User talk:Doc Tropics/Evo talk

IMPORTANT - This "Discussion" page is only for discussion of issues related to Talk:Evolution. Trolling, soapboxing, and non-productive comments will be deleted immediately.

Insta-Archive

Introduction

There are several issues regarding Talk:Evolution that need to be addressed; ironically, the talkpage itself is reserved for discussing the article. I have therefore created this page to facilitate discussion of talkpage-related items. For the sake of clarity, seperate sections should be created for each specific topic. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could also set this up as a subpage of Talk:Evolution or as a subpage somewhere in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology Guettarda 05:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ

It has been suggested that we create a FAQ regarding the most common objections that repeatedly appear on the talkpage. While this won't eliminate trolling, it could certainly be useful. The FAQ should almost certainly include a proper definition of the term "Theory" as it is used in the article. This is probably the single most common point of confusion and contention for readers unfamiliar with technical terminology. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this be a duplication of the theory article? Titanium Dragon 21:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking we might provide a succint explanation of how the term is used in the Evolution article and a provide a specific link to the "Science" section of the Theory article. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I'd support it, and hopefully it'd at least generate somewhat fewer complaints about speedy archiving of people bringing up the same old tired misconception. Titanium Dragon 22:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive organization

Similar in purpose to a FAQ, it is possible to create archive sections that are organized by topic rather than chronology. This would allow us to quickly point newcomers to a specific archive and explain, ie "Thanks for your interest in this article. The issue you raise has been discussed at length on several occassions. Those discussions, and their results, can be found in the archive titled "Religous objections to Evolution". Please review the archive before starting a new discussion of this topic. Thank you." That's just one possible example, but it might help reduce repetitive objections. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Premature archiving

I strongly support "Instant archiving" of obviously non-productive comments. Unfortunately, many editors who take issue with the article will not be willing to accept that a point has already been discussed ad nauseum. While I admire the awesome patience and eminently reasonable explanations of regular contributors, I have seen that any response at all will simply encourage long, semi-coherent rants from individuals who have no real interest in improving the article. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As amusing as it is, it doesn't do anything to help improve the article :( Titanium Dragon 21:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving in the page history ;) Guettarda 05:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even tempt me...Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the archived discussion to Mr. Wax's page for his edification and amusement.--Filll 05:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should not respond to him because it is just the same thing over and over. I notice that he really did not absorb anything from all my efforts a day or two back. He basically wants the evolution article to read "This article is pure crap and you should ignore science because it is crap and believe in magic instead".--Filll 06:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ beginning

Here are some of the most common objections that arise over and over:

evolution is just a theory: Yes it is like the theory of gravity and the theory of plate tectonics. And the article is about the theory. The point of the article is to describe the theory, not the truth, reality, prove the theory, etc.
evolution isn't mentioned in the bible: No it is not, and that is not the point. This article is not to describe the biblical account or any other account, but the theory of evolution itself.
but evolution isnt true: This is irrelevant. The article is about the theory, true or not.
but evolution is controversial: This is true and mentioned in the article at the bottom.
evolution has holes in it: Yes it has holes in it like all theories. But this article is about the theory, holes and all.
evolution is not proved: No theory in science is proved. Proofs are only in mathematics. Proved or not, the article is about evolution.
Most scientists dont believe in evolution: This is not true, but even if it were, it is irrelevant. The article is about evolution.
evolution has not been observed: Actually evolution has been observed in the laboratory in organisms that breed rapidly. And the data that exist support evolution. Just as the electron has never been observed, but the data that exist support the electron model.
but there is no mention of the supernatural or God in the article: That is true. Because this is an article about a scientific theory, and scientific theories do not include God or the supernatural.
But you have assumed evolution with no room for debate: This is correct. This is an article about evolution, not a debate. However, the controversy is mentioned at the end of the article.
The way this article is written tends to provoke outrage: If you are outraged by the statement of the theory of evolution that is unfortunate. However, the purpose of the article is expository; to explain what is the theory of evolution, not to make readers feel better when it trods on religious toes.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs) --Oops yes this was me, Filll 03:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a good place to start; I actually like the repitition of the phrase "The article is about the thoery". One question: in #6, the middle sentence reads "Proofs are only in science."...shouldn't that be "Proofs exist only in mathematics."? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This of course is just a draft and a start. And you are quite correct about 6. That is a typo of course. This is why you have to go through a few draft versions first. I will change it to read "mathematics" above.--Filll 03:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might suggest the following adjustments (my changes to text are italicized)

Evolution is just a theory: Yes, it is like the theory of gravity and the theory of plate tectonics. And this article is about the theory. The point of the article is to describe the theory, not what a theory is.
Evolution is not proved: No theory in science is ever proved. Proofs exist only in mathematics. Proved or not, the article is about evolution.
Evolution has not been observed: This is not true. Evolution has been observed in the laboratory in organisms that breed rapidly. And the data that exist support evolution. Just as the electron has never been observed, but the data that exist support the electron model.
Evolution has holes in it: Scientific theories aren't required to be perfect the first time they are expressed. As research tools and knowledge base increase, the theory itself is altered to explain new facts. Yes it has holes in it like all theories. But this article is about the theory, holes and all.
Evolution isn't mentioned in the bible: No it is not, and that is not the point. This article is not to describe the biblical account or any other account, but the theory of evolution itself.
...but evolution is controversial: This is true, and mentioned in the article.
...but most scientists dont believe in evolution: This is not true; 95% of Earth scientists and 99.5% of Biologists accept the theory of evolution.
...but evolution isnt true: This is irrelevant. The article is about the theory, true or not.
...but I don't believe in Evolution: - Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!

I admit, we might want to reevaluate #9 : ) Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be cautious about using the word "evolve" in number 4 because it might confuse people. I might say the "theory itself must be altered to explain the new facts." or something similar, rather than use the word evolve again. Anyway, it is good to have it short and punchy and easy to read.--Filll 03:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I tweaked it to reflect your suggestion. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see that you have decided to make a FAQ. I think that the FAQ should be less partisan though. The answers should be comprehensive enough that they address all points that can be brought up. You should also be open to the possibility that the conclusions you expect the FAQ to support might be wrong and that once you are done with the FAQ, the consensus might be that the article should indeed reflect suggestions that have been made. --Ezra Wax 03:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Mr. Wax, what questions do you think should be in the FAQ? And the FAQ is just to avoid answering the same questions over and over and over. It is not to "support a conclusion" or anything, whatever that means. And I am not sure how it is partisan. It is just stating the bare facts. The article is about the theory, even if the theory is wrong or a piece of crap. Period. It is not about arguing for the truth of the theory or proving the theory or anything. --Filll 03:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we could probably expand the coverage, but need to maintain a balance between "brevity for the sake of readability" and "comprehensive content". As Filll pointed out "short, punchy, and easy to read" is a good thing. If it is too long, newcomers simply won't bother reading it; similar to the problem with the archives. On the other hand, if we don't give a satisfactory explanation to each point, we will again end up with lengthy debates on the article's talkpage. Regarding your suggestion that it should be "less partisan", I'm not entirely certain what you mean; perhaps you could offer some specific suggestions? The more input we get, the more we can polish this (which is only a very rough first draft at this point). --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of being a FAQ that answers why the evolution article is the way it is, it should be more of a debate weighing whether the article should be presented the way it is presented. Currently you are assuming that it should be, but really the question be reopened and examined in an exploratory fashion and then a decision should be made. I would recommend a long version that fairly examines each of the points in depth and a summary that summarizes each of the conclusions and points to the lengthier discussion. The in depth part of the debate would be different than the archived discussions as it would neutrally and succintly summarize the arguments that could be made for how the article should address the topics without any flaming, dead ends, or repetitions.--Ezra Wax 04:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense Mr. Wax, but I am not weighing in on creationist articles or religion articles insisting that they put prominently in the first few sentences statements that are really irrelevant to the text. For example, I might insist that at the start of every creationist article on Wikipedia that it say "Of course, it is widely accepted by all legal and judicial and scientific authorities that creationists are backwards and ignorant and refuse to acknowledge the facts that exist and want to exert Taliban-like influence over the rest of society by pushing their ignorant views on everyone else, and violating the separation of Church and State". I might also insist that the start of every article on the bible, or the Torah or the Koran that there be some disclaimer about how it is all about magic and the supernatural, which belongs in the dark ages and not the age of science and reason. However, I do not do that. And I do not expect them to do that to science articles. Because science is science. And science is about nature, not the supernatural. I think there is no point to, or chance of, changing the article to admit the possibility of the supernatural in a scientific theory. If that was the option, I would reccommend deleting the article entirely and having no article instead of putting some sort of superstitious nonsense in it. You are free to write your own long summary of what is in the history archives and place it on your talk page and then present it to people for their inspection. But I do not expect that people will want to expend a lot of energy to bend over backwards to accommodate creationists or religionists. It would be the end of the article. It would not be permitted.--Filll 04:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with your assumptions Ezra Wax. The purpose of the FAQ is to explain why the article "is the way it is", not to debate it. In fact, the entire point of this is to make further debate unnecessary by correcting some popular misconceptions about the topic. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All this is going to do is start people griping about the FAQ; on second thought, while kind of useful, I see endless griping about the FAQ. Also, stating "evolution has holes" is not a good idea. What holes? You'll just start griping and sniping about that too. I don't think it should be included. Titanium Dragon 06:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about point #4 (the holes), I think the idea of 'what a theory is' are already well-covered, which is the main idea behind that one. As to the rest, well, maybe there will be griping about the FAQ, but hopefully less than before. I thought it was worth a try and I'm willing to put some time into it. If it doesn't work out, I'm no worse off than if I had spent the time playing a computer game :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ

You might want to have a look at Talk:Intelligent_design#Points_that_have_already_been_discussed. Using that pattern over at Talk:Evolution was suggested in the past - I don't recall if there were objections or whether it was just that no one was interested in undertaking such a mammoth task - it's in the archives, somewhere :) Guettarda 05:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I haven't looked at it yet, but I will. I'm just having too much fun with, um...other thing, right now :) Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Observed? Holes?

What, please, are the holes in evolution? I don't see them. If you're talking about the eye, please read evolution of the eye. If you are concerned that evolution is not "observable" (this is usually taken to mean that you can take measurements to confirm its existence), please read antibiotic resistance. Don't give in to the intelligent design FUD - that is the part that has gaping holes in it, not the theory of evolution by natural selection! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "holes" I mean that ALL scientific theories are dynamic and in fields that are active, there are always data, observations, experiments etc that are elucidating different aspects of nature that were not previously expected, or appear (sometimes erroneously) to be exhibiting features that are not in concordance with the dominant theory. This is natural and to be expected. For example, if you are studying gravity, everyone knows there are some "holes" or problems:

apparent antigravitational forces on cosmic scales
difficulty reconciling gravity with other forces
confusion and misunderstanding about quantum gravity and where to look for it
lack of observations of gravitons, or other features
Some experiments that appear to have too much variance in the results, or some bias, etc
problems with mathematics in some gravitational theories
problems understanding about what to do mathematically inside the Schwarzschild radius
not enough observational evidence for some features like miniblack holes, Hawking radiation or whatever
not understanding the relation of gravity and dark matter
variational formulation of field equations; what does this mean exactly? Why are they optimal?
should cosmological constant be incorporated or not?
is there a stochastic aspect to gravity or not?
why does gravity exist?
Why does gravity appear mainly in the attractive form?

None of these mean that the Theory of Gravity is garbage or should be summarily discarded. They are just signs that gravity is being actively studied and there are things to be understood. And from what I read about evolution as a nonspecialist, evolution is no different. Evolution is an exciting theory and an area of active research. We are still learning how it works in many different aspects, how mutations work, how genes work and so on. These do not mean the theory is garbage, just that it is a dynamic area. What I find annoying is that some creationist will get ahold of a quote out of context about some aspect of evolution that is being slowly understood better, and immediately jump to the conclusion that evolution is a failure as a theory. Nothing could be further from the truth, and this just demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scientific process. However, I used the word "holes" because that is the word that creationists use. I think the "holes" that exist in evolution are no bigger than the holes in any theory in science. It is just that it is the target of undue attention from assorted religious fanatics who do not understand evolution or science.--Filll 18:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]