Talk:Evolution/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

Size of this article

At end November, not long ago, this article was about 160,000 bytes. We have now in relatively rapid time gone about 175,000 bytes. WP:SPLIT advises to consider splitting an article when it hits 100,000 bytes. Personally I am having trouble editing this article on some computers. Have we lost the plot a little here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is getting more and more lengthy and unwieldy. I myself am having a hard time keeping up with rapid changes that were made to it. Plus, the recent discussions were so dense that it felt like I was reading a transcript from a scientific journal club. I think the plot is ok but I do think the amount of detail in this article needs to be taken into consideration. I think we need to come to a consensus very soon as to whether this article should read like an encyclopedia article or a chapter from a graduate level textbook. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a candidate for trimming the page to make it into an overview, and moving in-depth description to sub-articles. Experience tells me that can take a lot of work from a knowledgeable contributor, or well-coordinated contributors. I favor keeping the overview smaller than the "probably should be divided" threshold of 60 KB. Users of mobile readers may like even smaller pages. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

@ML. I think we should write for the broadest audience we can without making the subject distorted. I think some sections probably deserve a bit of "depth" in their treatment, but others scream for linking to specialist articles. This can not be the article about everything.

@JPB. If I understand correctly, this has probably happened in the past and what is happening is that sections are effectively being "re expanded"? Accretion is no doubt a constant problem on some types of WP articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Andrew, agreed. I wonder if a good place to start would be to see the Introduction to Evolution article. If we assume that people who read this article have at least read the introduction to evolution or have a rudimentary understanding of evolution as outlined in that article, then I think we can decide which areas in this article can be expanded or trimmed. mezzaninelounge (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles on complicated and controversial topics are necessarily longer than others - and an article on "evolution" should provide thorough and intelligent coverage. We have already spun of a lot to linked articles. Now, good prose is good prose and no article no matter how long or small should have excess verbiage. So if we can find ways to make this more concise without sacrificing any content, great! So I think anyone concerned with the length of this article should just take it one paragraph at a time and ask which sentences can be shorter or are entirely unnecessary? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew and Danielkueh, this article is getting long, but as Slrubenstein suggests an article on evolution could have a little more room than the average article. I admit that I am partly responsible for recently increasing the length by introducing new paragraphs in heredity and speciation. I will attempt to cut the paragraphs down in size and will move material to the sub-articles. However, there is a general problem with this article in its abbreviated form that I was trying to address and hopefully this will serve as a catalyst to get this fixed. In its reduced form the article tends toward a reductionist view on evolution - which is admittedly much simpler to describe, easier to understand, but it lacks in its wider scientific basis. Moreover, people are making mistakes in their efforts to be succinct. In this regard there are examples where the original meaning gets lost and it turns into false information. If there is some way to find common ground and a balance, perhaps we can accomplish a well-rounded article that presents the broader viewpoints. I think the lead should break down the microevolutionary and the macroevolutionary viewpoint right away. This is important because many have suggested that "Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution"[1] and I wonder how people will come to understand that there is macroevolutionary perspective if only the microevolutionary viewpoint is given?Thompsma (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have a sense that there may be some WP:Main article fixation going on here? I'll put this article on my ongoing to-do list (one paragraph at a time) but, not being widely read on current scholarship in the field, all I've really got to work with are basic copyediting and BS detection skills. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

@SLR I am sure no one disagrees, but firstly this article was already big but it has suddenly expanded rapidly. Do you think everything in this article now is really needed. To me it seems to be building up like a snowball with what are essentially very un-focussed digressions. If you could point to something important that needs lots of words, we could consider the problem.

@Thompsma, frankly, I think you've been the major contributor in the recent wave of expansion, and your writing is anything but succinct. People who can't help digressing and waffling have always claimed to be putting in things that were absolutely necessary. Look at your talk page posts above.

@Just plain Bill, I think some of the compression will not require close knowledge of current scholarship, and indeed having an "outsiders perspective" may help.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

@Andrew - I already admitted as much, so thanks for repeating and rubbing it in. However, you are also part of the problem because you are unwilling to open your mind to a broader way of presenting on evolution to achieve proper NPOV. As you just stated above: "i.e. environment, is not heritable" - hmmm??? I quote from a publication in Evolution[2]:

"But organisms transmit to their offspring altered physical and selective environments, both by physical action on their biological and nonbiological environments and by habitat choice: they affect their offspring’s lives by choosing where they will live and breed, and what resources will be at their disposal. It is this ecological inheritance that generates the unusual evolutionary dynamics referred to above. Odling-Smee et al. (2003) catalog extensive examples of ecological inheritance."

What choice does one have? I have to present the evidence, because you just deny that it exists - yet it is right there in the literature - ecological inheritance! How can you deny it?? If you want to quibble over environmental vs. ecological inheritance, go ahead - but I'll stick to the scientific literature as my guide. If you want to keep denying the facts - I'll continue to argue them out and will present the evidence. At least Just plain Bill is willing to concede that he is not widely read on current scholarship in the field.Thompsma (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Bill that WP:Main article fixation may going on here - where "people are likely to insist that their contribution appear in the main article rather than in a sub-article where it may be better suited". However, we need some guidelines of what is acceptable to include in this main article. I am not concerned about my own contributions appearing in the main article - but I am concerned that we have people like Andrew who want to deny that there is nothing beyond the most fundamental genetic reduction concept of evolution. If this one-sided view on evolution is all we have to go by, then this will go nowhere. There are other broader perspectives on evolution that can be included. We need to find an acceptable framework and to work together.Thompsma (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thompsa, first of all, no one doubts your sincerity in wanting to make this a better article. But for the sake of this discussion, let's just pace ourselves a little bit, OK? The point being is that this article is becoming increasingly long and technically complex. Granted, as mentioned by SLR, complex topics should not be described in a simplistic manner. No one disputes that. The point of contention is that it is becoming increasingly difficult, particularly for the non-evolutionary biologist, let alone the non-scientist to follow. Take for example, the first seven paragraphs. I remembered it being more succinct and easy to follow. Now, the lead mentions neutral theory of molecular evolution and endosymbiosis in passing. No doubt, these two are very important concepts, but they are not trivial. You have to know evolution first, some molecular biology, and statistics before you can really understand the neutral theory. Mentioning it "in passing" really pushes the prerequisite knowledge of the reader. It is really looking like a Review Article. My suggestion is that we back up a little bit and rethink the level of difficulty that we would like to set this article at. Right now, I am not convinced a second year undergraduate student would understand this article as it is. My two cents. mezzaninelounge (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Danielkueh - I completely agree with everything that you have written here. This is a problem that we will continue to run into without having a clear plan and guidelines. People are just adding bits and pieces ad hoc in an effort to bring in other ideas to placate those who think that there is too much genetic reductionism or other ideas missing that are otherwise important. I would much rather a coherent article than a hodge podge of facts that makes little sense. I wonder if we can collectively create a road map from the onset that will help this article along? The opening could be simple - 'Evolution is descent with modification'. After this the article could resolve many of these conflicts by recognizing that there are microevolutionary explanations for genes and processes within and among populations and macroevolutionary principals that don't necessarily flow directly from the smaller scale patterns. It would help to clarify the debate by saying that some biologists view the gene as the primary or only explanatory unit of selection, whereas others envision a hierarchical and pluralistic context for evolution[3]: "The hierarchical perspective identifies several kinds of evolutionary individuals (genomic constituents, organisms, species) at ascending levels of inclusion, and recognizes both selection at all levels and transfer of effects between levels"Thompsma (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thompsma, I will respond to your suggestion on micro/macro later on. For now, I would like to propose some trimming of the lead. I think certain information can be removed to reduce redundancy, wordiness, and difficulty. Many of these details can be moved to specific sections within the main body of the article. Here is what I'm thinking. Please let me know what you think. I am aiming for an "in-a-nutshell" introduction.

Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] Over time variants with particular heritable traits become more, or less, common. A trait is a particular characteristic—anatomical, biochemical or behavioural—that is the result of gene–environment interaction.

One source of heritable variation is mutation, various types of which are passed on during the genetic recombination that happens at reproduction. Having occurred once, these changes can sometimes be passed on successfully to further generations, and may thus give rise to new variant traits in populations. Under certain circumstances, variation can also be increased by the transfer of genes between species,[2][3] and by the extremely rare, but significant, wholesale incorporation of genomes through endosymbiosis.[4][5]

Two main processes cause variants to become more common or rarer in a population. One is natural selection, through which traits that aid reproduction become more common, while traits that hinder reproduction become rarer. Natural selection occurs because only a small proportion of individuals in each generation will reproduce, since resources are limited and organisms produce many more offspring than their environment can support.Over many generations, heritable variation in traits is filtered by natural selection and the beneficial changes are successively retained through differential survival and reproduction. This iterative process means that traits which are better suited to an organism's environment become more common. These adjustments are called adaptations.[6]

However, not all change is adaptive. Another cause of evolution is genetic drift, which leads to random changes in how common traits are in a population. Genetic drift is most important when traits do not strongly influence survival—particularly so in small populations, in which chance plays a disproportionate role in the frequency of traits passed on to the next generation.[7][8] Genetic drift is important in the neutral theory of molecular evolution, and plays a role in the molecular clocks that are used in phylogenetic studies.

A notable result of evolution is speciation, in which a single ancestral species splits and diversifies into multiple distinct new populations that are new species. There are several ways in which this occurs. Ultimately, all living (and extinct) species are descended from a common ancestor via a long series of speciation events. These events stretch back in a diverse "tree of life" which has grown over the 3.5 billion years during which life has existed on Earth.[9][10][11][12] This is visible in anatomical, genetic and other similarities between groups of organisms, geographical distribution of related species, the fossil record and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations.

Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs,and also develop and test theories which explain its causes. The study of evolutionary biology began in the mid-nineteenth century, when research into the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species changed over time.[13] The mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theory of natural selection was independently proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. In 1859, Darwin's seminal work On the Origin of Species brought the new theory of evolution by natural selection to a wide audience,[14] leading to the overwhelming acceptance of evolution among scientists.[15][16][17][18]

In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection became understood in combination with Mendelian inheritance, forming the modern evolutionary synthesis,[19] which connected the substrate of evolution (inherited genetics) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection).This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research and providing a unifying explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth.[16][17][20] Evolution is applied and studied in fields as diverse as agriculture, anthropology, conservation biology, ecology, medicine, paleontology, philosophy, and psychology along with other specific topics in the previous listed fields.

Again, this is just a suggestion. I welcome all helpful comments.mezzaninelounge (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Great suggestions mezzaninelounge! I took the sections you deleted and would like to propose an alternative and likewise, I welcome all helpful comments (also recognizing that I can be wordy):

Evolution is the observed change that occurs in and among species over time. Species evolve with each passing generation by means of the differential survival of individuals each carrying a unique set of heritable traits. Some individuals go extinct while others survive to pass new mixtures of traits to the next generation and so on. Common lines of descendant are formed wherein traits interact during development, in ecosystems, and across different environmental gradients.

The mechanics of evolution by means of natural selection was introduced by Charles Darwin in 1859 his publication 'On the Origin of Species'. At the most fundamental level natural selection involves heritability, variation, and the super fecundity of organisms as they exponentially produce more individuals than can possibly survive. As time passes traits of organisms become adapted and seemingly fit into their environment according to the functional utilities they provide. Traits that confer a selective advantage are said to be fit if they survive over successive generations.

At the turn of the 20th century, the laws of Mendelian inheritance were rediscovered and the molecular principals of heritability were elucidated. Mendelian principles of inheritance coupled with evolutionary theory by means of natural selection created the modern or neo-Darwinian synthesis of evolutionary theory. As the science progressed a reliable source of heritable information was found in the DNA of organisms. The DNA molecule replicates copies of itself into cells, sperm, and egg. Segments of a DNA molecule that code for proteins or other functional components are called genes. Genes express phenotypes, which are observabe features of organisms. Genes form lineages and spread through populations as organisms reproduce and grow in number, but mutations create new varieties. The environment intervenes in the developmental transition from gene to phenotype, so the expression of a trait is contextually dependent. In other words, traits are the products of gene plus environment.

Evolution is a hierarchial and contextual process that affects the differential survival of interacting genes, cells, organs, and species. The origin of new species, or speciation, is one of the most important aspects to evolution. The process is governed by the splitting of lineages that continue to evolve and diversify the planet. These events stretch back for 3.5 billion years and thread into a common ancestry of life. The scientific evidence for evolution is visible, quantifiable, and testable in the anatomical, genetic, and transitional similarities between groups of organisms, in the geographical distribution of related species, in the fossil record, and in the laboratory where living organisms have been observed over many generations. This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology. Evolution is regularly applied, tested, and studied in fields that are as diverse as agriculture, anthropology, philosophy, and psychology.

This proposed version does not conflict with the hierarchical view of evolution and is consistent with the genetic or neo-Darwinian view of evolution. I can insert citations as needed.Thompsma (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer Mezzanine Lounge's version. I think the only bit I would not remove is the last strike out that mentions disciplines involved. These are presumably wikilinks and so they are useful in a lede. Thompsma can you give any comments about what you prefer in your own version?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Space is still a consideration. I think Andrew and Mazzani are right to suggest that large amounts of content added over the past week should be removed to this talk page for discussion and collaborative editing to get it down to the bare minumum so as not to make the page too long. I stand by what I wrote earlier - but should add that once an article reaches this size, I don't think any large amount of content should be added without discussion on the talk page first. Lage stable articles are large and stable because many people have worked on them. Thompsma, I m NOT discouraging you from proposing changes nor am I criticizng any specific additions, I am speaking only of process - let's keep the article stable. We do that through collaboration and consensus. We need time to discuss what additions this article really needs, and we can all use help, or be of help, in editing down for size. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• For the record I am also NOT fighting against including discussion of epigenetics, which seems to be Thompsma's concern, but the distinction between genetic and epigenetic factors is hard to explain, and even perhaps controversial (see this talk page) and not necessarily a core subject for the evolution article itself.
• A second point. WP:Main article fixation is mentioned above, but there is a very similar thing that happens concerning leads. So quite often what we are talking about it not moving things out of WP at all, but just making sure that they are not discussed in lots of different places.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thompsma, I have given some thoughts to your ideas on macro/micro evolution distinctions, etc. I am aware that they are conflicts between the gene-centric and hierarchical view. I personally have no strong preference, although as a matter of habit and learning as well as a preference for parsimony, I tend to learn towards the gene-centric view. I must confess that I am quite nervous about the hierarchical view being presented so early and boldly. Granted, there are peer-reviewed publications on them, that is not an issue. First, it is not an easy concept to introduce and may potentially cause confusion. Second, the issue is the general scientific consensus on this. From my casual readings of the main textbooks (e.g., Futuyma, etc), the pedagogy appears to be that evolution is thought from the gene-centric view first, before progressing the hierarchical view. My feelings on this is that this Wikipedia article should mirror the way evolution is currently presented and taught at the university level. With respect to your alternative proposal, it is phrased quite differently from the original. I have no problems with different writing styles so long as the main concepts and ideas are preserved. It would need to be tweaked for sure. My two cents. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the open discussion points everyone. The trimmed version of Mezzanine contains factual errors and it is too narrowly focused on population level changes. For example, "Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations." This is essentially putting forward the idea or it makes the implicit argument that repeated rounds of microevolution add up to macroevolution, which is not generally accepted. Instead of explicitly making an argument for causal explanatory differences that exist between macro- vs. micro-evolutionary changes, I changed the sentence to say that "Evolution is the observed change that occurs in and among species over time." My version implicitly embraces both perspectives - that there are changes within species and among species leaving open different causal mechanisms operating at these levels. I understand that the pedagogy of the 80's through the 90's has been focused on the gene-centric view before moving onto the hierarchical view, but many biologists have been calling for a change to this approach - e.g., [4], [5], [6], [7]. Some of the recent textbooks on evolution have also changed tactics in this regard and last year I attended the SICB Annual Meeting in Seattle, WA where a discussion group was formed on this topic and many felt that there was too much emphasis on teaching the gene-centered view. This is leading toward a misunderstanding of evolution and the effects are apparent in the way that this article is written. For the remaining changes that were made, I used Mezzanine's trimmed version as a template and tried to keep everything as brief as possible. Mezzanine's trimmed version does not include a definition of natural selection and this should be included - so I adopted Gould's 'syllogistic core' or 'the bare-bones argument' of natural selection[8], which has been used elsewhere and discussed by Ernst Mayr as well. The following sentence, "Two main processes cause variants to become more common or rarer in a population" does not retain an open or pluralistic view and I don't like the wording - 'Two main processes' because it sounds too prescriptive. At first I had added a small paragraph on genetic drift and neutral evolution, but deleted it to save on space. Granted, neutral evolution is a cornerstone of modern theory and practice, as it is used extensively in phylogenetic methods (e.g., coalescent theory), but I think it is enough to say that "Genes form lineages and spread through populations as organisms reproduce and grow in number..." and to build upon genetic drift in the body of the text. However, I am open to adding a sentence on this in the lead. The date in the following sentence "In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection became understood in combination with Mendelian inheritance" is wrong. Mendelian heredity was rediscovered independently in 1900 by de Vries, Correns, and Tschermack. The synthesis followed soon thereafter.[9] I'm totally open to a complete rejection of my proposal or revisions, but I am going to complain if I see a revert back to a strict gene-centered view containing factual errors. @Andrew - my main complaint was not against epigenetics - my complaint was more directed at the muddled version of the lead coupled with its sole emphasis on gene-centered microevolution without acknowledgment of the rich body of theory that has been developed otherwise.Thompsma (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thompsma, If you can find a current, reputable, and widely used graduate level evolutionary biology textbook that approaches the subject as you described, I would have no problems supporting it. As of now, however, my view is that Wikipedia should not be taking the lead in changing the pedagogy or approach of introducing evolution. This is not to say that the proposals or calls that you have cited are not valid. I just happened to believe that such disputes/calls/issues are best settled in scientific conferences and journals first, and then through textbooks, public media, and finally in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. As for the factual errors such as dates, etc, they should be addressed. As for the micro-to-macro implication, that is not a factual error as much as a dispute of certain inferences among certain evolutionary biologists. How best to address this? One approach would be to not mention it OR mention it and then talk about it at the end of article under a new section. mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi mezzaninelounge, there are two recent textbooks that take this approach in detail, both written by Brian Hall who is a friend of mine (so I may be a bit biased in this respect). These are: Strickberger's Evolution: The integration of genes, organisms and populations[10], and his recent textbook Evolution: Principles and Processes[11]. I fill in and instruct classes on evolutionary genetics here at UNBC and we have used these texts in our courses. Chapters from Strickberger's Evolution cannot be accessed free online to see where he lays out the hierarchical stance. On page 11, however, in his more recent textbook (Evolution: Principles and Processes) it states the following:

"Population genetics does not provide a complete theory of evolution, however. Evolution now is recognized as hierarchical; genes, structures, populations, species and ecosystems all evolve. To a considerable extent hierarchical evolution is a reflection of the hierarchical organization of life itself, a concept outlined in Box 4.1....Hierarchical systems aid and stabilize evolution, enabling organisms to evolve, incorporate and maintain new functional properties. A hierarchical approach has emerged and consolidated over the past 40 years, replacing or running parallel with the reductionist approach, which proposes that explanations for events on one level of complexity can and should be reduced to (deduced from) explanations at a more basic level. The biological hierarchy extends across many levels, from atoms to molecules to cells to tissues to organs to individuals to populations to species to cultures, each with specific functional properties."

Barton's text on evolution[12] is another example where it contains sections on evo-devo, which is essentially the consolidation of the hierarchical perspective. Chapter 11 in Matt Ridley's Evolution textbook[13] also discusses the hierarchical perspective in context of units of selection. With respect to the factual error - I was not saying that the gene-centered approach itself is a factual error. I was saying that there are multiple factual errors in the wording of the text. Moreover, the only place where debate exists against different macroevolutionary causes with a strict gene reductionist view is perhaps in online blogs and in one of Dawkin's recent opinion pieces published in nature. I should also mention that Brian Hall dates the hierarchical approach 'over the past 40 years', but I would suggest that it actually appeared much earlier - it only become 'consolidated' or accepted more recently. Many researchers misinterpreted Sewall Wright, for example - perhaps his stuff was too mathematical, but he always remained open to the idea of multilevel selection - I find evidence of this in his writing even in the 1920's. This is important, because the current text on genetic drift says 'Another cause of evolution is genetic drift', but Wright (who is basically the founder of genetic drift) saw things otherwise[14]:

"I had the honor-not a word I use frequently, but inescapble in this case- of spending a long evening with Dr. Wright last year. I discovered that his quip about macroevolution, just paraphrased, was no throwaway statement but an embodiment of his deep commitment to a hierchical view of evolutionary causation. (The failure of many evolutionists to think hierarchically is responsible for the most fequent misinterpretation of Wright's views. He never believed that genetic drift-the Sewall Wright effect as it once was called-is an important agent of evolutionary change. He regards it as input to the directional process of interdemic selection for evolution within species. Drift can push a deme off an adaptive peak; selection can then draw it to another peak."

Thompsma (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I will just discuss your selected example:

For example, "Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations." This is essentially putting forward the idea or it makes the implicit argument that repeated rounds of microevolution add up to macroevolution, which is not generally accepted. Instead of explicitly making an argument for causal explanatory differences that exist between macro- vs. micro-evolutionary changes, I changed the sentence to say that "Evolution is the observed change that occurs in and among species over time."

• First of all the sentence you do not like does not mention genes at all, but inherited traits. In the above thread one thing we did manage to agree on was that inherited traits are what is important for evolution. So your objection seems odd on that account.
• WP should not be "explicitly making" any arguments. We report what is published as fairly as we can. If there is a great new theory or way of explaining something we sometimes unfortunately have to hold ourselves back.
• Your sentence has problems from a clarity point of view because "in and among species" is not obvious enough in its meaning. Also, the addition of the word "observed" seems to be problematic and I doubt we can call this uncontroversial. If people do not observe evolution does it not happen? Here is an example: if we consider the species homo sapiens, and we look back at how haircuts have changed since the 1980s in one generation of living people, is that "observed change in and among species over time" an example of evolution? Seems to be according to your sentence, at least arguably. And I see no mention of anything about micro and macro evolution in either your preferred sentence nor the other one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Andrew, it seems that you are having a difficult time understanding me and I you. I never said that the sentence said anything about genes (explicitly) - but that the selected example (you and I quote) talks about 'inherited traits of a population of organisms' (whatever that means!!) and follows with the qualifier that successive generations are needed, which sure sounds like it is describing successive bouts of reductionism as an attempt to explain evolution. It is nothing more than a retake on genetic reductionism with a contrived attempt to throw traits into the mix because it describes successive events that are occurring within populations and says nothing about causal processes at the species level. What about interdemic selection as Wright talks about? I think you don't have an understanding of macroevolution, which is why you are struggling here. I'm fine with some of your other points of contention - but I hope that you are not doing this due to your personal feelings about me, because it sure seems like it. Based on your statement that 'We report what is published as fairly as we can' you may be implying that I'm not doing this. The reality is that the current text is not a fair representation of evolution in the literature and this is my primary concern. How could you find "in and among species" confusing yet feel that this gobblygook (i.e.,) 'inherited traits of a population of organisms' actually makes sense? Shouldn't it read 'inherited traits in a population of organisms'? In and among species refers to the principals that occur within species and the differences that evolve among species. Species do not evolve in isolation.Thompsma (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem saying "in a population" instead of "of" a population. (I also do not see the big issue about it.) I can confirm I am not working on the basis of any personal issues at all. On a personal note, I think your remarks and citations are actually interesting, but just very difficult to use in the practical context of editing this rather inflated article. We have to try to get things narrowed down. What are the most important things?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thompsma, those two texts look reasonable but I am still uncertain about their prevalence relative to the competition, e.g., Futuyma, Ridley. But you've made your point and so I will not pursue this.

It seems to me whatever lead we choose, it should at bear minimum, have the following components:

• Conventional and prevailing definition of evolution. The current definition is not a bad one. Relative to many text definitions, it is consistent and broad. Alternatively, they are other choices as well:

• 1 Use Darwin's definition, "Descent with modifications." Still widely used.
• 2 Adopt another conventional definition such as:

"Change over time of the proportions of individual organisms differing genetically in one or more traits." Futuyma D. Evolutionary biology

OR

"Changes in organism through that lead to differences among them." Evolution: Principles and processes.

The problem with broad definitions by Darwin and Hall will be mainly stylistic as it will always beg the question, "What has evolved?" This will lead us back to talking about traits, inheritance, and then genes. Which means, more text, more explaining, more wordiness, etc.

• Evolutionary processes: In addition to natural selection, genetic drift must be mentioned in the lead. We do not have to to discuss its importance or influence in the lead. But its absence from the lead would be much more noticeable given the prevailing view that it is a well known mechanism of evolution, albeit not as influential as natural/sexual selection.

• Discovery of evolution by natural selection: Mention of Darwin and Wallace.

• Modern evolutionary synthesis: Development of modern evolutionary theory

• Macro/micro" distinction (not finalized) We do not have to talk about the controversies or whether micro leads to macro. We could just mention macro as "evolution above the species level," so as to differentiate it from microevolution. This part requires more discussion of course.

• Study and impact of evolutionary biology I mentioned this because it is in the text.

My two cents. mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this still a discussion about compressing the lead, or the article as a whole?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just the lead. Baby steps. :D mezzaninelounge (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi mezzaninelounge...thanks for your contributions and I like your level headed suggestions. I'll try to relax a bit in the spirit of cooperation. I would prefer to use Darwin's definition, "Descent with modifications", but it is so widely used that it has almost become cliche. I'm fine with a gene-centered intro, but I hope that we can find some way to express and interweave (at a very introductory level) some of the wider developments. Compare Futuyama's definition (above) against Stephen J. Gould's (who used Futuyama definition as an example of the gene reductionist stance:

• "Evolution is a hierarchical process with complementary, but different, modes of change at its three major levels: variation within populations, speciation, and patterns of macroevolution."[15]

How do we resolve this? I work full-time as a geneticist and I worry about techno-genetic hype sidelining many of the great evolutionary developments in paleontology and developmental biology as though genetic tech offers a superior explanation. "The most important step on the genetic side toward reconciliation with paleontology is probably the recognition that in general, evolution is a population problem (Wright, 1945).[16]" Perhaps the first bit of an intro with a gene-centered view could followed by a 'disclaimer'? The disclaimer might say something to the effect that evolution is a very large science with complex developments, discoveries, and experiments being reported by scientists who report that the principals of natural selection are operating at scales that extend beyond the gene. Here are other options/ideas to consider or to incorporate:

• "Evolution provides a scientific explanation for why there are so many different kinds of organisms on Earth and gives an account of their similarities and differences (morphological, physiological, and genetic).[17]"

• "Biological evolution is part of a compelling historical narrative that scientists have constructed over the last few centuries. The narrative begins with the formation of the universe, the solar system, and the Earth, where conditions occur suitable for life to evolve.[18]"

Perhaps we can find something that unifies the meaning that is being expressed across this spectrum of ideas?Thompsma (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The first question is, is Gould's position universally shared among credentialed evolutionary scientists, or does it have significant support from historians, sociologists, and philosophers of science who specialize on evolution? NPOV says we include all significant views from reliable sources. Gould certainly counts for inclusion - but ... is his view mainstream, majority, minority, or fringe? We have to decide this first, in order then to determine what due weight would be. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Slubenstein makes an important point. Gould can be a polarizing figure, both in and out of science. I enjoy reading his books and articles but I recognize that his viewpoints are not widely shared by many of his contemporaries and therefore leads to the question of undue weight in Wikipedia. Thompsma, I understand your concerns about genetic explanations being dominant. I study developmental neurobiology and I understand this frustration very well. But the tendency to look and reveal genetic explanations in biology is the zeitgeist, not in just in evolution but in all of biology. I suspect we would have to live with it with respect to presenting topics in Wikipedia. Again, I'm not opposed to the hierarchical approach, I agree with Andrew that it is a fairly complex topic and its presentation so early may not be optimal, with respect to introducing a novice reader to this article. I would rather see a new section on macroevolution be created that "ties in" all the material in this article. In the end, the main problem I suspect would not be content as much as presentation. If we keep the language tight and reasonably neutral and organize the material in such a way that is fairly representative of the field, I think we can come up with something good. Have a good weekend folks. mezzaninelounge (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Gould's hierarchical position is widely held, I doubt you could find any scientist who's ideas are universally accepted - even some of Darwin's work is still being questioned as any effective science should. Gould's views are definitely not fringe, they are mainstream because he wrote many popular books on evolution, some of his ideas are held widely (but majority..hmmm??), and I would say that they are not in the minority but still widely cited. GoogleScholar puts 481 hits for Gould's paper 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' and is still being cited in 2010 in Evolution - even by Douglass Futuyama [19]. Moreover, there are many contemporary evolutionary biologists who have continued in Gould's legacy on the hierarchical perspective, such as David Jablonski[20] and even Futuyama has published papers[21] on macroevolution. Brian Hall is also becoming widely known in the field and I've heard him lecture many times on the hierarchical view in context of evo-devo, where the hierarchical perspective is really taking off. Having a section on macroevolution would be a good compromise. Should we weave macroevolution in, or just introduce it in a separate section? Even Darwin gave a macroevolutionary group selectionist vision in The Descent of Man: "It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe...an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another." - this is group selection, altruistic advantage of one tribe over another[22].Thompsma (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, there is no doubt Gould's view is significant and I am sure we must include it in the article. The practical qustion is how much weiht to give it, so we ned to have a good method for distinguishing between mainstream,majoity, minority, and fringe views. It is not nough to know that Futuyama cites Gould, we need to know HOW he cites Gould, ditto with many other cites. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

SIDE REMARK. Thompsma I still strongly suggest that you shorten them, but can you in any case please be a lot more careful with how you format your talk page discussions? You make it very difficult to follow, and difficult to reply to in an orderly way?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC) LATER COMMENT: thanks Slrubenstein for adding your name where it was missing, that may have been a trigger to my comment here because I probably assumed that post was connected to Thompsma's, but I still request more attentiveness to good practice in formatting this discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

(Not sure where to fit this remark.) The two quotes being discussed above appear to be descriptions of the theory of evolution as opposed to evolution itself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thompsa, when I used the phrase "widely shared," I meant "held by majority." For example, punctuated equilibrium is not the majority view.
• Darwin said a lot of things, some of which are right and some of which are wrong. Unless we are writing the history section, I don't think it is helpful for our discussion to provide quotes from him.
• I think you need to evaluate your arguments a little bit. Just because one writes and publishes a lot, particularly for the mass media, doesn't mean one's views are widely accepted. No one doubts Gould is prolific, that is not the issue. The issue is whether his views prevail among the majority of evolutionary biologists. For the record, which one of his many views are we talking about here? We need to be a little specific.
• Finally, we are not here to write evolution as Gould, Darwin, or Dawkins sees it. We are here to describe evolution in an encyclopedia in such a way that it is fairly representative of the field as a whole. I think the best sources for formatting this article would be to look at contemporary texts and syllabi used in higher education to teach evolution. mezzaninelounge (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thompsma, before we continue on with this. Let's clarify our vocabularies a little bit. When I think of macroevolution, I understand it as nothing more than just a vague term for evolution of great phenotypic change. A change large enough that we can change the taxons at the genus level and above. Is this your understanding of macroevolution as well? Because it seems to me, that we are not talking about macroevolution as much as talking about whether group selection occurs. If this is the case, then this is where the point of contention may arise. mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Great discourse. As I remember in Structure and Function, Gould conveyed his interviews with Sewall Wright before his death that he always lamented drift was misunderstood. He mentioned genetic drift wasn't to be evaluated by itself but in respect to his shifting-balance theory such drift is creative, selective, and adaptive in interdemic selection. Now that isn't peer reviewed but Gould's anectdotal comments as Wright has published comments saying the contrary too (apparently younger versions). In any case Wright apparently lamented the reductionist view in the Modern Synthesis and believed in an heirachial selection process too. I'll look it up to make sure my memory banks aren't off a bit. Regard GetAgrippa (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I looked it up pages 523 and 555 of Structure and Function ....Goulds discussions with Wright and his "two phase theory". Interesting most would still disagree with Wright's assertion that drift can be adaptive but he makes a good argument with the peaks and valley analogy. GetAgrippa (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

@mezzaninelounge - good point. Microevolution is simple to define. It is the causal mechanics of evolution that is defined by direct action of the gene, the smallest unit of heredity and amply described by Richard Dawkin's in 'The Selfish Gene'. I found these ideas helpful to understand the distinction: "I am not in a position to discuss independently the data of paleontology and recognize that my field, genetics, bears directly only on microevolution, but I feel that we should explain phenomena at the higher levels as far as possible, as flowing from observed phenomena of genetics in the broad sense, including cytogenetics, before postulating wholly unknown processes. This does not bar me from accepting selection among entities at all levels of the biological hierarchy." (Sewall Wright, 1982[23]) "In this view, selection acts most rapidly and most forcefully at small scales, where feedback loops are tight, and much more weakly and slowly at broader scales, where feedbacks are diffuse."(Levin, 1999[24]) "Although rare, founder speciation can have a disproportionate importance in adaptive innovation and radiation, and examples are given to show that “rare” does not mean “unimportant” in evolution."(Templeton, 2008[25])

Macroevolution encapsulates causal units in the hierarchy of life that operate above the gene that are also subject to the agency of natural selection. This means that they are variable, heritable, and replicate with super fecundity. However, there is a gradient of perspective on what constitutes macroevolution proper - some would encompass some epigenetic systems within the body as microevolution (e.g., Sewall Wright and cytogenetics) and would only attribute macroevolution to events at the moment of speciation - such as Mayr, Templeton, and Carson's speciation founder events by genetic revolution. Templeton and Carson's work [26] is conclusive on these mechanics of speciation showing that microevolutionary population genetic processes within populations are not consistent with the important macroevolutionary processes that occur sometimes during speciation. Richard Lewonton (1970)[27] is another great evolutionist who describes and supports the hierarchical perspective encompassing macroevolution: "The generality of the principles of natural selection means that any entities in nature that have variation, reproduction, and heritability may evolve...In the development of a higher organism, different cell types have different division rates so that, in the broadest sense, the morphology of these organisms is a result of selection at the cellular level...At yet higher levels, the species and the community, natural selection obviously must occur." Gould & Eldridge's 'punctuated equilibrium' is an extension of the units of selection into the macroevolutionary realm that expanded upon the notion of species as units, bouts of stasis followed by radiations that result from different causal laws that cannot be explained by population genetics (i.e., Mayr's founder events). Of course not everyone accepts Gould and Eldridge's theory of punctuated equilibrium, but it is important to realize that Gould co-authored many of his articles and these authors have carried on the tradition of the hierarchical or macroevolutionary view via species selection (e.g., [28], or [29]) that goes well beyond punctuated equilibria (just one theory among others). Complex systems theory has also found extensions of this model according to the criticality of the power law (e.g., [30], [31], [32]). Recent work in evo-devo on modularity as morphological units of selection[33],[34], [35] highlights an aspect to macroevolution (or hierachical or multilevel selection) on a cellular level: "In developmental and evolutionary biology, one way of thinking about modularity is to consider the developing organism as being composed of a number of functional, morphological, or morphogenetic units (Atchley and Hall 1991; Gass and Bolker 2003). For example, an organism can be viewed as having limb modules, eye modules, ear modules, etc." This is where the microevolutionary (genetic) to macroevolutionary (epigenetic) distinction is difficult to make, but most morphologists agree that the epigenetic interaction among traits creates an emergent modular homologous unit that is the explained by the causal agency of natural selection. Niche construction, or ecosystem engineering as it has alternatively been called, is another example of macroevolutionary theory (as defined here: [36]) that has exploded in the recent literature (see here [37] for lit review). Macroevolution is also synonymous with multilevel selection, which is the terminology that has been adopted by Edward Wilson, David Sloan Wilson (and others[38]) in their advancement on group selection models.

I hope this helps - although, I'm sure Andrew will complain about the length of my post (sorry Andrew, it is my nature). I think that Mayr, Templeton, and Carson's founder events and genetic revolutions makes the strongest case against the lead sentence: "Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits within a population of organisms through successive generations." However, I hope that my description of macroevolution above expands the scope for everyone to understand why it holds such prominence and importance in the body of theory that goes well beyond the reductionist stance that is being promoted in this article.Thompsma (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there is a consensus on mechanisms of macroevolution??? I always thought there were two camps-one in favor of multilevel and the other that the reductionist gene-centric view is all that is needed (macroevolution is micro on a larger time scale). Given Thompsma's arguments in favor (good work by the way) of including multilevel selection I just don't see the resistance. It is like once just mutations in genes were considered significant but now noncoding "junk" DNA is proving significant. We should expand for NPOV. GetAgrippa (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thompsma, perhaps you could clarify the term "multilevel selection." First, is it a process of evolution such as natural selection or indeed another term for natural selection itself? If so, how could it be synonymous with marcroevolution? Second, what is "multilevel" about it? With very few exceptions such as the Wade studies with beetles, I understand selection to only act on the individual. That term seems to suggest otherwise. Further clarification would be appreciated. mezzaninelounge (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this abstract will offer some insight:Evol Dev. 2000 Mar-Apr;2(2):78-84.Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution.Erwin DH.Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC 20560, USA. erwin.doug@nmnh.si.edu

Comment in:Evol Dev. 2000 Mar-Apr;2(2):61-2. Abstract: "Arguments over macroevolution versus microevolution have waxed and waned through most of the twentieth century. Initially, paleontologists and other evolutionary biologists advanced a variety of non-Darwinian evolutionary processes as explanations for patterns found in the fossil record, emphasizing macroevolution as a source of morphologic novelty. Later, paleontologists, from Simpson to Gould, Stanley, and others, accepted the primacy of natural selection but argued that rapid speciation produced a discontinuity between micro- and macroevolution. This second phase emphasizes the sorting of innovations between species. Other discontinuities appear in the persistence of trends (differential success of species within clades), including species sorting, in the differential success between clades and in the origination and establishment of evolutionary novelties. These discontinuities impose a hierarchical structure to evolution and discredit any smooth extrapolation from allelic substitution to large-scale evolutionary patterns. Recent developments in comparative developmental biology suggest a need to reconsider the possibility that some macroevolutionary discontinuites may be associated with the origination of evolutionary innovation. The attractiveness of macroevolution reflects the exhaustive documentation of large-scale patterns which reveal a richness to evolution unexplained by microevolution. If the goal of evolutionary biology is to understand the history of life, rather than simply document experimental analysis of evolution, studies from paleontology, phylogenetics, developmental biology, and other fields demand the deeper view provided by macroevolution." Maybe this will highlight my understanding of the controversy. GetAgrippa (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

GetAgrippa, I've thumb through that review article or more appropriately, commentary, and have commented on it (see discussion on first sentence below). Interesting commentary but I'm not particularly impressed by it. mezzaninelounge (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to use a Nature article but I take Science and don't have a subscription to Nature. The point of this article was not the commentary but that a controversy exists and there is no consensus on the issue. At least that is my understanding but I'm not an evolutionary biologist and don't follow the field as closely as my own. In any case Gould and Dawkins had infamous debates over the issue, and I didn't think the issue had died. GetAgrippa (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

GetAgrippa, that is exactly right. Which is why I was unimpressed by the commentary because the commentator appeared to be taking a side and making strong statements on an issue that is controversial, far from gaining consensus, and has left more questions than answers. Hence, my strong suggestion of avoiding taking sides on this controversial issue when editing this article. By the way, contrary to popular belief, Dawkins doesn't disagree with the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis and in fact believes it fits with the Neo-Darwinian view. He just doesn't know what the big deal is. I agree. mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

@GetAgrippa...

• Is there is a consensus on mechanisms of macroevolution??? - this depends on what you mean by that term. "EVOLUTION is often divided into two basic processes: anagenesis, or change within a phyletic line, and cladogenesis, or the multiplication of phyletic lines."[39]. When most people talk about macroevolution, they are talking about cladogenesis. When evolutionsts are talking about microevolution, they are talking about anagenesis. This evolution article focuses primarily on anagenesis as a mechanism explaining cladogenesis. The main debate through history centered on the explanatory differences between these two processes - Hampton Carson and Alan Templeton provided the experimental proof of genetic revolutions in Drosophila and wrote extensively on this in context of cladogenesis. In this context, macroevolution is real: "Accordingly, GTFF (genetic-transilience/founder-flush model) is the most strongly supported mechanism of speciation by direct laboratory experimentation."[40]. "Nevertheless, these models can be used legitimately in making macroevolutionary interpretations, but these interpretations must be made carefully, and they must be limited in scope."[41] - it should be noted that the second quote comes from an older paper and in his more recent publication Templeton refers to macroevolution through the GTFF model: "Nevertheless, it is the rare, nearshore speciation by planktotrophic forms that drives the macroevolution of these benthic communities both in nearand off-shore environments."[42]

@Danielkueh...

• First, is it a process of evolution such as natural selection or indeed another term for natural selection itself? - It is natural selection acting on individuals - using the expanded concept of individuality as it is used in the hierarchical context (see [43]). If you have access to this article[44] or this one [45] by David Hull, he describes what is meant by individuality in evolutionary terms, which is an important concept to understand the macroevolutionary concept. Mark Ereshefsky published this paper[46] on individuality and macroevolutionary theory.Individuality in philosophical terms is distinct from how it is used colloquially. A Darwinian individual has a birth, ontogeny, and death and it is spatiotemporarally distinct, a historical entity, which differs from classes of a natural kind. Gold, for example, is classed as a natural kind that can be located at any point in time and be placed into the same box in the periodic table and we can say with precision how it will react chemically. Species, however, are individuals with a history and we can say something about the way that they interact, but not with the same degree of precision as we can about natural kinds. A lot of people miss this - when they read individual they think organism, but most evolutionists are actually using individual in a special way, such that genes, genomes, organisms and species can act as individuals. Hence, when evolutionists are talking about hierarchical selection - they are talking about selection acting on any level in the biological hierarchy (cohesive and predictable interactors), when evolutionists are talking about macroevolution - they are generally talking about cladogenesis, but some think of this in terms of causal agency above the gene (so it can be hierarchical), and when evolutionists are talking about multilevel selection - they are talking about natural selection causally operating on any level in the biological hierarchy. I know it is confusing!!Thompsma (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This paper[47], published in Nature, provides an easy access definition for macroevolution and states the following: "Darwin’s proposal carries a more general message for contemporary discussions of macroevolution, namely that microevolution alone cannot explain macroevolution." - this is consistent with the quote from Brian Hall's evolution text, which explicitely states that ""Population genetics does not provide a complete theory of evolution"[48]Thompsma (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

@Thompma, thank you for those references as well as for those elaborations and clarifications. It is indeed interesting and quite educational as any encyclopedia article/discussion should be. Speaking only for myself, I admit I'm not fully on board and it has nothing to do with the fact that Hull is a philosopher. It is just that in practice, treating species as an individual feels too much like essentialism to me, which I find difficult to accept. Thus, I tend to lean towards Lowentin's position on where selection occurs. But your clarification is helpful and I'm starting to see where you are coming from.

I know the current lead definition and its trimmed version is not to your liking. But logically, it is very simple and doesn't contradict what you are saying. It may not say or imply what you would like it to say or imply, but that is different from saying that it excludes, precludes, or contradicts all or some of the things that you have told me, which I don't think it does. Plus, it has garnered quite a bit of consensus, however imperfect. That said, I would like you to indulge me one last time and list down 3-6 bullet statements on what you would like to see changed, replaced, or included in the trimmed version of the current lead. At least they will be out there and we can see if we can incorporate them in some way. The end goal at the moment is to have a lead that is succinct, informative, long-lasting and stable, but punctuated by rapid updates from time to time. Thanks. mezzaninelounge (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thompsma, Thanks for the Nature article that was the one I was referring too. I thought anagenesis had to do with a whole population changing and cladogenesis referred to a species splitting off from a parent population???? Oh, that is what you said. We do need to remember the article is for a novice reader so somewhere between Evolution for Dummies and a Gouldian opus would be nice. Keep up the good work as I personally like your suggestions. I have always thought Wikipedia could be better than an encyclopedia Britannica and not just on par with one. GetAgrippa (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

@mezzaninelounge...I think that the lead and this article suffers generally from what Richard Lewonton has so aptly expressed in one of his publications - "Since the gene's eye point of view exerts such a powerful influence both wihin biology and in popular discussions of sociobiology, it is important to show how limited it is...The selfish gene fails to do justice to standard textbook examples of Darwinian selection...The canonical form of the models has encouraged many biologists to think of all natural selection as genic selection, but there has always been a tradition within the Modern Synthesis which thinks of natural selection differently and holds this gene's eye view to be fundamentally distorted."[49]. The concept of individuality in species is widely accepted, well beyond the papers I cite by Hull - it is at the forefront of the species debate (see [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]). "The proper definition of a Darwinian individual constitutes one of the most challenging and fascinating issues in the formulation of causality under natural selection." (Gould & Lloyd, 1999[57]). I can assure you that the notion of a Darwinian individual in the evolutionary sense is not essentialism. To GetAgrippa - I understand that the points I am making in here are complex and I am in no way trying to advocate that we present the depth of these ideas in the main article. What I would like to see in "3-6 bullet statements" that mezzaninelounge has requested is:

• A statement that somehow expresses that natural selection can (or may) act on different levels of the biological hierarchy as permitted by the vast scales and depth of time over which evolution can operate[58]. The gene is a fundamental unit, but population genetics does not provide a complete explanation for the evolution of organs, groups, and even species. The lead needs to express in simple terms that macroevolution is primarily an extension of microevolution, but some important macroevolutionary changes cannot be fully explaned by microevolutionary gene-based principals (the sum is greater than the parts).
• A definition of natural selection is needed. I would recommend adopting a definition from either 1) Mayr's two part process[59], or 2) Gould's three part bare-bone definition[60], which is essentially the same as 3) Lewontin's three principals of embodiment: a) phenotypic variation, b) differential fitness, and c) fitness is heritable.
• When speciation is introduced, I would insert a statement that there are many different modes of speciation, some that involve a disproportionate transitional change that is more than the gradual accumulation of inherited traits within a population through successive generations (i.e., different from the way that the lead sentence defines evolution).
• A sentence or two that ties evolution into ecology (i.e., niche construction), developmental biology and/or paleontology as synthesized in the recent eco-evo-devo advancements (e.g., [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68])
• Non-genetic modes of inheritance[69], gene networks, epigenetics, developmental plasticity, and homology do not recieve sufficient attention in the article.
• Very little is said about phylogenetics, taxonomy, cladistics, or systematics in this article that would explain evolutionary trees, phylogenetic inference, and homology in context of the scientific method testing evolutionary theories (e.g., [70], [71]). Evolutionary trees are used so extensively that it would be helpful to have a brief explanation on how they work and how traits can be mapped onto them showing transitions.
• I know this is controversial and will be shot down - but I think there should be a section that introduces cultural evolution. People always retort - 'but isn't this about genetic or biological evolution' - see [72] and [73] for a different take on this. These ideas are part of evolution proper.

Some of those wish-list items would not necessarily go into the lead, but worked into the body of the article and possibly incorporated into the lead with adequate simplification.Thompsma (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

@Thompsma, I was hoping for shorter sentences, but they are what they are, so I will make do. Let me be clear that I agree with you that there are limitations to the contemporary or gene centric view. I just don't think they should be discussed so early in the lead. This is not to say that it is wrong to discuss them. It is a matter of writing style. Easy stuff first, harder stuff later.

That said, for the benefit of other readers/editors reading these posts, here is my side comment. I know some people (not you Thompsma) might think that just because an idea is found in a scientific journal and is widely cited or self-cited, that it means it must be either correct or widely accepted. Regardless of whether an item is found in a journal, as a scientist, I reserve the right to legitimately disagree and remain skeptical. Journals are like anything else. Granted, because of the peer review process, they are much more reliable than textbooks, monographs, seminars, and abstracts. But there is variation in their quality and acceptance. For example, there is a lot of "theoretical papers" on evolutionary psychology. I don't care who (e.g., Dawkins, Pinker, or Dennet) writes them and how many but I'm not convinced that constructs such as "language modules" exist, let alone necessary. And neither was Gould I might add about many of the ideas in sociobiology or evolutionary psychology. Likewise, I don't buy the notion of treating a species as an individual and I am not alone on this. I just asked several evolutionary biologists/ecologists in my department what they thought about it. They don't buy it either. I concede that I have a biased sample. But the point is that as a scientist, I need more than just rephrasing of definitions, new terms, new math models, analogies, or more hypotheses to be convinced of an idea such as treating a species as an individual. I readily accept that I'm not an evolutionary biologists, taxonomist, ecologist, etc and I am currently expressing only my view. But I know I'm not alone and there are a lot of non-evolutionary biologists who accept and use evolution in their work but don't buy some of the ideas that you mentioned. Even among evolutionary biologists as revealed by the references that you gave, it is far from settled and is very much up for debate. At this point, I can only say let all this be resolved in good time in appropriate places such as scientific conferences and journals and not in Wikipedia. Time will tell if the paradigm has truly shifted in your direction. If the achievement is so great and the evidence from future experiments so compelling that it does, then you will find me at your side. But until it does, I, and I suspect many other editors would not be so ready to make the leap. I am saying all this not be a contrarian or to make things personal but to explain my reasoning and rationale as we move along to finish the edit of the current lead. That said, I promise you that I will look at your 7 wish list items closely and see how best to incorporate those that are simple and non-controversial. This will take a while, so please bear with me as I do have several experiments to do this week. Bottom line, I enjoyed this discourse very much. Cheers. mezzaninelounge (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

@mezzaninelounge...of course nothing is ever settled in science and our job in wikipedia is not to settle disputes or to present only on those ideas that are in universal agreement. My point was that species as individuals is not essentialism, it is a linguistic tool or a concept map that can be used to understand that we are dealing with historical or evolutionary entities on a hierarchical scale. There is much confusion over the 'organism' concept, such as Clement's historical premise of ecosystem as an organism.[74] If you have a medusae formed out of a colony of polyps - is it one organism or a collective? We have prokaryotic mitochondria in our bodies via endosymbiosis (symbiogenesis). Are we one individual or many? Where are the boundaries? These questions have been addressed numerous times in the literature and I can see that you are expressing your view - but this is not the place to do original research or to reject the ideas of peer-reviewed authors. We are reporting on what others have proposed, even if we disagree. In the major transitions of evolution we see many examples of individuals forgoing the solitary life and conglomerating into a larger whole and some of these transitions have even lead to new species. Developmental biologists have grappled with this problem as well and refer to modularity of organs as can be seen in this excellent paper on the evo-devo of butterfly wing patterns[75]: "The patterns of color on butterfly wings provide ideal material to study morphological integration and the evolution of developmental independence (i.e., individuality) of serially repeated traits." You are welcome to remain skeptical, but the notion of individuality is one tool that has been used quite extensively to resolve the hierarchical dispute of where to draw the boundaries. I suggest that we adopt this tool, or find some other means to express the hierarchical viewpoint.Thompsma (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

@Thompsma. Sigh, the point I'm trying to make is that not all peer-reviewed articles are equal and that not all of them are acceptable. If I wanted to, I could flood this talk page with counter examples from other peer-reviewed articles. We could then be playing the lame game. MY POINT IS THAT WE CAN BE SELECTIVE and only report the majority and accepted view. We can also report on minority or controversial views provided they are treated as such. Do you get that?!?! This is not "original research" and is very much in line with Wikipedia's policy of using reliable sources and avoiding NPOV. Some peer-reviewed articles and journals ARE QUESTIONABLE. NOTHING in science is sacred. If you think this is not the place to be selective or that we should cite and describe every trash that comes every second rate journal, then you must be naive, as an WP editor, an educator, and as a scientist. And the examples that you provide on the issue of "species as an individual" are irrelevant. I'm not even going to address them. I think I have been very accommodating and patient with you and your positions but to imply that I am doing "original research" is rich. Especially, when it is coming from you as you are very pushy when it comes to promoting non-majority AND disputed views on this article and occasionally justifying them with straw man and non-relevant arguments. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

@Thompsma, I am sure this is too late as you are probably working on a rebuttal buttressed with references but I would like to apologize for my previous outburst. You are free to have the last word. mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

@mezzaninelounge, of course we don't need to cite every publication and this is not what I am suggesting AT ALL!!! Moreover, I am not pushing non-majority viewpoints - the hierarchical perspective in evolution is rampant in the literature - EVERY issue in evolutionary journals present on this topic. We need to have some way to introduce the biological hierarchy in evolution and how natural selection operates in this manner. You are rejecting the notion of individuality that has been provided as a tool by philosophers, developmental biologist and evolutionists in what could very well be a majority - without this kind of perspective (or some alternative) you cannot understand the multilevel or hierarchical perspective. The idea that the hierarchical view is a minority view is nonsense - it IS the majority view. Mayr, Gould, Wright, Marguilis, Edward Wilson, Richard Lewontin, Niles Eldrige, David Jablonski, Kevin Laland, G. P. Wagner, Futuyma, DH Erwin, Brian Hall, Francisco Ayalya, and many others have discussed at length and hold a hierarchical view of evolution. These evolutionists have given considerable input into the macroevolutionary discussion that is nearly absent in this article. These are the big names and even the hierarchical concept is found in introductory textbooks on the topic (e.g., [76], [77]). So who has been accommodating? I've been in here for a while now and all I see in the article is genetic reductionism with scant mention of the hierarchical perspective that has been a well source of creativity and published discussion in evolution - yet I have to argue the same points over and over again while people continue to reject what has been published extensively. I think it is due to the popularity of Richard Dawkin's 'Selfish Gene', but as Lewontin expressed: "The selfish gene fails to do justice to standard textbook examples of Darwinian selection...The canonical form of the models has encouraged many biologists to think of all natural selection as genic selection, but there has always been a tradition within the Modern Synthesis which thinks of natural selection differently and holds this gene's eye view to be fundamentally distorted."[78]. If I am a naive WP editor I would like to know how I managed to achieve writing ecology - if you look through the history of that article you will see that I wrote it. Obviously, I have something to contribute and I've been reading, studying, teaching, attending conferences, and taking courses on evolution for over 20 years. I'm completing my second post-secondary degree in this field - so I am qualified to discuss this topic.Thompsma (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

@Thompsma, Just clarifying, not rebutting. I didn't say you were naive by default or that you were unqualified. I said you would be naive to think that all publications are fit for citation. Since you reject that notion, you clearly aren't naive. mezzaninelounge (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

@mezzaninelounge, no problem. I wrote my rant after I read yours and didn't see your apology (accepted) and I give one in return. This is frustrating and complex. Sometimes I don't even know why I am trying so hard in here. Evolution has been a favorite topic of mine for many years and so I would like to see the wikipedian article express this important subject clearly. I've expressed many times that I have a lot of respect for Dear Mr. Dawkins, but sometimes I wish he never wrote that damn selfish gene book! It is surprising and shocking to see[79] that he still holds onto those antiquated views - even after so many have given a resounding rebuttal of the gene centered view - Gould in particular pulled trammeled his views with wonderful prose and precise logic - yet Dawkin's does not respond, he just reiterates what he already said in the first place. I and engulfed the selfish gene in my teens - I thought it was the defining point of evolution. However, I've continued to read and now understand that Dawkin's and George Williams (who was his original inspiration[80]) hold the minority view in the scientific realm. They tried to change the way that Darwin and others had described the evolutionary process using a reductionist argument. Unfortunately, the selfish gene has become somewhat of a 'cult' legend and this reductionist stance permeates the literature (including this article) and in a sad irony it keeps replicating its errors. The surge of evo-devo literature looking at the contextual nature of the biological hierarchy plus an extension of developmental biology stemming largely from German scholars is starting to rectify this mistake, but it is slow coming.Thompsma (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

@Thompsma, I admit I lean towards that view. I don't think it has much to do with Dawkins book and more to do with the fact it is very easy to understand and has been entrenched in the literature since the modern synthesis. After all, Mendelian genetics is easier for most people than molecular/developmental biology. Old habits die hard. Plus, gene-centered concepts are also very easy to test experimentally given that everyone knows Hardy-Weinberg, is able to run or pay someone to run automated genetic tests, and is too lazy to look beyond the gene sequence as a marker. It is funny that I am defending the gene-centered view here because as a neurobiologist in training, I am actually quite critical of it as I find that it doesn't say much beyond the obvious and that it can be very unsatisfying and very simplistic for the reasons that you brought up, epigenetics, development, etc. mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Can a biochemical characteristic be considered a "trait"?

The following statement has been marked with "citation needed" and as "dubious - disputed" in the main article:

“A trait is a particular characteristic—anatomical, biochemical or behavioural—that is the result of gene–environment interaction.”

The objection is specifically on "biochemical characteristic", because there isn't any way in which a biochemical characteristic can interact directly with the environment, and that, therefore, the only traits, properly so called, are anatomical and behavioural.

The warnings should not be removed until the present dispute is resolved.
Miguel de Servet (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, membrane proteins such as receptors interact with extracellular signals and cause intracellular effects, which may affect gene expression. This appears to be some form of direct interaction with the environment. mezzaninelounge (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

First, expressions like "may affect gene expression" and "appears to be some form of direct interaction" are "weasel words", and, unless and until you can replace them with positive affirmations, backed up by valid citations, they cannot be considered in any way conclusive.

Consequently I will also restore my ^{[citation needed] [dubious - disputed]}, that Dominus Vobisdu has undone, without even having the decency to provide his reason here.
Miguel de Servet (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, they are not weasel words. They are statements that are phrased conservatively. A typical scientific practice. With respect to the statement "appears to be some form of direct interaction", it appears that you may not understand litotes.

Sigh, if you wish for me to do your homework for you, then fine. I study neurobiology so forgive me for my choice of topic but here is a reference from the Kandel lab that shows repeated pulses of serotonin leading to transcription, which then leads to.... Well, you can read the rest. Or if you prefer, go pick up any regular college level physiology or developmental biology text and read about endocrine receptors (specifically metabotropic receptors) or receptors that are involved in development and gene expression. mezzaninelounge (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Good grief. Bacteria are characterized by their biochemical traits. There are all kinds of temperative-sensitive mutants in yeast, inducible genes from temperature,mercury, arsenic in numerous species. Evidence indicates hsp90 drives yeast evolution. The cancer literature now mentions mutations alone won't cause cancer but environment+genes drive cancer-one article states all cancers are preventable. The whole field of epigenetics is a hot topic and evidence indicates miRNA (which are inducible) in metazoans are instrumental in their evolution. GetAgrippa (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. Couldn't have said it better. mezzaninelounge (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that, in the meantime, Danielkueh-mezzaninelounge has edited the main article again removing the ^{[dubious - disputed]}: I expect that now, he or someone else will provide the "citation needed" (consistent with entries Phenotypic trait and Phenotypic character (Phenotype), and with specific supporting evidence for "biochemical characteristics") before ^{[citation needed]} is removed.
Miguel de Servet (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Miguel, you can do your part by adding the citation yourself. I don't have a monopoly over this article. :D mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

@Miguel de Servet: First of all, I did write something for this talk page, but it didn't get posted because of a problem with my connection. See AGF.

Of course there are biochemical traits. In fact, practically ALL inheritable traits are fundamentally biochemical in nature, because they depend on the primary sequence of the protein the gene in question codes for. The few exceptions are due to epigenetic changes, which are also biochemical in nature.

Examples of biochemical traits include inborn errors of metabolism (e.g. enzyme deficiencies). See "Inborn Metabolic Diseases : Diagnosis and Treatment" by Fernandez for an excellent in-depth treatment. I believe it's published by Springer Verlag.

Furthermore, microbiologists identify bacteria almost entirely on the basis of their biochemical traits. See any general micriobiology textbook for details.

Second, your grasp of the concept of "environment" is seriously in error. You forgot that the environment also includes intr-uterine, intestinal, intercellular, intracellular and intranuclear components. It's not only the "external" environment. Doing so, you ignore the molecular components of natural selection and evolution. See any cell biology or molecular biology textbook for more details.

You made the statement "there isn't any way in which a biochemical characteristic can interact directly with the environment, and that, therefore, the only traits, properly so called, are anatomical and behavioural." That is utterly wrong on every single point, and NO biologist would agree with any part of that statement. It's OR on your part, and TOTALLY wrong OR at that.

Finally, if you want to help improve the article, fine. Do your homework and edit to your heart's desire. However, coming as you are, with little knowledge of the topic or subject in question, to a HIGHER LEVEL biology article and slapping around tags while demanding attention as if you were the Emperor of Patagonia is hardly constructive editing. Frankly, we don't need any help from dilettantes who engage in indiscriminate drive-by tagging and make infantile demands. God knows we have enough help like that.

If you feel the statement needs a citation, find one and add it; I've given you plenty of leads, as have one or two of the other editors. However, I think the statement does not require a specific citation, because the information is so basic and not at all controversial or even in the least bit disputable. It would be like providing a citation for "Germany is a country in Europe" Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a peer-review article related to bacteria: Uncovering metabolic pathways relevant to phenotypic traits of microbial genomes.Kastenmüller G, Schenk ME, Gasteiger J, Mewes HW.Genome Biol. 2009;10(3):R28. Epub 2009 Mar 10. Here is another article related to epigenetics and evolution: microRNA complements in deuterostomes: origin and evolution of microRNAs.Campo-Paysaa F, Sémon M, Cameron RA, Peterson KJ, Schubert M.Evol Dev. 2011 Jan;13(1):15-27. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

← We even have articles on evolution of "biochemical traits", for instance this one on E. coli evolution. Miguel - I'm afraid that you're barking up the wrong tree here: biologists routinely identify and study biochemical traits. Especially in prokaryotes for whom, given size and morphological simplicity, anatomy and ethology have little meaning. --PLUMBAGO 12:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence

The current first sentence reads: Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. This is too restrictive in that it excludes processes that do not occur within a population. Different extinction rates for different populations or species are examples of evolutionary processes that do not occur within populations. I suggest that we avoid this problem by constraining the first sentence to saying what evolution has done, rather than trying to say how it did it. For example:

In biology, evolution is the process that since the origin of life has changed and diversified the organisms. --Ettrig (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So if I get a new haircut is that evolution? Your concern about the definition not including cases when whole populations become extinct does not actually appear to apply to the present opening sentence because such an extinction is certainly a "change" of "a population"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that we should explicitly exclude non-inheritable changes. I do not agree that extinction is a "change in the inherited traits of a population". New trial: In biology, evolution is the process that since the origin of life has changed and diversified the heritable characteristics of organisms. --Ettrig (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Going through both the current and proposed versions of the first sentences, some comments which are mine, but maybe others can also comment using the handy numbers...

1. Should there be a parenthetic reference to "(also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution)"? I tend to see this as useful in reminding readers, some of whom will be confused otherwise (don't forget there are people out in the big bad world TRYING to make evolution confusing) about the fact that evolution has an old pre-Darwinian English meaning which is not specifically biological. In other words it helps in a sense disambiguate or make sure people are at the right article. That is something first sentences often need to do.

2. Is evolution simply "the change" (current version) or is it "the process which ... has changed" (proposed)? I'd say the simple wording is fine and therefore to be preferred because it is simpler.

3. Do we need "since the origin of life" in the first sentence? I do not think so, at least not in the first sentence. Actually, I'd try to avoid mentioning the origin of life in the first sentence because people sometimes think the theory of evolution is about the origin of life. And in principle we can not put everything in the first sentence and do it justice.

4. Do we need to distinguish change and diversifying, which is a distinction the proposal adds, and is evolution always thought of as not only changing but also diversifying in some sense which is not simply changing? I do not see a need for this complication in the first sentence.

5. Should "population of organisms" be replaced by organisms simply? No I think evolution does not apply to individuals.

6. Should we remove the reference to the fact that evolution happens over successive generations? I am not sure this is needed or correct.

So call me Mr Negative. Comments from others?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to the essential problem the factual error. Evolution doesn't only work within populations. This is the motivation for point 5 above. Organisms can be interpreted as all the groupings needed. Trial number III: Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of organisms through successive generations. --Ettrig (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If one individual evolves, then this is not the type of evolution we normally associate with the theory of evolution in biology though is it. For example I as an individual have evolved throughout my lifetime, but this is not the type of evolution this article is about is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No it is not. How does this question relate to the sentence we are discussing? --Ettrig (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ettrig, I think the point that Andrew is trying to make is that the sentence is broad and vague and that people who read it for the first time might infer incorrectly that individuals evolve, which is clearly incorrect. Anyway, to get this started, I suggest we use the suggested trimmed down version of this article and start modifying it accordingly. Any other suggestions? mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The more complex a topic, or the more approaches there are, the more important it is to have an inclusie introduction even if that makes it somewhat general and vague, or basic. The current definition is it seems to me the best single sentence that most evolutionary scientists would accept as a basic definition of evolution. If there is a major minority view we can add it to the introduction or add that some scientists define it differently, and that would be sufficient to alert som readers to keep reading. The body of the article is the place o go into nuances and multiple views. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I agree with you. I wasn't referring to the current definition of this article but the one proposed by Ettrig. mezzaninelounge (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, I should have specifid her. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Repeating: The current first sentence does not include the evolutionary processes that are not within populations. The main counterargument above is that the suggested change would create a sentence that include change within one individual and within one generation. This argument is not valid. Change that is only in one individual is not inherited and does not occur through successive generations. --Ettrig (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

But that is how your proposal could be read. Looking at what you now explain I am still really wondering whether any wording which would cover this as distinct from the current wording is really going to define evolution in any normal and essential sense of the biological meaning. If in one village, one boy gets red hair from his father and another gets curly black hair from his mother, this would be covered by what you are talking about. I think that referring to this process as evolution is not wrong per se, but a bit unusual, and not the essential core of what is intended. Heritable variations exist in every population and they drift around in various ways if we look only at individuals in isolation, but the theory of evolution, while it starts with this fact, explains more. It explains "the origin of species" for example, but in general it explains changes in populations, not the inheritance of one single lines of individuals?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The argument here boils down to the statement that the suggested sentence could be read as meaning something that it doesn't say. This is not a reasonable argument for keeping a factual error.--Ettrig (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ettrig, isn't population defined as a group of conspecific species/entities that live and breed primarily with each other? Is it not the case that populations evolve and individuals don't? If so, I don't understand what the factual error is. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Repeating from the first lines of this thread: it excludes processes that do not occur within a population. --Ettrig (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

And what other processes could these be? How do these processes contradict or exclude the current definition? Could you be a little more specific and provide examples? Maybe a term or two. Maybe a citation? mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Repeating from the 3rd sentence in this thread: Different extinction rates for different populations or species. --Ettrig (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ettrig, you need to do a little better than that. First of all, you seem to be confusing "evolution" with "processes of evolution," which is a mistake that tends to be made by laypeople. Look at the definition and think carefully. So what if there were different extinctions rates for different populations or species? Is it still not the case that there is a change in inherited traits within the population, whether it is just one, two, three, or even one thousand populations? This definition does not exclude any other processes because it is referring to evolution and not processes of evolution. Populations evolve. Period. mezzaninelounge (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, evolution is a process and a collection of processes, subprocesses. We already agree that evolution is changes. Changes are processes. This is not a layman's mistake. It is one of the more basic facts one can make about the language we are using. The argument against evolution as processes is also off target. The statement is the same if we use "changes" instead: it excludes changes that do not occur within a population. Populations evolve. Period. This is true. The problem discussed in this thread is that the first sentence in the article states that only populations evolve. Here is the reference asked for: "Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution" --Ettrig (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ettrig, I'm not going to waste time going back and forth about the English language. As far as evolution is discussed among scientists, it is often differentiated from processes or mechanisms of evolution such as natural selection, sexual selection, artificial selection, human intervention, and genetic drift. A biological change that occurs over time is not referred to as a process/mechanism but merely a series of different outcomes that are observed over time. For example, if my shirt changes over time, that is not a process. The process is me removing my old shirt and putting on a new one. So please get your vocabulary straight. By the way, did you read that Erwin article that you cited? It is just a review article that ends with more questions and suggestions rather than conclusive answers. Read it carefully as there is nothing fundamental in there that contradicts the current definition of this article. The Erwin article specifically discusses whether the processes that underlie macroevolution are the same as those that underlie microevolution and therefore whether macroevolution can in principle be reduced to microevolution. And guess what? It really doesn't matter whether it's gradualism or punctuated equilibrium. Because at the end of the day, if you look at the populations or species that have evolved, we are back to talking about the inherited traits within those populations that have changed from those of the previous generation!

What else could it be if it is not population? Species? And which definition of species are we going to use? Morphological? Population? Regardless of definition, do we still not look at a group of individuals within a species, i.e. population or sample, for comparisons of phenotype? Even if it is a group of species, do we still not compare the difference between the traits of the population or sample of one species with the population or sample of another species? As you can see, with your proposed definition, you have more explaining to do. By the way, your definition is phrased incorrectly. It should instead be phrased as "In biology, evolution is the change and diversification of organisms since the origin of life." mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

How about: "Evolution is the changing of traits of living organisms through successive generations by way of inheritance and selection." inheritance covers genetic as well as cellular stuff. everything inside the organism. selection covers everything outside the organism. Kevin Baas^talk 00:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Early in this thread I changed the proposal as a response to criticism. The last objections seem to be about the first suggestion. Repeating last modified suggestion: Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of organisms through successive generations. It seems to be a central problem in this discussion that Daniel does not accept that evolution is a process, whereas I insist that evolution is a process, a process where many subprocesses can be discerned. I need to establish this point to then go on to show that some of the subprocesses (parts of evolution) do not occur within populations. Strickberger's evolution: the integration of genes, organisms and populations says on page one: Chapters 1 to 3 provide the background for discussions of the evidence for evolution, for analysis of evolution as a process continuing today and for discussion of the mechanisms driving evolution as a process. [81]--Ettrig (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ettrig, it is not just me who does not treat evolution as a process like natural selection, it is every single educated biologists. That is why Darwin always says "Descent with modifications (evolution) by means of natural selection (process)." This is a standard practice. Please go pick up an introductory biology textbook and read up a little bit about this first before pursuing this. It really isn't worth debating. mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

My last citation is from a textbook on evolution. Daniel's counter-argument consists only of personal opinion and instruction. In Wikipedia, such arguments have much smaller weight than a citation. --Ettrig (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In the next thread, Daniel proposes Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inherited traits. This solves the problem I brought up in this thread.--Ettrig (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That was Darwin's quote I gave you, how on earth could it be my personal opinion?!?!?! By the way, you misread the book that you cited. The authors of that text were reviewing the historical use of the term. When they say "process," they are referring to a sequence of events and not some specific mechanism like natural selection. Again, you misread the context. By the way, this is the second time that you are reading things out of context. That is tantamount to misusing sources.

People often use the term "evolution" as a short hand for "evolution by natural selection." It is just simple and not too wordy. But they know what they are talking about. Evolutionary ideas predate Darwin and Wallace. For example, the mechanism proposed at one time was Evolution by means inheritance of acquired characteristics. Sometimes referred to as Lamarkian evolution. This mechanism or process is wrong and was not corrected until Darwin and Wallace came into the scene. I can't believe I'm reciting these trivial facts on a higher level biology page. Finally, if you want a citation and quotation, here is one from Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology (1998):

"Evolution in a broad sense is descent with modification, and often with diversification. Many..... Chief among these sorting processes are chance (random variation in the survival or reproduction of different variants), and natural selection (consistent, nonrandom differences among variants in their rates of survival or reproduction)...."

I have also taught this in a biology class so be careful the next time you teach someone to suck eggs. It is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. mezzaninelounge (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Creating a concise lead based on a trimmed version

I thought I might start a new section just to have a clean slate. As discussed earlier, there have been proposals to shorten the current lead of this article, which several editors feel is a little long and unwieldy. Three editors (myself, Andrew, and Slrubenstein) have proposed a modest trimming of the current lead so as to make it concise and also to keep the current contents and concepts intact. Another editor, Thompsma, feels that the currently lead is not adequate and prefers a complete rewrite. Just to get things rolling, I would like to propose a trimmed version of the current lead of this article as a starting point for modifying the current lead. Here it is:

Evolution is the change in the inherited traits in a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] Such changes may occur when there is heritable variation within a population, which may result from mutation, genetic recombination or gene flow [2][3].

Two processes have been found to cause evolution. One is natural selection, a process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. Another cause is genetic drift, which is a process by which there is a change in the frequency of an inherited trait in a population due to random sampling.

A result of evolution is speciation, in which a single ancestral species splits and diversifies into two or more different species. Speciation is visible in anatomical, genetic and other similarities between groups of organisms, geographical distribution of related species, the fossil record and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations. Speciation stretches back over 3.5 billion years during which life has existed on earth [9][10][11][12] and is thought to occur either slowly, steadily and gradually over time (see gradualism) or rapidly from one long static state to another (see punctuated equilibrium).

The scientific study of evolution began in the mid-nineteenth century, when research into the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species changed over time.[13] The mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theory of natural selection was independently proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace in 1858. In the early 20th century, Darwinian theories of evolution were combined with genetics, paleontology, and systematics, which culminated into a union of ideas known as the modern evolutionary synthesis.[19] The synthesis provides a powerful explanatory and predictive theory that has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research and providing a unifying explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth.[16][17][20]

Evolution is currently applied and studied in fields as diverse as conservation biology, ecology, physiology, medicine and paleontology. Evolution has also made an impact on traditionally non-biological disciplines such as agriculture, anthropology, philosophy and psychology.

The definitions for natural selection and genetic drift were taken from the natural selection and genetic drift pages respectively. This proposed lead is tentative and subject to change of course. I welcome all helpful suggestions and ideas. mezzaninelounge (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Some comments, not all important...

• in a population of organisms. I guess technically the population has to be linked by more than just being in the same place. Don't see any big need to try to cover this though.
• Two processes have been found to cause evolution. The distniction between the two is commonly made, but perhaps sometimes a simplification. For this reason it might be better to say something like "Two processes are generally distinguished as common causes of evolution".
• A result of evolution is speciation. Maybe "One notable result of...". Just to make it clear why it is being mentioned here in the lead.

Thanks for your efforts ML.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. So should we remove the term "organisms" then? I'm not sure if I follow. Thanks. mezzaninelounge (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Having spent quite a bit of time late last year rewriting the lead to something close to what it currently is, I'm not entirely sure we need to revisit again so soon (not least because a long article probably justifies a long lead). However, that said, the edited version above does seem to largely keep the sense of the current lead, so it's definitely worth considering. A few thoughts (some pretty trivial) immediately occur ...

• The alternatives names for evolution should be restored ("also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution")
• I don't think we can ditch what's meant by a trait in the lead - it's not a straightforward term so the deleted description should be restored
• I don't like "random sampling" - that has misleading connotations of observational errors
• Speciation should be described as "a notable result" since it's a cornerstone of evolution
• The balance of the new version is a bit skewed towards history of the subject, with the largest paragraphs devoted to this less significant aspect

Anyway, since the new version is already about 300 words less than the current lead, it's a substantial saving. I think it can stand a bit of clarification/expansion. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 17:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Plumbago, thank you very much for your input. Your suggestions are very reasonable. We'll try to incorporate them as best as we can. mezzaninelounge (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have incorporated the suggestions by Andrew and Plumbago. Here is the revised lead:

Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits within a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] A trait is a particular characteristic—anatomical, biochemical or behavioural—that is the result of gene–environment interaction. Evolution may occur when there is heritable variation within a population, which may result from mutation, genetic recombination or gene flow [2][3].

Two processes are generally distinguished as common causes of evolution. One is natural selection, a process by which inherited traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. Another cause is genetic drift, which is a process by which there are random changes of two or more inherited traits within a population.

A notable result of evolution is speciation, in which a single ancestral species splits and diversifies into two or more different species. Speciation is visible in anatomical, genetic and other similarities between groups of organisms, geographical distribution of related species, the fossil record and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations. Speciation stretches back over 3.5 billion years during which life has existed on earth [9][10][11][12] and is thought to occur either slowly, steadily and gradually over time (see gradualism) or rapidly from one long static state to another (see punctuated equilibrium).

The scientific study of evolution began in the mid-nineteenth century, when research into the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species evolve.[13] The mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theory of natural selection was independently proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace in 1858. In the early 20th century, Darwinian theories of evolution were combined with genetics, paleontology, and systematics, which culminated into a union of ideas known as the modern evolutionary synthesis.[19] The synthesis became a major principle of biology as it provided a coherent and unifying explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth.[16][17][20]

Evolution is currently applied and studied in fields as diverse as conservation biology, ecology, physiology, medicine and paleontology. Evolution has also made an impact on traditionally non-biological disciplines such as agriculture, anthropology, philosophy and psychology.

Again, any helpful suggestions are most welcome. So keep them coming. mezzaninelounge (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand why "the alternatives names for evolution should be restored ("also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution")"? It is superfluous - I have never come across a text or a person clarifying or placing a qualifier on evolution in these terms and this is what disambiguation pages are for. The lead sentence still plays too strongly in favor of tinkering with genetic reductionism seeing a gradual and continuous causal linkage from changes in the traits of a population spilling over to species. This misses the importance of Mayr's founder events and genetic revolutions that were experimentally confirmed by Templeton and Carson (see [82])Thompsma (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggested re-adding the alternative names because these are, on occasion, names that are sometimes used. Largely, I suppose, to distinguish evolution of biological entities from the time-evolution of other aspects of the natural world. Essentially, biology does not have a monopoly on the term.

On your second point about genetic reductionism, can you expand a bit? I don't see a problem with the opening sentence as it stands. While I appreciate that founder events are of pivotal importance in certain circumstances (particularly speciation), I'd need to be persuaded that (a) they're frequent enough to require a mention in the lead, and (b) such material can be simply added to the lead while leaving it comprehensible to readers not au fait with specialist biological terminology and concepts.

It might be possible to alter either the second (on mechanisms) or third (on speciation) paragraphs to include a mention of these, but I'm not convinced that it's key to add anything in the lead. The abstract you cite makes a moderate case IMHO, but I'm not sure that it can be squeezed in without elongating the lead too much with expansion to explain the concepts. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not just say "Evolution in the biological sciences is change that occurs across generations as individuals reproduce, develop, and form lineages." There are ways to express the information that keeps this general enough without excluding or adopting a particular stance. This is why Darwin's 'Descent with modification' has such popular use. I'm quite annoyed every time I read that lead sentence, because it serves to re-affirm the myth that all of evolution is an iterative processes for those looking at this from a gene-centered base. Including 'biological sciences' covers the superfluous list - biological, genetic, and organic - moreover, there is no way that I will accept genetic evolution as a standalone concept, as this list implies, because it fails to provide a sufficient coverage of evolution. Use of the word 'individual' vs. 'organism' expands the scope of meaning, because the hierarchical view (a critical aspect to evolution!) identifies individualism across the biological hierarchy (genes, organs, populations, and species). Adding 'development' to the lead sentence brings in the important aspect of ontogeny into the fold.Thompsma (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• I also previously suggested keeping in mention of the other uses of the word, for essentially the same reason as plumbago. It is kind of like disambiguating, except not in the special Wikipedia sense. I have had many discussions about evolution with intelligent people who know philosophy but not science and I know this is important sometimes. I know many biologists do not realize the word is not wholly theirs, but the fact is that it is still used in a pre-biological way and this article is not being written for specialists. OTOH Thompsma's proposal of "Evolution in the biological sciences" is possibly a more elegant solution to this problem?
• Concerning "genetic reductionism" and the proposal to change "the change in the inherited traits in a population of organisms through successive generations" to "change that occurs across generations as individuals reproduce, develop, and form lineages" in order to avoid it, I still struggle to follow why this is needed, but perhaps more to the point I think the proposal being made is not clear English. I imagine many readers will be left staring at the screen wondering what it means?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Andrew, it is difficult to follow what you are trying to say. In the first point - 'other uses of the word', which word are you referring too? The rest of your point is barely legible. In the second point - 'I think the proposal being made is not clear English', which proposal are you referring too - mine or the one above? I appreciate your input, but if you are going to critique on the clarity of the suggestions, it would help and it would be more believable if you could express yourself more clearly. Please accept this as constructive criticism. I'm an experienced author and I am very confused by the proposed lead "the change in the inherited traits in a population of organisms through successive generations" - in my mind this just says that a population of organisms will inherit new traits, it says nothing about the origin of species, which is pretty fundamental to evolution. If evolution is just a population of organisms through successive generations and even if they inherit new traits, when will the actual population change? Will it just continue on as a population, or will it speciate? There is a logical flaw in this sentence.Thompsma (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. We seem to talk past each other a lot.

• Other uses of the word evolution. Evolve is an English word which existed without any strong link to biology for a long time. It means something quite similar to "develop". Just for example one problem with this, amongst intelligent non-biologists, is that the word is "teleological". In other words it implies more than just any change, but change with a direction towards some final perfect state. (Originally it was a word for un-ravelling if I recall correctly.)
• The proposal being made is yours: "change that occurs across generations as individuals reproduce, develop, and form lineages".
• I'm an experienced author and I am very confused by the proposed lead "the change in the inherited traits in a population of organisms through successive generations" - in my mind this just says that a population of organisms will inherit new traits, it says nothing about the origin of species, which is pretty fundamental to evolution. You call this a logical flaw. I do not see how not mentioning speciation is a logical flaw. It seems to just be something not being mentioned in that sentence. I like sentences which say one thing only, so I'd prefer speciation mentioned in another sentence. Speciation is not an essential requirement of evolution?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the title of Darwin's book was On the origin of species - hence my suggestion that this is fundamental to evolution. The logical flaw is that there is no evolution in that sentence - it is pure linear thinking "nonlinearity refers to the fact that effect and cause are disproportionate, so that small changes in critical variables...can lead to disproportionate...changes in system properties" (Levin, 1999, p. 14) Transitions are important, speciation is one example and there many other non-linear transitions of pivotal importance to evolution(see [83]). Descent with modification covers everything, because you can have descent of a gene, a population or a species and modification envelopes the idea of major transitions due to its generality. The lead sentence that is being proposed comes to a standstill where only traits change within a population. Where is the evolution? If traits bounce about in a population and it remains a population, then there is no branching of lineages. It remains a population, presumably the same population, but only with change in the traits that are contained within it. That is not how evolution works. It is a vacuous sentence. I'm fully aware of the history of the term evolution and its multiple usages - in old English it referred to the unraveling or unfolding of the homunculus. "Many ingenious philosophers have found so great difficulty in conceiving the manner of the reproduction of animals, that they have supposed all the numerous progeny to have existed in miniature in the animal originally created; and that these infinitely minute forms are only evolved or distended, as the embryon increases in the womb."(Erasmus Darwin, Zoonomia, 1801) 'Evolution in biological sciences' followed by the rest of the sentence and article makes it abundantly clear that we are talking about the modern usage of the term in reference to Darwin's work and the science that follows.Thompsma (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence structure doesn't sound right either. - in the - in a - of - through -. not to mention that is a multiply compound sentence and i'm not sure it even says what it's supposed to. Kevin Baas^talk 19:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I much prefer my "Evolution is the changing of traits of living organisms through successive generations by way of inheritance and selection." suggestion. its grammatically simpler while at the same time communicating more information. speciation is included as it's a way that inheritance and selection patterns can effect evolution. Kevin Baas^talk 19:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

While I was waiting for my prep, I did a quick edit of the second trimmed lead based on the 7 wish list items from Thompsa (see Size of this article). @Thompsma, I only included what could be done easiest for now. This is the third draft.

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inherited traits.[1] A trait is a particular characteristic—anatomical, biochemical or behavioural—that is the result of gene–environment interaction. Evolution may occur when there is heritable variation within a population, which may result from mutation, genetic recombination or gene flow [2][3].

Two processes are generally distinguished as common causes of evolution. One is natural selection, a non-random and deterministic process in which there is differential survival and/or reproduction of organisms that differ in one or more inherited traits. Another cause is genetic drift, a random process in which there are random changes of two or more inherited traits within a population.

A notable result of evolution is speciation, in which a single ancestral species splits and diversifies into two or more different species. Speciation is visible in anatomical, genetic and other similarities between groups of organisms, geographical distribution of related species, the fossil record and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations. Speciation stretches back over 3.5 billion years during which life has existed on earth [9][10][11][12] and is thought to occur in multiples ways such as slowly, steadily and gradually over time (see gradualism) or rapidly from one long static state to another (see punctuated equilibrium).

The scientific study of evolution began in the mid-nineteenth century, when research into the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species evolve.[13] The mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theory of natural selection was independently proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace in 1858. In the early 20th century, Darwinian theories of evolution were combined with genetics, paleontology, and systematics, which culminated into a union of ideas known as the modern evolutionary synthesis.[19] The synthesis became a major principle of biology as it provided a coherent and unifying explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth.[16][17][20]

Evolution is currently applied and studied in various areas within biology such as conservation biology, developmental biology, ecology, physiology, paleontology and medicine. Moreover, it has also made an impact on traditionally non-biological disciplines such as agriculture, anthropology, philosophy and psychology.

Quick comments. I quickly looked up the glossary from one of my evolutionary biology text by Futuyma (Yes, it is not a journal but I was lazy) and yes, terms such as biological evolution and organic evolution are referred to synonyms of evolution as it is used by biologists, which is different from evolution as it is used by cultural anthropologists, linguists, communication scholars, business people, and clinical psychologists. I removed "genetic" as it could be implied in "biological" or "organic." I removed population and successive generations to broaden the definition. I took the current third draft definition from the Fuytuyma text and replaced "genetically" with "inherited traits." Again, please look at the entire third draft carefully before commenting. Thanks again to everyone for all of your time. mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be helpful to read how Talk Origins deals with the problem of defining evolution. Lots of good insight there: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

@ML, I don't really like the new version sorry. You've removed populations but not replaced it with lineages (as per Thompsma), so now biological evolution can happen within the lifetimes of individuals?

@Thompsma, of course speciations are important, but do you say the term can not be used when there is no clear speciation, for example when a population remains a single population but just changes a lot in terms of traits?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

selection is not a non-random, determistic process. (which is redundant, btw). it is a stochastic process. some fit members die and procreate by dumb luck and some totally decrepeted ones end up procreating by the same dumb luck. (just look at the species homo sapiens, for example) so clearly there isn't a discrete line where everyone below dies and everyone above procreates. that's not even the way it's done in computer algorithms. (selection is implemented probabilisticly to maintain variety and because one must account for the fact that in any given generation they only have partial information on fitness). a rather big error, imo. something we should be sure to avoid in the article. Kevin Baas^talk 20:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

@Andrew, I understand your reservation but two things in that definition may alleviate your concerns. First, we are only talking about inherited traits, so that would exclude your favorite example, getting a hair cut. Plus, we are talking about the proportion of individuals. Evolution is sometimes defined as the change of allele frequencies within the population. This definition will accommodate that definition as well changes that occur in the long-term as well.

@Kevin Baas, the example you give appears to refer to Genetic Drift, in which randomness is a defining characteristic and yes, some animals procreate by dumb luck. Not so with natural selection. I usually don't cite videos, but here is one, in which Richard Dawkins rebuked Ted Haggard for claiming that natural selection is random (accidents). I'm not equating you with Ted Haggard of course. I just chose this video because it is humorous and it is the first thing that came to mind. But you are right, those terms may be redundant and so I could remove them. mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

example? genetic drift? i don't know what you're talking about there. all animals procreate to a certain degree by dumb luck. to say that selection is a deterministic process like a computer's cpu is absurd. it's a probabilistic process. some traits are more likely to be selected in any given generation. but it is not certain. Kevin Baas^talk 21:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

also, on a more humorous note, how about "Evolution is the changing of traits of living organisms through successive generations by way of inheritance, selection, and genetic drift, oh, and in the case of the Rotifer, simply taking dna from your surroundings and making it your own." Kevin Baas^talk 21:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, I don't mean to be short but if you would like to know more about genetic drift, Wikipedia has a reasonable description of it. mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

dude, i'm not an idiot, i know what genetic drift is. Kevin Baas^talk 00:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

So what are you confused about? mezzaninelounge (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing. where the hell did you get the idea that i was confused about anything? I was making a joke. geez. why did you assume i was confused about something? don't you think that's a little presumptuous? (those questions are rhetorical, btw.) Kevin Baas^talk 14:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You said "i don't know what you're talking about there." How else am I suppose to interpret this? mezzaninelounge (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As a polite way of saying that as far as i can tell none of what you said logically relates at all to what i said so i don't think you understood what i was saying. in "what you're talking about there", "there" refers to your indication that i used an "example" or discussed "genetic drift". i never used any examples or even loosely implied genetic drift. so i have no idea what part of what i said you think you were referring to. (and you see that doesn't sound nearly as polite; it sounds a lot more adversarial, and i don't want to sound that way so that's why i simply said i don't know what you're refering to. i was being polite.) Kevin Baas^talk 15:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, I appreciate that you want to be polite and not adversarial but the problem is I have never met you, and so if you made that statement to me in person, I can judge the intention of it based on the intonation of your voice, your facial expression, and whether you rolled your eyes. But when you write on it a talk page, I have to take it for what it is. I cannot carefully read and spend two minutes trying to figure out whether you are joking. As you can see, there are many threads that I am trying to respond to and so I have to do it quickly. So I would much prefer that you take an "adversarial approach" and be clear and lucid as it allows me to really see where you are coming from. That way I don't have to second guess what you are saying. Anyway, let me clarify myself. It seems when you talk about "dumb luck etc" in your first post, you description at that points fits the process of genetic drift. Looking at your later posts, I see what you are saying about probability and likelihood, etc. The problem we are having here is semantics and context. The word deterministic as it is used here to describe natural election does not have same technical meaning as is does in engineering, where it is used to describe two types of quantitative data. The term deterministic is meant to imply that natural selection itself, like dog breeding is not random in the sense of being chaotic, which is a common misunderstanding. For example, creationists often criticize the idea that evolution of the eye could be due to pure chance. They would be right if natural selection is random and pure luck, but it is not. Variation itself is random, but that is different from natural selection. Nature as breeder is playing a deterministic role just like a dog breeder would. A dog breeder plays a deterministic role when he or she intentionally selects for a trait. That is how the term is used. I hope this clarifies what I am trying to say. mezzaninelounge (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be a semantic distinction, but it's an important one. to try to phrase it in neutral terms: it is a systematic bias in likilihoods of selection (in addition to likilihoods of recombination and drift) applied iteratively that "contracts" the space of possible species. that is, selection is a stochastic process and as such is "reductive". it is _NOT_ a deterministic system, as the word "deterministic" would imply. (even if all other parts were deterministic, i.e. even if there were no drift and recombination was fully deterministic.) there is nothing that with certainty always maps a to b and c to d. however, this kind of strict constraint of 1 to 1 mapping is entirely unnecessary. (and in fact, would result in _slower_ adaptation) i presume now that we're both on the same page here. so then it's a matter of reliably communicating these subtle points (or at least not introducing confusion about them) to the reader, with considerably fewer words. and here i would argue that the phrasing in question introduces a great risk of such confusion, esp. with someone who takes what is written more literally / precisely (such as an engineer / mathemetician / programmer / scientist / etc.). (in fact, to them (e.g. me) it is simply wrong.) Kevin Baas^talk 16:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, Variation and genetic drifts are stochastic and may be modeled using Markov chains. But natural selection is not a Markov process. It is not even a system. It is a process and you can make future predictions about it based on past and present events. It is also not a stochastic process either because we can reliably predict which direction a trait will evolve towards, see "runaway selection" or directional selection. The random opening of ion channels in cell membranes for example is stochastic because we cannot predict which state an ion channel will be in but the selection of an adaptive trait is predictive. If you are a red bug in a green environment, it is no accident that you will get killed first or that proportion of red bugs will decrease over time if all the selective pressures are present. Finally, the wording that you propose is a little wordy. Just as a cell biologist would not change or abandon the word "nucleus" to appease chemists who use the word differently, I'm not gonna change this word to appease mathematicians. Deterministic is a standard term used in this context and I have a reference for it. I removed "random" because it is quite redundant as you correctly pointed out. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you are wrong here. you are confusing the fact that the limiting behavior (over long periods of time) of a stochastic process resembles that of a deterministic system with the instantaneuos (over very short periods of time) dynamics of the system. and in fact it is not even the case that selection approaches deterministic in the log term. for instance, there could be bifurcations (e.g. supercritical Pitchfork_bifurcation), and there'd be no way to tell before hand which bifurcation path would be followed. (for example, there might be selection pressure to pick one or another trait/adaptation, without either one being strongly favored, but against both existing in the same ecosystem.) Kevin Baas^talk 16:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, I am not making that confusion, you are. We are talking about natural selection here, which means, at minimum, one generation to the next. And natural selection acts on the individual. You are confusing variation (which is random) of the population over time with natural selection, which is not random. By the way, if you are going to get pedantic about moment-to-moment changes (in the millisecond), which evolution is not concerned about, then yes, nothing is deterministic. Even events that can be described or modeled by an equation. And if you are going to pursue this issue, please provide a reference by a biologist, in which natural selection is explicitly described as either stochastic or as a Markov process. OK? mezzaninelounge (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I assure you i am not making that confusion. And I have been pretty clear and formally precise in what i have said and you haven't punched any holes in it and it is pretty rigorous anyways so i am quite content to rest my case. as to looking for references, good point on the WP:V thing. i don't have time right now though. (i'm at work. shhh.) Kevin Baas^talk 17:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

more after the "conveninence break"...

conveinence break

alright, here are two papers i found so far from a simple google search:

• [84] see esp. the section on "the moran process" (maybe google searching "moran process" would return more results?)

• [85]

okay, now back to work i go. Kevin Baas^talk 18:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(btw, this appeal to authority crap when the logic is unambigious i always find a bit stupid. the authority can be wrong but the logic can't. reminds me of paiget's theory of moral development (pre-conventional vs. post-conventional) and concrete operational thinking vs. formal operation thinking. but i digress.) Kevin Baas^talk 18:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

ah, here we go, a simple google search for "moran process" reveals: [86]

Moran process

1. Consider a homogeneous population of size N consiting of residents (white) and mutants (black). 2. At each time step an individual is chosen for reproduction with a probability proportional to its fitness (here, resident is selected for reprodcution). 3. A randomly chosen individual is eliminated (here, mutant is selected for death). 4. The offspring replaces the eliminated individual.

This so-called Moran process describes the stochastic evolution in a finite population of constant size. Suppose all resident individuals are identical and one new mutant is introduced. The new mutant has relative fitness r, as compared to the residents, whose fitness is 1. The fixation probability of the mutant is then given by: R1 = (1-1/r)/(1-1/rN).

The Moran process has two absorbing states: either the population consists of all residents or all mutants. No other stable equilibrium state is possible. Whenever an absorbing state is reached, mutants (residents) are said to have reached fixation.

This represents a specific balance between selection and drift: advantageous mutations have a certain chance - but no guarantee - of fixation, whereas disadvantageous mutants are likely - but again, no guarantee - to become extinct.

Like i said. Kevin Baas^talk 18:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

oh, and we even have an article on wikipedia that says exactly what i just did: Moran_process#Selection Kevin Baas^talk 18:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, your choice of articles, quotes, and reference to the WP article appear to raise more questions. Did you even read the two articles that you cited? Not just the abstract but the main body word for word? Do you know how modeling in biology typically works? Do you know the difference between natural selection and selective pressures? Do you know the difference between selection for a specific trait (cause) and the increase/decrease proportion (effect) of any individual with that specific trait as a result of it? Do you know the difference between natural selection and transmission of certain genes that occur as a result of it? Do you know the difference between randomly choosing an individual (random sampling) for an experiment/test and allowing selection to act on that individual? Do you realize that natural selection is a fact, theory, concept, and principle and not some Law that is reducible to a number and/or equation? Even if we do define it that way, it is defined as a partly or wholly deterministic difference in the contribution of different classes of entities/organisms to subsequent generations. Look at the Moran process and associated equations. Where in the equation or matrix do we plug in a number for natural selection? I think you have your work cut out for you. Like you, I don't like it when people appeal to authority but I also don't like it when people cite books and references that they haven't read, fully understand, or read out of context. I'm done with this discussion. I too rest my case. Bye now. mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

these may be questions that arise in your head. i don't know why, thou. you just seem to be randomly questioning things that aren't even relevant (though you need only assume i'm not a total moron to know the answer to almost every question is yes.) i've satisfied your query for verifiability with multiple sources (and it was quite easy to do -- took me all of a few minutes.) and now you have resorted to trying to spread a motley of vague doubts and (rather offensive) suspicions about my intelligence. in any case since you have rested your case and i have given you what you asked for the issue is thus resolved. (though there was never any doubt in my mind that the absurd conjecture of deterministic selection was utterly, well, absurd. and you have certainly not showed it to be any less so.) Kevin Baas^talk 19:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, I am not rebutting but I do need to make three clarifications because I think you missed my point or misunderstood what I said.

First, you haven't provided any sources in which natural selection is explicitly described as stochastic. If you knew the answers to the above questions that I asked, you would know that the equations and models in these two articles and others are measuring the effects of natural selection such as gene transmission, live/birth deaths/etc. I've seen these types of papers before. These models do not parse the finer distinctions between variation, natural selection, proportion changes. They can't, how could they? Think about this, how could an explanation such as natural selection be reduced to a number, let alone a stochastic one? If a breeder intentionally selects for dogs with brown fur, how could we describe that mechanism as stochastic? We could only develop and test a model that shows random variations of his dogs' fur coats and changes in their proportions over time. But it doesn't changed fact that brown fur was selected and non-brown fur was not selected. There is nothing random about this. This is different from changes in proportions over time, which I readily admit could fluctuate. To say that they are the same however is tautology (See Gould, Ever Since Darwin), which I'm sure you know is a logical fallacy.

Second, I have given you two references to support my use of the term deterministic in a biological context. One by Dawkins and the other by Futuyma. There was no conjecture on my part. You however, appear to be so math-centric to accept that. I guess these two prominent evolutionary biologists would be absurd by your standards.

Third, I never said you were a moron or implied that you were one. In fact, I'm impressed that you are aware of stochastic processes because many biologists don't know them. These are not easy concepts and I thought you might have misunderstood them. By the way, if you can't take a jab here and there, then don't dish it. Get the hint? mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

So i see you missed the whole part where sometimes (often, in fact) inferior traits (e.g. non-brown fur) get selected (esp. when they're only mildly inferior). (while conversely superior traits sometimes get accidentally selected out.) Kevin Baas^talk 20:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, I didn't miss anything. That happens because of another variable or a competing selective pressure. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

one might hypothesis that, but the possiblity of the result comes out of the mathematical model quite regardless of whether there are any competing selective pressures. it gets smaller with larger populations and over more generations (provided you add in sufficient drift to prevent over-fitting / pre-mature convergence). but we're talking finite population finite generations, (and we're seeing if this happens independently of genetic drift so it has to hold true even if we don't include that in the model.) Kevin Baas^talk 20:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, that is all true. But again, it doesn't matter because the model shows changes in proportions of organisms over time, in other words evolution from generation to generation, finite or not. Natural selection is inferred from these models based on who lives and who dies. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

you mean the fitness function is defined a posteri?! well that's a bit of assuming the conclusion! sure that definitely makes it deterministic because you've defined "the answer" as what just happened! "that which just survived is the fittest. therefore, the fittest just survived." anycase, i'll accept that as my own philosophical gripe about some of the semantics probably used in some of the literature (as you seem to suggest.) in any case it seems we finally understand each other better now. :) Kevin Baas^talk 20:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Kevin. That is a legitimate gripe. It's all defined ahead of time. That is why there has been a lot of criticism of natural selection as potentially being tautological in practice. How do we know if a trait was selected? Well, if the organism with those traits survived and reproduced. Why did the organisms survive and reproduce? Because they have traits that were naturally selected for. Like you, I'm glad we are on the same page. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is getting a bit off track, not to mention that putting a break into the middle of a thread is a bit awkward to begin with. Most importantly, as I wrote below the cut-off line "Anyway, question is whether you have any simple suggestion to change the article that might cover all likely angles. (Remember, we are not going to get all the above discussed in the first sentence or sentences.)" If this discussion can't be drawn back to something concrete about the Evolution article it might be handy to take it to User Talk pages for a while until it becomes more relevant?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, a tautology is not technically a logical fallacy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Andrew, you're right, we should get back on track. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

from glancing over the current wording seems fine to me. i just want to avoid changing it in a way that introduces confusion about the process of selection, namely that makes it seem like the individual survivors and reproducers of any given generation can be uniquely determined at the moment of their birth. i.e. that selection is a a deterministic function of fitness, rather than a probabilistic function. i want to avoid that confusing. so i am against using words like "deterministic" in refering to selection, which implies selection is a deterministic system, where really the a priori selection probabilities (survival rates and reproduction rates) of any given member of a population are just that, probabilities. so i am suggesting a change not to make. Kevin Baas^talk 20:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair statement. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There might be a section later in the article that can be helped based on this discussion also. Just an idea.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

oh good. you can ignore all my other crap then. all that stuff's just mathematical statements following out the logic of the "fair statement", i.e. details. which are probably quite open to misinterpretations and semantics and aren't really what i'm concerned with anyways. so we're happy. :-) i suppose we have andrew to thank for that. Kevin Baas^talk

Agreed. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

inconvenient break (the below actually connects to the thread above, but a "convenience" break is now in between)

Maybe Kevin's point is that the line dividing "drift" from "selection" is not always as clear as one might think if one just accepts the metaphors. The distinction implies that evolution has a direction sometimes and not other times, and can lead to misunderstandings. The distinction is widely used though. Above I had suggested "Two processes are generally distinguished as common causes of evolution". I had this issue in mind.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks andrew, but i was specifically talking about the selection stage of the evolution process, as distinct from drift or inheritance or anything else. to give a clearer picture of the spatial reasoning aspects involved, take a look at: Selection_(genetic_algorithm). what i said was that nature does _NOT_ use Truncation selection. (in fact, it isn't even possible, because any given member of a species has a finite lifetime so there's no way to comprehensively evaluate its fitness, which one must do to exactly and unambiguously order them by fitness, and if you don't do that then you're effectively doing the average of all possible partially-informed orderings which is amounts to doing Fitness_proportionate_selection.) (and good thing, because it arguably has the worst convergence/performance of all possible selection algorithms) arguably, the algorithm that most closely resembles selection used in biological evolution is fitness proportional selection. of course, one might also argue Tournament_selection. Kevin Baas^talk 15:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I liked the technical term "dumb duck" better LOL. Anyway, question is whether you have any simple suggestion to change the article that might cover all likely angles. (Remember, we are not going to get all the above discussed in the first sentence or sentences.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Some input on the term random from Gould that might help[87]: "Textbooks of evolution still often refer to variation as "random." We all recognize this designation as a misnomer, but continue to use the phrase by force of habit. Darwinians have never argued for "random" mutation in the restricted and technical sense of "equally likely in all directions," as in tossing a die. But our sloppy use of "random" (see Eble, 1999) does capture, at least in a vernacular sense, the essence of the important claim that we do wish to convey-namely, that variation must be unrelated to the direction of evolutionary change; or, more strongly, that nothing about the process of creating raw material biases the pathway of subsequent change in adaptive directions."

@Andrew - again your post is unclear - you need to work on your grammar and to think about what you are trying to say. Re-read your statement - does it really express clearly what you are trying to say?? I have to guess what you are trying to get across each time. I am not saying that speciation needs to be explicitly stated in the lead definition of evolution - if this is what you are trying to get across. I am saying that speciation must follow logically from the extension of the definition. The first proposal, "Evolution is the change in the inherited traits in a population of organisms through successive generations" is logically flawed because you will only ever arrive at a population, never a species. According to this definition you will have a population through successive generations that will have different traits, but only a population and never a species.

I think the problem is the emphasis on trait - which is a complex term in itself. "So evolution is always a two-step process, involving first developmentally mediated variation and then selection resulting in gene frequency change."[88] - the current proposal emphasizes gene or trait frequency change, but says nothing about developmental mediated variation - which is the critical aspect that I have been trying to get across. We need to cure and get rid of this notion that keeps replicating itself in here that evolution is nothing but changes in the frequency of traits or genes, this is not what evolution is. You have to understand the mutli-dimensional aspects to life to understand evolution in its full capacity. Can we get rid of trait? Read the abstract on page three here[89], you will see that the notion of trait is very complex and misinterpreted (Lewontin also talked about this as I mentioned way above). Perhaps: "Evolution in the biological sciences is change among lineages that have diversified the planet over time." Thompsma (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

From a stylistic and grammar perspective - get rid of all the independent clauses contrived into compound sentences. It annoys the reader.Thompsma (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The definition of evolution that you cited was evolution by natural selection. To change the current definition to that two-step process definition would exclude evolution by genetic drift, evolution by human intervention, etc.

I acknowledge that development can be complex and rich but there is nothing in that definition of evolution or trait that contradicts the citation you gave or downplays the complexity of traits as it is understood in developmental biology. As it is defined in the lead, traits are products of environment-gene interactions, which could be anything from epigenetics to diet. I will look into your complaints on writing style and your recommendation that variation be described as random. Cheers. mezzaninelounge (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

@mezzaninelounge, you are technically correct that "Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inherited traits" does not contradict the citation and it is also true that 'trait' is defined via gene-environment interaction in the following sentence. However, the change in the proportions of individual organisms does not capture the notion of descent or lineages plus evolution also has something to say about the way that the trait variants interact, integrate, and what the consequences of those interactions are. Once again, the focus is back on the jostling of variants reminiscent of the selfish gene viewpoint. If you try to be too specific you will always run into this problem. The lead has to be very general and then move onto the specific details. Decent with modification is so vague and general that you can't disagree with it. You are trying hard to please everyone - so your efforts are appreciated, but I think it would be more productive to give a very general intro and then move onto the nitty gritty details later on.Thompsma (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

@Thompsma, rather than changing the definition, which would require changing subsequent sentences, could you provide a single sentence summary that includes a description of descent or lineages? A sentence such as "ultimately, evolution leads to diversification.." Since this is a major concern of yours, you would be a better position to articulate it. I am thinking that sentence should be the last sentence of the first paragraph. mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think one cause of problems in some of this discussion is the common error of people wanting to get too many things into the first sentence. Does everything need to be in the first sentence?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Amen, brother! that idea still plagues the atheism article, and there seems to be no cure! Kevin Baas^talk 14:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Aside from Thompsma's last few comments, how does everyone else feel about the third draft? Do you think it is a better substitution than the present lead in the article? Again, the whole point of this entire exercise is not so much to correct the present lead as much as to make it simple and concise. The target audience is after all a non-specialist, anywhere from high school to college educated, who is interested to know more about evolution. mezzaninelounge (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My advice is to be bold. There are practical reasons:

• There seems to be consensus for compression.
• The drafts being discussed are based on the current version and most complaints about the drafts seem to be about bits that are NOT changed, so presumably this version would still be an improvement or neutral for most people.
• PRACTICAL PROBLEM. This discussions is getting complicated and it is hard to keep in mind what the latest proposal is now! So it might be time to actually make an edit. We can always revert if it really causes a problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I also suggest then starting a new discussion section, to discuss improving further.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Changed lead

As suggested by Andrew, I went ahead and edited the lead of this entire article. It is not perfect but I think the consensus is that it is much shorter, simpler, and broader. mezzaninelounge (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Even if this brings problems at least we will be able to follow it better now so we can fix it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I am gonna take a short break from this. I have spent too much time on this. It was fun but I've put off a lot of important work. Yikes! mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Lots of work went into this - so credit should go to all those who put in so much effort here. I'm sorry, but I really don't like the end result and disagree with the outcome, but it seems that there is no solution to this problem. I'm convinced that the wikipedian model is incapable of handling this topic, but what else can be done?Thompsma (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, i don't like it either. one thing the "two causes ... evolution... one is selection, the other is drift..." actually the main driving force is recombination. drift just prevents overfittin, keeping the variety from getting too small. recombination and selection is what does the major computational work that exponentially drives the species towards higher fitness. recombination does this exponentially faster than mutation.

and on a more general not i think it would be better to address it in smaller chunks (incrementally) than a whole rewrite, otherwsise there's just going to be too much disagreement. i.e. we should try a mutation, recombination, and selection approach, rather than a creationist approach. Kevin Baas^talk 22:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It is way too prescriptive, gene centered, and sorry to say this, but it is boring to read. I've never found evolution boring before, but this lead drains my attention. Re: " actually the main driving force is recombination" - sure, if you are thinking in gene-centered terms alone. What does that mean anyway - the 'main' driving force? What about vicariance, burden, symbiogenesis, modularity, top-down, and bottom-up hierarchical effects? Moreover, this sentence: "Evolution may occur when there is heritable variation within a population." What is that about? That is the weirdest sentence on evolution that I have come across - there is always heritable bits and variable bits in a population - hence it is a tautology and in logical error. Much of this lead says a whole lot about nothing about the field of evolution that I've come to know over the years. It is not my intent to be offensive, but what I'm reading is a product of a lot of people writing about their pre-conceived notions of what evolution is about without actually spending a whole lot of time in the depths of the literature. "Heritable variation is random"...it is not, some kinds are, but what about directional selection, parallelophyly (which is really just a special case of a parallelism), orthogenesis, or convergent evolution? I understand that orthogenesis has been widely rejected (as noted in wikipedia), but there are still some important discussions on this in evo-devo - semantics aside - this statement is wrong. I read some of the debate around this above and think that people have some skewed notions about randomness in evolution. Heritable variation is not always random due to burden - people who do not understand this need to read upon the concept of constraint in evolution. "Two processes are generally distinguished as common causes of evolution." - whoever is writing this stuff keeps on putting up numbers - it occurs in the speciation section as well - "There are four mechanisms for speciation" - stop counting things - there are ways to describe this stuff without being so prescriptive. This article should be retitled genetic evolution and a separate article needs to be written about actual evolution.Thompsma (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Trimming Speciation

Paragraphs 3-6 can be amalgamated into one paragraph, reworded slightly to save space, and the last two paragraphs could be trimmed entirely. The sub-heading could possibly be renamed "Species and speciation"? The following sentence: "There are four mechanisms for speciation" should be rephrased to say that there are four general models that apply to speciation, because "There are many mechanisms of speciation"[90], not just four. Would anyone care to discuss? Thompsma (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm burnt out. You should take the lead if you haven't already. :) mezzaninelounge (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am actually a bit skeptical of trying to give any canonical count of "mechanisms" and I think maybe Kevin was also thinking in that direction. Anyway, considering the proposal "there are four general models that apply to speciation" I think better wording would be "there are four general models often used to describe speciation". (These also leaves open the possibility that there are more ways to describe it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

do we use english or american spelling?

i noticed some changes from american to english spelling, such as "center" to "centre" and "behavior" to "behaviour". while they are both correct spellings, i was under the impression we settled on using the american spellings just to be consistent, or am i wrong? what's the policy/guideline on this?Kevin Baas^talk 14:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a UK-English tag at the top of this talk page. The article does include "favour" and "colour" but not "favor" nor "color," for example. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

k, thanks. Kevin Baas^talk 15:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Origin of eukaryotes

The chapter Evolution of life was inconsistent about the origin of eukaryotes. It was saying both that the first endosymbiosis created the nucleus and that the first endosymbiosis created the mitochondrion. I simplified to saying the first endosymbiosis created the mitochondrion. A quick search showed that this point has been hotly debated into the last decade. Maybe someone has a more up to date insight in this. --Ettrig (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Randomness in evolution

The lead states the following: "Heritable variation is random and may result from mutation, genetic recombination or gene flow." This is false and needs to be corrected. The neutral theory of molecular evolution and random genetic drift are examples of 'random' or 'stochastic' evolution. The null model of the McDonald–Kreitman test, for example, looks at synonymous v. non-synonymous mutations as a neutrality test for molecular evolution. Other models can be used, such as the Poisson random field model (e.g., [91]):

"There is abundant evidence that synonymous mutations - changes at third (and some first) positions of codons that do not cause any change in the amino acid sequence - are subject to weak selection in Drosophila, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and fscherichia coli. I will briefly summarize the evidence here (see ref. 9 for more detail). The three species exhibit nonrandom usage of alternative codons, with a subset of codons being ‘preferred’."[92]

Those alternative codons are heritable and nonrandom. If the pattern in molecular evolution is inconsistent with the random neutral model, the null-hypothesis is rejected and the pattern it is said to be nonrandom and natural selection (or an alternative) is inferred. Hence, we can reject the claim of the sentence in the lead, because heritable variation is either random or nonrandom. Once again, the sentence (and the rest of the lead) only draws attention to variation that results from genetic processes, it contains errors, and it makes broad claims about evolution that cannot be substantiated. There has been tomes written in evolutionary texts and journals on variation that has nothing to do with genetics, yet this vital information is being ignored. Developmental heterchrony, for example, adds a great deal of variation into the evolutionary pool. This article keeps placing primacy on the gene-centered view of evolution, which is not wrong in itself - it is just a very narrow view of evolution and ignores a rich and vital history that would bring this article to NPOV status.Thompsma (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you got a simple proposal for re-wording? We need something simple and short because we don't want to try to everything into the lead. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. There is a chapter on variation. It describes 3 processes that produce variation, the processes that are mentioned in the offending sentence. My trial would be: Heritable variation is increased by mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow. The random part was probably intended to point out that the variants that are introduced this way are introduced without regard for their differences in influence on success in survival and reproduction.--Ettrig (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Thompsma is correct. While neutral theory holds mutations are random, we know from sequencing genomes where mutations are likely to occur are in "hotspots" and not random at all. So while the mutation maybe random where it occurs in the genome isn't. We know some sequence have 100% homology in all chordates and obviously not subject to random mutations. GetAgrippa (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This edit removes heritable from heritable variation. But heritable is essential in this context. Only the heritable traits evolve. --Ettrig (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Heritable is still in the opening lines, so I understand why we are trying to clean things up, but maybe indeed we could put that one back in?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The opening line has the word "inherited" and not "heritable" in it. Heritable or heritability is a technical term in evolutionary biology that means "the proportion of the variance among individuals in a trait, that is attributable to differences in genotype" Futuyma, Evolutionary biology (1998). Like other technical terms, I don't think this term should be used loosely. Inheritance of variation is implied by the fourth sentence, .."may result from mutation, genetic recombination or gene flow." I guess we can clarify the context by stating in the third sentence "...when there is variation of inherited traits." mezzaninelounge (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

eh, the sentence "Heritable variation is random and may result from mutation, genetic recombination or gene flow." doesn't even make sense. I think what someone was trying to say was that variation in what's in herited, which is not the same thing as heritable variation, just by rules of grammar and what not. in any case in the sentence it says, to paraphrase it, "the things that are different amoung members of a populuation AND can be inherited (passed down through generations) are random. while this is true to an extent, those things are also as they are due to pressures such as selection which reduce their variety. the world "random" here seems to imply a flat probability distribution with out any pressures on its variety or biases. (perhaps "stochastic" would be more appropriate?). then furthermore this confusion is compounded (via "and") with an entirely different idea altogether, which mentions a few way in which the variety of a gene-space can increase. and certainly this does not cause the very thing that it acts on ("heritable variation"), so the term "may result from" leads to a logical inconsistency. all in all not only is the sentence confusing but it is in some ways wrong. Kevin Baas^talk 15:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, it has already been changed. What do you think of the way it is phrased now? mezzaninelounge (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

i presume you mean this. I like it better. Only thing is i'd change "variation" to "variety" and i still thing the "may result from" is a logical inconsistency (chicken and the egg kind of thing). certainly those factors can increase variety, but that's different from saying that variety or variatability itself is a direct result of them. so i thnk this could benefit from rewording a little. Kevin Baas^talk 15:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, You presumed correctly. With respect to your suggestion of substituting variation with variety, the term "variety" is sometimes as a taxonomic rank to rank organisms below the species level (e.g., Darwin, Origin of Species). Variation is an accepted and conventional term since Darwin. Hence, Darwin's catchy phrase "variation under domestication." In the lead, we are talking about variation of inherited traits within a population. So if new traits do show up within this population or if there is a change in the proportion of such variation changes within this population, then that is usually a result of mutation, genetic recombination, or gene flow (migration). So there is no logical inconsistency. Perhaps, we should say "such variation or changes in variation may be the result of..." Anyway, quoting from Futuyma (1998),

"We noted in chapter 3 that individuals may differ in phenotype because of genetic differences, environmental differences, or both. We need to understand the causes of these differences, and how they can be distinguished.

The major sources of variation in phenotype are these:

1. Differences in genotype., i.e., in the DNA...."

mezzaninelounge (talk)

Presumably by variation you're refering to what cybernetics calls variety. (i.e. that within a genome there can be different sequences, thus the genome can encode information. and on a step up from that hierarchically in a species or ecosystem there can be different genomes. (so there's really two levels of variation here.) in cybernetics variety refers to the amount of variation, potential (available) or realized (depending on the context).) perhaps different wordings across different fields. i understand that there is no logical inconsistency in the actual process. i'm just saying as worded it's not so clear. it almost seems as the sentence is saying that the existence of DNA is a direct result of gene flow which is about circuitous and obviously not what we're trying to say. i like your suggestion of something like "changes in variation may be the result of...". though this wording is still more complicated that it needs to be. for instance "mutation and recombination are processes that can increase variety." is much simpler. (i left out gene flow here because i'm not sure gene flow neccessarily increases variety, except insofar as it introduces new permutations, but that's by way of recombination, which was already mentioned.) Kevin Baas^talk 16:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If we take variation to mean "differences in phenotype between organisms" within a population, then yes, gene flow can cause that. If we have a group of white mongrols, and all of sudden, brown mongrals migrated into that group, then the variation of that group has changed. If we take "variation" to mean the "phenotype itself" that differs from other phenotypes or "variant," then no. In this context, variation refers to the former sense. And since, we are talking about phenotypes, it cannot be that we talking about mutation as causing the existence of DNA but rather, mutation changes its sequence. Variation has also been wikified, so if there is any confusion, people can always go to the WP page that describes the term in detail. We cannot use the word variety for the reasons discussed. Evolution is a biological concept and so biological definitions take precedence. Plus, it would cause more confusion. A botanist may raise his/her objections to it on this talk page, which will open up a whole new debate. Nevertheless, I did think of some potential modifications that include the following:

1. The sources of such variation include mutation, genetic recombination, gene flow or a combination of the three.
2. Changes to variation or variation itself may be the result of mutation, genetic recombination or gene flow.
3. Mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow have been identified as major sources of such variation.

I find these proposed modifications unnecessarily wordy. But I am putting it out there in case many other folks have strong feelings about this. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I like number 3. it may be wordier (i haven't actually counted the words), but i think it's a lot clearer. though gene flow operates by way of recombination and putting them together like that implies that they're independant processes, so that stills seems a bit misleading to me. (i could argue that "sources" is ambigious and only correct insofar as it means that it "adds" variety, as distinct from being the "origin" or "first cause" of variety, but i think that would be being too petty, and it seems pretty unambigious from context anyways.) Kevin Baas^talk 17:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(oh, and with the "causes DNA" i was being a bit loose. i mean in a way it could sound like it causes it to have sequence that can be varied, in contrast to what we're really trying to say, which is that it can add variety to a pre-existing sequence that can be varied. a little difficult to express, as you can see.) Kevin Baas^talk 17:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Kevin before you jump to a new subject, do we go ahead with the above number 3? To me also it seems best of the 3 options.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

fine by me. Kevin Baas^talk 21:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

back on the subject of "random" mutations. (i just started to look over older discussion.) by "not random" i presume is mean that it IS in fact a random variable, but the probability distribution is not FLAT. "random" does not directly imply a flat probability distribution. and in fact, a probability distribution that is flat from the perspective (i.e in relation to one variable) is entirely not flat with respect to almost every other. sot he whole idea of an innately "flat" probability distribution is a bit of a red herring in itself. that aside, maybe where people aren't entirely comfortable with the word "random", using the word "stochastic" would be better (which is on a deeper level really the same thing). we certainly can't say it's "deterministic" because the outcomes aren't predictable, and by the same logic we can't say that it's NOT random because that would also be equivalent to saying that the outcomes are exactly predictable, and they are not. Kevin Baas^talk 18:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"Evolution may occur when there is variation of inherited traits within a population. The major sources of such variation are mutation, genetic recombination or gene flow." better. by evolution "may" occur when gets oneself enough logical leeway. variety is a neccessary but not sufficient condition for evolution. you also need things which increase variety (which follows in the next sentence). but then you need things which systematically reduce it (e.g. selective pressure), and a metaheuristic rule (search strategy) such as recombination. those three things are then neccessary and sufficient conditions. but the paragraph gets away from having to provide that with the clever use of the word "may". anycase i think that's a bit better. Kevin Baas^talk 18:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the great aspects to the neutral theory of molecular evolution (which is different than random genetic drift, by the way) is that it counter-intuitively makes evolution predictable if it is indeed random (or stochastic). If changes in molecular evolution truly proceed by a stochastic model, then the model will parallel the process (it is explained quite well in this book[93], but unfortunately I can't find an online copy at this time). If this article is going to be well-rounded NPOV including old as well as new ideas in evolution the following needs to be headed:

• there is more to heredity than genes;
• some heriditary variations are nonrandom in origin;
• some acquired information is inherited;
• evolutionary change can result from instruction as well as selection.[94]

Moreover, "in complex functional systems, a stress-induced increase in phenotypic and genetic variance is often directional, channelled by existing ontogenetic pathways."[95] - this is where I was going with the 'antiquated' idea of orthogenesis earlier on - German scholars have a different take on this idea, but I wont go into that depth. More to the point and yet again, we see in the list being proposed:

1. The sources of such variation include mutation, genetic recombination, gene flow or a combination of the three.
2. Changes to variation or variation itself may be the result of mutation, genetic recombination or gene flow.
3. Mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow have been identified as major sources of such variation.

that everything is going back to the gene as a source of variation. Why? I will keep complaining about this until people get this right. I fully comprehend and know how important genes are in evolution, but we cannot reduce everything down to the gene and ignore all the other dimensions in the biological hierarchy. Epigenetic spatial patterning is very important. I mentioned heterochrony as a source of variation. In development of growth and form genes have a very important role, but remember that populations of cells will have different developmental switches turned off and the gradient of gene expression and cellular form leads to a different induction context. When two cellular somatic tissues meet (i.e., morphogenic fields), the induction process creates morphological changes that are to a large extent responsible for developmental variation (e.g., [96]). This paper[97] gives an overview:

"Examples of such studies are reviewed in this paper and it is argued that this new application of heterochrony provides an extraordinarily rich opportunity for understanding the developmental basis of evolutionary change."

Hence, it is my hope - yet again, that we get off this reductionist gene-centered approach to evolution and integrate evolution across the biological hierarchy. Everyone who keeps on this gene-centered view is making evolution out to be far too prescriptive and limited in its scope. I realize that we can't present all the ideas, but why is everyone so intent of presenting only one idea? The gene-centered view can be introduced, but I disagree with the way that it dominates in this article as though genes are the bits that are bouncing about and causing all the variation that we see. Moreover, people are getting the ideas wrong even when discussing evolution at this level. Check your original sources, provide citations with links, and think more broadly.Thompsma (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, when i mention genes in discussion i'm just using it as an example. i do like the idea of keeping this article more general whenever possible. after all, we do have articles for more gene-centric approach. while evolution as such is a broader and more abstract topic. and the article should reflect that. Kevin Baas^talk 19:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Also mutation and genetic recombination are not neccessarily gene-centric. they are more abstract terms, really. and in the phrase "genetic recombination" the word "genetic" is not actually refering to "genes", as it where, but to genotype as opposed to phenotype, in their more rudimentary philosophical distinctions. also, they just list these things as thing that have been identified as major contributors. and they have. and it does meet WP:notabiltiy. Kevin Baas^talk 19:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

oh, but i see our article on genetic recombination does only talk about it in the specific sense of DNA. tsk. tsk. Kevin Baas^talk 19:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

and FWIW i understand you're talking about e.g. turing, thompson, goodwin, and kauffman, to put some faces to it. and i'm all about that stuff. Kevin Baas^talk 19:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Genes should have a central role in this article and I understand that recombination and mutation are not necessarily gene-centric, but the way it keeps being introduced and discussed in this article is gene-centered. I'm asking editors to be more cognizant of their pre-conceived notions about genes and their primacy in evolution, which I believe stems from the popularized Dawkin's selfish gene's (very narrow and hotly contested in peer-review). Kevin_Baas - you are correct, D'Arcy Thompson and Brian Goodwin have had an influence on my thinking - but there are many others, such as Brian Hall and his ilk who are exploring developmental systems theory[98]. However, I'm not trying to expand the scope of evolution into novelty areas, I'm trying to bring this back to the basics of evolution in its proper historical form and away from the reductionist prescript. It needs to be made absolutely clear and I think from the outset (i.e., the lead) that evolution is hierarchical. It has and always will remain a hierarchical science - going back to Linnaeus to Richard Owen and the concept of homology - evolution has been about finding and explaining the order of nature. Homology is hardly mentioned in this article, yet it has one of the most pivotal roles in our understanding of and 'seeing' patterns in evolution (i.e., non-random - seemingly 'fitted' to the environment) on a macro-organ level. Homology is also important at the genetic level necessitating paralogous and orthologous distinctions toward understanding the process of genetic duplication so aptly described by Susumo Ohno in his landmark book 'Evolution by gene duplication'[99]. Characters, traits, and states are general terms that apply to genes as much as they apply to morphology. Integrating these concepts hierarchically and systematically is where the real synthesis of evolution has taken place. Please integrate the science as it has been represented in its historical and broader context and stop with the idea of genetic juggling in the lead. The lead needs to be more general and broad.Thompsma (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of the contributors have asked me several time to give a simple break down of my ideas or to provide an example sentence or sentences for the lead. I have done this multiple times in my posts. However, every time I present something that is more general and hierarchical - people respond by saying that they don't like it and then they offer a re-write that goes back to evolution in gene-centered terms. Hence, it seems to me that what people like is the gene-centered focus and this is what they want to see. How do we break out of this cycle?Thompsma (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

My humble suggestion is that you make your suggestions simpler in terms of English and a bit less ambitious in terms of how much meaning and sub-meaning you try to fit into every sentence. :) I do think we are all interested, so please don't give up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thompsma, since you were kind enough to provide unsolicited advice to some of us, I would like to return a compliment, which I think will increase your probability of success here and also perhaps "break the cycle."

1. Please stop getting hysterical. This is not the House of Commons. If you have an issue, be specific and present it. But please stop ranting about it.
2. Please evaluate your arguments carefully because there are several logical fallacies that you tend to make all the time. For example, you keep dismissing or criticizing concepts and facts in this article because they "represents a view," which is a flawed argument. Of course no one listens because no one is convinced by an argument like that. If a concept or a fact is correct, who cares what it is called. The main issue is, “have we forgotten to talk about something else?” That is a question that can be worked on. And do temper the language as you do give an impression that you have a "preconceived" notion that you are always right and everyone else is always wrong.
3. Please stop misquoting and mischaracterizing arguments or statements from other editors. For example, I provided that list to be helpful as there were complaints about an existing phrasing of a sentence in this article. By the way, if you are going to criticize an editor or a text, don't just say "people." Be specific as I would like to know you are talking about, especially if it is me.
4. Please make sure you read and fully understand the references that you give and also understand how it relates to the present issue. I have looked at some of the references you gave and looked at the issue that we discussed and wondered why you even provided a reference that doesn’t speak to the issue at hand. Also, stop throwing buzz words or phrases around or bring up all sorts of tangents that are not relevant to the main issues. It is very disorienting and is is the sort of thing that a first year pre-med student tends to do. I don't even want to know where you think you were going with that bit on Linnaeus and "Order of Nature."
5. Please stop introducing red herrings. For example, you sometimes talk about epigenetics (a vague and unhelpful term invented by geneticists). Yes, epigenetics is important but it does not exclude or preclude genetic mechanisms. In fact, they are part of the same developmental story. There is absolutely NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING in the entire lead that excludes or contradicts developmental or physiological mechanisms that involve epigenetics. It is just that the lead doesn't talk about them, which is a different and practical issue. So PLEASE STOP RANTING about a problem that doesn't exist. You are inferring more than it's necessary!
6. Please stop threatening us with "complaining" as a way of getting what you want. You're wasting everyone's time when you do that.
7. Finally, every other editor on this talk page is genuinely interested in wanting to work with you on this and are convinced by your sincerity in wanting to make this a better article. But most of the time, they (myself included) are just confused about what exactly it is you are dissatisfied about or want to see change because you keep presenting a "moving target." It doesn't help that they (myself included) get turned off by the excessive verbiage and tangents. Also, how about a little "live and let live" or a "little thank you" from time to time when things, no matter how small, do go your way?

So do you want to try this again? This time with a little more calmness? Perhaps take a chill pill? mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Geez...with such an inviting and pleasant proposal, how could I refuse!! To be honest, I don't appreciate it. Focus on the topic at hand. Evolution, because I'm not here seeking personal advise - thank you very much. A few points I find particularly bothersome is: "Please stop misquoting and mischaracterizing arguments" - provide some examples and take a lesson in your own words. "Please make sure you read and fully understand the references that you give and also understand how it relates to the present issue." - I have read every paper and every book I posted from start to finish and I keep a journal of reflection for a book on Evolution that I've been writing on my own. "Please stop introducing red herrings. For example, you sometimes talk about epigenetics (a vague and unhelpful term invented by geneticists)." - the term was was not invented by geneticists and it isn't vague at all. Obviously you don't understand what epigenetics is and should return to the point of attack you made against me for not reading the material. "Please stop threatening us with "complaining" as a way of getting what you want." - very condescending and not even worth a retort. I'm not in here to make friends, I'm in here to contribute and volunteer my free time. If people don't like what I'm writing - that's fine, they can choose to ignore me, but they can't choose to ignore the publications and well-sourced material I provide to back-up my claims.Thompsma (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"I don't even want to know where you think you were going with that bit on Linnaeus and "Order of Nature."" - The title of this discussion point is 'Randomness in evolution' - so take one moment to reflect on how this relates to 'Order of Nature' - one is random, the other is not - random is an antonym of order. People were trying to say that heritable variation is random, meanwhile there is an entire generation of researchers who have sought to explain on the 'Order of Nature' (see, for example [100] - a wonderful book on this topic and a rebuttal against the random statement in this article).Thompsma (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thompsma, listen, if you can't take personal advice, then you probably shouldn't be dishin it so freely to everyone else. It is all over the place in your previous post. What goes around comes around. And no, I don't ignore publications, I just don't accept every trash that is on paper. Try to be an educated consumer and a critical thinker, it is part of being a scientist. By the way, I study what is referred to as "epigenetics," even before the word became fashionable. So go teach someone else to suck eggs. Good bye now boychick. mezzaninelounge (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

For the more mature contributors, let's ignore the previous indecent posts and stick to discussing the topic at hand. I came across this book[101], which talks about a historical debate between Ernst Mayr and J.S.B. Haldane on 'beanbag genetics', which is really the crux of my concern that I've been making in here. This book highlights in a very concise manner much of what we are debating and shows how this has been a historical narrative in evolutionary history:

"it is less important for the understanding of evolution to know how genetic variation is manufactured than to know how natural selection deals with it....The Mendelian was apt to compare the genetic contents of a population to a bag full of colored beans. Mutation was the exchange of one kind of bean for another. This conceptualization has been referred to as 'beanbag genetics'...To consider genes as independent units is meaningless from the physiological as well as the evolutionary viewpoint. Genes not only act (with respect to certain aspects of the phenotype) but also interact." (Ernst Mayr)

Notice also that these ideas were cogently argued and supported by Conrad Waddington, the developmental biologist who coined the term epigenetics in the 1940's contrary to what mezzaninelounge tried to say above, Waddington wasn't just a geneticist, but he looked at the great morphological details from a molecular to cellular scale and even wrote about evolutionary social studies. You can also learn from this that beanbag genetics is really the synthesis of random models that were put forward by the early geneticists who sought to explain evolution in much the same way that people are trying to define it here. For example, this quote: "The emphasis in early population genetics was on the frequency of genes and on the control of this frequency by mutation, selection, and random events. Each gene was essentially treated as an independent unity favored or discriminated against by various causal factors."[102] - sounds a lot like what I'm reading in the lead and it is an antiquated view that has been rejected.Thompsma (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

@Thompsma: Correction, the word epigenetics was first used by William Arthur in 1883 , which was initially used as an adjective of epigenesis, a word that was first used in 1798. If you're going to be pedantic about the etymology of a term, at least get the facts right. The minor point I should have made was that developmental biologists typically do not use that term because it is redundant. If you don't believe me, then go check the journal Development and see how many articles use that term. Besides, this is a minor distraction from the major point that I'm trying to make, which is that your tedious, one-sided, and obnoxious rants are getting old and are extremely unhelpful!

The Beanbag genetics book on Haldane and Mayr is a good one. I do like the part where Haldane said "I'm an unrepentent beanbag geneticist." But it is mainly a history book and not a primary literature. It is only to be taken as seriously as Watson's The Double Helix. There are two sides in this book and the author (Haldane's student) recounts them and does not take sides. So I find it interesting and predictable that you, Thompsma, took sides and only provided a quote from Mayr to support your views while ignoring those by Haldane. Again, arguing from one side and being selective on sources or parts of sources just to support your agenda. Popper called this approach verificationism[103]. An approach that was mainly used by Freud and Marx. We're here to talk science, not ideology. So you need to do better.

Once again, the lead in this article is not contradicted in any way by the Beanbag genetics book. It is fine and is consistent with the primary literature and conventional books on evolution. If anything, it is also consistent with classic and controlled experiments by Richard Lenski and John Endler. Lenski and Endler studied changes in inherited traits over time using populations of bacteria [104] and fish [105] respectively. Guess what? The proportion of inherited traits within the population changed over time! These controlled experiments demonstrate evolution right in front of our very eyes. THESE ARE FACTS AND NOT SOME VIEW! It is neither "antiquated" nor "rejected." So get over it and move on to something more productive! mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Come on now let's be civil. I'm too old to get in such a pissin contest-prostate problems LOL,hee,hee. No seriously, seems like progress is being made to some degree. Back to "randomness in evolution". Here is a Science article that addresses the limitations of Darwinian possiblities in bacterial mutations for lactamase:Darwinian Evolution Can Follow Only Very Few Mutational Paths to Fitter Proteins .Daniel M. Weinreich, Nigel F. Delaney, Mark A. DePristo, and Daniel L. Hartl.Science 7 April 2006: 111-114. [DOI:10.1126/science.1123539]. Here is the abstract:"Five point mutations in a particular β-lactamase allele jointly increase bacterial resistance to a clinically important antibiotic by a factor of ∼100,000. In principle, evolution to this high-resistance β-lactamase might follow any of the 120 mutational trajectories linking these alleles. However, we demonstrate that 102 trajectories are inaccessible to Darwinian selection and that many of the remaining trajectories have negligible probabilities of realization, because four of these five mutations fail to increase drug resistance in some combinations. Pervasive biophysical pleiotropy within the β-lactamase seems to be responsible, and because such pleiotropy appears to be a general property of missense mutations, we conclude that much protein evolution will be similarly constrained. This implies that the protein tape of life may be largely reproducible and even predictable." Seems where mutations occur and the type that occurs may not be random at all. Copy Number Variants maybe more responsible for variation than SNPs and these occur in hotspots and are also heritable. Even monozygotic twins can have Copy Number Variations. GetAgrippa (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks GetAgrippa. Can you think of any changes that should be made to improve the article based on this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

GetAgrippa, point taken. :) The word "random" was removed from the lead for the reasons that you suggest. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Epigenesis was defined by William Arthur in 1883. Epigenetics, on the other hand, was introduced later: "In the mid-1960s, Waddington wrote: “Some years ago [e.g. 1947] I introduced the word ‘epigenetics,’ derived from the Aristotelian word ‘epigenesis,’ which had more or less passed into disuse, as a suitable name for the branch of biology which studies the causal interactions between genes and their products which bring the phenotype into being.”2 He had coined a very clever little term."[106] - but let's not get overly pedantic here, but, "If you're going to be pedantic about the etymology of a term, at least get the facts right." You are also wrong about developmental biologists not using the term - it is used widely in evo-devo (e.g., [107] and search here[108], and here [109] - it is used widely by evolutionary and developmental biologists). I also posted Mayr's quotes and did not quote Haldane - even though I read and enjoyed Haldane's response[110] in full - because I have cited numerous examples above from other contemporary sources that support Ernst Mayr's thesis with data and experiments to back up the claims. Fisher also gave a counter claim - I should add - but the more contemporary view on genetic networks is changing these perspectives (see [111]), plus Sewall Wright always supported Mayr's contention and always discussed his mathematical principals in context of gene networks in a hierarchical view. It is true that beanbag genetics has not been entirely rejected, but it has been rejected as the sole explanation for evolution as the lead in this article implies and the approach to explain evolution in those terms alone is antiquated. Once again, I am not saying that the gene-centered approach is wrong, what I am saying is that the rich literature on the expanded synthesis through the hierarchical view of evolution is missing. Some of the greatest thinkers in evolution have talked about the hierarchical view at great length- yet these ideas cannot be encapsulated in this article as it currently stands and the lead misses the mark. These ideas cannot be ignored and missed in this article - it wouldn't be evolution without the hierarchical view that has been so pervasive in the history of the idea.Thompsma (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

@mezzaninelounge - "So get over it and move on to something more productive!" - this approach will not work with me. I have every bit of right to be here and to contest claims made in this article that you do. I'm drawing upon a rich source of literature in evolution and it has just as much claim to be included as anything else. I've also been highly productive in this article and corrected quite a few mistakes - this point on randomness in evolution being one of them. If you want to be more productive - then try to learn to work with me and to assist in the discussion on the topic at hand. I am aware that I am wordy and I accept this, so I am doing my best and recognize this flaw. The concept of randomness in evolution has more implications than random mutation, there are random events in the macro-development of complex systems - such as observed in self-similar scale free fractals adhering to power laws (see [112]): "Models with external dynamics: in the Bak–Sneppen (BS) model26,30,33, species are first assigned random fitness values. At each time step, the species with the lowest fitness goes extinct, and is replaced by, or mutates to, another species with a random fitness. This affects the livelihood of interacting species, which are also assigned new random fitnesses. As this darwinian evolution continues, extinction eventually takes place in the form of coevolutionary avalanches of all sizes. The largest ones can represent mass extinction events, which thus might take place without an external stress. This model leads to SOC (self-organized criticality) and power laws for any macroscopic quantity." (Freely accessible info on this can be seen in this Nature publication [113], and here [114], and for counter arguments - see here [115] and [116], and for a conciliatory argument - see here[117])That is just one example where randomness has a role in the macroscopic level of evolution - it also has roles in evo-devo (see [118], [119], and "current studies of “evo–devo,” the relationship between developmental programs and patterns of evolution, have demonstrated highly conserved patterns of gene expression and developmental sequencing in the organization of the body plan, the brain, and the eye, quite unlike the cumulative diversification of developmental programs across major taxa that selection on random adaptations would suggest"[120]) Randomness applies to developmental and species level adaptations as much as it applies to genes - adaptations (according to Gould and many others) can be a macroevolutionary phenomena at the interface of a replicating Darwinian interactor.Thompsma (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thompsma, I am afraid you and Waddington are mistaken on the etymology of "epigenetics." If you don't believe me, then go see the Oxford English Dictionary for details. They are usually pretty good about stuff like this or at least better than most people (Waddington included). By the way, William did not define epigenesis, he was the first to use the word "epigenetic." It was Willich and not William who used the term epigenesis in 1798. If you are going to argue that Waddington was the first to use the plural "epigenetics," then fine. Whatever.

On the minor point, I am talking about "developmental biologists" many of whom do not study evo-devo. So be careful when making sweeping statements like "widely used by developmental biologists." You may have to do an article count in the journals Developmental Biology and Development first before saying something like that. Finally, I'm not saying epigenetics is a bad word. I am just saying it is a vague word that no serious developmental biologist spends his or her time thinking about or arguing over. To say it is "epigenetics" is to state the obvious. That is like a chemists saying "matter can also exist as a gas." This may be news to some people who don't study development, but to a developmental biologists, it is old hat. So they don't bother to say it. If you want to use the term, then fine. I'm just saying to you, "so what?" The lead doesn't say that epigenetics does not occur and it explicitly says that inherited traits are due to gene-environmental interactions. That is about as vague and inclusive of a phrase as you are ever going to get.

I am 100% certain that Conrad Hal Waddington coined the term epigenetics and these peer-reviewed articles explicitely state that Waddington coined the term: [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126]...and I can supply an even longer list of articles. You are absolutely wrong on this point and epigenetics is not the plural form of epigenesis.

Your note on it being a vague word tells me that you are quite ignorant about this concept and its evolutionary implications. If it was a vague word, then why would you see it published in peer-reviewed scientific journals - including Science[127], Nature[128], Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences[129], Evolution[130], and so on? Are you going to argue that those scientific organizations and institions are publishing articles that are vague about their ideas? I would suggest that you re-read through your post and ask yourself if you are really thinking about this in a logical or rational way. Epigenetics is a scientific term that is used extensively in the field of developmental biology, evolution, and in my own research at the University of Northern British Columbia where I have managed a genetics lab for several faculties. I am not arguing that epigenetics be included in the lead - you are not reading my posts properly. I am saying that the gene-centered focus in the lead and in the rest of the article is excluding an extremely rich history of evolutionary science and how it has developed by some of the greatest evolutionary thinkers - including Charles Darwin[131]. "Charles Darwin argued that, although natural selection is the sole mechanism that causes evolution, both divergence and extinction shape the larger-scale patterns that emerge from this process." I have covered this critical aspect to evolutionary theory very broadly under the heading of the hierarchical of natural selection, which includes research developments in epigenetics, group selection, macroevolution (punctuated equilibria/species selection), individuality, developmental modularity, criticality, ecological heritability, niche construction, ecosystem engineering and multi-level selection. The hierarchical view has been discussed extensively throughout the history of evolutionary discussion - including those involved in the neo-Darwinian synthesis. I think we can put a sentence or two on this in the lead of this article and I also think that randomness has an important bearing on evolution in this respect.Thompsma (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh Thompsma, I never said epigenetics is the plural of epigenesis. If you read my post carefully, you would know that I clearly implied that epigenetics is the plural of epigenetic. Cheap shots as always.
• With respect to your references on the etymology of epigenetics, of course you can supply a long list. Who couldn't once the blind has lead the blind? Going by your logic, I suppose all peer-reviewed journal articles are gold and never have mistakes (e.g., [132])? And I suppose two independent and widely used dictionaries: Oxford English Dictionary (British) [133] and the Merriam-Websters (American) [134] dictionary are just plain wrong. If you want to resolve this, I guess you will just have to see it for yourself by reading this Fernley lecture [135] by Arthur. It is on page 160, towards the end of the middle paragraph where it says, "for epigenetic progress,..." This lecture was given in 1883 and Waddington obviously never read it.
• I never said epigenetics should be included in the lead either. Remember, you brought it up by saying that the lead ignores or doesn't consider epigenetics as it supposedly keeps going back to the gene. If this is not what you intended, then maybe you should be clearer.
• As for epigenetics being a vague term, lets look at the following examples:

1. Activity-dependent development of the neuromuscular synapse [136]
2. DNA methylation of genomic imprinting [137]
3. Cellular differentiation [138]

• What do all these mechanisms have in common? Chemically and physically? Nothing. They are listed here because they are considered "epigenetic," which is "the study heritable changes in gene expression that occurs without a change in DNA sequence [139]." OK, they are epigenetics. So what? Is that suppose to be profound? Are we suppose to go gaga over this word? Aside from the obvious, what does it tell me? Does this word tell me how development works? Does it tell me which proteins or cells are involved? Does it tell me which stage of development is critical? No, it doesn't. Hence, for these reasons alone, IT IS vague. Again, looked at the journals Developmental Biology and Development. Almost every article in them is one epigenetic story after another. If you like broad strokes and don't do detail, then of course you would think it is a specific word. So use it if you like. Impress your friends with it. But please, spare me and the rest the brouhaha. You haven't told me or anyone else anything that we don't already know.
• By the way, did you ever study logic? How does me calling something vague make me ignorant about it? And so what if you are a lab manager (I feel sorry for the lab technicians already) and that you know some folks. Is that suppose to makes you knowledgeable and infallible? Those are non sequiturs. Seriously, it is obvious you never learned deductive reasoning. Your arguments are so illogical. You should check this introductory book on logic [140]. You really need it.
• I think I've lost my appetite in wanting to work with you on this article. It is clear from your last post that you have regressed back to your obnoxious, insecure, and ignorant self. Maybe you missed my trivial sarcasm about the use of the term, epigenetics, and want to pursue it like it is a major topic of discussion here. Or maybe you just like to argue and have the final word, or as GetaGrippa puts it, enjoy a "pissing contest." Whatever it is, I'm done with this rubbish discussion. I have wasted far too much time on it. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

@mezzaninelounge, sure enough, 'epigenetic' appears in 1883 in a book by W. Arthur[141]. However, it is also true that Waddington coined the term in its modern context and extended meaning that goes well beyond Arthur's use of the term, which was nothing more than a variant spelling of epigenesis. Hence, this is why researchers attribute Waddington to the term: "He is rightly recognized as having coined the term epigenetics. To do justice to his many original ideas, it is necessary to investigate exactly where his legacy with regard to epigenetics stands today, and what has been left behind."[142]. As for the rest of your rant about the term being vague - it is absurd and stupid (a term I rarely attribute to anyone). Perhaps you have not read any of Conrad Hal Waddington's extensive list of publications on development and evolution? I've read five of his books and do not find the term to be vague at all. It is vague to you, because you have not read the material and this is why your post about epigenetics being a 'vague' term is stupid. Waddington is an instrumental figure in evolutionary history and in developmental biology beyond his ideas on epigenetics. Although Sewall Wright did not use the term epigenetics often, he described it in several papers in the way that we would define epigenetics in the modern sense on the relationship between genotype to phenotpye: "Of greater importance for major evolutionary changes are probably the unpredictable major interaction effects of genes, referred to earlier, for which Figure 1D with the full complexity expected from the network of biochemical and developmental processes, is intended to be the model. The selective topography would be correspondingly more complex."[143] Wright talked about this model (see his Figure 1D) in several of his publications and compared it to Fisher and Haldane's models of dominance, claiming that Mayr was incorrect to lump his own work and Fisher's dominance model into beanbag genetics, but Mayr was correct to put Haldane's theories into this category. He also noted that his model accounted for pleiotropy and expanded on the idea of universal pleiotropy[144]: "We are sure, for example, that development is an epigenetic process. The genes can not stand in the simple one to one relation to morphological characters of a preformationist theory. Genetic data are of course in harmony. Each character is affected by many genes and each gene affects many characters."[145]. "The epigenetic nature of development implies secondary pleiotropy as an almost universal principal."[146] If you are still unsure about epigenetics and think it is too 'vague', Brian K. Hall (an evolutionary developmental biologist) wrote the following: "I endeavoured to provide a definition of epigenetics that would encompass what I saw as the four essential elements of epigenetic control of development; (a) that epigenetic control can be genetic or non-genetic, (b) that cells are the embryonic unit of epigenetic action, (c) that it is gene expression that is controlled epigenetically, and (d) that epigenetics results in the development of increasing phenotypic complexity (Hall, 1992). Thus, in a definition taken from that study, epigenetics is 'the sum of the genetic and non-genetic factors acting upon cells to selectively control the gene expression that produces increasing phenotypic complexity during development'."[147] - in that same paper, Brian Hall also claims that Waddington coined the term epigenetics - hence, it is universally accepted that Waddington coined the term and a new discipline of science. Once again, this is not just about epigenetics - I had to go through that exercise with you because you are not only ignorant about epigenetics, but about a whole area of evolution in its hierarchical context. If you want to argue that the ideas about evolution that were espoused by Conrad Waddington, Sewall Wright, Ernst Mayr, Stephen J. Gould, Brian K. Hall and others are irrelevant to this article - then you really are being stupid. The genetic reductionist explanation of evolution is wholly inadequate and it censors a rich history of evolution that has been explained in its proper hierarchical context: "There appears good evidence that variation is channeled by internal and external sources [18],[19], that evolution is hierarchical and selection acts at multiple levels, and that some—but certainly not all—microevolutionary processes extrapolate over geological time [20]."[148] "The existence of such a hierarchical trend has been widely acknowledged...It is also-to my knowledge-unchallenged."[149] Unless a hierarchical view is introduced in this article, it will not be able to explain or define evolution in its proper historical or contemporary context.Thompsma (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thompsma, just 2 corrections and 1 reaffirmation.

1. I never called you a technician. I implied I feel sorry for your lab technicians for having to work for a manager like you. You may delete that accusation but it is on record [150].
2. I never disregard any of the work by Waddington et al. I never even disregard epigenetics. I never even disregard multilevel selection. I even offered to work with you on multilevel selection.
3. The fact that you don't carefully read what I wrote, respond to my points clearly, discuss issues sensibly or logically, AND that you would make up or misinterpret what I said proves my point that you are (1) an unpleasant individual and (2) someone that no one here (or anywhere else) can work with. Look at what you just wrote about epigenetics in your last post, it doesn't even contradict what I said. It is just a collection of quotes and definitions. You don't even have a coherent point. You are just blabbering and quoting like a right-wing religious nut. Blabber Blabber Blabber.

Talk about lame and weak. "Coined the term in its modern context." How rich. You either coin a term or redefine it. Not both. Where did you learn to reason? At the Discovery Institute perhaps? mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Unlike some people, I correct my mistakes. I re-read your post several times and realized that I had mis-read your statement about lab technicians, so I corrected. Your retort is petty, juvenile, and you are just looking to score points.
• Fortunately, for us, you don't speak for the whole world. If you want to ignore and disregard published literature and make your own interpretations on it - go ahead, but this is wikipedia and that kind of approach is discouraged. Once again, I've provided published and referenced material from reliable sources to back up my claims - you reject the literature and want to claim that I'm somehow in line with the Discovery Institute? Ignoring literature is what Behe did in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which is why evolution won and Behe was ridiculed. You have employed scorn and ridicule as your preferred tactic against my posts and then you want to lecture me on logic and reason? It couldn't get any more ridiculous.
• You stated: "Talk about lame and weak...How rich. You either coin a term or redefine it. Not both.", Brian Hall and many other evolutionary publications state: "Some of the terms and concepts coined by Waddington—epigenetics, epigenetic landscape,..."[151], "Waddington coined the term 'epigenetics' to marry genetics with the ancient but updated notion of epigenesis..."[152] - So I ask, to whom are you aiming this criticism? Are these peer-reviewed authors lame, weak, and mistaken? Even if you think they are, this is not the place to conduct original research. Either there is a long list of published papers that are incorrect (and yes, this does happen in science) or these experienced authors are familiar enough with the history to understand that Waddington did indeed coin the term epigenetics in its modern context (i.e., ' to marry genetics with the ancient but updated notion of epigenesis'[153]). Until you provide me with a publication on the history of the term that says that these people are mistaken in their views, then I suggest you keep quite on your mistaken idea.
• Onto the topic that this is supposed to be about - randomness in evolution - the lead still needs to be adjusted. The reference to randomness has been taken out (unnecessarily so) and the rest of the lead remains too narrow in its presentation and definition of evolution. For example, "Evolution may occur when there is variation of inherited traits within a population." - This implies that there are instances where there is no variation of inherited traits in a population and instances where evolution does not occur. It may occur? No. Evolution does occur and there is variation of traits across the hierarchy, not just within a population. Evolution occurs even in the cells of your body - heteroplasmy, for example, forms different mitochondrial lineages within the somatic cell line that can differentially compete and be passed onto the germ line.[154]: "As Lewontin (1970) pointed out, selection will act among units at any level of organization that exhibits three basic principles: l. phenotypic variation, 2. differential fitness of phenotypes, and 3. transmission of fitness phenotypes. The hierarchical nesting of mtDNAs within organelles, cells, tissues, and individuals allows for each of these principles to apply at more than one level."[155]
• Once again, I provide an cited example of evolution in a hierarchical context that cannot be explained or understood within the limiting confines of this articles definition of evolution. Without a hierarchical perspective being introduced, evolution cannot be properly defined or understood.Thompsma (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• @Thompsma, you never corrected the mistake as much as tried to hide it. To correct a mistake would be to do a strike through, acknowledge it, and apologize for it. So far, NONE. All you do is ignore and backtrack while bringing up more red herrings.
• As Richard Dawkins would say, you are a history denier. Waddington never coined the term, epigenetics. He just redefined and expanded the term. Period. You can repeat that lie that he "coined the term." You can point to peer-reviewed articles and you can reinterpret and rewrite history by appealing to authority. But that does not change the fact that you are now perpetuating a lie and as result, you are a disingenuous liar.
• Wikipedia has a policy on the misuse of sources. Read it first before lecturing me on sources. The fact that you would use a Wikipedia policy to perpetuate a lie shows the length that you would go to protect your ego, which is just egregious.
• Fortunately, there are still skeptical people who do not slavishly adhere to everything in peer-reviewed journals, even the best of them. Imagine if they did, we would never have caught people such as Hwang Woo-suk [156] and Evan Dreyer [157]. Just to name a few. Not even an isolated problem [158]. As scientists, we don't want just peer-reviewed papers. We want papers based primarily on the evidence. No cheap tricks such as analogies, just-so stories, redefinitions, and arm-chair reasoning. Just good solid evidence.
• I employ scorn to your posts because you offer me nothing to work with. I repeat, "NOTHING." At the very least, I should be allowed to humor myself after wasting my time reading a whole lot of nothing from you.
• First, you criticize the lead for having the word "random" in it and now you criticize the lead for not having the word random. Fickle minded and presenting a moving target. How nice and courteous of you. Not. And the rest? Pfff... Obviously, you've never read Hardy-Weinberg or understand the scientific method. Calling the shot even before rolling a dice. Good one. mezzaninelounge (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Most of your post is so petty, small, and so outlandish that it does not deserve a response. I never criticized the lead for having the word random in it - I criticized it for misuse of the term. You are a funny individual - let me tell you, dense, thick, and absurd, but funny at the same time. lol.
• As for the so called 'lie' (feels like kindergarten responding to your silly statements!) regarding Waddington's coining of the term epigenetics, I think you really need to go back to pre-school. The historical accident that the word epigenetic was used in place of epigenensis does not mean that the word was coined in 1883 - it had no meaning at that point in history other than Aristotelian epigenesis with some artistic license. The meaning came to life after Waddington introduced the term epigenetics and elaborated on it in numerous books and peer-reviewed journals. I will take Waddington at his word that he coined it and that he was probably unaware of the obscure use of 'epigenetic' in 1883, which is quite possibly a misprint. If you read that book that was published in 1883, the meaning of epigenetic is nebulous and so it clearly relates to Aristotelian epigenesis, not epigenetics, which was never defined at that time. If the the word was coined in 1883, as you suggest - then where in that text does it give or explain its meaning? How many times was it used thereafter in that context and why did it replace epigenesis? Some words have multiple meanings and until the meaning is attached to the word, the full coinage of the term does not happen. Waddington was the first to coin the term epigenetics in its modern use. I sent out an e-mail to Brian Hall, Marian Lamb, and several other evolutionists who have published on the term to ask for their opinion on the matter. When I hear back I'll let you know what they think and I suspect that they would say that you are splitting hairs and not very accurately I might add.
• "As scientists, we don't want just peer-reviewed papers. We want papers based primarily on the evidence. No cheap tricks such as analogies, just-so stories, redefinitions, and arm-chair reasoning. Just good solid evidence." - that's a weird and partly correct statement. Are you suggesting that Waddington and others are up to 'cheap tricks' in an effort to distort history? It is up to peer-reviewers of respectable scientific institutions and journals to ensure that the science passes muster, sometimes they fail. Sometimes mistakes happen, dishonest and honest ones too. However, this is wikipedia and we are not in the practice of conducting science in here. We are trying to interpret the literature as adequately, unbiased, and reliably as possible. The examples of scientific fraud you have provided are absurd comparisons in relation to this example. Come on? Are you really being serious? Do you really think that this is some kind of scientific scandal? What are you - one of those youtube conspiracy theory types or something? If you are so determined that epigenetics was not coined by Waddington, I would suggest that you go and change its etymology in the main epigenetics entry - where it states that Waddington coined the term. You should also follow up with some e-mails to editors of journals, such as Nature: "The term 'epigenetics' was first coined in the 1940s by British embryologist and geneticist Conrad Waddington, to describe 'the interactions of genes with their environment, which bring the phenotype into being'. The term now refers to the extra layers of instructions that influence gene activity without altering the DNA sequence."[159] and in Science: "To start off, Gary Felsenfeld offers a brief historical sketch. He reminds us that the word “epigenetics” has its conceptual roots in the theory of epigenesis, which holds that complexity emerges progressively during development. (That view was opposed by the theory of preformation, which held that individuals develop by the enlargement of minute, fully formed organisms, the homunculus; the distinction can be traced back to Aristotle.) Conrad Waddington, in the early 1940s, coined the term epigenetics to describe “the interactions of genes with their environment, which bring the phenotype into being”"[[160]]- silly scientists, what are they thinking?Thompsma (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, when even one editor reaches this level of incivility and absense of good faith, it is time ither to drop it - period (i.e. do not even resply to this comment) OR take it to your talk pages. At this point your comments are no longer appropriate to this talk page or of interest to people watching it. If you feel you still have things to say to one another, use your own talk pages, that is what they are there for. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The peer-reviewed literature can say very different things-take the Race and Intelligence article for example-in my best Rodney Dangerfield-PLEASE! Take the Duesberg Hypothesis too-Pretty Please. Science is a process so we have to have some patience to let the issue of epigenetics work its way. My research at one time was in developmental biology (heart development) and although I changed fields a couple of times I can say with impunity as little as twenty years ago the issue was genes in development not epigenetics. We understood that teratogens influence development (often in negative ways) so there was an appreciation of environmental influences, but the emphasis then was in identifying genes. The environment effects were considered more detrimental than a part of normal development. We knew mercury could induce what were called “latent genes”, and arsenic and thermal stress would induce heat shock proteins, alcohols detrimental effects on development, etc. But methylation processes were not that interesting (a friend doing research on methylation of DNA , proteins , and metabolism could barely get support for his research-now he’s retired). Not that there wasn't some interest on environment and development, but identifying genes was the hot area-knockout gene or altered function mutations and how it alters development. Presently methylation patterns and the microRNAs regulating tissues types and various developmental processes is a hot area of research-also in cancer research, health disparities, monozygotic twin studies, regeneration, etc. All told a compelling story is emerging (and personally I believe it will), but the data isn’t all positive in all cases. I remember in the 60’s and 70’s all the consensus was we were entering another mini-ice age, now consensus is global warming. I feel we need to be patient and let the story be told. Further I can't help but notice that some of the arguments may border on Original research using the literature to synthesize and support an argument which is a no no. Anyways my two cents. Lastly this discourse above is kinda disturbing (bordering on pathologic). Think about it guys lots of people are reading this! The quicksand of your intellect, which is obvious both are intelligent. I fell for my on P.R. at one time-the fall nearly killed me, hee, hee,hee. GetAgrippa (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)