (especially in the first paragraph!) the modern view of evolution, which is a thoroughly (and increasingly) genetic one, at least at its foundations. If dictionaries tend to define evolution in genetic terms, and if we ourselves devote the most important parts of the article to describing evolution genetically, I see no reason not to at least acknowledge that common usage at the start of the article, even if we temper it by describing evolution in terms of "traits" at the same time.
Yes, evolution can be observed without knowing anything about genetics—but so what? Clouds were observed for millennia before anyone knew that clouds were masses of water droplets or ice particles, but that doesn't mean that modern dictionaries or encyclopedias shouldn't start off a cloud article by explaining that fact about clouds. For the same reason we start our Cloud article with "A cloud is a visible mass of condensed droplets or frozen crystals suspended in the atmosphere above the surface of the Earth or another planetary body", rather than starting it with "A cloud is a big fluffy white thing in the sky" in order to acknowledge or make room for older understandings of clouds, we should similarly start Evolution by explaining the basic processes at work in evolution, as modern evolutionary biologists recognize it (and that basic process is genetic), not by trying to give a vague, roundabout explanation that doesn't really come close to explaining how evolution works. We should not sacrifice informational value and straightforward coherency for the sake of avoiding being branded "gene-centric". -Silence 21:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you call a sheep with no legs? ....duolc A! (You have to teach very young children to appreciate this). Cleaned up the intro sentence. "Genes" was too vague I felt so changed it to gene frequencies and removed uncommon as it's use in this respect is more suited to Dickensian English. Candy 08:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"In biology, evolution is the process in which a population's inherited traits become more common or less common over successive generations through changes in gene frequencies." In biology, evolution is the change in a populations inherited traits though changes in gene frequencies over successive generations. Process seems odd. It should be more a phenomena. Gravity is described as a phenomena not a process isn't it(process of curved space time?)? Processes would also seem to refer to theory. The process of evolution by natural selection, or process of evolution by genetic drift can explain the life history of earth or explain the evolution observed. I guess it is both-Darwin observed the process, we now the molecular phenomena. It is not a big deal just my own perverse perspective. GetAgrippa 13:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain why "genes" is too vague for the first sentence, Candy? Dictionaries variously use "change in the gene pool of a population", "change in the genetic composition of a population", or "change in the gene frequencies of a population", so the common theme seems to simply be "change in the genes of a population"; is it really necessary to make the first sentence even longer by adding "frequencies"? Especially since we already basically mention that in the first sentence as "become more common or uncommon".

And, GetAgrippa, the reason it is correct is to describe evolution as a "process" rather than a "phenomenon" is because evolution, by definition, only occurs over the span of multiple generations. Features of evolution, like allele frequency changes, might be directly observable as individual phenomena through a microscope, but evolution itself only occurs over significant spans of time, depending on the species being observed. -Silence 15:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Because modern biology relies on the understanding that it isn't changes in any old genes but the frequencies of the coding (or those assisting in coding) alleles. Candy 06:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Phenomena means observeable by the senses which does not negate using technology-gel electrophoresis or an electron microscope and our senses to make observations. Multiple generations is true, but with HGT and hybridization it is relatively quickly. There are a whole host of examples of animals that appear to be splitting into distinct species in real time as we speak or the last 50-300 years. It is more correct to say frequencies in agreement with pop. genetics also. Evolution is the fact of changes in gene frequencies and heritable traits through descent. The processes and mechanisms are mutations, recombinations, non-random mating, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow,etc. Evolution occurs through a process of mutation and natural selection, or hybridization and natural selection, or a founder effect and genetic drift,etc. Evolution is the phenomena and the processes are both biological and mathematical-genetics and modeling. Is gravity a process? The processes of gravitons or curved spacetime produces the phenomena. "Significant spans of time" is limiting evolution to macroevolution whereas microevolution is evolution in real time. The transposon responsible for insecticide resistance in world wide population of drosophila has occured the last 50-250 years. Plants can hybridize and generate speciation within a few generations. Speciation can occur without sequence evolution-reproductive isolation without sequence evolution: Speciation Without Sequence Evolution.Science 8 September 2006 313: 1360. GetAgrippa 18:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Phenomena are observable, yes, but "a phenomenon" is a single observation. Evolution is phenomenal, but not "a phenomenon"; it's more of a group of phenomena than a single one. Therefore it seems more accurate and clear to describe evolution as "a process": the individual phenomena within that process do not, on their own, constitute evolution. Rather, it is their being causally and temporally grouped together that makes them "evolution". -Silence 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point it is multistep mechanistically and thus is a process of processes. I am just concerned people will confuse the processes of evolution for evolution. Natural selection is not synonymous with evolution, but you have evolution by natural selection. Speciation is not synonymous with evolution but is a by product of evolution. You should address the usage of phenomenon in the gravitation article. Gravitation is a phenomenon through which all objects attract each other. This is true but not just a single event. GetAgrippa 20:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The water cycle is a process, but precipitation is a specific process within that process. It is possible to describe both as being processes without generating ambiguity, as long as we are careful in how we define water cycle (or how we define evolution); in contrast, saying that the water cycle is a "phenomenon" is a bit too inexact. I don't think it will be a big problem as long as we are consistent. -Silence 21:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, Genetic drift is a force that generally acts to remove variation, not create it: If a gene fluctuates randomly for long enough, particularly in a small population, it will become fixed when, by random chance, one of the alleles happens to reach 100%. I've reworked it accordingly. I've also added a few words around each of the short descriptions of causes of variation, and clarified the role of genes. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the intro seems to read like a butcher's offal bucket again. "All known organisms" did not evolve over billions of years. Only the current or extant ones did.

"usually measured in terms of the genes that encode the traits". Allele is succincter and clearer. Genes that encode the traits is clumsy.

"As differences accumulate in populations over time" As differences in what? Clarity is missing.

"Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions" Please explain this to me! What on earth is it trying to say?

I had objections to "In biology," before due to tautology. I take on board the remark the article should stand alone regardless of diambig and therfore withdraw my previous statements. Candy 22:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with point 1; "known" is not only inaccurate, but redundant, as we can't discuss unknown organisms, and we shouldn't speculate about purely hypothetical extraterrestrial life. "Living organisms" should suffice, and is less terminology-heavy than "Extant organisms". I'll try to revise the gene clause (now a brief sentence), both to avoid ambiguity and to avoid redundancy with the later mentioning of alleles; there's no reason to wait until the "history" part of the intro to explain how modern biology views evolution (i.e., in terms of allele frequency). Regarding point 3, I'm not sure what you mean; the differences refer to the accumulated variations in inherited traits in and between populations, as mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Perhaps the intro to Introduction to evolution will be clearer on this point? Regarding point 4, that sentence has been there for months, and has in no way been altered by recent edits to the lead section, so I won't try to explain or alter it. And I agree that "In biology" is important and necessary, as evolution has many non-biological meanings and we should not rely on dab notices for article text clarity when not absolutely necessary. -Silence 22:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And no, the "In biology bit," was removed a few weeks ago by me. See history. So it is not correct to say it's been there for months. You entered cold on this one recently. (Which is why, some days ago, I asked you to read the discussions if you remember.) Candy 06:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of problems with the last edits:

"It is usually measured in terms of the frequency of alleles, the genes that encode traits." - this is a terrible explanation of alleles. How about "in terms of the frequency of the genes that encode the various traits, known as alleles" - this makes the relationship between genes and alleles clear.
Removes the phrase "and bettwen" from "As differences in and between populations accumulate over time, this process can lead to [[speciation]", as well as other muddying rewrites. Populations of the same species diverging from each other is a classic mechanism of speciation, that the edit removes.
Genetic mutation, migration, and reshuffling create variation in organisms, and gene flow randomizes it. - Gene flow in no way randomises it, and your edit statement saying that "migration from other populations" is an inaccurate description of gene flow is... completely and entirely wrong. That is the *precise definition* of it.

I've reverted it, as, freankly, every change in the last two seemed a bit muddled. Are you feeling alright? Because you are normally a good editor, don't get me wrong. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If any of my edits introduce errors or ambiguities, feel free to revert them; almost the only things I know about alleles, gene flow, and various other topics in genetics are what I've learned from Wikipedia itself, and the articles on and references to each of those are pretty unenlightening. Feel free to reword the sentence on alleles as you see fit, as I was simply trying to find a compromise between the previous version and Candy's request.

"Gene flow randomizes it" was a typo (and an obvious one, since it would mean that "Gene flow" is mentioned twice, both then and earlier as "genetic migration"); that was meant to say "Genetic mutation, migration, and reshuffling creates variation in organisms, and genetic drift randomizes it." I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't notice the typo at the time, so I apologize for the confusion.

As for "in and between", the passage originally only said "in", but I added "in and between" based on my limited knowledge of cladogenesis and anagenesis. As the first paragraph began to get longer, I removed the "and between" because noone had given any indication that it was an improvement, much less that it was necessary, so I figured it'd be better trimmed down a bit to account for the other added info; after all, "differences in a population" could potentially include "between populations", in that differences between populations leading to evolution are themselves the result of the prior development of differences within a population (or of a single population being isolated into two or more groups prior to the accumulation of differences). If you feel that "in and between" was indeed an important clarification to make in the lead paragraph, however, then feel free to restore it.

As for "migation", you defined gene flow as "migration from other populations"; isn't it really "genetic migration to or from other populations"? Defining gene flow as solely being from other populations toward "this" one makes sense neither in context (as we aren't really writing from the perspective of only one population) nor in general (as it's not a one-way process). "Migration" is also ambiguous in this context, as it could apply to anything, not just the transfer of alleles.

At this point, I'm strongly leaning towards simply removing these three troublesome terms from the lead section and moving them to the beginning of the "Basic processes" section, which immediately follows the lead and has enough room to allow us to clearly define all three terms. We can simply mention how natural selection acts on genetic variation in the second paragraph, and go into detail on what causes genetic variation immediately after the lead section, since it's an important topic, but a more complicated one because of the many factors involved. -Silence 02:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

nod* Did think that Gene flow thing was probably a typo, but genetic drift is probably a bit too important to diminish too much. I see your point about Gene flow now: It's mainly a difference in viewpoint, but changing it to "migration between populations" makes it general. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Neutrality

Yesterday I brought a comment to the table that simpy states that the evolution article in Wikipedia is not neutral in some of its wording. The major issue being that the article infers that all scientists believe that evolution is fact. I have read many examples of biologists, paleontologists, geologists and other scientists who have their doubts to the validity of the theory. My suggestion is that for the article to preserve neutrality, it should state that not all scientists are convinced or at least say that "most" scientists agree, etc. etc. Since then I've been peppered with circular reasoning and ad hominem arguments that avoid the issue. Some people have even accused me of forcing my religious beliefs into the subject when I not once mentioned my religious beliefs. I did not advocate creationism, ID or any other alternative to evolution. That is not my purpose here. The argument that keeps coming back to me is that everybody who matters -- the "revelant scientific community" -- believes in evolution so there is no scientific debate. Only relgious and social debate. Since there is no scientific debate, the argument goes, there are no sides to be taken and therefore no bias to avoid. This just doesn't make sense. Of course there is no debate when the only scientists you allow in the debate room are the ones that agree with your presumption that evolution is fact and supported by all scientists. Maybe you can personally reject a source that does not agree with your POV but you can't ignore opposition when the goal is to preserve neutrality. If there are two (or more) sides to an argument, positioning the article to favor only one side is bias. I sense that I will get nowhere when it comes to atually making any changes in the language of the article, but I have made my objections to the neutrality known. Clayc3466 18:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It probably would have been wiser to simply add this comment to the end of the neutrality conversation rather than delete everyone else's comments and replace them with a new one. Chickenflicker---♣ 19:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Chickenflicker (which is very cool screen name), you're probably correct but the string was getting too long and convoluted. I simply grew tired of the thing. So I guess since I started the conversation I took some editorial perogrative and deleted the whole thing. Clayc3466 19:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Listing Gould as someone claimed to "not agree" with evolution is always entertaining: Silence's contribution was very informative: the links and information given should certainly be added to relevant articles if not there already. .. dave souza, talk 20:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Clayc, you have provided no evidence that evolution is in serious scientific dispute. Your other complaints are inapplicable to this article: the article states nowhere that 100% of all scientists in all fields agree with evolutionary theory, so it is a strawman to dispute that; and unsubstantiated claims of bias are not directly relevant to improving this article. I'll gladly discuss the very general issues you've raised, some of which are problems in philosophy of science, but they are not relevant to improving this article: as long as your claims lack any compelling evidence, to include them would be a violation of Wikipedia's official policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR). I recommend that if you or anyone else wishes to further discuss this, it be taken to User talk:Clayc3466, where I've moved the discussion thus far. We cannot waste any more of our valuable editors' time rehashing the same issue here, as you've been unwilling to directly respond to the last posts and have provided no evidence to support your claims. The End. -Silence 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)