Talk:Evolution

Archives

November 2001 – June 2004, 153 kb June-September 2004, 222 kb September-December 2004, 98 kb January-March 2005, 218 kb March-April 2005, <32 kb March-April 2005, 49 kb April-May 2005, 52 kb May-September 2005, 93 kb October-November 2005, 139 kb November-December 2005, 94 kb December 2005, 109 kb January 2006, 109 kb February 2006, 117 kb March 2006, 125 kb April, 51 kb April-July 2006, 294 kb Mid-August 2006, 318 kb (<-this must be a Wiki record?) Mid-August 2006, 50 kb Mid-August-September 2006, 194 kb October—November 2006, 93 kb November 2006,

Banners and warnings

Purpose of this page

IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the theory of evolution please do so at talk.origins, True.Origins Archive or Wikireason. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Projects

Quality

Where it's appeared

This article was featured in the July 2006 edition of Discover.

Lamarck

The short comment on Lamarck doesn't really explain what Lamarck thought and why he was wrong very well. How about moving the section on Mendel up, explaining Mendel's work was largely unknown throughout Darwin's life, THEN moving on to Darwin: A compare and contrast of Lamarck and Mendel will quickly explain both theories.Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we move Lamarck discussion to the History of evolutionary thought. We're trying to cut down on the size of this article.--Roland Deschain 19:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should mention Cope and Hyatt in the history article if it is not already entertained.GetAgrippa 12:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Roland about Lamarck, however it would be worthwhile to mention Neo-Lamarckism and epigenetic changes that support this modified Lamarckism.There is a significant body of literature supporting heritable epigenetic change.GetAgrippa 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've said probably a dozen times in response to this, there's no significant body of literature supporting epigenetic evolution. Until there is (if there ever is), "Neo-Lamarckism" is inappropriate, as is discussion of epigenetic inheritance on this page. Graft 22:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes you said it Graft, and the last time I mentioned a number of recent articles and books on the subject in plants, yeast, and mammals. You can't ignore a body of literature because of POV. "There is no significant body of literature" is false. Here is a recent review in plants:Epigenetics and its Implications for Plant Biology 2. The ‘Epigenetic Epiphany’: Epigenetics, Evolution and Beyond. R. T. GRANT-DOWNTON and H. G. DICKINSON. Annals of Botany. Ann. Bot., January 2006; 97: 11 - 27.GetAgrippa 17:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to indicate what, in that review, you think supports the idea of epigenetic evolution. Be clear on what I'm saying here: epigenetic systems can evolve, as the article points out, if the genes controlling them evolve. This is nothing novel; that epigenetic states are heritable does not suggest that epigenetics are responsible for the evolution of those states. Graft 20:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Graft I don't need to argue the merits of any published article. You stated their is no significant literature, which there is. You seem biased by POV and you obviously have not familiarized yourself with this literature. I am not posing one review article. As I said there is a significant literature to cite books and peer reviewed journals of heritable epigenetic change in mammals, yeast, and plants and the significance in evolution. That's it! I am not fond of the Neo-Lamarckism notion either, but it is a subject entertained in peer reviewed journals and a subject that maybe worth some mention. GetAgrippa 21:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well drop the Neo-Lamarckism angle and just mention epigenetic phenomena as another means to generate phenotypic variation. A fundamental notion of evolutionary biology has been that natural selection acts on phenotypes determined by DNA sequence variation within natural populations. It would be nice to mention epigenetic phenomena like methylation and siRNA's generate phenotypes without DNA sequence alteration, but altering existing gene networks. I noted methylation is mentioned in Heredity section. Hybridization is significant in plants and should be mentioned as another means to generate diversity.GetAgrippa 00:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, man, I'm not expressing any POV, here, I'm just saying that the literature you're citing doesn't say what you think it says. People who study epigenetics would obviously like to emphasize its importance everywhere, inclding in evolution, but that review does little to bolster the notion that epigenetics has any more importance for evolution than any other form of gene expression (and, to its credit, it's aware of those shortcomings). Yes, it's a heritable phenotype. It's still a phenotype; it still cannot evolve without the genotype changing. This is exactly like any other phenomenon. E.g.: let's consider some foxes that have red or white coats depending on the weather. Through no fault of their own, they're forced to migrate to a colder climate, where they only express white coats. There are very few red foxes now. Later on, things get better, and they can move back to a warm climate, where they all become red again. Phenotype changes, but the underlying genetics do not. This is not evolution. As to altering existing gene networks - why is this any different than, say, the MAP kinase cascade, heterochromatin formation, etc.? Graft 16:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Graft, What are you talking about? "It is not saying what I think it says." Where do you get that? Initially when I first brought the subject up you said there are no heritable epigenetic changes, now you say there is nothing novel in the article or the subject. I said nothing about epigenetic evolution, nor does the article. The article talks about possible contributions of epigenetics phenomena in biology and possible contributions to evolution, and makes reference to Neo-Lamarckism. Neo-Lamarckism doesn't posit classic Lamarckism but the growing evidence that epimutations are significant in biology and may have significance in evolution. This is true especially in plants like toadflax where epimutations results in flowers with radial rather than bilateral symmetry. In the mutant plant a gene is extensively methylated and thus not expressed--and this methylated state is heritable by subsequent generations of toadflax plants. I note you are a grad student and I had hoped you would figure out the intent of the article. It reminds me of the naive statement you made that it is generally accepted that dinosaurs are warm-blooded. I have made of number of positive suggestions to improve this article with little success. Like Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. I noted at a bookstore that every evolution text book mentioned it. The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is a unifying precept in population genetics, and population genetics is the backbone of modern evolutionary biology and any evolutionary hypothesis will probably remain in doubt until the hypothesis is expressed in the form of a population genetics model. I give up trying to guide the editors to improve this article. I have been asked to edit and improve the evodevo article , but after this experience I would rather chew my leg off. This article deals with side issues too much and does not cover the evolution subject in an organized manner. I have noted that a large number of scientist like Kim van der Linde have similaly given up contributing to evolution related topics. I am retiring from a long research and teaching career and now I retire from this effort. GetAgrippa 19:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"What determines phenotype is one of the most fundamental questions in biology. Historically, the search for answers had focused on genetic or environmental variants, but recent studies in epigenetics have revealed a third mechanism that can influence phenotypic outcomes, even in the absence of genetic or environmental heterogeneity. Even more surprisingly, some epigenetic variants, or epialleles, can be inherited by the offspring, indicating the existence of a mechanism for biological heredity that is not based on DNA sequence. Recent work from mouse models, human monozygotic twin studies, and large-scale epigenetic profiling suggests that epigenetically determined phenotypes and epigenetic inheritance are more common than previously appreciated."Epigenetic variation and inheritance in mammals.Rakyan VK, Beck S.Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2006 Sep 25.

"In plants, naturally occurring methylation of genes can affect the level of gene expression. Variation among individuals in the degree of methylation of a gene, termed epialleles, produces novel phenotypes that are heritable across generations. To date, ecologically important genes with methylated epialleles have been found to affect floral shape, vegetative and seed pigmentation, pathogen resistance and development in plants. Currently, the extent to which epiallelic variation is an important common contributor to phenotypic variation in natural plant populations and its fitness consequences are not known. Because epiallele phenotypes can have identical underlying DNA sequences, response to selection on these phenotypes is likely to differ from expectations based on traditional models of microevolution. Research is needed to understand the role of epialleles in natural plant populations. Recent advances in molecular genetic techniques could enable population biologists to screen for epiallelic variants within plant populations and disentangle epigenetic from more standard genetic sources of phenotypic variance, such as additive genetic variance, dominance variance, epistasis and maternal genetic effects."Epialleles via DNA methylation: consequences for plant evolution.Kalisz S, Purugganan MD.1: Trends Ecol Evol. 2004 Jun;19(6):309-14 After reading these two abstracts I would hope you could see the potential of epigenetic phenomena to participate in evolution. The subject is definitely useful for Current thinking article and should be developed more in Heredity in this article. GetAgrippa 21:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

GetAgrippa, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, here, and I hope you'll appreciate that. I'm genuinely expressing reservations about this subject because I don't think it merits serious discussion on this page. As you'll note above, I did NOT say that there is no evidence for epigenetic inheritance, I said there is no literature on epigenetic evolution. This is all I'm trying to say: epigenetics is cool, and yes, heritable, but epigenetics do not evolve except as a result of plain old genetic evolution. Why, then, should we give epigenetics a special discussion here? What is figurative about epigenetics, as opposed to any other sort of phenotypic variation?

Does anyone else want to weigh in on this? Graft 00:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As to Hardy-Weinberg, I'm not sure why it's taught so heavily, but believe me when I tell you that it is NOT a significant evolutionary principle. Actually, it's kind of a joke. It's a trivial mathematical fact. There's no reason for you to get upset because I said this; if you disagree, just convince me otherwise. I am amenable to reason. Graft 00:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading your comments, I am at a loss for words. I suggest you research and read the literature in drosophila, plants, yeast and mammals. Here is a paper about hybrid sterility, and a translocation of a gene on two different chromosomes allowing reproductive isolation without sequence evolution. Gene Transposition as a Cause of Hybrid Sterility in Drosophila .John P. Masly, Corbin D. Jones, Mohamed A. F. Noor, John Locke, H. Allen Orr1 Science 8 September 2006:Vol. 313. no. 5792, pp. 1448 – 1450. Further, epigenetic reprogramming often occurs during hybridizations. Hardy Weinberg is an idealized situation that is useful in population genetics. For example: Impact of Violations and Deviations in Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium on Postulated Gene-Disease Associations Thomas A. Trikalinos1, Georgia Salanti, Muin J. Khoury and John P. A. Ioannidis. American Journal of Epidemiology ,Volume 163, Number 4 Pp. 300-309 Environment-dependent admixture dynamics in a tiger salamander hybrid zone. Fitzpatrick BM, Shaffer HB. Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 2004 Jun;58(6):1282-93. It is not a joke!! GetAgrippa 02:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If transposition of a gene is not sequence evolution, what is it? I'm not sure what you mean to indicate here. I think Roland's suggestion below is a reasonable step.

As to Hardy-Weinberg, I'm not suggesting it's not useful. It is a staple of population genetics. But it tells us very little about evolution, for a few reasons: one, it's an extremely restrictive null hypothesis that is rarely applicable to real populations. Two, it operates on a much shorter time scale than evolutionary forces. Average time to fixation for a neutral polymorphism is 4N generations. Meanwhile, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium can be achieved in a single generation. Three, it is a statistically weak test, which requires large samples to show significant deviations. Meaning, HWE can tell us lots about population structure, assortative mating, etc. But it also disproves its own utility with regards to selection: variation that's severe enough to produce strong phenotypes, enough to produce significant deviations from HWE, will be rare, meaning that most of it will exist not in homozygotes but in carriers, and thus we would see no devitations from HWE anyway. I'm not opposed to a discussion of Hardy-Weinberg, as it's definitely fundamental to population genetics. But as a null hypothesis for evolution, it's a pretty poor one. Graft 18:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Graft thanks for your POV, which is what your stating. Maybe you should write Science and make your semantic argument with the authors of the paper, reviewers, and editors. Note an editors comments. “”Hybrid sterility has been well studied for more than a century by many prominent scientists, including Darwin, but the molecular underpinnings have remained unidentified. Masly et al. (p. 1448) have identified a gene involved in sperm motility, JYAlpha, responsible for F2 hybrid sterility resulting from crosses of Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans. During speciation gene translocation had placed the gene on two different chromosomes, leading to sterile F2 males lacking any copies of the gene. Thus, reproductive isolation can occur without sequence evolution.” Your comments on H-W is opinion also. Not saying there is not merit to your opinions, but remember NPOV.GetAgrippa 13:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what NPOV has to do with anything. We're trying to decide what belongs in the article and how it should be written. If my opinion isn't relevant, neither is anyone else's, and the article cannot be written.

Regarding the paper in question, the editors seem to be using an idiosyncratic definition of "sequence evolution", maybe restricting it to substitutions. I can't really be sure, since they don't clarify. However, the point still stands: this is obviously a genetic change, not an epigenetic one. Graft 18:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel like we're just arguing endlessly, here, instead of trying to arrive at some conclusion. Do you have an idea of what you want included? I think this would form a better basis for discussion. Graft 18:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Epigenetic mechanisms are a part of evolution and therefore should be covered in this article. That point is not in question. Epigenetic mechanism produce phenotypic variation that can be selected for, which is evolution. However, the amount of research that has been done on epigentics as it relates to evolution is rather small (compared to other mechanisms of evolution). So yes, have a sentance or two (even a well placed paragraph is somebody feels like doing all the research), but keep it simple and to the point.--Roland Deschain 18:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Trying to promote a solution. Graft, you ask what NPOV has to do with it. Let me suggest an anwswer. When you write, "As to Hardy-Weinberg, I'm not sure why it's taught so heavily, but believe me when I tell you that it is NOT a significant evolutionary principle" you are clearly expressing your own point of view. I think GetAgrippa is saying that here and elsewhere - specifically, your interpretation of the epigenetic arguments - is your point of view. We encourage editors to look for verifiable sources and GetAgrippa has provided several. With all do respect, it sounds to me like you are not taking GetAgrippa on good faith. He is clearly an expert on this topic, but he is not pushing his own views, only ones expressed in published sources. When you write " As you'll note above, I did NOT say that there is no evidence for epigenetic inheritance, I said there is no literature on epigenetic evolution. This is all I'm trying to say: epigenetics is cool, and yes, heritable, but epigenetics do not evolve except as a result of plain old genetic evolution" I have to ask again: is this you rown point of view? Is this the restul fo your own original research (i.e. are you providing your own synthesis or interpretation of published sources)? if so, you know that this cannot dictate what goes into the article. As far as I can tell, GetAgrippa only wants to add to the article the claim that there are "possible contributions of epigenetics phenomena in biology and possible contributions to evolution, and makes reference to Neo-Lamarckism" and he has provided verifiable sources. It seems to me that GetAgrippa is complying rigorously with our policies, and I do not understand your objections. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein's synopsis of the issue here, and his take on how to resolve it. When simple discussion does not resolve disputes, by strictly applying WP:NPOV and WP:NOR most disputes just evaporate. Though I'm not a subject matter expert like Graft or GetAgrippa both are (as is Slrubenstein), it seems GetAgrippa has properly sourced content that is relevent while Graft has a valid point as well. Considering the sheer amount of brains on this page surely a compromise solution that can be reached if we all take a step back and look at the page from the perspective of making a complete, informative and concise article. FeloniousMonk 16:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, GetAgrippa is properly citing reasonable sources, and Graft is protesting the contents of those sources using original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro picture

I feel the current introductory picture has a negligible "stickiness factor":

A phylogenetic tree of all extant organisms.

For one thing, you can't read any of the words without a magnifying glass. Has anyone else noticed this? The first picture should work to pull the reader into the article. The current picture, in my opinion, has the opposite effect: the print is too small to be able to adequately explain what the picture is about in the caption. The current intro picture should go on its own page in bigger full-page size, possibly with its own article or possibly lower in the evolution article itself; with its own section. I propose replacing this picture with Darwin (possibly as shown below):

Charles Darwin - central developer of the theory of evolution by natural selection

Or, if someone can think of a better picture (ideas are welcome)? I highly doubt that anyone gets anything meaningful from the current picture, but rather skips over it (because there is too much information there, in too small print). I know from previous talk pages that both the size of this picture and the caption amount is an issue. Any comments?

90 kb article

Also, has anyone noticed that this article is almost 100 kilobytes and 27 pages when printed out; online attention spans are limited, dial-up servers can't load pages over 32 kilobytes very well, and people don't usually read more that 10 pages or so on-line before moving on to something else. Web design theories and articles are very clear on these issues. Just some thoughts. (see: Wikipedia:Article size)? Later: --Sadi Carnot 10:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. It might look better if we mirror-imaged the photo, but that might be unethical? As for the length: That's being worked on. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the current picture, but then again I know exactly what it is and the methodology used to create it. Therefore I do agree that a simpler pictures needs to be found that has a more resonating effect. However, even though Darwin is one of my heroes, can we find a different picture. Something that actually shows the ideas behind evolution (like the current picture, but more simple). The Physics article is a nice examples of where the intro highlights the concept and ideas of the subject matter, rather than the people. The pictures of people come right after the intro, and I think this article should follow the same guideline.--Roland Deschain 15:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the taxonomic tree as well, but we'd probably do better with one of the older depictions, even if they're less accurate: They tend to be more visually appealing, often with illustrations of forms. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should use this one, but something like it in style might be useful:

Trees, such as the one above, are only useful when studying one branch at a time. Possibly someone who is a regular on this page make a simple diagram, with only the main branches clearly labeled? Or could some one find a picture of three animals that evolved from each other? Or the evolution of fish to reptile to tree shrew is a good image. DNA trees with 50-100 scientific words (i.e. foreign to those who don't work in these areas) don't help much. Even the peacock would be better at the intro than as compared to the current one. --Sadi Carnot 17:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The peacock - the pinnacle example of morphological development in the theory of evolution via natural selection

Darwin does look like he is demonically possessed or at least bitter at the world. Creationist have to love that photo. Unless there is a copyright issue with your photo; you should switch them. --66.56.207.111 01:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Darwin pic is a little dark; I'll put in the peacock pic. If anyone finds a better one latter we can switch it. Later: --Sadi Carnot 00:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I like the peacock pic as the intro - I added this pic lower down the article some months ago to illustrate sexual selection, I don't think it illustrates evolution overall. Perhaps someone can create a collage of living creatures or something? I'd prefer that or the pic of Darwin (or the original one for that matter) over either the present peacock or the proposed giraffe below... Mikker ^(...) 01:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't like the peacock either. The old picture was better in my view. Barnaby dawson 09:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, btw, WP:FP is useful for finding pics we can use... Mikker ^(...) 02:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, don't like the picture too. I don't have time right now, but can somebody change it back to the previous format till we have a better consensus. So far three are against this piture without anybody actually arguing for it.--Roland Deschain 17:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've put back the old pic & added the peacock back lower down. Let's get a consensus before changing... Mikker ^(...) 19:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Giraffe’s neck picture

Also, someone should add to the article a section on how the current theory of evolution accounts for the length of the giraffe’s neck and how in history it was an issue of contention, e.g. here is a related talk discussion. Later: --Sadi Carnot 00:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In the history of evolutionary theory, the length of the giraffe’s neck served as a point of debate.

None of these proposals seem any more clear or more on topic than the current image, which is a very standard "common descent" sort of thing. I don't think we should monkey with it. --Fastfission 04:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Rule #1 (in image use): Never use an image if you can't see the image or read the text on it. An image that you can't see is pointless. --Sadi Carnot 14:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find it hard to read at all. --Fastfission 13:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You have to use a magnifying glass to read the spelling of the small words in the branches. --Sadi Carnot 14:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are you trying to read all of those words? The main branches are totally visible and one can understand the image perfectly. You can't see every scale on the armadillo either though if you wanted to you could click to enlarge it. In any case, I can read the words on the smaller branches; perhaps you use a higher screen resolution than I do. --Fastfission 22:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No one, for example, can possibly read the word "T. celer" in the phylogenetic tree image (at 300px) without resorting to a click to the main image page. --Sadi Carnot 05:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, I can. (Although in all fairness, I should note that my eyesight is 20/10) •Jim62sch• 23:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody needs to read the fine print. That is exactly the point that Fastfission is making. It is the simple shape of the tree that is utterly important and unifying for this article. The picture clearly shows the three branches of life and the fact that they all have a common ancestor(plus the classical tree shape divergence). For the intro purpose, it doesn't even matter what organism belongs in which clade. In addition, clicking on the picture makes all the labeling crystal clear (even when I used the highest resolution my monitor could handle).--Roland Deschain 05:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. Before the recent change, I believe that evolution was the only featured article, out of 1149, that had a first page image, which contained 31 words on it, that no one could read. The article caffeine, for example, is a good featured article with an opening image (w/text) that has perfectly discernable text. I think you are simply caught up in this one specific article too much. It is a basic publishing rule not to use an image if you have to squint to see it’s details. Later: --Sadi Carnot 08:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? You looked at all of them? As Henry Ford learned, the public grew tired of being able to have any colour they wanted as long as it was black. •Jim62sch• 23:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Glyptodon

The consensus seems to be that users want a new intro picture; one that has immediate recognition, one that has readable text, one that is visually appealing, and one that captures the essence of Darwin's theory of evolution. I just spent time making a new intro image, which I uploaded. Please do not revert. Let the change sit for a while so to see how people feel about the new intro image. I’ll move the other one lower in the article. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 15:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Morphological relationship between the extinct glyptodon and the living armadillo noted by Charles Darwin in 1836.

Brilliant picture: -- Ec5618 16:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, let's hope it sticks. Later: --Sadi Carnot 00:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: "This is all fake, the world is only a few thousand years old." Thank you, Bayfield Shcolls. --16:28, 7 November 2006 User:206.123.204.226 (Talk)

I don't know what you had to do to these images to make them look so washed out (did you print them out and re-scan them?), but I don't think this is much of a solution (so I uploaded a new one, as shown below). 13:06, 8 November 2006 User:Fastfission (Talk | contribs)

Morphological relationship between the extinct glyptodon and the living armadillo noted by Charles Darwin in 1836.

Fastfission, I see you quickly changed my photo without a consensus. If you want to change the photos to a better quality, so they are not washed out looking that will be fine, but leave the dates in. If you can figure out a way to do this, while including the dates, then do so; if not than please do not modify my uploaded images. You can see here: User:Sadi Carnot/Sandbox6 that I toyed with a "gallery" but it didn't look good, so I copied the images, texted them, then scanned them, and then re-uploaded them. If you know how to do this (with the text) as I had it then feel free; for now I will revert. Thank you: --Sadi Carnot 14:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Easy enough with the GIMP. Graft 19:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I have no problem reading the original pic's branches either (and my eyesight isn't all that brilliant), secondly, the new pic doesn't really illustrate evolution that well IMO. Thirdly... I suggest you propose a new pic and WAIT for a consensus that it's the right one before changing. Mikker ^(...) 21:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sadi, perhaps you can realize that I took my time to re-create your image so that it looked much better, even though I don't like it much. As for doing things "without consensus", I don't recall you getting consensus for making your changes. --Fastfission 22:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The original image was still better. It at showed in a single image the basic tenants of evolution: all life is related and existing species evolved from common ancestors. This image is too specific to be the first image a reader sees. Definitely should be included in speciation, but not in the intro.--Roland Deschain 23:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission, thank-you for changing the picture (w/ the text included); much appreciated! I like the phylogenetic tree, but it looks poor at 300px, but looks illuminating here. From previous months talk pages, I know that arguments have erupted over the size of the phylogenetic tree as the opening picture, i.e. whether it should be 350px or 450px, etc. As to consensus, Users Adam Cuerden, Roland Deschain, and User: --66.56.207.111, who likes the Darwin pic, all favor a change; Mikker suggests a collage of living creatures; User: Ec5618 thinks the Armadillo/Glyptodon is “brilliant”; GIMP doesn’t seem to have any problems with the image; and Dave souza, who immediately recognized and edited in the exact years and story behind this Darwin clue (which is supposedly one of Darwin’s two main stimulating clues [the other being the finches]), doesn’t seem to mind the change. Anyway, I have actively proposed at least four images (as well as other possible ideas) over a seven day period. The morphological relationship between the finches would be a fifth choice, but from what I remember there are 14 different varieties, and that would make for a big image. Please, let’s let this change sit for a while to see how we all feel about as the days go on; or to see if other possible better ideas pop up. But, then again, the Armadillo/Glyptodon was one of Darwin’s two main clues (according to books I’ve read). Later: --Sadi Carnot 05:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective (21" wide screen) there seems to be a sea of white between the table of contents and the Biology Series info box. Could the phylogenetic tree fit there? Also, is the older/wiser picture of Darwin furture up the discussion page copyrighted or something? Could it be used to substitute for the angry / demonic picture of Darwin? --Random Replicator 01:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think any actual relationship between the two animals would be better presented as a comparison between the skeleton of a glyptodon and the skeleton of an armadillo. --G4rfunkel 18:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of Man Image

I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but spelunking through the talk pages is pretty difficult on a page like this. There already exists a pretty iconic image to represent evolution: the chimp evolving into man while walking. A somewhat ironic example. Thank you for your sense of humor, Google. I couldn't find something like it in the commons, but it could be hidden somewhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adodge (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like that. Humans didn't evolve from chimps, and it connotes (for me at least) a simplistic view of evolutionary theory something like a creationist's, as your Google hit may show. I'd call it cliched, rather than iconic. Robin Johnson (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Very ironic considering the book's by Jonathan Wells (creationist). There have been many variations on that theme, dating back to the 19th century, but they have the disadvantage of conveying the idea of creatures transforming rather than gradual evolution of their descendants through small changes in inherited characteristics. ... dave souza, talk 22:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dysgenics

Dysgenics falls into the scope of this article. Are there any suggestions where and how this should be mentioned? --Zero g 15:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick search for scientific papers on that topic shows almost non-existent research (I found only two papers, one of them being on the philosophy of medical science and the other a out of the way psychological journal). Can you provide any kind of research that shows this topic to have any kind of evolutionary impact at all.--Roland Deschain 17:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dysgenic is used as an adjective for negative traits in modern research:

http://www.ionchannels.org/showabstract.php?pmid=1650725 Muscle fibers from dysgenic mouse in vivo lack a surface component of peripheral couplings. http://www.ionchannels.org/showabstract.php?pmid=2558151 A novel calcium current in dysgenic skeletal muscle. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/77/10/6042 Site Specificity of Mutations Arising in Dysgenic Hybrids of Drosophila melanogaster

In the devolution section it might be worth mentioning that an accumulation of negative traits is known as dysgenic, this because many people seem to use devolution where dysgenic is more appropriate.

One mention of dysgenic research in humans:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10842506&dopt=Abstract

There's also some information in the history section of the dysgenics article which might be of use since it involves early thoughts about human evolution. The word hasn't been used a whole lot after WWII, though dysgenic has 100K entries on google. I only bothered skimming past the first 100, so there's likely more to be found on the subject. --Zero g 12:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, is there an actual scientific or reputable site with any information? Ionchannels, source of your first two links, is "Targeted Life Science Marketing" - selling snake oil, so far as I can see. How do you propose to use the third for anything like a quick blurb on dysgenics? The content is not general, nor informative, and dates from October 1, 1980. Finally, the nih link is based on a survey? This is hardly definative research. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There's always Dysgenics Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, Richard Lynn, Praeger Publishers, 1996

The Bell Curve also has a chapter devoted to the subject. --Zero g 12:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think we should be using The Bell Curve here: It's widely considered bad science, and, indeed, racist. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that.--Ramdrake 00:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is broader; it is just not a significant view, period. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

First Sentence

Hi. That definite article "the" before "changes" in the first sentence has been driving me crazy for months. Don't you think it sounds better without it? Can I change it? Or is it necessary?--Ggbroad 04:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh. What a pleasant change of pace. Yes, I agree the sentence would read better without it. I had wondered if it was one of those national variations like spelling, in which case we should follow the original usage. But if not, then the change sounds good. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed opening picture

Charles Darwin

I like the idea of a tree of life, but agree the one we have isn't yet suitable. However, we've been going through a series of highly tangental pictures. There were objections to the unfortunate appearance of Darwin in his previous photo, so what about this one instead? We could use a good caption, though. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like putting Darwin into the intro. Yes, Darwin is the father of evolution, but you don't see Newton in the intro for gravity or Einstein in relativity. People are important, yes, but they do not encapsulate the field of science. Darwin no more deserves to be pictured in the intro than Newton deserves a picture in the gravity intro. Let's try to find a conceptual picture (we keep coming back to the tree of life) that displays the concepts of evolution, rather than the picture of an old man that tells us nothing about evolution other than that is the face of the man who was smart enough to see it. BTW, huge Darwin fan, so it hurts me to go against the suggestion.--Roland Deschain 04:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of using a tree of life image in general. In some ways, the lead image is as important as the written intro in terms of what it conveys and how it captures the reader's interest. Whatever image gets used will hopefully be colorful (to get attention) and interesting (to keep it). --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a tree of life image is useful, or perhaps an alternative image of the ascent of man, horse evolution, or an illustration of genetic change and speciation like the lateral plates on Stickleback fish and ectodysplasin alleles would demonstrate speciation and a structural modification from environmental change and reproductive success.GetAgrippa 05:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

See also section is redundant

Why are so many of the links in the see also section redundant with the text and info boxes? This section is way to big. David D. (Talk) 04:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think that because Evolution is a "parent" article, it's considered both proper and necessary for it to link to all related sub-topics. The links within the article itself are generally more of a "quick ref" for the reader who stumbles on an unfamiliar word or concept. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I see, I had not heard of the parent article concept. Is it possible that this role is being supercede by all these infoboxs and indexing templates? They seem to be popping up on many articles now. David D. (Talk) 05:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have seen articles that seemed to replace the "See Also" section with an index template, and that might be a good idea here. They seem to be more efficient and look a bit more coherent, but I don't specifically recall seeing them used in science articles. A change like that should have discussion, and a consensus that it would improve the article. Then all you need is someone to do the dirty work :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you show some examples of articles using the index template? Maybe we should have a look. Delta Tango • Talk 07:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are two examples of what I am refering to. Template:Biology-footer and Template:organelles. Evolution already has three similar templates that overlap with the see also section. David D. (Talk) 07:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I lost the edit conflict and saw that David provided two example instead of my one, so I'm changing my edit. The templates certainly have a cleaner, more organized look than an extensive "See Also" section does. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if we were to do such a change; would we have all the see also listed articles in such a box? Would it be under a See also section, or would we leave it at the bottom? How would Template:Evolution and Template:Popgen play into all of this? Delta Tango • Talk 07:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Custom seems to be placing them at the bottom, but I'm not aware of an official guideline. Popgen looks like tertiary rather than secondary info in the context of this article, but Template:Evolution might be a good starting point. No doubt much discussion will follow :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 08:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a template in use in my other major interest: W. S. Gilbert, which uses (as do all other G&S atrticles) a template at the bottom. See also, for example, Venus, which uses a Solar System template. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I just did a preliminary cross reference to see how many of the See also links are also included in one of the three templates on the page. i struck out those that are also in the templates. I'm actually surprised there are so many left as well as how many on the templates are not in the see also list.

Abiogenesis Altruism in animals Anagenesis Argument from evolution Atavism Animal evolution Behavioral ecology Catagenesis Cladistics Cladogenesis Convergent evolution Creation-evolution controversy Divergent evolution Dual inheritance theory Endosymbiont Eugenics Evolution of sex Evolutionary algorithm Evolutionary art Evolutionary biology

Evolutionary developmental biology Evolutionary medicine Evolution of multicellularity Evolutionary psychology Evolutionary tree Evolutionism Evolvability Experimental evolution Fitness landscape Fossil records Gene-centered view of evolution Genetic algorithm Genetics Gradualism HeLa Human behavioral ecology Human evolution Instinct Kin selection Language

List of publications on evolution and human behavior Modern evolutionary synthesis Natural science Natural selection Neutral theory of molecular evolution Next nature Niche construction Origin of life Paleontology Parallel evolution Parental investment Punctuated equilibrium Quantum evolution Quasispecies model Reciprocal altruism Scientific method Sexual selection Social effect of evolutionary theory Sociobiology Teratogenesis Timeline of evolution

I would recommend we remove those that appear in the See also and templates from the list. That will be a start towards making this more manageable. Then we can discuss if some of these links can migrate to templates and visa versa. David D. (Talk) 03:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work! Eliminating the dupliation seems a natural (and hopefully, non-controversial) starting point. Personally, I would favor use of templates over such an extensive "See Also". The issue is largely aesthetic rather than content-oriented, but more input from other editors would be good. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not just aesthetic. Templates give the opportunity to structure content much more than the bulleted list that is your typical "see also" section. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Second proposal for opening picture

What do you think of the idea of an illustrated tree of life, with sketches (or photographs) of representative species? I'd be willing to make one (based on the information contained in the old diagram) if there's interest.

It would probably be easier to do just the Eukaryotes: The Archaea and Bacteria have divisions hard to visually explain. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How hard would it be to do a rough draft? I hate to ask you to do the work knowing it may be rejected, but a visual would be helpful. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If a stick-figure tree, starting at the Bilateria, and saying what I propose to illustrate and where will suffice, I could probably do it in a couple hours. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to see it, if you were willing to do the work. I have the same reservations as KC about possibly wasting your time, but if you're willing to try... Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Distinctions between theory and fact

Can we lose the Gould quote, which tends to muddy the waters? Consider the two parts of it: First we hear that facts and theories are different things:

"evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

Then we hear — wait a moment! — they're not so different after all:

However, a fact does not mean absolute certainty; in science, fact can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

If one reads the article from which these assertions are drawn, Gould basically contradicts his rhetorically appealing intro: after asserting that facts are different from theories, he takes care to show why evolution is a fact. Evolution (tho not necessarily speciation by natural selection, which is Darwin's theory) is a fact because many different sorts of observations bolster the idea (i.e. the theory) that creatures change over time, deriving from similar ancestral forms, rather than each being specially created (which was the older theory).

In short, a fact is (or at least can be) a very-well-established theory. This is not the place to argue deeply about this business, but basically, let's just guess that the world is a tissue of brute sensory impressions interpreted by theories that we don't question (e.g. if we see a two-foot-tall man, he's of normal size, but distant from us). These give us so-called facts whose interrelationships may puzzle us, giving rise to theories to explain them. And these theories, in turn, may be so serviceable that they become facts, and so on. Science comes into the picture to possibly bootstrap us up another level -- or remove several false levels -- of theory. A good scientific theory eventually gets to join the exclusive club of facts. A really good scientific theory actually throws out whole gangs of false facts that -- it now appears -- got into the club with forged credentials.

Anyway, Gould is a lovely writer, but does not do us any good here. Agree? Disagree? Jrmccall 00:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A theory can never become a fact. As Gould correctly points out, they are two different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty as you imply in the last paragraph of your objection. I do not see where you see the contradiction. To sum up the quote: "Facts are the world's data (such as direct observations of the sun rising, humans evolving, dinosaurs existing) which, due to the limitations of science can never be 100% certain. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

One fact can bolster another fact. The key falling and the apple falling both bolster the fact of gravity. The myriad of hominid fossils bolster the fact of human evolution. That organisms evolve is a fact, not a theory; it is a direct observation of the world data. Why they evolve is explained by the theory of evolution.

Also check the archives as such an objection has already been raised (recently as well) and the quote was kept.--Roland Deschain 00:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I looked under "Wikipedia archives" and couldn't find anything. Could you direct me to the page(s) holding the discussion you refer to? Thanks. — Jrmccall 15:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In archives at the top of this page. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The original discussion is here. What most people stumble over is that fact and theory have a specific meaning within science which differs from the popular usage of the terms. This is why Gould's quote is so confusing when people read it. He is not using the terminology that a layperson is used to. Rather he is using the scientific terminology (and he is using it correctly in my view).--Roland Deschain 03:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Roland Deschain, I applaud your patience and dedication to this article. I admit I initially thought you and Graft were paranoid and over protective of this article, but I admit I was wrong. Your diligence is appreciated. GetAgrippa 01:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My view of theories and facts (hopefully clearer)

Back to the topic of this section: theories and facts etc. Speaking as a scientist myself with multiple advanced degrees, albeit in a different discipline, there is no such thing in science as "proof". There is no such thing in science as a true theory, or a proven theory or a theory being a "fact". Proofs are found in mathematics, but not in science. In science the best one can hope for at any given point in time is an explanation that accounts for most of the data one has so far. That is why evolution is a theory and will never be a fact and never proven. The same is true of gravity, for example. Gravity is a theory and it will always be required to explain more and more complicated sets of data as they are available. Some people like to call the

• data
• evidence
• observations
• experimental results

"facts", so one can have facts in science, but only sort of. Because even these "facts" are only really measurements, and statistics have to be considered to assess our confidence in these "facts". However, things like theories are not facts. They are slowly crafted to explain more and more of the data. When new data is available that the old theory cannot explain, it is usually replaced with a newer theory that does a better job. So the Aristotlean Theory of Gravity was replaced by the Galilean Theory of Gravity, which was replaced by the Newtonian Theory of Gravity, which was replaced by the Einsteinian Theory of Gravity, and that will undoubtably have to be replaced. This should not be seen as any defect of science. It is a self-correcting system and one of the strengths of the system, compared to other systems that are inflexible and unable to change (like the creationist worldview, for example). This is true of everything in science, even the "laws" of thermodynamics. When encountering people who attack evolution, I usually find out very quickly that they

1. do not know what evolution is
2. do not know what science is
3. are repeating some poorly understood arguments that have often arisen and been dismissed conclusively repeatedly, sometimes for decades or even centuries.
4. often have only the vaguest understanding of what alternative theory they are proposing instead
5. sometimes are not even aware the volume of scientific evidence they are trying to dispute; hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed publications, hundreds of thousands of scientists, dozens and dozens of scientific societies, veritable mountains of supporting evidence that would take litterally decades to even list.

Hopefully this can help clear up some confusion.--Filll 03:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Without sounding trite, I think we know this. And so do the creationist editors. But the problem is they are really not interested. They have Faith, so they must be right. They will quote sources, never mind their sources are creationist websites. They will mine quotes, pull things way out of context. They claim scientists are conspiring against them, excluding important infomation, and excluding creationist papers from scientific literature. And they would like to paint "evolution" as another religion. When you do pull them up, point out their inconsistancies, they tell you to go away, they are not interested in talking to you. So I don't think there is much confusion. Just some editors trying to maintain an article at a high standard, and others trying to promote their religious POV. --Michael Johnson 04:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh I meant the confusion about the quotes mentioned earlier, discussing facts and theories and so on. I often even hear people who are biologists and supporters of evolution slipping into sloppy language that has a tendency to confuse matters.--Filll 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording slightly in the theory and fact section, but I am not sure that it is optimal the way I left it. If you can clean it a little but still capture the meaning of what I am getting at it, I think that would be an advantage. What I am trying to do is to deal with some of the sloppiness that happens when biologists try to use physical science analogies to explain these already confusing issues, since the words have different meanings than their everyday meanings. I am contemplating addressing the question of "Laws" of science as well. Theories that are very well established tend to be referred to as laws, so it is not uncommon to hear about the "Law of Evolution" or the "Law of Gravity". This can lead to even further confusion. --Filll 15:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to the article on physical law which could also use a bit of work. I just wanted to at least put a link in there since a reader encountering something called the "law of natural selection" might get a bit confused.--Filll 17:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your additions to the text of the article seem to provide some excellent clarification. The info is so useful I wonder if it shouldn't be mentioned earlier in the main body? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be glad to write a bit more or something slightly different or mold it into the article higher up if people wanted it. Where should it go?--Filll 04:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

But let's talk about the Gould quote!

Listen. I am for evolution as against creationism, as I assume everyone in this discussion is. I am hoping to improve the Evolution article by removing something that, while tolerated (apparently) in its friends, cannot but put off the neutrals and give a point of attack to its enemies. In the essay from which the contested quotes came Gould gives as "facts" the fall of an apple and man evolving from ape-like ancestors. Later in this same article he quotes Darwin, who, he says admiringly, established the fact of evolution.

"I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."

What Darwin did, by his own description, was overthrow the dogma of separate creations. To see that evolution is a theory, try substituting "that an apple falls" for "of separate creations". Doesn't work, does it? That an apple falls, rather than floats or goes sideways, is a fact of observation. That man has arisen from ape-like ancestors is an interpretation — oh, all right, a theory — to connect many different observations (the remains of fossil hominids and the close physical resemblance we bear to other primates) into one story.

Gould is trying to defend evolution from the creationists by making the point that evolution is a fact, and therefore to be respected, rather than a mere theory. Well, I'm glad he was in there pitching for many years; he did good work in keeping the enemies of science off balance. But, as must happen occcasionally to one so prodigiously prolific (and so lightly-edited!), he got sloppy here.

I now regret being so facile with the notion of "fact" in my original entry. I will back off from any definition it might imply. Filll had a better take on it, but the essential point is really that almost everything is theory, or at least has a lot of theory in it (e.g. the amperage passing through a wire, if registered by a meter, has as "data" the reading of a dial, and as theory the beliefs under which the ammeter was constructed).

The motivation for this section was to assure people that Evolution is well-established. So how about we take the bull by the horns and replace this Theory and Fact section, perhaps with something called "Mere Theory?", which argues that a well-confirmed theory is the gold standard in every science. — Jrmccall 00:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a point when hypothesis or theory is dropped from the nomenclature. In muscle mechanics, it was initially the sliding filament hypothesis, then sliding filament theory, now people just generally refer to a sliding filament mechanism. Overwhelming evidence and facts support this trend. Evolution is a fact and evolution theory is really a catch phrase for all the nested hypotheses, theories, and laws advanced to explain the fact. While I agree Evolution theory is still appropriate, certain aspects have really entered the mechanism stage. Advancements in sequencing genomes, new fossil finds, and studies of Archaic DNA will quench any doubts in the next ten years for much what is considered theory (my crystal balls prediction). GetAgrippa 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation format

Since this article is featured, I feel justified in being nit-picky. The footnotes do not use a standard form of notation. There are full on citations with author, title, publisher, date, ISBN, etc, and then there are footnotes that are simply an external link to a PDF file or webpage. I would urge everyone with spare time to convert the weaker references to a more standardized, using Magnus' tool, or one of the many citation template, like template:cite web. What do others think?--Andrew c 02:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Andrew is absoultely right, the cites need some attention. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I've been looking at other articles for examples, and there is a certain lack of consistency. MOS seems to allow some leeway when formatting, but which method would be prefered in this article? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

While I agree it would be a Good Thing to have standard refs, WP:WIAFA simply says an article should have refs, not a particular ref style. (Maybe it could be argued that what Andrew has brought up falls under consistency of referencing - which is a WIAFA requirement - but I think that part refers more to not mixing, say, Harvard with Chicago than having consistent Chicago). Anyway... Mikker ^(...) 16:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I, (and any other editor) decided to convert some of the simple, one line external links to the citeweb template, would that be problematic? I personally thing it would only help, but if there is a downside, I won't touch the refs.--Andrew c 19:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No, no it would be great if you converted the simple links to proper citations, I was simply making the (perhaps Alexandrian) point that doing so has nothing to do with the article being an FA. I don't see a downside if it's done properly... Mikker ^(...) 19:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fictional tool. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

NB {{cite science}} - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to try using {{cite science}}, but am unfamiliar with it and don't want to muck up the page. Can you explain briefly, or slip me a link to some directions on it's use? Thanks! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You may be aware of this, but instructions can usually be found on the talk page, i.e. Template talk:Cite science, and examples of use can be found in the "what links here", i.e. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Cite_science. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Introduction suggestion

I suggest that this article needs a more elementary and accessible introductory paragraph.--Filll 16:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I've had a go, saving the full original intro as "Technical introduction"... do with it what you will .Abtract 17:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In general I would support attempts to make this more accessible to laymen (and laywomen too, of course). As of now there is significant duplication between the 2 intros. I'm not willing to edit this myself, I lack the academic background to do it properly, but some kind of clean-up and rewording would be in order. Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My intention was that someone else would edit the technical intro if we need one? My money would go on delete the old (technical) intro altogether but I may be biased cos I wrote the new one :) Abtract 18:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we should remove the duplication or incorporate the information from the technical information elsewhere in the text, leaving a relatively accessible introduction so that people can get a general idea of what the topic is about from the first few sentences. One of the most common problems I have noticed in Wikipedia is a sort of "introduction creep" where the introductions become more and more cluttered with technical terms, translations, names in other scripts, pronunciation guides, very detailed information, multiple dates and other material. Eventually a reader cannot tell what the article is about from the introduction at all, the articles become inaccessible and much less useful.--Filll 18:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

So is the new one OK or not? Abtract 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is much better in my eyes, but I am not a specialist in this area. I would defer to a real biologist.--Filll 18:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO, it is easier to read and understand, but like Filll, I would prefer some input from subject-matter experts. Barring any objections from the local academic community, I think it is good. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. It seems mostly the same to me; it just omits a few examples, and removes some technical language. That said, to my mind this technical detail wasn't obscuring the points being made (sometimes being confined in brackets for instance), so I tend to favour the former as (slightly) more comprehensive. That said, I'm a biologist (or was anyway), so might just like the big words. One thing I would ask, however, is if we can get rid of/move that annoying panel on the modern and ancient armadillo. It's totally in the way, messes up the format, and really isn't that exciting an example (apologies to all armadillos out there). Anyway, please don't let the above put anyone off editing - as I've said, I'm probably not a good person to judge. Cheers, --Plumbago 18:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted any changes made to the intro. The intro of a FA article should not be edited extensively in the actual article. A lot of changes have been made and I disagree with some of them. Let's move the new intro into this talk page and discuss the changes one by one. I know it is tedious, but consider that just recently we had a huge three part discussion about changing just the wording in one sentence of the intro.--Roland Deschain 18:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not opposed to the changes (see above) I think Roland has the right approach. Better to talk first and edit later...Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new intro

In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations. This process results in the development of new species from existing ones and is thus the process by which life on Earth became so diverse. All contemporary organisms are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years.

The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection and genetic drift; these two mechanisms act on genetic variation as it occurs. Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. Those traits that are heritable are passed to the offspring, with the result that beneficial heritable traits become more common in the next generation. Over successive generations this process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.

The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, first set out in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. In the 1930s, these ideas concerning the process of evolution were combined with Gregor Mendel's ideas concerning the mechanisms of heredity to form the current theory of evolution, known technically as the modern evolutionary synthesis, or "Neo-Darwinism". With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of antibiotic resistance, eusociality in insects, and sex ratios.

Although there is overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus supporting the validity of evolution, it has been at the center of many social and religious controversies because it has implications for the origins of humankind.

Comments?

Most of the edit appears to be simply deleting somewhat technical parts of the intro, most notably the deletion of any reference to the change of allele frequency as the basic definition of evolution. I disagree with these deletions. The intro sentence is actually quite approachable, with a general definition in the first part of the sentence and a more formal definition in the second part. The later mention of allele frequency is the actual definition of the modern synthesis and should definitely stay in the intro. I also disagree with the rest of the deletions, as they are not technical at all, but rather serve to introduce the major players in such a large theory. Is there a specific change in the intro that you want to see implemented, as it's very hard to discuss that many changes at the same time.--Roland Deschain 18:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have argued to make several changes in the article (like changing allele frequency to genomic change), and I know the urge to want to alter the article. If you read the article closely and read the subarticles you see the definitions and nomenclature are cohesive. It would be a drastic change to alter this text as it would influence other sections and articles. I agree with Roland not to alter this text. I also appreciate all the monumental effort it took to craft the article as it currently stands. What I would recommend is a new introductory section titled "Basic Concepts in Evolution" for an immature audience, then an "Advanced Concepts in Evolution" the article as it currently stands. That way you serve two audiences and can appease the inquiring mind with more detail.GetAgrippa 19:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

One issue that many science articles face is the dichotomy between a hypothetical "average reader", and the level of detail necessary to communicate useful and accurate info on a complex topic. It seems that a "Basic Concepts in Evo" would be a very useful addition for those without a strong academic background. Hyperlinks have been very well used in the current intro to give access to important concepts, but it becomes problematic when the end-user needs to read 12 seperate articles before finishing the first para. It would be a serious mistake to remove any material from this article (though no one is really suggesting that), but adding some kind of "Evolution for Dummies" intro material would be beneficial to a large segment of the audience. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Roland. While the issue of allele fraquencies may not be the most accessible, it's an important element of the definition of evolution (there's a big discussion about it somewhere in the archives). I disagree with the removal of the statement regarding evolution being the source of the diversity of life - I don't see how removing that statement simplifies matters at all.

Including "ecological, sexual, and kin selection" is useful. I don't think it should be removed. I prefer to state what the sources of variation are - people are often confused about that. On the other hand, I would be happy to see something more accessible replace "with the result that beneficial heritable traits". I'm fine with either "given enough time..." or "over successive generations..." - actually I'd prefer wording that included both the ideas of time and generations.

I prefer "Darwinian natural selection" to "these ideas" though "with Gregor Mendel's ideas concerning the mechanisms of heredity" may be more accessible than "with the theory of Mendelian heredity" (again, I think there's better wording that lies somewhere between these two). I prefer that "eusociality in insects, and the staggering biodiversity of Earth's ecosystem" be retained. It's an end-of-section sentance - if people don't want to read it, they'll gloss over it, but if they choose to read it carefully they will get a better sense of scale. Guettarda 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a very nice cleanup of the old intro. I've just added these examples. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

One alternative would be a link to a "basic principles of evolution" or an "evolution primer" article where a beginner or nonspecialist or average person could learn about the subject without having to click on lots of hyperlinks, or look words and concepts up. I do not care if it is in this article, as long as there is a link to it very early on so a beginner can find it. In particular, here is some of what I think might be problematic in the current introduction:

• heritable traits: this might be a bit confusing. Is there a simpler way to say this? Heritable is not a normal word. Traits is bad enough. Characteristics? Properties?
• allele: definitely not for the beginner
• frequencies: definitely not well understood, even by people who think they do
• Speciation: too much for a beginner
• common descent: Descending? they are dropping? This will confuse
• attested to: this is a trial? We are in court?

And those are just a few from the first paragraph. Genetic recombination in the second paragraph definitely is too much for a beginner in the 2nd paragraph. I will give some more feedback when I look at the proposed "simpler" replacement. I am maybe able to look at this problem with fresher eyes than someone who is schooled in biology. I am interested in it, I have read a few books, but to be honest, I have only a smattering of knowledge. And I know from past experience that the average person will have far more trouble with something like this than me.--Filll 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you would be interested in simple:Evolution? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Very intersting. I hadn't seen simple:Evolution before; it certainly lives up to its name :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I do think that is a great idea, and we might want to put an early link in to the simple Wikipedia article on evolution. In the meantime, I have taken the liberty of compiling a bit more feedback. --Filll 21:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fill I like your idea for a simplified Evolution intro, but some of your statements can be misleading. For example, one could get the impression that evolution is synonymous with speciation, and that natural selection is the only means of evolution. It would have to be carefully crafted to to be informative and simple. Speciation can result from hybridizations in plants and animals. The red wolf is a hybrid of a grey wolf and coyote.GetAgrippa 12:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

From the simple:Evolution article "If these genetic differences help an organism survive and breed, they will be passed on to the next generation in larger numbers. If the genetic differences do not help an organism survive until it can breed, then those genetic differences will be lost." Another oversimplification. Genes can maintain a "cryptic" presence in a population or become pseudogenes or parts used to create a new gene with novel functions. I agree with Roland that this subject deserves a certain degree of sophistication to be accurate and informative.GetAgrippa 16:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As a contributor myself to Simple Wikipedia, it is a significant intellectual challenge to present complicated material in an accessible way, while keeping in mind the subtleties that exist. So if we were to provide an early link to the Simple Wikipedia article on evolution here, how would you modify the Simple Wikipedia evolution article to make it more reasonable and accurate?--Filll 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fill I can appreciate the great anxiety that probably went into creating the simple:Evolution article. I didn't mean for my comments to sound critical but just an indication how difficult a task it is to simplify the subject and why I support the present version of this article. The simple:Evolution article is reasonable for the intended audience (and some reference should be made in this article). I just think this article is presently accurate, maybe too long, and for my taste too much social implications (but I am changing my mind with all the Creationist POV pushers and vandalisms). GetAgrippa 18:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Annotated proposed new intro

In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations.

1. heritability: should one have to click that link to find out ? this is the first sentence after all
2. population of what?
3. successive is a bit of a big word but maybe ok
4. generations is reasonable i think

This process results in the development of new species from existing ones and is thus the process by which life on Earth became so diverse. All contemporary organisms are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years.

1. common descent: again, should one have to click the link to see what it means?
2. cumulative: a big word but maybe ok
3. I do like the statement about "the process by which life on Earth became so diverse" or something similar with the same idea.

I will note that many times I encounter people that think the theory of evolution includes things like:

• children growing up and becoming adults
• stars changing type as they age
• mountain building
• erosion of river banks
• cars rusting
• the big bang
• abiogenesis

(somewhat similar to the objections to relativity based on the name, and thinking it has something to do with everything being relative to something else) People with these kinds of misunderstandings is the audience one has to reach out to somehow. They need to be reached. Many times when I just talk about survival of the fittest and mutations, people think I am being sneaky somehow and holding back some other big idea from evolution, because they are so confused about what biological evolution is.

The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection and genetic drift; these two mechanisms act on genetic variation as it occurs.

I would break that sentence into two. Genetic drift sounds confusing, like continental drift, or a boat drifting in the wind, as if it were going in a direction. Natural selection may be less problematic, but it is not as well known as the expression "survival of the fittest" among the great unwashed.

Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce.

I like that sentence. Reasonably descriptive.

Those traits that are heritable are passed to the offspring, with the result that beneficial heritable traits become more common in the next generation.

That sentence might be a bit too much. "Beneficial heritable traits" is a mouthful.

Over successive generations this process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.

Again, a bit of a horse choker of a sentence. Varied? Not too common a word. Adaptations is also something that might be confusing, and the more that one requires them to click links, the less accessible it will be. I do not object to the links being there, I just think it is best if they get the information without clicking through necessarily.

The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, first set out in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. In the 1930s, these ideas concerning the process of evolution were combined with Gregor Mendel's ideas concerning the mechanisms of heredity to form the current theory of evolution, known technically as the modern evolutionary synthesis, or "Neo-Darwinism".

Most people will not know Mendel and genetics and when they do not know what Darwinism is quite yet (having been confused in the previous sentences, all of a sudden here is "Neo-Darwinism".

With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of antibiotic resistance, eusociality in insects, and sex ratios.

Eusociality is a bit too much. Sex ratios again is confusing. Antibiotic resistance I would hope most people know about. This sentence might be too long and should be split up. In general I would argue for more and shorter sentences.

Although there is overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus supporting the validity of evolution, it has been at the center of many social and religious controversies because it has implications for the origins of humankind.

Again, I would break this sentence up a bit.

--Filll 21:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a big problem in expending the intro, as Filll seems to want. However, I don't think it is advisable to do that, as evolution is such a large topic with so many fields feeding into it that expanding the intro will make an already large article even larger. The intro, I agree, is somewhat (but not overly) complex, as would be expected from such a fundamental topic. But the rest of the article does an excellent job of addressing the intro and explain all the concepts.--Roland Deschain 21:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not have a big problem with the current intro or the proposed intro either. I just think that given that this is such a high profile topic, and there is so much misunderstanding of it, we should think about how to help dispel some of the misunderstanding, while still having a useful resource for people who have a bit more background. What about a link to simple Wikipedia? How does that article look? Beginners could be given a link to that as a primer, possibly.--Filll 21:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My purpose in putting up the new, simplified lead section was to make the article more easily accessible to the average reader. I feel no particular ownership of the exact wording (which on re-reading is far from perfect) but I think we should remember that this is a very important article and a highly contentious one (as we have seen in recent 'discussions' here). I guess it is visited a lot (is there a way of getting figures on this?) and that the vast majority of people who look at this article are not biologists or even scientists. Again I have no figures but IMHO a subject like this is bound to attract most intelligent, curious people at some time or another. It is also going to get a lot of 'hits' from google and other searches. With all this passing trade to this article surely we must ensure that they get the true flavour of evolution before they get bored or scared off by the science. There are enough people out there giving misleading messages on evolution and we mustn't miss any opportunity to correct these views. It is for this reason that I believe it is very important that the lead gives a good account of evolution that is easily readable to the end by an average person; of course this must be consistent with the science but not confused by it. I leave it to you better able people to achieve what I set out to do above but please don't miss this opportunity to inform a lot of people of the facts about evolution by scaring them off at the very beginning of the article ... lead them slowly into the science step-by-step and they will get more out of it. Abtract 10:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Usage figures

Starting point: Wikipedia:Most visited articles. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ... on one of the (disputed) sub-lists it sits between Optical fibres and Logic which has a certain piquancy.Abtract 11:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Offroad discussion

Just so we don't get torn into various battles on the edges of our camp, I thought I should mention the doubting Thomases have moved to Roland's talk page for now. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

The discussion has once again been deleted unilaterally. I was in the middle of a discussion with two people and it was simply deleted. This is the third time. If you are so concerned about the same issues being discussed over and over then you ought to make a summary of those positions so that people can know. --Ezra Wax 05:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ezra, part of it has been copied to your talk page you know. Homestarmy 05:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. But I don't want to discuss the issue with myself. In any case the discussion belongs here. It is about this topic and should be available to anybody who wants to see discussion on this page.--Ezra Wax 05:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been engaged in this debate for more than 10 hours now, without gaining any support for your POV. Isn't it time for you to move on? --Michael Johnson 05:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ezra, there is no support for your proposed changes. At this point, I’m going to have to ask you not to continue bringing up the same points here repeatedly. You obviously have some ideas about how Wikipedia should work differently (using truth as a criterion, expanding the scope of article talk pages, and so on), but unfortunately they are not consistent with current Wikipedia policy or practice. If anyone wishes to continue discussing these matters with you, you may do so on your personal talk pages. Please refrain from further posting here unless you can back up your proposals with good evidence, preferably in the form of peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at my talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that though in theory Wikipedia isn't a democracy (see: WP:What Wikipedia is not) it in practice is exactly that, a dictatorship of the majority, as can be clearly observed on this talk page. Having had the pleasure of observing more experienced Wikipedians, the proper way to go about this issue is finding (preferably) two dozen people (these must include at least 1 admin) supporting your views and amass them at this article to push your pov. Be careful what you say at all times, since everything you say can and will be used against you once things get ugly. --Zero g 16:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there's a difference between a dictatorship of the majority, and observing preset rules for writing articles. The editors of this article are bound by policy, and since the more experienced editors realise that more fully, it may seem that they are a majority. In fact, its simply a matter of the majority adhering to established policy. -- Ec5618 16:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"the proper way to go about this issue is finding (preferably) two dozen people (these must include at least 1 admin) supporting your views and amass them at this article to push your pov. " I find that statement terrifying. With that strategy, a planned invasion of the evolution article by a deluge of creationist could rewrite the article. Every editor should have a mantra of NPOV per subject, not "MY POV" per subject. GetAgrippa 16:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fear not, my friend, it ain't gonna happen. Not even if someone forces me to start using proper English :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Even the vast majority will not be able to change this article as long as there is no verifiable scientific data to support their claims. Most objectors complain about the intro out of gut instinct (or creationist propaganda). Once the time comes for them to provide verifiable information, it is quite obvious that there are no scientific sources to support their claims.--Roland Deschain 17:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. It is like a coyote caught in a Bear trap, it would rather chew it's leg off than admit defeat. Lives to fight another day. Well, my thanks to the "Watchers of this Oracle" that prevent mayhem. There are also a great pool of editors who have contributed to this article. I know every single one if they had their ruthers would change something in this article, however to their credit they resisted and worked together to create this article with NPOV in mind. GetAgrippa 18:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not complaining about the introduction exactly. I just want us to think about how to make this article more accessible to more people. Or barring that, to provide a link to a more accessible article or primer so beginners can get up to speed. I do not want to discard any important science or distort it. I just want to provide a more gentle onramp for people, since this is so important and many people seem to be confused about the issue. Having a difficult introduction definitely does not help matters when dealing with anti-evolutionists.--Filll 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

how to argue

I have placed a comment on Wikipedia:NPOV (Comparison of views in science) about the methods applicable to these discussions. DGG 05:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of the evolution article

The editors of this article will probably find this interesting [1]--Pixel ;-) 19:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That really is interesting. I had no idea this article got so much outside attention. Can you imagine what a similar graph for this talkpage would look like? Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that this is one of the most popular pages on Wikipedia. There is an immense amount of interest in evolution, from all sides. That is why I am asking for accessibility to be considered.--Filll 19:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I noted the most recent Discover edition has an article on epigenetics. It is a subject of growing interest in biology and genetics. GetAgrippa 20:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

so...

I am using only the CRUDEST terms when I say that basically,to my understanding,evolution is many good birth defects. If it is not good for a human to have an extra thumb, the variation dies out, if it is, then it over comes the 2 thumbed variation.Is that basically the theory? PS. I did not know the proper word,, so i used variation