Talk:Introduction to evolution

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

Illustration skirmish

There is now a little controversy about what dino to put in the top right corner. I would like to see a picture that better conveys that Evolution is a Dynamic process of change. This illustration from Horse evolution i maybe not ideal, but at leas better than what we have seen so far. (IMHO) --Ettrig (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This image shows a representative sequence but should not be construed to represent a "straight-line" evolution of the horse. Reconstruction, left forefoot skeleton (third digit emphasized yellow) and longitudinal section of molars of selected prehistoric horses

There was a more specific concern raised here regarding the dinosaurs proximity to lake environments which justified the revert back to the T-Rex. Long ago the goal was to find a visually stimulating image for an introductory article (and relevant as well). The loss of the Karen Carr image was disappointing (mis-communication over permissions for use). The T.Rex is not effective in the "visually stimulating" category - thus I for one am not opposed to the horse.--JimmyButler (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Drift

The original FA version was restored; since that time there were some significant edits to the introduction. The emphasis on Genetic Drift as a contributing factor was a big improvement. However, drift is only discussed in the introduction. There was never a companion section dedicated to the topic. It would be nice to see the effects of drift elaborated within the body of the paper. If such an effort was made, then it may resolve the issue that was the catalyst for the demotion. Prose, citation format etc. have already been highly scrutinized - an FA attempt might go rather smoothly... relatively speaking.--JimmyButler (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added some information to the sources of variation section. It is by no means complete, but it is a start for future edits. I have included basic principles and some information on the Hardy-Weinberg theory. If you or anyone has any suggestions for more part (I already have the population bottleneck and Founder effect in my mind, I'm just not sure where the appropriate place to add them is) let me know. I am open to any and all suggestions, critical opinions, demoralizing comments, etc. Any and all feedback helps with the editing. Thank you.--M rickabaugh (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Good start! Since this is an "introduction to..." article perhaps the language can be simplified and an example or two added.Sjö (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, excellent start. Peer review can be intense on evolution topics - this can actually work to your advantage since the rubric includes points for consensus building. Review the prior history of the article's FA path Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution - I would hope that it goes more smoothly this time!--JimmyButler (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Because of the following problems I do not agree that this is a good addition to the article:

Through the process of genetic drift, populations may also encounter differences in allelic frequencies. "encounter"? "also differences"? I think the intention is to say that drift is an additional cause of frequency change, which is indeed correct. The context may give the impression that drift is a source of variation, that is the head line of this paragraph. But the opposite is the case: Drift never introduces novelty but now and then reduces variation, when an allele drifts to extinction.

Genetic drift is caused by random sampling of alleles. "random sampling" is a too difficult concept to base the explanation on in an introductory article.

In any offspring, the alleles present are samples of the parents' alleles, this sounds to me as one case, one offspring, at a time carrying a sample of its parents alleles. But the core of this concept is that the new generation of alleles is a sample of the whole populations alleles in the previous generation.

and chance plays a role in whether an individual survives to reproduce. This and the previous step cover the full circle of reproduction. Good! But sampling seems to be mentioned as part of only the first step. The sampling occurs (once?) in the full circle.

The allelic frequency of a population is the ratio of the copies of one specific gene that share the same form. A ratio has two parts. One part is the number of copies of the allele in question. What is the other?

Genetic drift effects smaller populations much more than it effects larger populations. Rather good. But remove "much". This relation is rather gradual. The smaller the population the larger the drift.

There are several theories that make up major parts of genetic drift. I find this obscure and uninformative. What are those parts?

The Hardy-Weinberg principle states that within large populations, the frequency of alleles will remain constant from generation to generation, unless equilibrium is disturbed. the context seems to imply that H-W is part of drift. It is not. It is about non-drift.

It is almost impossible for a population to meet these criteria, "these criteria" cannot be used before the criteria are mentioned. Equilibrium is necessarily at hand if the following criteria are at hand ... Remove "almost"; one of the criteria is infinitely large population.

because they must have 1) no mutations between generations 2) no immigration or emigration in the population 3) no condition that favors a particular allele; no selection 4) totally random mating. A population that is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is analogous to a deck of cards; no matter how many times the deck is shuffled, no new cards are added and no old ones are taken away. Good!

--Ettrig (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the criticism, I will work on incorporating the changes you suggest as soon as possible. I totally understand some of the organizational things you suggest, as well as the items that need a change in wording. Also, with the first statement, do you think that I should create a separate section purely for genetic drift? Thats what it sounded like when I read through it, but I am not sure if thats what you meant. Thanks again!--M rickabaugh (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to discern what should and what should not go into this introduction. Since several others have been clear that they think this is valuable I didn't voice my view, that this article should abstain from trying to explain about drift. I think it's too difficult. Maybe a concrete analogy, like the paint jars in genetic drift would help. But it has to be done very carefully. Yes, if it remains, it must be in another section.--Ettrig (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I want to try to make genetic drift a part of the article. I am going to try to, in writing this section, keep the context at about a level a high school student like myself could understand. Some of the formulas involved are much to in depth for an introduction, so I will omit them from the content in this article, but I will include the basics of Hardy-Weinberg (mostly what is already there), population bottlenecks, and the founder effect. Those three things seem like they are fairly understandable to most readers. I will have the full Genetic Drift article linked to it though. Since you seem to be an expert on the subject by looking at your talk page and what you have contributed to genetic drift, I am glad to have your critiques on what I have written. I believe I have addressed most of your concerns from your first comment. I am going to work on an analogy similar to the paint jars on genetic drift that can be included in this section.--M rickabaugh (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation Help

One of the points brought up in the FA Review of this article is that citations are in a multitude of different formats. I tried to start making them all the same format today, but realized how hard that was going to be. There are 100+ citations, and probably 10 different ways they are done. If someone or a group of people could help me re-format all these citations, it would be greatly appreciated, because It would take me several hours if not days to do it myself.--M rickabaugh (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Before starting the task, we should settle here...on the talk page...how the citations ought to look. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No Pain - No Gain

My dear student. FA attempts can be disheartening. There is much to be gained by the experience. Note: Criticisms must be supported by specifics - general statements such as the "prose sucks" weigh little in the decision making process. Therefore, the challenge will be addressing the many specific concerns that arise. This is where collaboration comes in. There are six others in the class, which could salvage their reputation by assisting. Others will emerged from the wood-work to assist as well - if you are tactful. The FA process will remain open as long as you are actively editing for improvement or at least until the admin. grows bored with the efforts. The underlying goal of the FA process is improvement - which will be the case irregardless of whether you convince the community that it is near flawless. I had hoped the reference format was acceptable. It passed the gauntlet in the past; however, the standards may have been raised over the last 2-3 years. The lead will never appease - the reason it is so long now is that it tries to be all things to all people. I suggest saving edits there until the body of the article is finished. I know some talented editors which I can send out a plea if you need; however, the feedback given so far has been very professional - on this you are extremely lucky. However, I suspect you will come across extremist which will challenge for the sake of creating impasses - either in objection to the topic, objection to introduction articles, or they're just bitter in general. Abortion, Obama-Care or even Witch Craft may have been an easier challenge. This is in part because the editors that monitor evolution tend to be both intelligent and passionate and are not always easy to appease. If I can be of assistance let me know. Remember - be polite - you will find there are no shortages of talented editors who established their intellect through positive contributions; not by limiting their contributions to criticisms!Good Luck!--JimmyButler (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised to see a new FA attempt. Someone has thick-skin. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

We are hoping for a more contributory atmosphere with toned-downed egos than we experienced years ago! The trick will be to keep my opinions /fingers off the key-board. Maybe I've grown up some! As for my students - I trust they will represent with dignity?!--JimmyButler (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe FAC's like Shakespeare authorship question will keep the fringe busy elsewhere. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that polishing the rest of the article should come before citation cleaning. I am glad that the reviews have been constructive and polite thus far... I've see some harsh comments on other candidates as I looked through the FAC board. I plan to edit as much as possible, and address the most important concerns (minus citation cleaning) as soon as I can. This does seem a whole lot larger now than it did when I was just talking about doing it though.--M rickabaugh (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead

The lead has changed hundreds of times. In its present form, it reflects the efforts of many. It is good as is. However, it is long. The question now is whether in pursuit FA should we follow a guideline for length and sacrifice the work of so many? The best I can offer after reading it multiple times is merging paragraph 3 and 4 in the lead; then moving the extensive loss of content to the appropriate section. Here:

• Random genetic drift describes another process that regulates evolution. The majority of genetic mutations neither assist, change the appearance of, nor bring harm to individuals. These mutated genes are neutrally sorted among populations and survive across generations by chance alone. In contrast to genetic drift, natural selection is not a random process because it acts on traits that are necessary for survival. Natural selection and random genetic drift are constant and dynamic parts of life. More than 99.9% of all species have become extinct since life began over 3.5 billion years ago. Evolution is more death than survival and over time this has shaped the branching structure in the tree of life.

Shall we leave it here awhile and see if anyone else has an opinion?--JimmyButler (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Bonus points and a smiley face for the student that masters the archive and does so for the older sections on this Talk Page!--JimmyButler (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Students - I have attempted a lead reduction - a section that has evolved more than any other living thing on the planet. I hated for you guys to take the heat for a section that will never satisfy the masses. Maybe the short version will fly. The rest is yours. Cheers! --JimmyButler (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Folow-up from FA page - ie. class assignments with assigned pt value.

I will be transfering the least controversial concerns here for my students to address. Type fixed underneath the concern - I will cross them out for you.--JimmyButler (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• The "External links" section is fairly long and most appear to be of the same nature.

Consider reviewing each site and decide which are most beneficial to someone unfamiliar with the topic. I would reduce this by half (5pts).

I have gone through to every page, and have removed the links that are irrelevant, off-topic, or duplicates. If there is any question on why some have been removed, I have the original links section saved to restore it, and I am willing to explain why I removed certain ones. The two in particular I will mention are the EvoWiki page, because all of this information is present on Wikipedia currently, and is more accurate because of peer-review. Also I have taken the second Carl Sagan video off, because a the first one has the same illustrations, and is more comprehensive than the second.--M rickabaugh (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir Cryptic, the Wise

Comments: Before I even begin reviewing the article, allow me to express my sincerest gratitude for your efforts to improve such a monumentally important and challenging topic. Writing an accessible article on evolution is like trying to teach squirrels how to solve a four-dimensional Rubik's cube. Anywho, here are some areas in need improvement:

• WP:LEAD suggests a maximum of 4 paragraphs. I would even be okay with 5 paragraphs for a particularly massive article, but 6 large paragraphs for a 35 kB article is definitely too many.
  • Fixed - Please review. Dramatic reduction of detailed explanation of genetic drift which is addressed in the appropriate sections.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• In most cases, only the first word of a section title should be capitalized. For example, Founder Effect should be Founder effect.
  • Fixed--JimmyButler (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Some of the section titles are too long. I suggest shortening Darwin's idea: evolution by natural selection to Natural selection or some such. Similarly, I suggest shortening Different views on the mechanism of evolution to Mechanism.
  • Fixed--Rebekah best (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• I suggest removing the Summary section. While I realize that this is an introductory article, it is still a Wikipedia article, not an essay.
• The article employs spaced en dashes (" – ") to break sentences. It should instead employ unspaced em dashes ("—").

• Actually, spaced endashes are allowed per WP:MDASH. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, I had missed that note. I thought em dashes were required, but I see now that they are merely preferred (by me, anyway). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Quammen, David" is a silly name. No action needed here, I just had to point this out.
  • Noted - I will request that "Quammen" seek the appropriate documents for a name change!
• Why is Co-evolution included under Evidence for evolution? For that matter, why is it included in this article at all? This is supposed to be an introductory article, which should necessarily be less broad in scope than the main article.

From a teacher's standpoint - I have found the concept of co-evolution to serve as a concrete example of the adaptive properties of evolution that is easily grasped. Rather than evidence it should probably relocated to examples of evolution or perhaps worked int the text under natural selection as a example or some such thing. I would beg indulgence and request that the topic stay.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Image:NaturalhistoryMag.jpg, which was used being used in the Different views section, has been deleted. It should be replaced; if it cannot be replaced, I suggest removing Stephen Jay Gould from the list of awesome dudebros.

• Fixed--M rickabaugh (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir Nikkimaria, the Brave

Oppose - like Cryptic, I appreciate your willingness to improve this article. Unfortunately, I don't feel it meets the FA criteria at this time

• Two dead links, one redirect to disambiguation page
• Both the lead and the ToC are too long given the length of the article
  • Fixed - as noted above under same concern raised by Cryptic C62--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Quite a bit of unsourced material - examples: "Genetic drift affects smaller populations more than it affects larger populations."; deck of cards analogy; "Dobzhansky's 1937 work Genetics and the Origin of Species was an important step in bridging the gap between genetics and field biology. Mayr, on the basis of an understanding of genes and direct observations of evolutionary processes from field research, introduced the biological species concept, which defined a species as a group of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from all other populations. The paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson helped to incorporate fossil research, which showed a pattern consistent with the branching and non-directional pathway of evolution of organisms predicted by the modern synthesis."

• The deck of cards analogy is something I thought of myself, I did not obtain it from anywhere. I'm also working on citing the other things you pointed out here. M rickabaugh (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Multiple inconsistencies in reference formatting

• Im working on cleaning these up. M rickabaugh (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Manual of style edits needed - wikilinking problems (both overlinking and underlinking), stacking and sandwiching of images, etc

I suggest submitting this article to peer review prior to attempting FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir Rusty Cashman, the Pure

Comments This is a wonderful article and I absolutely agree with your comment that it is a necessary one. It is far more approachable than evolution. I don't think it is quite ready for FA but I have some constructive suggestions:

• I don't think "Convergent evolution" belongs under evidence for evolution. It is worth mentioning but it should be moved to a separate section like you did with co-evolution.
  • Fixed. I agree with you, because the subject does no offer any strong evidence for evolution.--Rebekah best (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• I think you should add a brief subsection on biogeography (the geographic distribution of species) and in particular island biogeography and adaptive radiations to the evidence section. You could use Darwin's finches from the Galapagos or the Silversword alliance from Hawaii as an example. This sort of biogeographical evidence was historically very important to both Darwin and Wallace, and if it is summarized corectly, it is still quite compelling. If you don't beat me to it, I will put something together. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I took a shot at this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for the help here! I want to look to see if there is anything else I can add, if it is necessary, but what you have added so far is great!--M rickabaugh (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• The subsection on the Hardy-Weinberg principle is worded in a confusing way (especially the first sentence). I had to read it a couple of times before I realized that the main point was that real world populations would never be in equilibrium because they could never meet the criteria. It needs to be reworded to be less confusing; this is especially important with an introductory article.

• Fixed I have reworded the section to hopefully make it more clear, providing explanation where I feel it is necessary. I also removed the list, because my teacher said that lists are not typically popular in FA reviews. I have worked all the same information, in more detail, into the body of the text.--M rickabaugh (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In general I hope you continue to improve the article, and I plan to help. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments The nominator for this article is my student who will no doubt gain much from this experience. I wish to clarify a statement in the rationale for nomination. Numerous authors played a role in the previous FA attempt - not just me! I operated as RandomReplicator; although I had the most edits most were correcting my own mistakes! Any feedback that would help the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2010 would be welcome on the appropriate talk page.--JimmyButler (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir RJHall, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot

Oppose for now—Unfortunately I have to concur with some of the earlier comments. While the article has some wonderful material, at present it seems a little uneven and is perhaps disorganized in some places.

• The lead fails to be an accessible and non-technical summary for the lay reader. It relies upon technical terms like hereditary material, genes, allele frequencies, phenotype and genetic drift without explanation. It also has more than four paragraphs and does not properly summarize the article, per WP:LEAD. (In fact, the "Summary" section at the end may do a better job.) Please see if you can modify it to make the material more approachable for the general population.

• I am afraid you can not understand evolution, even a simplified version of it, unless you know basic vocabulary such as genes or hereditary material; however I have placed a link over Genes for those who do not understand these "technical terms" if you think I should continue adding links--as I have no room to place an explanation for each term--please tell me. .--Firekragg (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2011

  I understand. However, my objection concerns the lack of explanation of those technical terms; not the use of the terms in themselves. This is critical because this is an introductory article. Anybody looking for an introduction shouldn't be expected to already have the background knowledge needed.

  Besides, I don't think it will add too much to the size of the lead if you work the meaning into the context. For example, couldn't the lead say, "Third, there are variations among the alleles, or gene flavors, of offspring..."?—RJH (talk)

  • I understand what you are saying and I was under the impresion that you wanted an in depth definition which is not unreasonable... untill you take into consideration the great unmber of technical terms involved in this article make it far overbearing it would have more ors than a carthaginian warship..--Firekragg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC).

• The lead has been greatly reduced. Much of the technical terms were added when the article expanded to include genetic drift as a major force influencing evolution whereas before the emphasis was exclusively natural selection. The author was extremely diligent and careful with accuracy; with reluctance - I have gutted it. Please review to determine if both length and complexity have been addressed. Note - this is version 592 of the lead; balancing specificity without losing the audience may require compromise!--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• The first two sections of the article body are good, but then the Genetic drift section again relies upon a technical term, alleles, that has not been explained. The reader may become slightly lost here.

• Fixed I have included a definition of allele.--M rickabaugh (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am not clear about the purpose of the "Hardy-Weinberg principle" section. The first line states the "Hardy-Weinberg principle". The second line then appears to demolish the principle by stating that equilibrium is impossible. The principle is not used elsewhere in the article, so what does it add? I think it needs to clarify why this is an important aspect of the general theory.

• Fixed--M rickabaugh (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• The "Modern synthesis" section has no sources and appears to be an uneven mix of history with explanation. I think it needs to be reworked and should focus more on the explanation than the history.
• It seems like "Evidence for evolution" should follow the first section. I.e. first introduce the theory, then provide the evidence to support it, followed by details of underlying causes and effects of evolution.

• I'm not sure if it would be beneficial to move the section from the current spot. I think that all the sections above the evidence section outline key parts of evolutionary theory, and that it makes sense to display all of the evidence after the theory as a whole is explained.--M rickabaugh (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• The citations section varies between the use of abbreviated journal names and full names. I think one style should be chosen, preferably with full names as abbreviations can be obscure to a person unused to scientific citations.
  • Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sc => Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
  • CBE Life Sci Educ => CBE Life Sciences Education
  • Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) => Trends in Ecology & Evolution (Amsterdam)
  • Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. => Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

• Fixed--Kimberly fitzgerald (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• The "External links" section is fairly long and most appear to be of the same nature. There's already a "Further reading" section so it is not clear that such an extensive list is necessary. Please check that they all comply with WP:EXT.

• Fixed List reviewed and dramatically reduced.--JimmyButler (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please check the Toolbox above. You're missing 'Alt' text.

Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Re journal names: suggest you wikilink those that we have articles for, then use ISO abbreviation or full name consistently, it won't matter which to me. I corrected the format of a couple of jstor links to match cite journal documentation. Ref 14 needs an ISBN. Rjwilmsi 10:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed I found the links to two of the journals and used the full names.--Kimberly fitzgerald (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggest GA review as next goal

When the clean up from the FAC is over. I would suggest nominating this article for a good article review. A GA review can be a good way to get a thorough focused review of the entire article from a good editor, and usually one with an interest in the topic. I think the article is close to meeting the GA criteria, and it should be considerably easier to get an introductory article like this one to GA level than to FA where you will eventually run into questions about completeness. Once you get it certified as a GA, you can consider when and if another FAC would be appropriate. There is nothing stopping you from going for FAC again right away of course, but articles that are not really ready, and this one really wasn't, often don't get a lot of attention at FAC, and I think a GA review, and it is much closer to GA standards, might be a faster way to improve the article from this point. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)