Wikipedia

Talk:Evolution/Archive 12

< Talk:Evolution
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Homestarmy in topic POV insertion
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15


Natural assembly of Amino Acids

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

For the text: "Amino acids, the building blocks of proteins; have been shown to assemble naturally." Please can someone provide a reference, prefaerably a link to this research. Thanks Ajoiner 12:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. - Samsara 15:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
You might have also noticed that it's already mentioned in the referenced origin of life article. - Samsara 15:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

All right guys, just because i put a helpful comment under the wrong sub heading does not mean you have to delete it. I constructively inputted good information into the section underneath the section concerning the the natural assembly of ammino acids. This information has now been deleteded. It was good comment, that could have contributed to the article,it was rashly deleted, just beacause it was in the section below. I am rambling on here because i'am annoyed that you've just rejected my advice that i gave about macro evolution, that was posted. Quite important advice, to do with how bias in this specific field of science should be dealt with more extensively in the article. If you disagree with my points I'd at least think my posts deserve a replys, not just to be deleted and completely ignored. As i am trying to help here. I would at least like to think that my comments are being acknowledged, not just blantly ignored. I'm violating any act or law by contributing. I just don't understand why that comment was deleted.[[User:Pgtips]] 22:18 24 January 2006

Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Chronospecies is a current candidate on Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it here. --Fenice 17:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Distinctions between theory and fact

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

I really think the second sentence; In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion."; is quite POV. To be fair, the rest of the section does go on the explain the meaning of a theory quite well, BUT:

I also would like to question the need even have this section on the gounds that throughout the text, evolution is consistently referred to as a theory. No-one denies that it is a theory and anyone who is unclear to the meaning of theory has access the article on theory.

It seems to me to just be an attempt to discredit the theory based solely on the fact that it is a theory. -- Qarnos 00:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The line you refer to helps prevent countless editors from adding in its place "Evolution is just a theory, it has never been proved." A fare trade, I'd say. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I'd never thought about that. -- Qarnos 01:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
This point was raised in relation to Charles Darwin and the link Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" provided on the talk page, which I thought worthwhile adding to that article. It takes a different approach in covering the same issue as Lenski's article linked here, and may be worth considering. ...dave souza 19:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Slrubenstein this section is vital - without it people get terribly confused. I've also been using it to explain the fact/theory distinction to anons who have been editing the 1st sentence of Charles Darwin to remove 'fact of evolution' (e.g. 82.36.166.26). Mikkerpikker 00:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Isn't is true that every idea about the origin of life is a theory? I mean to say that unless someone creates a time machine, we are all left with just theory. Even though there is the debate that the Bible is the perfect and true word of God, there is no way we can tell. I say settle on theory for everything. Plausable theory is better than unprovable fact. Wwsames 16:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Isn't is true that every idea about what happened prior to 6,000 years ago is a theory? I mean to say that unless someone creates a time machine, we are all left with just theory. Even though there is the debate that the Bible is the perfect and true word of God, there is no way we can tell. I say settle on theory for everything. Plausable theory is better than unprovable fact. WAS 4.250 16:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Isn't is true that every idea about what happened yesterday is a theory? I mean to say that unless someone creates a time machine, we are all left with just theory. Even though there is the debate that statisticly it is more likely we are computer simulations than not, there is no way we can tell. I say settle on theory for everything. Plausable theory is better than unprovable fact. WAS 4.250 16:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


I really don't like being mocked by someone who has the liberty of total anonymity.[[1] See personal attacks page] Wwsames 19:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Isn't this link in the article? I don't oppose it -- but if it is not in the article yet, let's give other contributors a chance to forward any objections. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

We could just move this to the mistaken arguments against evolution section. That should work, and it would fit. Snake712 01:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Animals vs. primates

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The following edit has just been made:

The idea that humans are "merely" animals, primates specifically, and are genetically very closely related to other primates, has been independently argued as repellent notions by generations of detractors.

(italics mine).

My feeling is that primates need only be mentioned once, but I hesitated to make the edit, since the change was made by a non-registered user and I did not want to discourage him/her by instantly reverting one of his/her changes. - Samsara 22:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-registered users are sub-human. Revert away. Graft 22:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
But they share 99.8% of our genetic material. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 01:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Major re-write needed

Latest comment: 18 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion

I've been hanging around WP:FARC lately, and several articles have lost their FA status for much less than what is wrong with the evolution article. Specifically, I think it is rather badly written & in serious need of a thorough re-wording and re-organisation. I'm planning to be bold and make the necessary changes in the next couple of days but would like to get pre-emptive comments from all concerned... (Note: I'm quite happy with the CONTENT, the FORM just needs serious work). -- Mikkerpikker 06:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you create a subpage somewhere, copy this article there, edit to your heart's content, then come back here and ask how we like it rather than asking us to buy a pig in a poke. Your lack of specificity leaves me wary (as does your conviction in your own superiority combined with no indication you feel providing evidence of that superiority is needed - a key narcissistic trait). WAS 4.250 07:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I echo what Was Not Was says but in less harsh words. (OK, imagine I did.) Extensive edits to highly controversial pages should not be done live, and you might want to only do a section at a time so we can see what's up and so you're not wasting your time if we hate what you are trying to do. DreamGuy 07:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: WAS 4.250 + DreamGuy: :) didn't mean my post to sound arrogant & also wasn't planning to do everything @ once and expect everyone to accept my changes (I've been using wikipedia long enough to know that won't ever fly...). The reason I brought this up, incidentally, is because the 'Nature' external review mentioned that "several Nature reviewers" found the Wikipedia article they reviewed to be "poorly structured and confusing" and although evolution was not reviewed, their comment made me think... Mikkerpikker 07:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S., in future, please remember WP:FAITH and WP:NPA, I don't particularly enjoy being called narcissistic & saying I'm convinced of my own superiority is a POV for which you have no evidence. That the evolution article needs work seems clear and, in fact, on my count it should have been FARC'ed (malathion's vote wasn't counted). Anyway, no biggie, pls just don't repeat... Mikkerpikker 09:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It odd that this isn't in User:Mikkerpikker/Future Projects. WAS 4.250 07:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, my main project is evolutionary psychology but I can't very well work on that if the top level evolution article isn't yet acceptable! Mikkerpikker 07:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Why not? Believe you me, evolutionary psych has nothing to do with any actual understanding of the theory of evolution. Graft 08:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Dare I ask why?? Mikkerpikker 09:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe you could make limited changes. Pick a paragraph or two, improve them, wait. See if they get reverted or not. This would quickly let you see if further effort here would be appreciated. WAS 4.250 07:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I sort of agree with Mikkerpikker that it does need a rewrite. Probably most articles here do, it's just an inevitable result of how wikipedia works - too many cooks in the kitchen. But what I really feel we need, and I've said this before, is a tool for easily reshuffling sections and paragraphs, including hierarchical levels, rather than just editing texts. I'll go see what the mediawiki guys say - maybe something is in the works already. - Samsara 11:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
On the "better tools" idea: nothing available, nothing in the works. I'll keep moaning. - Samsara 15:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the first thing to do is discuss the organization. We had such a discussion not too long ago, and reached a consensus; see [2] and [3]. Full disclosure: I encouraged reorganization and made suggestions, but I myself did not do the reorganization. Is Mikkerpikker rejecting this? If so, please explain why, and how you would envision the alternative. I would oppose any reorganization unless it took into account the earlier discussions and reason for the current discussion, and explained the problems. If Mikkerpikker accepts the current organization but is suggesting rewording portions, well, that is a different matter. Still, she should explain which portions she wants to change, why, and how. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the suggestions made at the time have not been completely implemented yet. Why then has the material been moved to archives? This is very confusing. - Samsara 22:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
So all the old stuff is now out in the open again, so we can poke at the bits that would have been worth doing when first proposed. - Samsara 02:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestions

For the Modern Synthesis section:

  • Linkage needs to go with recombination
  • Gene flow needs to go with population structure
  • Natural selection must be brow to brow with drift

I also wonder whether there should be a section that talks about mutation-selection balance etc. - the real achievements of the Modern Synthesis? - Samsara 22:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

And I think gene flow/population structure should come after linkage/recombination, it's probably easier to understand in that order. - Samsara 23:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I did not do the archiving. Samsara's proposal is interesting. I'd like to know what Graft thinks. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I think these are fine suggestions but don't really constitute substantial alterations of the text. I think I've suggested what I think are the general and specific problems remaining with the text, but just to make them explicit:
  • The "History of Life" and "Ancestry of Organisms" sections are somewhat in limbo.
  • The "Misconceptions" section seems a bit ill-advised, partially because it's definitely tendentious, and also because there seems to be no clear standard for where these "misconceptions" are drawn from.
  • The article rambles back and forth in level of detail.
This last is I think a result of the fact that we've never really had a good discussion of what the scope of this article should be, other than to simply insert as great a level of detail as someone feels comfortable with at any one time. Obviously a problem with WP articles more generally, but this in particular is the cornerstone of what should be a much larger subset of pages, and not delineating its boundaries properly means we're less able to dive off into those. I.e., perhaps concepts like mutation-selection balance are appropriate herein, but perhaps they would be best in their own article, or discussed within natural selection, or whatever, but we've never really made that decision. It's also probably the case that this article, being edited heavily recently by people who seem to have a population genetics/molecular evolution perspective (e.g. myself and Samsara) is going to be coming from a different slant than some organismal biologists (say Guettarda) might give it, or that lay readers of Stephen J. Gould might find more familiar. The fact that we've never really hashed out what's appropriate or best here is, I think, the reason the tone of the article jumps around so much and there is so much disorganization in the structure. Graft 08:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

organization

Latest comment: 18 years ago23 comments8 people in discussion

I did some work on sections 2 and 3. I am not satisfied with the organization of sections 3-8, although I am not sure how the material should be organized. Be that as it may, I do not see the logic for the organization, and nothing in the introduction prepares me for the organization of this material (to be clear, I have NO issue with the content). Offhand I can see two principles of organization:

  • the first one is based on a distinction I have highlighted in section 1: provide evidence for the "fact" of evolution, then provide evidence that supports the "theory" of evolution (e.g. evidence that supports each element of the modern synthesis).
  • Another possibility is suggested by something else in 1.1 (which I did not write) — the three elements of the modern synthesis. Reorganize all of 3-8 into three major sections, each one corresponding to one of these three elements.
  • Perhaps others can come up with another, better way to organize the material. If they can, I urge them to explain the logic of the organization somwhere in the introduction. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
'Be bold. Do it. I like your recent help to the article. If you do something everyone hates it can be easily reverted. I have little doubt the current setup (except the ROUGH organization WITHIN the "Mechanisms") was unplanned. Try something better. Reverting is easy. WAS 4.250 20:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, but the reason I haven't done it is because I really am not sure what is best. I'd really like to know what Graft and Guettarda think on this, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, so the issue is the overall organization of the article. It IS not adequate. Neither you nor I have a pat answer for what is adequate. Any suggestions? WAS 4.250 22:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I really would like Graft and Guettarda to take a crack at it. They have made significant contributions to this article over a long period of time and I think would have very constructive ideas. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that we consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology, but it doesn't seem to help on the structure of this article. Are there any WikiProjects for near-top level science articles? Good examples of such articles? --Rikurzhen 23:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

britannica

this is the britannica outline with some wording modified. this may be a starting point for working on the structure of this article. feel free to change things below and build the outline for this article starting with this template. --Rikurzhen 06:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

1. General overview (this article)

2. The science of evolution (maybe Evolutionary biology)


So you're suggesting plagiarism on a massive scale? Britannica isn't the end-all and be-all, by the way. --Cyde Weys [u] [t] [c] 06:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
obviously not, but the FAC removal mentioned Britannica as a standard against which to compare this article. in fact, i believe we have material that covers most of this outline already and merely need to find a good organization. --Rikurzhen 07:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is the part we need to agree or not agree to:

1. General overview

2. Science of evolution

WAS 4.250 16:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The current setup is:

  1. Science: fact and theory
  2. Who studies evolution?
  3. Ancestry of organisms
  4. Evidence of evolution
  5. History of life
  6. Basic mechanisms of evolution
  7. Adaptation
  8. Speciation and extinction
  9. History of evolutionary thought
  10. Social controversies

Maybe restructure that into this:

  1. Evidence of evolution
  2. History of evolutionary thought
  3. Social implications of the theory of evolution
  4. Science of evolution

WAS 4.250 17:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I like your proposal at top - Overview, 2 sections followed by 3 sub-sections each. KillerChihuahua 17:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

See the article: I neither added nor deleted content in the article, but I grouped them in accordance with the proposal being discussed. Even if it gets reverted, by going to history, one can look at it and make judgements. WAS 4.250 17:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I would do it this way:

1. The concept of evolution

  1. non-scientific notions of evolution (evolution=unfolding or progress)
  2. scientific understandings of evolution
  • the relationship between fact and theory in science
  • evolution as fact versus evolution as theory

2. The rise of evolutionary theory

  1. pre-Darwin (like, Aristotle to Lamarck)
  2. Darwin's theory (explain the theory clearly and put in whatever data is necessary to explain specifically how he arrived at his theory, but no "evidence" beyond that
  3. Mendelian Genetics (again, the bare minimum to understand the theory
  4. the modern synthesis

3. Evidence for evolution as a fact

  1. fossil evidence
  2. directly observed evidence

4. Evidence for the Modern Synthesis

  1. evidence for the relationship between genotypical and phenotypical variation
  • mutation
  • drift
  • founder effect
  1. evidence that species consist of populations with genetic variation (i.e. is a statistical phenomena) rather than an ideal type
  2. selection and adaptation
  • principles of fecundity, r vs. k strategies
  • principles of morbididty, competition for resources and predation
  • natural selection
  • Sexual selection
  • Baldwinian selection
  • the selfish gene
  • evo-devo
  • microevolution
  • macroevolution

5. Social meanings of evolution Or something like that. Just an opinion, anyway Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  • One puppy speaking up to say I am very supportive of the current org as done by WAS. KillerChihuahua 18:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I wanted to re-write this bit in the article about mutation/variation but I think this needs some more organizational work for clarity. SLR's proposal above is good, but I'm a bit leery of an outline that's based on presenting evidence rather than explaining the current state of theory. These might go hand-in-hand, but I'd rather the latter came first, and the former was fitted in around that. Thus, I think SLR's section 4 should be more like this:

4. The Modern Synthesis

  • Heredity
    • genetic material, genes
  • Mechanisms of evolution
    • mutation (genetic variation)
    • drift
    • gene flow
    • selection and adaptation
      • natural selection
      • sexual selection
      • evo-devo
  • Speciation
Does that sound worthwhile? Graft 22:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Graft, I have no objection to your modification. Are you willing to start doing the actual reorganizing? The article really needs it. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. Be bold. We can always revert. WAS 4.250 01:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I really like Slrubenstein's proposal as amended by Graft, the main organisational bone I had to pick with the article when I originally made my post is fixed nicely by section 2. (Although I feel strongly it should be called "History of evolutionary thought" not "The rise of evolutionary theory"; a good deal of that history concerns debates about evolution as fact so calling it "theory" might confuse if the article has just explained the distinction btw fact and theory.) Mikkerpikker 08:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Are we going to put "Misconceptions of modern evolutionary biology" (1.3 currently) and "Social and religious controversies" (1.4 currenrly) under "5. Social meanings of evolution"? Mikkerpikker 08:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
"History of evolutionary thought" does appeal, not least because it is more general and reserved. - Samsara 12:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

restructuring even more?

People seem to have accepted the top level restructring, so I guess the next step is whether or not more restructuring is done. I propose candidates for restructuring the subsection "Science of evolution" be presented here or actually be done in the article (we can always revert). (Talking about it first is always good).

What we have now is: 

   * 2.1 Science: fact and theory
   * 2.2 Who studies evolution?
   * 2.3 Ancestry of organisms
   * 2.4 History of life
   * 2.5 Basic mechanisms of evolution
   * 2.6 Adaptation
   * 2.7 Speciation and extinction

The britanica example/model provided above has its "science of evolution" section divided into these 3 parts:

  • Process of evolution
  • Species and speciation
  • Molecular evolution

WAS 4.250 01:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

evowiki

also, maybe evowiki can help us. however, their license may not be compatible. --Rikurzhen 07:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Reorganisation

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I've started with the reorg has pet above, the (v. rough) work it progress can be found at User:Mikkerpikker/Evolution Mikkerpikker 15:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

argh! Got a 'wikipedia white screen of death' (server down, foundation apologises) so lost a hell of a lot of it! (starting again!) Mikkerpikker 15:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
ok, I'm off for a while & I'm not quite done w/ the reorganisation but the otline is now visible @ User:Mikkerpikker/Evolution. Please feel free to comment on it (here) or edit it (there).... Mikkerpikker 16:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The Williams Revolution - coinage?

Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

If you can provide a source for the use of the term "Williams Revolution" in a reputable printed medium, I'd be grateful if you could cite it at Talk:Williams revolution. Three editors have been unable to confirm the existence of the term outside of wikipedia by fairly rigorous literature searches. You may also want to look at this summary. - Samsara 18:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard the term, though obviously the gene-centered theory of evolution is very important. As for the summary - well, to me it says nothing more than a truism, which is that when a lot of people talk about stuff, language changes. And we all know too that there is a vast difference between almost any specialized or professional language and popular language. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
On a related note, recent work in evo-devo suggests a radical alternative to the gene-centered approach. Does anyone know enough about these developments to add them to the article (my understanding is this: crucial moments in speciation occur not when a given gene is selected against, or a mutation is selected for, but rather when another gene that "switches on" a set of genes at important moments in embryonic development is selected for or against. This accounts for the fact that different species share so many genes, and that what distinguishes different species is not just what genes are or are not present, but which genese that are present are or are not switched on. Since the switching on affects the development of an organ or the organism as a whole, it is the organ or organism that is the center of selection, not the gene. Does anyone know this emerging literature? I know only that it exists. It is NOT however represented in the article's discussion of evolutionary development.Slrubenstein | Talk 19:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I would like to respond. I come from a physics/computer_science point of view. Evolution and such is meaningful to me primarily as it relates to my transition from a creationist to an atheist. I have always found the gene centered approach to be equivalent to a subroutine centered approach. Something calls/executes the genes/subroutines. Meta-gene. Kernel. Isn't this obvious to everyone? WAS 4.250 21:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
With all due resepect, no, it is not obvious to everyone. Indeed, as you yourself suggest, it is obvious to you because of your background in computers. If it helps you, fine. Nevertheless, you are drawing an analogy and analogies help illustrate explanations, but are not explanations themselves. What a gene is and its place in evolution is something evolutionary scientists continually study. We should defer to their explanations of what is going on. (or, were you just making a joke? If so, I am sorry to be so earnest) Slrubenstein | Talk 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I joke as one of my primary methods of communication, so it is no wonder that you question if I am serious. Yes. No joke. I'm very serious. And yes, it is an analogy to compare computer_science to genetics. And yes, we must rely on scientific study of actual behavior of genetic material to understand biological evolution. So why isn't it generally understood that the execution of genes is merely a subroutine, and the structures that call on that execution must necessarily be in_charge\kernal_like\meta_gene ? WAS 4.250 22:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is it not generally understood this way? Well, I think because it does not work this way. The operation of genes does not mimic that of computer programs, nor are both genes and computer programs modeled on the same thing. Strings of nucleotides (i.e. the composits of genes) are both templates for the production of polypeptides and regulate the production of polypeptides. Polypeptides themselves form in an environment of complex interactions between polypeptides and nucleotides and are also influenced by random environmental conditions. th result is the creation of enzymes that themselves interact in complex ways. Our words like "code" and "reproduction" are metaphors that help us describe this process, but they should not be taken literally. Put another way, although a given metaphor may be very useful in describing some elements of genetic and evolutionary processes, that metaphor may be useless or deceptive in understanding another process. And we can come up for another metaphor to describe some other process usefully, but it too will be of limited value. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The simplest way to reject this metaphor is to point out that there's just no analog for a kernel in biology. Genes are controlled by the interaction between DNA elements and the products of other genes - that is, "programs", in the above analogy. This is like no software environment that currenlty exists. There is no overarching system of control regulating everything. Graft 02:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen (and ladies if any present), can I please ask you to kindly focus on the question at hand - IS the Williams revolution a genuine piece of terminology or has it been concocted by ourselves, humble wikipedians? Once we have established whether we have indeed made it up, we should then discuss whether it is useful enough to merit preservation. Until then, let us resolve the matter at hand and not drift off into original research (for which wikipedia talk pages are perhaps one of the less appropriate places, fun as it may be...)!

I am hopeful that one Mr. Mikkerpikker will report back (as per Talk:Richard Dawkins) that he has found the term in an evolutionary psychology book, "Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind" by David Buss. Its date of publication as per amazon.com (August 6, 2003) unfortunately does not preceed the origin of the corresponding article, Williams revolution, here on wikipedia (10 December 2002), but may at least give an indication of its acceptance. A sample size greater than 1 would be an added blessing.

I shall now retreat to my chambers and remedy my lack of rest. - Samsara 03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As for me, I shall study on this VERY interesting topic and get back to y'all later ... cheers. WAS 4.250 04:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I was unable to find "Williams revolution" in the book I mentioned (or any of the others I checked) so it seems wikipedia did coin the term. (Random commnet: I really like the term & think it may be a very useful neologism...) Mikkerpikker 12:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The article Williams revolution has been put up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Williams_revolution). See the extensive discussion in Talk:Williams_revolution. The content of "Williams revolution" has been incorporated into Gene-centered view of evolution.-- MayerG 20:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Gene flow

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This post is to initiate discussion about the gene flow issue. WAS has provided two references, [4] and [5], and the problem I have with those papers is that they do not use gene flow in a rigorously population genetic way. Gene flow is something that changes heterozygosity, not allele frequencies. Gene flow from domestic crops into wild plants is actually an example of sexual selection, believe it or not!

I believe it will be completely unhelpful to maintain on wikipedia that there are three mechanisms that change allele frequencies, for the reasons stated above and because it will lead people into non-rigorous ways of thinking that will make it difficult for them to grasp population genetics. So here is to avoiding confusion. - Samsara 23:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You say "Gene flow is something that changes heterozygosity".

Heterozygote says:

"Heterozygote cells are diploid or polyploid and have different alleles at a locus (position) on homologous chromosomes. When an organism is referred to as a heterozygote or as being heterozygous for a specific gene, it means that the organism carries a different version of that gene on each of the two corresponding chromosomes. Heterozygosity refers to the state of being a heterozygote, but in population genetics, it commonly refers to the fraction of individuals in a population that are heterozygous for that locus."

Gene flow says:

Genes can flow between species, as when bacterial DNA is transferred to animals or plants.

One source of genetic variation is gene transfer, the movement of genetic material across species boundaries, which includes horizontal gene transfer, antigenic shift, and reassortment. Viruses can transfer genes between species [6]. Bacteria can incorporate genes from other dead bacteria, exchange genes with living bacteria, and can have plasmids "set up residence separate from the host's genome" [7]. "Sequence comparisons suggest recent horizontal transfer of many genes among diverse species including across the boundaries of phylogenetic "domains". Thus determining the phylogenetic history of a species can not be done conclusively by determining evolutionary trees for single genes." [8]

Biologist Gogarten suggests "the original metaphor of a tree no longer fits the data from recent genome research" therefore "biologists [should] use the metaphor of a mosaic to describe the different histories combined in individual genomes and use [the] metaphor of a net to visualize the rich exchange and cooperative effects of HGT among microbes." [9]

"Using single genes as phylogenetic markers, it is difficult to trace organismal phylogeny in the presence of HGT [horizontal gene transfer]. Combining the simple coalescence model of cladogenesis with rare HGT [horizontal gene transfer] events suggest there was no single last common ancestor that contained all of the genes ancestral to those shared among the three domains of life. Each contemporary molecule has its own history and traces back to an individual molecule cenancestor. However, these molecular ancestors were likely to be present in different organisms at different times." [10]

There is gene flow where there are not sexes. At least one of us is confused! Horizontal gene transfer was mentioned in the sources I provided and is commonly ignored in mathematical models. It should not be ignored and it should not be swept under the rug at Wikipedia just cause it invalidates pretty theories and textbooks written a decade ago. It is very important in understanding the problems of Genetic Engineering. WAS 4.250 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously any process that introduces new variation into a finite population is going to change allele frequencies. But I think gene flow should properly be classed the same way as mutations, as primarily introducing variation, since it can't actually produce fixation of alleles. On the other hand, obviously we need to distinguish between migration and population expansion/contraction, which can mimic drift and selection. Graft 04:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
WAS, I'd be more likely to give in to your arguments if I was fully convinced that you've understood that in genetics, everything is a tree, even with horizontal gene transfer and (even less convincing) hybridisation. Networks only come about when units larger than haplotypes are considered.
I also think we should stick with mutation as the only ultimate source of variation.
And yes, mutation does change allele frequencies in finite populations, hence my earlier reference to mutation-selection balance.
WAS: As for that cladogenesis paper you've been badgering around, I frankly don't buy it and would caution you against buying into any paper after reading the first and last paragraphs. I'm afraid I don't have the time to give you a full refutation of the claims made, so I won't intervene in that particular issue. - Samsara 06:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept whatever Graft comes up with as the best way to communicate what is currently known. WAS 4.250 07:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make above was that I think Samsara was correct in his edit - we should say there are two processes that affect allele frequencies, selection and drift. Or if we're going to add a third, it should be changes in population structure, not gene flow. Graft 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A debate

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here Stephen Jay Gould attacks Darwinian Fundamentalism.

Here Harold Kalant, Steven Pinker, and Werner Kalow respond followed by a reply by Stephen Jay Gould.

Here Merlin Donald, Steven Mithen respond the that followed by a reply by Howard Gardner. WAS 4.250 21:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


Herbert Spencer on Evolution

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

<Comment on the following sentence in Evolution—In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation.>

From Will Durant's "Story of Philosophy"; Washington Square Press; 18th Printing, 1965; p. 367—Herbert Spencer's Opinion on Evolution to A Federation of the World:

The growth of planets out of nebulae; the formation of oceans and mountains on the earth; the metabolism of elements by plants, and of animal tissues by men; the development of the unification of sensations and memories into knowledge and thought, and of knowledge into science and philosophy; the development of families into clans and gentes and cities and states and alliances and the "federation of the world": here is the integration of matter,—the aggregation of separate items into masses and groups and wholes. Such integration of course involves a lessening of motion in the parts, as the growing power of the state lessens the freedom of the individual; but at the same time it gives to the parts an interdependence, a protective tissue of relationships, which constitute "coherence" and promote corporate survival.

Yesselman 22:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Description of Macroevolution

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I object to the usage of the phrase "Macroevolution is microevolution over a longer period of time." in the Evolution article. Macroevolution distinguishes itself from microeovlution in several ways (all of which are covered in Stephen Jay Gould's book The Structure of Evolutionary Theory): macroevolution acts upon species, rather than populations or individuals as microevolution does. Macroevolution therefore has a necessarily longer scope than does microevolution, and historical contingency plays a much bigger role in Macroevolution than it does in microevolution. In addition, microevolutionary changes can oppose, support or be orthogonal to macroevolutionary (i.e. species-level) changes.

Jreilly4 16:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Jreilly4

Then what we need to do is say "According to some, macroevolution is microevolution on a larger scale" because this is exactly what most textbooks say ... and then say "In his magnum opus, however, Stephen Jay Gould argued ..." (Gould's argument - aimed indirectly at Richard Dawkins - is intriguing and while Gould is well-respected not everyone agrees with him). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The phrase is almost certainly being used in a creation-evolution context (i.e. to underscore that microevolutionary changes sum up to macroevolutionary change; a position that creationists are often hostile to once the evidence for microevolution has been pointed out to them). There's support for your view over at macroevolution, but it's quite a flawed article at the moment (not least because of its undue emphasis on creation-evolution). I'm not certain that Gould's view on macroevolution is accepted in its entirety by the scientific community, but it's been a while since I was officially a biologist so I'm likely to be out of date. Personally I'm happy with the "macro is micro" line, but I could be convinced otherwise. You might want to help clean-up the macroevolution article first. Cheers, --Plumbago 17:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Quantity has a quality all its own. That's true for anything, including time. New phenomena manifest when the scale changes radically. WAS 4.250 22:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
You are right. But what is at stake in this debate is whetehr the mechanisms are fundamentally different. Creationists claim that they are different; scientists generally claim that they are not. Gould is a special case who is making a special claim, but he is not doing so to support the creationist cause but rather working within the evolutionary model. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Slrubenstein's suggestion that we say "According to some, macroevolution is [defined] as microevolution on a larger scale". But I'd probably replace the "According to some" with a more anodyne "Commonly, ...". I'd then expand the latter point along the lines ... "However, other scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, use the term macroevolution to describe evolutionary processes that occur at the level of species or above ...". And I agree that care should be taken so that no one confuses Gould's ideas with support for creationism (which, ironically given his views, has happened before). --Plumbago 17:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Plumbago, do you want to go ahead and make these changes? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. Sorry for the delay. --Plumbago 18:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestions II

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

For the general definition:

Ironically, this definition includes many explanations and descriptions, but no actual "definition" of the sort one would normally expect. I would submit the following to precede the rest:

In biology, evolution is a process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive organisms; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of their populations, which –when compiled over successive generations- can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins. User:Aron-Ra

I have no idea why you think this

  1. is necessary
  2. adds rather than duplicates
  3. is needed to "define" rather than "In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation." WAS 4.250 20:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"The definition widely adopted in recent decades-"Evolution is the change of gene frequencies in populations"-refers only to the transformational component. It tells us nothing about the multiplication of species nor, more broadly, about the origin of organic diversity. A broader definition is needed which would include both transformation and diversification." --Ernst Mayr; The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance: 1982

That's why. That, and the fact that most people struggling with this really need a brief quotable phrase, and can't bare or share lengthy explanations and descriptions to the laity. Aron-Ra 05:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The word definition can mean many things. Which sense of the word (see definition) do you mean? WAS 4.250 15:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
One other point. Just talking about changing gene frequencies omits (or appears to omit) the key process of mutation. As it's essentially the generation of new genes (usually by modification/duplication of existing ones), it provides much of the raw material for selection (not forgetting recombination itself of course). But it isn't well covered by the expression "change of gene frequencies", which sounds (to me) more like selection and/or genetic drift. In terms of summarising evolution in one simple paragraph, it may be difficult to get biodiversity into there (not least because there's no one theory that covers its generation entirely). My favourite simple definition is something "algorithmic" like :
  1. Individuals in a population are not identical in their phenotypic traits
  2. Much of this variability is genetic in origin and is inheritable
  3. This phenotypic variability leads to differential survival and reproduction
  4. Through time this variability in fate changes the frequencies of traits (= evolution)
Well, actually it was a lot more eloquent than that when I first read it, but I can't remember it well. Anyway, just my five cents. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Of which only points 1-3 are the premises and 4 the necessary conclusion, so a definition of evolution would only need to include the first three, that I might call variation, heritability and differential survival. - Samsara 15:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that this is the definition of natural selection only, not of genetic drift! Therefore, it is not the definition of evolution, which in finite populations cannot occur without simultaneous drift (and all natural populations are finite). - Samsara 15:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree about the definition. It does exclude genetic drift. Although, that may be less of a problem for some people than its exclusion of biodiversity issues (which, as I noted above, isn't a problem as far as I'm concerned as there's nothing particularly solid on this front). Also, the importance of drift is a function of the selective pressures acting on the variation in question. If selection is strong over the range of variation, drift is likely to play less of a role even if the population is smaller (since selection will exterminate unfavoured variations). If selection is negligible or absent (e.g. where varieties in which different codons for the same amino acid are present) then drift is inevitable, especially in small populations. Anyway, I guess my point is that I don't think it's unreasonable to exclude drift at the short definition stage, though it shouldn't be excluded from an expanded definition. Of course, your mileage may vary.  :) --Plumbago 16:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Improvement drive: Frog and pheromone

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If you would like to see the articles Frog and Pheromone improved, you can vote for them here. - Samsara contrib talk 15:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Pointless Macroevolution Rant

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

On the subject of this natural self-assembly theory, which does convincingly justify the theory of macro evolution. It is important that both sides of the argument, with reference to macro evolution are considered. So arguments both for and against it must be represented in order to avoid bias. Although this is a coherent theory, that makes sense and is no where near as outlandish or preposterously stupid as some creationists like to believe, it has not as of yet been proven to be 100% accurate. Macro evolution is only rightfully assumed part of the theory of evolution rather than a proven part like most good science is. Macro evolution can not be proven as life has not as of yet been created from dead matter, and until then it can only be assumed. Now that's important, as it will help take some of the controversy out of this creation-evolution argument as well as stating accurate fact which is one's responsibility as a good scientist. User : Pgtips19:29 (GMT), 23 January

It's really annoying to be told by non-scientists what marks one's responsibility as a good scientist, especially when you're glaringly obviously unfamiliar with what good science actually is. Graft 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It's also annoying when people redefine things as other than they are - since when is macroevolution (whether you want to define it broadly, or narrowly) included abiogenesis? Once again - read triticale - there is absolute, experimentally generated evidence for macroevolution - that was done in the 1800s. Nuff said. Guettarda 19:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
So? That's an artificial intelligently created hybrid. Have you got any real evidence? rossnixon 00:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
How is that not real evidence? You start with an observation (the speciation of wheat was brought about by hybridisation followed by polyploid doubling), carry out an experiment to test the mechanism, and end up with a new species. How is that not evidence? Polyploid doubling has been observed in nature, in response to known mechanisms. Hypothesis (new species, wheat, originated through hybridisation and the production of unreduced gametes), based on known mechanism (various environmental cues can result in the formation of unreduced gametes), leads to novel predictions (any good theory makes novel predictions) that this can be done with other grasses. Experiment is carried out, supports hypothesis that new species can originate through the mechanism. Experiment (1) confirms that macroevolution is relatively trivial, if it can be duplicated in the lab, (2) shows that new species can originate using common, observable mechanisms (hybridisation and the formation of nonreduced gametes). Thus, speciation (=macroevolution) can not only be inferred, it can be explained mechanistically (at least in plants) and can be duplicated in the lab. Are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you that clueless about what science and experimentation is all about? Guettarda 01:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
To cast this in other terms, almost all experiments require "artificial intelligent intervention" - that's what experimentation is all about. You manipulate things. That's the difference between hypothesis testing and observation. Guettarda 01:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The term "macroevolution" was created by creationists, not scientists. It's misleading and doesn't belong in an article about "evolution" itself. If you want to put it in Creationism or a related article, fine. Teflon Don 02:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Any source for this? I came across the term in EB classes. Guettarda 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Seems I was mistaken, as I found out while searching Talk Origins. The term was not created by creationists; rather, they misrepresent its significance. Sorry. Teflon Don 04:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Views

Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

I understand the NPOV guidelines. But for the life of me, I'm wondering why the double standard?

For instance, under ID, under External Links, there is a sub-heading of links called Non-ID perspectives. These links are all critical of ID and obviously do not ascribe to a NPOV.

Under the Creationism articles External Links page, is a sub-heading for Evolution, again, certainly not a NPOV.

Under the Evolution articles External links page are ZERO links to dissenting articles. ZERO!!!

My attempts to add an external link to all three articles were subsequently removed? Why the double standard?

I put the external link in the ID article under the ID perspective heading. I put it into the Evolution article under it's own heading 'Alternative view'. I put it in the Creationism article under external links and in all three cases, it was removed.

So the picture I get is this;

The gods presiding over the evolution article make sure there is NO dissenting links or any dissent at all. Evolution is treated as a sacrosacnt piece of work immune and exempt from criticism or opposing links.

Meanwhile, the keeper(s) of the ID and Creationism articles have no problems allowing external links to 'the truth' of evolution.

C'mon! How is this even defensible!!!!!!

63.73.199.69 18:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment If you're referring to this link [evolutionsucks.org], the issue might be with the quality of information presented at the link. As far as I could tell, none of the assertions presented at that site were sourced. OhnoitsJamieTalk 18:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above, but in principle an alternative ideas section should be included, perhaps inculding links to other wikipedia articles such as Intelligent Design or Creationism. This would allow the NPOV to be extended in this article, allowing readers to get an idea of alternative views. Ck lostsword 19:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Good idea. Maybe a new heading titled "alternative views" with wikilinks to the two entries mentioned. OhnoitsJamieTalk 19:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Is fair for everyone. I'll do now if that's OK? Ck lostsword 19:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the science of evolution, which is uncontrovertial. There is a separate article about the creation-evolution "controversy". Now, in the case of ID, the "science" of ID (which is what the ID article is about) is highly controversial - so the anti-ID position is important for balance (since this is the overwhelming scientific view). Links to hard science which disputes EB would be welcome - links to propaganda sites do not belong here. Guettarda 19:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
True, but ID is considered as 'hard science' by its proponents. Evolution is, after all, just a theory. The ID article in Wiki is not 'about' its controversy in the same way that this Evolution article is not, it is about the science used in it. For a fair reflection of the views of all scientists, a heading on alternative views should be acceptable. Ck lostsword 19:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
ID is not science - this has been established by the courts; it's proponents have made no secret about their religious/political agenda. To present the "science" of ID without presenting the overwhelming majority scientific view of ID violates NPOV. As to "evolution is just a theory" - that fallacy is dealt with in the article. Since this article is about science, there is not reason to include religious opposition. ID is not science. Guettarda 19:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. ID is not hard science regardless of how many times its proponents say it is. They don't get to decide that. ID fails to meet objective criteria demanded of all scientific disciplines. 67.86.75.109 19:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem - I am prepared to go with the majority. We should wait for some further opinions from other editors, then include or not, as appropriate. (Personally I am pro-evo, and am merely trying to suggest that other views be included in a scientific article.) Ck lostsword 19:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Same here...while I don't think that creationism and evolution have the same scientific footing as evolution, they are related topics. I just thought it might be a reasonable compromise to provide links to the other wikipedia articles. Then again, you could probably use the same reasoning for including a link to the Flying Spaghetti Monster on a religion's page....I'll respect the majority consensus of this talk page. OhnoitsJamieTalk 20:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
We've been over this a hundred times - I think the consensus is pretty clear and well-founded.
On an unrelated note, that reversion you made (ck) was of an older version, and I liked that organization much better than the current hodge-podge. I think it's time to whack things around a bit... Graft 20:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
To ck - other scientific views are fine, non-science is not. To Graft - go for it! Guettarda 20:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
That's great - we'll leave it at that, then! Thanks for the discussion anyway - it's been interesting. Ck lostsword 20:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

ID is not science

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

"ID is not science - this has been established by the courts; it's proponents.." Whoa, hold on there Guettarda The courts are not infallible. Heck, they once ruled that black people were property (Dred Scott) and that slavery was ok. They also ruled in '73 that babies can be slaughtered at will (Roe v Wade).

For the court to asert that ID is not science (as they did in the Dover case), does not mean their opinion is empirically true. NPOV needs to be in the evolution article. I agree with Ck lostsword that alternative views need to have a link here to other Wiki articles. To not include them makes the evolution article hypocricy in regards to the NPOV policy.

Dougp59 17:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The entire creation evolution controversy has its own article and is clearly linked in the text. The problem is that this is a science article about the process of evolution. There are no "alternative views" in science. This is not an origins of life article. And this article has nothing to do with religion. --JohnDO|Speak your mind 18:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Is the link to Creation-evolution controversy not sufficient? --Plumbago 18:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I should have said even the courts have established that; the scientific community established that long ago. Alternative views about the science of evolution belong here - but religious views do not. Does the volcano article link to scientology? Guettarda 18:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Haha! Maybe it should... Also, Grand Canyon should link to Great Flood. Graft 18:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, at least "creation science" provides a mechanistic, and thus, testable, hypothesis. That's more than you can say for ID, which is pure Deus ex machina. Guettarda 19:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Please tell me the Grand Canyon link was a joke (?)

POV insertion

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The conflation of the "theory of evolution" with the process of evolution has been a way in which certain POV editors have attempted to insert anti-evolution POV into this article. That is not only POV but inaccurate. Phylogeny is "the study of the history of organismal lineages as they change through time". Conflation of the the term with evolution is again extremely inaccurate. Editors who edit science articles have a responsibility to learn the correct terminology.--JohnDO|Speak your mind 03:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Agree This article's tone has overly religous POV. "Theory of evolution" should be "process of evolution". Religious beliefs are of questionable encyclopedic value here. Jeff Carr 08:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
In science, it is called the Theory of Evolution. --KimvdLinde 13:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Wait, how is conflation of a term automatically attributed to religion? Couldn't you just simplify the term? Homestarmy 13:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is not fully accepted fact

Latest comment: 18 years ago31 comments16 people in discussion

The anti-religious bias on here is amazing. A clear case to prove evolution as fact? THE process? ConservativeChristian 07:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

evolution is not about religion. It is about science. Please refrain from editing scientific articles to insert religious POV.--JohnDO|Speak your mind 07:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree with DocJohnny. Evolution is neither pro-religion nor anti-religion. It is science. It makes no statement about the worth or lack thereof of any religion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Strongly agree with the Doc. I am a practising Christian, and I still think it is absurd to pretend that there is any significant informed scientific dissent from the theory of evolution (creation science is clearly an oxymoron). How we square that with our personal faith is up to us - denial is one option, but not forcing that denial on others. The dino-deniers might think we're stupid and credulous, but I have no reason to believe that God shares this view! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 12:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course evolution is a fact, in the common usage of the word fact. How not? What anti-religious bias are you talking about? This article has nothing to do with religion. Guettarda 18:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not a fact. It's a Theory. Go back and read the science books. It's a THEORY of evolution. Granted, it's a widely, possibly nearly universally accepted theory, but it's a theory nonetheless. Swatjester 20:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hence my use of in the common usage of the word fact. In future, before you yell "Go back and read the science books", maybe you should take a minute and read past the fifth word of the post to which you are replying. Guettarda 22:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do a little research before telling other people to "read the science books". The process of evolution is observable fact. The theory of evolution is a different thing altogether, which attempts to describe the mechanisms through the process (fact) of evolution occurred.--JohnDO|Speak your mind 20:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
And if you'll notice I wasn't referring to the actual act of evolution as applied to individual species, I'm referring to the concept of evolution as an origin of man, which is still a theory (Thought this was obvious based on the comments I was responding to.) Nobody, not even the religious folk, dispute that actual evolution occurs within species. The dispute is whether it is the origin of our lives as men. Swatjester 01:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
In fact, if you read the article you would come across a section called Distinctions between theory and fact.--JohnDO|Speak your mind 20:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
See my comment above. Swatjester 01:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Right. The "theory of evolution" (separate from the phenomenon of evolution) is a scientific theory. Do you know what a scientific theory is? -- goatasaur 20:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Technically, what swatjester is referring to is an hypothesis. A theory is definitively proven; an hypothesis is a suggestion or conjecture. This is a major difference, and it is only recent changes of semantics that have brought about the confusion mentioned above. Ck lostsword 20:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
No, not quite. NOTHING (except maybe cogito ergo sum) is "definitively proven" - theory (in scientific usage) refers to a set of inter-related propositions which explain some set of observed phenomena. Mikkerpikker ... 21:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, makes sense. Good use of I think therefore I am, there - good example. (Can't help but use English - sorry ;)). However, I would say that a mathematical theory can be 'proven,' in that it can logically shown that it will never contradict itself. (Again apologies - I know this is an old-fashioned view). Ck lostsword 21:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
:) yeah, I see what you're saying... I should have said "no empirical statement" is ever definitively proven. It's WAY too late in my time zone to go into philosophical logic and the philosophy of mathematics so let's just say this: no theory about empirical phenomena can ever be "proven" in the sense of being immune from hyperbolic (as opposed to reasonable) doubt... Mikkerpikker ... 22:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Technically, hypotheses are only ever rejected, never proved, although they can be corroborated by repeated failure to reject. But this leads us into wasteland.
Evolution is definitely happening. There is a vast literature concerned with instances where it can actually be observed. So it is strongly corroborated. But we've been through this all before.
I also agree with the distinction of religion and science sensu User:DocJohnny, User:Knowledge Seeker et al. - Samsara contrib talk 22:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, see my comments above, I was referring not to the act of evolution within a species, but to the concept of evolution as an origin of man. And to correct Ck Lostsword,(this is my words, not from a book or anything) a hypothesis is an attempt to answer a problem, it's a guess. It can be either rejected and disproven with evidence, any evidence, to the contrary. Or it can be shown to be accurate enough to be elevated to a theory. A theory is a rule or set of rules that explain a problem, which show possibility that it could be an answer, but is yet unproven (or cannot possibly be proven), BUT is yet unproven. To "prove" a theory, you'd need to test every single possible outcome of the question until all can be shown to satisfy the rules set in the theory. So a theory by definition is NOT proven, the second it IS proven, it becomes a Law, or Proof. For instance the rule on division by 1 would be a mathmatical law because by definition it is impossible to show an instance where division by 1 does NOT equal the original number. Hope that clears it up. Swatjester 01:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite, but it doesn't hurt to emphasize evolutionary theory remains unchallenged and currently no inconsistencies which could/would lead to it being rejected or usurped. Thus we set it apart from formidable and powerful, but likely incomplete/superficial theories such as quantum mechanics. - RoyBoy 800 02:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Whoa whoa whoa...don't get Quantum Mechanics wrong. Quantum theory is a field of study, into further developing the overlying theory that defines quantum mechanics. The fact that particles exhibit quantum properties is a fact, provable, and indisputable. I see the point you're trying to make, but the comparison is bad. Swatjester 04:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Which part of "man is just another species" are you having trouble with Swatjester? While we are, in many interesting respects, a special species, in most respects we're just like any other species. If you dispute this point, would you care to say why? Cheers, --Plumbago 09:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any problems with that statement. Man is just another species. Who said I had a problem with that? Swatjester 10:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Did you perhaps mean 'Origin of life'? Evolution does explain the origin of species, and by extension the origin of man. -- Ec5618 09:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Evolution does explain the origin of SOME species, but it does not yet fully explain either the origin of ALL species in general (that is to say, where did the first mutations come from), and homo sapiens in specific (that is, what was the process of human evolution?). Neither one has been fully explained enough yet to be promoted from a theory into scientific fact. Swatjester 10:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The origin of all species? Again, are you talking about the origin of life? The process of human evolution was the same as the process of elephant evolution; a combination of random mutation and natural selection. You do seem to be suggesting that the origin of humans is somehow a murky mystery, set apart from the origin of other species. -- Ec5618 11:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


This is going know where. It is evident that Swatjester does not understand science. She does not understand what scientists mean by "theory," "hypothesis," or "fact." All she needs to do is read the article. Otherwise, it is willfull and self-imposed ignorance. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks against other users. You are in violation of wikipedia policy. Oh and BTW, I'm a man, thanks. I understand science just fine, 4 years in high school, 2 years in college, and some post-graduate work in certain fields that relate to science in the field of legal evidence. Perhaps you should view the pages on theory and hypothesis. Perhaps you should also realize that Theory, Hypothesis, Fact, and Proof all have different meanings when referred to in a scientific sense, a mathematical sense, a legal sense, and a philosophical sense. Then reread my comments and I hope you will understand where I'm coming from. Swatjester 10:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Slrubenstein meant to offend you when ve called you a 'she'. As for the personal attack, I'm afraid Slrubenstein may be right. You suggested that theories can be promoted to scientific fact, which is simply horribly wrong. Perhaps you should challenge your preconceptions. In science, there are no empirical facts. There are axiomas (mathematical facts) and Theories. The Theory of evolution will forever be a Theory, simply because science cannot assume anything. Anything. Not even that the universe exists, that gravity exists, etc. When we cannot assume species exist, we cannot assume to know for a fact where they came from.
Please, I have reread your comments, and still notice you are suggesting that evolution is 'just a theory'. It is not, plain and simple. It is as true as gravity, and as useful as atomic Theory. -- Ec5618 11:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I read your comments. You are wrong. That is not a personal attack. That is a statement of fact. For what it is worth, Ck Lostword is also wrong. Hypothesis, theory, and fact are not steps in a hierarchy of truth; they are three interacting elements of scientific methodology. Laws are not theories that have been "proven," they are probabalistic statements that make sense given a particular theory. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It is beginning to bother me that we have archive after archive of talk filled with discussions like this. --Ignignot 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Just a suggestion. Perhaps we need a mechanism so that when archiving, any long or recently updated threads keep their subject heading as a link at the top of the new talk page. Then there would be a good chance that people would not create new discussions on the same subject. I've never archived, so don't ask me how to do it. rossnixon 00:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Intolerance on this page

Latest comment: 18 years ago22 comments16 people in discussion

I just can't get over the intolerance being shown on this article. People saying that evolution is science and not religion, hence, no links to alternative views on the origins of life. But hey, wait a second, even though evolution is science and not religion, lets have a plug back to the evolution article from the creationism article and the Intelligent Design article! I fail to see a balance here people. NPOV simply does not exist in this article. I just got done trying again to add a set of external links with a friendly heading Alternative Views, heck, the edit did not last THREE freakin' minutes!

Dougp59 16:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be better suited to origin of life in any case. - Samsara contrib talk 16:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, is the link to Creation-evolution controversy not sufficient? --Plumbago 16:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the fact that the Creation-evolution controversy is there, so thank you Plumbago, but why the disparity when it comes to the external links at the bottom of the three articles?

Dougp59 17:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Atleast part of the explanation is that evolution is a scientific topic, which only links to scientific articles, while creationism is a movement or sociological concept, which links to mostly sociological topics. Perhaps links to Timeline of the Big Bang and Ultimate fate of the Universe should be removed from the creationism article. -- Ec5618 17:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed a few 'see also' links from the creationism article. 'Earth', 'Myth', 'Timeline of the Big Bang' and 'Ultimate fate of the Universe' were all included, though they were largely irrelevant. I hope this clears a few things up. I notice Samsara has added a link to 'Origin belief' to the 'Origin of life'-article. -- Ec5618 19:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the intolerance of the evolution believers can be partially attributed to their insecurity (quite understandable given the lack of evidence for their faith). rossnixon 22:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't characterize it as "intolerance"; Creationists are perfectly free to espouse their beliefs in whatever format they wish, just as scientists are perfectly free to analyze Creationist claims and come to the inevitable conclusion that they don't hold water. It's just a fact that Creationism does not belong in an Evolution article, for the same reason that it doesn't belong in a Big Bang article, and for the same reason that Armadillo isn't mentioned in the History of Russia article: it's not relevant. Thanks for the input, though. -Silence 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Intolerance" for religion being inserted into a science article is better characterized as being a good editor, and the editors here have shown plenty of faith. --JohnDO|Speak your mind 00:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
To characterise those who accept the dominant informed view as "evolution believers" who are "intolerant" is one of the most absurd straw men I have ever come across. Have you ever seen a single serious scholarly article on the subject which asserts that evolution is proven, immutable fact? I haven't. It's acknowledged from the very beginning that it is unproven, but there is no simpler explanation so Occam's razor leads us to accept it as the most plausible working hypothesis. By contrast, the creationists start from the problematic point of Biblical inerrancy (which is simply disproven by reference to certain well-documented internal inconsistencies, and adopt a dogmatic refusal to accept any interpretation other than revealed truth. Creationism has every bit as much place on this page as the Jatravartids of Viltvogel VI, who believe that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure and live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief. We don't know how gravity works, but we don't include in Gravity the theory that everythign is pressed down onto Earth's surface by God. The sum total of scientific evidence supporting the idea that God holds things down on the Earth's surface is pretty much equal to the sum total of scientific evidence for divine creation. As a Christian it embarrasses me beyond measure that some people apparently consider that God thinks we're gullible. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of intolerance. It's a matter of having a science article about science. We don't include irrelevant links to philosophy or religion articles. It's ludicrous to call it "intolerance" to say "see also these articles about religion". The gravity article does not include a link to Jesus' walking on water. The article on leprosy does not link to Jesus healing lepers. The bread article does not delve into the story of the loaves and the fishes. These are not examples of intolerance, merely of relevance. It's ridiculous to call it "intolerance". Guettarda 02:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
"Insecurity"? That's rich. Creationism is founded on insecurity. How else can one explain the desperate (and I mean desperate) attempts to squeeze literal interpretations of religious works into a modern scientific framework. And by any means necessary to boot. That's real insecurity for you. --Plumbago 11:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
This comment can only serve to create tension. Please all ignore it, and RossNixon's comment above. -- Ec5618 12:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
If I might chip in here, Plumbago, if 'squeezing in' literal interpreations of religious works is desperate and insecure when trying to apply it to modern science, how do you plan to explain to us how blood is not needed for humans to live, (Leviticus 17:11) all stars are the same, (1 Corinthians 15:41)and that the earth is hinged on something in space? (Job 26:7) It would seem to me that without "desperate" attempts to interpret religious works literally in a scientific sense, all those statements I listed would have to be true, since those verses literally claim they are not. Homestarmy 14:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
:)... ummmm... is any of this (interesting as it is!) really relevant to improving the article? If not, there's not much point in fighting it out here... rather go to talk origins or something. Just my two cents worth... Mikkerpikker ... 21:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and evolution/creationism

All of the above bickering aside, let's see what the WP:NPOV policy says:

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.' ...
Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

I just wanted to put that on the table, since a lot of bitter creationists seem to go around citing NPOV as if they had really read it, but seem to miss some key aspects of it. --Fastfission 03:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

ahhh, the glory of having Official Policy on one's side... Mikkerpikker ... 03:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
It's all part of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy (tm), don't you know? — Dunc|☺ 10:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Haven't come across that before, classic! (Love their website... "We're out to get your children and pets...") Mikkerpikker ... 20:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, people who haven't bothered to read the NPOV policy should stop trying to appeal to it to support their side, especially when what they are clearly trying to do is add their POV. DreamGuy 13:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, but the minority view must be stated as such. I have no problem if the anti-evolution view is stated to be supported by only a minority of the scientists in the community. But the article does not even do that!!! BlueGoose 03:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
1/2 of one percent is not a minority. It's a fringe group. To call them a minority would be greatly inflating the perception of their size. Pasado 03:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Human genome is Science Collaboration of the Week

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just to let you know that Human genome has been voted Science Collaboration of the Week. - Samsara contrib talk 10:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


NPOV tag added

Latest comment: 18 years ago34 comments15 people in discussion

Evolution is not believed by a majority of Americans and Britons. To neglect popular belief in this article is not appropriate IMHO. BlueGoose 21:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not read the above discussion? Also read the first line of the article, it doesn't say in popular culture... If you want pop culture stick to editing movie & tv show pages :-) Vsmith 21:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, a majority of Americans apparently believe in angels. Should we edit that article to reflect that belief? Graft 22:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
It is prob also quite a good idea to actually go READ WP:NPOV. Just a thought, use it, don't use it... Mikkerpikker ... 22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you stating that Evolution is universially believed by all scientists, biologists in particular? Contrary to the viewpoint expressed by this article, that is not the case. BlueGoose 03:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
But it IS mentioned, in this line:
"The questions raised about the relation of evolution to the origins of humans has made it an especially tenacious issue with religious traditions. It has prominently been seen as opposing a "literal" interpretation of the account of the origins of humankind as described in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. In many countries — notably in the United States — this has led to what has been called the Creation-evolution controversy, which has focused primarily on struggles over teaching curriculum."
Introducing even more bias towards the Anglo-American perspective, if that's what you're proposing, can't possibly be called 'neutrality'. - Randwicked Alex B 03:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
In defense of BlueGoose, that line does not say that scientists or biologists are on both sides of the controversy, it merely says that there are struggles over who teaches what, it doesn't define the parties involved. Homestarmy 03:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article very clearly states that though there are some places in the world with a strong popular disbelief in evolution, the vast majority of scientists, and practically all biologists, believe that evolution in one form or another is responsible for speciation. --Fastfission 04:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As for your "compromise", the intro of "In biology" already demarcates this as a scientific definition. --Fastfission 04:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Plus I have never actually met a Briton who disputes evolution. I think it's only in the States that any meaningful number of people actively dispute evolution. And even that may be limited to certain faith groups, notably Southern Baptists. None of the folks I know from New York State or New England give creationism even a passing thought, to the best of my knowledge. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   16:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I have actually met a few christians in the Netherlands that do believe in the literal explanation of the bible (in my own famly), but they are a small minority. I have had good discussios with people from various countries on this toppic, and the general gist is that this is a typical US issue. I have been reading the article here, and I have to say that I am impressed with the amount of very careful though that is given to alternatives. I think adding more criticism to evolution would result in NPOV. --KimvdLinde 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that there is a minority contigent of biologists who are professors at prestigous universities who dispute evolution. Are their disputes motivated by religion? Possibly, but nonetheless they are scientists who oppose the theory of evolution. BlueGoose 04:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Your edits have the (clearly intended) effect of overstating the number of this "minority", and attempting to insert these sorts of things into the first sentence of the article is an especially bad part of that. As a suggestion, you'd do better if you were trying to make a more limited addition -- a small reference to the fact that while the vast majority of scientists believe evolution, there are a few reputable scientists who have taken issue with it, and ask for it to be in an appropriate place in the article text. You'd also do better to discuss it on the talk page first, rather than trying to inject it by fiat. Just a suggestion. --Fastfission 04:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough Fastfission, but as the NPOV policy points out, both majority and minority scientific views in articles should be presented, noting what the popular belief is doesn't seem very scientific. Yea, the amount of scientists and biologists who disagree with evolution is, what, around 0.05 percent of all of them, (Or less, im just randomly guessing a super low number) but as long as they didn't somehow cheat to become biologists and scientists, they represent a minority and somewhat united group that has a scientific (Or as im sure many would argue, pseudoscientific, which the NPOV policy says should still be includable) basis, no matter how much people may absolutely condemn their basis, and no matter on what grounds, they are still a group with a relatively distinct viewpoint. Homestarmy 04:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Listen, I'm not saying that one can't mention dispute at all. I'm actually the one who added that paragraph in the beginning on the controversy in the first place. But such an addition can't be done in a way which overstates the case or is otherwise misleading. One tactic that anti-evolutionists are quite fond of is to try and make it sound like there is an "active debate" in science over whether evolution has occurred or not. The fact is, there isn't much of any debate at all -- and one can make of that what one chooses -- and one can count the "serious" scientific opponents of evolution on one hand. --Fastfission 04:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was just here to agree with BlueGoose, is what he is trying to add overstating, and was there anything in this article, even just one little sentence is fine, that was ever ok? And I didn't see your last comment when I entered mine, it must of been delay or something, I might of been too critical against you, sorry :/. and BlueGoose, be careful not to keep reverting people's reverts so much or you might get banned....Homestarmy 04:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand completely what you are writing, but let me state this another way: I'm fine with making all sorts of controversial changes to the article, as long as they are well discussed first. The fact that three or four different editors have reverted the changes in question here should be evidence enough that they are considered substantially controversial to warrant a discussion first. Continued reverting doesn't help anybody, it just gets people blocked. --Fastfission 04:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
BlueGoose wrote"there is a minority contigent of biologists who are professors at prestigous universities who dispute evolution". While Lehigh has a national rating of 32 in U.S. News & World Report, and so would fit the bill, you used the plural "biologists". Not to mention that while Behe campaigns for ID, all of his own research operates within a naturalistic, evolutionary framework. To the best of my knowledge, there are no biologists doing research outside of an evolutionary framework. If you are aware of any, please refer us to their work. Guettarda 04:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I go to Texas A&M University, (I don't what their rank is), and I know of several biology professors down here that support ID/Creationism over ideology. Granted many of these professors are part of the Christian Faculty Network, but as I said earlier, they're still professors. I'll try to get verifiable documentable sources for you over the next couple of days. BlueGoose 05:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there aren't people who, for politico-religious reasons choose to express support for Creationism/ID. But if they are doing research, I'd be amazed to know how they might be doing research in biology which does not assume evolution. TAMU (College Station) has a ranking of 60 - quite respectable. I'm really curious to know who these biologists are, and in what area of biology they are working. I look forward to your follow-up. Guettarda 05:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
To back up Guettarda, there's a common mistake made in this debate, which is to equate "views of scientist" with "scientific viewpoints". There are many scientists who, for example, express a belief in god. That does not make belief in god a "scientific viewpoint". Similarly, if faith leads people to embrace ID/Creationism, that does not make that, either, a scientific viewpoint. It must have actual science behind it, which, unfortunately, it does not. Graft 05:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Blue Goose, tyou are talking about professors. What you need to present is peer-reviewed research appearing in scientific journals that nullifies evolution *and* has been widely reproduced by other parties. Whatever your professors down there may personally believe, I really doubt they have any research of that type to back it up. There are a few biology PhD's who have gone into the field with the idead of disproving evolution. Their peer-reviewed research however, does not contradict it. Varith 07:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In this context, what a professor says is absolutely meaningless. We cannot go report the opinion of anyone, no matter how able, or intelligent, as scientific. Only peer-reviewed findings can be reported in such a fashion. I don't like the prospect of saying 'some in the scientific community support ID' because it opens the gates of hell. The problem is that everyone involved routinely abuses the elastic term 'scientific community'. ID documents routinely include anyone with a phd - even in something completely unrelated to any scientific discipline - as being a member of the 'scientific community'. Who has authority to speak on evolution? A biologist? A zoologist? A biochemist? An expert on probability? The ID and creationist movement has proponents from the latter two examples, but many dispute whether their expertise is truly relevant. It's very, very hard to precisely define what expert can speak on what subjects so there would have to be a thorough discussion on how to define it before trying to alter comments on the opposition to evolution on the article page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davril2020 (talk • contribs) ..

The thing is that, given the centrality of evolution in biology, I have a hard time seeing how one can do science (in a biological field) without implicitly accepting evolution. I'm not saying it's impossible - I am very interested in seeing how these people bridge that gap. Guettarda 14:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a part of Wikipedia policy which says all scientific viewpoints must have a peer review and be printed in many scientific places? Homestarmy 16:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If it is not part of the policy, it should be. Peer review and reproducibility (not simply being printed in many places) are the main methods used to sort out what is accurately describes the physical universe and what is just specualation. Varith 18:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well there was a time before the theory of evolution was peer reviewed, or even existed, if hypothetically Wikipedia existed all those hundreds of years ago, would that mean an article on Evolution would be unacceptable to you? And many types of science these days are about speculation, Quantum Physics is almost purely dealing with probability, so all we can literally do is speculate when it comes to the exact positions of things and sometimes even the nature of parts of the atom, yet im sure Quantum Physics is a very detailed article with a very scientific viewpoint. Homestarmy 20:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This would be a problem if we lived in 1920, but we don't. We're using the Internet. Things have developed; science has developed, and scientific institutions have developed. Peer review is a completely acceptable standard to use for modern science. Also, quantum physics, though it is about probabilistic events, is still nevertheless good science. No one said science must restrict itself to investigating deterministic events. Graft 20:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong support for the last sentence (hey, I'm a community ecologist) Guettarda 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

For those posing the question as to whether creationism or ID is science, please read the lucid statement by Judge Jones. Also, please remember that many religious people believe in Creation and also accept theistic evolution: for example the Roman Catholic church. ....dave souza: talk 20:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Homestarmy, yes, I absolutely would be opposed to presenting evolution as an established scientific fact before it had accumulated any proof. Why would you possibly think otherwise? And if you had actually read the article on Quantum Mechanics you would realize how wrong your statement regarding it being speculation is. It is one of the most accurate theories ever developed and mathematically describes, out to many, many decimal places, all sorts of useful phenomena, such as those that make the computers we are using now possible. Varith 21:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
If evolution was a newly postulated theory with little scientific research done on the subject I would certainly oppose its inclusion on Wikipedia. --Davril2020 22:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah but think of it this way, what if you knew way back then what you do now about evolution, and believed as strongly as you did that it was a fact, and knew all these things about evolution that you know today, yet absolutely no one besides yourselves agreed with it? Would you thrust against consensus, clinging as tightly as you can to your understand of the facts, even when nobody agrees with you and just endlessly reverts everything to make it into a non-factual PoV article? And on Quantum Physics, it is indeed true that it is good science....for now. Quantum Theory has come a very long way in an astoundingly short amount of time, even the smallest discoveries about the nature of atomic structure and electron movement can and have radically change the foundations of what we know as Quantum Physics; what we know today may be compleatly changed by what we discover tomorrow, and often is as I understand it. If you tried to use the Quantum Physics of the 1950's in a scientific venture, compared with today, you would be accused of using bad science, because it would not of worked for how it is being applied today, even though it would of been considered the best explanation in the 1950's. The theory of evolution has also undergone similar radical, fundamental changes. The modern day theory has come a very long way from Origin of the Species, with it's extremely racist, sexist overtones, and assertion that all evolution must progress upward and numerous other errors, and general lack of ability to really make a guess as to how things evolve. Yet somehow, to Darwin and most of his peers who accepted the theory, they concluded that the 'evidence' supported a great deal of this over anything else. As time went on, the Theory of Evolution has always been radically altered as the decades go by, especially as people gained greater understand of how DNA works and how it could help along the idea of evolution, and as Carbon 14 dating and other methods gave evolutionists a reason to assert the ages of supposed transitional forms. Often times, you see many evolutionists websites attacking creationist websites or opinions because, in their words, they "fail to understand" the real up-to-date theory of evolution. (Im not saying that's wrong, but it just gets repeated so much, it seems like a cliché to me) Because it has changed so many times with little apology in between, people don't try to keep up sometimes in arguments against it....especially when evolution has often been asserted as fact all during its development, development which still continues right this very second as I understand it. What makes you so certain that the theory will not, once again, change something fundamental as something new comes up, and what we know today as the theory of evolution will be compleatly wrong from a future standpoint, and every single modern day scientific viewpoint(no matter how widely published and peer reviewed) on evolution will be just as totally wrong with it? Why assume that giving a chance, even a tiny blurb of somewhat hopeful acknowladgement of their existence, to groups today who are widely not considered scientifically credible will always represent a PoV and factual accuracy mistake, forever? Sorry this is so long by the way, I didn't really intend for it to be :/. Homestarmy 00:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
If I was living many years ago before evolution had accumulated the vast mass of evidence it now has supporting it I would consider it relevant in articles concerning the origin of species only in as much as it had got some evidence supporting it. However much creationists would like to think otherwise there just is no real evidence for their beliefs. A scientific theory should prove itself in the scientific world before it can be considered appropriate for the purposes of an encyclopedia article. Creationism or any other theory pupporting to explain the fossil record, the phylogenetic record and the observed morphological characteristics of living things through time all have their chance to prove themselves in scientific journals and within the scientific community. Our job in our wikipedia articles on science is to represent the state of thinking within the scientific community.
Gell-Mann comments on the Louisiana creationist case: "It's not so much that we were being attacked from the outside, since outsiders can make worthwhile contributions. Its's that these people were talking utter non-sense." (1990) Barnaby dawson 10:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that assessment. This isn't about personal preference, this is about verifiability. Since none of the claims put forth by Creation science proponents have stood up to peer review, and since intelligent design has yet to even put up a claim, we cannot include it as serious science.
Certainly, evolution, at one point, was just a concept without much evidence in its favour. That has changed substantially, and evolution is a mature scientific Theory now. It is a testament to the durability of evolution that no evidence since has been shown to violate its basic premises, considering that those premises are quite far reaching and considering that almost any scientist would love to go down in history/become famous/become rich for disproving it.-- Ec5618 10:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Section: Misconceptions about modern evolutionary biology

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I rephrased the first two sentences of this section, which originally implied that "the theory [of evolution] robs life and the universe of any transcendental meaning". I do not believe that this is verifiable or objective; however it is of course a strength of the theory that it doesn't require any external influence/design etc. Leon... 10:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the implication lies. Nevertheless, your edit seems to improve the flow of the text, which is never bad. -- Ec5618 10:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution/Archive_12&oldid=1136280272"