Talk:Evolution

"Evolutionary biology documents the fact that evolution occurs, and also develops and tests theories that explain its causes."

This is a lovely sentence and would make a great first sentence of the Evolutionary Biology article. But what is it doing in the introduction to this article? It doesn't even fit as a topic sentence for the paragraph that it begins. What do you'all think about removing this sentence from this article? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It is there for the very specific function of reducing the number of "but it is only a theory" comments on this talkpage. Judging from the frequency with which this still happens, this is a very common misunderstanding. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Making the fact and theory point is a worthy goal but I wonder whether this sentence does a very good job of accomplishing it. Maybe a rather simple change would draw out the intended meaning (changing the focus from the work currently being done by by evolutionary biologists to the results those biologists have obtained) - how about: "Evolutionary biologists have documented the fact that evolution occurs, and have also developed and tested theories that explain its causes." To me that seems a better lead-in to the text that follows. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The field is still a very active area of research, so I don't like the use of past tense. The paragraph that follows moves from the past accomplishments of the field to present research, so casting this section as simply "history" is incorrect. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, casting it as simply a current event is incorrect as well. Hmmm.... Let me think a bit about that. Or maybe someone else will come up with an elegant way to say "has documented and continues to document" etc. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this: Past and on-going research documents the fact that evolution occurs, and also develops and tests theories that explain its causes - am I closer? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We could probably find some small difficulty with any sentence in an article on a complex topic like evolution, but I'm happy with the text as it is and see no reason to change it (particularly since the lead has had intense scrutiny over quite a period). --Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please make it clear what kind of evolution you are talking about- microevolution, as in small changes within a species, or macroevolution, where Darwin claims that species can change into different species. Microevolution, aka adaptation, is a proven fact- macroevolution is a theory. See this page. -The Skeptical Student --71.116.162.54 (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Macro-evolution" is a scientific fact. Please read the rest of the paragraph and the cites provided therein. See also Evolution as theory and fact. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Pehaps ButwhatdoIknow is not a native English speaker. he seems to think that the present tense excludes anything in the past. That is not true. the main tenses in English are present and preterite. The preterite describes actions completed in the past. The present tense often describes habitual or routine acts (for example, "I eat breakfast every morning" - this describes an act that occured yesterday, today, and tomorrow). The use of the present tense in this instance is not at all inaccurate or wrong. the sentence that butwhatdoIknow wishes to change is absolutely correct. There is no point in changing it. ButwhatdoIknow suggests e change it to the perfect tense. This in fact would be a mistake, because the perfect tense describes an act completed in the past. But this is not true. Evolutionary scientists did not complete there work in the past. Scientific research is an ongoing activity. The use of the present tesnes is quite correct here. It correctly describes a habitual or routine activity. That Butwhatdoiknow thinks that the present tense is "wrong" and the perfect tense is better only sugests that he does not understand English Grammar. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I will ignore the gratuitous insult in the final sentence of your comment. Turning to the merits of your posting, I think your example is a very good one: "I eat breakfast every morning" says when breakfast is eaten. However, "I eat breakfast" leaves the reader ignorant regarding when the speaker eats breakfast - yesterday? today? tomorrow? all three? The current sentence that concerns me is like the "I eat breakfast" sentence and, I suggest, should be re-written to be like the "I eat breakfast every morning" sentence. Or is there some reason we want to leave the timing unclear? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I intended no insult, I was just trying to make sense of a post that is just wasting our time. Of course we have to leave the timing unclear, because we cannot list or predict every specific date in which an evolutionary scientist has published or will publish research. It would be absurd to have a sentence saying "Evolutionary scientists published articles on the facts of evolution in October 1952, February 1953 (and so on) ... and will publish articles on evolutionary theory in June of 211, July 2011, December 2011, January 2012 (and so on)" No, the present tense is absolutely correct in this case. I was trying to figure out your misunderstanding o English grammar and being a non-nativ espeaker seems the most generous. You opened with the statement that this sentence would be lovely in an article on evolutionary biology but why is it here, and the answer of course is that evolutionary biologists are the scientists who produce the vast bulk of research on evolution. I honestly do not know why you want to muck around with a sentence that is simple, accurate, and informative. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The insult was not the speculation that I am a non-native speaker. (Since I was born and raised in Indiana your guess was not far off.) Rather it was the unnecessary statement that I "[do] not understand English Grammar." Regardless, I accept your apology.

Another aside: I don't think you are advancing this debate by ignoring my response to your "I eat breakfast every morning" example and changing to a reductio ad absurdum example. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The two primary reasons I want to muck around with this simple, accurate, and informative sentence is that, as written, (1) its subject is "evolutionary biology" and not "evolution" and (2) it is not an accurate topic sentence for the content of the paragraph that follows. While you - as a native speaker with a firm grasp of grammar - may be comfortable that the sentence is fine "as is," at least one reader (that's me) finds that it can be improved. And your own analysis indicates that you would agree that non-native speakers may find the sentence to be less than clear. So let me ask you: Why are you opposed to efforts to try to improve it? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that your intention is to improve the article. Do you doubt that this is my intention? You explained why you thought your suggestion was an imporivement. Tim and I each explained why we disagree. All of us are acting in good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A proposed solution

Perhaps the perceived problem is with the join between the two sentences, rather than any problem with the sentences in isolation? What about "Scientists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes. This study of evolutionary biology began in the mid-nineteenth century, when studies of the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms had convinced most scientists that species changed over time." Tim Vickers (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And that still begins the sentence with people as the subject. I think if we are going to say scientistsd we may as well say evolutionary biologists. I see no problem with making human beings the subjects. We say that "evolution" is the subject of this article, but actually in grammatical terms it is an object, never a subject. When people say "subject matter" they really mean "object of study" and I see no problem with a setence in which the grammatical subject is the principal field of science that studies evolution, and evolution is the grammatical object of human interest. When people say "I read a Wikipedia article" grammatically people are the subjects and the article is the object. I just think this is as it should be. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that simplifies the flow of the ideas as well. "Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes. The study of evolutionary biology began in the mid-nineteenth century, when studies of the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms had convinced most scientists that species changed over time." Tim Vickers (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, TV, for thinking outside of the box to come up with a solution to the "why are you telling me what evolutionary biologists do?" problem. I believe your proposal is a definite improvement over the current text. (Which is not to say that, in the future, some Wikipedia editor won't muck around and come up with an even better approach.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Added to article. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Except natural historians began to think that species change over time in the mid 18th century (Lamarck developed his theories at the very end of that century). Also, I am not saure that the discipline or field of "evolutionary biology" existed in the 19th century - wasn't most of this work done by zoologists? Is the second sentence necessary? Couldn't people just click on the link for Evolutionary biology to learn more about the discipline, and its origins? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the purpose of this paragraph is to provide a brief summary of the history of thought regarding the fact and theory of evolution. If I am right ("a dubious proposition" I hear you say), then the second sentence should be retained. Perhaps, to solve the problem SLR points to, we are back to substituting "Scientists" for "Evolutionary biologists" in both sentences (or, at least, the second one - but then we are back to my question of whether the first sentence is even necessary). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well even if they called themselves zoologists at the time, they were still zoologists studying Evol. Biol. so in general I think that is an acceptable simplification. As to summarising the timeline, I'd defer to you or User:Rusty Cashman since the history of science isn't my field. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Well, we just described drift and selection, I think that we need a sentence saying that evolutionary biologists study all this stuff, with a link to the article on evolutionary scientists as they are the reason "evolution" is a significant topic, and it is their research that provides most of the sources for the article. Also, we definitely need a sentence that says "evolution" is both a theory and a fact. Since it is evolutionary scientists who develop and use the theory, and establish the facts, it makes sense to put them in the same sentence. Specifying "evolutionary scientists" and making clear they research the theory and the facts of evolution, all of which seem highly important in our article on evolution. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

SLR, I agree it is very important. What about somehow moving that information into the first paragraph? (Leaving this paragraph to cover some of the historical background.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally think there shouldn't be any historical background in the introduction, it should be a section in the body. What do others think? Tim? Graft? getAgrippa? orangeMarlin? Anyone else? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The new work from Tim Vickers is good (although no changes would have been good too). Is someone suggesting more changes? Please no (unless there is a really good reason). Every word added detracts from the lead because quantity baffles comprehension. The lead is no place for more historical background, or more fact/theory confusion. --Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Tim Vicker's original sentence. Historical background should be section with the main article being History of evolutionary thought. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh boy, I appreciate the efforts of all but after a while it gets a little inane. My concerns tend towards content rather than presentation. Perhaps we should just model this article as Supermodel for Evolution. We can start with the beginning then follow all the "traits" that have shifted through time. All I can say is natural selection can be a bit@h. hee,hee,hee. GetAgrippa (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I would refer to evolutionary biology rather than evoultionary biologists, and indeed the link is to the former, and get away from the somewhat facetious term "the fact of evolution"

The study of Evolutionary Biology documents evolution as a real process, and also develop and test theories that further explain its causes. The study of evolutionary biology began in .... see below Craigmac41 (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This article breaks Wikipedia's policy?

Editor who made the original post is referred to the FAQ
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia says that all articles must have a Neutral point of view. This article makes evolution look like a fact, and there is no 100% proven scientific fact for evolution, so stating it is a fact is definitely not a Neutral point of view. It is an evolutionist point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.27.145 (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Please have a look at the FAQ where it explains that no policies are broken. It can be difficult to read all the details about evolution in a short time, however if you read the first couple of paragraphs at Introduction to evolution you will see that the basic idea is easy to understand. --Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution merely proposes the processes by which the fact propogates. Only those who adhere to Creationist philosophy erroneously determine that Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are one and the same and use that as a basis to attempt to undermine the fact of Evolution. --JohnArmagh (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC) This sounds like a creationist troll to me. By his logic, the Wikipedia page on chemistry is breaking policy because chemistry isn't 100% fact (no science is). 24.136.77.239 (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Oh, absolutely. Let's start marking all the articles on science for speedy deletion. Or at least mark them all with gigantic disclaimers. (Disclaimer: Don't actually do this, lest you violate WP:POINT). Kingoomieiii (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Evolution is a real process backed by numerous observational studies in zoology, paelentology, genetics, etc, and as such is as factual as the plant & animal species currently occupying & functioning. Science endeavours to determine fact - it is just that there is a lot of debate about new science, and debate as some people come to terms with new (and old) information and knowledge, particularly if they don't reflect on the nuances. Craigmac41 (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this a valid probability example for evolution?

Imagine flipping a coin over and over. For each toss, the odds are fifty-fifty that it will come up heads (a one-in-two chance). The odds of getting two heads in a row is a one-in-two-to-the-power-of-two chance, or one-in-four. Five heads in a row is 1:2^5, or one-in-thirty-two. A hundred heads? 1:2^100, or roughly one in 1.3 trillion trillion trillion. Some would claim that all the lucky chances that evolution requires is like getting not one, not five, but millions upon millions of heads in a row.

But evolution ISN'T random. It's selected. You can't really blame people for missing this fact...Darwin cleverly concealed it from view by calling his theory 'natural selection.' Let's return to our coin-tossing example, this time including the principle of selection. What if, after every toss, we had the option of not counting it? What if we were allowed to simply discard every toss that came up tails? Now, given the ability to select, how long would it take to rack up a hundred heads in a row? About two hundred throws.

Once you understand the concept of selection, and how it applies to evolution, you realize that what was thought to be vanishingly unlikely actually becomes virtually inevitable.

— Steve Vanden-Eyke, [1]

Pasado (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a valid example of selection, and the power it has to reduce incredibly unlikely scenarios into a series of likely steps. But it's not evolution, and certainly not something that would add to this article. -- Ec5618 (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, some people will see this quote and immediately think God is doing the selecting. Far too many people discount the fact that creatures born with crippling (or negative) mutations often die (or are killed by predators) before they can pass those genes on- removing coin tosses. Kingoomieiii (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If God does the selecting them it would be SuperNatural Selection.Pasado (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Draft article necessary?

Now that the article is only semi-protected, I'm wondering if the draft article is necessary? Looking over the edits to it over the last few months, I think I only see one helpful edit. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I vote for deleting the draft article. (I have no opinion regarding whether to add the Species versus population text to the main article.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, delete the draft. It was useful when we had to have the article full-protected for extended periods of time, but that hasn't been needed for a while now. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

..I can't delete it :) I can nominate it if you like. Cheers, Ben (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, could we at least delete the info box at the top of this page? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Box gone, draft deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Add new section re species vs. population?

I think we need to add something like the section, below - Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't propose adding it "as is," I am sure it could benefit from edits, but the shift from thinking of species as things to species as statistical phenomena seems to me to be an essential part of the theory. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I really like this possible addition. It can kill two birds with one stone too as many laypersons equate speciation with evolution whereas speciation is just a by product of evolution. I would mention specifically the notion of species-phenotypically, ecologically, cladistically,reproductively, etc to give an idea of the various connotations. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

GetAgrippa, thanks - but could you go ahead and make those edits you think necessary, the ones you specify and also highlighting that speciation is a byproduct of evolution ... and perhaps suggest where in the article it would best fit? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Tim, it has been a five days and no one has voiced any opposition. Where do you think in the article the below section belongs? Unless you are opposed, would you put it into the appropriate place? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, my Wiki-time is very limited at the moment - too much writing to do in real life! Tim Vickers (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think bacteria should be handled separately, because the issues they raise are different, and because the average reader will need teaching about their fundamental biology. And on eukaryote species, I would suggest checking with Mayr Growth of Biol Thought, 1981, p251 to 300, for other angles. For example, the term species is used most times in taxonomy and palaeontology when there is no hope of getting DNA data (beetles are being discovered much faster than entomologists can classify them). Such a central article must keep to the established literature: Menand is not an authority on this topic, even though much of what he writes seems sound. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Menand is an intellectual historian, which makes him an authority, just a different kind of authority. I am in no position to address your concerns about eukaryotes - I copied material from the article on Species, it sounds like you think that article could use some work. If you have a source supporting the claim that "species" is uese more in paleontology, that would be valuable and I hope you would add it, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement "Prior to the theory of evolution, people considered species to be immutable." is problematic, as "the theory" implies Charles Darwin's theory, but the possibilities of transmutation of species were hotly debated for around seventy years before he published. Here's a suggested revision based on Bowler's Evolution: the history of an idea pp. 42, 49–50

As ideas of classification of species developed in the 18th century, species were thought to be real and fixed as designed by the Creator, and changed local conditions caused varieties to form within species. Early ideas of transmutation of species still included elements of the idea of species as a series of ideal types, which could be exemplified by an ideal specimen bearing all the traits general to the species. In Darwin's theories organisms form breeding populations that are reproductively, and usually physically, distinct from each other, but there is no longer a rigid distinction between species and variety. Species are viewed as statistical phenomeno which can change over time, and can split into new species. According to intellectual historian Louis Menand,....

Hope that helps to clarify things. The taxonomists referred to are Ray and Linnaeus, and Lamarck is cited as retaining some of the ideas of a ladder of pigeonholed types. . . dave souza, talk 22:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

But Dave, the issue is not mutability as such, the issue hee is statistical rather than categorical. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was trying to improve on a draft that seemed to me to be more about immutability, this is more relevant to an expanded version in a more detailed article. . dave souza, talk 18:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, this new section does not fit in this article. It is a featured article. It appeared on the first page 2005. It has been tweaked and debated to an enormous extent. The reason this section was "missing" is not that it was forgotten. The reason is that this is peripheral stuff in this article. The most obvious observation is that this is not about a current problem. It belongs in history of science or history of ideas. I chose the species problem. That is probably not ideal either. But a section about the history seems at least reasonable in the article about the species problem. This is the major problem, too much detail about a very minor aspect. An intermediate solution to consider is history of evolutionary thought, also a featured article. In my opinion this is too much detail even there. Featured articles are the top quality work in Wikipedia. We must be careful not to dilute or distort these qualities. --Ettrig (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ettrig here, the history of how we now define species isn't directly relevant to Evolution. It is a given that the theory of evolution changed how naturalists of Darwin's time interpreted the world, specifically how species would be defined. All major theory's about the natural world would "shake up" the current understandings in the scientific community, from flat earth theories or earth centric ones. Such information should only be relevant to articles directly dealing with the history of the definition of a species, imho. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to a notable intellectual historian, it is essential to the theory of evolution - the point is not "species" the point is the shift from categorial to statistical thinking. This is something that most biologists take for granted, and I would assume most biologists would consider this material banal or tangential. But guess what, Wikipedia articles are not just to educate people with advanced training in biology, it is to educate a broad audience. If people do not get this basic idea, the rest of the article is a waste of time as they will not get most of it. An encyclopedia has an educational value. Now, I understand that other editors in good faith may feel that the topic is not important enough to merit a disproportionate amount of space. Fine, I cut the section I added by about a third or more; I do not think it is disproportionate now. The content is accurate, it is a significant view from a notable reliable source, hence, policy compliant. We have a separate article in gene yet an section here on genes - we do not expect readers just to follow the link to the gene article. I have no objection to a far more detailed and lengthy article on species or the species problem, but this article needs a section on the change from categorical to statistical conceptualization. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a featured article, we need to be careful about expanding it's scope! Adding some trivial tid-bit about the historical implications of how species was defined 150 years ago I think is beyond the scope of the article. Theres probably better, more specialized, articles that this information would be more relevant for. You are correct the primary purpose of wikipedia is for education, but you need to keep in mind the scope of articles. The article is already fairly lenghty and additional sections need to be CAREFULLY considered to not diminish the quality of the article (currently featured). — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a featured article. We just made what I think was an essential improvement. I certainly would never add a trivial tid-bit, I add only vitally important material. Most students I have had in the US and UK claim to believe in evolution, but think of species categorically. This always becomes a major stumbling block when we get into the details of evolutionary theory. The article is better off addressing it. After another editor objected I deleted a good deal of the material because I am used to making compromises at Wikipedia, although I will never compromise on quality and the need to educate our readers (rather than just talk to ourselves). I hope you value compromise as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that this is something that should be added to an existing featured article, I also do not agree that it should be the FIRST section in the article. It belongs more in the section History of evolutionary thought or as a subsection of it. This is afterall talking about the reclassification of a species that was tackled a century ago, currently scientists are not divided on the definitions of a species. And along those lines of giving weight to it based on the academic communities acceptance of the definition of a species should mean this wouldn't get this much "face time" in the main Evolution article. I think it would be best if boiled down to a single paragraph (at most two) and put down with the History section. I'm pretty sure there isn't a consensus to even having this in the main article yet, so it SHOULD probably be removed until more discussion? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You wrote, "currently scientists are not divided." Are you saying scientists are divided about variation and mutation, which are currently up top? I thought the importance of these were settled well over fifty years ago. Are you proposing to put them in the "history" section? Isn't what is important the importance of the idea to the theory, rather than when it was established? But if you are saying that scientists are divided about the importance of variation, by all means, please explian to us the debate. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that how the definition of species changed 100 years ago shouldn't be the FIRST section in the article, none of those sections are discussing the historical meanings and changes they went through, they just express current scientific definitions for them. Anything that is discussing the historical impact to scientific concepts that was modified after Darwin's theories should be at BEST discussed in the historical part of the article and should be given VERY LITTLE weight and space. In-depth discussion of them should be carried out in articles specific to the history of that theory, not in the general evolution article. This section about the history of the definition of species is CLEARLY out of scope for the general evolution article is my position. Compromise on my part would AT BEST to parry down that section to a single paragraph and merge that into the History of evolutionary thought section. As the section stands I don't believe we're going to arrive at a consensus. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What my issue with this section as it stands is that it's not worded like all the other sections, in so much as it deals with the history of how evolution changed it's definition, not how it is currently defined. If you want to address the history of the scientific understanding of a species then that would be at best discussed in the history section of the article (and this is where my concern that it's not even relevant for the article). If you want a section that elaborates the CURRENT definition of a species then I would suggest it being a subsection of 'Speciation' and still be small, one or two paragraphs with a link to the main article. Personally I don't think even that is particularly relevant for the general evolution article. To simplify my position, I have less of a problem with a SMALL section/subsection dealing with the current definition of a species with no mention on it's historical meanings/changes. I do have a problem with a section that is multiple paragraphs with a single source (and long quotes from) from a non-scientist's opinion on it in the general evolution article. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I have no axe to grind about the content of those sections (which make some good points), save that they are essay-like and unencyclopedic (but that can be fixed). They are just in the wrong place here, and need to go to their natural homes. If this article (which is about evolution, and not about species or the biological species concept) has to start expanding each aqnd every point of its underlying assumptions or science philosophy in extenso then the focus on evolution will be lost. That is why we Wikilink. Plantsurfer (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Where you meaning to put this reply in the above Add new section re species vs. population? section? It doesn't seem to make sense here in this discussion. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I was talking at cross purposes. My point relates to your deletion of the Species section, not to FAQs. Plantsurfer (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem (Although I'm not sure if your supporting the deletion of the section or not. I'm also moving this to the section that the species section is being discussed in, as opposed to opening a new section like you did. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear, I am supporting your deletion of the section. Plantsurfer (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried condensing this down to a single paragraph at the start of the speciation section. Please feel free to revert if you think this isn't an improvement. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your condensation of the subject, I've been saying that it shouldn't occupy so much space. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, I was slightly puzzled by a couple of points. Is the "classes of organisms" definition still in use? If not, the past tense seems appropriate. Reading the abstract to the cited source, "Alternative species concepts agree in treating existence as a separately evolving metapopulation lineage as the primary defining property of the species category, ..." so "often" isn't needed for this primary definition, and to me "separately evolving" is much clearer than "a separate evolutionary history". My summary of the rest of this abstract as "and other defining properties are treated as supporting evidence for this separation" seemed to me useful in helping my understanding as a layman. Here are the relevant sentences with suggested deletions struck through, and proposed additions in italic.

This view is counterintuitive since species are have been commonly seen as classes of organisms, exemplified by an "type specimen" that bears all the traits shared by the species. Instead, modern biologists often define a species as a separately evolving lineage that has a separate evolutionary history from its close relatives and forms a single gene pool, and other defining properties are treated as supporting evidence for this separation, but this definition has fuzzy boundaries.

Hope that's useful, thanks for the basic clarification. . . dave souza, talk 18:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The modern definition of evolution is a gene-centric one with population genetics providing the models needed to establish and test any good theory. Archaic DNA progess is dealing with this issue of "no DNA" with cave bears, penquins, neanderthal, etc. The species concept is ambiguous so it needs to be addressed as it is the most noted outcome often measured as evolution. The recent Science I mentioned above also addresses speciation in bacteria by genetic means. I strongly support some address of this issue in modern terms and not necessarily a historical review-rather than leaving it nebulous or just referring to a Mayrian definition. The notion of a species phenotypical-taxonomically, by cladistics, by ecological niche, by reproductive isolation, a genetic entity, etc. must be addressed. Even evolution text books speak of this issue so it would be remiss just to ignore it. Further a number of books are written on the subject as this Science article book review relating the issue: Science 15 February 2002:Vol. 295. no. 5558, pp. 1238 - 1239.EVOLUTION:Do We Need Species Concepts?A review by Kerry L. Shaw*.As an example take character displacement and how it influence species traits and speciation,instances of both reproductive character displacement and ecological character displacement driven by competition exist. I would agree a lengthy discussion would be more appropriate for the Species article but the subject should be addressed. Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny that it should be addressed, but I think it should be brief with reference to the species article and it should deal with modern views on it only. The proposed paragraph that has been whittled down to a small addition to speciation section I opposed in it's long sense, and most definitely against it's initial first section of the article placement. I agree the concept of what defines a species is one area of biology that the theory of evolution hit hard, so it should be addressed. But not in a historical sense in the main evolution article, and it should be backed up with credible references, not a lengthy non-scientist's quote on it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, did you just say that a scholar who is not a biologist is not "credible?" Believe it or not, science itself is an objct of study, by historians, sociologists, and anthropologists and they have views of scientific theories that are notable and significant. Please refresh your reading of WP:NPOV - all significant views shoul be represented in an article, not just the ones you like. The views of intellectual historians as to the essential elements of evolutionary science may be different from those of biologists, but they are just as credible. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Scholar or not he's not a scientist within the field, so I'm stating that a quote from him is probably not the best choice for the small section on the evolution article. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, "within the field?" Which field? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Science, biology....... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Then your comment is, with all due respect, irrelevant. Biologists study living beings; intellectual historians study ideas and sociologists of science study scientists. Since "evolution" is not just a "fact" but also a "theory" meaning a set of ideas held by scientists, intellectual historians and sociologists of science are the proper experts on the topic. This does not mean that the views of biologists should be excluded or even minimized from this article - I think their views should be prominent. But the views of intellectual historians and sociologists of science are not only credible, they are of great significance to this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the quote in question about the historical changes to the definition, and has nothing to do with the current scientific use? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, again with respect, perhaps your not being a historian explains a misunderstanding in what historians mean. History is not "the past" in the sense that it is behind us. It can be the temporal dimension in which aspects of the present emerge. The concept of "natural selection" was proposed in "the past" but we do not put it into the historical section because it is still operative. Menand's point is that all that is operative in evolutionary science today depends on statistics and viewing certain phenomena not as "real" but as statistical artefacts. That this view emerged around the same time as "natural selection" does not mean that it should go in the history section anymore than "natural selection" schould go in the history section. Ditto the concept "gene" which developed in the past - we don't put that in the history section. Menand's argument is that many people who do not understand evolutionary theory today misunderstand it because they do not understand what it means to look at things statistically, and that this view of species, populations, genes, is essential to evolutionary science yesterday, today, and tomorrow. As a social historian he has a larger argument of course which is that this view is the most radical idea of evolutionary science and the one that forces people most to change their view of the world ... and for that reason an idea people resist the most (he may not say it, but I think he would suppose that even if a creationist for the sake of argument were willing to entertain the possibility that an organ could evolve, that person would still refuse to abandon the idea that there is a real "species" out there called H. sapiens, and it is possible to envision an "ideal" human and someone with a congenital birth defect - e.g. someone with Down syndrome - is a poor speciman of H. sapiens because the individual does not have all the traits (or only those traits) that "define" H. sapiens. (Whereas for an evolutionary scientist someone with Down syndrom is a deviant only in the sense that the person's genetic makeup deviates from a statistical norm). And the bigger point - which was in the passage I quoted, and I absolutely believe is central to evolutionary science today and not understood by most people, is that in terms of evolutionary theory it is all the individuals that deviate (statistically) from the norem that revela the workings of evolution (and make further evolution possible) and not the existence of some "ideal" specimin. It is because this is essential to evolutionary science today that I think it belongs in the article. This is an idea that overlaps with the section on species and the section on variation. The problem with the layout of this article is by putting those int wo different sections we give the impression that there is some order to concepts or that we are talking about categories that are more or less inclusive. The point of looking at species as statistical artefacts is, once you accept this, all those boundaries blur. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Good posits Slrubenstein! I especially like "Menand's point is that all that is operative in evolutionary science today depends on statistics and viewing certain phenomena not as "real" but as statistical artefacts". Much as the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) is a hypothetical gene pool or organism(s)not a real entity. Like Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium isn't a real situation and is basically impossible in nature but is a neccessity for population geneticists and models. Note the Species article relates "Biologists view species as statistical phenomena and not as categories or types". Seems to be consistent with that article we should address this issue as Slrubenstein suggests. Evolution is fact but the theory has to have models with predictive ability least it is a pitiful theory. That said pop. geneticist use statistics and models to address this issue so the pudding is in the power of statistics. GetAgrippa (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is going to be the consensus be careful to give it due weight for the scope of the article. Remember it's a featured article. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree and "featured article" should be a standard above that of your average encyclopedia. This article can be concise, cogent, and expansive by wikilink, but you need to address all the issues. The posits made by Slrubenstein are not superfluous but germane to the "meat" of evolution. I wish a paragraph was dedicated to the phenotype as the measured outcome by Darwin and the modern gene-centric population genetics view from the Modern synthesis. Futher also discuss how now we examine phenotypes and genotypes and how they connect, the power of statistics (algorithms), understanding genomes and how they relate to common ancestors. I may have a evodevo bias but noting how the genes that regulate eye development are about the same in jelly fish, insect, humans, etc. is a powerful argument for evolution. Ectodysplasin genes in regulating lateral plates and jaw structure in stickleback fish in benthic or limnetic or salt or fresh water populations makes powerful links with "gene alleles shifting within a pop. with time" and these genes can be manipulated in the lab testing the genetic basis model and "recreating" evolution in a test tube. GetAgrippa (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

One side of the discussion above is pointing in two ways. On one hand it weakens the concept of species. On the other hand it wants to give species a pivotal role in the article. My view is that (1) the primary evolving objects are genes and populations, species being a special case of population. (2) Evolution is primarily a process and secondarily the thinking, theories, about evolution. Given this, the primary concern for the evolution article is two describe how populations and genes change. Maybe this needs to start with clarifications of those two concepts. --Ettrig (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As I made clear from the start, the name of the section (if indeed it is to be its own section - it does not have to be) and the wording of any passage can be changed. The point is not "species," the point is statistical rather than categorical thinking. This is obvious when it comes to genes and populations because these technical terms were introduced as meaningful in statistical contexts/as concepts in statistical studies. It is different with "species" because people use the concept or surrogates (whether golden retreiver, dog, or mammal) all the time and they do not think of "golden retreiver" as a statistical population, they think of it as a class and imagine the perfect golden retreiver as what that class represents, and mangy mangled mutant retreivers as decadent or deviant poor substitutes for retreivers. The point here is to explain clearly to a general audience (this is Wikipedia, remember) just why this way of thining is alien to evolutionary theory and in fact evolutionary theory shows us that it is much better to look at the world statistically rather than in terms of ideal types. I do not think that taking one sentence or one paragraph to do this is giving too much weight to "species," it is giving appropriate qeight to a key concept. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we are talking past each other because it sounds like we are in agreement in many ways with the emphasis on populations and genes. This is a great point to emphasize as most laypersons are stuck on Darwin (which is wonderful and I too celebrate his 200th birthday and 150 years since his seminal work) but few even know of Wright, Fisher, Dobzhansky, etc and the gene-centric and population genetics view. Slrubenstein wants to highlight the category of "species" that most think of taxonomically or categorically isn't the evolutionary biologists statistical concept of a population-like race isn't a taxonomic entity but more clinal gradation of a population (humans). An effort is made to distinquish "theory" from "scientific theory" so it would seem a worth endeavor and contribution to distinquish populations from species. Further many laypersons think speciation is synonymous with evolutiono and correcting this misconception would also be included. GetAgrippa (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

These are really good points and I appreciate the work you're doing in trying to get us laymen (and women!) to appreciate the population view. From what little I know, Darwin was at the forefront of trying to get away from the idea of species as an ideal type, and did a lot of work to emphasise the vague distinction between species and varieties, blurring the "boundaries". Of course it took the integration with genetics and a statistical view to make his prime idea of natural selection really viable, hence the eclipse of what came to be defined in the early 29th century as Darwinism. (Confusingly, as Darwinism had already been used for a range of competing ideas). Anyway, the opening paragraph to Speciation seemed good to me, does that need expanded, and should we mention this issue in the lead and elsewhere? . . dave souza, talk 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale reversions of FAQ edits.

I have restored recently reverted edits for the following reasons:
Baby out with the bathwater. An editor has twice instituted wholesale reverts of edits to the FAQ page. These reversions undid changes indiscriminately, including these:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution%2FFAQ&diff=271162857&oldid=270176136
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution%2FFAQ&diff=273251113&oldid=271162857
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution%2FFAQ&diff=273790055&oldid=273647972
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution%2FFAQ&diff=273946879&oldid=273928294

These edits seem harmless enough and the editor does not explain why they are being reverted.
Lack of guidance. The editor also reverts at least one substantial change:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution%2FFAQ&diff=273288993&oldid=273251113

The editor provides three reasons for this reversion. First, "[g]et consensus before you make such huge ... changes." This does not tell me what the problem is (and, in any case, there is no requirement that edits be pre-screened for consensus; consensus is the process for resolving disputes).
Second, the editor says the change is "unreadable." No further information is given to suggest what the exact problem is. Of course, I thought the changes made the section more readable. So I have no clue how to meet the editor's concerns.
Third, the editor says "[b]ad changes that confuse the issue." Again, there is no guidance.
If the editor who is making these reversions wants to go in and fix the problems the editor perceives then that is certainly in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. Alternatively, I would welcome any instructive comments the editor wishes to make. However, I respectfully suggest, wholesale reversions without meaningful explanation are not appropriate. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I noticed when I saw the initial changes was that they was simple grammatical changes which didn't change the meaning of the sections or reordering some paragraphs so that the section flows better. Although I admit I didn't pay extreme close attention, but that was my impression. I would side with Butwhatdoiknow here unless someone posts some really good reason why these changes are controversial and "unreadable" — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. I gave a reason, it was completely unreadable. And bullet points are not very encyclopedic. Bad writing is bad writing.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OM, since you wrote this I have put four of the five the items listed above to the group one by one (see Step 1 - Step 4 below). And, one by one they have been approved (with some improvements by helpful editorial suggestions). You did not complain that any of those four items was "unreadable." So would you now agree with me that your statement that my changes were "completely" unreadable was a bit hyperbolic? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I've pointed it out to you yet Butwhatdoiknow, but have you read over WP:BRD? Your edits here have been consistently challenged as unhelpful, so maybe you could consider, at your suggestion, having your edits pre-screened to save any fuss. Ben (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We understand that there is some conflict between two editors, but it's not very worthwhile to look at each edit, so how about specifying two versions of the FAQ for consideration (are there two complete versions in the history?). One way to proceed might be for Butwhatdoiknow to make a user subpage with proposed changes. Those who want could tweak that, while OrangeMarlin might like to restore the FAQ to how it was, and some might like to slightly tweak it. Then we could better assess the situation (for consensus). It might be useful to first offer opinions on OrangeMarlin's point that bullet points are not very encyclopedic. While true in articles, I'm not so sure about the FAQ. I haven't paid a great deal of attention to this FAQ, but some similar efforts that I've seen have suffered from encyclopedic constipation where the words wouldn't make sense to anyone wondering about the issues, so I wouldn't mind some bullet points and plain talking (but would not want to divert from policy, if that policy applies to a talk-page FAQ). Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

How about we just point out how the above linked edits are anything but helpful to the article? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about the talk page FAQ, which has a very specific and not necessarily encyclopedic reason for existing. How exactly are the linked changes here NOT helpful to the article? Or more specifically how are they unreadable? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Step 1

While I don't believe that the rule is "you must obtain consensus before you change an article," I am willing to do this in bite-sized portions to avoid unnecessary disputes. With that in mind, I propose to make the following change:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution%2FFAQ&diff=271162857&oldid=270176136

A. Is there any concern with this change OTHER THAN the use of bullet points?
B. If bullet points are a problem (and some comments above suggest that they aren't), would it be a problem to have the text indented without the bullets? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the bullet points, this isn't technically an encyclopedic article. Bullets are not forbidden according to the MoS, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists. On the other hand I can see how this would make sense without bullet points as just being a sentence like it was previously (in accordance with the first rule of bullet points Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs.) For sake of compromise I suggest removing the bullet points, merging them to a sentence and keeping the other grammatic changes (which I think are better then how it was previously worded). — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So all of you think this change reads like anything other than what I hear from politicians? The "formers" and "latters" makes it almost unreadable. The bullet points make it worse. Admittedly, the original is bad too (a creationist reading the FAQ will think we're trying to hide something), but the changes make it worse, and far more unreadable. Given the amount of bandwidth wasted on these discussions and reversions, why not make it better? Don't ask me to do it, because I think the Evolution article itself is sufficient, I've thought this FAQ should be an article. It might already be elsewhere. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 11:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So you agree that at least part of this edit (the part that replaced the "formers" and "latters" with "firsts" and "seconds") is helpful? If so, then please consider whether saving those changes and removing the bullet points would have been a more constructive reaction than a complete reversion. See Wikipedia:Restoring part of a reverted edit. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So what your saying is either (a) you don't understand modestly (at best) advanced grammar or (b) you don't attribute a creationist the ability to do so, or a combination of both (a) and (b)? It's taken you two weeks to come into this discussion about these changes? I don't share you're view that the English of these pages should be so dumbed down that a grade schooler can read and understand it. If the creationists are not going to read it, and if they do not going to change their opinion anyway, then why dumb it down, that only serves the purpose of making us look like we can't use proper English. If the issue is you don't understand proper English then thats an entirely different topic. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Step 2

Any objection to this change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution%2FFAQ&diff=273251113&oldid=271162857 ? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say leave off "wikipedia" and just have it say; "Most of the topics covered in the evolution article are basic enough to not require an appeal to the micro/macro distinction." I think stating wikipedia is redundant and evolution wouldn't be capitalized. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you examine the literature you'll see that macroevolution contrasts with microevolution either as longer time scale or the degree of change of traits. GetAgrippa (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not this is so, what does that have to do with the copy edit change I am proposing? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur, setting aside the macro/micro argument (where there is none in science) the copy changes don't have anything to do with it, it's grammar. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This change does change the meaning of the sentence:

1. Most of the topics covered in the evolution article are basic enough
2. Most of the topics covered in evolution are basic enough

Those mean two separate things, but I think the first meaning is what is actually meant in the article, meaning our Evolution article doesn't deal with them because there is no distinction of micro & macro in science. The distinction is made primarily by creation scientists because they can't deny changes happen, so they have to relabel those changes as a different theory so the facts of that theory which can't be denied won't contribute to the big evolution debate that their religious beliefs say can't be true. This is a change to the FAQ about common arguments. The argument in question is why we don't deal with micro and macro in the main Evolution article. So I think the 1st example (proposed change) in context of the paragraph is accurate and correct. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Step 3

Thanks to Ewulp for re-making this fix. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there some change to discuss in this step? I r confused. :-\ — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. It was only an insertion of a missing '' to close italics. However, OrangeMarlin reverted it (as part of a mass revert) so maybe OM sees something that I don't. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Step 4

Here is a set of changes (one of which was not by me) that were included in OrangeMarlin's indiscriminate revert:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution%2FFAQ&diff=273981622&oldid=273790055

Any problems with these changes? (one that I have is that it is missing 3 parentheticals. I was in the process of adding those when OM struck and will resume that process if no one objects to restoring these changes.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Seems perfectly reasonable to give a description of each link and to refer them to more. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Come one, this is not necessary. All I read above is Orangemarlin did this and Orangemarlin did that...waaaaaaahhhh. How about telling me how adding animals helps the story? Once again, the only reason this FAQ exists is not to teach me or you anything, it is simply the easiest way to shut down a creationist complaining about this or that on this discussion. It's not useful.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So they have a better chance of clicking those links to discover what those fossils are, as opposed to a short explanation on the FAQ? You're assertion is that they're not going to read/care about it anyway. So why does it matter how it's worded? They're not reading it anyway. I think, from my prospective, having it presented in the nicest and most professional way, and informative makes it a worthwhile resource, otherwise why have it? We can simply just remove all the content and replace it with "See ______" links since all this info is found in other articles anyway. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Steps 1 - 4 redux

All of the changes made in response to the discussion above have just been reverted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution%2FFAQ&diff=cur&oldid=prev

The rationale given by the reverting editor (who expressed no concern regarding the changes when they were being discussed) is: "Intensely dislike changes." I make this posting in the hope that the reverting editor will explain the basis for his dislike. Or, perhaps, someone else can tell me what the problem is. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless a rational and good explanation is presented why here soon, I'm going to revert the revision. If it's reverted again without a reason other then WP:IDONTLIKEIT the user will be reported to the admin notice board. This kind of behavior is counterproductive to wikipedia and the advancement of these articles! These changes was forced to be discussed in minutia due to this same user wholesale reverting them in the first place! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the regression since the editor in question refuses to communicate. [2] Editors who don't give a shit (if I understand him correctly) shouldn't be allowed to keep others occupied for hours. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't give a shit, except I hate confusing poor creationists more and more, and some of the edits are confusing, trivial, or useless. So, I do give a slight shit. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm, seriously, WHY is this being discussed here in such minute detail? The stuff you're talking about is trivial edits to the TALK PAGE FAQ for this article. Even IF they were significant edits, the FAQ is entirely in aid of making discussion on this page easier. It is totally pointless for it to exist if it becomes more of a headache due to this talk page cluttering up with inane quibbling over its content. Can you please give it a rest? Or if you really want to natter on about it, make a separate discussion page for the FAQ. Graft | talk 06:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it all started with what seem to be very harmless edits by Butwhatdoiknow, followed by this rude wholesale revert that was never explained. It's a beginner's mistake to take this seriously and to discuss the merits of an edit that was reverted in this manner by this particular user. I believe a more honest edit summary would have been: "I don't trust you [because you are not one of the established owners of the FAQ, or whatever is the reason]. Undoing because checking that you didn't shift the meaning slightly towards a direction I don't like would require reading several paragraphs." The obvious problem with the discussion here was that following it would also have required reading several paragraphs.

Most editors who have experienced this a few times simply rerevert. This is likely to start an edit war though. Thus we have a choice between giving up, breaking policy, or wasting our time by talking to someone who habitually doesn't communicate.

You are right that all this is relatively pointless and discussion should be continued at something like a talk page for Talk:Evolution/FAQ. Unfortunately the page itself is a talk page, and if another page was created there would be no way to force Orangemarlin to watchlist it. So he would even have a plausible excuse for not reading the discussion before reverting yet again. In any case it doesn't seem wise to reward this disruptive behaviour with success. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever on your personal attacks, which have been frequent lately. So back to the discussion at hand, your assumption about my reasons are completely wrong. The FAQ exists for precisely one reason, and it's to end Creationist lead discussions on this page. Now, the .0001% probability that they'll actually be convinced by the FAQ means that let's not make it more difficult to read, which the edits were doing. Were all edits bad? No. I simply don't have the time to sort through it, and that's why I requested, several times, that the it should be discussed if it's going to be that massive. In the end, I find the FAQ to be very difficult to read, which will prevent even that .0001% probability from happening. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If anything I recently said about you didn't accurately describe your behaviour, then I don't understand why you don't take it to WP:ANI. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And the two weeks these edits was posted here asking for suggestions/changes/comments wasn't enough time for you or anyone else to decide if you was ok with them or not? Each edit was given many days in succession between being posted here for comment and then being implemented, yet again you just wholesale reverted them all. If you can't be bothered enough to find time then you shouldn't be reverting edits that have been open for discussion for WEEKS here. Either devote time to monitor this, or stop reverting other peoples work because you don't have time to personally approve of it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Step 5

Here is the last change that was reverted by OM:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution%2FFAQ&diff=273288993&oldid=273251113

I don't doubt that the edits I made can be improved upon (and, if there is consensus for my changes, I don't doubt that those changes will be made). My question for you'all at this point is whether my effort to dumb it down a bit are, in general, an improvement over the current text. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So far only Orangemarlin has reverted you, and so far he hasn't touched my re-revert. Don't expect any statement from him that he is prepared to tolerate your edits now; I don't recall him ever conceding anything other than by stopping to revert. Obviously this puts you under the sword of Damocles, but that's much less intimidating if you consider that it's made of cardboard. My approval was in my edit summary [3]. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Last call. Anyone have any strong objection to this change (subject to tweak edits that I suppose will follow)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Evolution introduction more succinct & salient

Rather than suggesting evolution is a fast-happening event and just as a result of genetics ie. "evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.""

It seems better to say some thing like 'Evolution is change in traits of a population of organisms over time.'

Darwins classic study of finches found changes in the finch population(s) quite quickly as a result of changes in seed type/size, and these were population changes were not just due to genetics, they were due to starvation of finches with small beaks.

Thus, the following is too specific and too cumbersome for an introductory paragraph:

""These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection. Genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. These traits vary within populations, with organisms showing heritable differences in their traits. When organisms reproduce, their offspring may have new or altered traits. These new traits arise in two main ways: either from mutations in genes, or from the transfer of genes between populations and between species. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are also produced by genetic recombination, which can increase variation between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population.""

Most changes are slower and less dramatic than what Darwin saw with the finches, so the reference to time ought to be more general. eg changes documented and proposed with the great apes and humanoids and humans.

The next sections seem fine: Two major mechanisms drive evolution. The first is natural selection, .....

The second major mechanism driving evolution is genetic drift, ......

I would refer to evolutionary biology rather than evoultionary biologists, and indeed the link is to the former, and get away from the somewhat facetious term "the fact of evolution"

The study of Evolutionary Biology documents evolution as a real process, and also develop and test theories that further explain its causes. The study of evolutionary biology began in ....

The mechanism driving these changes were illuminated by the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, detailing the theory of evolution by natural selection.[

Craigmac41 (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I can see some of your concern, would it be a good idea to have a brief introductory paragraph before the detail? Suggestion: a one sentence paragraph at the start:

In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. making small changes which can accumulate with each subsequent generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population of organisms.

The next sentence would then start a new paragraph with "These changes are caused by a combination of .... " But a word of caution, I'm no expert. I would just point out that Darwin's finches were studied by the Grants, not by Darwin who merely collected what he thought were different species altogether, then identified by Gould as all being species of "finches", at which point Darwin tried to find which island his badly labelled specimens came from, partly by guesswork. . . dave souza, talk 23:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest: In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Small changes which accumulate with each subsequent generations will, over time, cause substantial changes in the population of organisms. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

'Evolution is change in traits of a population of organisms over time. These changes may be due to a number of mechanisms and processes... Currently, after the intro sentence (which I don't like) there is then talk of three processes, then the next paragraph starts with reference to two mechanisms: all too overwhelming for an intro. Moreover, I would simplify Heredity and Variation; and, in the sub-section title Variation, I would put sex and recombination before mutation, and more simply explain recombination (it probably involves meiosis) Craigmac41 (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the sub-section title Mechanisms about half-way down talks about three mechanisms - some consistency & continuity would be best Craigmac41 (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

We have an intro to evolution which goes a little easier on the terms. This is a featured article, it needs to be concise and complete. It's not written from a standpoint of introducing someone to science and evolution who's never studied it before. It's more technical. Your proposed sentence I don't like, it doesn't accurately represent evolution as well as the other suggestions. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Raeky that this article must be accurate. I oppose any sentence that is inaccurate, any paragraph that is inaccurate. That said, a featured article must be accessibl to a generl audience. That does NOT mean that it should be dumbed down (we have a simple Wikipedia for that). I am convinced that science can be presented clearly and accurately to a general audience. Anyone who thinks that an article that is accessible to a generl audience cannot be accurate is wrong. We should inroduce technical terms (like drift or species) and explain how scientists use them, clearly. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, evolution is changes in gene frequencies from one generation to the next. There is nothing unclear about this, I do not see how the current first accurate statement makes it hard for general readers. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that sentences & paragraphs must be accurate, and that science can be presented clearly and accurately to a general audience. Moreover, the sentences & paragraphs in the article should be in context. To say evolution is changes in gene frequencies from one generation to the next implies there is constant change every generation and this is highly unlikely in any population, let alone all. The introduction to this article is misleading and cumbersome.

Evolution (in Biology) is change in traits of a population of organisms over time. These changes may be due to a number of mechanisms and processes.

Population genetic mechanisms include: Natural selection · Genetic drift · Gene flow · Mutation*

Processes of evolution include: Adaptation · Macroevolution · Microevolution · Speciation

• possibly substitute with Variation (chromosome recombination and mutation),

The study of Evolutionary Biology documents evolution as a real process, and also develop and test theories that further explain its causes. The study of evolutionary biology began in the mid-nineteenth century, when studies of the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species changed over time.[5][6]

The mechanism driving these changes were illuminated by the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, detailing the theory of evolution by natural selection.[7] Darwin's work soon led to overwhelming acceptance of evolution among scientists.[8][9][10][11] In the 1930s, Darwinian ideas were combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,[12] which connected the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). This powerful explanatory and predictive concept has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.[9][10][13]. New information has constantly raised new questions, so inititaing new research for further explanations and further questions. Craigmac41 (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Explain your reasoning for adding this unsourced statement: New information has constantly raised new questions, so inititaing new research for further explanations and further questions. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a re-work of the unsourced statement in the current text: This powerful explanatory and predictive theory directs research by constantly raising new questions, and ... i think it is misleading to still call it a theory, and it is not the theory that directs research or raises question - and, to say the theory (of evolution) raises questions is to invite crticism and empower the doubters.

I still find the whole intro messy, and I think those who have never studied evolution before might start here. Perhaps do the links better - have then as subsections as links rahter than:

This article is about evolution in biology. For other uses, see Evolution (disambiguation). "Theory of evolution" redirects here [No Redirect here]. For more on how evolution is defined, see Evolution as theory and fact. For a generally accessible and less technical introduction to the topic, see Introduction to evolution.

... and have the box to the right up more or more promenent. Craigmac41 (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, "Theory of evolution" redirects to here - another reason to have a better intro or better links to Introduction to Evolution. Craigmac41 (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The "unsourced statement" comes from expert on evolution Philip Kirtcher:

Fecundity: "A great scientific theory, like Newton's, opens up new areas of research…. Because a theory presents a new way of looking at the world, it can lead us to ask new questions, and so to embark on new and fruitful lines of inquiry…. Typically, a flourishing science is incomplete. At any time, it raises more questions than it can currently answer. But incompleteness is not vice. On the contrary, incompleteness is the mother of fecundity…. A good theory should be productive; it should raise new questions and presume those questions can be answered without giving up its problem-solving strategies" (1982: 47–48).

He is specifically consideing the theory of evolution. The citation must have dropped out at some point during other edits. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Good quote that embodies the shifting sands and necessary re-workings of science.

Now, what about this claim:

To say evolution is changes in gene frequencies from one generation to the next implies there is constant change every generation and this is highly unlikely in any population, let alone all?

Evolution may be due to a number of mechanisms and processes.

Population genetic mechanisms include:

   Natural selection 
   Genetic drift 
   Gene flow
   Mutation*     

• possibly substitute with Variation (chromosome recombination and mutation),

Processes of evolution include: Adaptation · Macroevolution · Microevolution · Speciation

Craigmac41 (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't realy matter what seems likely or not ... does it seem likely that an ape will turn into a man? This is the definition of evolution. We are not going to change a scientific definition because it stretches your imagination. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Also there is no distinction between micro and macro in the scientific community they're all the same thing, evolution, just on different time scales. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sirubenstein, " does it seem likely that an ape will turn into a man? This is the definition of evolution. " Sorry, completely lost me there? Humans are apes. Apes didn't "turn into humans". Is it likely that an ape will turn into a man. The answer is 0%. What is the likelihood that humans are apes? 100%.

--Candy (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I was responding to Craig. Sorry you can't follow the conversation, or simple English. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

While there are populations that don't evolve at all from one generation to the next (because they are genetically uniform), these are exceedingly rare cases, usually controlled by humans. In the wild such populations are about to become extinct. Any normal population WILL evolve every generation without question. Nothing stays the same from generation to generation. Sometimes the changes are too minute to be easily observed, but they nevertheless exist. Graft | talk 01:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Graft is correct. Even clonal analysis from single bacteria indicates variation is inevitable through time. Sexual organisms produce variation in their gametes during genetic recombination and then again with the contribution of each parent. Every generation does produce variation and that is where natural selection can shift alleles within the pop. through time. The genome of a species doesn't address the diversity and polymorphisms within the population where generally there is lots of variation when you compare individuals (our uniqueness). Anyways I agree with Graft-well said. GetAgrippa (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually there are populations which, even with the presence of varying genetic characteristics, don't show evolutionary changes over numerous generations, and this is not such a rarity as might be assumed. All populations will either reach a stable genetic equilibruim or become extinct and/or be supplanted by a genetic strain of the population. If an organism develops a phenotype which takes advantage of the equilibrium to exploit the mainstream characteristics then this will cause a disruption of the equilibrium and cause it to shift back and forth as each type takes advantage of the presence of the new phenotype. Eventually equilibrium is regained, though the genetic attributes of the equilibrium may be different from the former state, depending on the sustainability of the emerging new strains. --JohnArmagh (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a theory

Editor who made the original post is referred to the FAQ and other articles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Darwin extended Mendels work on plants to animals. He was not so bold as to apply it to humans, and admitted his theory was incomplete. So darwin himself did not present evolution theory as a replacement to human creationism. Darwin was not as bold, as the Eugenical christians of the 1920's who practiced forced sterilization on the native americians, because they were ruthless saveges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OverTippedWaiter (talk • contribs) 23:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Please see Talk:Evolution/FAQ — raeky (talk | edits) 23:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Also see Charles Darwin which covers most of the other misconceptions here. . . dave souza, talk 23:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC) I think the article should be more clear to distinguish Darwinian evolution theory as it does not defy creationism as it is only applied to animals and Eugenic evolution theory, as it does defy creationism but was promoted by all major churches during the eugenic movement. I would also like to ask, if you are not following the evolution theory stated by Charles Darwin, what evolution thought(theory) are you following? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OverTippedWaiter (talk • contribs) 02:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC) You're using terms that don't exist in science, but only used by creationists. Evolution applies to all life, humans included. Evolution isn't a religion, and people who believe it to be true are not "Darwinists" or "Creationists" those terms are only used by creationists. — raeky (talk | edits) 03:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Please read the article and FAQs before posting here. You have basic misconceptions and ideas which are incorrect. For instance, "Darwin extended Mendel's work on plants and animals". When Darwin wrote his work on evolution he had no idea of the mechanism of heredity or the work of Mendel. Also, Mendel worked (as far as I know) solely on plants. The statement, "Darwinian evolution theory as it does not defy creationism as it is only applied to animals and Eugenic evolution theory". Is also incorrect. I don't know how you have arrived at this gross misconception. --Candy (talk) 06:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Darwinian evolution theory as stated by Charles Darwin, as charles darwin, did not use his evolution theory on humans. It was only an extension of Mendels work on plants and applied to animals and 'not' on humans. Human creationism as it is in the bible, is not in conflict with Charles Darwins evolution theory. What is in conflict with creationism, is the eugenics movement, which is seperate from Charles darwins evolution theory. This eugenics movement was backed by most major braches of the christian religeon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.203.25.2 (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Darwin extended Mendal's work: Origins was published in 1859, Mendal's paper was published in 1865 and he started his work in 1856, I don't see how Darwin would of known what Mendal would only discover years after Origin's was published! Darwin never applied origins to humans: I think you're ignoring The Descent of Man Published in 1871, theres plenty of references on his belief's about the origins of humans. Darwin's Evolution not in conflict with Creationism: I think there is MANY in the church and the churches of his day that would GREATLY disagree with that statement. To compare eugenics to evolution is ignorant, eugenics is about artificial selection, like breeding dogs, "the controlled breeding of humans in order to achieve desirable traits in future generations." That is NOT evolution, plain and simple. — raeky (talk | edits) 07:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Just to quibble, creationism covers a wide spectrum of beliefs, including beliefs not in conflict with evolution, though the term has been hijacked by proselytisers of anti-evolution. The ancient art of animal husbandry is evolution through artificial selection, and the same applies to eugenics which of course goes back in principle if not in name at least as far back as Sparta. . . dave souza, talk 08:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC) It's also the current hype by Stine in his current "movie" to try to make evolution's natural conclusion nazi genocide. So yes, artificial selection is a component to evolution, but it's not natural. And to equate evolution to nazisim, is evil. — raeky (talk | edits) 08:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Can we archieve this section as it's clearly not improving the article and just continuing the never ending "it's just a theory" soapbox? Shot info (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC) How about a nice new hat? Ben (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC) A clarification I am sorry, when I said darwins thoery of evolution did not look at human creationism, i was refering to darwins Origin of species. In this work where he introduces the theory of evolution, he does not make a comparison to humans. His work on man, is a eugenical work, and i must ask, if the churches of the world objected to it so much, why were there so many eugenical sermons in the in the begining of the 20th century? The theory of evolution, as stated in orgin of species does not make a comparison to man. The theory of eugenics(genetics) does and that is against the bible, but then most churches supported that, so that is what i am questioning and that is my point. OverTippedWaiter (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Scientific consensus"

Editor referred to the FAQ and other articles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From Appeal to authority#Examples_of_appeals_to_authority: Thinking something must be true only because there is a scientific consensus or a majority agreement on it. This is closely related to the bandwagon fallacy. Therefore, the claim that evolution is true solely because of scientific consensus is invalid. --Latiosoital (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC) We don't claim evolution is true. Wikipedia doesn't claim anything, that would violate our neutral point of view. Scientists are as sure as they can be that it is true, and we say that here. Again, we do not say that it is true.--Pattont/c 18:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia's policy is to give "due weight" since the overwhelming majority of the scientific community supports evolution we reflect that here in our articles. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Therefore, the claim that evolution is true solely because of scientific consensus is invalid. - (A) Wikipedia is not making this claim. Wikipedia is accurately reporting that all but a few scientists believe in evolution, including all the reputable ones. (B) Nobody else is making this claim either. Scientists believe in evolution not because it is some article of faith, but because of the mountains of evidence supporting it, and the complete lack of evidence falsifying it. Raul654 (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC) We also have a great list of logical fallacies as well as examples in each of the articles. Plus, most experienced editors tend to have disproportionately greater experience in spotting faulty arguments due to the fact that so many people try to use them. Some of the other fallacies that are frequently brought up: Argument from fallacy when someone assumes that if one argument about the merits of evolution or creationism is false, then the entire conclusion must be false. Incomplete comparison when a comparison between creationist speculation and extensive scientific research is made. Argument from ignorance by claiming that since creationism can't be fully disproved, it must be true. Historian's fallacy when referencing the writers of the bible as having the same perspective and ability nearly 2000 years ago as we have today. False attribution when citing non-peer-reviewed or misleading sources and claiming them as unbiased. Moving the goalpost to repeatedly require even more evidence (despite overwhelming evidence already). Regression fallacy in assuming everything must have a cause. Reification in making literal from the metaphorical that which there is no evidence to support as literal. Appeal to authority where something must be true if one's pastor/teacher/president says it's true. So, in the sea of logic fallacies, by default we fall back on our policies and guidelines for the encyclopedia, and we hope that you do so as well. Alternatively, Conservapedia is a great place to go to add content that is free from the ravages of scientific consensus. --slakr\ talk / 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Hey, you forgot quote mining! Also, if my amateur perception is correct, scientific truth is not the same as religious truth. Science is always provisional, and can be overturned by new evidence, while religious truth is a preconceived belief. So it goes. . dave souza, talk 20:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC) The more I've learned about biology (yes, I actually researched this stuff), the more certain I've become that creationism is correct. And before you claim that my textbook was biased, the textbook I've studied is Prentice Hall Biology by Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine. The more I've learned about the complexity of even the simplest organism, the less certain I've become that it could arise by chance. Yes, I know that natural selection is not random. However, natural selection requires random mutations to cause any change. For example, say an organism needs a single nucleotide to change to be much more able to survive. If that random mutation occurs, natural selection would ensure that all future organisms of that species have the beneficial gene. However, that requires the mutation to occur. If that mutation doesn't occur, the organism will become extinct. Therefore, while natural selection isn't random, mutation is. Since even one part of evolution is random, the entire process is random. This means that there would be an incredibly small chance of even a few beneficial mutations occurring, and an even smaller chance of the number of necessary mutations to get from a simple one-celled organism to a human. Therefore, the probability of humans evolving completely through chance is near 0, so there are two possibilities: God created humans exactly how we are sometime in the past 10,000 years. (creationism) God caused some, if not all, of the mutations necessary for human evolution. (God-guided evolution) --Latiosoital (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC) You're logic is flawed, you should read: Objections_to_evolution#Objections_to_evolution.27s_plausibility — raeky (talk | edits) 02:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC) You may not have noticed this text buried in the prose in the "Important Notice" box at the top of this page: 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. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC) I concur, this should probably be archived. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC) This article doesn't say God doesn't exist.--Pattont/c 20:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I just ran checkuser on Latiosoital on the suspicion that he was a Kdbuffalo sockpuppet. I was right that he was a sockpuppet -- of Oboeboy. One of many, apparently. Please be watchful for these kinds of returning bad guys. Raul654 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Theory or fact

I know this has been posted a million and three times and is covered in the FAQ but I want to be absolutely sure, could I in good concious go on national television tomorrow and declare "Evolution is a fact"? The article "Evolutions as theory and fact" is too complicated and doesn't have a simple "if you look at in a general way then A, if you look at it this way then B". I get other pages on the web written by biologists and doctors saying that "Evolution is not a fact, but is likely to be true". Wikipedia keeps mentioning something like mathematical meaning and logical meaning and I just want some disambiguation- I know Wikipedia is not a forum, so just delete this is no-one is willing to answer, I just wanted to make sure. If someone could give me a good "phrase" I could say if I would be going on television to explain this (I'm not really going to be on a TV, just for the sake of an argument), i.e. in a concise and simple manner: "Simply put, if you look at it from a scientific viewpoint... but if you look at it from a logical viewpoint...". --BiT (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Wikipedia talk pages aren't forums. However, you're welcome to use the Science reference desk. Cheers, Ben (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Evolution as theory and fact. Does that answer the question you are asking? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I see that you've already read that article, which states: The potentially confusing statement that "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. This statement arises because "evolution" is used in two ways. First, the "fact of evolution" refers to the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, which are known to have occurred. Second, the "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur. What part of that text do you find to be too complicated? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In the scientific definition of a fact, sure it's true. It's a fact we see genetic differences, mutations, per generation of an organism. It's a fact we've seen speciation as the result of these mutations. Theres lots of facts that are used to build up the theory of evolution. But with all scientific theories, scientists are hesitant to call the theory a fact. The theory is built to explain the facts but it it's self isn't a fact. That help? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"National television"? And you are not even saying which country you are referring to? But it's obvious. Such a silly question can only be asked from the US. Elsewhere even the most religious people have learned that the extended metaphers used in a sermon don't become statements of fact simply by getting very old. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you'll take a look at the reference desk where I copied this to it says that I did not mean for the national television thing as a literal factor, but rather as a measurement of caution in front of all people. I don't come from the US, but the reason why I want to learn more about this is undeniably because of people from the US that scare the shit out of me. Therefore I want to learn more about evolution so I can either stop believing in it (if I realize that it's false) or defend it (if I believe evolution, or most of it is true). --BiT (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just the usual caveat that evolution is science, it's not a matter of believing it, it's well tested observations and theory which are accepted as correct. Until something new get similar support from testing. Not being USian I sympathise, would observe that there's excessive creationism here too. . . dave souza, talk 23:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, "believe" was a bad choice of words. Let's just say that seeing some of the people in the US believing what they're told (which is really understandable), me "believing" in science blindly was just as bad. There isn't really anything like ID or creationism where I live though. --BiT (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

With the aim of possible improvement to the FAQ, might it be worth considering that evolution is the fact that the inherited characteristics of groups of organisms change over time, and have changed significantly over past ages, introducing new species? That's explained by evolution theory, in the same way that mountains are a fact, and are explained by plate tectonics. In the past, both mountains and species of animals were explained as the result of divine intervention for the benefit of mankind, this bacame strongly debated in the 17th century, and while science is now settled on both issues, some religious groups believe in explanations that conflict with science. . . dave souza, talk 13:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

New Section Suggestion: Observation

Editor who made the original post is referred to a FAQ
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article should mention that no new species have been observed to come into existence through darwinism/evolution. Mostly do to the large amount of time required. We should also mention that the wollemi and malaria examples of the subsequent sections as examples of life that no longer evolves. Also there have been studies that suggest that humans are no longer evolving. It would be academically dishonest to neglect this important information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.167.250 (talk • contribs) Cite reliable references in peer reviewed journals about how this affects the theory of evolution and it maybe can be worked into the article. Just because an organism dosn't change much over time compared to others doesn't mean evolution isn't true. You can't look at one example that helps your "God made everything" theory and ignore the thousands of other facts that doesn't help your cause. This article is about the scientific community's consensus on the current theory of evolution, if there is any change to that the article would reflect it. — raeky (talk | edits) 19:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC) See Darwin's finches. This shows where speciation has been observed.--Pattont/c 19:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC) If you have any reliable sources that suggest anything along the lines of "no new species have been observed," or "life that no longer evolves," or "humans are no longer evolving" please bring it here. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC) For inclusion here it would have to be from a peer reviewed journal, and it if it refutes any part of evolution there would need to be SIGNIFICANT coverage within the scientific community. — raeky (talk | edits) 20:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC) If you take the time to read the article, several examples of speciation are discussed in that section. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Oh, I know I shouldn't even answer this, or waste my time, but I couldn't resist. I think that you (mysterious IP poster) just agreed on the theory of evolution, and unintentionally rejected your own statements and conclusion, in just one paragraph, because you said that ... a) "Humans are no longer evolving". Which means that humans have evolved, so you agree with evolution as a fact. b) "large amount of time required [To evolve]". Which is true, in most cases. but...you claim that c) "no new species have been observed to come into existence" d) "wollemi and malaria [are] examples of life that no longer evolves" e) "Humans are no longer evolving"...again but, if a) and b) are true, a) proves evolution, and b) cancels c), d) and e), because it recognizes that we can not observe evolution due to the "large amount of time required". Well, I don't agree with your statements, they are partially true, at best, the funny part, is that your statements do not support your own conclusion. Cheers. Hugo cantu (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC) See Talk:Evolution/FAQ#Has evolution ever been observed?.Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wollemi Pines and Malaria

Editor who made the original post is referred to two FAQs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
200million year old Fossils of Wollemi plans have been found that are identical with plants found today. [4] This article should mention that speed of evolution is too slow, or non-existent in some observed instances. Possibly with the mention of the Cambrian explosion when all complex life suddenly appeared. Also, Michael Behe's book "The Edge of Evolution" should be mentioned for similar studys with mutations in malaria. Even in a rapidly mutating virus, no significant leaps have been observed. The only observable changes such as darwin's finches have been due to breeding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.167.250 (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC) The speed of evolution is what is is, it doesn't have to be fast or slow. Darwin himself pointed to examples of stasis. LOL at Behe, whose trashy book was demolished by ERV. . dave souza, talk 22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC) ERV for the uninitiated. See also. Wonder if the IP editor really believes that malaria was divinely created, in the Creator's infinite mercy and wisdom, to kill little children? Oh, and breeding is evolution. . . dave souza, talk 22:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Looking structurally similar or the same doesn't mean it hasn't evolved in other ways-physiologically or metabolically. Horseshoe crabs are considered living fossils and the fossil record indicates close similarities. However modern populations live exclusively in marine environments (whereas fossil lived marine and fresh), there is lesser segmentation of the opisthosoma, and they are larger than fossil critters. If there was archaic DNA to compare modern and fossil organisms I would wager differences indicative of changes in size, segmentation, and environment. Just because Wollemia looks the same or similar doesn't mean it hasn't evolved. Wollemia does display little variation and little evidence of diversity, but it doesn't mean it didn't evolve or hasn't since fossil record. Genomic analysis would give insights to the issue. What is the argument with Malaria and evolution? It certainly has evolved with at least five species some infecting hominids and others rodents so it would be a ridiculous argument to indicate it hasn't evolved and still evolving likely, since the disease is returning with a vengence of late so this maybe due to our immunity or the plasmodium pathogenicity or both. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Ah, a relative of Araucaria, got one of those in the garden but no local dinosaurs cabable of chewing it. Anyway, Darwin wrote about long lasting species in 1859: "Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms.... The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus; whereas most of the other Silurian Molluscs and all the Crustaceans have changed greatly.... Whether.. variability be taken advantage of by natural selection... depends on many complex contingencies... Hence it is by no means surprising that one species should retain the same identical form much longer than others".[5] From our article, Lingula is among the few brachiopods surviving today but also known from fossils over 500 million years old. Beats these trees by about 300 million years. Of course from a modern perspective there would be likely to be evolution in the DNA, even though the form appeared the same. As for Michael Behe's nonsense about malaria in his book The Edge of Evolution, his ID creationism has evolved the claim that there's an "edge" of complexity beyond which natural selection can't evolve organisms, so divine intervention was needed to "create" malaria. Hence the theological problem for believers in a benificent god, and the scientific issue that a graduate student can ably point out that Behe is making claims contradicted by published research, as shown at the ERV links. . . dave souza, talk 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC) I remember reading a couple of Science articles related to "are humans still evolving" the last couple of years? Is there a list of living fossils or animals living in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (seems impossible)? Different traits evolve at different rates and different animals evolve at different rates and then there is this subject of "evolvability" but I can't imagine any sexual reproducing animal not evolving even if no diversity. Animals evolve and continue to evolve and this process can lead to speciation but speciation isn't the endpoint of evolution. 80% of the worlds population of drosophila are now resistant to artificial insecticides because within the last 200 years an 80K year old (or 40K) transposon related to cytochrome P450 function has gained reproductive success with a shift in gene alleles within the population-no speciation has ocurred but they surely have gained a survival and reproductive advantage from this metabolic trend advantage. Fruit flies have looked the same for millions of years so you can't argue they haven't evolved despite no physical trait differences. I guess adaptive evolution is considered to arise from natural selection but genetic drift, gene flow, etc still yields evolution. GetAgrippa (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Please see Talk:Evolution/FAQ#Why won't you add criticisms or objections to evolution in the Evolution article? and Talk:Evolution/FAQ#What about the scientific evidence against evolution?. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

FAQ radical change

I was browsing over at Talk:Barack Obama and noticed their FAQ is actually in the header of the talk page in a very nifty way. Would anyone oppose if we convert the evolution talk faq into something like this? I think it would be more helpful since it would be easier to find! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)}

Etymology and history

Shouldn't there be an etymology of the word? And shouldn't the history section be frist? 86.21.104.180 (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)