Jump to content

Talk:Evolution/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45


Admittedly non-expert, unreferenced draft of complexity section

Embarrassingly bad first draft: feel free to edit mercilessly. ;) I tried to make it vivid with lots of concrete examples. I'll add references if we agree that this is an OK approach. Gotta run, Willow 20:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Simplicity and complexity

Moved this to my Sandbox - Please come and edit. TimVickers 21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your new version is vivid and specific. I found myself following with rapt attention until I got to the last paragraph, which seemed to be going off in a new direction, unrelated to the previous. So I fully support everything up until the last paragraph, but with great worry about the word 'villainous', which I assume has some special technical sense that I didn't at once perceive. EdJohnston 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Ed! I was thinking of a few historical examples when I wrote "villainous", but you're totally right, the passage is better without it. I'm also not sure about the last paragraph. It was kind of an afterthought for me, as may be obvious from the writing; but it is a popular counter-argument to evolution that should be addressed here, don't you think? Willow 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this to a new article called Evolution of complexity. TimVickers 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Automatic peer review per TimVickers

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

All captions shortened. TimVickers 21:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No full dates in article. TimVickers 21:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Renamed the two sections that repeated the title. TimVickers 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
Removed one subsection. TimVickers 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
Summary style is used. TimVickers 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Many of these removed! TimVickers 00:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, ffm ✎talk 19:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I contributed to the peer review. I didn't like some parts.... Adam Cuerden talk 02:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mutation rate

I've cut a two short descriptions of mutation rate that relied too heavily on knowledge from later sections:

Bacteria can even increase their mutation rate in response to stress, leading to the evolution of novel alleles that counter the source of stress.[1]
Mutations that are not affected by natural selection are called neutral mutations. Their frequency in the population is governed by mutation rate, genetic drift and selective pressure on linked alleles. It is understood that most of a species' genome, in the absence of selection, undergoes a steady accumulation of neutral mutations.

The first should probably go in Natural selection, the second probably genetic drift, but I'm not quite sure how to work them in best. They aren't vitally important information, though they may clarify other things being discussed in those sections. Adam Cuerden talk 04:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Audio file missing/broken

The audio file of this article is either missing or broken. When it is downloaded all you get is an empty file. Not sure what to do to fix this. 87.198.133.90 22:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I get the same thing. Might be a problem with the file, or with the server. -- Ec5618 22:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have this sorted out once the article has reached a more stable version, FAC usually involves a lot of changes, so the current draft won't be stable. TimVickers 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

FA Nomination

Well, let's cross our fingers, although everyone's hard work certainly will pay off. I'm taking credit for fixing the citations a month ago or so. LOL. I can't wait. Orangemarlin 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd be Bold. Comments and suggestions would be appreciated. TimVickers 01:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW, this article is ALWAYS the longest to load on my browser. Sometimes it takes up to 2 minutes to load, way more than any other article. Might there be a reason? Orangemarlin 02:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's very bold :) Has the peer-review been archived? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Bold is good!!!! Orangemarlin 02:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Reason for transfer

moved from Talk:Evolution/FAQ
I Transfered the page to the article section because it is not a talk page but instead a FAQ with biased answers so I hereby open the talk page for what it was meant for, to talk.--Peace237 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You make a valid point, that there is no place for specifically for discussion of the FAQ. However putting it in the article namespace probably is a bad idea since it might confuse people into thinking it was part of the article itself (faqs are not usually what should be in articles). Something like a faq is fundementally for talk pages, so it should be in the talk namespace, I think. I went ahead and undid the move. If you have something in the article which you believe could be improved, and the faq contradicts it, you can discuss it here on the main talk page (be sure you have reliable sources). --TeaDrinker 02:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
TeaDrinker, this is second or third time you've done this for Peace237. I think I've gone beyond assuming good faith, and next time, we should consider other alternatives above and beyond reverting their edits. Your niceness is commendable, but how many times do you think we should allow this near-vandalism of the FAQ's? Orangemarlin 02:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoken article?

Apparently there is supposed to be a spoken article, but it doesn't have any content. Anyone know what happened? Axl 20:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's discussed above. I think there is no point in making a spoken version of this until the FAC is over, as this isn't going to be a stable version. TimVickers 20:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed that above. I look forward to listening to it soon. :-) Axl 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Four simple facts?

In the Common descent section, the article states "Darwin inferred the common descent of organisms from four simple facts about organisms." I'm probably just completely blind, but I can only see three facts stated in the remainder of the paragraph. Little help? -- MarcoTolo 22:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

and finally, that organisms, as Linneaus and others had described, can be classified using these similarities into a hierarchy of nested groups. Tomgreeny 22:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I knew it must be that easy - my eyes just passed-over the "finally" about a dozen times....<sigh>. Thanks for the clarification. -- MarcoTolo 22:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Artificial Evolution

Artificial evolution is now widely used in many technical applications. Pioneers include Ingo Rechenberg (1960s) and John Holland (1970s) and others. This should be mentioned somewhere. Algorithms 12:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC) In fact, there should be a little subsection on artificial evolution and a link to the corresponding article. Algorithms 12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This was covered in the History section, but I've split this off into a "Uses in technology" section. I've also added a little on artificial selection, since under the general definition of evolution being change over time, this does fit as a mechanism, albeit very minor. TimVickers 14:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Blank ref

Currently number 76 (it's the repeeated ref named Darwin). Quadzilla99 06:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. TimVickers 13:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Since people were complaining about this not being downloadable, I'll take it on faith that the link can be deleted until somebody makes a new recording. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead image: suggestion

Taking a hint from BenB4's comment on the FAC, I'll pick this topic up again if I may. The points I would make are:

  1. It's a nice illustration, both aesthetically and conceptually. It's simple and intuitive.
  2. It illustrates natural selection, and, as such
  3. It illustrates micro-evolution; in conclusion:
  4. It illustrates natural selection far better than it illustrates evolution

Surprisingly, when I checked natural selection, I saw that its lead image illustrates evolution perfectly. Could the two images simply be swapped? Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That image is already in the article in the section on speciation. I think the objection that was made to such images previously was that they do not illustrate evolution, which is a process, rather they illustrate some outcomes of the process. TimVickers 17:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You should ask Dave Souza about this - he may know of an appropriate photograph of an ancestral species along with domestic variants - maybe pigeons? I'm not an expert on domestication, but there are probably examples where the individuals have lost the inability to interbreed. I'll admit that this particular fact wouldn't be very easy to show in an illustration. Personally, I'm happy with the assertion that evolution is simply change over time. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
File:Whale legs.png
Whale evolution

I have a concept for an image that might answer some of the objections to previous images and be recognizable to people first arriving at this article as an illustration of evolution. It would be something similar to this; however it would also show examples of earlier ancestors which where aquatic. No arrows or lines just series of snapshots of changes over time. If we use Cetacea to do this and include earlier images as I suggested the image will not appear to be overly progressive or imply that there is a specific end. Since the are aquatic, non-aquatic, and then again aquatic; it can hardly be seen as evolution desiring a certain end. A caption could simply state "Various animals related to the order Cetacea change over time". Evolution of cetaceans already has many useful images, but we would need to find references to make it solid as well images for the early aquatic ancestors.--BirgitteSB 17:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer Ammonites. Adam Cuerden talk 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What about a wolf and a poodle? TimVickers 18:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that would a poor choice since the article does not contain any information on domestication or selective breeding.--BirgitteSB 18:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the Whale legs picture or a picture of Ammonites.--BirgitteSB 21:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How about these?

White Peppered Moth
Black Peppered Moth

(or someone could make a single image out of these two) Peppered moth evolution Tomgreeny 21:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

far superior in every respect, for evolution and far better for natural selection, where it is now, than any of the above images suggested.

I am astonished that people are not removing such a meaningless image from this article. I am going to take Samsara's suggestion given above and replace it with the finches in natural selection presently. BenB4 04:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a very poor mock-up of an idea for a lead image (I'm sure that I or someone else can make a far superior image). It's the same basic idea as the current image, but is a concrete example of evolution which should be less confusing.

Tomgreeny 12:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


I've decided to have a look at what we have. I vote for the evolution of the eye one. Looks good, is informative, would make a good evolution logo. Adam Cuerden talk 16:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • This one is lovely. Artwork in itself.
    This one is lovely. Artwork in itself.
  • Informative, but a bit large. See the explanation on its page.
    Informative, but a bit large. See the explanation on its page.
  • Silly.
    Silly.

In the eye image, shouldn't the nerves come out of the front of the light-sensitive cells? TimVickers 16:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends if it's vertebrate or cephalopod. Adam Cuerden talk 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
So the last eye in the series is a cephalopod eye? It just looks strikingly like a human eye with a blind spot to me. TimVickers 16:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ask Auge. Adam Cuerden talk 16:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cradle of humanity AfD

...I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity needs a look in from people who know the subject - Cradle of humanity seems to be some sort of POV "Teach the Controversy" fork of Recent single-origin hypothesis ("Out of Africa" theory) or Human evolution. Adam Cuerden talk 08:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Any descent from Lara Croft must be considered highly improbable ;) . . dave souza, talk 10:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you could please all give your opinion on this, one way or the other. It's going to be a close call, and if we can't get it deleted, we'll have to start editing it extensively, which is going to take away from everybody's time. Let's not let creationists open yet another battleground and attack our flanks. Cheers, Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Multicellularity

I like the idea of explaining multicellullarity's origin in cooperation somewhere in this article. It's a very well-chosen example, and very much the kind of thing that should be explained

This paragraph, however, ignores the evolution, and instead talks about the end result, which is ridiculously off-topic. Let's rewrite this and move it to Evolution of life, except altruism, which should probably be simplified to kin selection (with a brief mention of reciprocity), given a concrete example like bees, and moved to natural selection.

However, not all interactions involve conflict. One of the striking features of the natural world is that genes, cells, and organisms cooperate to form higher-order entities.[2][3] For example, cells in animals sacrifice their reproduction to increase the fitness of the entire organism. Here, cells respond to specific signals that instruct them to either grow or kill themselves. If cells ignore these signals their uncontrolled growth can cause cancer.[4] Organisms cooperate as this can provide benefits through kin selection and group selection, as well as direct, indirect and network reciprocity.[5]

Adam Cuerden talk 01:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am struck by the fact that reproduction includes self-catalytic molecules, prions, selfish genes, lateral transfering virus genes, genes in bacteria that enable colonies, genes in multicellular organisms that create multicellular bodies, genes in insects that create multi-body organisms (bee hives), genes in humans that allow the creation of meme evolution, interactions between species that create a world-wide web of life that is cooperative and competitive; and computer simulations that shows evolution progresses at every level. Species-ifying or gene-ifying evolution is a fundamental conceptual mistake. Sorry, I don't have a source. WAS 4.250 05:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of those are way out of our scope, I fear. We deal a bit with that in a couple sections on levels of evolution, but we can't do everything. Adam Cuerden talk 02:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The references linked in the "levels of selection" discussion deal with this in a lot more detail. TimVickers 03:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Feature freeze

I think at this point in the FAC, the article needs a feature freeze, where only things of a grammatical, punctuation or spelling nature get fixed. Otherwise we won't be able to satisfy the stability criterion of FA. Best regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not new sections or addition of new material, but this does not apply to changes in response to reviewer's comments, Wikipedia:Featured article criteria - "...improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply." TimVickers 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Tim, that's all very well in theory, but what if two of your reviewers don't agree? I'm happy to say this on the FAC if that helps, but if people can just keep any larger refactoring suggestions to themselves, that will help sail the ship home safely. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's the policy. I think it unlikely any reviewers will ask for a significant expansion or rearrangement of the article, but I have come across this situation before, during the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bacteria. Here, we had a quick poll on if the changes were indeed an improvement. Decided they were not, reverted back to the original version and then the article was promoted the day after that had been dealt with. TimVickers 22:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, some of the changes I have made recently that don't seem to be in response to any FAC comments are to incorporate suggestions made at a parallel peer-review process by User:Plumbago in their sandbox. TimVickers 23:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about this everyone. I've not taken part in a FAC before, so wasn't quite clear on what I should do with my comments. Anyway, they're all visible here, together with notes from TimVickers and Adam Cuerden. I hope I've not caused too much bother with these. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there really has been any suggestions for major rearrangements: nearest we've had to that was Plumbago's eminently sensible suggestion that the order the types of speciation are presented in should match between text and graphic, and my arguably sensible suggestion that a discussion of abuses of the theory (Social Darwinism, etc) was a poor note to end the article on. (Leading to a minor rearrangement so that Uses in Technology follows it as an example of justified uses). Though, come to think of it, that last might have been the peer review, anyway.

Unless we actually have a problem with people asking for arbitrary rearrangements, or for changes that don't seem obvious improvements, I don't see any reason to worry about it. Adam Cuerden talk 15:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Social and religious controversies" a bit misleading?

After reading the first paragraph, it leads me to believe that wiki thinks none in "the scientific community" challenges evolution. Some changes should be made. EMSPhydeaux 23:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The percentage is so low, it's effectively none. But it does not state none in the article. Orangemarlin 23:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't use the word "none", but the meaning is the same. "The scientific community consists of the total body of scientists." I don't know how many scientist challenge evolution (I saw 700 but that was a really long time ago) but, even if there are only 1000 of them, I wouldn't say that is "effectively none".EMSPhydeaux 00:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
In this world, some 30 biologists have been found willing to sign a statement saying they were sceptical about evolution. The scientific community overwhelmingly (in the true sense of that word) supports evolution.
You can read more about this subject by reading the article. -- Ec5618 23:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
There are more on this page alone. These are creation scientist. There are bound to be more biologist that are just "sceptical".EMSPhydeaux 01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed ad nauseum, over and over again. Feel free to review the archives of this talkpage to see just how many times we've done this before. The intro is accurate. It is not going to change to reflect your personal opinions. There is no need to discuss this further. Doc Tropics 01:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Both of the first people to comment here admitted to the fact that there are scientist who question evolution. The only thing that is left that may be only my own personal opinion is the fact that the introduction says that no scientist question evolution. This view is supported by wikipedia it's self as I pointed out earlier. I looked briefly through 5 pages of the archives and I saw nothing about this. I could have missed it I guess.EMSPhydeaux 01:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure there are scientists who believe in aliens. Whatever. Out of the 100,000's of biologists in the world, Creationists tracked down 20. But, let's really be honest, how many of those biologists have published their creationist nonsense in peer-reviewed journals? Uh, would that be 0? Ding ding ding. We have ourselves a winner. Orangemarlin 01:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If there was a page on wikipedia that appeared to say no scientists question the non-existence of aliens it would not be approved. It's only the evolution theory that is protected from giving anyone any possible doubts about it's "truth" (which is anti-science btw.) All of the rest of your arguments are leading to rabbit trails. It doesn't matter how many of them their are. There have always been very little groups that turned around to make a big difference against all others beliefs anyway. I am not suggesting that we add a selection on scientific criticism, and question every thing that was proposed as was done to the Creation Science selection. All I am suggesting is that we change it so it does not appear that wikipedia says that no scientist question the theory of evolution. I think what I ask is little and will be very healthy for wikipedia. EMSPhydeaux 03:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Questions the non-existence of aliens, or questions the non-existence of aliens kidnapping Kansas hicks to muck about in their trousers? Because the mere existence of aliens somewhere is not really all that unlikely. Have to choose something with equal lack of evidence to the contrary. Adam Cuerden talk 06:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
To be more rigorous, I have changed this to say that evolution occurs through natural selection is completely uncontested in the scientific literature, this avoids the problems of a few strange opinions held by non-biologists. We can say with 100% certainty that there are no other credible explanations published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is no need to appeal to authority here, just look at the data. TimVickers 05:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"Creation science" is an oxymoron.--Svetovid 23:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tim, you are brilliant! That statement is clear, concise, accurate...and it should certainly reduce or eliminate this kind of digression. It's perfect. Doc Tropics 05:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Better... However, it does still say that "the science of evolution itself" is not part of the controversy. There are over 100 "creation science" books, and many more websites dealing with "the science of evolution itself". If it was me I'd delete that one part but, considering the fact that it says "In general", I'm not going to take the time to debate it. Thanks.EMSPhydeaux 06:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"Creation science" and intelligent design are pseudoscience, not science. Titanium Dragon 05:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This article, and many articles on Wikipedia dealing with evolution and/or the controversy surrounding evolutionary theory, seem to me to be lacking in neutrality. While I recognize that Wikipedia intends to present the most common theories, the articles frequently discredit criticisms of evolution instead of objectively presenting them. As EMSPhydeaux pointed out, there are over 100 creation science books, and if one were to read some of these books, one would realize that there are legitimate problems with evolution and competent scientists who dispute evolutionary theory. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edawgrules (talk • contribs)

No, one wouldn't. One would probably haemorrhage to death.
Are you really under the impression that there are no legitimate scientists in this world? Consider that any scientist that can disprove evolution would win a Nobel prize, which includes one-million dollars. If these 'problems' with evolution are so obvious, why hasn't anyone bothered to point them out? Do you really think that those books would convince anyone but people who want to be convinced? -- Ec5618 09:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a talk page discussing posssible improvements to the article, not a forum on it's subject! Wardhog 19:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Epigenetics 2

Since we don't know if this is important in evolution, should it be in the article? TimVickers 03:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In a few cases, changes in a cell's metabolism or the structure of DNA can change traits in a heritable manner without changing the DNA sequence of genes.[6] These "epigenetic" features change over the course of reproduction and development of organisms,[7] but they can also be inherited by an organism's offspring.[8] The importance of these changes in evolution is unknown, but they may aid adaptation by allowing reversible changes in phenotype.[9]


First sentence not quite accurate, but that doesn't matter -- I don't think it should be in this article. The role of epigenetics in evolution, if any, is probably relatively small, short-term, complicated, and it is at any rate very speculative. That is to say, I agree with the removal. -- Madeleine 02:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Epigenetics is a relatively new field, but it has a role in imprinting, regulating transponsable elements, in hybridization, phenotypic variation, etc. This Science article talking about the last hypothetical common ancestor Urbilateria mentions the role epigenetics probably took in the evolution of germ cells (the germ line is what evolution is all about):Science 20 April 2007:Vol. 316. no. 5823, pp. 390 - 391.A Close Look at Urbisexuality.John Travis. The role is not clear but it is premature to say it has no role in evolution.GetAgrippa 06:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to say it had no role in evolution -- everything has a role, really -- I think the question is to what degree epigenetics is a manifestation of underlying changes in DNA sequence vs. whether it is itself serving as the basis for inheritance. While in the short term epigenetic changes are probably contributing to adaptation, and it's easy to imagine that these changes precede later genetic changes, I think it is at the moment pretty speculative to imply that epigenetics itself can be a basis for long-term inheritance on the evolutionary timescale.
Epigenetic effects can evolve, of course, eg. with mammalian imprinting is an interesting case of "evolutionary conflict" in the evolution of different male and female germ cell imprints, but I don't think I'd be going out on a limb to say that people think the mechanism for these imprints somehow ultimately lie within the DNA sequence.
Maybe epigenetics is good to talk about because it influences the mutation rate of certain sections of DNA (eg the high mutation rate of methylcytosine)? So maybe we should discuss the evolutionary role it has in influencing localization of mutation and what sequences get evolved? But restriction enzymes do this too, they affect the evolution of the genome such that certain DNA sequences are avoided because they would be vulnerable to cutting by the restriction enzymes within the cell.
Finally ... the article you're referencing is talking about "epigenesis" rather than "epigenetics" ... That traces back to an divergent (and mostly unused, I think) word that now means something different, (my rough attempt at definition here) "epigenesis" is used to refer to the process of development and cellular differentiation. That's something different from what we're discussing here. In fact, the article you referenced contrasts "epigenesis" with "preformation" -- their usage of "epigenesis" refers to a lack of inherited factors (arising from a localization of some molecules within the egg) to determine germ cell specification, with all cells starting out "equal" and differentiation arising from the interactions between cells. Madeleine 19:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
For Waddington, I think the term he coined for development and differentiation was 'epigenetic'. Did he also use epigenesis, or is that a more recent term as the meaning of epigenetic has become skewed towards imprinting effects?
With respect to deaminiation (5m-C to T transitions), I think this is more dramatic than the bias against certain restriction sites since the redundancy of the genetic code could probably accomodate such bias whereas deaminination could change the cis elements in a promotor or change a codon such that the silenced gene becomes stably altered (either null, hypomorphic or neomorphic (see mutation for terminology)). The most celebrated (that i know of) example is the paper from Enrico Coen's lab that suggests:
"the plant species 'Linaria vulgaris', originally described more than 250 years ago by Linnaeus, in which the fundamental symmetry of the flower is changed from bilateral to radial" [due to to epigenetic silencing of a developmental gene]. (Pilar Cubas, Coral A. Vincent, and Enrico Coen. 1999. An epigenetic mutation responsible for natural variation in floral symmetry. Nature 401(6749):157-161. PMID 10490023).
However, there is debate whether this phenotypic change has been stable for 250 years or whether it is spontaneous silencing that reoccurs more frequently. Certainly Coen does not have a direct geneology from the plant observed by Linnaeus, so his paper can only speculate with respect to this point. From the evolution angle, the key is to show that the progression from an ancient epi-allele to a stable allele has actually occured, thus, selection can act on the phenotype of a metastable epi-allele and eventually lead to that change becoming fixed in the DNA. This is almost a Lamarkian-like mechanism as pointed out by Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb in their book Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: The Lamarckian Dimension. I'm not sure what specific examples are given in the Jablonka and Lamb book, and despite this intriguing mechanism for evolutionary change, I have to agree with Madeline and Tim Vickers points at the start of this section that I'm not sure there is strong evidence that this plays a big role in evolution. David D. (Talk) 20:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent I pointed out the neoLamarkism and Jablonka and Lamb a couple of months ago. Of course, it is just a waste of time on this wiki. Hash and Rehash. It is an excellent book, but there are plenty of other authors and evidence supporting a feasible role of epigenesis in evolution. Further there are examples of epigenetic phenotypes preceding mutation and genetic speciation and reproductive isolation. Look it up. I cited a huge number of papers over a period with little success. Perhaps for an encyclopedia it is just not worth mentioning I would have to agree. 74.171.83.219 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not notice your posts, can you remember when? I think the main point here is that any role of epigenetic mechanisms in evolution are very speculative at best. This would be the main reason to avoid adding it to this article since it could lead to more confusion than clarity. However, it should be covered in the epigenetics article. David D. (Talk) 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
There in the archives. I give up on this Wiki, although this article has finally dramatically improved. I'm exploring citizendium.org, but the digitaluniverse.net seems more interesting.74.171.83.219 22:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes... that was my point, too speculative, probably adds to the confusion. I've tried to include it in the Epigenetics article. If anyone feels the section could be improved, they're welcome to contribute... In that article, I've tried to note that most "epigenetics" does not have multigenerational inheritance, but some do, and then I tried to list some specific speculations of the role of epigenetics in evolution. More could be added, I'm sure there's more out there, although I'd prefer to keep the speculations well defined.
Regarding the Waddington thing and "epigenesis", I believe he coined the word "epigenetics" from the word "epigenesis", which is the older word... from what I understand, "epigenesis" was used to refer to differentiation of cells from an undifferentiated mass. He used "epigenetics" to the network of interactions between genes and everything else that gives rise to differentiation. It is a very vague definition, and the emerging field of epigenetics research seems to have narrowed the usage of the word to something more like "heritable changes in gene function that occur without a change in the DNA sequence". Madeleine 00:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well not speculative. There is a significant literature on neoLamarckism which by NPOV should be included. In the evolution of multicellular organisms epigenetic phenomena of both gene silencing and piRNA (enhance or silence) has served a dramatic role (otherwise they would be a ball of similar cells. In hybridizaiton it serves a major role especially polyploidy. Unlike the article states hybridization is significant (one third of known species of birds hyridize) and I could list more examples, but I could give a crap.
Really? When I search for "neoLamarckism" in Pubmed I get a single paper from 1979. This isn't an impressive body of literature. TimVickers 19:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think he is referring to the changes to global changes in gene expression and genomic deletion that occurs after a polyploidy has occured. This is quite wll documented in plants but not referred to as neoLamarckism. For example, Tom Osborn has done a fair amount of work in brassica but it is early days to understanding the true role of the epigenetic mechanisms. David D. (Talk) 19:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I started looking through the archives to see what I could find pertinent to my point. I was thinking of writing an article on neoLamarckism at one point. Here is a useful book.Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: The Lamarckian Dimensionby Eva Jablonka, Marion Lamb Here are some excerpts from artilces: "Genomic imprinting confers a developmental asymmetry on the parental genomes, through epigenetic modifications in the germ line and embryo. These heritable modifications regulate the monoallelic activity of parental alleles resulting in their functional differences during development. Specific cis-acting regulatory elements associated with imprinted genes carry modifications involving chromatin structural changes and DNA methylation. Some of these modifications are initiated in the germ line. Comparative genomic analysis at imprinted domains is emerging as a powerful tool for the identification of conserved elements amenable to more detailed functional analysis, and for providing insight into the emergence of imprinting during the evolution of mammalian species." "The X chromosomes of mammals and fruit flies exhibit unusual properties that have evolved to deal with the different dosages of X-linked genes in males (XY) and females (XX). The X chromosome dosage-compensation mechanisms discovered in these species are evolutionarily unrelated, but exhibit surprising parallels in their regulatory strategies. These features include the importance of noncoding RNAs, and epigenetic spreading of chromatin-modifying activities." More excerpts from articles to help:…..”it is important to study the mechanisms of gene family interaction for understanding phenotypic evolution. Because gene duplication occurs more or less at random, phenotypic evolution contains some fortuitous elements, though the environmental factors also play an important role. The randomness of phenotypic evolution is qualitatively different from allele frequency changes by random genetic drift. However, there is some similarity between phenotypic and molecular evolution with respect to functional or environmental constraints and evolutionary rate. It appears that mutation (including gene duplication and other DNA changes) is the driving force of evolution at both the genic and the phenotypic levels.” [1] Hybrid sterility has been well studied for more than a century by many prominent scientists, including Darwin, but the molecular underpinnings have remained unidentified. Masly et al. have identified a gene involved in sperm motility, JYAlpha, responsible for F2 hybrid sterility resulting from crosses of Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans. During speciation gene translocation had placed the gene on two different chromosomes, leading to sterile F2 males lacking any copies of the gene. Thus, reproductive isolation can occur without sequence evolution.[2] Hope these abstracts and articles help.GetAgrippa 16:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance was first reported in plants. It has been reported in drosophila and yeast also, but in yeast it doesn't use methylation. Here are some mammalian references.Trends Genet. 2002 Jul;18(7):348-51.Metastable epialleles in mammals.Rakyan VK, Blewitt ME, Druker R, Preis JI, Whitelaw E. FASEB J. 1998 Aug;12(11):949-57.Maternal epigenetics and methyl supplements affect agouti gene expression in Avy/a mice.Wolff GL, Kodell RL, Moore SR, Cooney CA. Imprinting is also epigenetic and heritable. Admittedly the epigenetic reports are controverial.GetAgrippa 21:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Yes you said it Graft, and the last time I mentioned a number of recent articles and books on the subject in plants, yeast, and mammals. You can't ignore a body of literature because of POV. "There is no significant body of literature" is false. Here is a recent review in plants:Epigenetics and its Implications for Plant Biology 2. The ‘Epigenetic Epiphany’: Epigenetics, Evolution and Beyond. R. T. GRANT-DOWNTON and H. G. DICKINSON. Annals of Botany. Ann. Bot., January 2006; 97: 11 - 27.GetAgrippa 17:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Graft, What are you talking about? "It is not saying what I think it says." Where do you get that? Initially when I first brought the subject up you said there are no heritable epigenetic changes, now you say there is nothing novel in the article or the subject. I said nothing about epigenetic evolution, nor does the article. The article talks about possible contributions of epigenetics phenomena in biology and possible contributions to evolution, and makes reference to Neo-Lamarckism. Neo-Lamarckism doesn't posit classic Lamarckism but the growing evidence that epimutations are significant in biology and may have significance in evolution. This is true especially in plants like toadflax where epimutations results in flowers with radial rather than bilateral symmetry. In the mutant plant a gene is extensively methylated and thus not expressed--and this methylated state is heritable by subsequent generations of toadflax plants. I note you are a grad student and I had hoped you would figure out the intent of the article. It reminds me of the naive statement you made that it is generally accepted that dinosaurs are warm-blooded. I have made of number of positive suggestions to improve this article with little success. Like Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. I noted at a bookstore that every evolution text book mentioned it. The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is a unifying precept in population genetics, and population genetics is the backbone of modern evolutionary biology and any evolutionary hypothesis will probably remain in doubt until the hypothesis is expressed in the form of a population genetics model. I give up trying to guide the editors to improve this article. I have been asked to edit and improve the evodevo article , but after this experience I would rather chew my leg off. This article deals with side issues too much and does not cover the evolution subject in an organized manner. I have noted that a large number of scientist like Kim van der Linde have similaly given up contributing to evolution related topics. I am retiring from a long research and teaching career and now I retire from this effort. GetAgrippa 19:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC) "What determines phenotype is one of the most fundamental questions in biology. Historically, the search for answers had focused on genetic or environmental variants, but recent studies in epigenetics have revealed a third mechanism that can influence phenotypic outcomes, even in the absence of genetic or environmental heterogeneity. Even more surprisingly, some epigenetic variants, or epialleles, can be inherited by the offspring, indicating the existence of a mechanism for biological heredity that is not based on DNA sequence. Recent work from mouse models, human monozygotic twin studies, and large-scale epigenetic profiling suggests that epigenetically determined phenotypes and epigenetic inheritance are more common than previously appreciated."Epigenetic variation and inheritance in mammals.Rakyan VK, Beck S.Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2006 Sep 25. "In plants, naturally occurring methylation of genes can affect the level of gene expression. Variation among individuals in the degree of methylation of a gene, termed epialleles, produces novel phenotypes that are heritable across generations. To date, ecologically important genes with methylated epialleles have been found to affect floral shape, vegetative and seed pigmentation, pathogen resistance and development in plants. Currently, the extent to which epiallelic variation is an important common contributor to phenotypic variation in natural plant populations and its fitness consequences are not known. Because epiallele phenotypes can have identical underlying DNA sequences, response to selection on these phenotypes is likely to differ from expectations based on traditional models of microevolution. Research is needed to understand the role of epialleles in natural plant populations. Recent advances in molecular genetic techniques could enable population biologists to screen for epiallelic variants within plant populations and disentangle epigenetic from more standard genetic sources of phenotypic variance, such as additive genetic variance, dominance variance, epistasis and maternal genetic effects."Epialleles via DNA methylation: consequences for plant evolution.Kalisz S, Purugganan MD.1: Trends Ecol Evol. 2004 Jun;19(6):309-14 After reading these two abstracts I would hope you could see the potential of epigenetic phenomena to participate in evolution. The subject is definitely useful for Current thinking article and should be developed more in Heredity in this article. GetAgrippa 21:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I hesitate to mention this. The article is written in the perspective of the Modern Synthesis and NeoDarwinism-natural selection acts on mutations. The article is somewhat modernized using different nomeclature for allele or gene than the historical so now it refers to a genomic change. The article should be modernized to introduce more modern ideas growing in the Modern Synthesis. There is a significant literature of articles and books that challenges the order. Jablonka and Lamb, West-Eberhard, Price, Agrawal, etc. believe that since (even Mayr)natural selection acts on the phenotype that organisms can speciate phenotypically before a genetic change or reproductive isolation-environmental driven isolation and then genetic change. It is recognized that even cloned genetically identical populations of cells will display differences just due to biological noise (stochastic and other)in gene expression even in the same identical environment and history-inherant nature of life. Models indicate a slight change in a protein could change the fitness of those organisms so evolution can be driven environmentally to produce phenotypes before a genetic change occurs. Phenotypic plasticity and epigenetic phenomena can be heritable and promote speciation. Here is the intro from a MJ West-Eberhard paper: "The evolution of reproductive isolation is a defining characteristic of speciation. Reproductive isolation contributes to the diversification of species by creating genetically independent lineages, the branches of a phylogenetic tree. Each branching point of the tree of life is a speciation event. However, reproductive isolation alone does not create a new branch, because by itself it cannot produce the phenotypic divergence represented by the angular departure of a branch from the ancestral form. In the book celebrated by this colloquium, Systematics and the Origin of Species (1), Ernst Mayr called phenotypic divergence between populations "the other aspect of speciation." Mayr wrote that speciation has two parts: "One part... is the establishment of discontinuities," or reproductive isolation. "The other aspect is the establishment of diversity and divergence, that is the origin of new characters..." (ref. 1, p. 23). The origin of species differences, not reproductive isolation, were the main focus of Darwin's book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (2). This second aspect of speciation, the origin of new characters, is the subject I address here. In particular, I will pursue Mayr's suggestion that "the workings of this process," the origin of new characters or novel phenotypic traits, "can best be studied if we analyze variation" (ref. 1, p. 23). I will take a close look at the origins of variation, starting with two simple questions. (i) Where does the variation, or the variant that makes a new trait, come from? (ii) What gets this second, divergence part of speciation, the origin of species differences, started?" I think the Modern synthesis concentrates so much on genotypes, gene allele frequencies, and reproductive isolation that it misses the point that it is the phenotype which is being selected upon. Maybe this kind of literature belongs in the Current Research in Evolutionary Biology, but it gives perspective. There are also a whole host of models to explain speciation and it would be nice to mention some. The reason being different models support different perspectives. It is just a suggestion. GetAgrippa 16:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC) There seems to be an error near the head of the article in the "Basic processes" subsection. Firstly, the paragraph implies that all phenotypic variability is genetic in basis. Since development is subject to in utero (in ovo, etc.) influences (both maternal inheritance and accidents), and an organism's phenotype can adapt and respond to the environment post-development, it might make more sense to say "This phenotypic variation is primarily the result of genotypes ...". The paragraph goes on to say "Variants in gene sequences in the individuals of a population and the interaction of a genotype with the environment are involved in phenotypic plasticity". I'd certainly agree with the latter portion of this (that genotype-environment interactions are involved in phenotypic plasticity), but the former seems incorrect to me (the article on phenotypic plasticity seems to agree). I'll make appropriate changes to the article, but wanted to document my reasoning here. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Very Good! I agree. I think it would be appropriate to mention the different perspecitves in the processes of evolution. Like molecular evolution and organismic evolution. I found some good articles that are free access that articulate the differences. These are the Pubmed citations and you can follow to articles for those interested. Nei M. Selectionism and neutralism in molecular evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Dec;22(12):2318-42. Epub 2005 Aug 24. Erratum in: Mol Biol Evol. 2006 May;23(5):1095. PMID: 16120807 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] West-Eberhard MJ. Alternative adaptations, speciation, and phylogeny (A Review).Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1986 Mar;83(5):1388-1392. PMID: 16578790 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] West-Eberhard MJ. Related Articles, Developmental plasticity and the origin of species differences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 May 3;102 Suppl 1:6543-9. Epub 2005 Apr 25. Review. PMID: 15851679 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Fordyce JA. The evolutionary consequences of ecological interactions mediated through phenotypic plasticity.J Exp Biol. 2006 Jun;209(Pt 12):2377-83. Review. PMID: 16731814 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] GetAgrippa 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We're really pressed for space in this article, and I don't think we should cover things that cannot be very well explained yet (because we don't know!) when we can't include many important things that we could have explained in full. That's why we have sub-articles. Adam Cuerden talk 17:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
By all means, though, let's include discussion in Natural selection and Heredity. Also, eventually, it might be a good idea to have a third evolution page (second is Introduction to Evolution) to deal with the spillover from this page, and Epigenetics should certainly be in there. Adam Cuerden talk 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the relevant sub-article is Phenotypic plasticity. Please feel free to expand it. TimVickers 17:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing to include it, but to demonstrate your ignorance of the subject. Given the age of the archives I gave up long ago. All the positive points I made about hybridization were removed and replaced with text book ignorance. I usually am cordial and polite, but few every reciprocate. I think this article is fine for your run of mill encyclopedia, but I had hoped for more. Adam you should say "you don't know" instead of "we don't know". The same could be said for your understanding of hybridization. No offense, but pointing out the obvious. Good luck!!!
No, nobody knows. That's why it's an exciting scientific frontier. We're beginning to get signs it's important, and has interesting effects, and may even be a key part of development. But it hasn't been studied enough for its role to be fully assessed, understood, measured, or contextualised. Adam Cuerden talk 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by above but I think you need to give this anon contributor a bit more credit. Its not like we don't know about the epigenetic mechanisms. For animals the imprinting was always assumed to be wiped clean during meiosis and only stable during mitosis. If that was the case there could be no inheritance of imprinting. This is the text book version. In plants, it is very clear that epigenetic imprints are heritable, so can survive meiosis. Now that the same effects of silencing are been seen in animals it is likely that epigenetic marks are also heritable in other systems. Since epigenetic inheritance IS known then the mechanism for evolution is in place. The only piece that is not known is how relevant it is to evolution itself. That is where the speculation lies and it is always hard to nail down actual examples. David D. (Talk) 19:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this anonymous, or is this GetAgrippa? I am confused. If it's the latter, I'm frustrated by this flood of references, especially when I look into that first one and it turns out not to be about epigenetics at all! It feels unfair to level accusations while at the same time making little effort to be coherent.
We were talking about the heredity section in particular here. Some of the material thrown down here (imprinting) is not about transgenerational effects, it's about the evolution of epigenetic features, that's a whole other can of worms. Transgenerational epigenetic effects are still limited and there is always this question: how long do these things really last, on the evolutionary timescale? Epigenetic inheritance can surely be a mechanism for short term adaptation, but do epigenetic patterns "evolve" like changes in DNA sequence? It's hard to justify that level of stability; it seems much more reasonable to claim that epigenetically suppressed regions eventually mutate into nonfunctionality, with DNA as the long term molecule of inheritance. That's maybe too complicated for this article. I agreed with the removal of epigenetics from the heredity section because I felt it mislead readers into thinking that epigenetic patterns can "evolve" in the same way DNA sequences have, something we don't currently have evidence for -- this is why I was calling it "speculative". That isn't to say it isn't playing some important roles in short term adaptation and ... well, I guess I'm not sure how much these short term effects belong in the evolution article when we don't have reason to think they accumulate in the way DNA changes do. I did invite people to help improve the Epigenetics article itself. Madeleine 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The references are out of context because I retrieved them from archives dealing with various issues, so it deals with various topics (and I did it quickly as I am leaving this wiki). Epigenetic phenomena have had a dramatic effect on genome evolution (references available). Here is a direct effect of epigenetic inheritance on evolution:Crews D, Gore AC, Hsu TS, Dangleben NL, Spinetta M, Schallert T, Anway MD, Skinner MK.Transgenerational epigenetic imprints on mate preference.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Apr 3;104(14):5942-6. Epub 2007 Mar 26. I am not arguing to include it although some could argue NPOV and that crap. I just think editors are prematurely dismissing an interesting novel non-neoDarwinistic mechanism that will probably gain some momentum. Time will tell. Oops!! Sorry I didn't sign in earlier and I apologize if it is not a coherent argument, but I am too lackadaisical to bother. Good luck ladies and gents!!!GetAgrippa 23:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
GetAgrippa, so you are the anon above too, the one on citizendium? i can't figure out if this is two or one person posting here. David D. (Talk) 01:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's an interesting mechanism, I just don't know if we have enough space to be able to describe it. It's fairly complex to place well - have to explain it, then delineate what we donðt know about its role. If you can come up with a short description that's still sufficiently informative, we could add it... Adam Cuerden talk 01:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess editors don't think plants evolve. Epigenetic processes are fundamental to plant evolution. Epigenetic processes are envolved in germ line biology, so I guess the germ line has nothing to do with evolution. The literature is ripe with examples but I guess no one is interested. That's all I got to say about that!GetAgrippa 17:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeds

It would've been interesting to know if seeds could evolve to another kind of seeds and find out where they come from or who made them. 19:18, 8 June 2007 twentythreethousand

...I don't follow you. Adam Cuerden talk 19:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The evolution of seeds(if they have one) are excluded in the article. Every living thing come from a seed. 20:30, 8 June 2007 twentythreethousand

Which came first, the seeds, or the plant? TimVickers 20:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Seeds (and, arguably, animal gametes) are pretty much an extreme adaptation of alternation of generations, with the gamete phase substantially reduced. Adam Cuerden talk 21:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Seeds are Zygotes not Gametes. They couldn't, however, "evolve into another kind of seed" (I'm not fully sure what you meant by that. Mutations are conceivable, I suppose, before mitotic division begins.--THobern 09:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
True. But the components that produce them are gametes. I suppose the seed itself is more like... I dunno, the larva in insects: a phase where energy is gathered for the next transformation. Adam Cuerden talk 14:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparison between creationists and theistic evolution

I tweaked slightly the wording in the section on social and religious controversy. These are the reasons:

  • Singling out Catholicism is a good object lesson, but it is somewhat artificial and definitely arbitrary. For one, it ignores religions other than Christianity.
  • There are definitely Catholics who are creationists and the magesterium does not consider such beliefs to be in error. While tacit support by the intellectuals in the Vatican for theistic evolution arguments is clear, there exist many Catholics (i.e. Sam Brownback) who plainly do not share their view. This problem is too iteratively complicated to include in a summary article on evolution itself. Removing mention of Catholicism specifically avoids this problem.
  • Trying to demarcate between creationist denominations and theistic evolution denominations can be difficult as there are often members of both camps in many church groups. It's better to indicate that there exist creationists rather than trying to ascribe ecclesial institutions to this belief.

I hope that people see the main content isn't changed in this edit, just the wording and perspective.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 13:41, 9 June 2007

Looks an improvement to me. The first part of the sentence seems a bit awkward, considering that even before Darwin's Origin of Species there where Christians, including theologians, who welcomed evolution as fitting with their beliefs:
Although many practioners of religion have reconciled their beliefs with evolution through theological development,
Playing around with it a bit, here are a couple of possibilities:
Although many practioners of religion find their beliefs to be compatible with evolution,
or
Although many practioners of religion consider their beliefs compatible with evolution,
Not to sure about the "practioners of religion" either, but can't think of a better way of putting it. Comments? .. dave souza, talk 14:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
"Theists" is the correct term. TimVickers 16:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Certainly not; many religous people are not theistic (what about Buddhism?). I would think that "religious practitioners" is adequate. bikeable (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to add, as far as I know belief in evolution isn't a problem in Buddhism. At least the Dalai Lama supposedly supports scientific theories about evolution. Does any significant amount of non-theistic religious people have any problems with evolution? Perhaps Theists could be used after all? Delta Tango • Talk 01:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point, I don't know if there are Hindu creationists either. TimVickers 01:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
There are. Lots. Sheep81 04:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The previous version was better, more specific, neutral, and clear. This version introduces unnecessary inflammatory language from what was a carefully constructed neutral version. No need for "many practitioners" or "continues to exist a group of vocal ... ". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the previous version as well. TimVickers 22:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking that into account, I've tried to get closer to the original, while giving a link to a page summarizing denominations supporting evolution rather than singling out the RC position, leaving out "other" as there are RC creationists, and changing "theistic origin beliefs" to "literal interpretation of origin beliefs" as they're generally the same beliefs but with a different interpretation, and there might be non-theistic creationists. By the way, congratulations to all on FA status – thought I'd better read it through carefully before "voting" and got diverted, so you've beaten me to it. Well done,, .. dave souza, talk 10:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Darwin references

The reference used for four citations was p. 490 of the 2nd. edition of Origin of Species, which is a wonderful closing paragraph, but didn't cover the relevant points. I've therefore changed it to link to p. 1 of the 1st edition, where the second paragraph of the introduction describes how Wallace made the same discovery and brought about joint publication. This basically covers citation "a" and I've added a reference to the historical sketch in the 3rd. edition where Darwin acknowledges related earlier ideas, including the brief account of natural selection published by Matthew in 1831. The citation regarding the misconception that evolution is "progressive" seemed to me better covered by a Scientific American reference, so I've changed it. As now, citation "b" states supports the statement that "Adaptations are structures or behaviors that enhance a specific function, causing organisms to become better at surviving and reproducing.", and while the Introduction covers the subject, it doesn't actually have a simple definition on these lines. Similarly, citation "c" refers to a list of points which are covered in the book, if not in the intro. It might be useful to find more specific references for these citations. ... dave souza, talk 14:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC) tweaked 14:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution/FAQ

I would like to inquire to whether or not anyone would be opposed to moving the FAQ to the article name space as the FAQ is not a talk page but was, I moved it, in the talk name space.--Peace237 21:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out why you did that? It's not really an article, and probably shouldn't be, since it repeats information from probably a dozen articles. I always thought it should be a part of the discussion here, so when someone comes in and writes, "Evolution is only a theory," we can point that editor to the FAQ. So, please explain your reasoning. Orangemarlin 21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
See also previous discussion at Talk:Evolution/Archive_41#Reason_for_transfer.
edit conflictThe way I see it, the FAQ is not really part of the article, it is simply questions which have come up repeatedly on talk and it saves time answering. I oppose making it part of the article, since FAQs really are not what Wikipedia does, as Peace has been doing. As such it should remain in the talk namespace since it is part of the talk article. Further I think the redirect from Talk:Evolution/FAQ should be made soft, to avoid confusion with article-space edits. This page, Talk:Evolution can serve to address issues related to the FAQ if they also pertain to something in the actual article. The header on the FAQ does a good job, I think claifying the role, although perhaps it can be improved. Is there a reasonable consensus to keep the FAQ on the talk page (or other thoughts?) --TeaDrinker 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the original locations while this discussion is underway. Traditionally controversial edits are discussed before they are made. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 22:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The FAQ is best viewed as a distillation of previous Talk discussions. Moving the FAQ to article space would impose the usual article quality standards for what could be in it, which I don't think is necessary or desirable. If you look at WP:NOT#IINFO, Item #1, it says that WP articles should *not* list frequently asked questions, so it could not remain in article space as a FAQ. EdJohnston 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the second time that Peace237 has done the same thing, and the second time they have been reverted.. I'm not willing to wait for a third time. Orangemarlin 22:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Should the dispute recur in the future, one of the options that might be discussed here is move protection for the FAQ. EdJohnston 19:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

References section as scrollable text

The scrollable text idea is pretty neat when so many references have to be accommodated, but it messes up the printability of the entire article, in my experience. - Bevo 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it either. Aaron Bowen 01:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the online version's scrollable reference section. It's the side-effect on the printable version of the article that is presently unfortunate. Hopefully that might change without any need to compromise the online version if a technical solution is found that takes into account expanding the entire content of a scrollable region, as possible, in the printable version. - Bevo 05:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia, functions that enhance the readability of the encyclopaedia for our on-line readers should not be discarded if they inconvenience the tiny minority who chose to print out a hyperlinked web page. TimVickers 02:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, here is a version with the references inline. The list is truly massive: it scrolls on for several pages, and does encumber the overall readability of the article. (Apologies to Tim for the edit conflict.) Silly rabbit 02:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It's neat and reduces the apparent size of the article so looks good, but the inline citation links no longer work so well as they only take you to the first half dozen cites, then you have to scroll down watching out for the coloured one. A show/hide feature would work better, in my opinion, ideally set to hide as default, but opening up when you click on an inline cite link. As for readability, in my experience it's easy enough to zoom down past the list using the space bar, so the only advantage of the scroll bars is for those wanting to skip the cites and see what's at the end, easily done anyway. ... dave souza, talk 08:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing that problem with the inline citation links. When I click on the link, the references automatically scroll to the appropriate highlighted item. I tested with IE 6 and Firefox. - Bevo 14:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this another IE7 bug? This works fine for me on all the browsers I can test. TimVickers 15:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I use IE7, and the scroller finds the articles just fine - that's not the problem. Wow, I'm surprised this feature is creating such a hum. My feelings are, reducing the references is good because it improves the look of the article AND saves paper for those few that are going to print the article; how many members of the public really read the refs anyway, and those that do would likely want to use the linked features they get online. I know that if I had printed the Evolution article and got 6 pages of a reference list I would not be happy. I also think the long list prevents readers from scrolling down to find info hidden at the bottom of the page. But I do agree, if there is an option of turning them on or off (like with some of the navboxes) it would be good - giving choices is always good! Ciar 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#Printable version of a FA. TimVickers 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't work so well on my browser (Apple Safari). Orangemarlin 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm using Safari too, so it appears that the "jump to highlighted item feature" only works with other browsers. ... dave souza, talk 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm using safari and it does jump to roughly the right place. I find I have to scroll up two references though, to see the correct one. David D. (Talk) 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It may well be time for me to try to update Safari, and for that matter update the system to 10.3.9 – however, the response at MediaWiki_talk:Common.css suggests it's perhaps a Safari bug, which means that the citations become tedious for many lazy editors like myself. Grrr. .. dave souza, talk 21:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
If it makes you feel any better, it also happens in Konqueror. Maybe it's bug in the khtml common to both interfaces. Silly rabbit 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
So, as I've tried saying at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Expanding scroll boxes for printable version, if there are many users suffering with the bug we don't really want such features to make reference sections significantly less usable for them. In my view, .. dave souza, talk 21:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
If the scrolling references become unusable in specific browsers, one workaround may be to use some browser-specific CSS. Something that said "if user is running Safari, turn off scrolling references" would do the trick. This sort of thing is already done to fix a variety of bugs in IE. It's hackish, but it would alleviate the problem until a proper fix were implemented in Safari and other affected browsers. --David Iberri (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Not to wander too far off topic, but with Safari being launched for Windows, and the way iTunes owns the Windows market for music management, maybe Dave and I won't be the oddballs here. But it is well known that Mac users are more intelligent than Windows users and accept Evolution as a fact, so it probably doesn't matter. But back on topic, when I click on a reference, it seems to miss by 2 or 3 references, so I end up scrolling a bit. Lazy as I am, I don't like it. Orangemarlin 21:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course it was. Sheesh!!!! Considering the Creationist vs. Evolution arguments that I've seen on here, talking about the formatting of references is refreshing. Orangemarlin 22:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, only an Internet Explorer user would be dumb enough to take that seriously, and we certainly don't have any of those bozos here! TimVickers 22:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Internet Explorer is still out there? And people use it? Oh, well, Natural selection should fix the situation.  :) <-- smile added just in case the humor is lost on certain editors. Orangemarlin 22:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I beg for you to accept my apology. It was a result of seeing some other insulting attacks on other people in the past. My mistake was that I mixed you up with one of your friends (hint: starts with an F, 2nd letter is an i), who you appear to work so closely with, I mixed it up. This particular user has an attitude like the world around him consists of idiots and he's the only one with a brain. :) But anyway, who uses Internet Explorer?? Hope they like getting random penis enlargement popups. Wikidan829 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
H---ee---eeyyy......at least I evolved from Netscape (eventually!). Old habits die hard - just like my browser if I try to give it too much to think about!! And actually - nope I'm pop-up free (read as you wish, but my gender doesn't take offense anyways!!) ;p Ciar 00:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Now there are four simultaneous discussions in addition to this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria#Printable_version_of_a_FA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Expanding_scroll_boxes_for_printable_version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_11#Template:Scrollref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Scrollref#Why_this_template - Bevo 00:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Archives

The links to this page's archives hadn't been updated since I stopped hanging around here a couple months ago, so I've added links to the 6 archives created since then. Someone else should take care of that from now on. Remember that Miszabot is making the archives (settings easy to change at the top of this page), but it doesn't make any links to them. Gnixon 14:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Logic

Here are two possible ways to format the opening of the section on "natural selection":

Version 1

Natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become, and remain, more common in successive generations of a population. It has often been called a "self-evident" mechanism because it necessarily follows from the following facts:

  • Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms
  • Organisms produce more offspring than can survive
  • These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce
  • Consequently, successful reproducers pass advantageous traits on, while unsuccessful reproducers do not pass disadvantageous traits on to the next generation.

Version 2

Natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become, and remain, more common in successive generations of a population. It has often been called a "self-evident" mechanism because it necessarily follows from the following facts:

  • Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms
  • Organisms produce more offspring than can survive
  • These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce

Consequently, successful reproducers pass advantageous traits on, while unsuccessful reproducers do not pass disadvantageous traits on to the next generation.

Discussion

I think the first version (the one currently in the article) is a bit illogical because the conclusion is included among the facts supporting it. Its format is inconsistent since the 4th point is a restatement of natural selection, not a fact from which it follows. I changed the article to the second version, but it was reverted by an old friend of mine. Discuss amongst yourselves. Over and out, Gnixon 18:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

New version written. Competition was not emphasized enough in any of the versions above. TimVickers 19:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Beware Tim. Orangemarlin 07:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems a bit simplistic to say advantageous traits are passed on when a significant number of diseases demonstrate positive selection in genetic linkage such as BRCA tumour suppressor gene and p53 variants in cancer. While sickle cell links with malaria , most disease gene positive selection is unknown in linkage. The article doesn't mention near-neutral or neutral theory of molecular evolution in mutation section either.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.83.219 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 17 June 2007
Neutral selection is discussed in the genetic drift section and linkage in the recombination section. TimVickers 14:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wording

The beginning of the sentence "Mutations, and other random changes in these genes, can produce new or altered traits..." seems redundant. Are there any random changes in genes which are not mutations? Or should it read "Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits..."? — Swpb talk contribs 13:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I was thinking about gene amplification and chromosomal rearrangements, but these do fall under the broad definition of mutation. TimVickers 15:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
one can say that random environmental forces acting on the cell or embryo can affect phenotype, but this is of course different from mutation and arguable not relevant tot his article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with that. TimVickers 17:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Priority for 'evolution by natural selection'

This sentence should be changed: "The theory of evolution by natural selection was first proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and set out in detail in Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species.[5]" I disagree with the word "first." In the Introduction to Origin of Species (p. 8, Carlton House, NY), Darwin says, "As far as the mere enunciation of the principle of natural selection is concerned, it is quite immaterial whether or not Professor Owen preceded me, for both of us, as shown in this historical sketch, were long ago preceded by Dr. Wells and Mr. Matthew." Darwin says that Wells in 1813 is the "first recognition which has been indicated" (p. 4). Boethian 01:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

To support the change above, note this sentence from the Patrick Matthew wikipedia page, "Patrick Matthew (20 October 1790–8 June 1874) was a Scottish fruit grower who had proposed the principle of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution over a quarter-century earlier than did Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace." Boethian 02:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In science, priority goes to the person who first publishes an idea in the scientific literature. Where and when were these previous ideas published? If you post the citations that should solve it pretty easily. TimVickers 03:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems evident to me that the issue here is the difference between a theory and a principle. I do not think the difference is trivial. As Thomas Kuhn observed, people often have ideas that anticipate their formalization as scientific theories by someone else. I think the language in the lead is fine but I would have no objection to elaborating on antecedants to Darwin's idea in a history of the theory section. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
See footnote [5] "^ a b c Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species, 1st, John Murray, p. 1. . Related earlier ideas were acknowledged in Darwin, Charles (1861). On the Origin of Species, 3rd, John Murray, p. xiii. ." which mentions Matthew, but not Wells – that must be in a later edition. It's a tricky point to summarise, but arguably Wallace and Darwin were first to publish a "theory" of "natural selection", though others had published ideas about the principle earlier. Evidently not much notice was taken of their joint publication either, until Darwin published The Origin. ... dave souza, talk 15:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
For info – Chief Additions and Corrections, Third Edition – Fourth Edition of 1866 p. xiv. "A notice is given of Dr. Wells' work, in which the doctrine of natural selection, as applied to man, was first clearly propounded." .... "In 1813 Dr. W. C. Wells read before the Royal Society 'An Account of a White Female, part of whose Skin resembles that of a Negro;' but his paper was not published until his famous 'Two Essays upon Dew and Single Vision' appeared in 1818. In this paper he distinctly recognises the principle of natural selection, and this is the first recognition which has been indicated; but he applies it only to the races of man, and to certain characters alone." ... dave souza, talk 15:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend something along the lines of "first significantly developed." That species are not immutable (i.e. evolution occurs) and the principle of natural selection were both known. In addition, they were put together by others beforehand (Wallace, Matthews), but not elaborately or very fully. I understand the "credit" goes to Darwin, but I don't believe this discredits him at all. Furthermore, I had a great deal of trouble tracking down what exactly was new about Darwin's theory that was distinct from other sources. That is, why he is important, not IF he is important. Also, I have not read anything to indicate that he knew about those other figures anyhow, so this in fact may be a point of little interest.

Natural selection

I've been bold and nominated this for FA. It's probably the best of our sub-articles, and I really would like some day for every article in Template:Evolution to be FA. Though that probably means expanding Selection a lot, or merging it and Natural selection. Adam Cuerden talk 23:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre Darwinian evolution

"As its connectivity increases, a complex dynamic system tends to encounter critical points, points where the system undergoes phase transitions, in which its overall nature changes dramatically (26). I do not think that biologists can avoid the conclusion that during the evolution of (modern) cellular organization, such phase transitions have occurred. In particular, I assert that it was one such transition that took the cell out of its initial primitive state in which HGT dominated the evolutionary dynamic (and evolving cells had no stable genealogical records and evolution was communal) to a more advanced (modern) form (where vertical inheritance came to dominate and stable organismal lineages could exist). The obvious choice of a name for this particular evolutionary juncture would be Darwinian threshold or Darwinian transition, for it would be only after such a saltation had occurred that we could meaningfully speak of species and of lineages as we know them (63). Three questions are central to understanding cellular evolution: (i) when (under what circumstances) did the evolution of (proteinaceous) cells begin, (ii) how was the incredible novelty needed to create these first proteinaceous cells generated, and (iii) did all extant cellular life ultimately arise from one or from more than one common ancestor? The second of these questions, how the overwhelming amount of novelty needed to bring modern cells into existence was generated, is the central and most challenging question of the three. This is a kind of novelty that we would not encounter in the modern biological era, and it had to have been generated in a kind of way that we have yet to fathom. Arguably there has to have been a very definite (and so recognizable) stage at which the evolution of modern cells began. The transition was too drastic, too profound not to have somehow left its mark. It seems highly likely that the stage in question was the onset of translation, the emergence of the capacity to represent nucleic acid sequence (colinearly) in an amino acid language (as mentioned above). Hence, the onset of cellular evolution is likely to have occurred in an RNA world context. Over the last several decades biologists have become increasingly aware that translation is defined by its RNA componentry, and so the idea that the aboriginal mechanism was an RNA-based device has become increasingly attractive (6, 56, 62). (Note that I take the RNA world [era of nucleic acid life] to be a period before proteins were translationally produced, when, regardless of whatever else existed, nucleic acids capable of complementary [templating] replication existed and were the drivers of evolution. In this view, peptides could have existed, although, by definition, they could not have been generated by a translation process [57].)"[1] WAS 4.250 11:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is at its core a discussion on the level of selection. With high levels of HGT, the gene-level of selection might predominate, but later organism-level selection will become more important in the eukaryotes, but possibly less so in the archaea and prokaryotes. Tim Vickers 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
WAS 4.250 said:
I assert that it was one such transition that took the cell out of its initial primitive state in which HGT dominated the evolutionary dynamic (and evolving cells had no stable genealogical records and evolution was communal) to a more advanced (modern) form (where vertical inheritance came to dominate and stable organismal lineages could exist). The obvious choice of a name for this particular evolutionary juncture would be Darwinian threshold or Darwinian transition, for it would be only after such a saltation had occurred that we could meaningfully speak of species and of lineages as we know them (63)
We know that transition, it is the one somewhere between prokaryotes and ecaryotes! HGT is rampant in prokaryotes and we are not sure what we mean by species in prokaryotes. or did you mean a stage even more fluid than prokayrotes?Wikiskimmer 18:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Read this. It is the source. WAS 4.250 21:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, i see what Woese is talking about, while bacteria today do engage in HGT for many functions, there are many functions too interconnected to withstand radical change. I wonder if we've done a survey of JUST HOW MUCH we can mess with various regions of the cellular circuitry of various bacteria. Woese mentions only two places.
and a general science of bifurcations in mutabiltiy of complex chemical networks? hmmm.. we are a far way off...
So what did you have in mind posting this paragraph from Woese?Wikiskimmer 22:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to share an interesting article with my friends; I think this article could use an extra sentence on pre Darwinian biological evolution; some editors here still place too little importance on HGT in the history of the process of biological evolution; some editors here still seem to believe the evidence indicates all existing life on Earth is decended from from single cell or species and that is not true at all. I wanted people to read the article for what the world's foremost authority on the subject does believe the evidence indicates. WAS 4.250 06:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
well, then. right off in the opening paragraph, the article confuses HGT with simple outcrossing! so it's a mess right there.
There is a section of the origin of life, so we definitely should mention that there must have been a period when darwinian evolutionary mechanisms were less important then HGT. mention SHOULD be made that the hypothesis of ONE universal common ancestor is not certain given even modern bacteria's propensity for gene transfer and ability to do endosymbiosis.
The section on Common descent again states baldly that all organisms on Earth are descended from A common ancestor. we clearly don't have enough evidence to say that.
I have to say the next section: Evolution of life, first paragraph is weak. "microorganisms were the first organisms to inhabit the Earth" doesn't say much. and the next sentence is wrong. definite changes in metabolism are recorded in the sediments. i.e. oxygen metabolism.Wikiskimmer 16:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
A lot of hard work was put into making this article more readable. Perhaps its time to make it more accurate? WAS 4.250 16:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

<RI>I strongly disagree with your edits, in that they push a particular POV. There is no evidence that says all organisms are not descended from a common ancestor. I think you're misinterpreting what that means, or maybe not. But every organism on earth shares the same DNA. Unless DNA arose independently a few million times, then it's a common descent. Orangemarlin 22:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

  • "New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration or horizontal gene transfer." Boht migration and HGT transfer genes between populations. In once case it is populations of one species, in the other between populations of different species. I tried in the lead (which has to be relatively non-technical) for a simple approach that is still accurate.
A wolf migrating 500 miles to another population of wolves and having sex with those wolves is ONE concept in biology. A virus escaping a wolf and transfering genes to a jackal is ANOTHER concept in biology. Wikiskimmer 00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Very true. However, they are both transferring genes between populations. The statement is accurate, but not complete. If you can think of an alternative, simple wording, that does not take up more than a sentence, please suggest it. This is just my best effort at this, but if you can think of something that would be an improvement, please feel free to suggest it here.
  • Evolution by natural selection still applies whether you consider it at the gene level, as in HGT, or at an organism level. This is just a difference in the level at which selection is applied, the mechanisms are the same.
if protobacteria were scouting around for genes to suck up... it's almost lamarkian isn't it?Wikiskimmer 00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No. In HGT-dominated evolution, change occurs through mutation, drift and natural selection, it is just that the replicators are not organisms, but genes. Tim Vickers 17:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • We could reword "All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor" into "All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or gene pool." and add the Woese reference. That might solve the problem. Tim Vickers 17:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The question is do ALL organism alive today share a single core X, or do intersecting subgroups of all organisms share DIFFERENT cores? have a 100 different phyla been compared across the totality of the core cellular machinery? Wikiskimmer 00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Comparing early cells to a single "gene pool" seems pretty close to Woese's argument "The world of primitive cells feels like a vast sea, or field, of cosmopolitan genes flowing into and out of the evolving cellular (and other) entities" Tim Vickers 17:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Eh, that's a misunderstanding of how common ancestor is used, IMO. Adam Cuerden talk 20:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic but fascinating

This may be off-topic troll bait, but dunno where it fits: have you all seen Countdown to a synthetic lifeform, 04 July 2007, NewScientist.com news service, Peter Aldhous – Church trying to create life! <ducks> .... dave souza, talk 20:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I had seen some of that and seen the patent application by Craig Venter. This is a far more complete summary and maybe even suitable as the subject of an article here?--Filll 20:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Further reading

"The Blind Watchmaker" should be removed. Chapter 11, Dawkins is actively bashing neutralists. First he’s saying they are studying only the "boring" part of evolution, but, more importantly, he's also making several inaccurate claims. For example on p.304, he clearly doesn't understand what a neutral mutation is. He's not talking about neutral mutations, but silent mutations, a very different thing. Random genetic drift and neutral mutations are covered in this article, why are we providing in the Further reading section a reference to a book with false information about drift ? - PhDP 02:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you recommend an alternative for the general reader, or just removal? Tim Vickers 21:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Removal. But the new addition to the section, "The Top 10 Myths about Evolution", is a very good idea. - PhDP 22:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I added "10 myths". I just got the book the other day, and I'm reading it. The quality of the covers of Prometheus books as really declined. Bubba73 (talk), 23:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm fine with that. Tim Vickers 22:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
What's the 10 myths book? I'm curious. And I disagree with removing Dawkins, despite some errors. The book is important to this topic. Orangemarlin 23:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
About the 10 myths book; http://www.toptenmyths.com/. About Dawkins, I respectfully disagree with you, Orangemarlin, could you give a reason to justify your opinion ? This book clearly misrepresents a theory that is included in the article, it must be in violation of some policies from wikipedia. And the book is not even a reference, it's in the "Further reading" section. Just to clarify why I don't think it should be here; a sample (p.304);
A neutral mutation isn't a mutation at all, when we are thinking about legs and arms and wings and eyes and behaviour! To use the recipe analogy again, the dish will taste the same even if some words of the recipe have 'mutated' to a different print font. As far as those of us who are interested in the final dish are concerned, it is still the same recipe, whether printed like this or like this or like this. Molecular geneticists are like pernickety printers. They care about the actual form of the words in which recipes are written down.
Neutral mutations are mutations, and they can influence legs, arms and wings and behaviour. He seems to be unable to understand the dinstiction between a silent and a neutral mutation. And that's only one example of the kind of rethoric he uses in this book to discredit credible theories. - PhDP 23:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Has Dawkins actually done any original biology? or does he just look dapper? What's his appeal?Wikiskimmer 05:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

problems with Speciation section:

this is not clear: "Selection against interbreeding with the metal-sensitive parental population produces a change in flowering time of the metal-resistant plants, causing reproductive isolation. "

it seems more logical that change in flowering time (caused by the biology of metal resistance?) selects against interbreeding. sentence looks backwards but i can't read the refs, can't find the example in my text.

As I understand it, the selection is against hybrids between the two populations, which have reduced fitness in either environment. Therefore, in response to this selection, the adapation of a change in flowering time arises. Tim Vickers 17:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Selection against hybrids between the two populations may cause reinforcement, which is the evolution of traits that promote mating within a species, as well as character displacement, which is when two species become more distinct."

this doesn't make sense to me at all.

Is - "Selection against hybrids between the two populations may cause reinforcement, which is the evolution of traits that promote mating within a species, as well as character displacement, which is when two species become more distinct in appearance." clearer?


wow, this is a complex example. i wish i could read the paper, i know i've seen this example before. Three things are happening here:
1) adaption of some plants to metal soils
2) general pattern of hybrids being less fit in either microenvironment. And thus helping to maintain reproductive isolation. that part is clear
3) change in flowering time between the two subpopulations which also acts as reproductive isolation. that's clear.
i'm just not sure about the relationship between them. are they independant or causally related? I can imagine they are all three independant. i'd have to see the references.
perhaps there is a simpler example?Wikiskimmer 19:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The text of that article is freely-available. Link to the paper. Link. Tim Vickers 19:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

this too is unlcear: "As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population, and the organisms undergoing speciation and rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically-restricted habitats,"

i almost understand what this is saying, as one proposed mechanism for punk eek is that the speciation happens in a small peripatric population while the original pop dies out, but i thought both events, stasis and change occur in the same location in the fossil strata...

"and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils."

but the examples i've seen illustrated show that the quick change IS preserved in the fossil record. i.e. Futuyma "evolutionary biology" 3rd ed. pgs 133 to 139.Wikiskimmer 06:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the quick changes will be preserved, but only rarely. I don't understand your comment about stasis and change happening simultaneously in the same place. Tim Vickers 17:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
sorry, i meant both the fossils in stasis and the fossils showing quick change seem to occur in the same geographical region not same stratum. I admit i'm confused on the presentation of the ideas in punk eek because i haven't seen any detailed reports of looking at this phenomenon over the whole geographical range of the population in the fossil record. which of course might not exist in most cases. if i get a chance i will read up..Wikiskimmer 19:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. a good general ref on speciation is Menno Schilthuizen. "Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions: Speciation - The Evolution of New Species". 2001. Oxford University Press. 0-19-850393-8. put it in the Introductory reading section?Wikiskimmer 19:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

problems with section on variation:

"Because an individual's phenotype results from the interaction of their genotype with the environment, the variation in phenotypes in a population reflects the variation in these organisms' genotypes.[12]"

This section is discussing genetic variation. Do we want to spell out the distinction between heritable variation and variation due to the enviromnent? It's not clear why the opening sentence mentions the environment.

i retract this question. i was reading this article bottom up first. I see now that the discussion of heredity above spells this outWikiskimmer 17:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

this is still a problem though: "Despite the constant introduction variation through these processes, most sites in the genome of a species remain identical in all individuals of the species.[16]"

This is not what Futuyma: Evolutionary biology. 3rd ed. pgs 239 to 244, says. for instance: pg 242: "Lewontin and Hubby examined 18 such loci in samples of Drosophila pseudoobscura from five locations in the western United States. In every locality, about a third of the loci were polymorphic."

If you want to write in a change here is a ref: Lewontin, R.C. and J. L. Hubby. 1966. A molecular approach to the study of genic heterozygosity in natural poplations. II. Amount of varioation and degree of heterozygosity in natural populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics 54: 595-609.

and review:

Lewontin, R. C. 1974. The analysis of variance and the analysis of causes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 26:400-411.

the reference given [16] doesn't even speak to this really, and doesn't support the statement.

So, what is it that we want to emphasize here?Wikiskimmer 17:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This comes from two different interpretations of the word "sites", I'm using it here to refer to base pairs, while you are using it to refer to loci that are many thousands of base pairs in length. Hence, if two sequences are 99% identical, they are almost the same under my definition, but polymorphic under yours. I've rephrased this to be less ambiguous - "Despite the constant introduction variation through these processes, most of the genome of a species is identical in all individuals of that species." Species overall share very high levels of nucleotide identity. Tim Vickers 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
ah... Then what's our point? that there is little variation? but all it takes sometimes is one basepair change to radically change a protein, i.e. sycle celled anemia. The texts i cited seem to think it is important that there is much variation in populations. what do we want to say here, that populations are very homogenous phenotypically and that shows up in the fossil record as stasis, or that populations contain abundant variation, which is important because this is the fodder for evolution, i.e. in a peripatric speciation event? Or do we want to say both?Wikiskimmer 18:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to give some context to the commonly-cited factoids about how genetically-different two species are, 95% similarity between humans/chimps for example. So I make the general statement that within a species genetic differences are small, and add the proviso that even small differences can be significant. Tim Vickers 19:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

FAQ?

Hi, I'm here from the September 11, 2001 attacks page. We field a lot of repetitious questions, much like evolution does, and are considering whether or not to add a FAQ, like you guys have here. We just wanted to know if you've found it useful -- do people actually read it, or do they just post anyways? --Haemo 21:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is very useful as a boilerplate reply to the standard examples of strangeness on the talk page. Tim Vickers 22:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I am the original author of our FAQ page (although User:Silence modified it considerably afterwords). Although they are not really encouraged in articles, I thought it would be valuable on these controversial pages. By aggressively userfying trolling, directing people to FAQ and a well-catalogued archive, and farming out controversial parts to a large number of subsiduary daughter articles, we have reduced trouble at this main page considerably, which was our goal. We have refocussed this article on just the pure science, and left the other nonsense to other pages where it can be dealt with easier.--Filll 02:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

problems with evolutionary history of life section:

origin of life: not bad, but there could be some more DETAIL. references could be made to some basic reviews like Hazen, or Morowitz...

This is a brief summary of the daughter article (see Wikipedia:summary style) a high level of detail would be inappropriate. Tim Vickers 17:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess my impression was that paragraph basically says: we don't know. hmmm... the first sentence is excellent. I guess i might say it:
While the gap between our knowlege of chemistry and our knowlege of the complexity of the simplest living cell is wide, the only productive scientific hypothesis is that processes by which the first living cells formed were governed by the laws of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. However, there is no current scientific consensus on the pathways by which that happened. There are many pathways being explored, such as: RNA world, membranes first, roles for mineral chemistry... "
(ok, that's stilted too...)
and then ref something like:
Robert M. Hazen. "Genesis: The Scientific Quest For Life's Origin". 2005. Joseph Henry Press. 0-309-09432-1. a good pop introduction with lots of detail and tons of refs.Wikiskimmer 18:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

common descent: it's not clear if this is talking about the general concept, or that ALL organisms are descended from ONE kind of organism. the picture of the ape skeletons certainly doesnt help.

General concept.
ah.. confusing because it's sandwiched between origin of life and talk about from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. the whole passage is a little confusing to me. i'll think about it next.Wikiskimmer 18:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of life: this isn't so great either:

"it is clear that microorganisms were the first organisms to inhabit Earth" i think we mean to say something like prokaryotes and not microorganisms(too vague).

Changed to prokaryotes.

"No obvious changes occurred in these organisms over the next few billion years and their morphology is strikingly similar to their modern relatives." this is FALSE. the geological record certainly shows developments of new metabolisms over time, i.e. oxygen releasing photosynthesis then oxidizing iron to form the banded iron formations something like 2billion years ago. furthermore with 30 odd distinct prokaryotic groups today, surely ALOT of was going on.

Changed to "No obvious changes in morphology or cellular organization occurred in these organisms over the next few billion years"
ok, my knowlege of fossil eukaryotes is limited. prokaryotes today are morphologically diverse, but if we don't have any refs to the fossil record of that...Wikiskimmer 18:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to summarise the reference, the paper is quite a good read. Tim Vickers 16:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"The first multicellular organisms may have evolved from species similar to slime moulds" this one is silly too. i point out on the talk page for multicellular organisms, that article is gibberish, and depending on your def of multicellular orgs, there were even multicelular cyanobacts god knows how far back. anyway no evidence that the firrst ones were like slime molds, there are a dozen different groups of multicellular organisms about.

Changed to "The first multicellular organisms may have evolved from species that lived as single cells but aggregated as part of their life cycle, similar to modern-day slime moulds" If you do not regard this article highly, could you suggest some alternative reviews that directly address this topic?
which article? the reference given [140], evolution as a whole, or Evolution of multicellularity?
look at the abstract for the ref used [140]:
Multicellular organisms appear to have arisen from unicells numerous times. Multicellular cyanobacteria arose early in the history of life on Earth. Multicellular forms have since arisen independently in each of the kingdoms and several times in some phyla. If the step from unicellular to multicellular life was taken early and frequently, the selective advantage of multicellularity may be large. By comparing the properties of a multicellular organism with those of its putative unicellular ancestor, it may be possible to identify the selective force(s). The independent instances of multicellularity reviewed indicate that advantages in feeding and in dispersion are common. The capacity for signaling between cells accompanies the evolution of multicellularity with cell differentiation.
notice that this article does not support the sentence it is being used to reference. as an aside, i have noticed a few cases of this. are people sticking in references just because there is a drive to have references, without paying attention to what they are using?
so, we can say something like
Multicellularity has arisen at many times in very different clades of life: Cyanobacteria, Ediacaria, Fungi, red algae, brown algae, cellular slime molds, Metazoans, plants... (edit that list?). The manner in which this happened is likely to have been different in each case.
i can't think of a good ref off hand, i recall John Tyler Bonner. "On Development" had a good discussion.
As I remember, the sentence summarises the text of the article, rather than its abstract. I'll read over it again when I'm at work tomorrow. An important point is that there are very few examples of multicellularity in prokaryotes, since simple aggregations of cells or even biofilms are not really multicellular organisms. Myxobacteria are one possible modern example, but we have no real idea if similar organisms existed in the past. Cellular differentiation is, for me, a prerequisite for a truly multicellular organism. Tim Vickers 19:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
multicellular prokaryotes, yes of course, if i say cyanobacteria like anabaena with their specialized nitrogen fixing cells is multicellular, that's not THAT interesting. since bacteria tend to form multispecies guilds to attack substrates there is probably little selection for cellular differentiation within a bacterial filiment.
even so, multicellularity arose multiple times in the euks.Wikiskimmer 20:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I was just summarising one section of the review, I think you are right that it is probably better to just note that this occurred multiple times than go into detail on one of the cases. I've reworded this a bit. Tim Vickers 16:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


if you think i'm being too nitpicky let me know, but i suppose this is supposed to be an important article.Wikiskimmer 18:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

if someone has knowlege or references in these areas, a rewrite would be nice. if not, i'll attempt it. at least i have Knoll, "Life on a Young Planet" to work from.Wikiskimmer 05:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi wikiskimmer, as i said in the evolution of multicellularity talk page the way in which multicellularity has arisen is likely to have been through the same method as all other hypothesis are fundamentally flawed, i'm not sure what your basing your knowledge on but it's not correct, check any invertebrate or evolutionary book or article and it will back this up. cheers, mat

are you talking about multicellularity only in metazoans? Or multicellularity in all the many groups it has occured in, such as fungi, plants, brown algae, red algae, cellular slime molds, metazoans, and volvocales...?Wikiskimmer 12:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, all groups it has occurred in as this is the only known way it can occur.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.13.219 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 13 July 2007

Thinking of writing a new article

I'm thinking of writing a new article about evolution and perfection to discuss and clarify the relationship between the forces of evolution and the perfection or imperfection of organisms. It would discuss things like historical constraints etc. I'd like to hear some thoughts on whether it would be a worthwhile article to create or whether it is dealt with adequately elsewhere. Richard001 00:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What are your sources? WAS 4.250 04:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I've just read about the subject in a couple of introductory textbooks (not Of Pandas and People or anything :)
Any help with sources would be appreciated - I don't have a well referenced draft prepared or anything. I'm just asking if the subject is article worthy. Richard001 05:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds a bit POV. Perfection is a human POV, in that what makes us think something is perfect or not. And no scientist anywhere would ascribe a quality that could be considered perfect. I think a hummingbird is a beautifully evolved organism, but kind of badly made if you ask me. Orangemarlin 13:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I asked about sources because I find it hard to believe that any reliable published source on the subject of biological evolution would say much about "perfection". How would they define "perfection" in a scientific way? On the other hand, I know many sources that go on and on about the numerous inefficiencies and "bad designs" from an "is this intelligently designed" point of view. WAS 4.250 13:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
As a topic in the history of evolution it could be interesting. But there is no modern biological defiition of perfection in organisms.Wikiskimmer 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Without a definition, it's an impossible subject, how can you say if E. coli is any more or less perfect than H. sapiens? Tim Vickers 21:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think E.coli would be far closer to 'perfection' than man, having evolved for much longer. I would define perfection as such: No changes could be made to an organism's genome that would allow it to outcompete its current form. I believe that's a lot more rigorous than many of the fuzzy terms used throughout biology. I've seen the term used in two textbooks thus far - Biology by Campbell (he devotes a small section to it in an evolution chapter) and Essentials of Ecology by Townsend et al., who also briefly discuss it. If we can talk about good and bad design (and indeed have articles about it, then there must be some form of 'good design' (i.e. 'perfection', in its optimal form), to which these 'bad' designs (e.g. vestiges, perhaps) are being compared. I guess the argument from poor design could suffice, though I would rather see a non 'argument' article discuss it, especially one without the word 'design' (though these arguments could be touched on as well, of course).
Looking at the previously mentioned article, the 'Overview' section is roughly what this article would be about. Basically we can either leave it in the one article, or have a second one discussing this aspect in fuller detail, with each article summarizing the other. Richard001 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The genes in E coli have been evolving for roughly the same period of time as the genes in humans, so to say that one species is "older" than another is a little misleading, it depends on your viewpoint. Fitness is an assessment of the competitive abilities of a phenotype in one particular environment, so are you using "perfection" as a synonym of "fitness"? Tim Vickers 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
As an aside on the E. coli question: Yes, humans have descended from other organisms of course, but adaptations evolved by prokaryotes during most of our history are of little use in the struggle with each other, besides providing the basic templates for metabolism etc. Humans could still easily evolve much higher intelligence, for example, or gain back our ability to digest cellulose or make vitamin C, while it would be much more difficult come up with improvements for E. coli. Besides that, E. coli has also been evolving a lot faster since we diverged from a common ancestor, due to its faster rate of reproduction. While people commonly say humans are the most 'highly evolved' species, it's really the prokaryotes that are most highly evolved due to the immeasurable number of generations they have gone through to be here now.
Regarding fitness, it's basically a synonym when taken as the average fitness of a population of 'perfect' organisms vs. that of a population of 'less evolved' forms, though not of course in a population of the 'perfect' organisms themselves, which would be a really tight struggle because none could actually have 'useful' mutations, so it would be a case of the luckiest and least mutated that should win out. The problem though, I now realize, is that the most perfect organisms would be highly specialized and thus very vulnerable to changes in environment. It becomes harder to say that something is perfect when it can't adapt to changes, which it will have to if it is to survive the constant fluctuations in the earth's environment. Nonetheless, there are similar problems with many other concepts in science, so it's not a reason to rule an article out either. Richard001 02:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, these are interesting hypotheses, but sounds like OR. do you have refs into the biological literature where some other people are working on these questions? and frankly e. coli is far from perfect, perfect would be little rocket boosters in each one so they could travel to other planets... wait, they need vertebrate guts... not so perfect after all...Wikiskimmer 06:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
How would being able to travel to other planets make E. coli better at competing with other E. coli, and what would be the point going there anyway? Unless E. coli have become autotrophs that could survive in a completely different environment somehow, I doubt they would be there for long. Anyway, this discussion is getting too technical for my liking, I think I'll just forget about it for now. Richard001 07:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
To me, species selection seems close to the concept you are describing. Here is a review where Gould discusses this idea. Tim Vickers 03:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Common descent edits

Common descent is true. But there was no "last common ancestor". See http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/68/2/173 which is written by the world's foremost authority on the subject. Horizontal gene transfer is also good reading (but see the topmost external link listed in the bottom section. Citizendium's coverage is ten times better than ours.) In pre-darwinian evolution times genes moved between cells like memes between people or species between ecosystems. Cells back then were communities in which seperate genes learned (evolved) more and more complex interrelations creating tighter and more efficient mechanisms until genes could no longer usefully move from any cell to any cell and thus species began to exist. There was no first species that everything today evolved from. There was a common pool of co-evolving genes that moved freely from cell to cell. WAS 4.250 19:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got to say how refreshing it is to have a genuine academic disagreement on this page, based on current research in evolutionary biology! It's a very welcome change from drive-by creationism. Tim Vickers 19:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
We might actually have successfully directed the creationist attacks to the subsiduary daughter articles, and might be able to deal more exclusively with real science on this science article. I think this is great, and I hope we have more of this. Now we can do some real science, instead of answering ridiculous complaints for the 1000th time. I am sort of amazed, but I think that our FAQ, diligent guarding of the article, removal of troll bait from the article, and creation of a large number of daughter articles explaining various controversial and religious aspects in more details has worked out pretty well.--Filll 19:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
While I don't object to the claim that it's not necessarily true that there was a "last common ancestor" (as anything we say about the physical nature of life at the beginning is highly speculative), I feel that simply removing this material neglects to address the deeply shared biochemistry of life.

“I thought this was really extraordinary, that I’d look out the window and I’d see a tree and maybe a squirrel sitting in the tree, and I’d think that the instructions in the plant and the squirrel are really the same . . . I thought that was just beautiful. I knew all about Darwin and evolution, but this was such a striking confirmation of the similar mechanisms being operative in different forms of life. That had a big emotional impact on me.” - Marshall W. Nirenberg.

Like Nirenberg, I find the shared chemistry (implying shared origin) a striking observation, so I feel it should be mentioned. The commonality of the genetic code (with occasional variations), the shared mechanisms of ribosomes, tRNA -- to me this chemistry of life is a "common origin", even if it may have originated within a pooled environment.
I see now that Tim Vickers suggested a similar compromise earlier in the talk page, and I agree with it. Change the wording, but please do not remove the material. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 16:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


I think this has already been addressed before, in this page and in the common descent page. The fact that the last common ancestor may have been a bunch of gene-swapping entities rather than a single individual does NOT fundamentally alter the "common descent" concept. The Tree of Life may have messy roots, but it is still a tree. While this point should be somehow mentioned, removing the entire passage seems extreme and unwarranted. --Thomas Arelatensis 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

See http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/68/2/173 which is written by the world's foremost authority on the subject. He says the evidence indicates that the "ancestral gene pool" at three different times in ancient history spawned the three different existing major groupings of life. The "ancestral gene pool" did not spawn one of them that then spawned the other two. WAS 4.250 18:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the removal and added wording about "ancestral gene pool" (trying to copy the wording from the common descent article). Madeleine ✉ ✍ 18:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with that solution. WAS 4.250 18:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim to know anything about it, but I thought this was like Mitochondrial Eve, where there is one common ancestor of today's organisms, but that ancestor had plenty of contemporaries. No? Gnixon 05:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No no, it is a much broader concept. You're thinking of most recent common ancestor, compare with with common descent. Richard001 05:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
But isn't the MRCA of the set of all organisms the LUCA mentioned in common descent? From the MRCA article: "The MRCA for all living organisms is also known as the last universal ancestor." Both most recent common ancestor and common descent link to last universal ancestor when using the term. Gnixon 05:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the MRCA of all organisms as a set is the last universal common ancestor if that's what you mean. I think I may have misinterpreted what you said. Richard001 05:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I think I understand the point now: the HGT era forces us to stop looking backward for a LUCA because genes evolved and migrated so independently of any organism, and those genes had no common ancestor. Is this a valid sketch: 3 domains are each evolved from a common ancestor; the ancestors of each domain evolved from a common gene pool; the genes evolved from a small set of more basic elements, but there was no single structure or chemical compound through which all of them evolved. Thanks for your patience. Gnixon 15:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Throw in viruses and the fact that HGT has gradually become less important over time but still is an important factor and I think you've got it. WAS 4.250 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense for the purposes of this article to consider the set of primitive bacteria or their genes as a "common ancestor" and state things simply, at least in the lead. A footnote should be sufficient to clarify that usage, and presumably the article will later elucidate the issue. Considering the current sentence in the lead, I recommend cutting the parenthetical "(or ancestral gene pool)" in favor of a footnote. (Also, just wikify "common ancestor", not the whole phrase.) Just my opinion. Gnixon 05:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
How about "... suggests that all organisms are descended from a common ancestral gene pool." Isn't that both accurate and readable? Gnixon 23:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
With the addition of "or were designed by one designer" to make it even more accurate. rossnixon 02:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
But outwith the realm of science. If that's in, then presumably also "or touched with the same noodly appendage".... dave souza, talk 06:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Lest we get sidetracked, allow me to repeat: How about "... suggests that all organisms are descended from a common ancestral gene pool." Isn't that both accurate and readable? Gnixon 23:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Not very readable to the non-scientist or somebody who hasn't kept up with the HGT literature. "... suggests that all organisms are descended from either a common ancestor, or a common ancestral gene pool." We still need both since we cannot exclude the possibility that the first form of "life" or the first "replicator" emerged only once. HGT prevents us from seeing the very root of the tree, so the events or event that produced the common gene pool are unknown. Tim Vickers 00:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Darwinism - who uses that?

Answer, Richard Darwins, chief opponent of creationism, for one! Take a look at Neo-Darwinism Lecture by Richard Dawkins - video lecture and be amazed!

Everyone here naturally assumes that evolution is fact, or theory, depending on how you look at it. However, look at this poll. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml Not everyone, or even most, believes this. Now, I know someone will say, "That's just popular opinion, not real science." But, how, may I ask, if most people go through schools teaching evolution, then how do all these people not believe in it? They're not idiots. They must know something. C-versus-e 13:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't "know something". Plenty of people don't know that Nicolas Sarkozy is President of France: but we don't generally assume that this ignorance is because they "know something". We don't have to maintain some sort of "balance" between people who have knowledge of a topic and those who do not. But, sadly, schools don't teach much evolution at all. --Robert Stevens 14:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It would indeed be strange to add a note to the Nicolas Sarkozy article saying how many Americans think he is President of France. Good example. Tim Vickers 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Um, what's "France?" Is that a nickname for Frances? I had a horse named Frances once but we never called her France. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a small country south of Dorset. Famous for cheese. Tim Vickers 17:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hah!! Wrong!!! The country south of Dorset is Gurnsey!! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably the same place, that will just be an alternative spelling. Tim Vickers 17:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You evolutionists have an answer for everything - tha's proof that you are wrong! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Enough of the fun! No, of course they don't all 'know something', but it's too easy to just say that this article leaves out specialist stuff that 'deepens out understanding', as Slrubenstein puts it. It's also not quite satisfactory to say that readers can go to other articles for the details, because what they won't find there is a satisfying explanation of how, for example, population genetics solved the problem of gradualism. In fact it's extraordinarily hard, if not impossible to find such an explanation anywhere. For example, I have a popular book called 'Evolution, the Great Debate', which I regard as not bad as these books go, but it says (p137) under 'The New Synthesis', However, in Fisher's own words, the argument was 'rather complex', and the language of maths defeated at least one scientist assessing his work - the Royal Society rejected his paper. Look into it, and you find that many of the men who supposedly arrived at the synthesis didn't understand it! In Dobzhanski's 'Genetics and the Origin of Species' (reprint edited Eldridge and Gould), I find a forword by Steven J Gould, in which he says that he had the privelege of attending a reunion of the living founders of the synthesis, as recently as 1974, convened by Ernst Mayr. Gould comments: As an ironic footnote, I believe that none of the major synthesists, with the exception of Simpson, ever read (or could have read) much of Fisher, Haldane and Wright in the mathematical original. Both Dobzhanski and Mayr cheerfully admitted this to me. Maybe there was no synthesis, just a convenient assumption that one had been achieved.
I'd like to clearly state, in Modern synthesis the problems that required synthesis (apparent absence of the small changes needed by Darwin's theory, following Mendels revelations, plus the speciation problem, plus the questions over Lamarckian inheritance posed by new genetic knowledge) and then explain how these were supposedly solved by the synthesis. I say 'supposedly' because not everyone was happy with the explanations at the time, and some are not happy now. The Gradualists were not happy with it, and a bitter debate took place at the time. --Memestream 19:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could create a wikipedia article about it. WAS 4.250 20:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
That is interesting. I have always wondered what was meant by the hardening of the synthesis. Is that talking about the founders arteries? Hee. Science is always a work in progress. It is clear the modern synthesis is a historical footnote and not a planned strategy of a group working together. Some limit the synthesis to a period others say it is still ongoing. In any case they did not pat each other on the back in agreement. I think we may find that part of the synthesis is limiting research and the emphasis will change. I note many see natural selection as selecting on reproduction rather than selecting for reproductive advantage. GetAgrippa 12:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to agree with me GetAgrippa, but I don't think the article on the modern synthesis as it stands gives the impression of it being a 'historical footnote', and much of it, as others have complained, is a bit too cut-and-dried with no mention of dissent. That's all I'm trying to correct. --Memestream 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that my attempt to add a 'see also' section was reverted. I appreciate that the templates exist, but ironically my attempts to introduce templates elsewhere were strongly resisted because of their limitations, so I went off them! I wanted to make clear the existence of some other pages, especially 'Developmental systems theory' which takes a much broader view. Are we to add such pages to the template, which is more of a series on the 'old' theory than a place for articles that might be seen as 'competing theories'? --Memestream 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of paranoia (which isn't exactly unfounded) concerning creationist impressions so that influences peoples opinions greatly here. At one time we entertained a separate article about great debates in evolution: Kimura vs Mayr, Gould vs Dawkins, Mutationism vs Natural selection, etc. I thought it was a great idea to demonstrate how science works. Evodevo is a relatively new field that is still met with apprehension by many, although I am greatly in favor. I favored an indepth history section that just doesn't gloss over things. I think the history section can address directly many misconceptions and flawed logic. There are so many notables not even mentioned also. I must say I am more pleased with this article for an encyclopedia than its predecessors, although there was some great stuff cut (much to my chagrin). I like Slrubenstein's take that we can develop other issues in linked articles. My Ph.D. was in developmental biology (although I changed during post docs)and I was encouraged to work on the Evodevo article. I researched it and gathered a great resource of info but I burned out and never completed it. Meme, you seem interested so I would encourage you to take a whack at the Evodevo article. Right now I am gathering references for an article I completely rewrote a few months ago and just left it unreferenced (it is not a contentious subject so few complaints). Regards GetAgrippa 18:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no way one article can be all things to all people. And we just have to lurch along, balancing the desire for detail in specialized articles with providing an easy pathway for nonexperts to access the information and learn about the topic.

I think that the desire I see often in WP to shove it all in one superbig article really does not service the readership properly. These huge monster articles are probably not read by anyone, or at least very few. So I think subsiduary daughter articles on all kinds of subtopics is great, and as they develop, will make Wikipedia more and more of a valuable resource, while still allowing the hoi polloi to get entry into some of these areas.

Remember, since WP is not paper, there is no problem with having 100 or 1000 or more articles on different aspects of evolution and its history. A given reader can start with the Simple Wikipedia article on evolution, move to the Introduction to evolution article, then to this evolution article, and then on into more specialized articles and the references, going all the way from elementary school level all the way through post graduate or post doctoral levels.

If you compare the situation now with what we had 2 years ago, or 4 years ago, or 5, we are incredibly further along on making the WP articles on evolution a useful and valuable resource. I expect this trend to continue.--Filll 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate both of the above comments, and agree that the article is a lot better than it was years ago. I've been a big fan of Wikipedia for a long time, and am watching many articles get better and better - but that's irrelevant here isn't it? If there are misconceptions they can still be removed, and explanations improved, and that doesn't necessarily mean making the article bigger or more complicated. My interest in evo-devo goes very deep GettaGrippa, and I'll certainly help with that, but for the moment I'm keen to modify these pages on evolution, modern synthesis and neo-Darwinism so that they give recognition to the fact that the theory of evolution is ongoing, and the modern synthesis does not represent the current state of understanding by any means. To not say that is to play into the hands of the creationists, is it not, because we all need to be clear that the modern synthesis does not represent the current state of thinking among scientists in the field. It is not even something that has ever been defined precisely, as different accounts of it conflict in certain details. It's not hard, or overcomplicated to indicate that this is the case, while leaving the details for other pages. As for paranoia concerning creationist issues, I'm not interested, and I don't think anyone here should be. I don't feel the need to consider what creationists might think about something, I'm too busy seeking the truth. --Memestream 21:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Meme, Fill is a physicist and not a biologist, and he is an excellent editor. I really respect and like his unbiased opinions. Slrubenstein is another excellent editor and he really tries to be fair and follow NPOV (he is an anthropologist). Lots of excellent editors here(my apologies if I didn't mention you). I gather you are also a biological scientist and we do have that penchant to be exact. To be honest I was too anal-ytical when I first started posting because of my nature, but I soon realized that this is an encyclopedia not a graduate level course. I too didn't care for all the paranoia and concerns over creationist (expressed the exact same sentiment almost verbatim), but it is a major vandalism problem (I have grown to appreciate the magnitude of this diversion and the frustration). This article is a work in progress so your concerns are appreciated and don't go on deaf ears (actually many have been raised before I think some by me). I do find that some of the offshoot articles lack continutiy with the parent article and that I see as a problem. Keep making cogent arguments and you will either win favor or find a compromise. Keep up the good work. Don't let it frustrate you-like it has me. I am learning to tame that beast. Slrubenstein has been very helpful in that regard. He has been envolved in some real doozies, and it is a real testimony to his persistence and desire to create an excellent encyclopedia (and not compromise his intellectual integrity) Regards GetAgrippa 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for that GetAggrippa. I do indeed seem to be getting some more encouraging and to the point conversation at last. I have slogged on with this, very politely I feel, despite gratuitous allegations, simply because I think it's important. I find it difficult to assign any qualities to editors, with so little to go on, and tend to focus on the task rather than try to work out anything about the editors. Since I also edit a lot on other topics in psychology, psychiatry, evolutionary psychology and so on (I actually regard myself as a serious modern polymath with a particular interest in bringing about the consilience of E. O. Wilson) I don't meet the same editors all the time, which makes things more difficult. I've just taken a look at your page and realised that as well as the blank page I'd hastily seen before, you do indeed have a history rather like my own of withdrawing at times in frustration and then getting tempted back. I actually take Wikipedia very seriously, and I think I'm right to. It's a phenomenon that is starting to carry tremendous power. These articles on Darwin etc are absolutely vital, and they pop up all over the place in other pages on the web, and are gaining credibility, so their power to spread 'memes' is frightening. If I can get agreement over neo-Darwinism and get the page kept I feel I could help to clean up the widespread misuse and misunderstanding worldwide - not by pushing my POV, but just by persisting in sorting out something intelligently so that it makes sense while acknowledging useage. Regards --Memestream 12:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"But, how, may I ask, if most people go through schools teaching evolution, then how do all these people not believe in it? They're not idiots. They must know something?"
Science is complicated --- there is not a quick and easy explanation to such broad ideas as Evolution. That is clearly evident by this conversation thread and the "level" of debate. Believe it or not --- everyone is not as passionate about the subject as you; they want it boiled down in a nutshell. Try teaching evolution to high school students -- in simple english --- try writing an introduction to evolution that is both accurate and understandable :) Have you ever set through a Ken Ham lecture on Creationism? It is so concise and simplistic ... Noah's flood = fossils. A no-brainer. Praise Jesus!!! Factor in the fact that they want to find truth in Creationism; and you have an anti-evoltion movement. When you edit --- perhaps you should think in terms of making the information accessable to the "average" reader. --Random Replicator 13:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
My take on this is that there are indeed some serious flaws, or inadequacies of explanation, or gaps, in the theory of evolution as commonly put across. There are also blatant mistakes made which propagate past 'memes', even in advanced textbooks, just to further confuse things. These flaws are seized upon and misrepresented by creationists, and the public sense a grain of truth in what they say. Take for example a section I found yesterday in my old A-level textbook Biology a Functional Approach, which I think is still in widespread use. It says, "A central tenet of Darwin's argument is that the 'raw material' for natural selection, arise spontaneously. They are in no way dictated by the environment ...." How wrong can you get. That's neo-Darwinism, but certainly not what Darwin said! I believe it is possible to explain evolution in simple english while telling no lies if you are very careful, and at the same time make it clear that evolutionary theory is work in progress, and the modern synthesis is thought to be falling apart by some, but nevertheless the essential fact of Evolution's occurance, somehow, through genetic processes as yet to be teased out, is pretty damm certain as demonstrated by massive evidence, not theory. --Memestream 13:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
There are flaws? Says who? You? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
OMG. I just read this Memestream about flaws. I have been trying to empathize and sympathize and then you have to say something like that. I hope you are just rambling, because now we both look the fool. Concerned. GetAgrippa 22:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The place to address these concerns is not in the main articles. What you are proposing here sounds like it is veering into WP:OR to me. This is NOT the place to mount a crusade to correct all the textbooks and graduate school texts and histories that have it wrong. It is not really the place to display the "truth" as you personally have discerned it, differen than 99% of the people in the field of biology. And even if some of this can be addressed in daughter articles, the main articles DEFINITELY are not the place for nonmainstream views of a subject and its history. This is a different kind of publication venue; it is a tertiary source. It is an encyclopedia, not a research journal or a political platform. It reflects what the mainstream thinks, it should not, can not and does not correct the problems in mainstream understanding.--Filll 16:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As for paranoia concerning creationist issues, I'm not interested, and I don't think anyone here should be. I don't feel the need to consider what creationists might think about something, I'm too busy seeking the truth.--Memestream

As much as I appreciate the sentiments expressed above by Memestream, I think this is because he does not understand the situation or the magnitude of the threat. This article talk page bears the scars of many many past battles with legions of creationists of all stripes. Just peruse back over the tens of thousands of edits here over the years and see. If we did not learn creationist tactics and adjust to counter them, this article would have been destroyed within a couple of weeks, long long ago, and turned into a religious recruiting tract.

Some of this has abated over the last year, but not because creationist interest has dropped. It is precisely because we have become better at handling their attacks.

For example, we have farmed out material to a huge number of daughter articles dealing with the creationism-evolution controversy. Vandalism and creationist edits here are aggressively reverted, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, usually within seconds. We removed all mention of the controversy from this main evolution article and most of the other main articles. We have written and rewritten an FAQ above that we can direct people to. We direct people to other wikis that are friendly to creationists. We direct people to debate sites as well if they want to debate. We blank their comments. We organized and reorganized these talk page archives. We made a parallel introduction to evolution article that has helped I suspect.

What all this has done, is that it has created a safe space for real science edits to occur. This article has been heavily edited in the last few months, but not in edit wars by creationists battling scientists. It has been edited and improved by people interested in the science. That is how it made it back to the FA status which it currently enjoys.

I am also a little taken aback by a search for the "truth". That can be taken in a number of different ways...--Filll 16:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the elusive Universal Truth. Elusive because it doesn't exist. As for it being truth, there's so much subjectivity in the definition of a purportedly objective concept that those who seek it might as well abandon all hope. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am always astonished at people who claim to be in search of the truth and think they will find it through science. As if science and scientific inquiry was always and absolutely devoted to the search for "truth"!! Has it ever occurred to anyone that some scientists have other motives for their so-called research than searching for "Truth"? That, perhaps, those who even believe in things like Evolution and strive to further the search for "truth" do so because they want to have another explanation for life's meaning that doesn't require responsibility and accountability? How can you trust the research of someone who isn't 100% devoted to searching for what is true, even if that truth may not be comfortable, or even offensive to him/her? Do you seriously believe that everything scientists "discover" gets reported? And that everything they report reflects their true discoveries? I know the human kind better than to put my precious faith in the explanations of men and women who may be well intentioned, but who are most likely biased in their search for "Truth". We all are. We're even biased in interpreting what they report. We even choose to ignore what we don't want to believe in, we pick and choose our beliefs so that it fits with our lifestyle, or maybe so that it may give us some fuel for arguments and fights with others who have chosen different beliefs.

The real search for truth is the honest search with the intent to change oneself for the better, as truth is discovered. Nicolasconnault 17:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


This is a strange random post to a conversation that long since ended. If you want things like "truth" and "proof" go to logic or mathematics, not science. You obviously do not understand what science is, or probably evolution. I suggest that you might find other places on the internet to discuss these things like Talk origins. The talk pages of WP articles are not for debating. They are for discussing article improvements. So try somewhere else.--Filll 17:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that everything in the universe is getting less complex and decaying over time, eventually resulting in chaos, this is called Entropy. But evolution states that things in this world are getting better and more complex over time, but this is clearly opposite of entropy. A law of science is something that has been proven to be truth, both evolution and the second law of thermodynamics can not be true at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.darling.3 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

... yawn ... Take your ill-informed opinions to a more appropriate place, as suggested at the top of this page. Snalwibma 09:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You might want to check out What about the scientific evidence against evolution? too Ben 09:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Shortcomings

Please don't mistake me for a creationist, but I read somewhere that there are some (minor) aspects of evolution which are not satisfactorily explained by Darwin's priniciples, so the theory may be yet incomplete. Does anyone else know anything about this? Amit@Talk 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please enlighten me as to the meaning of a "complete theory"... Sounds like a lovely oxymoron to me Nicolasconnault 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Some of the areas of current research, such as the level of selection, the relative importance of mutation, drift and natural selection, and the influence of developmental biology on adaption are discussed in the article. More details on these topics are on their specific articles. Tim Vickers 16:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Evolution is a biological fact. The ideas and theories have and are evolving as the science and discoveries grow. Darwins ideas were not new or exceptional but his work was a Bauplan for the science we know today. Much of Darwin's original notions were not accurate like gemmules, etc. Read Stephen Gould's The Structure and Function of Evolution Theory. It is an excellent historical, philosophical, and biological book to give you a glimpse of what is going on and where the science is going. It looks intimidating but it is an excellent read for any beginner. He is very respectful and appreciative of all the ideas in evolution (even those proven incorrect) and popular ideas concerning evolution. Part of the problem is the lack of understanding of what is a biological theory. A theory has to be testable and falsifiable, but it is never "proven" (just evidence that supports). A quick example: the theories concerning the physics of the atom have not been "proven", yet we are quite capable of using the physics to generate nuclear power and nuclear bombs (evidence to support the theory). That maynot be the best illustration.GetAgrippa 16:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
So a fact is something that isn't provable, but that has lots of evidence and believers to support it? Sounds like a religious dogma to me! Welcome to the church of evolution :) Nicolasconnault 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Nothing in science is proven. The goal of science is to come up with a theory and try to disprove it. If you test something enough and you can't disprove it, well I guess it eventually just turns into fact (until someone disproves it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.18.153 (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, quoi? Nothing in science is proven? Baegis 14:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

All this means is that you do not know the meaning of the words fact, theory etc in science. Please go someplace else with the trolling. This page is not for debates.--Filll 18:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Philosopher of science Philip Kitscher has summed it up by saying Darwin is to biology what Newton is to physics: he made it a coherent science in which its diverse fields operate within the same conceptual framework. Scientists of course know much that Darwin did not know - but in part, because his theories raised questions that set an agenda for subsequent scientists. This is something non-scientists often do not understand about scientific theories. What makes them really powerful is not that they explain everything but rather that they call attention to stuff that is not yet understood and thus help prioritize and direct future research. The greatest theories raise as many questions as they answer - but not in a random way; rather, they raise a set of related questions, show why they are important, and provide concepts to use to go about answering them. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Very good points Slrubenstein. I was starting to ramble. I like the Darwin-Newton analogy. GetAgrippa 16:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
That is an excellent explanation Slrubenstein. Sincerely. Nicolasconnault 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The comparison isn't accurate because Newton's theories allowed for a huge number of quantified, objective, (veri/falsi)fiable (predi/post)dictions like all of Kepler's laws, allowing for predictions of periods of pendulums, the behaviour of optical systems (though with an incorrect theory) the trajectory of falling bodies and in Darwin's work there isn't a single hard fact that if falsified would render the theory false. Pushing this analogy is plainly mischievous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.74.111 (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> No offense, but you clearly do not understand Newton's work, or Darwin's work, or science, or falsifiability, or evolution, or much of anything. And this page is not for debating so please go elsewhere. These kinds of ludicrous comments that do not contribute to the article will be remove summarily.--Filll 00:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Newton's Principia? Do you know classical Physics? Have you ever performed experiments where if the error bar doesn't cover the measured result the theory goes to the bin? I don't' know and since I am not dishonest as you have undoubtedly shown to be I won't write you don't know much of anything.
Newtown's work directly lead to the discovery of new celestial bodies before these were observed. If deviations from the simple elliptical orbits didn't match the theory would need to be revised. There was no need to do that until Mercury's "problem". Now please, say where in Darwin's work (or a derived) is an objective, quantitative prediction about anything that if falsified would render the theory wrong (quantitative optional, but it must be apophantic). Contrary to your dogmatic knee-jerk reaction this is related to the article and I find it rather amusing that this issue of relevance only showed up when you got a contrary reply, because you had no problem with Slrubenstein's introduction of the theme.
Despite what you might think, you don't own this discussion page. My comment is relevant to an analogy someone suggested. You wrote I don't known much about science of falsifiability but at least I've written clear accounts related to that. The content of your posts is so far null modulo personal attacks. So yes, I maintain only someone ignorant or dishonest would place Newton's scientific work on par with some ramblings regarding observed behaviour from which no falsifiable prediction ever resulted. You wrote about falsifiability. The man who made the concept more popular (it wasn't a new idea for sure) was Popper and even he wrote about evolution that "It is metaphysical because it is not testable.". But authority means nothing, contradict this and add it to the article. (Full disclosure: Popper's position later on became "softer" but curiously he didn't explain the test that he had found about that changed his oroginal oppinion [[2]]. Anyway, authority is irrelevant in science).
As a fact evolution is a well verified phenomenon. As a theory I doubt it should even be called that because no real hard falsifiable prediction ever came from it. If I'm wrong please add it to the article because it certainly isn't there. Now if adding a hard falsifiable prediction to the article is irrelevant, then I don't know what is relevant. I suggest a chapter on the experimental falsifiable quantitative tests that evaluate the theory's (not the fact that it occurs) experimental value. Maybe in the History of evolutionary thought chapter. If you or someone else doesn't add this crucial piece of data to the article I'll assume it doesn't exist and add this information to it.
You have no right to push just so stories as scientific knowledge when in reality these are closer to a "metaphysical framework" from which very little new information can actually be extracted from the previous data and current circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.105.16 (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think Darwin required/predicted species be interrelated in a hierarchy, that there needs to be sub-species (variation in any given species), evidence of transitional periods and species, and I think he predicted changes to a population given changes to its environment. - RoyBoy 800 04:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to humbly request you don't misrepresent Popper. He admitted later on that he was wrong about the non-falsifiablity of evolutionary theory and that he had been deceived by the opponents of it. Saying evolution isn't falsifiable is so inherently silly it practically can be listed with the "Why are there still monkeys?" line of idiocy. A single rabbit in the pre-cambrian, for example, would falsify the theory, as would finding that DNA doesn't transmit traits, or that mutations could not result in novel traits. All of these are potential falsifications. Also, predictions by evolution would include...Cladistics maybe? The fact that all life can be put into a hierarchy and shows varying degrees of relationship. Ignorance on this level is disappointing. Keio 16:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote: Full disclosure: Popper's position later on became "softer" but curiously he didn't explain the test that he had found about that changed his original opinion. Where did I misrepresent Popper? Please be precise because I don't like misrepresenting people. Did he not defend that POV at one point? Didn't he later change it? Did he ever say what falsification criteria he had found to change is opinion? Where did I go wrong?
Anyway, this is pointless, the person stating the opinion is irrelevant. I do not like misrepresentations and expect nothing but a clear and precise account of where I made such a thing.
A single rabbit in the pre-cambrian, for example, would falsify the theory
Is there a constraint in evolution by natural selection that forbids A evolving to B, B becoming extinct and later C (maybe equal to A) evolving into B? I am not aware of such a hard constraint but if it does exist please direct me to the correct source. If this constraint doesn't exist (I don't think it does), then your criteria is laughable at best. If you intend to use plausibility arguments, please be prepared to show how the probability of occurrence is actually calculated.
or that mutations could not result in novel traits No. That would show that as a natural fact evolution doesn't occur. Totally different thing to falsifying a theory supposed to govern that fact.
Also, predictions by evolution would include...Cladistics maybe. That's like saying that Newton's 1/r^2 force predicts the pull of gravity. Again, you confuse everything.
So far I am really disappointed at the total lack of honesty in this discussion and ironically this only parallels discussions with some religious zealots who distort cause-effect relations and merge terms to suit whatever point they wish to convey.
From accusations of idiocy without ever pointing to a single thing I wrote that was wrong to claims I'm misrepresenting people when I even go to the trouble of writing how their opinions changed with time.
This is not what science is about and these kind of attitudes are slowly corroding it and giving an erroneous impression to the average joe about what constitutes good science.89.181.104.51 00:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Popper did not say he was wrong. Read what he actually said. A rabbit in the cambrian does not falsify general evolutionary theory. Read Popper more carefully. And DNA not transmitting traits does not either. You are not understanding how falsification works. That article should be changed to clearly say what falsification is. Imbrella 18:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Ideas about how to describe falsifiability more clearly would apply to all scientific theories. Why not discuss this on the Talk:Theory discussion page? However, it has been brought up there already, so if you read those discussions before you post you can make sure you are not repeating things that have already been covered. Tim Vickers 19:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Why not discuss this on the Talk:Theory discussion page?
Because this is a specific case, not a general abstract discussion. 89.181.104.51 —Preceding comment was added at 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


This is not appropriate for this page. This page is a page for discussing improvements to the article. If you want to debate, please go someplace else.--Filll 01:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to detect a pattern of serious cognitive deficiency in here. How is addressing the falsification of the theory in the article not related with improving it? Do you people actually read what you write?

Please, for once justify your opinion as to why this is not related with improving the article. Someone suggested some tests of falsification and those have been debunked. I'm starting to get the idea that the reason you don't answere my criticism is because you really can't. Instead you keep on looking to the other side, refusing discussing ways in which to improve the article hopping that it will all blow away. It won't. Either add the falsifiability criteria to the article or say there isn't any. Again, if you don't I will. This is so simple only someone in bad faith as the person accusing me of misrepresenting Popper's views would pretend not to understand it. 89.181.104.51 02:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Get an account. Learn how to and where to put comments on a talk page. Then we will be sure you do not have one or more cognitive deficiencies yourself. All you have done so far is spew worthless nonsense in the wrong place that people cannot be bothered to read and should be removed on sight. Nothing to do with improving the article at hand. This is just trolling, pure and simple. Provide a peer-reviewed journal reference for "rabbits in the pre-cambrian" not being a valid falsification. Your own personal gratuitous assertion counts for nothing here, since we are not a primary or even a secondary source, but a tertiary source. Please review the policies of WP wrt to WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:V, which you clearly have demonstrated you do not understand, further providing evidence for your own cognitive deficiency. I could spend a few pages refuting everything you have written in detailed terms but you are clearly incapable or unwilling to absorb it, so I will not be bothered. This talk page is for improving the article, not for debating. Go to another wiki to write about your theories or to talk origins or someplace else to debate. Not here. Thanks.--Filll 02:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Get an account.
Last time I checked Wikipedia allowed for editing without one. I am not acting against any policy by doing so.
All you have done so far is spew worthless nonsense...
Again, no actual concrete examples. The only one was someone accusing me of misrepresenting Popper which anyone who bothers to read what I wrote can only consider to be a joke. You on the other hand have conveyed no information so far.
Provide a peer-reviewed journal reference for "rabbits in the pre-cambrian" not being a valid falsification.
Finally, some content related to the matter at hand. So what do you say about adding that falsification condition to the article, properly sourced by you using some peer reviewed paper? But maybe you consider that to be irrelevant as well.
Your own personal gratuitous assertion counts for nothing here
If I had written any of those you are right, they shouldn't count for anything, but neither should yours or anybody else's.
I could spend a few pages refuting everything you have written in detailed terms but you are clearly incapable or unwilling to absorb it
Apparently you can do a lot of things. I urge you to please do them instead of only stating you can. Maybe something could be merged into the article in the process.
In summary, you or someone else please start to address this issue with properly sourced information with that rabbit in Precambrian criteria. We can build it from here. Don't invoke WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE because whether you like it or not the falsification criteria is one of the most commonly used criteria for distinguishing science from non-science.
As for me trolling all I can say is that you have a strange concept of trolling. Maybe you would like my contribution better if I replaced all content with the genesis or some other irrelevant info for the article like that. Or maybe I should have started my post by doing some unsubstantiated generalization like writing someone didn't know much of anything or something as impersonal as that.
As a final note, Popper's opinion on this matter regarding Evolution by Natural selection as a "metaphysical research programme" is not derogatory (for him at least). I can source all this and Imbrella already started. Popper's views on science are anything but fringe and the issue is relevant to the article. I'm not even stating whether I agree or not with his view because as you wrote WP is not a primary or even a secondary source and thus my views (or yours) on this are irrelevant. Popper's published views aren't and adressing falsification in the article is certainly relevant and a serious flaw as it stands.
One relevant reference is for instance "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355
This is Popper's "recantation" (his own word) but notice he didn't provide the falsification criteria and thus had to use the terms "metaphysical research programme".
89.181.103.235 23:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You are correct that there is nothing wrong with being an anonymous user. As to the remainder of your material, and most of this conversation- a reminder seems to be in order to everyone present that talk pages are for discussing how to improve the articles, not to have general debates on the topic. Furthermore, we have a strict no original research policy. JoshuaZ 00:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.


http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

from gould's site. The rabbit think is wrong. Read carefully what Popper said. We would not expect rabbits in the cambrian if 'unenlightened by the theory'. Otherwise we can always come up with ridiculous falsifications. Compare Darwinism to say Larmarkism. Are you saying that Lamarkism predicted rabbits in the Cambrian. Or orthogenesis? Or old earth creationism or young earth or panspermia. No alternate theory predicts rabbits. All alternate theories state that there was a progession form simple to complex forms. The main tenet of Darwinism is that NATURAL SELECTION causes major morphological changes. Heliocentrism would be falsified by "there are no seasons. there is no summer or winter' but so what. It is an invalid falsification. 'unenlightened by the theory' that is the crux of falsification. So the rabbit thing is bull. Imbrella 16:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

First, the criteria of falsifiability was introduced to theories of scientific method long after Newton died. Philosophers of science have more sophisticated notions of the function of falisifability in the scientific method, especially given the diversity of sciences and scientific objects and objectives. There is no single scientific method - if one were to infer a model of how science works solely from observing physicists, one could of course come up with a different model than it one solely observed biologists. Of course in both cases the scientist's model must hold up against empirical research (just not necessarily in the naive, simplistic, and dogmatic - actually, hardly scientific - view you have) and Darwin has in fact been stunningly succesful in this regard, precisely why Kitscher compares him to Newton. But frankly, that is not the issue here. The issue is NOR. I comply with NOR because i provided a view not my own but rather attributable to a verifiable and reliable source, philosopher of science Kitscher. You do not agree with that view? Congratulations. Now go out and write an article or book and see if it gets published. See if anyone considers your views notable, as biologists and philosophers consider kitscher's views notable. When that happens, we can include your views in this article. Until that happens, either make constructive suggestions for how to improve this article in ways that comply with our core policies of NPOV, V, and NOR, or go away. Wikipedia is not a soap-box. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Important discussion needed: I propose a very important and necessary correction to this article's base approach. (A new definition of Evolution).

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I copy and paste literally from the main article (first words of Wikipedia's article) :

"In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation"

All the rest of the article revolves around this idea ; so the article gives a central importance , for example , to notions such as inheritance .

I consider that's not a sound definition of Evolution .

I propose here a much more sound definition or pro-definition of Evolution . I hope you will understand it and accept it . Of course I'm open to discussion :

(In biology) Evolution is the fact that living beings (that is, species, patterns or homogeneous groups) change, transform or mutate, to re-adapt to new environments, or to environmental changes, or to new environmental conditions.

In short: to evolve is to change to re-adapt to a new environment.

So what has this got to do with the simple notion of Wikipedia, of "change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation". Wikipedia definition is not leaning in a substantive manner on the idea of an own self change oriented to an environment change.

The concept of reproduction is not initially necessary for the concept of Evolution. I think reproduction occurs when living beings have become so complex, that they need to rebuild theirselves separatedly up from zero to be able to assume transformations; I think this is also what made genes necessary.

But, on the other hand, very simple forms of life could use directly their own internal metabolism, without extending it outside, to assume self transformations or mutations, before new environmental conditions.

The important thing of evolution, is the relation between a change of the living being, and a change of the environment. The emphasis should be on this, not on things like reproduction or inheritance.

I write some more detailed considerations about this on my blog, in an article where I experimentally imagine the artificial synthesis of a living being: + "Read this, and you'll be immortal"

--Faustinonh 00:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As "you" say: "I" propose a different definition for evolution. That is all POV, which is not what this encyclopedic article is about. The intro is basic as a more correct definition is a shift in gene alleles within a population over time (which is covered later). I can appreciate your passion for your views, but it would be a disservice to the article to go Star trekking to where no man has gone before. "Re-adapt" come on now. Regards GetAgrippa 01:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Time cube biology. Tim Vickers 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


"In short: to evolve is to change to re-adapt to a new environment."

No. You're reversing cause and effect (remebers me the Wrong direction fallacy). Learn more how mutation and natural selection really work. "To evolve is to change because the new environment selected those who were adapted to it" would be more precise. And still worse than the original "In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation", has there is sexual selection, for example, that is not what I would call "enviromental" pressure.

Mutations don't even need enviromental changes. They just happen. And even a immutable environment can still select mutations that are better and better to survive it. Evolution don't need "new" enviroments or conditions.

(Sorry for the bad English) 200.255.9.38 11:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You are proposing minor corrections to my definition. My definition admits to be re-formulated, for example, this way or similar: "Evolution is the set of re-adaptive changes, transformations or mutations of living beings, related to, or regarding, the changes of environmental conditions" .
(Note: even if mutations have not a strong connection with the environment and even if they occur in a random manner, the environment has always the last word, because the environment select just a few ones of the mutations).
Anyway, I could write here, right now, all your next arguments; I'm not going to enter such discussion.
--Faustinonh 14:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
"the environment has always the last word" is restricting evolution to natural selection and not considering genetic drift. Some evolutionary biologist take neutral molecular evolution to the extreme of neutral evolution deferring natural selection to a minor role. Some living fossils have changed little in 500 million years while their environment has likely changed-how does your argument consider living fossils? Mutations can survive cryptically in populations for thousands of years and then natural selection act to shift the alleles predominance in a population and evolution occurs-how does your argument deal with exaptations? Why would you start a discussion that you don't want to entertain or discuss? Regards GetAgrippa 17:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact that I don't want to follow certain lines of discussion, does not mean I don't want to follow any other line of discussion.
I just proposed a definition. It can be taken or left ("analogically" or "digitally", as you prefer).
For example, your recent comment is interesting, is kind of the sort of comments I'd be willing to consider.
Anyway, it seems to me it is not sound to say that environment has a "minor role".
Even assuming my definition is susceptible to interesting comments, I still think it is a good definition.
It would be great to extend this discussion, in a constructive manner, for example, on Google Groups. I'm sure we could reach very interesting conclusions.
But let me say I'm not the kind of person that gets amused with "your-idea-is-wrong-for-this" discussions. I mean it gets boring for me. I prefer constructive discussion, accepted that even in constructive discussion it may get necessary in certain cases to refute other's ideas.
--Faustinonh 22:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Google groups would be an excellent idea. All the best Tim Vickers 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I will repeat just one setence from what I already said: "even a immutable environment can still select mutations that are better and better to survive it."
You're focusing your definition in enviromental, and more precisely in environment CHANGES. Why? This is just a part of the process.
If you really want "constructive discussion", why you came here with a incomplete and focused version, why you don't try to "constructively discuss" the common definiton, the one that is mostly accepted by the scientific community, instead? 200.255.9.38 12:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'll tell you why : some centuries ago , scientific community generally accepted that Sun revolved around the Earth and that our planet was the centre of the Universe . Scientific community's word is not sacred , it's not even half-sacred.
--Faustinonh 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I never said scientific comunity is somewhat "sacred" and anyone must follow Its Word.
I'm just saying your ideas are much less "sacred" than the scientific consensus.
So, why we must be more "construtive" with your ideas than yourself is with the already well-stablished knowledge? 200.255.9.38 17:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Your ideas are very novel, if you get them published in a reliable source we will certainly consider adding them to the article. Tim Vickers 17:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
"But let me say I'm not the kind of person that gets amused with "your-idea-is-wrong-for-this" discussions. I mean it gets boring for me. I prefer constructive discussion, accepted that even in constructive discussion it may get necessary in certain cases to refute other's ideas." Wow, we wouldn't want to bemuse or "bore" you so I think you are correct in expressing your posits elsewhere in an opinion forum or blog. A quick search doesn't indicate the person has published in the field of evolution biology. Good luck!GetAgrippa 17:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> While it's obviously unusable because of the lack of a reliable source, omitting the bracketed definition gives a splendid example of a common misconception: "Evolution is the fact that living beings... change, transform or mutate.." My non-expert understanding is that a better way of presenting it would be 'Evolution is the fact that living organisms vary, and pass on heritable variations to their offspring. Over many generation such variations accumulate so that distant descendants are classified as separate species or genera." Just an amateur view, and in my view the current heading is much better. .. dave souza, talk 17:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Descent with modification" is how Darwin put it, he only started using the word "evolution" in his later writing. Tim Vickers 18:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am afraid Faustinhonah that you seem to have misunderstood the porcess of evolution and have adopted a model which seems to be rather anthropomorphic and there is no supporting evidence for. The first problem with your definition starts with "living beings" which is not what evolution is soley about. Viruses (whose "life" is debatable) would be excluded from your definition although their DNA and RNA do evolve as you can see from antibiotic resistant monera. The phrase "change, transform or mutate" is vague and inprecise, and the use of re-adapt implies some sort evolutionary process of individuals. Furthermore, evolution does not necessarily change in new environments unless there is selection pressure within the niche of the species.
I am afraid the original definition, while not perfect, is substantially clearer and far more precise than your proposal. I would suggest you go and read about the concepts of evolution to gain a deeper undersatnding of what is a difficult process to understand without an appreciation of genetics (including population genetics) and biochemistry. Candy 22:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Faustinonh, what you gave is a (proto-)definition of adaptation, not of evolution. Evolution really is "the change in the inherited characteristics of a population over generations". In particular, evolution may very well happen in the absence of change in the environment (because a new beneficial mutation was found, or even through plain dumb random drift). You might want to read a bit more about it (books by Dawkins and Gould are a good start). --Thomas Arelatensis 09:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fellas, you have humored him enough. This talk is not going to help improve the article and is wasting space at this point. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I think with Intelligent design a featured article on the main page, there are going to be a lot of strange conversations going on in related articles. I am amused when individuals either intentionally or through a misunderstanding attempt to redefine what is Evolution. But I think Slrubenstein is right, we're feeding someone here a bit too much. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Origin of religion

I created an article origin of religion, that is based on recent findings in human evolution. The article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of religion. Looking for comments from anyone who has some knowledge on evolution. Muntuwandi 04:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Wright B (2004). "Stress-directed adaptive mutations and evolution". Mol. Microbiol. 52 (3): 643–50. PMID 15101972.
  2. ^ Sachs J (2006). "Cooperation within and among species". J. Evol. Biol. 19 (5): 1415–8, discussion 1426–36. PMID 16910971.
  3. ^ {Nowak M (2006). "Five rules for the evolution of cooperation". Science. 314 (5805): 1560–3. PMID 17158317.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bertram was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Axelrod R, Hamilton W (1981). "The evolution of cooperation". Science. 211 (4489): 1390–6. PMID 7466396.
  6. ^ Bernstein B, Meissner A, Lander E (2007). "The mammalian epigenome". Cell. 128 (4): 669–81. PMID 17320505.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ T. Kafri, X. Gao, and A. Razin (1995). "Mechanistic aspects of genome-wide demethylation in the preimplantation mouse embryo". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 90 (22): 10558–10562. PMID 8248144.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ V.L. Chandler (2007). "Paramutation: From Maize to Mice". Cell. 128: 641–645.
  9. ^ O.J. Rando and K.J. Verstrepen (2007). "Timescales of Genetic and Epigenetic Inheritance". Cell. 128: 655–668.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution/Archive_41&oldid=1092047513"