Talk:Evolution

Talk archives

• Talk:Evolution/Archive 1
• Talk:Evolution/Archive 2 (June-September 2004, archived Oct 11)
• Talk:Evolution/Archive 3 (Sept-Dec 2004, archived Apr 9)
• Talk:Evolution/Archive 4 (Jan-Mar 2005, archived Apr 9)
• Talk:Evolution/Archive 5 (Apr 2005, archived Apr 27) - Radiometric dating
• Talk:Evolution/Archive 6 (Mar-April 2005, archived April 28; mostly discussions involving creationism)
• Talk:Evolution/Archive 7 (April-May)
• Talk:Evolution/Archive 8 (May-September)

Evolution and Falsification

I accept Theory of Evolution as a scientific-fact because this has been confirmed by emperical evidence. But the article defines a scientific theory as a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation.

Here I am bit confused. How can, in theory, the theory of evolution be falsified? The mounting empirical evidence only confirms it. It is alright if the concept of falsification is not brought in to prove that the theory is scientific. But since the concept forms part of the article, it is necessary to explain it. May be, the user who contributed the portion thinks that it is self-evident. But it is not. I think it is hence advisable (or perhaps even necessary} to have it clarified in the article or atleast in the talk page. Will somebody take note of this? MANOJTV 09:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

A theory is falifiable if it makes testable predictions, which evolutionary theory does. If a theory is "testable" it can either be supported, or falsified, by an experiment. The word "falsifiable" is linked - the link should provide adequate explanation. Guettarda 12:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is a prediction th theory makes possible: if a new niche becomes availablee in an environment in which populations of a particular species live, one of those populations will diverge to create a new species (I am sure Guettards or Rikhurzen can reformulate this in a clearer and more precise way). In any event, this is precisely what happened to the Hawthorn bee (I think). SR

MANOJTV - Evolutionist J. B. S. Haldane was asked the very same question you just asked more than 40 years ago - what kind of evidence would disprove evolution? His answer was quite simple - if you were digging, and you found the fossil of a rabbit in precambrian-era rock, that would shoot a GIGANTIC gaping hole in evolution (which says that rabbits did not appear until long, long after precamrbian times). Evolution depends on no one ever discovering such a fossil, and if such a fossil were found, evolution as we know it would go into the dumpster. To date, no one has found any such evidence (or anything even close). →Raul654 06:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Not quite Raul: Evolution would not be dumped so easily, certainly not by one such anomalous discovery. They would just put rabbits into pre-cambrian life forms and throw out the theory that rabbits are post-pre-cambrian, evolution is too well established to throw it out on one piece of anomalous evidence. It is precisley because evolution is so robust that it seems unfalsifiable. People just have a hard time imagining a scenario that would disprove it because it is such a simple corralary to so many basic things that we take for granted are true, (I am amazed at how people can fail to see that it is true, yet unquestionably accept so many things that directly imply it.). It's not impossible to think of a situation, but because evolution is such a simple corolarry to rather obvious things, the things that would really prove a flaw in the theory seem ridiculous.

For example a damning, if fantastic, piece of evidence would be something like finding that animals, including humans, really don't pass on genetic information, that we are all completely original when we are born. Of course we'd have to find out how animals are orgnized enough survive, and how what force causes that organization, but it's concievable, if remotely unlikely, that it would turn out genetic information just didn't exist--THAT would probably be reason to junk evolutionary theory. People underestimate how robust a theory it is (and how silly denial of it is). TO scrap it you'd have to scrap some very fundamental ideas we, and by "we" I mean everyone, creationists and all, all consider so obvious that to think of a world that is different is ludicrous. Evolution is probably the most unlikely theory to be proven untrue at it's core. --Brentt 05:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course in practice falsification is a tricky business. But Haldane's point is more that evolution does make various predictions for which observations going against them could be found. Whether that counts as falsification or not depends on the philosopher you ascribe to. --Fastfission 00:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This brings to light the issue that many may have with the first item: "The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor." I don't know how that specifically can be falsified. Is there any empirical evidence suggesting that single-celled organisms have ever evolved into multi-celled organisms?

There is plenty of evidence that all life shares a common ancestor, be it morphological, genetical, etc. Importantly there is an invocation of Ockham's Razor which states that the simplest explanation is the most likely. It would be falsified if someone proved that, based on the evidence, it was more likely that life had multiple origins, rather than a single one. Dunc|☺ 22:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Intro cleanup

I didn't want to slap an ugly "cleanup" tag on a feature article, but the intro really stinks. Maybe we can fix it quickly.

The intro glosses over the distinction between macroevolution - that, is the apperance of new species like house cats and lions emerging from some ancestral feline -- and microevolution, i.e., an existing species acquiring new charateristics without giving rise to a new species (like horse breeders getting a faster thoroughbred, but it's still a horse).

Worse, it brings in Lamarckism. This can only confuse the reader who is new to the topic and annoy the reader who already knows something about it. Uncle Ed 18:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Macro- and micro- evolution are terms and concepts not commonly used or found in science. The modern synthesis makes no such distinction. Their current use finds its origin in creationist literature and so it has no place in the article, much less the intro. FeloniousMonk 19:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The terms' origin is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the terms are currently or have been used in scientific discourse. --goethean ॐ 19:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

A more accurate statement is: What is relevant is whether the terms are significantly used in scientific discourse. The provenance of an argument is always relevant. FeloniousMonk 19:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not a direct answer to the question, but a response I feel should be taken into consideration here.

Macroevolution is seen by many to be a term created by creationists to confuse the issue. That said, there is definately something to be said for it. A common argument I've heard to discredit the Theory of Evolution is that no new genes can form though evolution. In commonly understood genetics, existing genes can change (mutate) and can code for something new, but only if an existing piece of code is lost. The total number of genes cannot increase or decrease.

There are (proposed) mechanisms of evolution that have rather profound effects on DNA, by introducing additional genes. Some species of strawberry, for example, have over a hundred chromosomes, whereas others have only a single one. Additional chromosomes can come to be through multiplication of existing chromosomes. It is conceivable that over time, in this way, and through mutation of both chromosomes, vastly differing chromosomes can form.

In another way, genes can be added to the DNA of a living organism by a retrovirus. It is even conceivable that the rather remarkable concept of live birth in mammals is possible thanks to viral DNA that made it possible for the fertilised egg to attach itself to the mother.

Macroevolution might have special tricks that microevolution could only dream of.

My point: Evolution can be subdivided into macro- and microevolution, and indeed, I would. But I do not believe the introduction is the ideal place to start explaining this difference, as the basic concept remains the same for both. -- Ec5618 19:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You and Ed may find such a distinction compelling, but that doesn't change the fact that macro/micro distinction is not commonly considered a central concept in evolutionary biology, and that the current understanding of evolution, the modern synthesis, makes no such distinction whatsoever, and hence the macro/micro arguement does not warrant inclusion in the article. I've searched ERIC and other DBs on this issue for a number of years, as well as spoken to leading evolutionary biologists on the the topic of macro/micro vs. modern synthesis, and have yet to see one shred of significant, credible, and rigorous scholarly evidence that the macro/micro distinction is central to evolution. Again, the current understanding of evolution, the modern synthesis, makes no such distinction whatsoever. FeloniousMonk 20:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The terms are used in the literature, but, of course, they are not mechanistically distinguished. The same processes drive evolution in a species that drive it after a speciation event. Of course, that speciation even might be a change in bird song on population separated by tributaries of the Amazon, which could make the macroevolutionary change trivial...worth discussing in the article, yes (and it is), worth mentioning in the intro - I'd say no, it's too trivial, it doesn't require a separate mechanism. Guettarda 20:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. FeloniousMonk 21:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The terms macro- and micro-evolution were probably created by creationists who had been backed into a wall and finally could no longer ignore the evidence supporting evolution. Nevertheless, evolution is more than just random mutation of existing gene sequences (even though evolution is commonly misunderstood to mean just that): there are mechanisms through which new genes could form. Again: evolution is more than random mutation (of individual genes) and natural selection. That's all.

I never sought to make the distinction between micro and macro evolution. But while (as Guettarda mentioned) there may not be a mechanistic difference between micro and macro evolution, there are definately different mechanisms at work in evolution, many of which transcend simple genetic mutation. In that context I suppose we could call simple gentic mutation micro-evolution and more complex mechanisms macro-evolution. But I'm not quite sure what my point is now. -- Ec5618 20:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

There are difference processes - selection, drift and evo-devo. Mutations are one way of creating variation, and evolution acts on variation in populations. Change, even drastic change, without speciation would be microevolution (well, but then you have the problem of chronospecies). Minor change, with speciation, is macroevolution (like einkorn wheat-emmer wheat-bread wheat). If I had to guess, the distinction between micro and macro probably arose in conflict between reductionist molecular evolutionary biologists and holist palaeontologist-types, or between quantitative Fisherian types and palaeo- types, or some other cultural divide in within the field. Guettarda 21:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Lamarckism is clearly one of the original hypotheses of biological evolution. Why shouldn't it be referenced in the intro? Though I'll admit, the intro is a little forcedly worded around the concept. Perhaps it should be moved a few lines down. -- Ec5618 19:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Now there's more on the early histor of evolution than there is about the concept itself. Passing on novel traits is not evolution, by itself -- that's just heredity. Evolution is the fact that passing on novel traits can result in speciation. I think some more time in the intro should be spent on the concept than currently is, and less on the history. Darwin and the mod synth are good enough for the intro. The rest is covered fine by the history section of the article. --Fastfission 00:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Fastfission is right on all points. Evolution is not the history of evolutionary science, any more than mathematics is the history of mathematics. We should be as current as we can be without glossing over different views in current work. --FOo 02:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. The introduction should be a definition of what it currently is, and maybe some interesting facts to catch someone's eye. Don't let it get turned into a mini-evolution article. --Ignignot 13:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

How about a history of evolution article? I have read / seen books on the history of chemistry & history of biology. I'm interested in the history of mathematics, the history of medicine, and especially the history of science in general. Uncle Ed 19:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this is considered settled already, but for my part I'm now of the mind that we should avoid macro/microevolution as terms and stick to talking about definite concepts like pheno/genotypic variation and speciation. There's good population genetics to guide us there, the terms are fairly well-defined and widely used, and seem to sketch out the same space that "macroevolution/microevolution" seek to occupy. Graft 18:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

== make this article unbiased == (please do not assume i am a creationist, i may be undecided.)

I think it would be just to emphasise in this article the FACT that the theory of evolution is just a theory and not fact. No matter what your view on evolution: how strongly you are convinced by it, it would be sheer denial on anyones part to deny the wealth and mass of evidence that goes against the theoryof evolution. Please can anyone who edits this article please refrain from being ignorant and be responsable editors or i will be forced to put this article in the biased category. And i can highlight this article's bias very easily. It will be no effort on my part to get this in the bias category.

There has never been, for example, a transitional form that has not been refuted. "ah, by the creationists!" i hear you cry. "No", i reply, "between evolutionist!". Prove me wrong?!

I am happy for you to explain this theory after all it gave rise to the x-men cartoons, just keep it on the level of a widely accepted theory and do not make statements that this theory is fact.

This theory is an interpretive framework in which evolutionists interpret the facts and that is all. To prove my point creationists and those that hold to intelligent design theory use the same, that is, the identical, the very same facts that the evolutionists use to make their conclusions. It is only as a result of interpretation that the views are so different. Anyone who denys this to be the case is a lunitic, not able to reason or accept logic.

In repsonse to the guy who needs proof of "falsifiable hypothesises" read these articles: [[1]] and [[2]] and [[3]]

• You might want to take a look at our standards on WP:NPOV. This isn't the place to argue over the truth or lack of it for evolution or anything else. --Fastfission 12:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

this article doesn't mention creation but the creation article mentions evolution either the evolution article should mention cretion or neither article should mention each otherJats october 2

Why? Evolution is world-accepted scientific principle. Creationism is a tiny movement almost solely limited to the United States that has no scientific basis. Just because you have a view it doesn't mean it rates equal time. In fact there's a nice section explaining that fact in the NPOV policy here. DreamGuy 04:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You point of view, Dream Guy, is way out of line with the facts. In the words of Francis Bacon: A little science estranges a man from God, alot brings him right back again.

I'm afraid you and Mr. Bacon are the ones out of line. The belief in any kind of personal god and other supernatural forces has been shown to diminish significantly near the upper spectrum of the sciences: as of 1998 a mere 7% of the US scientists in the National Academy of Sciences believe in god. The majority are either outright atheists (72%) or don't care (21%)[4]. Refer, also, to these quotes by one physicist: "From the standpoint of a Jesuit priest, I am, of course, have always been an theist... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere - childish analogies." "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." His name? Albert Einstein. Thus, it seems that a little God merely estranges a man from science, but a lot of it will break his senses." Shawnc 06:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

My comment and the reply of the editor who didn't bother to sign aren't related at all. Evolution is a scientific principle, accepted throughout the world, backed up with copious amounts of evidence, set up in a way that it is falsifiable yet all new evidence that comes in continues to support it more and more. Creationism is a religious movement. The idea that someone should put religion as if it were a science into an article about science is just nonsense. Claims of religious belifs of scientists or lack thereof is a non-issue for the purposes of this article. DreamGuy 09:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

(Response to above) I don't know where you're claiming to get your NPOV, but it's just not there. I'm not a creationist, but I still support a reasonable amount of the contrary evidence to evolution being shown. The creationism article mentions evolution - why does evolution get the soapbox? Amadameus

This article is about evolution. That's why evolution gets the soapbox. Creationism having references to evolution is a problem for its own talk page. Personally I think that argument is best left for creationism-evolution controversy. --Ignignot 19:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

What evidence against evolution? If you have something solid, by all means, let's discuss its inclusion. Guettarda 19:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Newton's Theory

The Newtonian Law of Gravity is also a theory; a theory being a set of principles against which falsifiable data can be recorded and analysed, and from which hypothothes can be proved or disproved. In other words I can't disprove the law of gravity simply by demonstrating that a helium-filled baloon goes up instead of down. Should equal space be alotted to the person who believes that the Law of Gravity is a farce? What is some of the "Wealth and mass of information that goes against the 'theory' of evolution"? I really am interested to know.

Bear with me and i will present it to you. In the meantime take a look at the Francis Bacon Quote above. JC

Isn't there a difference between Newton's law and Darwin's theory? With Newton's law of gravity, you can predict the future. "Mars will be here next week and there next month." It even predicts the path of undiscovered comets. A few weeks of observation of a comet between the orbits of Jupiter and Venus and we can very accurately predict where it will be after it swings around the sun.

Evolution has two "predictive" aspects. In the historical sense, it predicts what sorts of fossils may be discovered in the future. THis is different from astronomical observations, because a fossil is a record of an ancient event. It records an event that took place before the theory formulated and the "prediction" made.

In the contemporaneous sense (if that's the right word), the theory of evolution can predict what kinds of living things might come into being in the future. I think this is limited to fruit flies and bacteria, but I also hear they're doing work with frogs or mice that can regenerate severed parts like a starfish can - and then there's always cloning, which looks like a promising avenue of research. Uncle Ed 19:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Why

Excuse, this segment is completely incoherent with the overall purpose of the evolution article. Why is it here?

In contrast, a scientific theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation. In this sense, "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship — for example, it is a "fact" that an apple dropped on earth will fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains it is the current theory of gravitation.

These two sentences belong in the scientific theory article. If evolution is a scientific theory, then wouldn't it be more sensible to just state that "evolution is a scientific theory?" Salva 22:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who wrote that, but I assume it's in there to head off one of the most common objections to (and misconceptions about) evolution, which goes "well, it's just a theory, so how come scientists are all going on about it like it was fact?" --Ashenai (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

So which is it? Fact or theory? It's just very confusing, that's all, and the segment seems irrelevant and extraneous. Salva 22:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the scientific theory expanation should remain in the article. Evolution is a theory which seeks explain emperically verifiable facts. I believe it does a pretty good job at explaining them. It's as simple at that.

It's a theory. But so is the theory of gravity, or set theory in mathematics. :)

And I agree that it seems awkward there. On the other hand, I do understand why it's there. I'm pretty indifferent about it, myself, but I don't know what everyone else thinks about removing it. --Ashenai (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Eh...pretty much everything is a theory in science. That's just how science is. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

And while we are on the subject of fact-vs-theory, gravity, which everyone considers to be a "fact", is probably the least understood and most-undefined entity in all of physics. →Raul654 04:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed. But that doesn't make gravity itself any less real. I think this is actually a good parallel for explaining that even though there are controversial issues about evolution, the existence of evolution itself simply isn't debated in the scientific community. --Ashenai (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Right, I will go ahead and omit the following from the evolution article:

In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion". In contrast, a scientific theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation. In this sense, "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship — for example, it is a "fact" that an apple dropped on earth will fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains it is the current theory of gravitation.

This might certainly be of use somewhere in scientific theory. I hate to do away with it - it's very well written. Any further ideas would be appreciated. Salva 14:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's an idea: leave it in. It's there because it's a question that comes up frequently enough in the context of evolution that it deserves mention in this article, even if it is slightly out of place. Graft 17:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Let me give a short antithesis: if in the socialism article I wanted to say that "socialism is a form of Communism," and then started a denotation of Communism as a political philosophy and explained what a form of Communism was, then I would have already compromised the direction of the article. This is very un-Encyclopædic. If people want to know what a form of Communism is, then they refer to the respective article; if people want to know what a scientific theory is, than they should refer to scientific theory. It doesn't matter how many people are confused about the true meaning or how often the subject is brought up in further debates.Salva 23:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Leave it there. It may seem a bit out of place, however it is a valid response to the frequent creationist trolls who try any tactic in their attempts to weaken the concept. Vsmith 23:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, rrright - I see your logic now. Yes...we musn't let the "trolls" weaken the concept. Salva 00:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The concept belongs in the article, because it comes up in reference to evolution very often. Moving within the article and rewording I have no problem with, although I can't see another obvious home for it, and it is already well written. Also, if we take it out people will try to fill its absence. Right now it is well written, I would rather not have someone else replace it 2 months from now with something worse. And in response to your "fact" vs. "theory" question above, evolution is a fact. It is directly observable just like an apple falling from a tree, because it is defined as any change in the frequency of alleles of a population (which happens every single time an organism dies or is born). Natural selection and the modern synthesis are theories that attempt to explain the observed fact of evolution, along with other facts, such as speciation and the current diversity of life. And there is no need to use socratic irony on the talk page, just say what you mean next time. Some people might get the wrong idea. --Ignignot 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

There is also no need for ruthless depreciation and namecalling of legitimate objectors. Would you name me a "troll" if I claimed that I had evidence that challenged a scientific theory, or at least a propositional axiom for reform in a given area of that theory? Evolution happens and is a fact, yes, but believers in the hypotheses of say, spontaneous generation, have ambiguized the former with the latter. ID creationists like me are trying to disambiguize the way the theory is taught, while also arguing from the perspective that life is too complex to have arisen from randomality. That's it! And if I do say what I mean, it would just be a futile effort, because then you will simply call me a "troll" and then the discussion is pretty much over. Why? Who knows. Salva 01:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he wasn't talking about calm objectors who bring their ideas to discussion first, but instead people who simply replace whole sections of the article with some web link. However, I doubt any content in the article will ever make those people go away because they are entirely focused on what they want to say, and probably only glance at the article itself. Of course, the problem with evidence against the modern synthesis is that it would have to come from a scientific peer reviewed journal to be taken seriously, and a journal would be very reluctant to publish an article like that. On the other hand, all the evidence brought by the creationist camp that I have seen is from pseudo-science books or the Bible, neither of which is going to be accepted. So when people constantly bring forward something other than a scientific journal, it just makes you desensitized to what any objectors have to say. Also, unless I am horribly mistaken, the modern synthesis does not explicitly say how life started (although it does imply it).

And since we're now way off course, I'd like to add an observation. A while back I spent about a year with some Christian fundamentalists. Earth 5000 years old, home schooled, studying the Bible at least once a week, the whole deal. Basically I was there to learn how they look at things, because usually when you see a completely different viewpoint externally you can see things about it that the people within it can't see, and after you see those things in other people you can see when people within your own viewpoint do them. One thing that really stood out was when they patted themselves on the back, trying to dispell their own uncertainties. It honestly made me a little sick to see an American middle class describing himself as "not rich." But I'm not bringing this up in reference to you Salva, instead I'm talking about how the same thing happens to those that hold the "scientific" viewpoint, and is rampant in this talk page. Then again, I'm probably guilty of the same hubris. --Ignignot 14:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that I have definately learned a LOT in the past year or so, and have come to a better grasp of the political debate that rages between creation/evolution in the United States. The scientific evidence of the evolution of species is difficult to deny, but we are certainly a long way off from having a true idea of what powers or forces or whatever were involved in the origination of life. This is the focal point of most arguments between ID scientists and evolutionary scientists today. The fact that evolution happens is indeed observable, testable, and undeniable to any person who has studied all the evidence at certain length. That's why I'm saying that the argument posed by many "creationists" is still quite valid. Most of them no longer challenge the current mandate of the mainstream scientific establishment; they are legitimate objectors to the supposition that life arose from nonliving matter. Just remember - American Christians still constitute a majority in the U.S. Perhaps that is why Darwinist atheists feel that it is so difficult to push their beliefs down our throats. You don't have to agree with fundamentalist Christians. But try to show a little respect for a balancing of power and opinions - in the political arena and especially in the scientific arena. Salva 19:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Getting back to the question of whether or not a discussion of what a "theory" is belongs in this article on "evolution", I propose that it belongs in a subsection on the debate surrounding whether or not evolution is true, and not where it is now, in a description of what the theory of evolution is.

Above unsigned comment by User:67.87.13.181

OK, sorry about the edit conflict a bit ago - it happens. Now, just what do you mean by true and how do you establish scientific truth without a discussion of theory and the scientific evidence supporting the theory? The theory of evolution is the why of all the observed facts of evolution. In view of the confusion over the concept by the general public (and the blatant pushing of that confusion by creationists) a discussion of the basics of scientific theory and evidence is quite appropriate in the article. And not in some debate section on truth. The debate you refer to is covered in another article - we don't need to rehash it here. Vsmith 01:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the debate is well covered in the article Creation-evolution controversy. Keeping with the theme of scientific theories, how about the following minor modification

Currently, the modern synthesis is the most powerful theory explaining variation and speciation, and within the science of biology it has completely replaced earlier scientific theories for the origin of species, such as Lamarckism.--Nowa 12:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Why? The earlier scientific theory of creationism was replaced along with Lamarckism within the science of biology by the theory of evolution. There is no question about that. The creationism of today is a religious concept that some adherents want to scientify. It is a religious belief, not a scientific subject. The sentence is quite accurate as it is. Vsmith 02:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but there are many ID creationists who are not entirely motivated by religious convictions. This is a tricky sentence that is difficult to argue against from the creationist perspective, because the word "life" was formerely replaced with "species," hence it maintains its factual integrity. The modern synthesis is the most powerful theory explaining speciation. However, the sentence is still very mischievious because it indirectly implies that all forms of creationism have been replaced by evolutionary theory in mainstream science. This is untrue - there are many scientists who refer to themselves as ID advocates, but at the same time hold that the Earth is millions of years old. The division is created primarily with 1. the origin of life argument, and 2. the micro/macro evolution argument (does natural selection create new phlyla, species, etc.) No irrefutable verdict has been reached on either of these two arguments in science - it is blasphemy for either side to claim that there has been. My opinion is that we should find a different way to structure that sentence so that when one reads it, they do not get the feeling that evolution has replaced other explanations for the origin of life. It's mandatory that the clarity of controversial articles, like Creationism and Evolution be upheld, and I don't believe that the statement in its current form is clear enough for our readers. Salva 04:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding comments by Vsmith: You are right. The "creationism" of today is not the same as the "creationism" that Darwin's theory replaced. That's why I thought it better to remove the reference to avoid confusion.

Regarding comments by Salva: No geologist holds that the Earth is millions of years old. The best estimate of the age of the Earth is 4.55 billion years. Nowa 12:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

As to the origin of life, as has repeatedly been stated, the modern synthesis, predicated as it is on DNA and its mutation, inheritance and genetics, obviously has nothing to say about what preceded that. Evolution began with the LUCA (last univeral common ancestor). Where that came from is a separate question. Graft 13:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nowa on the proposed revision. Salva 16:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Do I have a second?--Nowa 18:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with Salva's justification - the sentence explicitly states that evolution replaced creationism as an explanation for speciation and variation. What's wrong with that? Graft 19:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with taking the word "creationism" out? Salva 20:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

See Whitewash →Raul654 20:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

See plausible deniability Salva 22:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, you have my vote. Salva

The proposed sentence is focused on the fact that the modern synthesis has displaced earlier scientific theories regarding the origin of the species. Someone who views current creationist theories as being unscientific should object to having creationism listed since it would imply that creationism, even early creationism, is a scientific theory. One the other hand, someone who views current creationist theories as being scientific would object to having it in there since it would imply that modern synthesis has replaced current creationists theories among its adherents, which it has not. Either way, the public is best served by not having "creationism" listed, since it adds nothing to the point being made and deleting it reduces unnecessary antagonism.--Nowa 03:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Still looking for one more supporter to the new language.--Nowa 03:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

OK - added a bit of clarification to avoid confusing YECs, now can we get over this nonsense. Vsmith 03:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for proposed wording changes. It would be best to reach consensus here, however, before making unilateral changes to article. --Nowa 13:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You're most welcome. But, why not clarify while the bickering - er... consensus reaching - continues? Do you want the YECs to remain confused? Vsmith 15:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

With regards to Nowa's statement in the paragraph above Vsmith's, "since it would imply that modern synthesis has replaced current creationists theories among its adherents": almost of modern biology implicitly assumes an evolutionary perspective. If you are looking at Tobacco Mosaic Virus proliferation in different species of Nicotiana, the fact that the virus is better able to infect other members of the same genus, and less able to infect other members of the Solanaceae (i.e., same family), and unable to infect plants in other families is a random coincidence unless you assume evolution. But far more importantly, you need to assume that the storage of information in DNA or RNA is a distinct occurrence in each species. You cannot assume that studies in gene regulation in one species predict gene regulation in another species where the studies have not been replicated without assuming evolution - to do otherwise would be to make a logically flawed inference. So, all biology assumes evolution, except the handful of publications which challenge it (1? 2?) Read what I posted before about this - we're talking about <0.000025% of published papers in biology. So, I would say that the original wording stands - in science evolution replaced creationism - be it 18th century creationism, or 21st century creationism. Guettarda 15:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the other part of Nowa's objection - it's true that the epistemological framework of science has also undergone development over the past 150 years, so that what passes for "science" then is not what would do so today. This makes the question somewhat dicey, since creationism filled the role of a scientific theory, and naturalism was not a required principle of science. Meanwhile, belief in the word of the Bible, in some respects, was. To avoid confusion and length discussion of this conundrum it might be best if we merely said "replaced earlier accepted theories" rather than "replaced earlier accepted scientific theories". ? Graft 18:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Creationism (e.g. God creating all species within a seven day period about 5,000 years ago), was NOT a widely accepted explanation of the origin of species among 19th century biologists in general and Darwin’s contemporaries in particular. True? If not true, can you provide references?--Nowa 21:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

See Ernst Mayr's book The Growth of Biological Thought. In Chapter 11, Mayr said, "creationism, at least in England, was a dominant "scientific" school in the 1850s". However, there have been many times and places when scientists have adopted positions that are not supported by objective evidence. Just because a scientist claims to be scientific in holding a belief, it does not mean that they have built their belief upon objective evidence and sound reasoning. This is why "science" and "scientific" start showing up inside quotation marks. Most of Darwin's contemporaries told themselves that it was "scientific" to believe in special creations (by Darwin's time, the fossil evidence made it clear to "scientific" creationists that there had to have been more than one creation). The idea of many special creations was the result of adopting the religiously-motivated assumption that new species could be created and then trying to fit that assumption to the geological and fossil evidence. From the perspective of not being trapped in the assumption of special creations of species, it is tempting to call pre-Darwin "science" a form of protoscience, like alchemy. Darwin found a way to put evolutionary thought on a naturalistic (scientific) foundation, without special interventions or creations. --JWSchmidt 23:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

JWSchmidt, Thank you for the reference and explanation. I am now happy with the wording of the paragraph. --Nowa 23:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the current wording is inaccurate - it suggests that evolution only displaced 18th & 19th century creationism. This implies that it has not displaced 20th/21st century creationism. I find this to be a misleading qualifier. Guettarda 21:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

And this is precisely why I have changed the paragraph back. It should either state that evolution has replaced creationism completely (perhaps it could be qualified by starting the sentence with the line Within the realm of science, or with words to that effect?) or removed from the article altogether. Doing anything else seems to me to be pandering towards creationists. Aaarrrggh 22:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a question of Wiki protocol for both Wsmith and Aaarrrggh. If the wording of a sentence or paragraph in an article is under discussion, and if the current wording does not suffer from a gross defect, such as factual inaccuracy, shouldn’t it be left as is until consensus is reached? --Nowa 01:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

That's more a matter of etiquette than anything else. Graft 02:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't be a despot, Graft. Salva 03:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

And that etiquette would lean towards leaving the original version - not the altered one with "18th and 19th century". With regards to Salva's latest change, I don't see how the alteration was the "agreed upon" version. It's inaccurate and misleading, as I have said before. Guettarda 02:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, because we had reached a consensus, and the new version was not misleading. What about the ID movement? This is a form of creationism, is it not? As far as I know, many scientists fully acknowledge its validity, and a handfull more are proponents of it. All the more, would you mind stating why you believe the edit was "inaccurate and misleading?" Because your previous statement seemed to lack in substance. Salva 03:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Salva, I don't think terms like despot are appropriate; Graft has not been acting tyranically but is instead engaging in a civil discussion. I removed the 18th- and 19th-century qualifiers from the text, as it seems to imply that 20th-century creationism still is a contender within the field of biology. I don't believe there is any need to make this sort of distinction. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... this is a fine mess :-) I added the 18th and 19th century qualification a while back for two reasons:

First the phrase, completely replaced earlier accepted explanations, implies that modern creationism was accepted if we leave out the 18th & 19th - and this is not true. The accepted explanations of pre-Darwinian science/natural philosophy did include versions of creationism - those were replaced. The modern creationism is a different critter and is not an accepted explanation in any view of science - it is simply an irrelevant fantasy.

My second reason, to quell unneeded quibbling here, was a failure it seems.

The qualification seems to have been misinterpreted by several viewpoints here. Go ahead and remove the 18th/19th phrasing, but if you do then delete the word accepted also.

Vsmith 03:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't make any sense to waste my time when I'm simply ignored. I called Graft a despot because he is - he hates democracy, he's anti-american, anti-Christian, (probably anti-semitic,) pro-Islamofascist and a Neo-Darwinian. He's a despot running his own little fiefdom on Wikipedia with Guettarda and Aaarrrgh and thinks he can push objectors like creationists and ID advocates around like his beliefs matter more than theirs do. Let me tell you something, Graft, Aaaarrgghh, and Guettarda, you are products of typical secular University indoctrination that has fueled your contempt for, and your meandering of the scientific processes of peer review and progressivism in favor of preserving your atheist mandates. Well I won't suffer it. That paragraph is in place to confuse and obstruct the path towards truth. It's basically stating that "according to the science of biology, the origin of life can best be explained by random mutation-driven evolutionary processes, and any notion of divine intervention is bunk, and has been replaced." That is not objectivity. It's Wiki-Despotism. To my understanding - in concordance with the controversy that rages today over the origin of life (or Species, which is another word for all life that dwells on Earth,) why would it make sense for this article to claim factual accuracy on matters pertaining to the origin of life - either by way of random abiogenesis or Intelligent Design? Salva 04:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

New question

I would like to add a section to this article called: "Evidence that challenges the theory of evolution" or something to that affect would anyone object to this? Please let me know so i can get started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.102.67 (talk • contribs) October 5, 2005 (UTC)

Would you care to outline your proposed changes here on the Talk page? Guettarda 18:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that such a proposal should be outlined here first. Barnaby dawson 09:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well let's hear it lad! I would love to contribute. Salva 23:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please discuss your ideas here first. And sign up for a username so we can better respond to your information and concerns. Vsmith 23:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to sign up and get a username so you can recognise me, and get on with the proposal. Many thanks. JC.

Please bare in mind that biblical quotations are not forms of evidence. We await your assault with baited breath... Aaarrrggh 22:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Noodleman's changes

Regarding my recent reversion - I don't think it's appropriate to delete the intro to the "scientific theory" section. If you feel it is notably lacking a significant theoretical component, by all means let us know what that is. If not - no cause to remove it. Also, the above discussion clearly indicates why the discussion of scientific theories ought to be retained.

As to "immigration and emigration", this is fine, but does not include the full range of possible changes in population, e.g., expansion, contraction, bottlenecks, etc. Something more generic like "changes in population structure" is more appropriate, if a bit obtuse. Also I see no reason to elide mention of gene flow. Graft 20:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I find noodleman's version:

The modern theory of evolution was first discussed in terms of natural selection in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.

More accurate than the curent version:

The development of the modern theory of evolution began with the introduction of natural selection in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.

There's no need to postulate that Darwin's theory is "modern", while earlier theories were something else. --goethean ॐ 20:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree the current version is a bit crusty; however, the sense I think we should impart is that Darwin's contributions form only a part of the "modern theory", that is, the theory as it stands today. Obviously there's a whole history of biology that preceded Darwin, but it's generally recognized as a singular shift in thinking on the subject. However, it's not the WHOLE of the modern theory (as emphasized in the subsequent paragraph), which is what I object to about Noodleman's phrasing. I'm not particularly attached to the obviously ugly phrasing of the current version, though, since it clearly isn't doing its job. Graft 21:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)