Talk:Evolution/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

New AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Level of support for evolution Please comment. --ScienceApologist 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"An undercover creationist POV fork"????? Huh? Why is the AfD even around? I'm confused. Orangemarlin 18:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Curses, we've been foiled again apparently! Homestarmy 19:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sssssh. I might be able to convince them I'm not really part of the Undercover Creationist Alliance. I had them fooled. But if they think I actually like you, they might be suspicious. So I might have to violate WP:CIVIL and be mean to you. Those Evolution supporters might buy into it. Orangemarlin 21:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Revised FAQ and top of talk page

I've heavily reorganized the top of Talk:Evolution in the interest of brevity, aesthetics, and accessibility, and rewritten Talk:Evolution/FAQ in the interest of providing a better resource for preventing the rehashing of the same old arguments here again and again. How do they look? -Silence 20:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you did a nice job. I wonder if changing some colors a bit might be good, if it is not too garish, in the text at the top. I also wonder if a more pithy list in the FAQ like what we had before might be a useful addition, since WP rules do not really apply.--Filll 20:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What text do you think should be colored? And, I don't think the list needs to be any more shortened, because doing so will only lead to ambiguities that will often make discussions all the more tangled. Because I imagine we will only ask someone posting here to read one of the sections (whichever one his comment is a reiteration of), there is actually very, very little to read through to get to the important stuff—less than for most of the former version, since you had to get through the irrelevant lines of text to find the right number. Section-linking negates that inconvenience. However, feel free to make whatever edits to the FAQ you think would improve it. -Silence 20:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk archives question

Why is Talk:Evolution/Archive 3 a carbon copy of the second half of Talk:Evolution/Archive 1? There seem to be a lot of very strange redundancies and chronological inconsistencies in the archives for this page. -Silence 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Duplication in the archives is perhaps not a serious problem. If you can easily correct it, please do so. I know that at least one of the editors who worked on the archiving preferred to do it topic-by-topic, as issues became inactive. If this is done, the order of dates in the archive may not appear straightforward. EdJohnston 05:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I found that Archives 3-7 were all redundant to other Archives. They should probably be deleted to avoid future confusion. Some reorganization and page-moving may even be due. -Silence 16:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The archiving was probably not done in a completely organized fashion. Some intentional duplication was done to allow people to look at previous discussions easily however.--Filll 18:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

optimisation

In the introduction

"... resulting in very high levels of optimisation over time." The intro paragraph seems to be evolving nicely; but this word for some reason jumped out at me as being slightly over the top. From a teacher's perspective, I foresee some glazed over looks when I ask them what that line means.

In math: refers to the study of problems in which one seeks to minimize or maximize a real function by systematically choosing the values of real or integer variables from within an allowed set. This problem can be represented in the following way

Given: a function f : A R from some set A to the real numbers Sought: an element x0 in A such that f(x0) ≤ f(x) for all x in A ("minimization") or such that f(x0) ≥ f(x) for all x in A ("maximization").

Guessing that is not the definition you are shooting for since your spelling has an 's' and not a 'z'? --Random Replicator 00:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

-ise versus -ize is just British vs. American usage. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions

• "inherited" is a lot simpler than "inheritable". What makes the latter better than the former?

• don't they have different meanings? Inheritable means that it can be inherited, but doesn't necessarily mean it will.Orangemarlin 19:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Is "measured" the right word to use for explaining the relationship between traits and genes?
• Does it really make sense to start the article with an extremely complicated paragraph (listing off undefined terms like natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, genetic recombination, and gene flow), then to move on to a paragraph that is relatively simple? This seems backwards for the purposes of drawing in new readers and avoiding causing confusion or ambiguity.

• I agree with you, but didn't we discuss this a few months ago, and the discussion fell into the argument of "make it readable" vs "make it scientific"? I want it simple and readable, but underneath lies the science and "meat" of the article. IMHO. Orangemarlin 19:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Is there anything remotely useful about mentioning such terms while failing to in any way define them? There's plenty of room to explain each of those terms in detail in the subsequent section, but I don't see any value at all in just listing them off for the sake of showing off a bunch of big words people don't know, the importance of which will only be explained later. Only "mutation" and "natural selection" are both major and familiar enough to laypeople to merit mentioning, and even they should only be mentioned if they're clearly defined (and neither is in the current lead section).

• Once again, I agree. Furthermore, I think most lay people don't understand "mutation" (they think it's a negative) and "natural selection". Evolution is a complex topic, but it can be made understandable. Right now, I think the article is a formidable piece of understanding. Orangemarlin 19:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree — it may not be the best course of action for clarity but to suggest there is nothing remotely useful is simply false. In practice most terms are undefined as an author must assume some prior knowledge of the readers. One of the great strengths of this encyclopedia is the ability to click on a link of an unfamiliar term to find out more. — Axel147 14:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• What does "undirected process" mean in this context? If natural selection is "undirected", can you give me an example of a biological process that is "directed"? Why is this distinction important, or even meaningful?
• Was [[adaptation]]s changed to [[adaptations]] by accident, or for a reason?
• Why do people keep unlinking speciation from the "new species can evolve" line? -Silence 18:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• "inherited": Because, I suppose, people like the perspective of the parent as opposed to the offspring. While there may be slight reasons for this preference, insofar as it's usually described in terms of transition from parent to offspring, thus emphasising the parent, I'd keep it with the simpler for general readership.
• "measured": Possibly. It is done by more or less counting the frequency of genes.
• listing terms: That's one of the major reasons we lost FA, so decidedly no. I've reverted and sent the contributor an explanation of why.
• "undirected": I think this is to distinguish from creationism, and designer-guided evoltion. Better to leave it off.
• I don't know about adaptations or speciation. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the last revision didn't seem very successful, I've tried my own hand at rewriting the first paragraph. (I split it up into two again, but this time I tried to simplify, rather than complicate, the information already there, unlike the previous attempt.) I think this one does a better job at making explicit some of the important things that have only been implied before (e.g., that reproduction is what we're talking about when we're mentioning "inherited" or "heredity" in a biological context), though I imagine there will still be areas of disagreement. -Silence 19:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I like your changes, but thought we might be dimissing the importance of genetic drift too much. I've added a short section on it, concentrating on its importance to speciation. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I would rather leave out any mention of undirected. This is just part of the creationist lexicon.--Filll 19:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I removed the attack. We don't need to insult anyone, it's sufficient to say that it is part of the creationist lexicon, rather than the scientific lexicon. Besides, one could argue that evolution is not "undirected", in that it is directed by processes like natural selection. It's just not willfully directed. -Silence 19:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat provocative on occasion. The basic bottom line is, this sort of discussion reveals a complete lack of understanding of science and nature.--Filll 20:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting thought. I wonder if we shouldn't use that somewhere!!!! Actually, I like what you just wrote so much, I'm going to quote it on my user page. Unless you have trademarked it, and I need to pay you a licensing fee. Or if you stole it from someone else, and I have to license that. Then I won't use it. Orangemarlin 20:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This was intended as a concession to anti-creationists. Editors such as Slrubenstein have argued for this sense to be expressed. I'm happy for this to be dropped. I am of the opinion that if an article is clear enough it should automatically be proofed against misunderstandings: I think that is still true even if people are deliberately trying to misrepresent it. — Axel147 15:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Genetic drift in the lead

I think genetic drift, as one of the only two main mechanisms for evolution (if we ignore sources of variation as mechanisms) is so important that it should be covered in detail. For that reason, my preferred lead runs:

In biology, evolution is the change from generation to generation in a population's inherited characteristics, or traits. These traits are encoded on genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Minor random changes in these genes produce new or altered traits. This results in variation between different organisms, which evolution can then act on.

Through natural selection, organisms with traits that help them to survive and reproduce tend to have more offspring. In doing so, they will pass more copies of these beneficial traits on to the next generation. This leads to advantageous traits becoming more common in each generation, while disadvantageous traits become rarer. Over time, this process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.

However, in small populations, when the number of copies of a certain gene is small, or when there is little advantage or disadvantage to two competing traits, random chance instead dominates, and the ratio of one trait to another will drift back and forth with no restraint. Eventually, one of the traits will end up not being passed on to the next generation, and the other will become fixed, but not necessarily to the same trait in different populations. As some traits work better together than others, fixing one trait may predispose different populations to different strategies, causing them to diverge. As these random differences interact with each population's unique environmental pressures, differences within and between populations can accumulate, and may eventually cause divergence into seperate species. All known species are descended from a single ancestor through this process of gradual divergence.

The theory of evolution by natural selection was first put forth in detail in Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis. With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

Silence believes, with some justification, that this may be too technical, and favours Dawkins' view that natural selection is far more important. While I must emphasise he hasn't had the time to adapt his version as much as I have, his version would be something like:

In biology, evolution is the change from generation to generation in a population's inherited characteristics, or traits. These traits are encoded on genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Minor random changes in these genes produce new or altered traits. This results in variation between different organisms, which is acted on both by random genetic drift and by nonrandom natural selection.

Through natural selection, organisms with traits that help them to survive and reproduce tend to have more offspring. In doing so, they will pass more copies of these beneficial traits on to the next generation. This leads to advantageous traits becoming more common in each generation, while disadvantageous traits become rarer. Over time, this process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions. As differences in and between populations accumulate, new species can evolve. All known species are descended from a single ancestor through this process of gradual divergence.

The theory of evolution by natural selection was first put forth in detail in Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis. With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

Thoughts and comments? Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your version is unbalanced because it discusses genetic drift in vastly more detail than natural selection. (And, in fact, this would be true even if you gave equal text to the second and third paragraphs.) Natural selection warrants an entire paragraph because it's a more complex and difficult topic to explain clearly to non-specialists. Genetic drift, in contrast, although perhaps at least as important a mechanism as natural selection in evolution (though certainly a less important mechanism in the contest of the lead section's attempt to explain speciation and common descent, since both are macroevolutionary, and natural selection dominates in macroevolution, and dominates increasingly the more "macro" we get), requires only a sentence or clause to clearly and concisely explain to readers: something like "Through genetic drift, traits randomly become more common or rare." Even the most basic explanation of natural selection will not be intelligible so briefly. This is why natural selection warrants so much coverage, and genetic drift so little: you'll note that many more of the specifics of genetic drift (e.g., fixation) are covered in your paragraph, whereas almost none of the specifics of natural selection are covered in its paragraph.

I'd say that the explanation of natural selection is a tiny fraction as detailed as your explanation for genetic drift in the lead section, and this would be so even if you hadn't made genetic drift's paragraph so much longer, simply because discussing it requires a lot more technical, specific terminology, making it inappropriate for the lead section of the general evolution article. Trying to artificially make them equally long just because they're equally important is a really terrible idea; we should only make them as long as is absolutely necessary to explain the very basics of evolution. Things like fixation are not necessary for an understanding of these very basics, so covering them there is unwarranted. Besides, a huge number of editors feel that articles should have no more than 3 paragraphs in their lead section, so if we want this article to ever become an FA again, it will be extremely helpful to have the lead section be no more than 2-3 paragraphs long. -Silence 21:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I just can't agree with you: Genetic drift, like natural selection, is a simple idea with major consequences. To ignore the consequences - to go so far as to ignore that the differences between population are governed purely by genetic drift and environmental differences, is misleading. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In what way does the current lead section ignore this? (Isn't this implied by "variation is acted on by two main evolutionary mechanisms: genetic drift makes traits more common or rare at random, while natural selection makes traits more common or rare based on how helpful they are for reproduction"?) In what way does yours not ignore this? Your own version never once mentions this. Indeed, your version is much more misleading than the shorter, simpler version of the lead section, in that it implies that genetic drift and natural selection are mutually exclusive (i.e., either one or the other is operating), when in reality they coexist in all populations; readers cannot be expected to discern all these nuances when you are going out of your way to emphasize a specific technical detail before they even understand what evolution is. -Silence 22:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I accept the criticism and think my edit has actually provoked an improvement. I agree there is a need for accessibility though I think avoiding the correct terminology can sometimes complicate it more. I am not sure though there is concensus about this on this page though. Getagrippa and Candice have argued for the inclusion of some 'proper' terminology recently and if the reader does not understand they can click on the link to find out more. The piece about source of variation was not something I dreamed up by the way: it had been stable in this article for quite some time. Maybe too technical but perhaps a case for retaining the word 'mutation'. I am not a fan of the phraseology 'evolution acts on ... [variation]'. Variation is not a pre-requisite for evolution and I think this ends up confusing it with natural selection. On this specific point about genetic drift I think it's important the reader understands changes in gene frequency can occur at random or because of the survival/reproductive advantages the genes confer on the organism. Whichever words express this clearly. — Axel147 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

History Section

It might be nice to expand on the evolution and hardening of the Modern Syntheis. Thomas Morgan was basically in support of mutationism with natural selection serving a minor role. Fisher's work demonstrated that the natural variation in a population and natural selection could produce evolution without the need for mutations (sort out natural variation in a population). It hardened around the shift in gene frequencies in the fifties. In the 60's mutations grew in interest and is believed to serve a significant role. Kimura's neutralism has been in opposition to selectionism. The growth of EvoDevo and the interest in epigenetic mechanism and a form of neoLamarckism. It would be worth mentioning Dawkins,Doolittle, etc and Selfish DNA-Gene perspective.It doesn't have to be long but it would be nice to talk about the change in thought. GetAgrippa 05:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to decide how to present evolution and species. Evolution defined in neoDarwinist Modern Synthesis terms emphasizing natural selection and the normal variation within a population-population genetics perspective, or also accept some facets of mutationism and neoLamarckism and mention for NPOV. In historical perspective there have been different camps of belief. Species can be defined in biological, ecological, and then morphological (taxon and clades) terms. Ernst Mayr proposed biological speciation which is line with the Modern Synthesis, however I think evolutionary biologist may think in terms of clades nowdays. Generally, NeoDarwinism is presented as the evolution Gospel however I believe if you were to ask evolutionary biologist you may get a more convoluted answer.GetAgrippa 14:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Does NeoDarwinism really say that some Lamarckism is impossible? I don't think it does. If there is some mechanism in some organism that genetically encodes an acquired trait because it was beneficial, surely this could be favoured by natural selection without violatating any neo-Darwinist principle. The remoteness of this possibility seems to be more of an empirical consideration. — Axel147 16:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to historical debates on various topics. NeoDarwinism did not accept Mutationism nor Lamarckism. Mayr and Kimura's debates, etc. There are different perspectives on level of selection-organism, population, gene. GetAgrippa 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are a couple of Pubmed abstracts from Soltzfus that says it better than I:Evol Dev. 2001 Mar-Apr;3(2):73-83. Bias in the introduction of variation as an orienting factor in evolution.Yampolsky LY, Stoltzfus A.

"According to New Synthesis doctrine, the direction of evolution is determined by selection and not by "internal causes" that act by way of propensities of variation. This doctrine rests on the theoretical claim that because mutation rates are small in comparison to selection coefficients, mutation is powerless to overcome opposing selection. Using a simple population-genetic model, this claim is shown to depend on assuming the prior availability of variation, so that mutation may act only as a "pressure" on the frequencies of existing alleles, and not as the evolutionary process that introduces novelty. As shown here, mutational bias in the introduction of novelty can strongly influence the course of evolution, even when mutation rates are small in comparison to selection coefficients. Recognizing this mode of causation provides a distinct mechanistic basis for an "internalist" approach to determining the contribution of mutational and developmental factors to evolutionary phenomena such as homoplasy, parallelism, and directionality."

Evol Dev. 2006 May-Jun;8(3):304-17. Mutationism and the dual causation of evolutionary change.Stoltzfus A.

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws a century ago launched the science that William Bateson called "genetics," and led to a new view of evolution combining selection, particulate inheritance, and the newly characterized phenomenon of "mutation." This "mutationist" view clashed with the earlier view of Darwin, and the later "Modern Synthesis," by allowing discontinuity, and by recognizing mutation (or more properly, mutation-and-altered-development) as a source of creativity, direction, and initiative. By the mid-20th century, the opposing Modern Synthesis view was a prevailing orthodoxy: under its influence, "evolution" was redefined as "shifting gene frequencies," that is, the sorting out of pre-existing variation without new mutations; and the notion that mutation-and-altered-development can exert a predictable influence on the course of evolutionary change was seen as heretical. Nevertheless, mutationist ideas re-surfaced: the notion of mutational determinants of directionality emerged in molecular evolution by 1962, followed in the 1980s by an interest among evolutionary developmental biologists in a shaping or creative role of developmental propensities of variation, and more recently, a recognition by theoretical evolutionary geneticists of the importance of discontinuity and of new mutations in adaptive dynamics. The synthetic challenge presented by these innovations is to integrate mutation-and-altered-development into a new understanding of the dual causation of evolutionary change--a broader and more predictive understanding that already can lay claim to important empirical and theoretical results--and to develop a research program appropriately emphasizing the emergence of variation as a cause of propensities of evolutionary change.

I think perspective is changing. Most of the phenotypes in the human genome are SNP's (point mutations) or copy number variants (1 kb or larger sequence). GetAgrippa 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So if the possibility of Lamarckism re-emerges, then we're back to Darwinism given that he was careful not to rule out acquired characteristics! Any comment or clarification? .. dave souza, talk 22:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am suggesting for the History section we talk about how old ideas die hard and resurrect:mutationism and neoLamarckism. The discovery of epimutations and epialleles is a relatively new dimension and with evodevo the playing field changed or at least a debate ensued. GetAgrippa 23:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

'This doctrine [NeoDarwinism vs. mutationism] rests on the theoretical claim that because mutation rates are small in comparison to selection coefficients, mutation is powerless to overcome opposing selection.' I think this is a misrepresentation. I don't doubt that some mutations are more likely than others, that not all variation is possible, and the mutations that actually occur can greatly influence the direction of evolution. But the key point in NeoDarwinism seems to be this: mutations do not occur because they would be beneficial (in general at least). If they are beneficial this is fortuitous. The reason is fairly straightforward: it is a simple time lag. Adaptation requires fine tuning and subtle mutations. Whether a particular mutation improves fitness can only be known in the future and this depends on inherently unpredictable environmental conditions.— Axel147 14:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In claiming that this doctrine is a 'misrepresentation' of 'NeoDarwinism vs. mutationism', Axel offers a substitute doctrine said to be the real 'key': that in NeoDarwinism, mutations happen without regard to future adaptation, i.e., mutation is seen as a natural (not supernatural) process. But this is not a doctrine that distinguishes mutationism from neoDarwinism. Indeed, the mutationists, i.e., the founding fathers of genetics, thought of it first (see Mutationism).

The doctrine cited above from Yampolsky & Stoltzfus is that 'the direction of evolution is determined by selection and not by "internal causes" that act by way of propensities of variation' . The cited papers provide extensive documentation (dozens of quotations) that the founders of neo-Darwinism accepted this doctrine, and considered it central to distinguishing neo-Darwinism from mutationism and other theories. Showing that the doctrine is wrong is an important claim for evolutionary theory. I don't see how anyone can dismiss this casually given the level of scholarship involved. Dabs 16:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Suppose I have the option of genetically encoding a mutant gene that gives me "an aversion to wearing condoms", but I only want to do this if it is likely to increase the fitness of my children. How could I possibly know? It would depends on all sorts of factors: possible side effects, attitude towards condom wearing, condom design and availability, liklihood of abortion due to accidental pregnancy etc. etc. I could not possibly know at the time I was given the option to mutate. The only way to find out would be to do an 'experiment' in nature with the whole population and select those with greatest reproductive success. — Axel147 14:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure what your getting at? I think the author and the peer reviewers might disagree. There are numerous other papers on the subject. I think we need to discuss the realms of thought in the evolution of evolution theory for a good history section. The whole point is that when the Modern synthesis hardened it didn't stop as it has to accomodate new ideas since 1950.

Remane for example was a firm believer in mutationism as a major player in macroevolution, yet accepted that the Synthesis could fit well into microevolution. Theory Biosci. 2006 Mar;124(3-4):335-48. Epub 2006 Jan 18. Adolf Remane (1898-1976) and his views on systematics, homology and the Modern Synthesis.Zachos FE, Hossfeld U. 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a historian so it was the phrase 'neo-Lamarckism' that I was interested in. The point I was trying to make is that there may be some room for Lamarckian behaviour at the biochemical level, but it is seems highly unlikely if not impossible that mutations that affect interactions between individuals could be caused because of their anticipated impact on fitness. I think it's important to be careful when using the word 'directed' and ask "directed to towards what?" and "for what reason?". — Axel147 15:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand your reservations. NeoLamarckism is more a nod to the namesake than anyone saying Lamarck was correct. Just maybe he was a little bit correct because of the findings of epimutations and heritable epigenetic phenomena, and inducible mutatgenesis. NeoDarwinism was influenced by mendeliam genetics and population genetics which did not entertain epigenetic phenomena and evodevo. I agree that the present incarnation of neoDarwinism includes all the above. GetAgrippa 17:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

'Lamarckism' suggests to me a mechanism of adaptive evolution that is an alternative to natural selection. But for Lamarckism to result in improvement it is no good inheriting any acquired characteristic (such as broken legs, scars from disease etc). The characteristics need to be beneficial. And without natural selection to support it there is no way such a mechanism could 'know' which characteristics would be an improvement. Lamarckism may happen in rare cases in the sense of characterisics being inherited because they are acquired. But if they also happen to be beneficial that is down to natural selection (or chance) not Lamarckism per se. I think using the word 'neo-Lamarckism' to describe this is a bit misleading. Maybe adding a section to the Lamrckism article could help here! — Axel147 20:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your stating your POV Axel. I am referencing a literature of articles and books that call it neoLamarckism and (it is not acquired characteristics)it really is a metaphor to distinquish epigenetic mechanisms from mendelian (although it is considered a genetic phenomena just one that is not understood) and it can include natural selection. I think it is a honorable mention to distinquish a field. GetAgrippa 22:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, epigenetic inheritance deserves a mention. In Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker for example (admittedly popular science 20 years old) Dawkins says 'These elements, the only ones adopted by modern 'neo-Lamarckians', are basically two: the inheritance of acquired characteristics, and the principle of use and disuse.' So there is perhaps room for confusion. Creationists tend to abuse phrases like 'neo-Lamarckism' so perhaps that's why I'm being so sensitive! — Axel147 00:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

engineering applications of evolution

I suggest that there be a short section in the article regarding computer simulation of evolution. (This should be done by someone more familiar & capable than I am.) There are 2 good reasons for this: 1) It addresses predictive value of the theory. (The fact that engineers make money with analytic techniques based on the theory speaks volumes about validity.) 2) It's historically significant that the theory led to genetic algorithms useful in designing antennas, circuitry, AI, & more.68.40.204.107 21:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)twslandlord

Suggested link

The following page, on a wiki that I founded, has what I think is a clear outline of the chain of reasoning behind the theory of evolution by natural selection: http://www.chainsofreason.org/wiki/Chain_1 - Hensa 13:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to be objecting, so I've now added the link. Hensa 21:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Kudos!

I'd like to take some space here to congratulate editors whose comments appear on this talk page for what seems to have been a very constructive and productive discussion in recent weeks. I'm particularly excited that the article has been trimmed down a bit and that defenses of evolution against creationists no longer seem to dominate the article.

In the past, this talk page has often been a space for lots of unproductive bickering over pet sub-topics and venting of frustration with creationists. I, for one, became so frustrated that I stopped trying to contribute, and I became disillusioned with Wikipedia in general.

Now, however, editors here seem to be working together, focusing on *improving* the article, and getting stuff done! I'm particularly impressed by the patient, persistent, and detailed efforts of Silence, who has made good contributions to several other science articles I'm aware of.

Kudos to all, and keep up the good work!

(Two thoughts: I still think the article could use much trimming, and I think the "Misunderstandings" section is out of place here and could be cut entirely.)

Best, Gnixon 18:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Quick Question: Scientific objections from the Veritas Forum (Christian Faculty Organization)

Moved to Evolution Debates archive. Gnixon 18:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent move

I'm pretty sure that having this page at Evolution (biology) is in disagreement with the guidelines as to disambiguation, as it's overwhelmingly what is meant. Indeed, we've had this discussion not that long ago. Ah, well. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Adam. What guidelines are these please? Given the number of entries on the disambiguation page, it's not clear to be why this particular interpretation of evolution should be given priority over all the others. Please can you explain? Many thanks, --Rebroad 13:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's the overwhelmingly most common usage. Anyway, you shouldn't move a major page like this without prior discussion. Guettarda 13:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It's not entirely clear-cut, but WP:DISAMBIG goes into this topic to a degree. Having read the list of "alternative" evolutions, it's clear to me that biological evolution is the primary topic. But I say that as a biologist. Anyway, I think one would have their work cut out explaining why any of the other evolutions (even the science ones) deserves to be the primary. Have a go here if you want though, but I imagine it'd be a lost cause. Cheers, --Plumbago 13:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The main reason is that none of the other types of evolution would be understood out of context as being referred to, but biological evolution is. This makes it the main definition. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• If we took a poll of what people are looking for when they search for "Evolution", probably over 90% of them would say that they're looking for biological evolution. That makes this the primary topic. -Silence 15:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The majority of pages I have seen refer to the "theory of evolution", and are usually expecting to link to an article talking about how life started. When people arrive at the article as it currently is, it mostly appears to be talking about natural selection rather than how life began. For an article discussion how life began (in a non-creationistic way) - to where should the "theory of evolution" article point please? Thanks, --Rebroad 15:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Evolution has nothing to do with "how life began" - that would be Abiogenesis or Origin of life. "Theory of Evolution" (which is all about how life subsequently developed, via mutation and natural selection etc) should go here. --Robert Stevens 16:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is here, under ancestry of life. It might be able to be done better. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

GA/FA?

Since the article has been demoted from its FA status, we need to think about what can be done specifically to bring it back up to standard. In addition, is there any reason the article couldn't make it as a GA in the interim? (I realise that GA standards keep changing, and I mean that as a real, non-rhetorical question).

Silence raised a lot of points at the FARC discussion. Mark raised an important point - the issue of non-technical language (since he's the FA director, his opinion has a lot of weight). So any thoughts on how to move this back to FA? Guettarda 15:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. There IS a lot of good stuff in Introduction to evolution that's much more poorly explained here. I'd keep Evolution's introduction, but compare the excellent sections on Population genetics and speciation in Introduction to evolution to this article's ham-handed explanations, and I think you'll agree that a bit of cannibalism is in order, adapting it, of course, to add the few bits of extra information in the main article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No move (WP:SNOW closure) Duja► 15:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Evolution → Evolution (biology) — Main page should be a disambiguation page, as there are many uses of the word, primarily people looking for subject matter relating to Darwin's theory of evolution relating to origin of life, which has no mention in the current biological article. The biology article is primarily concerning proven natural selection. —Rebroad 13:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC) copied from WP:RM Bobblehead 03:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose - perfectly fine as is. This is the major use of the word by far. Vsmith 03:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Fine as it. I agree with User:Silence (two sections above) that the current article discusses the most common meaning of 'Evolution', and with User:Robert Stevens that covering the origin of life is not essential in this article. Looking at the complete list at Evolution (disambiguation) does anyone think that one of those meanings should be more prominent than Evolution (biology)? EdJohnston 14:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose again. There should be a moratorium on move proposals for this article so we don't have to have the same discussion every six weeks. Opabinia regalis 04:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose as the first and main link on the disambiguation list, it is the primary meaning of evolution, moving it to Evolution (biology) would only add confusion. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 05:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose This is the main meaning. DGG 07:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose By far the best-known meaning of evolution. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Nobody would type the word "Evolution" into a search and expect to be taken to "Stellar Evolution" or whatever. "Evolution", with no additional qualifiers, has only one widely-recognised meaning. --Robert Stevens 09:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose - by far the most common usage of the term. Guettarda 14:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Clearly the most major use of the word. Forgot to sign - Zephyris _Talk 14:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose - Primary (best known, most notable) meaning. / edgarde 14:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose- if this were a dictionary then evolution would refer to development or metaphorical evolution as common usage, but this is an encyclopedia so anyone searching evolution would likely be looking for biological evolution. GetAgrippa 14:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Please see the ongoing discussion two sections up. Vsmith 04:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment moved from inappropriate location

Discussion moved to Evolution Debates archive. Gnixon 19:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, observations indicate that corpuscular mitosis occurs in fibular organisms, including mammal species

...Alright, I'll admit I can just about understand that, but I can't for the life of me see why on earth it's in the section on metabolism. I've reverted it, unless there's a reason for it? Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

More than a few problems with the intro

Let me point you to:

"These traits are encoded as genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction." Traits are not encoded as genes. When genes are expressed along with environmental factors they appear as traits. This sentence is simply wrong. They can be passed on by reproduction but this is not the only way.

"Random changes in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in differences between organisms."The changes are not random. I'm a bit pedantic here I know but in reality there is not a random frequency distribution here. Some changes occur is more or less predictable rates. The word random pops up later as well with genetic drift. Random should really not be used here.

"Evolution occurs when these different traits become more common or rare in a population." What does "these" refer to. It is unclear. Does this make sense anyway as it is not necessarily new traits changing but existing traits.

"This can occur randomly through genetic drift, or based on the reproductive value of traits through natural selection." I don't think this is accurate or makes sense. There is no reproductive value of traits through natural selection. It's not necessarily random but undirected.

"Under natural selection, organisms with traits that help them to survive and reproduce tend to have more offspring. In doing so, they will pass more copies of inheritable beneficial traits on to the next generation." Under natural selection ...? I can't explain why this is written as such? Natural selection is not a law. It's a process. Then there is a comparative in the sentence which is not resolved ... tend to have more offspring than...? Regardless of natural selection or evolution, organisms that survive and reproduce produce offspring.

"This leads to advantageous traits becoming more common in each generation, while disadvantageous traits become rarer.[1][2][3] " This is a repeat of what is said above to a great extent.

"Over time, this process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.[4] " Which process? In addition, what are varied adaptations? Why changing environmental conditions? Surely it should be saying something like, "Over time, adaptations can be developed that allow greater reproductive success when an environment changes." or something similar and better thought through. Evolution is an undirected process which creates diversity of form and function (traits). However, these have no influence on evolution until there is a reason for any particluar traits to be favoured. This is not what is stated in this sentence.

"As differences in and between populations accumulate, new species can evolve. All known species are descended from a single ancestor through this process of gradual divergence.[1][5][6]" Gradual isn't necessarily useful or correct in explaining development from a single ancestor.

"The theory of evolution by natural selection was first put forth in detail in Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species." To the public maybe. The first time was with Wallace in a joint paper. Saying, "in detail" seems to reinforce pushing a PoV that this was certainly only Darwin's idea. How much detail is detail?

Candy 20:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Traits are encoded as genes, but not necessarily in a one-to-one ratio. It's a simplification, but if we don't simplify a bit, we're going to run into terrible confusion. And epigenetic traits are far more detail than will fit in a three-paragraph introduction not on heredity.

Forgetting epigenics. Traits are not encoded as genes. It's not correct. As I said, traits are the expression of genes with the environment. encoded is the wrong word. I think you need to look at the use of the word encoded and whether this is correct or not. )I think it isn't.) Candy 22:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point now. How about "traits are produced by genes"?

Tweaked it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Mutations are semi-random, insofar as they can, in theory, happen anywhere. The fact they fit a probability distribution does not, in itself, mean they aren't randomly placed on the probability distribution. Candy 22:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as semi-random. I think that term fudges the issue. You can't be randomly placed on a frequency distributrion.

Sure you can. If you roll one die, it's equally likely that any number will come up. Roll two dice, and yu now have a range of 2 to 12, but 2 only comes up 1/36th of the time, and 7 comes up 1/6th. Add more dice and it approximates closer and closer to a normal distribution. But the die rolls are still random. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I fnd the statement on these different traits fine - if you take a trait back far enough, even if there's gene flow or HGT, it arose in some organism by mutation at some point. Again, the introduction denies us the ability to go into full detail of everything.

OK Candy 22:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

None of the below apply to the introduction anymore, except the history over-simplification: I've rewritten it: Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't understand your objection to the explanation of genetic drift/natural selection. Certainly in my class on statistics of evolution we treated genetic drift as random when modelling it.

Perhapy my memory is hazy. If you model it to show how any ƒ changes over time it is often by random selection that we sample the gene pool. we often refer to random genetic drift but I'm not convinced that the process can be described as random through genetic drift. It doesn't make sense becauae selection pressure is directional (you just don't know where it is coming from). Candy 22:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that it could be better phrased, it is reasonably accurate: you're conflating natural selection (non-random) with genetic drift (random). They're competing processes, or, more exactly, there's a continuum from pure genetic drift to natural selection (with smaller populations and weak survival/reproductive advantage tending to the genetic drift end, and larger populations and strong survival/reproductive advantage to the natural selection end) Genetic drift is defined as the random proportion.

• Under natural selection, as opposed to the role of genetic drrift. There was a lengthy section explaining the difference but it was cut.
• Your "Over time..." point I agree with completely. Old, old, old part of the introduction long in need of a fix up.

I don't object the use use of the phrase "over time". I think that the senetnce has been butchered and now doesn't make any sense and doesn't refer specifically to anything. Candy 22:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I know, just didn't feel like typing out the full sentence. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• "gradual" may be useful to emphasise the difference between natural selection and hopeful monsters.

Not certain what you mean here! Candy 22:45 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's one of the old, dead theories: proposed that speciation could happen through truly massive mutations, in huge steps, with these massive mutants being known as "hopeful monsters" ("monster" being the traditional term used by farmers and such for extreme mutants like two-headed calves, cyclopean kittens, and such). These huge leaps were contrasted to the small, gradual changes of natural selection, and it was shown that the bigger the jump, the less likely it is to be advantageous. That said, while it's a traditional term, with the punctuated equilibrium debate, it's probably best to instead talk about the small changes, not the gradual nature. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm still not convinced we need the history section, but how about "First came to prominence with"?

Unfortunately, that would be misleading. Evolution was quite the fashion in Lamarck's time. In fact Lamarck historically seems to have taken much bigger risks than Darwin. However, I am in agreement that it may not be necessary to even mention the history here. Candy 22:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't argue with that. Perhaps loss of the section is best, or at least a complete rewrite. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Adam

I stick my responses inside yours for ease or reading, Candy 22:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Plan B?

There are clearly two opposing perspectives.

1) Those that demand an intro that is completely accurate and detailed. They draw attention to the exceptions and/or misconceptions denoted in every sentence and every word that is written.

vs.

2) Those that feel the introduction does not need to read like an entry from the New England Medical Journal; thus, be easily grasped by he average reader. As a result some exceptions and/or misconceptions may defer to later sections in the article.

Admittedly, I am in the later group. Maybe we need an introduction to / the introduction. Can there be a lead in box? An overview statement before the introduction that is immune to the nitnoid details that are exhaustively debated concerning this introduction.

Desperate perhaps; but my friends (to your credit) you have been battling this introduction for months now and still few if any are satisfied. Someone needs to come up with a Plan B. --Random Replicator 23:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

RR, the latter is what we have the new Introduction to evolution article for. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea I forgot about that one, I guess I meant you need a Plan C.--Random Replicator 16:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this is an important issue for me and one I have weighed in on repeatedly for the last 6 months, allow me to state my suggestion again. We do indeed have an Introduction to evolution which I believe is a valuable contribution. We also have a Simple Wikipedia article on Evolution which is even at a lower level. However, I would still argue that the lead, or at least a paragraph or two at the start of the lead, should be understandable by the average man on the street. After that, you can get into the more precise and detailed exposition. I would also suggest that it would be good to have the first paragraph, or at least the first sentence or two, of every major section, readable by the average person. One suggestion I have made several times is to have both a LEAD and an Introduction. This is done in Physics and Chemistry and several other articles. It might not be exactly WP:MOS but it is in line with standard professional writing practice, where one can find an abstract, introduction, foreward, summary and executive summary, all for the same article, and all written with slightly different purposes in mind. In this case, why not have an easily understandable LEAD, which is all that >95% of your readers will ever read, and then a more precise and detailed introduction? --Filll 17:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

RR seems to think that accessibility and accuracy are in opposition. I simply do not believe this. I think we should strive to be accessible. I think we must be accurate. I believe we can be both, with work. Candy made a number of valid and constructive points and we should be grategful. here is my real fear: some people are so used to an inaccurate account of evolution that any correction is just too hard to understand. That is too bad. just because people may be used to saying genes encode traits doesn't mean we should say it. We need to distinguish between what may be a little difficult because it is new to someone, and what may be difficult because it is poorly written. I am all against the latter - and think we just have to live with the former. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You hurt my feelings Slrubenstein. My point is “accuracy to the point of minutia is incompatible with clarity.” When one makes a general statement, it is immediately challenged based on the exceptions. "Genes serve as blueprint", a general statement understandable by the masses. Such a statement conveys an idea of the general function of a gene. Inaccurate, yes, kinda ... sorta ... not exactly correct. After numerous revisions to make it 100% accurate you have lost the benefit of conveying an idea in an easily understood manner. I like Filll’s suggestion. A generalized lead sentence that is strictly for clarity. Detail it to death in later text. Of course, you can always continue with plan A; accept that the introduction will in itself be in a constant state of evolution. It surely must be frustrating for all of you who contribute, since the edits occur to the introduction on a daily basis? Someone simplifies. The next in line says …. But what about …. and so it goes from there. --Random Replicator 00:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if i misinterpreted you. Let's just change the above to "Perhaps some people believe ..." I stand by my points, but they are general and are not directed personally against you.Slrubenstein | Talk 11:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead change

Per Candorwien's recommendations, I've tweaked the introduction. No major content changes, except a little more clarification on the relationship between natural selection and genetic drift, but the speciation section was more-or-less completely rewritten for accuracy, and the bit on genes was made as accurate as possible without getting too technical. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Really just a matter of reading comprehension, but "The information used by the organism to produce these traits is stored on a molecule known as DNA, and is divided up into smaller units known as genes to make it easier to measure and talk about changes in it." seems to me better phrased as "and is considered in terms of smaller sections of the molecule known as..." to avoid the impression that the DNA is physically chopped up. Any comments? ... dave souza, talk 15:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble converting your suggested change into a coherent sentence that doesn't make DNA's role more confusing. Could you give the full sentence? Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the idea was "The information used by the organism to produce these traits is stored on a molecule known as DNA, and is considered in terms of smaller sections of the molecule known as genes to make it easier to measure and talk about changes in it."

Here's another try: "The information used by the organism to produce these traits is stored on a long chain molecule known as DNA, which is made up of a series of smaller units described as genes. These can be examined to measure and discuss changes in the DNA." ... dave souza, talk 15:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I can say a few definite things: The word "long-chain" is useless. If they understand what long-chain means, they almost surely know what DNA is, anyway.

My thoughts on the second are somewhat confusing. I'll try to explain.

The term gene is not an exact term, though it it can be used as such in some contexts. For instance, Dawkins' The Selfish Gene defines it as anything that tends to be inherited together, another definition is anything that codes one protein. Both rapidly lead into ambiguity: the Dawkins definition has completely undefined borders, and the one gene one protein definition runs into ambiguity where there's multiple possible splicings of a gene, creating multple proteins, or even different reading frames (I must admit I'm not sure if that latter actually exists), as well as RNA genes being a confusing exception, etc. Even one gene one RNA strand can be ambiguous through different start points.

In short, my purpose for "and is divided up into smaller units known as genes to make it easier to measure and talk about changes in it" is to point up that this is an artificial construct. Now, I may be being pedantic, but I'd prefer not to imply that genes have any particular biological reality - they're units of convenience, and I'd prefer not to describe them as anything else. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Very valid points, my misunderstanding. However my fear is that someone like myself might take the description a bit literally, so here's another suggestion – "The information used by the organism to produce these traits is stored on a complex molecule known as DNA, which is analysed as though it is divided up into smaller units known as genes to make it easier to measure and talk about changes in it." .. dave souza, talk 22:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I do like it better than the others, but I'm not sure it's the best we can do. Maybe we're better being even simpler, something like:

"The information used by the organism to produce these traits is stored on a complex molecule known as DNA.

Smaller parts of this molecule that hold the information for one or more of its functions are known as genes."

Alternatively, perhaps more technical:

"For analysis, it is arbitrarily divided smaller sections, known as genes, each of which contain the information for some small, but distinct function or functions." Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Candy rightly pointed out the awkwardness of "The theory of evolution by natural selection was first put forth in detail in Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species.", so I've tried drafting a few alternatives:

1. The theory of evolution by natural selection was first brought to public attention by Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species.
2. Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species brought the theory of evolution by natural selection to wide public attention.
3. Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species provided a detailed examination of evolution which gradually convinced the scientific community, and presented his theory of natural selection to a wider public.

Is one of these getting closer to what's needed? ... dave souza, talk 15:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To make this easier, I numbered your choices, so I hope I didn't violate anything by editing your comments. That being said, #1 is the most succinct and easy to read. That's my vote. Orangemarlin 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead as it is right now is much too long and goes into far too much detail. Ideally, it should be trimmed to only a few sentences. All we need is the first sentence:

In biology, evolution is the change in a population's inherited characteristics, or traits, from generation to generation.

plus a *brief* mentioning of natural selection, DNA (in *almost* all organisms), Darwin, the modern synthesis, and social implications. If absolutely necessary, there could be a sentence simply listing a number of important evolutionary concepts, e.g., speciation, common descent, etc. I'm not making any changes right away since you guys have obviously put a lot of work into this and have come up with some very good text, but I think most of it should be moved into the body of the article. Gnixon 20:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene flow rewrite

Talk:Evolution/Gene flow

I've finished the initial work. It could still be improved, but, if there's no objections, I'd like to set a date of Friday for its move into the article, as it is, at least, better referenced and far more accurate than what we have, and it's been setting there for several months with everything but hybridisation in pretty reasonable shape, ignored by everyone else. There's a couple notes in it - I'm leaving them in for now, but they'll be commented out when I move it.

Of couse, I encourage you to edit it before then Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, but way over my head!!!! Orangemarlin 23:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam, I think the proposed change is far, far too long for a subsection in the main article on evolution. What you propose to insert could stand by itself as a separate article. What's wrong with the current section on Gene flow and Population drift? Gnixon 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, I should point out that, though it's titled Gene flow, it's actually a replacement for the Gene flow section and the HGT section, and adds in a section on hybridisation, which was missing, so it's not just an expansion to Gene flow. Secondly, the current one is... not just simply wrong, for instance: "Obstacles to gene flow result in reproductive isolation, a necessary condition for speciation." - Simply wrong. See the opening to my section on hybridisation.

But is also not actually about Gene flow, and randomly jumps to a section on Genetic Drift vs. Natural selection in the middle of it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying it's much too detailed for a sub-subsection in the main evolution article. Other topics in the mechanisms subsection are 3 or 4 paragraphs long. What you're proposing to add is 16 paragraphs. You've written some good stuff. Why not make it a separate article? It's important that Wikipedia's main article on Evolution stays top-level and uses the wiki structure to *link* to further details. (I don't want to open a can of worms here, but an even better idea would be to start a separate article on the detailed technical exposition of evolutionary theory and make what you've written one of its major sections.) Gnixon 20:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

But it's not a sub-section, it's four sub-sections. I've trimmed it down to 11 paragraphs(there's a couple notes in there that'll disappear), plus a one-paragraph addition to Genetic drift. This replaces 8 paragraphs in the article, and adds one and a half new topics. (Gene flow wasn't actually really covered before) Gene flow is a useful organisation of these four topics, nothing more. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think it adds far too much detail to an article that already focuses too much on the technical aspects of the theory. Think of what the table of contents would look like after you make these changes. Anyway, I've said my peace. I'll wait for others to weigh in. Gnixon 23:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree, though I can somewhat see your point. I just don't think it's applicable given what it's replacing. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Why is Evolution categorized as Category:Theories. It's lumped in with a bunch of weird stuff. Did this just pass underneath the radar, or is it supposed to be there? Orangemarlin 23:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Are these the current categories? (I'm afraid I may have just added one: I had to throw a {{dubious}} tag onto a reference in the Social and Religious controversies bit, which puts it into accuracy disputes. I'll see if I can find that verify source one. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I added references to Creation Science and Intelligent Design in the lead to this section, which now reads:

Since the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, evolution has been a source of nearly constant controversy due to its social, philosophical, and religious implications. Particularly in the United States, impassioned debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools has fueled the growth of the Creation Science and Intelligent_Design movements, which seek to challenge the scientific basis of the theory of evolution. Nevertheless, the proposition that biological evolution occurs through the mechanism of natural selection is completely uncontested within the scientific community.

It could still be better, but I think this version improves continuity between the first and (now) third sentences without getting too wordy, and I think it's important that this section links to those articles. Gnixon 18:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This section could also use more work on distinguishing between the debate over the validity and teaching of evolution vs. the controversial ideas such as Social Darwinism that derived from it. Gnixon 18:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, I'm very glad to see that this article continues to be trimmed and improved, and especially that the "Misunderstandings" section was finally axed. Keep up the good fight. I hope you haven't abandoned this page, Silence. Gnixon 18:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

I disagree with the time frame (that it was only after Origin of Species, Lamarck had a lot of controversy in his time) and that there has been constant controvery. Certainly, in the UK, Germany and Austria there is virtually none at the moment and hasn't been much for a considerable time. You will need some evidence as well to support the fact that it is impassioned debate has fuelled the growth of CS and ID movements rather than say fundamental ignorance or through religiously based politics. Candy 19:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Candy. I didn't try to change the first (or third) sentence from the previous version, but you're right that it's misleading about the history. Perhaps it would be better to start by saying that evolution quickly gained a scientific consensus after Origins, but that public acceptance has been slower, and constant debate over teaching in 20th century U.S. public schools has fueled growth of CS/ID. I'm still not sure how to work in both the objections (CS/ID) to evolution and its derivatives (e.g., social Darwinism). By the way, as explained in creation-evolution_controversy, whether or not CS/ID *rely on* "fundamental ignorance" or are "religiously based", their *growth* has certainly been *fueled by* the impassioned political debate over teaching. Gnixon 19:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution had a scientific consensus well before Charlkes Darwin, It was scientifically accepted. Charles Darwin merely supplied a mechanism. I think that science became more accessible to the public after Darwin (perhaps) and therefore more controversial. Candy 23:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what History of evolutionary thought says. Gnixon 03:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I needed to rephrase my response. Darwin provided a mechanism through the concept of natural selection. Mendel's work provided the biological inheritence mechanism.

I've just read the article you refer to and I agree with you that it doesn't. However, the article is not particularly good and to be truthful I wouldn't use a Wikipedia article for reference. The article has two citations. It has virtually no discussion. To me it is at best a timeline. To understand evolutionary thought (imho) it is important to place the times within social and political contexts. For instance, Charles Darwin's work was almost completely ignored for a number of decades. The way it is often written is as if from the moment of publication there was instant and unyielding controversy. Lamarck was quite bold in putting evolution on the discussion table at the time he was around. The article you refer to seems to imply that he wasn't a proponent but he certainly was. He also seems to be misunderstood in his relationship to evolutionary thought in the Wiki article (see perjorative use in the Lamarck article) as it seems to be a fashion to knock him becasue of his explanation of the mechanism rather than remember his support of evolution.

So, returning to the part about US school censorship, hopefully you can see why I was commenting that the US public school debate as being salient now but in respect to the length of time since publication rather puny in respect to global history of the work. Furthermore, there was a scientific consensus before C. darwin (sorry keep on having to write his name in full to prevent confusion with his grandfather and sons Candy 09:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> The "Since the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, evolution has been a source of nearly constant controversy" statement seems wildly inaccurate, firstly because there was considerable controversy in the late eighteenth and early to mid nineteenth centuries, as shown in some detail in History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth and briefly outlined at The Origin of Species#Background. As that discusses, the wider controversy died down by the 1840s and Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation gave evolution considerable public popularity, though it was fiercely opposed by scientists of the time. By the time of publication of the Origin the public perception was open to persuasion, and though some churchmen were espousing evolution, the CofE was more concerned with other theological controversies. To quote van Wyhe, "We know that a wide popular literature such as George Combe's Constitution of Man (1828) and the anonymous Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (1844) had already shocked and converted vast popular audiences to belief in the power of natural laws to control the development of nature and society. Historians of science now believe that Darwin's effect was, as James Secord put it, a 'palace coup' amongst elite men of science rather than a revolution." Secondly, as discussed at creation-evolution controversy, opposition to evolution only erupted into wider political controversy in the aftermath of WW1. ... dave souza, talk 10:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Hey y'all - I know I haven't been seen 'round these parts in a while, but I'm trying to ease back into my life, here, and thus start editing again. So, my thoughts on the intro - I read some of the above commentary, but I'm afraid it doesn't make me any more inclined to like the intro as it stands. The narrow emphasis on DNA and genes-encoding-traits is immediately off-putting and presents an extremely cartoonish and fairly inaccurate picture of the way life works. Personally I'd like to step back from hammering the reader with such specifics in the very beginning (especially given their failings) and discuss evolution in more general terms - sure, inherited traits evolve. We can sketch out a little later the underlying architecture of inheritance and of traits, but it seems a bit much to weigh the reader down with this groaning edifice even before they're given much hint of what evolution is all about. Then there's some odd bits, too, like throwing in effective population size, a fairly advanced concept, into this relatively dumbed-down intro. I'd like a cleaner version, saying, briefly: evolution is change in inherited traits, influenced by natural selection and genetic drift. Then we can move on from there and flesh all that stuff out later on. Yes? Graft 01:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you mean rearrange the introduction so that the technical aspects come later, I agree. But I'm worried about removing too much content from the introduction, because however difficult it is, it does at least prepare the reader for the rest of the article as it is now, grounding them in the concepts they need to know. Lose too much, and we just have to put it right back in again immediately after.

Here's a few random thoughts: We need to cover genetic drift in some way, in enough detail to make it clear it's important. Simplifying to pure natural selection is misleading. We don't have to do this as it is now. We need to cover genes at some point, and have evolved a simple description. I'd like to keep that, even if we move it later in the article. I suspect we need to include speciation and universal common descent. I don't think we need the history section. If content is moved out, make sure the concept is also explained clearly later in the article when it becomes important, because one of the major reasons the introduction grew so complicated was because it had to prepare readers with all the basic information not covered later. Whatever you do, keep it accurate. Omit things by all means, but don't phrase the remainder so that it explicitly excludes the omitted things, e.g. by saying that natural selection is the only process of evolution. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My objection to the current state is: first, we don't need to ground them in those things in order to explain evolution initially, and second, that "grounding" is misplaced - DNA is not the only genetic material, genes are not the atomic units of inheritance, etc. I'm certainly not advocating restricting it to selection; I've been a pretty big pusher of genetic drift on this page. I guess I'll take a whack and see how it goes over. Graft 03:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Graft on this (and his longer comment above). Gnixon 20:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's my shot - Adam, you took Darwin out of the intro. What was your intent? That it be gone, or should it be reintroduced? Graft 23:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope it comes back. I think it's important that the introduction addresses the history of evolution's development and its impact on society. Let's remember we're not trying to write a textbook for biology students. Gnixon 20:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind if it returns, but think that there was nothing usable in what we had, and that if we restore it, we should rewrite it from scratch. That paragraph is the Wikipedia equivilent of a pseudo-gene - it's been edited and mutated until it has no real content, and no longer can fulfil its function. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution Debates Archive

I've created a special archive called "Evolution Debates" and added a first topic. The idea is to give us somewhere to put the long, recurring debates over the validity of evolution, it's status as theory vs. fact, etc., that tend to clutter this page. I would propose that editors regularly move such discussions to the archive when they appear, leaving the discussion heading on this page with a note explaining the move. (See "Quick Question..." above.) Gnixon 18:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments? Gnixon 18:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a mistake to me. It suggests that Wikipedia is an appropriate location for debating evolution; it is not. This new page encourages, rather than discourages, time-wasting and redundant debates. Moreover, I see that many of the "debates" on this page are more counterproductive than anything, serving as a breeding ground for inflammatory comments and squabbling. We should discourage even responding to debate-provoking arguments that aren't directly relevant to the article; instead, simply provide a link to the appropriate FAQ section when someone raises an objection that's addressed there, and remove any further comments (either pro- or anti-evolution) to the user's personal Talk page. Most of the things brought up on the Debate page are already addressed at the FAQ, so re-hashing them out when nothing new is being proposed is the opposite of productive. -Silence 21:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that such debates should be removed from this talk page. In my view, our archive list doesn't need an entry for 'Evolution Debates'. Wikipedia policy, such as WP:REFACTOR, already allows for removal of non-relevant contributions to an article Talk page. EdJohnston 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree those debates don't need to be here at all, but sometimes the line is fuzzy, and I thought it might be less offensive to other editors if their discussions were moved rather than deleted entirely. Consider the Dmurtegex... (sp?) discussion below. Are there some legitimate, article-related issues being discussed, or is it entirely a rehashing of old debates? Gnixon 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: "Evolution Debates" archive has been removed. Inappropriate discussions may instead be hidden using the hat/hab tags. Gnixon 16:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)