Talk:Evolution

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Evolution FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about evolution. If you are interested in discussing or debating evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins.

Archives

2003–2005 Historical POV forks September 24, 2003–February 23, 2005 December 31, 2004–June 6, 2005 June 12–October 24, 2005 October 24–November 23, 2005 November 28–December 14, 2005 December 14, 2005–January 10, 2006 2006 January 2–February 6, 2006 February 6–March 23, 2006 March 3–April 5, 2006 March 31–May 4, 2006 April 20–July 7, 2006 June 24–August 25, 2006 June 27–August 26, 2006 August 18–October 2, 2006 October 1–November 16, 2006 November 6–27, 2006 November 26–December 20, 2006 December 11–23, 2006 December 19, 2006–January 6, 2007 December 20, 2006 December 26, 2006–January 6, 2007 2007 January 6–9, 2007 January 9–11, 2007 January 11–15, 2007 January 15–20, 2007 January 21–February 8, 2007 February 8–February 18, 2007 February 19–March 12, 2007 March 12–March 28, 2007 March 28–April 15, 2007 April 13–April 16, 2007 April 16–May 6, 2007 April 27–May 16, 2007 May 15–May 19, 2007 May 17–May 29, 2007 May 21–current

Neo-Darwinism - who uses that?

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

Historical context in the Lead

I should have participated in the FA discussion, however the lead should include Lamarckism and the initial controversy of evolution; to flesh out its history and to better conform to WP:Lead#Provide_an_accessible_overview. Reading the lead doesn't provide me any context as to what Evolution replaced, and that it was initially contentious. While controversy doesn't exist and objections to evolution are marginal now, that was not the case in the past. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Beware of over-simplifying it into a black and white before/after. Pages 10-11 here (and other chapters) gives an interesting simplification of the situation at the time: as natural philosophy developed into science, up to the 1830s natural theology claimed each new discovery of science as an additional proof of the wisdom, power, and goodness of the Deity, complementing revelation. Alternately, discoveries were seen as undermining the Biblical account of creation and of man's spiritual nature, This was welcomed by freethinkers and atheists, and feared by conservative Christians and monarchists. From around 1820 to 1875 a new natural theology developed, emerging in the 1840s as a separation of science and theology, so that when discoveries appeared to conflict with scripture, the understanding of scripture was reconsidered. The Reverend Baden Powell (mathematician) is cited as the most consistent proponent of these ideas – all before 1860... dave souza, talk 23:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I was not bold... however "new natural theology developed"... developed where, when, who; and to what extent was it adopted? Was it only the scientists/academics which adopted this new meme, or was it more widespread? Despite your obvious nuanced understanding of the historical context (first half of proposed sentence), there was significant (and perhaps Lead notable) black and white commentary/resistance from blank and blank (second half of proposed sentence). Could it be argued Evolution somehow marks the transition to naturalism in influential (political/teachers) spheres? Here's just an offhand rough draft:

Natural theology, the process of separating science from religion was taking hold in academic circles in the mid 1800s; but the arrival of Evolution put the clash of cultures in the public sphere and attracted heavy criticism from religious conservatives and monarchists who were being increasingly marginalized by scientific discoveries.

That's kind of what I'm going for... - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The questions you ask are pretty much answered in the linked article. Natural theology developed from the 16th century,[1] and was entrenched by the early 19th century in the expectation that empirical science would provide evidence supporting Christianity and showing how God's laws controlled nature, as in Newtonian gravity. Advances in geology overcame ideas of Genesis being correct about the age of the Earth by the 1830s, and at the same time higher criticism from liberal Christianity made the Bible subject to historical testing rather than being taken as unquestionable truth. Baden Powell and other proponents of these ideas in the Church of England came into conflict with the conservative evangelicals (who feared that evolution would bring Radical republicanism), and Essays and Reviews was much more controversial than The Origin. It's worth reading von Sydow, Momme (2005), "Darwin – A Christian Undermining Christianity? On Self-Undermining Dynamics of Ideas Between Belief and Science" (PDF), in Knight, David M.; Eddy, Matthew D. (eds.), Science and Beliefs: From Natural Philosophy to Natural Science, 1700–1900, Burlington: Ashgate, pp. 141–156, ISBN 0-7546-3996-7, retrieved 0-7546-3996-7 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) for the way in which Darwin set out to support natural theology, and came unstuck. Anyway, will try to get back to this and think of a form of words ... dave souza, talk 00:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is looking rather too complex for the lead, though a re-write of the opening paragraph of the Social and religious controversies section seems in order. In a crude sense there was a shift 1780–1880 from directly created fixed species to evolution from a common ancestor, with a lot of vigourous debate mixed in with a wider theological debate about whether the Bible could be opened to historical scrutiny.. not sure how soon I can tackle this.... dave souza, talk 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If complicated then it should be expanded from one sentence to two or even three. Summary style is crude and can handle these ideas. Yes evolution has great predictive power and is very successful today... but it is more than that; it directly highlighted a philosophical divide/debate in society/science. That is extraordinary, and I see no whiff of it in the lead. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Theory

Certian aspects of this article should not be explained as fact when there are so many variables that are simply out of our grasp to understand. Science is about gathering facts. No hypothesis can be stated as fact unless it is given substantial evidence to be proven to be anything beyond that. This article should show more that this subject is debatable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.51.134 (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What is debatable is explained in the article, what has been proved is also explained. For more details on this topic, please see Evolution as theory and fact Tim Vickers 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite true Tim. Let's take a simple example from early on, where it says "these traits are the expression of genes". What do you understand that to mean? What exactly do you take the word 'gene' to mean? Dawkins has argued for a definition of gene that is wider, but in general a gene is taken to be, I suggest, a unit of 'coding' DNA capable of making a protein (or actually several with alternate splicing of exons forcing us to dump the 'one gene one protein' idea), and gene expression is taken to mean protein production. So how are traits the result of gene expression? Is there not a missing 'magical' step here, at least so far as this article goes? The missing link lies in the field of morphology, of gene cascades, of promoters, insulators, enhancers; of positional effects, epigenetics, RNA and so on, which is a huge area that is still largely mysterious. The weakness of the modern synthesis, according to many, was it's failure to incorporate morphology. I do not doubt that traits are produced by our genome, but I think they are still some way from being explained. Until you can explain how genes make us as we are, how can it be right to say bluntly "traits are the expression of genes" as if that were a definite fact with a fully understood mechanism? Where even are we to find the definitive version of the modern synthesis. Huxley's "The Modern Synthesis" leaves room I think for Orthogenesis, and certainly invokes positional effects. He talks of genes "achieving dominance with time" and other such things that are not talked about by the others. Many of the other contributors to the Modern synthesis, say absolutely nothing about biological mechanisms (Fisher especially, who was famously obscure) and some talk only of Speciation and population genetics. Schmalhausen's 'Factors in Evolution' is subtitled 'The Theory of Stabilizing Selection', and actually owes a lot to his Ukranian past and Lysenkoism. Was it part of the 'Modern Synthesis'. Dobzhanski says it was very important, yet Schmalhausen wasn't published in the West until 1948, and that was pretty much after the synthesis was supposed to have been achieved! Was there in fact ever a synthesis? I have doubts. There were big arguments between gradualists and mutationists, and saltationists, and they ended when the gradualists died. Were the problems really resolved? I seriously don't think so. It may not be PC, or convenient to those of us who don't want to expose the weak points to creationists, but it's the truth. --Memestream 11:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no missing "magical process." It is true that the article leaves out much current work in molecular genetics, and also mathematical population genetics, that deepens our understanding of the processes of evolution. But this article cannot include everything. What we should instead be doing is developing linked articles on population genetics, molecular genetics, embryology, and evo-devo. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As great as it would be to shove all that detail in this article, it is not practical. These main articles have to be succinct, with this sort of more complicated information placed in well-written subsiduary daughter articles. Also, Fischer might have been famously obscure in Biology, but he is a model of clarity in areas like statistics and information theory.--Filll 16:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Theory? Fact? False? Popular Opinion

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

No, they don't "know something". Plenty of people don't know that Nicolas Sarkozy is President of France: but we don't generally assume that this ignorance is because they "know something". We don't have to maintain some sort of "balance" between people who have knowledge of a topic and those who do not. But, sadly, schools don't teach much evolution at all. --Robert Stevens 14:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It would indeed be strange to add a note to the Nicolas Sarkozy article saying how many Americans think he is President of France. Good example. Tim Vickers 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, what's "France?" Is that a nickname for Frances? I had a horse named Frances once but we never called her France. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a small country south of Dorset. Famous for cheese. Tim Vickers 17:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hah!! Wrong!!! The country south of Dorset is Gurnsey!! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably the same place, that will just be an alternative spelling. Tim Vickers 17:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You evolutionists have an answer for everything - tha's proof that you are wrong! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough of the fun! No, of course they don't all 'know something', but it's too easy to just say that this article leaves out specialist stuff that 'deepens out understanding', as Slrubenstein puts it. It's also not quite satisfactory to say that readers can go to other articles for the details, because what they won't find there is a satisfying explanation of how, for example, population genetics solved the problem of gradualism. In fact it's extraordinarily hard, if not impossible to find such an explanation anywhere. For example, I have a popular book called 'Evolution, the Great Debate', which I regard as not bad as these books go, but it says (p137) under 'The New Synthesis', However, in Fisher's own words, the argument was 'rather complex', and the language of maths defeated at least one scientist assessing his work - the Royal Society rejected his paper. Look into it, and you find that many of the men who supposedly arrived at the synthesis didn't understand it! In Dobzhanski's 'Genetics and the Origin of Species' (reprint edited Eldridge and Gould), I find a forword by Steven J Gould, in which he says that he had the privelege of attending a reunion of the living founders of the synthesis, as recently as 1974, convened by Ernst Mayr. Gould comments: As an ironic footnote, I believe that none of the major synthesists, with the exception of Simpson, ever read (or could have read) much of Fisher, Haldane and Wright in the mathematical original. Both Dobzhanski and Mayr cheerfully admitted this to me. Maybe there was no synthesis, just a convenient assumption that one had been achieved.

I'd like to clearly state, in Modern synthesis the problems that required synthesis (apparent absence of the small changes needed by Darwin's theory, following Mendels revelations, plus the speciation problem, plus the questions over Lamarckian inheritance posed by new genetic knowledge) and then explain how these were supposedly solved by the synthesis. I say 'supposedly' because not everyone was happy with the explanations at the time, and some are not happy now. The Gradualists were not happy with it, and a bitter debate took place at the time. --Memestream 19:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could create a wikipedia article about it. WAS 4.250 20:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That is interesting. I have always wondered what was meant by the hardening of the synthesis. Is that talking about the founders arteries? Hee. Science is always a work in progress. It is clear the modern synthesis is a historical footnote and not a planned strategy of a group working together. Some limit the synthesis to a period others say it is still ongoing. In any case they did not pat each other on the back in agreement. I think we may find that part of the synthesis is limiting research and the emphasis will change. I note many see natural selection as selecting on reproduction rather than selecting for reproductive advantage. GetAgrippa 12:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I appreciate both of the above comments, and agree that the article is a lot better than it was years ago. I've been a big fan of Wikipedia for a long time, and am watching many articles get better and better - but that's irrelevant here isn't it? If there are misconceptions they can still be removed, and explanations improved, and that doesn't necessarily mean making the article bigger or more complicated. My interest in evo-devo goes very deep GettaGrippa, and I'll certainly help with that, but for the moment I'm keen to modify these pages on evolution, modern synthesis and neo-Darwinism so that they give recognition to the fact that the theory of evolution is ongoing, and the modern synthesis does not represent the current state of understanding by any means. To not say that is to play into the hands of the creationists, is it not, because we all need to be clear that the modern synthesis does not represent the current state of thinking among scientists in the field. It is not even something that has ever been defined precisely, as different accounts of it conflict in certain details. It's not hard, or overcomplicated to indicate that this is the case, while leaving the details for other pages. As for paranoia concerning creationist issues, I'm not interested, and I don't think anyone here should be. I don't feel the need to consider what creationists might think about something, I'm too busy seeking the truth. --Memestream 21:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Meme, Fill is a physicist and not a biologist, and he is an excellent editor. I really respect and like his unbiased opinions. Slrubenstein is another excellent editor and he really tries to be fair and follow NPOV (he is an anthropologist). Lots of excellent editors here(my apologies if I didn't mention you). I gather you are also a biological scientist and we do have that penchant to be exact. To be honest I was too anal-ytical when I first started posting because of my nature, but I soon realized that this is an encyclopedia not a graduate level course. I too didn't care for all the paranoia and concerns over creationist (expressed the exact same sentiment almost verbatim), but it is a major vandalism problem (I have grown to appreciate the magnitude of this diversion and the frustration). This article is a work in progress so your concerns are appreciated and don't go on deaf ears (actually many have been raised before I think some by me). I do find that some of the offshoot articles lack continutiy with the parent article and that I see as a problem. Keep making cogent arguments and you will either win favor or find a compromise. Keep up the good work. Don't let it frustrate you-like it has me. I am learning to tame that beast. Slrubenstein has been very helpful in that regard. He has been envolved in some real doozies, and it is a real testimony to his persistence and desire to create an excellent encyclopedia (and not compromise his intellectual integrity) Regards GetAgrippa 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for that GetAggrippa. I do indeed seem to be getting some more encouraging and to the point conversation at last. I have slogged on with this, very politely I feel, despite gratuitous allegations, simply because I think it's important. I find it difficult to assign any qualities to editors, with so little to go on, and tend to focus on the task rather than try to work out anything about the editors. Since I also edit a lot on other topics in psychology, psychiatry, evolutionary psychology and so on (I actually regard myself as a serious modern polymath with a particular interest in bringing about the consilience of E. O. Wilson) I don't meet the same editors all the time, which makes things more difficult. I've just taken a look at your page and realised that as well as the blank page I'd hastily seen before, you do indeed have a history rather like my own of withdrawing at times in frustration and then getting tempted back. I actually take Wikipedia very seriously, and I think I'm right to. It's a phenomenon that is starting to carry tremendous power. These articles on Darwin etc are absolutely vital, and they pop up all over the place in other pages on the web, and are gaining credibility, so their power to spread 'memes' is frightening. If I can get agreement over neo-Darwinism and get the page kept I feel I could help to clean up the widespread misuse and misunderstanding worldwide - not by pushing my POV, but just by persisting in sorting out something intelligently so that it makes sense while acknowledging useage. Regards --Memestream 12:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"But, how, may I ask, if most people go through schools teaching evolution, then how do all these people not believe in it? They're not idiots. They must know something?"

Science is complicated --- there is not a quick and easy explanation to such broad ideas as Evolution. That is clearly evident by this conversation thread and the "level" of debate. Believe it or not --- everyone is not as passionate about the subject as you; they want it boiled down in a nutshell. Try teaching evolution to high school students -- in simple english --- try writing an introduction to evolution that is both accurate and understandable :) Have you ever set through a Ken Ham lecture on Creationism? It is so concise and simplistic ... Noah's flood = fossils. A no-brainer. Praise Jesus!!! Factor in the fact that they want to find truth in Creationism; and you have an anti-evoltion movement. When you edit --- perhaps you should think in terms of making the information accessable to the "average" reader. --Random Replicator 13:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My take on this is that there are indeed some serious flaws, or inadequacies of explanation, or gaps, in the theory of evolution as commonly put across. There are also blatant mistakes made which propagate past 'memes', even in advanced textbooks, just to further confuse things. These flaws are seized upon and misrepresented by creationists, and the public sense a grain of truth in what they say. Take for example a section I found yesterday in my old A-level textbook Biology a Functional Approach, which I think is still in widespread use. It says, "A central tenet of Darwin's argument is that the 'raw material' for natural selection, arise spontaneously. They are in no way dictated by the environment ...." How wrong can you get. That's neo-Darwinism, but certainly not what Darwin said! I believe it is possible to explain evolution in simple english while telling no lies if you are very careful, and at the same time make it clear that evolutionary theory is work in progress, and the modern synthesis is thought to be falling apart by some, but nevertheless the essential fact of Evolution's occurance, somehow, through genetic processes as yet to be teased out, is pretty damm certain as demonstrated by massive evidence, not theory. --Memestream 13:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There are flaws? Says who? You? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OMG. I just read this Memestream about flaws. I have been trying to empathize and sympathize and then you have to say something like that. I hope you are just rambling, because now we both look the fool. Concerned. GetAgrippa 22:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neo-Darwinism - help please

I've just realised that some editors here are not taking part at Neo-Darwinism where my real troubles lie. I only started working on that article to try to sort out problems with Modern synthesis which had a redirect that I considered not properly dealt with. Now my new page is up for deletion.

GettaGrippa: You don't seem to have commented there, and if you look at the talk you will see I have, in response to a suggestion, taken examples of useage of the term from many Wikipedia articles - not to cite of course, but just to demonstrate the problem of confused useage I'm trying to put across. One of the articles is evo-devo, which you talked about to me, and it supports everything I am saying. Can you perhaps help me persuade others that Neo-Darwinism is a respectable term used to refer to modern theory, not necessarily the modern synthesis. --Memestream 13:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see the problem Memestream. You my friend have inadvertently stepped in a stinky using weasel words that are an alarm to anyone with experience with the article."Truth" often refers to Christ. You also cited an ID reference which is another alarm, also beware primary sources as that is generally considered a no no. The internet is a wonderful resource but you need to be cautious and find excellent peer-reviewed journals or qualified books. You have also synthesized an argument from the literature, which many have unconsciously done (I'm guilty and I was justly corrected). TimVickers provide two excellent references concerning the historical perspective. I don't remember Gould using the term neoDarwinism except in historical context in Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Dawkins I don't remember, but I wouldn't be surprised if he misused it in context of his audience (popular culture). I agree the term is often misused, but a search of Pubmed, Highwire, and Science doesn't produce a quagmire of confusion. What are your concerns about the revert to the original article before your additions? As an aside, I can appreciate your concerns over the perceived paranoia from creationist, but it is a concern that I have grown to appreciate. I have often wondered does it influence NPOV, but creationist have used unethical means and are a major frustration and distraction. Don't take it personal. I once made a posit and I was perceived as a creationists (say what?)much to my surprise and chagrin. Regards GetAgrippa 00:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC).

<undent>If it is any comfort, both I and Orangemarlin have been repeatedly accused of being creationists here.--Filll 13:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What a hoot Fill!! I bet Orangemarlin came close to a documented case of human combustion. Hee, hee. I've missed you guys. Both of you are stellar editors. Regards to you both!! GetAgrippa 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The seismological record of his response was publicised by the Russian government as evidence of a covert US nuclear test. Tim Vickers 20:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

ROLFMAO. That was good. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

'Semantic Inversion' the real problem on these pages

In response to TimVicker's friendly approach on my talk page, I have written a long reply there on what I call the problem of 'semantic inversion'. I believe that the problems on Neo-Darwinism as well as on Evolution and Modern synthesis arise because some secondary sources have taken material out of context, for example taking George Romanes use of the term in a sense that he did not intend. This is a very real problem of spreading 'bad memes' and, as I have tried to explain on my talk, not about pushing POV.

I will not attempt to make my case here in full, but basically I have tried to explain that an article on Animal that opened with the sentence "A dog is an animal" would be very very wrong. The sentence itself, which might well be found in many 'authoritative' sources, is not wrong, it is a matter of context and semantics. The semantics arises in that 'animal' is a category that includes 'dog' but of course the reverse is not true. I suggest that neo-Darwinism is a category with a meaning that includes both the historical use and the modern use, in that, quite simply, it means "new-Darwin-like" and Romanes was using it in a current sense when he used it, and did not intend to define the term in terms of anything but 'current'. Once you see the semantic problem that is leading to the misinterpretation then the problem of different definitions disappears.

I suggest (on my talk page) that 'authoritative sources' have to be filtered, by wikipedia editors, for this semantic error, to which they are prone, because their writers do not always have the in-depth overview that is needed to avoid falling into the trap. I also suggest that such filtering is not OR, and that this issue of filtering, and how we do it with careful regard to semantics, while avoiding accusations of 'selective primary sourcing' could become a topic for much discussion. Personally I think that 'lots of primary sources, from lots of editors' is a good direction to go. Other editors might like to read what I wrote there and reconsider. I am interested to know whether people can understand what I am saying regarding 'semantic inversion', and my hope is that if they do they might start to see these dificult pages, and my approach to them, in a whole new light. Please don't quote OR or POV or such things at me glibbly. I do understand the rules, so far as they go, and am not out to break them deliberately or create a war. I hope my explanation goes deeper, showing that the rules need more careful interpretation. --Memestream 12:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

GettaGrippa: I see considerable support (at the deletion vote and elsewhere) for ignoring issues of Creationist and Anti-Creationist sensitivities and just getting on with the task. I will never set out to offend, but I will resist letting PC get in the way of the facts. I'd like your comments on my above stuff, and my talk page reply to Tim, because you, like Tim, seem to be working against me somewhat when I think you need not. --Memestream 12:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Shortcomings

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

Some of the areas of current research, such as the level of selection, the relative importance of mutation, drift and natural selection, and the influence of developmental biology on adaption are discussed in the article. More details on these topics are on their specific articles. Tim Vickers 16:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Evolution is a biological fact. The ideas and theories have and are evolving as the science and discoveries grow. Darwins ideas were not new or exceptional but his work was a Bauplan for the science we know today. Much of Darwin's original notions were not accurate like gemmules, etc. Read Stephen Gould's The Structure and Function of Evolution Theory. It is an excellent historical, philosophical, and biological book to give you a glimpse of what is going on and where the science is going. It looks intimidating but it is an excellent read for any beginner. He is very respectful and appreciative of all the ideas in evolution (even those proven incorrect) and popular ideas concerning evolution. Part of the problem is the lack of understanding of what is a biological theory. A theory has to be testable and falsifiable, but it is never "proven" (just evidence that supports). A quick example: the theories concerning the physics of the atom have not been "proven", yet we are quite capable of using the physics to generate nuclear power and nuclear bombs (evidence to support the theory). That maynot be the best illustration.GetAgrippa 16:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Philosopher of science Philip Kitscher has summed it up by saying Darwin is to biology what Newton is to physics: he made it a coherent science in which its diverse fields operate within the same conceptual framework. Scientists of course know much that Darwin did not know - but in part, because his theories raised questions that set an agenda for subsequent scientists. This is something non-scientists often do not understand about scientific theories. What makes them really powerful is not that they explain everything but rather that they call attention to stuff that is not yet understood and thus help prioritize and direct future research. The greatest theories raise as many questions as they answer - but not in a random way; rather, they raise a set of related questions, show why they are inmportant, and provide concepts to use to go about answering them. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good points Slrubenstein. I was starting to ramble. I like the Darwin-Newton analogy. GetAgrippa 16:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia article

Anyone want to help out in getting the simple wikipedia Article on Evolution up to scratch? It's obviously a LOT simpler than this one - and actually still needs to be a bit simpler at the time I write this, since it still has too many difficult words like "organism".

For those who don't know, Simple Wikipedia is meant to be written for schoolchildren and people with only a little English. Introduction to evolution is the next level up from it, so concentrate on the really basic stuff. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's at Grade level nine. What level should it be? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not hard and fast, but "As simple as possible, while explaining the information". I think it's theoretically in Simple English, though in practice, the actual word list isn't paid much attention to. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify: It's not bad, but it's the simple english wikipedia: We ought to be able to do a better job of explaining natural selection clearly, and spell everything out. What we have isn't really much simpler than what we have in this article to explain natural selection, and this is our hardest of the three. We can do better. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh, forgive me, I'm feeling a bit ill, and I get rambly when I'm ill. I've been tweaking the article, but we should be a bit perfectionist on Simple Wikipedia - can we make it easier to understand? Use simpler English? Then do so. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, it's this part that worries me most:

1. In most living things, parents have more offspring (children) than the food and shelter available where they live can sustain. There will be a 'struggle to survive'. Other possible possible problems might be some of the offspring getting eaten, or only some of them getting to have children.

2. Not all the offspring will be identical.

3. Some of the differences between the offspring can be passed to their children in turn. These are genetic differences.

4. If these genetic differences in some way help the offspring survive and have children, they're more likely have more children. If it hurts their chances, they will probably have fewer or even no children.

5. Since the parents with the helpful genetic differences have more children, more of the children in the next generation have the helpful genetic differences. The parents with the harmful genetic differences may not breed at all, making the harmful genetic differences get lost.

6. After many generations of this, each of the new children will end up with many helpful genetic differences, and few of the harmful ones. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also:

Two groups that start the same can also become very different if they live in different places. Elephants who ended up living in very cold parts of the world became the very hairy mammoths.

When two groups that started the same become different enough, they can become two different species. Evolution predicts that all living things started off the same, but then split off into different groups over billions of years.

Which may need a little expansion. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, there's good bit of rewriting needed, I'll look into it more deeply but I think if I try to simplify it'll read like a fairy tale book for kiddies. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry to be so wordy today. I was called out to help a friend just after a night full of nightmares. I'm worn out enough that it's practically the equivalent of being on drugs. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If everyone would like, I think we may have a viable article over there. It's not very in-depth: Just natural selection, genetic drift, and basic speciation. Still, I think it does a good job at explaining a complex subject simply. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hybridization

This article really, really has improved and explains things well for a general reader. Kudos to all the editors who have accomplished this feat. I am going to breach this subject one more time although I may appear as some POV warrior. Hybridization is not just for plants. Insects, yeast, fish, birds (1/3 of all birds), etc. hybridize and speciate. Speciation and hybridization yields over 200 hits in Science alone, and there are articles that speak of this under appreciated process. It is not a big deal (because it isn't a major mechanism), but implying or stating just plants seems naive. Great job in finally getting this article where it needed to be, so it is more an observation and not a true complaint. Great to be back and read all the friendly faces. I guess this is a rhetorical post because I don't expect an answer to address my posit (just hope people are starting to appreciate it, and not expecting to address it in the article per se). GetAgrippa 17:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

1. This image shows California Tiger and Barred Tiger Salamanders in a California pond. New research shows that the two species have interbred to create a hybrids that have shown remarkable vigor.
2. Top 10 Hybrid Animals
3. Hybrid includes animals. WAS 4.250 02:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

One section of the article mentions plants only, then the gene flow goes in more detail (but it seems remiss as it implies it is not important at all in animals, or it is artificial). The red wolf is a natural hybrid. Seems I recollect articles on hypothetical hybridization in our primate ancestry. I was more interested in the growing literature of natural hybridization in insects, fish, and birds. No biggie, but I find in interesting. I like to paint big pictures. Thanks WAS I forgot about the salamander and amphibia articles. I do realize that NPOV doesn't mean you have to develop less significant features. GetAgrippa 03:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There's lots of information on animal hybridisation in the gene flow section. I think the problem is that "Variation also comes from exchanges of genes between different species, through horizontal gene transfer in bacteria, and hybridization in plants." was meant to read "Variation also comes from exchanges of genes between different species, for example, through horizontal gene transfer in bacteria, and hybridization in plants."

I've fixed it accordingly. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The problematic sentence may be "Hybridization rarely leads to new species in animals, although this has been seen in the gray tree frog.[63]" I need to do some searching to see if this first statement is true. PMID 11700276 and PMID 11298968 might be most useful, I'll have a look at them at work tomorrow. Tim Vickers 01:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I remember a number of papers in insects-butterflies, drosophila, etc. Birds mostly Grants work. Cichlids, salamanders, and frogs hybridize too. Probably a little tweak of the sentence and mention a growing interest and evidence in insects, birds, and fish would suffice. Tim I appreciate you looking into it as I don't want to be a bother. I just keep remembering Science papers I've read the last couple of years which I find interesting. I'll yield to the majority because the article is so improved it is not a big deal. Thanks Tim for your efforts to get it FA again. oops! GetAgrippa 02:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you search homoploid speciation and hybridization on Pubmed it yields some good articles to start, although there are plenty more articles (hybridization and speciation-547 hits).GetAgrippa 03:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a different situation between animals and plants - plants hybridise more readily. Animals can hybridise, but it's much more difficult for animals, and we need to make that distinction clear.

In a lot of cases, you get hybrids on the border between two species, but they cannot outcompete either of the parents, and so die out and get constantly replaced. I'd consider them more a source of gene flow between species than a new species outright.

Well, this is just my pontificating. I agree we should mention animal hybrids happen, but should also mention that there's more obstacles to animal hybrids becoming established as a species. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

While the barriers for hybridization have always been recognized,the literature is starting to recognize nature has developed ways (epigenetic, etc.) to circumvent the obstacles and true speciaton takes place-often with novel consequence (insects and fish there are numerous examples).GetAgrippa 11:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points, and all I'm arguing for is a bit of care to make sure we give an accurate view of how often and how important it is. There are space issues, though, so it might, however, be better to only briefly mention it in this article, and add a lot of information in the hybrid article or elsewhere. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree Adam. Tweak this sentence and address both our concerns for this article, and develop it in Hybrid article is very good reasoning. This dialogue is productive and the way this Wiki should work. Thanks for the ear. GetAgrippa 13:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No bother! =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It sounds from your posts above you have a full plate right now, so I am appreciative of your efforts. As always, your keepin it real. GetAgrippa 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ach, it's not that much work =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed this sentence to "The importance of hybridization in leading to new species in animals is unclear, although cases have been seen in many types of animals:[63] with the gray tree frog being a particularly well-studied example.[64]". Comments? Tim Vickers 17:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Seemed a little over-wordy, I trimmed it down a bit. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is an area of growing interest and it is poorly understood, so that seems reasonable. The sentence is now an accurate statement. Thanks.GetAgrippa 19:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Now we just need the main article on it =) There's an article called bird hybrid you might be able to use. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The problematic sentence may be "Hybridization rarely leads to new species in animals, although this has been seen in the gray tree frog.[63]"'' I don't know if it is "rarely" or "leads" or "rarely leads" that is the problem seen but I have bit of a problem with "leads." That to me smacks a little too much of an implication of intent, and there is no intent to evolve driving evolution. New species are in general "rare," at least in one way of looking at things, so the word "rarely" pretty much says nothing at all. It might even generate confusion, since it singles out hybridization to be rare as something "leading" to a new species when everything is pretty much rare insofar as it "leads" to a new species. Everything that occurs can be said to "rarely" lead to new species. Part of the problem may also be that the sentence is of a forward-looking form, which I consider to be incorrect and unjustified when discussing evolution. Evolution is looked at backwards. That is, the analysis and explanations consider what has happened. The mechanisms by which it occurs can be determined and it is valid to say that evolution has always been a continuous process and must be occurring today - but in general nobody can say where or when nor with what result, other than that surviving organisms that might lead to new species will in general be those best able to survive. (There, again, I prefer an alternate approach. Instead of "survival of the fittest" I favor "fitness of the survivors," and that's still a chancy thing. There could have been a species that evolved on a volcanic island that was supremely fit to survive on that island but that got wiped out when the volcano erupted. In that instance "fitness" leading to survival consisted, for a short while, of not living on that particular island. There was a selection event and for evolution it's just as good as any other but the advantage wasn't a genetic one per se.) --Minasbeede 14:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Defining genetic drift

Hi,

The phrase "Genetic drift arises from the role chance plays in whether a given individual will survive and reproduce." in the end of the second paragraph should be altered, as this is not a suitable definition of genetic drift. Suggestion: "Genetic drift arises from the role chance plays in altering allelic frequencies among generations." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.39.216 (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The intro was fashioned to be basic. All of your specific concerns are addressed in the Genetic Drift section of the article. Regards GetAgrippa 12:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)