Talk:Evolution/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Weakness in US Education

I'm a scientist and physician (turned profit loving businessman), and, frankly, the Evolution vs. Religion Nutjob argument would be hysterical, if not a serious problem. I'd love to see an addition to this article that talks about how the US education system has been endangered by the lack of proper scientific education. How can productive research in be done if one doesn't understand the underlying principles of evolution? Without even expending one nanowatt of energy, I can picture numerous areas where the understanding of evolutionary biology is critical to understand any number of processes. For example, where would Infection Diseases be without understanding evolution? Well, maybe that's why many of our surgeons and top physicians are from India and Europe, and that top Graduate Schools are filled with foreign students. Anyways, without pontificating, it would be great to see someone write up a good NPOV (don't ask me, because I'm so not NPOV on Evolution) article on how US R&D and education is damaged by this inane discussion. OrangeMarlin 07:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration, however this article, being on the science, is not the place. However you may like to look at Creation-evolution controversy, or maybe start an article on the subject itself. --Michael Johnson 08:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to prescribe serious drugs for me to keep a NPOV on this topic--unfortunately, I'd become addicted, then I'd be arrested breaking into the pharmacy, lose my licenses, my company would be thrown into bankruptcy, and I'd be banned from Wikipedia. It would be sad. But seriously, I might try it. Many Boards of Education are more worried about forcing their religious views on students than in making sure they have sufficient math and science background to maintain US leadership in R&D. Fifty years from now, the US is probably going to be an colonial outpost for Germany, China and India.OrangeMarlin 16:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Start building the call centers. ;) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, as long as you have your presricption pad out, could I ask a favor....

Seriously though, you make some good points (which I agree with quite strongly). As suggested by others, the Creation-evolution controversy, or even a new article, would be the proper venue to address them. These articles can always benefit from the input of academically inclined editors. Doc Tropics 16:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The real weakness in the U.S. is the decline in qualified male applicants to graduate schools. The U.S. female population is stellar. I don't think the decline in interest in the sciences in men is related to religion. As always in the U.S., an education is what you make of it (especially Ph.D.'s). Colleges, Universities, and Medical Schools are generally good in the U.S.. The public schools are abysmal, but they were over forty years ago when I was in public school. The song remains the same.GetAgrippa 23:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

When I was in Medical and Graduate School, there were too many white males anyways!!!! My point wasn't that the Christian Right Nutjobs caused a lack of interest in Science (although I wonder sometimes if it is so), it is that Science education in the US is so weak, we don't produce enough high school students who have the skills to get into the sciences in College, then we don't produce enough science grads in college to get into Graduate School. I have speculated that in 50 years the US is just going to be a colonial outpost for China, India and Germany. In other words, we become the call centers for the massive R&D produced in those countries. The right wing nutjobs want a powerful USA, but they're going to be serfs to powerful countries elsewhere. And Creationist talk is just one large educational problem for the future. I don't get why religion just can't stay in the home, where it belongs. I don't want my kids learning Christian BS--they're good Jews!!!! OK, enough pontificating. I'm going to look at the articles, and see where I can contribute. Or, <inhaling very deeply> possibly starting an article.OrangeMarlin 18:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a forum for religious views. I hope editors can withhold their personal opininions about faith issues, as this is an article about evolution. If you have problems with this article be specific, instead of "I" don't like it. GetAgrippa 15:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's difficult for some people. That's my point, I consider Evolution a verifiable, scientific fact. The Religious right doesn't, fights to keep kids from learning science in the way that it should be, and I think that has lead to a weakness in training scientists in this country. That's why my writing an article would be difficult--I get so angry about it, my POV creeps in.OrangeMarlin 00:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, the problem is intractable because both reality as a whole and successful national economies as a part of that reality reward force and fraud at least as much as cooperation and honesty; so what fool is gonna deprive his children when a few lies can put bread on the table? I see poor education as a natual result of economic forces that are in turn a natural result of the usefulness of force and fraud. Fortunately, cooperation and honesty are also useful; but I wouldn't hire an engineer or a scientist as a promoter - they're too honest. WAS 4.250 22:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fraud is major problem in the sciences in the U.S. and worldwide at present. With online publishing and digital imaging it is too easy to fudge. In the U.S., there is a publish or perish pressure and funding is difficult at present. I see this driving a continuing problem, and this weakens public confidence and increases an already huge divide between laypersons and scientists. I would agree that scientist are not generally driven by financial success, and most still maintain an altruistic nature (now that is what you call real faith, Hee, hee). Even though there are frailties in the U.S. education system, I think this trend will turn around and the U.S. will still maintain an edge. Capitalism-free enterprise tends to drive scientific success to some degree(greed drives excellence much to my chagrin).GetAgrippa 01:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty wrong with all of US culture, and that includes US education. Speaking as a foreigner who moved to the US to go to graduate school, I have been appalled over and over by what I have seen. And it should be obvious to anyone who is looking at it clearly, but Americans do not want to see it, and generally bludgeon anyone who points out the problems. Because as everyone "knows", America is perfect and the greatest country on the face of the earth (this is sarcastic in case you do not get it). I agree that the religious right is causing problems, and has caused problems in the past, but there are planty of other difficulties with US education. I could give a HUGE list just from my own experiences, but this is not the right place for it. If orangemarlin wants any help with writing an article about the state of US education, I would be glad to volunteer. --Filll 03:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like sour grapes. The U.S. has won half of all Nobel Prizes in Medicine and Physiology the last hundred years. There is plenty wrong with every country and culture. Go ahead with your POV article, although I should remind you this is not a politcal forum to beat on the U.S.GetAgrippa 05:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I could pretty well rebut that, but since this is not a forum for this kind of debate, I will not do so. However, it is quite standard for Americans to pat themselves on the back no matter what the danger signals are, or to even be blind to the problems. Yep, everything in the US is just fine...--Filll 05:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ahem, *cough, cough*, and other polite throat-clearing sounds. Perhaps the gentlemen would like to call for their seconds? I can provide a choice of weapons from my personal collection and we can resolve this at sunrise...the old fashioned way. Or, we could just let it go. Doc Tropics 05:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not particularly germane to this article, except in a long convoluted way. The US education system has certain troublesome features, such as sagging standards, efforts to produce politically correct textbooks, local control over education, poorly educated teachers, incredibly expensive administrative overhead in education, very few hours spent in the classroom, a frantic pride in the "liberal arts", and so on, which allow creationists the opportunity to take advantage of the situation. Part of the problem as well is that people think there is no problem at all with the system that exists. But this is not the place to discuss it. And I am fairly sure that for someone who is certain there is nothing wrong, no amount of discussion will be of value, since I have been down this road many times before. That is why the current situation exists. So I will respectfully decline to pursue this here.--Filll 05:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is not the place to discuss and was wondering why the subject was brought it up? I know there is plenty wrong with the U.S. education system, but what I said is true about Nobel laureates. GetAgrippa 12:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I brought up the subject because I believe that science education is being impeded by the Religious right forcing our kids to learn religious dogma rather than fact-based science. As for the Nobel Laureates, IMHO that's an example of two things: outstanding research universities, and the fact that with 300 million people in the country, the odds favor that there will be a bunch of intelligent, well-educated scientists showing up. If the Religious nutjobs had their way, our country would be only marginally advanced from the Iman-controlled societies in the middle east. By the way, I am probably at fault here, because I merely brought up a question as to how to develop an article or subarticle on how this ridiculous debate between fact based scientists and religious nuts (who should stand on their on faith not try to shove it down the throats of people) is affecting the US science education system. A computer software engineer could probably be a Druid and be a fine software engineer. But any virologist, infectious disease specialist, physician, microbiologist, etc. etc. better not only understand evolution, but understand how it affects his or her research.OrangeMarlin 19:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Because both sides in the debate claim that the of teaching evolution and/or creationism in schools are signs that children and being harmed or could be harmed by the position of the other side. This is a potent weapon to use in a debate in the US. It is also claimed by those supporting evolution that teaching creationism will harm the future economic position of the US, which is another powerful argument, although I do not think it has the same potency as the "harms children" argument. And the question arises, should this be included in this article? It does not appear to me that most of the editors believe there is room in the article for this. And it is obvious that the US garners a huge share of the Nobel Prizes. So is this a good measure of the health of the US public education system? --Filll 14:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If homeschooling is not mentioned in the creation vs evolution article, it probably should be as indoctrination via homeschooling is a big problem. However, this is not the appropriate article for this, methinks. Titanium Dragon 03:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Lock Out

The main article is disabled from likely vandals. I like it!!!! How long will this last? This article is about evolution, so the least time we spend on I.D. or Creationism discussions the better. GetAgrippa 23:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

They are typically fairly brief in duration. --Davril2020 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Its still protected; when will it be lifted? It doesn't affect me, but it has been five days now. Titanium Dragon 04:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Sprotect was lifted on the 27th, but there was an immediate surge of IP vandalism and the page was protected again shortly thereafter. Oh well, we tried. Doc Tropics 04:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects I'll remove the semi again. JoshuaZ 04:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not? I'll be "on duty" for a while : ) Doc Tropics 04:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Potential"?

This is just a little thing, but near the beginning it says "[evolution] has been at the center of many social and religious controversies since its inception because of its potential implications for the origins of humankind" [bold mine]. The full body of evolutionary theory (though not the very basic core principles) is quite clear that every living thing once had a common ancestor with every other living thing, isn't it? It's certainly not a "potential implication". Whether or not someone accepts the implications as true, I think everybody agrees that evolution doesimply humans and monkeys have a common ancestor. Or maybe it is better this way since it lumps "the monkey thing" together with implications that are less sure, like the idea that we may retain instincts hardwired into us that make problems such as sexual discrimination unsolvable.'Lumping' like that may be the best thing to do in an introduction. Or maybe something like this would be a good replacement:

"Evolution is very controverysial in many societies (most notably the USA) because:

1-It directly contradicts the literal teaching of the dominant religion in those societies (Christianity in the case of the USA)

2-Those groups of people who believe that their religion is literally true are influential in those societies (Fundamentalist Christians in the USA)

There are some other controversies originating from evolutionary theory's implications, but those described above are by far the most prominent."

I think that something like that would give a much clearer and realistic explanation to some hypothetical person who had somehow been culturally isolated from the issue before. It states the way things are without misleading, and it's pretty short. Isn't that well-suited for an introduction?

No - I think the original should stand because your replacement seems to focus too much on such a small and vocal part of the world. The US is simply about 5% of the world in population terms. There are many other countries who in their own way are as equally opposed to Evolution (e.g. all? or most of Islamic countries). As with "Fundamentalist Christians in the USA" you could argue equally "Islamic clerics in Sharia-based countries (e.e. insert big list here)". No, I feel that if you included simply Christianity in the US then (as an atheist) I would (perversely) expand that to include Islam and other faiths throughout the world to offer a balancing view. I think the original version is the safer and more neutral view. Ttiotsw 04:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that something like that would give a much clearer and realistic explanation to some hypothetical person who had somehow been culturally isolated from the issue before. It states the way things are without misleading, and it's pretty short. Isn't that well-suited for an introduction?

Actually, the controversy is addressed further down in the article. The intro really isn't the proper place to mention it because the article is about the theory not the controversy.

I agree that we could remove the word potential, as it could be the basis for misunderstanding. The "origins of humankind" are clear, but the origin of life itself is not. But the article isn't addressing that either, so the word potential is not necessary. I'm going to remove it, because it could be actively misleading. Doc Tropics 04:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, the implications are not merely potential but are very real--indeed they account for a great part of the resistance to the theory, Doc's change improves clarity without in the least changing the POV. The contentious parts are, as he says, discussed just a little later. If the word were needed for clarity I would support it, but it is not.DGG 05:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have in the past found fundamentalist Islamic, Jewish and Hindu websites that are opposed to evolution--Filll 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

--Rorrenigol 20:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Oh, I definitely wasn't saying that it's limited to Christianity and the USA, just that's where it's most prominent. The Muslim world is bogged down in so many other problems that evolution is just a drop that gets lost in the sea (besides, can you see the Muslims wanting to dwell on their common ground with people associated with George Bush when they have so many differences to focus on instead?). As for the Jewish world... what Jewish world? Besides Israel, which we all know has more immediate concerns, where else to Jews make up a majority? Instinctively, I'd guess that evolution is a far less prominent an issue with Hindus, but I don't know too much about that... But anyway, the controversy in the USA, is, I think, particularily interesting, because you look at the US and see this advanced modern nation, but then there's this big kafuffle and it turns out that half of the people there have a primitive medeval mindset. However, having thought about it, yeah, there are links to articles specifically about that, and yeah, it's nice to just be able to ignore the ignorant (interesting concept) for a while and just talk about the infinitely more interesting subject of evolution itself. So in conclusion, I now think the removal of the word "potential" is all that was needed. --Rorrenigol 20:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIIW the teaching of evolution is now banned in Pakistani universities - a sign that the Muslim world is increasingly becoming more fundalmentalist. --Michael Johnson 01:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This article needs some editing ...

I'm unhappy with this artricle for a number of reasons. I want to start some talk on this please:

1. Some poorly constructed statements (for example)

The article states: "The transmutation of species was accepted by many scientists before 1859, but Charles Darwin's On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection provided the first convincing exposition[α] of a mechanism by which evolutionary change could occur: natural selection." The wording I object to is "first convincing exposition". It seems quite lax in structure. Perhaps it was the first convincing scientific explanation (exposition is quite a vague term here and if writing was meant sub the easier word for people to understand). However, convincing to whom? I'm certain Lamarck's theory was convincing at the time too. Also, many scientists accepted the transmutation of species after 1869 as well. The publication of Darwin's Theory was not an instant change.

2. Accessibility for an average reader seems impaired by some sentence structures

I just read the text. It reads poorly in places. PoV words like "staggering" crop up. Statements which appear to be accurate on frist reading appear weak when examined. "With its enormous explanatory and predictive power", for example, seems unjustified to have in the article and appears like fluff in the text.

3. Seems confused in places (example)

The article could be quite severely pruned in places or it could be extended becasue there seems to be some odd editing choices. 2nd para refers to natural selection and genetic drift (both hyperlinked to their own articles) but then goes on the describe only natural selection. Why describe only one?

4. The article seems to be written in an attempt to "educate" people critics of evolution.

I don't think that is the job of Wikipedia to target a particular audience. I would scrub out a great deal of the controvery stuff or shove it elsewhere. Keep the article well written and scientific.

---

I gather the article has had some issues with critics of evolution in the past. Perhaps this has caused a distraction becasue I have to say it's too long and seems oddly slanted on the whole perhaps to the point of being defensive.

I would get my hands dirty and attempt a rewrite but thought I would garner some feedback. I know some of this seems harsh but the article should be better than this please. Candy 20:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You've made some sound suggestions that merit consideration on a point-by-point basis. Perhaps the most important is the "defensive tone" of the article. I suspect that in the past, issues of consensus may have forced editors to insert phrases and content which actually compromises the integrity of the article. While an extremely brief mention of controveries should be included (largely to provide links to those related pages), apologetics has no place here. This is a factual article about a scientific theory and we should certainly be able to present it as such and couch it in those terms.

It was a good idea to bring this to the talkpage first; I'd suggest picking one example to start, and posting it here, along with your suggested change. Doc Tropics 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I agree with Candy. It needs to have cleaner English statements so it is easier to read.--Filll 21:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This subject has come up before. I have offered suggestions for reorganization and shortening as have others. GetAgrippa 22:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that when the topic is controversial, any editing, even to improve the article, comes under suspicion.--Filll 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the 'controversy' issue is that if its removed you find people trying to insert massive sections on criticisms of mainstream evolutionary theory. Deleting this in turn tends to lead to large, ongoing edit wars. Dealing with the controversy from the point of view of the mainstream scientific community seems to me to be the only effective compromise. --Davril2020 23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing the controversy section will not make the topic or article uncontroversial. Also, I think that the section is very informative and should be included. Mainstream science has tried to ignore this for the last few decades, and it has ended up backfiring to a certain extent. We tried ignoring creationism and that did not work. Now it should be confronted.--Filll 00:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is however not practical to try to write a single text that will both present a scientific topic in a straightforward and accurate way, and deal with the controversies. In smaller articles they can be separate sections, but this one is too large. Apparently this has been tried before also, with no sucess. Given this, I agree with Davril that the best course is to make this purely objective describing the theory, putting in a list of links--possibly in the format of a box modeled on the one top of this page, and those concerned will simply have to maintain it persistently, There is no point being timid about it. DGG 01:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to be militant about archiving repetitive discussions then we can add this discussion to the top box then move the controversy section elsewhere and just delete delete delete when someone tries to re-insert it. If we can make a prominent link on the evolution page to the controversies section then I would be neutral towards moving the material to a new article. --Davril2020 03:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading all your comments so far I was initially temped to think how I would tackle an article from the ground up. If I came straight at this I would so something very similar. There would be an introduction to the history of evolutionary thought, Darwin-Wallace theory (underpinning current evolutionary science), Neo-Darwinism and finally controversies and critisisms.

However, looking through the links and connections I see that a number of articles also exist that supplement/support briefer explanations in this article. (Interestingly I'm now getting side-tracked by these as I see that the Origin of Species section fails to include the differences between the 1st and 6th editions which imho are very important for a number of historical and scientific reasons.) This is a good reason to reduce some of the length of this article.

We work in a collective to ensure that we iron out such problems in writing an article as to (for example) the weight we give in this article to the fact that the mechanism of inheritance was not understood when Darwin write the Origin of species or whether this is mentioned elsewhere.

The controversies I expect to go in here would be about the biological theory of evolution would be on the lines of epigenesis, punctuated evolution, the abuse of evolutionary theory (or perhaps this is simply an abuse of genetics but I'm certain you get my drift - no pun intended) by Lysenko or eugenics. These are controversies in evolution to me. I would be throwing in some reference to the misunderstandings of the term evolution in everyday speech (such as referring to an automobile as having "evolved") but not in the way done in this article.

Ignoring creationism (and I would almost effectively do so in most part except for perhaps one or two lines to link elsewhere) because the creation of living organisms is a vast topic in itself (scientifically or mythologically) and doesn't belong here.

User Filll mentions that "Removing the controversy section will not make the topic or article uncontroversial." I agree. But why have such a large section devoted to what is actually a distracting side-line Much of this could be spun off shortly elsewhere?. I agree that it is informative but too much centres (sorry I'm English) on religious aspects. I'm not sure what you mean by "mainstream science" however and I don't agree that creationism needs confronting here in this article. I would think though that we need to keep a NPoV in the article (which is a scientific article afterall). The whole religious part of the controversy section is simply nebulous imho and as an example ....

"...the science of evolution shows that humans are animals and share common ancestry with chimpanzees, gibbons, gorillas, and orangutans, which some people find offensive, for, in their opinion, it "degrades" humankind."

Who exactly are these "some people"? Anecodotally, my experience is that the misconception is that many scientifically illiterate people believe that scientists say humans evolved from chimpanzees (or as I heard recently .. "monkeys").

NPoV to me means either not bringing just contemporary belief statements into scientific articles because we would double the content into every scientific article (sorry just a ball park figure stated for effect) or avoiding it. As soon as we bring in one set of belief systems we need to open up to all belief systems. This article shouldn't be a forum for everyone's view. If we bring current ones in then why not all preceding ones? Then the article becomes cumbersome and unweildy. Brief links to articles which challenge evolution or give alternative explanations are fine. Just not in the body.

All in all there is some very good writing in the article as well as work that needs pruning out imho. I realise I'm coming into this as article N00b but I hope a fresh pair of eyes will also help. Candy 06:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Candy, a number of editors have offered the same suggestions. I especially agree there is too much time mentioning creationism and social issues. There is already an article on the topic and there is also a History of Evolution article. Sections that already represented as an article should just get a brief mention or if critical just the highlights. GetAgrippa 11:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it time to bring it in line with the expected high standards of Wikipedia then Agrippa? I'll do some planning ... it can't be a rushed job otherwise it will get bitty. ˜˜˜˜

Good luck! I have spent a month trying to suggest changes. It must have been a herculean effort to create the article as it presently exists.GetAgrippa 12:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest merging that whole section to the two "main" articles. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

more concise

I have made several changes just now, following the suggestions of many editors above, to shorten the controversy section--and I cleaned up some of the more recondite parts of the biology as well. I am stopping here, to see if others agree that its an improvement. If so, I will continue.

In any case a few more quotations are needed & have been marked, and I need a wording that traditional orthodox Judaism doe _not_ accept evolution. DGG 20

45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice I've rv-ed your shortening of the controversy section - can you please explain why a change is necessary? Mikker ^(...) 20:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi DGG. I actually can't see how your editing is supported by stating that it was the suggestion of editors above. I don't see an improvement. Certainly, I am not advocating a clean up of a few words here and there. From my perspective there is some serious editing needed. That's why I haven't touched the topic. It needs a bit of thought and discussion before hand. Candy 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It can be equally effective to approach a major reorganization by first cleaning out the unnecessary parts. Anyway, I deliberately edited in a way to make it easy to revert. No hard feelings. Discuss as you please. DGG 02:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Archaic Neanderthal DNA

I hesitate to mention this, because it really belongs in the Human Evolution article, but it does demonstrate how information gained from inference, from Neanderthals in this instance (Recent Nov Science Issue), is useful when compared to more direct (DNA) evidence. They demonstrated that humans and Neanderthals probably had the same common ancestor 700,000 years ago and the Human and Neanderthal lineages split 360,000 years ago. Comparing Human, Chimpanzee, and Neanderthal was useful to demonstrate similarities and differences. This is the kind of elegant work that really convinces me of evolution, because fossil inference and molecular analysis come together to paint a more complete picture. They also indicated that after the split they did not interbreed. GetAgrippa 20:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, and potentially useful (somewhere, if not this particular article). Is there a link available to that, or is it not available online? Doc Tropics 05:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Science 17 November 2006:Vol. 314. no. 5802, pp. 1113 - 1118. Sequencing and Analysis of Neanderthal Genomic DNA. This kind of work is still met with some skepticism, however the merits of the work are obvious.GetAgrippa 17:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Try this links NATURE: Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA Comparison with the human and chimpanzee genomes reveals that modern human and Neanderthal DNA sequences diverged on average about 500,000 years ago. --Zzzzzzzzzz 17:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! Very interesting indeed. I know this will be useful somewhere : ) Doc Tropics 17:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an amazing result if it holds up. I have seen so much speculation on this issue over the last few decades. Now of course, the question arises as to WHY there was no sharing of genes?--Filll 17:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the best

I just think kudos should go to everyone who's invested time in this article. It is simply one of the best on Wikipedia, and is truly NPOV in discussing the facts of the Science of Evolution. I have used some of what has been written in the article to write a letter to some crazies on the local Board of Education. What was especially useful was some of the discussion in here that gave me the facts to counter some of the more specious of points set out by the Religious Creationist lunatics. Thanks to everyone!OrangeMarlin 19:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree OM, it's a great article written by knowledgable and dedicated contributors. Interestingly, there is mention at the Pump here about a new development (not yet available) to provide for stable versions of articles which would apparently protect them from random editing. Needless to say, I'm extremely interested...what better place to apply it than here? Doc Tropics 19:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great, except how would one add new data. Say we really did find a rabbit in precambrian rocks?OrangeMarlin 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The current scheme seems to revolve around a stable 'front page' per article, and a Wiki page in the background (or vice versa). That way, readers could specifically read the stable page, without worrying about vandalism. -- Ec5618 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

New Material

Recently, a new section was created with the following material:

Variations of Evolutionary Theory

---

Flow chart of various beliefs of evolution.

Much of the creation-evolution controversy is not so much about literal debate of evolution vs creation but rather debate between various forms of evolutionary theory. The primary differences between the various theories are the age of the earth and universal common descent vs the orchard theory and intelligent design. Very few people believe in fixity of the species, which is evolutions true opponent.

Theories:

• Darwinian Evolution - A belief that the earth is old and universal common descent is responsible for specie diversity (includes theistic evolution).
• Progressive Creationism / Gap Theory - A belief that the earth is old and the orchard theory along with intelligent design is responsible for specie diversity.
• Young Earth Creationism - A belief that the earth is young (6,000 years) and the orchard theory along with intelligent design is responsible for specie diversity.

---

Since the author has questioned the repeated reversion of his additions, I posted it here for discussion. Per previous agreement of involved editors regarding mention of controveries and "alternative theories", I had deleted this content as being inappropriate to the article, and redundant with material already in place. To reiterate my point: Creationism does not belong in a science article. Period. These are not accepted theories, they are not accepted by any mainstream science org and it would be inappropriate to give them undue weight. In this context, any mention at all is undue weight. Doc Tropics 21:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like a biased argument if I ever heard one. Universal common descent is not a fact and many people still don't believe it. Why should we leave these beliefs out because you simply don't agree with them. These beliefs are real and people need the information to learn about them. Why don't you take your biases over to WP:9W and think some things over. Pbarnes

It's always a bad sign when an editor comes to this page and talks about "belief". This article is not about belief, it is about a scientific theory which has been widely accepted. It is about the physical facts and how we explain them. There are absolutely no facts whatsoever to support the thoeries you mention. Doc Tropics 21:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

News flash, scientific theories ARE beliefs they are not proven facts but rather explanations for a number of observations. Also, there are plenty of facts that support the theories I mentioned; All the evidence that supports universal common descent could just as well be a result of a common designer. I understand what you are saying and agree, but the way you present yourself in your replies is wrong. Even though I believe in Darwinian evolution, I still believe people need to be educated about other theories that attempt to explain the evidence. Pbarnes 22:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A hypothesis is not a belief. A hypothesis is a model that explains an set of existing facts, awaiting test by future facts. Hypotheses get discarded at a pretty high rate. Beliefs don't necessarily (depends on who holds them). Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to accuse people of bias for making simple observations about how common certain attitudes or beliefs are and what NPOV says about undue weight. We already have a section on "Social and religious controversies" which links to a number of articles about related topics. That is sufficient. Any additional material would lead to serious NPOV-undue weight issues. (I would also like to remind you to that Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth and the status of evolution among the scientific community and the educated population is verifiable. JoshuaZ 21:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood and moved to evolution-creation controversy. Pbarnes 22:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Lamarck postulated multiple lines of descent in a scientific framework - as I recall, he linked bacteria to nematodes (and the related phyla: they were considered one back then I believe), and on to Annelids, whilst putting other animals on a seperate tree. Even though Lamarck's beliefs are discredited, they were scientific, and if there was evidence for it, it might rival universal common descent. Similarly, if some life is found that doesn't follow the Universal genetic code, uses the wrong stereoisomers of molecules, and so on, that would be evidence of a second line of descent, entirely scientifically.

However, your diagram is something very different: comparing pseudoscientific creationist theories to universal common descent, including the ridiculous young earth theories that try to squeeze Ancient Egypt and Sumer in with dinosaurs. This is a ridiculous and blatant attempt to slip creationism undue weight into the Evolution article. No. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Orchard theory? What's that? "Orchard theory" and "evolution" gets two google hits, one of which is unrelated to this stuff. Guettarda 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I am glad the editor decided not to push this and attempt to get this material into the article. I believe it is just an incorrect statement of the facts. Evolution is fairly clear. And all the different varieties of creationism seem to dispute one aspect or another of evolution, or misdefine evolution and attack a strawman etc. It is not at all clear to me that the vast majority of people, including most creationists, accept evolution and reject "fixity of the species", whatever that is. This sort of contribution makes it sound as though people defending evolution from creationism are just a bunch of ignorant morons since there is no real dispute (and they should just shut up and accept the "proven fact" that earth is 6000 years old etc). The author's defense of his contribution makes it clear that once again, here is an editor who does not know what science is, or a scientific theory is, or a fact in science is, or proof means in science, or what belief means in science etc. I would even hazard a guess that there is some misunderstanding of the difference between science and religion. So it is just as well that he has folded his tent and moved on.--Filll 05:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is about evolution and not other ideas. The subject of creationism should really never even enter the article to some degree, but here we go. It just never stops. Everything has a last common ancestor. The Judeo-Christian bible seems to be preoccupied with who was who's last common ancestor. How can you argue against genealogy? GetAgrippa 16:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this very chain of "who begat who" was the basis of Bishop Usher's estimate of the age of the earth which so many creationists are in love with. I think it is mildly comical that many of the evangelical denominations who are so in love with the Usher Age of the Earth reject Anglicans as nonChristians and their beliefs as blasphemy, but Usher was Anglican. Usher was also almost violently AntiCatholic and had a lot of other views that we would classify as highly suspect. Part of the problem is, they really do not know science, or the tenets of their own faith, or the history of Christianity or the bible.--Filll 17:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that it should be pointed out that although Ussher came to an incorrect age for the Earth he actually worked with a consistent methodology and made a contribution to aging the Earth. Yes, the result was incredibly incorrect with the scientific evidence but the man did attempt to use the information that was presented to him (in the bible) to make an estimate. I seem to recall the small amount of research I did on the chap that in fact his result was quite shocking and was incredulously received by the populace .... although later his eveidence was venerated in subsequent printings of the bible. His methodology should be respected and probably has a small footnote or two in the history of evolutionary thought (though not in this article).

On a second note, it is not really a place to mock religious views in an discussion which is about the scientific views of creation. It's really not appropriate and could lead to some flames which are not necessary. Candy 18:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There is merit to your comment Candy. That is why I like Gould's Structure of Evolution, because he gives all the ideas due respect in historical perspective-like Lamarck. My genealogy comment was not meant to be construed as received, but I was just pointing out we all have ancestors and genetics is important in that regard. My main problem with creationism is that if you take it to it's logical end you don't believe in modern medicine and science. Evolution is applied and appears in grants in agriculture, medicine, etc. and is so applicable in every field of biology. I do agree with you that this is not a venue to discuss faith and religions. GetAgrippa 19:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be best if all religion and creationist rhetoric was not included in this article or its talk page. However, one has to defend oneself against religious and creationist views, or else the article will cease to exist as a description of a scientific theory. I apologize for lashing out, but my patience for this kind of stuff wears thin sometimes. If followed to its illogical extreme, the creationist reasoning would shut down science and engineering completely. These assaults on science have gone mainly unanswered, leading to science losing the public relations battle for now. But I do not think the answer is to just roll over and let them own the playing field forever. --Filll 19:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in sympathy with Filll. Religious dogmatics come on here, vandalize the page, attempt to start arguments, usually by stating that Evolution is ONLY a theory, without fully understanding the difference between scientific theory (fact) and the theory proposed by a detective on Law and Order. It's frustrating because someone comes on here, thinks that the scientists are suppressing knowledge, when in fact, we are attempting to keep a NPOV, in that Evolution has nothing to do with religion. OrangeMarlin 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

allelic frequencies

imagine for a moment you are not well versed in evolution. would the terms "allelic frequency" mean anything to you?

secondly, "allelic frequency" is not a good way of describing evolution. genes come and go, chromosomes go from round to straight, duplicate and invert themselves and so on, and its increasingly clear that alleles as we usually think of them and describe them (flavors of genes) are not the only means of evolution.

perhaps we can use a simpler way to describe evolution?

Amarilloarmadillo 07:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think doesn't fall within the allele framework, because I can't think of an example. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Alleles are different versions of genes. Creating entirely new genes is not the same as having variations in the frequency of a version of a genes. Heritable methylation is also not changes in pre-existing allele frequency but is a means for evolution. I haven't seen anyone describe alleles as possible versions of genes that don't yet exist, they are always described as real versions of real genes that exist in some organism (past or present--but not future). Anyway, even if we can't agree on the philosophy of what an allele is, wouldn't you agree that mere mortals don't know what they are? Amarilloarmadillo 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I already pursued this line mentioning epigenetic, transposons, miRNA,etc., but if you read all the definitions in linking articles you will see the term fits (epialleles,etc). I wanted to change to just genomic change, but the way everything is defined (genes and alleles) it encompasses all. I agree the definition of a gene has changed dramatically from when I was first trained. GetAgrippa 15:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The main difficulty I have with this phrase is that it is in the introductory paragraph and likely to make the article less accessible. I have expressed this opinion a few times on this talk page. I see that there has been some attempt to define it, but I am not sure that this is adequate.--Filll 23:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Readability Factor

The introduction for the Evolution article has scored a 20.1 on the Flesch reading ease: That translates to text suitable for graduate level readers. I'm talking the introduction ... not the content areas. --Random Replicator 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I used this site for the intro and got: "Readability: 5 % more difficult to read than than the average writing on the Internet". That's pretty approachable in my book. What website were you using? Plus, can you include other science Feature Article introductions as references.--Roland Deschain 04:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I just spent some time playing with RD's toy (thanks for the link!). I got the same initial results for the intro that he did, then I tried to modify/simplify the text for a lower score. The short answer is that there doesn't seem to be an easy way to simplify. The one thing that these tools (presumably) don't take into account is the bluelinks we use to help explain the fundamental concepts. A reader who doesn't know what Allele frequency is can follow the link. I produced a version of the intro that was only +1% (instead of +5%), but it was just nonsense...there wasn't enough meaningful info left. Of course, I'm not the best writer when working alone, someone else might do better. Doc Tropics 04:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is both a problem and an asset for an encyclopedia to attain a graduate level discourse. I think the information is useful, but perhaps there should be Basic and Advanced levels. A short prelude "Evolution for Dummies" version that would touch the bases for a grade schooler and the present text. I know a lot of editors probably don't like the idea, but it is really appropriate to reach a larger audience. However, I think we may underestimate the thinking capacity of the audience and it is difficult to simplify the subject too much. Certain science topics are what they are and it is difficult to reduce because the subject garners a certain sophistication. Lots of bright minds contributed to this article so it is their nature to be true their knowledge base. The problem is it is miles above the average reader. But eh, the reader can get an education for free. Knowledge should be free and accessible to everyone. No lines, no student loans, no annoying professors, no graduate committees, no dissertations, no grades. Face it, most of us are a bunch of geeks with heads full of interesting but somewhat useless information to the average joe. Finally a venue for mental masterbation onto the pages of Wikipedia. It is the most interesting process.GetAgrippa 05:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, there are some aspects of your post that I'm just not going to touch! But you make some valid points, and may have presented a useful option. Why not create a series of articles collectively called Basic "X", or in this case, Basic Evolution. They could specifically be written at a high-school level, and cross-link to their main articles (possibly with a little banner on the Main..."See Basic "X" for introductory information". I know something similar has been mentioned before, but never actually got organized. Doc Tropics 06:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There's always simple for that sort of thing. While that little readability tool is interesting in its way, I don't see that it provides much data of use. It's not immediately obvious what they're using as the readability standard for "the Internet", but surely the Internet isn't known for being full of overly complex and demanding prose. "30% simpler" doesn't strike me as a plausible or desirable goal, and "Writing less than 10% easier than the Internet generally is meant for college graduate or higher".... I have to believe that's pure nonsense. The average text on the Internet is written for a reading level above that of a college graduate?

Take a look at some of the words they recommend simplifying from their sample text: adopt, affect, colons, commas...encouraged...expand...producing...sentences, similarly...texts...virtual... (cherry-picked the dumbest ones :)

Also, the Flesch reading ease is heavily dependent on the number of syllables per word - why that matters as a measure of text not meant to be read aloud, I'm not sure, but a science article is likely to get worse scores even when its mean sentence length is equivalent to that of a non-science article, simply because of the terminology involved. Just the word 'scientific' is hurting your score, never mind 'Mendelian', 'evolutionary', 'recombination', 'biodiversity'.... Opabinia regalis 06:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Will a quick internet search return Simple Wikipedia hits? I have never noticed the simple version until recently when Fill mentioned it, or is there a link? The more complete the information on any particular topic should be a gold standard for any Wikipedia article. I guess it depends on the subject as to how complex it evolves. No pun intended. GetAgrippa 07:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Unfortunately, the "Simple" entry is a sad little thing. I was thinking of something a bit more informative than that, but more of an intro to basic concepts than our current intro to this article. Doc Tropics 07:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be easy to create a single simple paragraph saying evolution is about change; life is about reproduction; reproduction with variation creates variety; some varieties of life survive better; some varieties of life more successfully produce offspring; some of these differences are inheritable; over time new species result, over billions of years we result. We could put it in a pretty little blue box. Or not. WAS 4.250 07:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is about change.

Life is about reproduction and complex ecological and behavioral interactions.

Reproduction with variation creates variety.

Some varieties of life survive better.

Some varieties of life more successfully produce offspring.

Some of these differences are inheritable.

Evolution leads to cellular, metabolic, physiologic, or behavioral changes.

Over time new species (including humans) result.

Over billions of years of evolution and extinctions the planet earth displays a life history (fossils) which has culminated in present populations of life.

Yes, but leave off the "we result" bit at the end - which implies an end point, a purpose, a culmination, a pinnacle etc! Snalwibma 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A "pre-intro" introduction has been discussed before, but that style isn't really supported by the MOS. A 'blue-box" might be possible, but the info would have to be carefully considered. There's also a chance that a simplified blue-box would become a troll-magnet, so the whole topic needs careful weighing for "pro & con" aspects. Doc Tropics 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I twinked it slightly to include changes other than speciation that is evolution and mentioned fossils and life history. GetAgrippa 17:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Another tweak - though I'm still not sure this is a good idea... Snalwibma 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know, it quickly grows. Perhaps we should "see" what develops to a small degree after a number of editors have spoken, then if not refined and still short we can shorten it to the original. Good job WAS! I have seen a number of attempts to define evolution in ten words or less and you did an excellent job!. I generally think of ecoethogenomic interactions and reproductive success when I think of evolution, but in the end reproductive success is the final outcome of most importance so we could drop those twinks. I do think you have to mention that changes other than speciation are evolution. GetAgrippa 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, but it definitely seems to be evolving into something more complicated than useful. I wonder if we can simplify it and shorten it?--ReasonIsBest 20:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok how about something simpler like this:

The goal of life forms is to reproduce.

Reproduction with variation creates variety.

Some varieties of life survive better.

Some of these life forms produce more offspring.

Some differences are passed on to offspring.

Over time new species (including humans) result.

This story, forming the history of life on the planet, is recorded in fossils.

One might not want to put it at the top, but maybe on another page or a link. People who want a quick primer or tutorial or cheat sheet would be directed there. This might draw the trolls off to the page with the "primer", so they leave the evolution article alone.--ReasonIsBest 20:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm still not positive about using either of these in the article (that will take a lot of consensus building, regardless), I tend to favor this newer version which is more geared towards an "average" reader. I especially like the first entry "The goal of life forms is to reproduce.", this is a very clear summary of the a complex topic. Doc Tropics 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I like avoiding the statement "evolution is about change" which is basically a dictionary definition. It unfortunately encompasses stellar evolution and other physical processes aplenty as well as biological evolution. This feeds in to one of the main weapons or points of confusion of the creationist crowd. They lump a huge amount of other material in with evolution, including radioactive decay and cosmology and abiogenesis and the origin of the earth's magnetic field and plate tectonics and thermodynamics and relativity and Hertzsprung-Russell theory, etc. And it is almost impossible with that amount of disparate material to dispell the confusion or to discuss anything with them.--Filll 20:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"The goal of life forms is to reproduce. Organisms exhibit genetic variation which may produce beneficial traits and varieties. The varieties with the benefical traits tend to survive better than others in the population. Surviving to reproduce and passing the benefical traits increases the offspring with the desireable traits. The offspring with the new trait forms a population which may become reproductively isolated to create a new species. The story, forming the life history of earth, is recorded in the fossils." Seems life genetic variation needs to be mentioned and then reproductive success. I don't know there is already the Simple version. We will probably end up with the same.GetAgrippa 02:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The goal of life forms is to reproduce and tend to maintain a stable population (stasis). Organisms exhibit genetic variation and during times of environmental change and extinction the variation may produce beneficial or adaptive traits that will increase their ability to survive. Nature selects (natural selection) those organisms with the adaptive trait as they tend to survive better (more fit). Surviving to reproduce and passing on the adaptive trait increases the offspring with the trait (reproductive success). The offspring with the adaptive trait grows to a population which may only breed with itself (becoming reproductively isolated) and thus generating a new species.The life history of earth is marked by extinction, adaptive speciation, and then stasis a number of times as recorded in fossils. GetAgrippa 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Much discussion, between your question Roland and this response: In response to Roland’s initial question. The Flesch Kincaid formula for readability has been around for over 50 years. It is the standard formula used by school systems and text book publishers for determining the reading level of text books. There are others, the web site you used may be as valid as any; however, I assure you this one sets the standards. Insurance companies and governmental agencies use the Flesch system to standardize documents as a matter of course to ensure the general public can read them. My exposure with it is not from a web site, but from graduate work in secondary education, primarily to establish readability levels for special needs text material. It factors in syllables and length of sentence. Thus, scientific articles can generate high scores. Just out of curiosity I ran the introduction for Evolution from Encarta and generated a score of 33.0. So maybe your score isn’t so bad after all; depends on who you perceive as your target audience. Microsoft uses the Flesch formula to calculate readability in MS Word documents. You only need to read at a 9th grade level to grasp this passage! --Random Replicator 03:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply RR (I had been curious too). Is there a version of F/K on the internet? If so, could you provide a link? It seems too useful not to have. Doc Tropics 03:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The formula is 206.835-(1.015xASL)-(84.6xASW) where ASL (average sentence length) is the numbers of words divided by the number of sentences and ASW (average number of syllables per word) is the number of syllables divided by the number of words. Note that the lower the score, the more challenging the reading level.

Flesch Index Educational Level

91-100 5th grade

81-90 6th grade

71-80 7th grade

66-70 8th grade

61-66 9th grade

51-60 High School

31-50 Some College

0-30 College Graduate

< 0 Law School Graduate

I calculated manually the evolution introduction and then compared it to the calculations generated in MS Word (tools/spelling grammar) and they were within 2pts of each other. So MS-Word is adequate for performing readability test. I cannot find a computer formula on the web, sorry.

In many education circles it is thought that all correspondences with the general public should be tailored to a score of 50-60. My brother is an engineer at Intel, that is his department’s suggestion as well. It translates to Ease of reading; not the intelligence level of the audience (although there is some correlation). We are heavy in editing content, but perhaps a quick analysis of sentence length, excessive jargon ... should be analyzed. In analysis of the intro paragraph I noticed two misspelled words. In 1832, while travelling and that fragments of armour which I think may be the UK version. I guess we need an English teacher on staff. I do chew my kids up for poor grammar and spelling when writting for my eyes only; now consider that you guys are writing for a "World Audience", that is rather intimidating. --Random Replicator 04:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A high school grade audience is an ideal audience range. I like the critical editing for errors in spelling,etc. I would think that a high school audience could handle more sophistication than either of the simple versions presented. GetAgrippa 04:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, travelling and armour are British spellings. Presumably crept in because the caption to the illustraton was written separately from the main text. You may not have an English teacher "on staff", but you do have a professional editor with a degree in English who works on biology and ecology texts for a living (and who works principally in American English, though he is British). He is also rather sceptical - sorry, skeptical - about devices such as Flesch Kincaid, reckoning to rely on more subjective measures of readability ... Snalwibma 06:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Snalwibma, very cleaver. (UK)or just bad spelling? We should avoid debating readability formulas; the literature is rich with the pros and cons of ‘Flesch’. The problem with subjective analysis is that you see it through the eyes of the writer not the intended reader; hence the need for such formulas. With this group of editors, you may actually need to write below your abilities. Before any further discussion, perhaps there needs to be some feel for the primary audience. I am not sure if that is possible, considering this is an encyclopedia; but, I do think it should be closer to a high school text, rather than a legal document.

General information for the general public. Perhaps an introductory “introduction” is appropriate. I loved Trivial Pursuit (Jr. Edition); it made me feel soooo smart. I am certain there are several editors who would love to write this document.

1) What is the policy on simplified versions for a major entry?

2) Would the Jr. Edition undermine the value of the more advance version?

3) Would the Jr. Edition “evolve” into a more complex document resulting in two parallel entries on the same topic?

Again, I cannot say whether you have missed your target audience, simply because I am not certain who they are. I do believe this entry, in an effort to appease and defend, has morphed into a ridiculously complicated explanation of evolution, at least from the average reader’s perspective. If the rules allow it, I strongly recommend a Jr. Edition with links from there to the more advanced explanations in this article. So I vote that Roland, et al; should crank out a simplified version for us. --Random Replicator 14:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

PS This discussion thread has grown a bit lengthy; perhaps we should follow this up in the new subject heading below addressing the concept of the Jr. Edition if it is a worthy consideration. --Random Replicator 14:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the editors are resistant to significant change because of the herculean effort to create the present article. I think interested editors who want a Jr. edition should give it a try and then see if it flies. A novice should write the Jr. article for a blind eye. I have tried tweaking (or as I say twinking,Hee, hee)the present article with little success. I agree the present article is probably way too complicated for the average audience. GetAgrippa 16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OMFG "Heh. Unfortunately, the "Simple" entry is a sad little thing. I was thinking of something a bit more informative than that, but more of an intro to basic concepts than our current intro to this article. Doc Tropics 07:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)" Sad? Sad? I read it. It's actually misleading and dumbed down to erroneousness. Editor!!!!! Let's not confuse simple with incorrect. Let's also remember that (imho) all science should be accesible to a reasonably able layperson. That doesn't mean that scientific illiteracy should be the dominant practice however. It's a structure issue in many cases. It also means that people need to be active readers. You can't comprehend anything passively (no matter how much we want to believe we can). Candy 20:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Separate introduction

There's an example of a separate introductory article on a science over at Wikiproject physics. Quantum mechanics starts with a heading pointing to Introduction to quantum mechanics for a less technical explanation of the field. Are there any reasons, policies or other, that suggests that this isn't a good idea to try out with evolution?

Maybe this is a way to keep this article at the standard it is now, and still be able to share knowledge to those new to biology and this subject. Delta Tango • Talk 04:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There is already a simpler article at simple:Evolution. Wouldn't it be better just to provide a prominent link to that? —JeremyA 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it might be. I have asked in the proposals area of the Village Pump if there might be a change of the MOS to have a uniform link style at the top of the article's page to another page, such as an Introduction Page, or a the appropriate Simple Wikipedia Page, or some other tutorial or primer-like material. One advantage of doing the introductory or tutorial article in Wikipedia rather than "Simple Wikipedia" is that it keeps the readers within Wikipedia itself for links etc, and they do not get pulled off into the links on Simple Wikipedia. Of course, there is no reason that an Introduction to Evolution page could not have a link to Simple Wikipedia, if something very low level is required.--Filll 16:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Quantum mechanics example gives rise to two lengthy articles. I prefer a box or separate section within the article with the basics. In the Smooth muscle article it has a basic and advanced sections for contraction-relaxation. One just the basics and the other more detailed. That way you capture a larger audience and provide lots of information and detail for the inquiring mind. This article is already so long a preface section would have to be a short concise outline or paragraph. The article already needs shortening and little progress has been made on that front, so I guess a separate article would be more appropriate the more I think about it. GetAgrippa 17:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

From simple:Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia: 'Simple English uses fewer words and easier grammar than the original English Wikipedia. This is not its only difference. It is for people with different needs: students, children, and adults with learning difficulties. Simple English is also much easier for "off-duty" people who may like simple language for other reasons: tiredness, unfamiliar topics, completing other duties, distracting backgrounds, or worry'. The Simple English Wikipedia is specifically aimed at the audience being discussed above. Rather than duplicate their efforts it seems to me that it would be better to use the resource that they are trying to provide (+help to improve their article if it is deemed sub-par). —JeremyA 17:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The "simplified" article at simple:Evolution will not serve. Hence the "OMFG" quote from Candy. If I thought I could delete it without being banned, I would. All of you should go there and read it! But... maybe it could be deleted and re-written at that site. I doubt you could make it much worse. Thoughts? --Random Replicator 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow ... I went back and looked again .... simple:Evolution ... amazing. --Random Replicator 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Be bold. No one will ban you for saving that page. David D. (Talk) 22:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well speaking as an editor on Simple Wikipedia, I would ask you all to sign up and to help. I have found some equally grisly examples in my own areas of primary interest and expertise, the physical sciences and mathematics. Even if the Simple Wikipedia article is not used as a simplified introduction, it should not be left in a horrendous state.--Filll 21:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How did that blue box make it into the article already? Don't let me disrupt things, but at minimum it badly needs reformatting; at the moment it looks terrible tiled above the top-right-corner image. It still sounds to me like it's more suited to be the beginning of an improved simple article rather than a helpful introduction here, but if people really want to add this sort of thing, can the formatting at least be worked out first? It really doesn't belong right at the top of the article where the intro image ought to be. Opabinia regalis 01:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. It does not look so good with its current formatting. It might be better for the start of a simple or introductory article.--Filll 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I vote just a sentence linking to Simple article and improve that article.GetAgrippa 02:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I realise that the simple article is pretty bad. But simple is a wiki too, so all it needs is some interested people to work on it (or even re-write it from scratch), and it could easily serve the purpose of an introduction to evolution. I don't think that anyone would get banned from simple for taking that article and morphing it into something good. —JeremyA 02:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's try a compromise

Since three physics articles are already using the other format where there is a link to an introductory article here, let's try it here. This format is used in special relativity and general relativity and quantum mechanics, as you can see. I cut and pasted the Simple Wikipedia article into an introductory article here on Wikipedia. Lets edit this article and make it better. I will even put the blue box in there for people to play with. I am not sure if the blue box should go at the top or bottom or maybe along the right hand side, descending. --Filll 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Like the current change. While we are playing with the intro, can we somehow change the first intro sentence. The phrase variable variations is even confusing for me, and I've been working in the field of biology for a long time.--Roland Deschain 02:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree just drop variable variations to "by shifts in the units of heredity".GetAgrippa 03:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please edit the Introduction to evolution article as you see fit. I think it also needs some figures and the blue box I would propose to make as a vertical box down the right hand side of the Introduction to evolution article. I do not yet know how to do that but I am sure it is easy to do. --Filll 03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove comments on the talk page, as this is only discussion and not the article in question. The phrase "variable variations" is easy for me to understand. Some things vary within certain parameters, and are thus, non-variable variations. Other things have no bounds to their variations (such as the lengths evolutionists will go to prop up the idea of spontaneous generation) and are thus called variable variations. DSG2 06:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Entropy Section change (re: supernatural etc)

I'm making a change to the Entropy and life section. The text stated: "It is claimed that evolution, by increasing complexity without supernatural intervention, violates the second law of thermodynamics." The phrase "without supernatural intervention" is unnecessary. It doesn't have anything to do with whether evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A miracle would still be a violation of natural laws according to some philosophers. But, regardless of the definition of a miracle, it doesn't have anything to do with the question at hand. I'm supposing that the author intended it to be a criticism of a common creationist's arguement; however it could be better stated as "It is claimed by creationists . . . ." I tend to prefer just the simple responce to the objection. --BrianG5 05:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No objection here. Your change you did is fine and makes sense given that thermodynamics rebuttal stuff by creationists has fairly well been dropped as an argument by them once they realised the earth is an open system. I guess someone pointed out the big shiny thing in the sky. Ttiotsw 08:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

References for Jr. Edition

An addition of General References on Evolution might be reasonable for the Jr. Edition site for Evolution. Written for non-scientist. I was thinking in terms of books. Not articles like "Evolution of Umbra pygmaya in relationship to genomic transfers of the Lac estabar gene". But more like Dawkins: Climbing Mt. Improbable. The number should be limited so we need the best General Text out there. List them here if you would please. In addition, the site still needs much work, but it seems to have promise ... I guess. Feel free to contribute. More importantly, if it seems to be a consensus that it is pointless; give the editors heads up --- it would be a shame to waste this much time ... then get abused as being a stupid idea!--Random Replicator 05:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I like it. Of course I am biased, since I had already suggested it a couple of times before this attempt. And if physics has done it for 3 topics already, why can not biology not try this for one topic? I am also biased since I have edited a large number of Simple Wikipedia articles already and I think that it is something sorely needed. We have to serve the low end as well as the high end, and there are many more customers at the low end.--Filll 05:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You guys spend 10 pages debating the word theory and can't spare a line to suggest a few references? What up with that misters? --Random Replicator 01:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would second this. I suspect if we make the Jr. version attractive it will serve several purposes:

• make the subject more accessible and understandable
• allow the evolution article itself to concentrate more on the high end and on sophisticated things.
• draw off some and possibly most of the destructive creationist vandalism to the Jr. edition, wasting less effort on the evolution article
• educate more people so they can be productive in this area

Please consider helping us a bit.--Filll 01:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Several sites at Evolution#External links contains stuff you can use. For example this which suggests among other things Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors by Carl Sagan. WAS 4.250 01:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

At least one of the Dawkins books sounds like a good addition for nonspecialists - Climbing Mount Improbable is a good overview, and - though it's rather long - I thought The Ancestor's Tale was quite good. Gould's Wonderful Life might have some conceptual issues, but it's very well-written and makes a seemingly obscure topic interesting to the casual reader. (No bias because it prominently discusses my namesake :) Including an introductory textbook (I don't know enough to recommend one) would also be useful. Opabinia regalis 01:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Allele frequencies?

I have some issues with this sentence in the introduction: "This is determined by variation in the units of heredity ("shifts in the allele frequency of genes") and the reproductive success of any variation."

First, I think that a phrase like "shifts in the allele frequency of genes" is a bit too technical for an introductory paragraph. Second, Ernst Mayr, in his book What Evolution Is, had this to say about exactly this claim:

"Evolution deals with phenotypes of individuals, with populations, with species; it is not 'a change in gene frequencies.'" [p. xiv, emphasis added.]

Thoughts? Comments? Ideas?--Margareta 02:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I and others have said this many times. And that is why we now have an introductory article. Go to the introductory article and see what you think.--Filll 03:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen that article, but I'm not sure that its existence frees us from the obligation to make the main article as readable as possible--especially the introductory paragraph. And, it doesn't address Mayr's disagreement with such a characterization of evolution.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Margareta (talk • contribs)

Well i tried to make it more accessible but I am not sure you will have much more success arguing that than I did. Good luck.--Filll 03:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see all the discussion about readability earlier on--so forget I mentioned that part and let's focus on Mayr's comments. I still think that, if someone as prominent as Mayr disagrees with such a definition of evolution, it really doesn't belong in the introduction, but in a later discussion that presents it as one possible characterization of evolution--but not a consensus view.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Margareta (talk • contribs)

I am not a biologist and I never have studied evolution, so you have to take it up with one of them. I am just helping out and learning a bit here as a scientist from another field.--Filll 04:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, strange quote. Can you copy the entire passage relevant to that quote here (is that copy right infringement?), as I want to see it in context. And I do agree, evolution is not a change in gene frequencies. It is a change in allele frequencies (with alleles being defined in the most liberal way as any change in the genome). So that's why the quote is so funny to me: the terminology is off. From what year does that quote come from?--Roland Deschain 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition: Here is a short essay on the ways to define evolution. It deals with the above conundrum. Needless to say, there are many ways to define evolution, but I still think (after reading that essay) we still have the right one.--Roland Deschain 06:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The original publication of the book was in 2002, but you probably know that by now since it is in the essay you cited! I don't think it is copyvio to give the full paragraph, since it is attributed and not in an article. The context is the preface, where Mayr is explaining why he felt his book was needed:

"Second, most treatments of evolution are written in a reductionist manner in which all evolutionary phenomena are reduced to the level of the gene. An attempt is then made to explain the higher-level evolutionary process by "upward" reasoning. This approach invariably fails. Evolution deals with phenotypes of individuals, with populations, with species; it is not 'a change in gene frequencies.' The two most important units in evolution are the individual, the principal object of selection, and the population, the stage of diversifying evolution. These will be the major objects of my analysis."

I'm also (sorry) taking back what I said about forgetting that I brought up the readability issue, because it's sticking with me, and I've reviewed the other discussions about this phrase and I see I'm far from the only person who believes it doesn't belong in the introductory paragraph. In all, there appear to be 4 editors who at least passively support the phrase and 4 who believe it's inappropriate in that place. There is actually a pretty good introduction to the concept in section 5.2 of the article, that doesn't hit the reader in the face in quite the way that it does in the introduction. Simply taking out the parenthetical "shifts in the allele frequency of genes" and leaving the sentence as "This is determined by variation in the units of heredity and the reproductive success of any variation" captures the concept well enough for an introductory section, and there is more information later in the article if the reader wants more technical detail.

Think about it this way: if a reader reads only the introductory paragraph, what do you want them to remember? Is it so important that they be told at the outset about changes in "allelic frequencies," how likely are they even to remember that, and will the inclusion of this phrase--understood by so few--help or hinder their initial grasp of--and interest in--the basic concept of evolution?--Margareta 07:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider, I guarantee that 99% of your audience will find the inclusion of the phrase "allelic frequencies" completely off-putting. I have tried to get the introduction replaced with something that did not include this but the proposal did not fly. The problem is that unless you already know evolution fairly well, the introduction in this article just tells the casual or nonspecialist reader to go away. I am quite familiar with this kind of writing, being a mathematical physicist. I can easily write something about one of my specialty areas that will drive away anyone that is not an expert already in my very specific area, with a lot of very technical language. But by now I am familiar with what "allelic frequencies" represents, and it is a trivial concept. Sorry. It is an example of biologists wanting to pretend that they have something truely deep and mysterious by using overly big words for something elementary. There is no recondite theory of science that requires years of study here. This is not algebraic topology or quantum gravity here, folks. This is NOT necessary, especially in such an important and basic field like evolution. Especially in the introduction. It is putting on airs. I know it makes people feel important. I know you feel it is appealing because it is precise. I know it is effectively a signpost that says

• "this area is for biological scientists with advanced training only, so get lost", or
• "this article is much too complicated and difficult for someone as stupid as you, so take a hike", or
• "I am going to make learning evolution as miserable as possible for you, and I do not care if you can't understand it" or
• "biology is a big complicated grownup field, just like physics and math, and I am going to prove it to you by using big words you do not understand"
• "get ready, because you are going to have to look up every word, and then to understand those words, you will have to look up several words in their definitions, and then several words in THOSE definitions, and so on until you cannot remember what you were trying to find out in the first place, so too bad."

At least you could put the "allelic frequencies" aside in a footnote. It is not that profound an insight. This is not the proof of one of the Hilbert problems you know.--Filll 08:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting my vote behind Filll here. She/he is totally on the money as far as I am concerned. I'll even go further to state that it is simply badly written. Pointing to a simplified introduction is not a good technique to engage any reader in the article. There is distinct tautology in the use of langauge in the introduction and superfluous weasle words.

---

IMO this would improve the introduction:

• "In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations." Definite article needed before the word "change".
• "This is determined by variation in the units of heredity and the reproductive success of any variation." Shifts in the allele frequency of genes is not needed here. This is going to be expanded on in the article.
• "Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones." Incorrect use the comma. Either a comma after in so that the term speciation is isolated as it is not needed to make the sentence comprehensible or remove speciation or the following clause completely.
• "All contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years." Wouldn't it make it easier to read by removing evolutionary here and replacing it with inherited changes or similar? I'm also not fond of this sentence at all because it implies that there is a product of evolution and therefore this could be misinterpreted as an underlying direction. I think better wording could be used such as: "All contemporary organisms on earth are due to cumulative hereditable changes over billions of years and are all related to each other through common descent." Sadly, the notion of common ancestory is not specifically stated (just implied). Does it need to be specific here?
• "Evolution is thus responsible for the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record." Remove thus, comma, remove vast (weasle word as what can you compare it to?). As the fossil record is only a small part of the evidence why mention it here? Either remove it and place the first part of the sentence high up on the intro (after the initial definition perhaps). Consider making a final sentence which briefly summarises the sources of evolutionary evidence such as: "Evidence for evolution comes from the fossil record, comparative anatomy and biochemistry, comparative distributions of organisms..." etc.

• "For a non-technical introduction to the topic, please see Introduction to evolution." Well that's fairly rude imho! The introdution here shouldn't be technical. What this should say is "For a non-technical article, please see Introduction to evolution."

Yes, I would have chopped this myself but I know this article touches some raw nerve endings. Candy 12:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

At least the first 4 or 5 sentences should be accessible by nonspecialists, and reasonably accurate if possible. Because most people will probably not read any more than that.--Filll 17:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we're on the same page here Filll. Scientific literacy must include the ability to be clear and concise and respect the audience. ˜˜˜˜ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Candorwien (talk • contribs) 10:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Working on the introduction

One thing's for certain: it really is difficult to make the introduction informative, technically correct and readable. Kudos to all who have tried. Id like to propose the following re-wording to replace the introductory paragraph. I have tried not to change the underlying concepts, just the language:

In biology, evolution refers to changes in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. This is the result of genetic variations and their effect on the relative reproductive success of the organisms that carry them. Over time, the accumulation of many of these inherited changes can result in the development of new species from existing ones, a process called speciation. All living organisms on Earth are related to each other through descent from a common ancestor, as a result of cumulative evolutionary change over billions of years. Evolution, therefore, is responsible for the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species found in the fossil record.--Margareta 00:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd combine the first two sentences, and smooth the text out a little, but it seems workable. It might be a little too simple, though: It's a long article, what do you think of adding a couple more paragraphs after that to expand things out a little? As it is, we're probably far too short on the lead front for WP:LEAD anyway. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on it. I agree it should be a bit longer. I'm not an evolution expert but I'm a good writer/editor, so if someone wants to work out a framework for an additional 1-2 introductory paragraphs, I could work on the language a bit.--Margareta 00:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Okee dokee. First paragraph again, incorporating Adam's suggestion about integrating the first two sentences:

In biology, evolution refers to changes in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation as a result of genetic variations and differing rates of reproductive success in the organisms that carry them. Over time, the accumulation of many of these inherited changes can result in the development of new species from existing ones, a process called speciation. All living organisms on Earth are related to each other through descent from a common ancestor, as a result of cumulative evolutionary change over billions of years. Evolution, therefore, is responsible for the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species found in the fossil record.--Margareta 01:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, let's see. The sensible thing seems to be to expand the original into two paragraphs, while keeping things still fairly simple: We're effectively dealing with this first from bottom up, then from top down, and it doesn't make sense to make this switch more than once.

In biology, evolution refers to changes in inherited traits of a population from generation to generation due to some of these traits providing advantages for the organism that increase their relative reproductive success compared to the other possibilities. [explain some of the ways that it might prove advantageous or disadvantageous for a few sentences]. Over time, the accumulation of many of these inherited changes can result in the development of new species from existing ones, a process called speciation. [Explain major routes of speciation: geographical differences, isolation, divergence into seperate niches, etc]

[Simple evidence, probably the Universal genetic code] and other discoveries have shown that this mechanism can be traced back to a single common ancestor, from which all living organisms on Earth descended as a result of cumulative evolutionary change over billions of years, making evolution responsible for the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species found in the fossil record.

Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice start. But the first sentence is long and confusing, and the last one is just long. Also, genetic variations aren't always passed on because they "provid[e] advantages for the organism that increase their relative reproductive success." They are passed on because the organisms that carry them have better reproductive success than others, regardless of that comparative success was caused by the trait itself. Therefore I like my most recent variant of the original wording better. And maybe see about breaking up the last sentence into two.--Margareta 01:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I really applaud you guys. This is FANTASTIC!!!--Filll 01:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's another go!

In biology, evolution refers to the processes that cause some inherited traits to become more common relative to others over time. Natural selection, the most important of these, works because some traits or collections of traits will, on average, increase reproductive success, either by protecting the organism from dying before it can reproduce, or by enhancing his reproductive success directly, such as the peacock's plumage. As genes are passed on by reproduction, those that increase reproductive success are more likely to be passed on, relative to neutral or relatively unfavourable traits, and so, generation to generation, the number of organisms with these traits will tend to increase, unless conditions change so as to make them no longer favourable. Other, less important mechanisms of change include gentic drift (random changes in frequency of traits, most important when the traits are, at that time, reproductively neutral), and the founder effect, in which, if a small group of organisms become isolated from the main population, that isolated population will, even many generations on, tend to have a higher frequency of any rare variations in the founders as compared to the original, larger population.

Over time, the accumulation of many of these inherited changes can result in the development of new species from existing ones, a process called speciation. [Explain major routes of speciation: geographical differences, isolation, divergence into seperate niches, etc]

[Simple evidence, probably the Universal genetic code] and other discoveries have shown that this mechanism can be traced back to a single common ancestor, from which all living organisms on Earth descended as a result of cumulative evolutionary change over billions of years, making evolution responsible for the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species found in the fossil record.

Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition of the word "theory".

Exclusion of the word "theory" is disinformation.

I have attempted to add this word, without mention of creationism, and people keep reverting to previous versions.

It is disingenuous and dishonest to exclude the word "theory". Wikipedia should try to keep as accurate a description as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparrows point (talk • contribs) 00:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

How is it disengenuous and dishonest? In any case, you are not just adding the word theory: You are changing the text to try and POV push that various things are only claims of a theory, not well-justified conclusions from extensive evidence. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, not THIS again. I would be glad to discuss it with you. I would rely on the biologist experts here for decisions about where it is appropriate to include the word theory and where it is not. But everyone KNOWS it is a theory. It is one of the most famous theories in the history of science!!! You cannot read too much of the article without learning this, and this is a very sophisticated article, so most readers will know that already.--Filll 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am so tired of watching these Christians fling their mythology into this article. They have nothing valid to discuss so they bring out that old red herring "theory" of Evolution not really understanding what scientific theory is. What that means to me that people who really haven't thought through the whole discussion, spout out some nonsense expecting reasonable and intelligent people to accept it. Isn't there a section on mythology of creationism? Can't they add to their hearts content there? Oh, by the way, these vandals have the worst spelling and grammar skills ever. Of course, maybe that's just the point!!!! OrangeMarlin 23:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed at length. Frankly I doubt your willingness to learn because the top of this page contains no less than nine links to this precise topic. Read them and if you have new information continue with this section. However, if you reiterate objections which have already been dealt with previously then this section will also be archived. The page is not a debating forum - once the community has agreed upon something it will only change as a result of policy changes or new information. Without either of these further discussion simply wastes space. --Davril2020 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I started counting the number of times "theory" is mentioned in the article. I gave up at 25, and there were lots more left. What are they talking about when they say it isn't mentioned? They do not know what the word theory means anyway.--Filll 01:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does it always get thrown in at the most ungrammatical places, anyway? Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Common Descent

Rather than me having to write a well versed arguement that common descent is indeed a theory here are some sources that say so:

• Common descent
• "Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms" TalkOrigin
• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

I can give you more, but I hope those are enough. However, I am not utterly stone set on either one. It is just that all my textbooks at home (yes, I actually dug them out for this) use theory. A Google search will show that both terms are used interchangeably, but the most respected sources, at least in my opinion, use theory. --Roland Deschain 02:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The details of "common descent" are now known to be molecule based rather than strictly parent based when you are tracing back millions of years, due to horizontal gene transfer. WAS 4.250 08:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You should review some of WAS 4.250's (or whatever his username is) contributions. There are papers out there that dispute universal common descent and instead claim that there were independent origins from the primordeal soup that survive until today. I was never successful in explaining to him why the objections don't make sense, but it certainly stands as a dispute. As to my original argument that universal common descent is a theory, please review Theory#Science. Universal common descent is not a "framework", it is not some intricate set of equations. It is a simple proposition that can be rejected or not rejected on the basis of empirical evidence. That is what a hypothesis is. The difference is not how much evidence there is for it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia rules; I have sources that support the current version. The actual Common descent article calls it a theory. Many of my sources are vary reliable (Talk.Origin, Pandas' Thumb). Your arguments are vague and I don't really see how you get the conclusion you seem to defend so mightily. Does anybody else find the above argument convincing in any way? Please provide sources to support your claim.--Roland Deschain 03:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Roland, trust me - I am very familiar with Wikipedia rules policies. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Then you should know that you should provide sources. I can quote you Gould and Darwkins that use the term theory with respect to common descent. I am being very reasonable here. Your argument is very very very weak and convoluted. Just provide sources and that will settle the issue for me. I am rather indifferent, but I don't like your arguement and your resistance to provide sources is rather disconcerting.--Roland Deschain 03:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Roland, you're going to have it your way anyway, because I'm not going to be online as often as you are in the near future (thank God!), so just do whatever you like. I wash my hands of this mess. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all theories are "sets of equations." Common descent does provide an organizing framework for the study of biology. For example, the entire field of cladistics is based on the theory of common descent. Ernst Mayr, also, refers to it as a theory (e.g., What Evolution Is, p. 23, and p. 74, where he refers to it as "Darwin's theory of common descent."--Margareta 03:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As an outside observer, it seems like sort of a silly disagreement. Where exactly does something pass from a hypothesis to a theory? It seems to me that it doesnt take too much evidence to make that conversion, but it is somewhat arbitrary too. A lot of things with no evidence are called theories in some fields. And where exactly is the boundary between a theory and a law? These are mostly judgement calls I would say. Not worth arguing over very much. I would rather have some of your expert eyes looking at the Introduction to evolution article and helping with mistakes and typos.--Filll 03:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the current consensus among the scientific community is that every known extant organism on Earth had a single common ancestor; IIRC this was more or less settled when the coding of DNA was shown to be universal in the late 20th/early 21st century. It was more of an open question before we determined that all living organisms use more or less the same translation of DNA to amino acids. Titanium Dragon 03:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is false. Read horizontal gene transfer and its sources. WAS 4.250 08:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Common Descent refers to all known organisms, but is open to the possibility of (probably microscopic) organisms having survived from seperate descents. However, none of them seems to have formed anything macroscopic. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is false. Read horizontal gene transfer and its sources. WAS 4.250 08:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty strong case for a well established theory.--Filll 04:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of which word is used, the important point is not to imply that evolution is falsified if universal common descent is shown to be false because of those possible few surviving microorganisms. Opabinia regalis 04:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is true. "Universal common descent" as formerly understood is false given the facts of horizontal gene transfer. But only the molecular details are different. WAS 4.250 08:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The article "Horizontal gene transfer" has adequate sources and also is in this article. Due to horizontal gene transfer many previous assertions/beliefs/theories are now known to be false. This is science guys, and not the Darwinian religion, please keep up with the evidence and don't imitate religions that faithfully cling to the security of established thought. WAS 4.250 07:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Horizontal Gene Transfer (page 334 of Molecular Genetics by Ulrich Melcher) says "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." WAS 4.250 08:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WAS 4.250, common descent still holds. You seem to be fixated on the old notion of common descent that envisions a unbroken line of parent offspring descent. Modern interpretations of common descent use the notion that there is an unbroken line of genetic descent (be it descent from parent to child, or from one individual to another using horizontal gene transfer).--Roland Deschain 14:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well DNA is much more promiscuous than initially thought. I believe out of 20 (or 40 was it?) genes thought to be HGT in the human genome most have an accounting except for a few. HGT is prominent in plants and bacteria, but it doesn't stop the creation of reliable trees. Hybridization is prominent in plants and birds. Transposons jump around and some are of viral origin. While it makes molecular analysis complex it does not make it impossible. I guess it depends on how you define common descent as Roland mentioned. The point is Genomes are modified from a common descent. More modifications are now recognized like epigenetics, hybridization, and lateral gene transfer. Because the red wolf is a hybrid between a coyote and grey wolf does not negate a common descent. Darwin's finches hybridize on occassion. Hybrids are problematic for Mayr's definition of a species. In the strict sense because of HGT then no one can with 100% reliability determine trees for plants or bacteria, however I know of no one who pays heed to such a notion. The source of the genetic change may not be significant as one can use a bacterial gene to rescue a human gene defect and vice versa in some instances. Nature still selects on the genomic change. Plants and bacteria exchange genes with some frequency, yet a plant is still a plant and a bacterium a bacterium.GetAgrippa 14:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So at this stage, has it occurred to anyone that there needs to be a distinction in the article between common descent as a principle in phylogenetics and universal common descent? I still maintain that neither is a theory. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point Samsara! Isn't there a Last Universal Common Ancestor article? Make clear the differences in phylogenetic and cladistic analysis and the notion of a LUCA. GetAgrippa 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also it is easy to provide Science and Nature articles discussing common descent and the LUCA, so it is a point of basic science interest.GetAgrippa 19:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC

Samsara I think Stephen Gould would agree with you that neither is a theory.GetAgrippa 20:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Evolutionary Leap"

Hi All,

Rather than wade into something I am admittedly not very well informed about, I thought I would voice this question here in the hopes that people with a greater understanding of the subject matter can look at this suggestion, evaluate it and then decide whether (and how to) incorporate it into WP.

In a number of discussions, not only focused on physical evolution, I have heard the phrase "evolutionary leap" used to describe an evolutionary advancement which occurs over a shorter timeframe than that seen up to that point, and sometimes in a new and radical direction. This has sometimes been used to describe what some writer believe is the next step of human evolution (a "leap" to a higher level of consciousness - admittedly conjecture) and I have also heard it used in some circles regarding mutations, etc.

Is this a valid scientific concept? I noticed that there is no WP article for "Evolutionary Leap" or similar. Anyway, just wanted to open that discussion here. --Lucanos 05:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are thinking of punctuated equilibrium?--Margareta 07:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You are describing a specific case of punctuated equilibrium that some call the technological singularity that is actually more of a quantum leap as it is anticipated to be nongradual. WAS 4.250 07:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I have to state that I have only heard of the phrase "evolutionary leap" by:

1. Scientists using hyperbole when public speaking or is some early science documentaries (pre 1970)

2. Science Fiction which either predates modern understanding or is simply badly written (including TV programs/programmes)

3. Razorblade and auto manufacturers who have made an evolutionary leap of technology. Usually when they really mean redesigned.

As said above, punctuated equilibrium is the closest to what this phrases describes but the two are really not compatible. If it is a leap at all, it's a leap in the dark! Candy 13:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

/Introduction

Made a subpage for this at /Introduction. Let's spend a day or two editing, and see if we can't get 'er into shape. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't like the new intro. The old intro is nice and compact and only the introductory sentence really needs good clarification. This new intro repeats a lot that is stated in the Introduction of this article. Basically, this part of the current intro seems to me fairly clear and straight to be point and does not require changing:

"Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus responsible for the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record."

They are broad statements that are very easy to grasp. No need to change it. However, the introductory sentence does need some major work though, and that's where most of the works could be put in.

I am currently writing my exams, so I really can't participate in these changes. My hope is that the intro isn't changed to drastically while I'm away.--Roland Deschain 14:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Roland is correct to mention a cautionary tale. All the editors presently contributing can make changes, however all the other editors who were active in the present article will descend like flies on a fresh kill. Anything you write should have plenty of references and be prepared for an edit war. I think this is warranted given the topic. I know when I first read the article I hated it and wanted to change the whole thing. That must be the gut reflex of every reader with any biological training. I still would like to see some additions and some shortening, however the article really is informative and the nomenclature is that of linking articles-like allele frequency which is any genomic change (I argued this point till I realized the semantics of allele frequency in a linking article). I encourage making it more readable, but I worry information will be lost or misconstrued. GetAgrippa 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I tweaked the first sentence to include the significance of environment. I agree with Roland (again, weird all we did in the past is argue) that the present intro with the links is accessible to most. It bothers me that it reads like evolution is synonymous with speciation, but if we change the trait link to read more clearly that a trait can be anatomical or molecular like disease resistance or enzyme isoforms,etc. then it all flows well. It would be difficult to include drift and flow in this intro as well, but it is covered later.GetAgrippa 18:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate all the effort that has gone into getting the intro paragraph as good as it is, which I'm sure was no easy task. But everything can be improved, and there is a lot of room for improvement here. There have been lots of complaints about the readbility of the intro, and I think the primary concern is that it will turn people away before they can begin to get into the material. (Most recently, see the second half of the "Allele frequencies?" topic above.) It is understandable for people who already know about the topic, but still pretty obtuse for lay people. Sure, there is a separate "Intro to Evolution" article, but the main article needs to be readble, too. The people who come to a Wikipedia article on evolution are looking for an introduction--in general, they're not already experts looking for a refresher (and in the unlikley event that they are, the intro paragraph won't matter so much to them, as they'll be looking further down the page). We need to write the intro as though this is the first time people are hearing of any of these concepts. And, at best, we want to draw them in to read more. The current intro does neither of those things.

I don't think the idea is to drastically change the kep components in the introduction or to "dumb it down," just work on the language so that the information can be conveyed with more clarity. Given that there is much more exposition on all of the concepts later it the article, the discussion on how to write the intro should center on: 1. What are the crucial concepts that need to be in an introductory section? and 2. How can those concepts be conveyed with the most clarity, so that the reader can get through it without having to leave the page to look up other concepts, can leave the page with a memorable "take-away" message--and hopefully, will want to read the rest of the article?--Margareta 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD, the intro is far too short for the article length. IT's not unreasonable to spend three paragraphs giving a little more information. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is true but I thought the goal was to create a short concise simple intro for any reader, and everything is covered later in the article so it is redundant in an already long article.GetAgrippa 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I thought that's what my three-paragraph plan was doing? at the moment we're not actually describing Evolution at all - just making vague, downright confusing claims about it. We're ignoring mechanisms, and, indeed, not providing any useful information. Making a simple introduction does not excuse us from providing actual content in it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The above may be slightly ranty - wrote it when annoyed. but the point stands: The opening, as it now stands, is a rather poor dictionary definition that leaves out most of the key points. We can do a lot more with it whilst still keeping it fairly simple, I think. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Is back on given the recent spree of vandalism that is disrupting constructive editing on this article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Samsara. One of the Anons involved was responsible for a series of vandalisms, so I've requested that another admin block the IP as well. Doc Tropics 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution as a Religion

Covering up the Truth

It's not a fact.

You say "this article references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth."

Evolution has never been observed. Ever. Not one single transitory fossil, out of hundreds of thouands found from hundred of millions of years ago, not one has ever been found. Ever. Not one. No proof.

Fossils of mammals, found tens of millions of year ago, that look exactly like they do today. Through continental shifts, wild temperature changes, mass extinctions, floods, asteroids; they look exactly like they did from the beginning.

200 million year old lobsters look like 2 year old lobsters

No mention that gas does not clump in a vaccuum, proving the big bang did not happen

No mention that no one has ever observed a blue shift

No mention that it's mathematically improbable. No mention that human DNA is so incredibly complex it could not just have come in to being through pure chance.

No mention that not enough time has passed for cells to randomly have created the diverse life on earth.

No explanation of the Cambrian Explosion - only 1 phylum before, yet 13! afterward.

Evolution is a religion, and a false one at that.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.184.6 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 19 December 2006

Evolution as a Religion

- 1. Titanium Dragon - Quit deleting scientific discussion that differs from your view. - 2. Quit biting the newcomers as this page says - 3. How can you archive something that was up for a matter of hours? - - I have presented several factual arguments, and they were quashed almost instantaneously. This is not your own personal website to cover up the truth. - - Evolution is not a fact. And before you go delete-happy again, answer any one of these points. - - You say "this article references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth." - - Evolution has never been observed. Ever. Not one single transitory fossil, out of hundreds of thousands found from hundred of millions of years ago, not one has ever been found. Ever. Not one. No proof. - - :Sorry this is incorrect. Evolution has been observed in fruit flies in the laboratory. And I have included a reference in the text. It has also been observed in tilipia (the so-called "Jesus fish" which the symbol on the back of your car probably represents) in the field. And in the emergence of nylon-eating bacteria in the field. And in thousands of other cases. I am sure you are not interested, but it is possible to find thousands of publications on this of all kinds.--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - Fossils of mammals, found tens of millions of year ago, that look exactly like they do today. Through continental shifts, wild temperature changes, mass extinctions, floods, asteroids; they look exactly like they did from the beginning. - - :Sorry this is not correct. Show me a 100 million year old fossil of a rabbit then.--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - ::::here, and sorry, it's only 33 million years old. http://www.creation-museum.net/fossils/fosil.php?Id=311&data=rabbit&page=0&limit=30&tur=aramasonuc - - Every time something like this has been examined by serious scientists it turns out to be a load of nonsense. Over and over and over. It is amusing the first 5 times. But then it gets very very old. No one wants to dig through your fallacious nonsense because you will not listen to reason anyway. Even if it was proven to you that you were completely wrong on every issue, you would not listen. That is what faith is about. The very definition of faith. Look if your faith is so strong, why do you need proof and lies? Just believe. Just don't bother anyone else and believe whatever you like. Just do not shove it on anyone else. I would like to see this sort of thing made illegal. So you could meet a nice guy named Bubba. --Filll 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - 200 million year old lobsters look like 2 year old lobsters - - :Says who?--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - http://www.creation-museum.net/fossils/fosil.php?Id=225&data=C&page=0&limit=30&tur=aramatur - - There is no mention that gas does not clump in a vacuum, proving the big bang could not have happened, using the very laws of physics that you hold so close. - - :Cosmology is only indirectly related to natural selection. The fact that you equate the two screams "I am really ignorant and I am glad to demonstrate it to the world". It is like saying "Cheese does not come from cows because man has walked on the moon. So there." How does one answer this kind of question? Do you even know what the big bang is? You know that time itself was created in the "big bang"? Try to learn a little something about it before you spew nonsense and embarass yourself further--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - Nice personal attack. - - Follow me. - - Gas doesn't clump in a vacuum; therefore - Stars were not created in the vacuum of space as a result of the big bang. - - :So you do not know much about forces and physics and how the big bang has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. That is not a surprise unfortunately.--Filll 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - There is no mention that no one has ever observed a blue shift. - - :Again, says who? Of course they have. But they are rare, for obvious reasons if you are able to do the reasoning--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - There is no mention that it's mathematically improbable for evolution to have occurred. No mention that human DNA is so incredibly complex it could not just have come in to being through pure chance. - :It is not pure chance. Who ever told you that evolution was pure chance?--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - There is no mention that not enough time has passed for cells to randomly have created the diverse life on earth. - - :Again who said it was random? This is just plain false--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - YOu say it was random. You say that the universe and all its contents have come about by just pure happenstance. - - I do not. What do you know of what I believe, let alone science? Nothing.--Filll 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - There is no explanation of the Cambrian Explosion - only 1 phylum before, yet 13! afterward. - - :You insist that evolution always proceed at the same rate? And why is that? Have you never heard of punctuated equilibria?--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - ::Go ahead and ignore my point. - - ::"...innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ...why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory". Origin of the Species. - - ::David M. Raup, U. Chicago; Ch. F. Mus. of N. H., "The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ....ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." F.M.O.N.H.B., Vol.50, p.35 - - ::Miles Eldridge, Amer. Mus. N. H., "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search.... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46 - - :::Again this is more quote mining. I know, or knew, David Raup. Raup believed in Evolution. He did not write creationist diatribes. But the Theory of Evolution is not static, like creationism is. That is the difference. You mistake change of the theory for weakness of science. In fact, that is its strength. And that is why evolution and science are not religions.--Filll 21:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - Evolution is a religion. - - :Evolution has no supernatural in it. Religion has the supernatural in it. Therefore, evolution is not a religion. Religion is a religion. Science is based on evidence. Evolution is baseed on evidence, so it is a science, not a religion. Creation accounts from religions on the other hand, are not able to account for the evidence. In the words of Ashley Montague, 'Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.' Simple enough for you?--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - ::I'd say that all of us instantaneously springing out of nothing for no reason sounds just a supernatural as us being created. But I bet you scientist types will find that first cause any day now. - - :::You clearly do not understand evolution if you think that evolution includes abiogenesis, or that abiogenesis means "springing up out of nothing". This article is not about abiogenesis however, it is about evolution. So educate yourself.--Filll 21:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:12.145.177.110 (talk • contribs). - - :Hi User:12.145.177.110. You might like to read the notice at the very top of this page before trying to insert any of the above into the article. Cheers, --Plumbago 17:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - ::hi back to ya! I didn't try to anything to the article, only the discussion page, which I guess isn't for "discussion" unless it's for the status quo. - :: --12.145.184.6 20:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - :::It is for discussions of improvements to the article. Not at all about the status quo. If you are following the discussion at all, there are huge efforts underway to improve the article and make it clearer. Definitely not about the status quo. And if you read the material above, you will see that most of what you have said has been said over and over and over until we are bored to tears with it.--Filll 20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - I would be glad to answer this for you but it has all been answered repeatedly. None of these are new. They were soundly dismissed decades ago. Sorry.--Filll 17:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - :: You say they were all soundly dismissed decades ago, but don't mention who or really when. I suspect you are refering to yet more fundamentalist evolutionists. - - :::There is no such thing as a fundamentalist evolutionist. There is however a fundamentalist creationist. Learn the difference.--20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - :: The laws of physics say prove gas molecules won't bond in a vacuum. This is a proven fact. Yet somehow, stars formed in the vacuum of space. No bonding, no stars. No stars, no life on earth. - - :::This has nothing to do with the biological theory of evolution. Sorry. Try to educate yourself first.--Filll 20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - :: A 150 million year old needlefish fossil is found. It looks exactly like the needlefish today. There are tens of thousands of species where the fossil record indicates the exact opposite of what Darwin says. None of this is represented. Hundreds of thousands of fossils. Not one transitional fossil. Ever. That alone should be included. - - :::This is incorrect.--Filll 20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - :: A mathematician calculated that the probability of life creating itself is 10¹⁰⁰⁰. In scientific terms, anything greater than 10⁵⁰is impossible. - - :::This sort of thing is done by the people at the Discovery institute. And speaking as a mathematician, most of what I have seen from the Discovery institute is pure nonsense. Garbage, frankly.--Filll 20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - :: Even more, the rules of this website say: - - :: "NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view." and "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.' - - :::If you would read the article, there is a huge amount of material devoted to the viewpoint you espouse. I am trying to get them to reduce it or put it in another article, although we already have one on the creationism controversy.--Filll 20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - :: It's so amusing that secularists brag about having an open mind while quashing evidence that doesn't jive with their beliefs... - - :::Unfortunately you are ill informed in your arguments so they look silly.--Filll 20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - :: --12.145.184.6 20:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - ::You are incredibly naive. There are plenty of examples of evolution, speciation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc. If you would only seek you will find. I did. If you don't believe in evolution then you don't believe in modern medicine either. Evolution principals are used as a basis for strategies in grants related to agriculture, medicine and basic research. Most of the molecular cures coming down the pike can thank evolution for a significant role-uniformity in using animal models, molecular analysis, etc.GetAgrippa 19:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - ::: ...like this guy...who is saying a bird or insect doesn't change its colors over millions of years? No one. - - What exactly is your point here? I cannot see your point, but maybe that is because you are wearing a hat. --Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - - ::: Who says we sprung up out of the ground all of the sudden with no "cause"? - - Abiogenesis is not the Theory of evolution. Learn your terms before you make a fool of yourself further.--Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - ::: Who says we've evolved from monkeys, (even though there are still monkeys)? - - No one says people evolved from monkeys. Learn your science.--Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - ::: Who says there has been enough time for us to evolve to the state we are today? - - I do not know the state of evolutionary simulations, but we have the data to look at, not simulations. Data always trump simulations.--Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - ::: Mutations always produce a weaker offspring (always), yet we're meant to believe that some mutants are actually stronger than their parents? - - Prove it.--Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - ::: Don't confusion your religion of evolution with true science that looks at all facts, regardless of what your personal beliefs are. - - You have amply proved you have complete ignorance of science. Sorry.--Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - ::: --12.145.184.6 20:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - ::::We are not related to monkeys. Evolution can occur in days, decades, or millenia. A mutation in 80% of the worlds population of Drosophila melanogaster produced insecticide resistance. This is from a transposon altering cytochrome P450. The transposon entered the population some 60-80,000 years ago and only jumped and gained reproductive success the last 50-250 years. It is a molecular spandrel in that the change preceded the need-an exaptation. Science and faith are different domains. Most people of faith can make that distinction, so you don't speak for all peoples of faith. GetAgrippa 20:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - :::::D.S. Woodroff, U.of CA, San Diego, "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." Science, Vol.208, 1980, p.716 STEPHEN M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins U., "In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." THE NEW EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE, 1981, p.95 - I suspect this is just standard quote mining. Let me ask: How sure are you of those quotes you have copied and pasted from some creationist web site? Would you stake your liberty on them? Your life? Would you testify about their accuracy under oath? How about if you were threatened with jail? In a cell with a very friendly cell mate who would make you his "woman"? You ready to go it? You know more than 99.9% of all scientists with scientific backgrounds in biology, at the professional level, believe in evolution? More than 99.84% of almost 480,000 earth scientists and biologists surveyed? That is essentially 100% if you account for noise and survey errors etc. How sure are you that those people in reliable peer-reviewed publications were able to publish material that is contravened by all the data we have? Would you stake your life on it? --Filll 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - Lest we forget! David D. (Talk) 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the theory of evolution please do so at talk.origins or Wikireason. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time. - - == speciation == - - "Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones." The article describes evolution as natural or artificle selection leading sometimes leading to the creation of a new species. Is this strictly correct? Seems a bit misleading. I thought evolution and evolutionary origin of species was the same thing. - - In any event, the quote "Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones" should have a reference, if possible, to a new species being created in the lab. - - ::::Why the lab, better examples of speciation in nature. Evolution is not synonymous with speciation. Evolution can lead to speciation, but evolution occurs without it. Speciation is a by product of evolution. Plenty of examples of speciation in plants, insects, birds, and mammals in nature. GetAgrippa 18:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - :::The stickleback fish has become a supermodel of evolution studies. Here is a good review by Elizabeth Pennisi:Science 18 June 2004:Vol. 304. no. 5678, p. 1736 Changing a Fish's Bony Armor in the Wink of a Gene. More recent articles determine that shifts in ectodysplasin alleles correlate with speciation within decades time frame. There is also a good Science paper on genomic change and speciation in Siberian warblers as I recollect, and a large number of plant examples. The review article has some dramatic images demonstrating the changes in spines and lateral plates with speciation in marine and freshwater fish populations. I always thought the images of lateral plate loss was dramatic evidence of evolution. - Here is a recent plant paper from Science:Science 29 August 2003: Vol. 301. no. 5637, pp. 1211 - 1216 Major Ecological Transitions in Wild Sunflowers Facilitated by Hybridization Loren H. Rieseberg,1* Olivier Raymond,2 David M. Rosenthal,3 Zhao Lai,1 Kevin Livingstone,1 Takuya Nakazato,1 Jennifer L. Durphy,1 Andrea E. Schwarzbach,4 Lisa A. Donovan,3 Christian Lexer1. - Here is a Science bird paper that is interesting:Science 21 January 2005:Vol. 307. no. 5708, pp. 414 - 416 Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species Darren E. Irwin,1* Staffan Bensch,2 Jessica H. Irwin,1 Trevor D. Price3. - Here is another Science review paper by Pennisi. Science 10 March 2006:Vol. 311. no. 5766, pp. 1372 - 137.Speciation Standing in Place.Elizabeth Pennisi. - Here is heritable phenotypic plasticity and evolution in birds Science 14 October 2005:Vol. 310. no. 5746, pp. 304 - 306. Selection on Heritable Phenotypic Plasticity in a Wild Bird Population Daniel H. Nussey,1,2* Erik Postma,1 Phillip Gienapp,1 Marcel E. Visser1 - These are just some Science article the tip of a very large iceberg.GetAgrippa 19:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - == Scientific theory, existence of experiment that could prove theory incorrect == - - Darwin's theory is not the only so-called scientific theory to not meet the following criteria, but I think this point needs to be addressed. - - 1. A scientific theory does have to be consistent with observable facts. Evolution is consistent with observable facts. - 2. A scientific theory does have to have a conceivable experiment that would *prove* it wrong. For example, Ohm's law states that V=I*R, where V is voltage, I is current, and R is resistance. This is a scientific theory that is not only consistent with observable facts, but has an experiment that would prove that it were wrong. For example, if you measure 20 volts across a 1 ohm resistor that that has 1 Amp of current running through it, this would prove that Ohms Law is wrong. Another example is the kinetic energy of an object in motion at speeds well below the speed of light. One theory might be that the kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v^2. Another hypothesis might be that the kinetic energy is m*v. Both hypotheses are scientific, in the sense that each has a conceivable experiment that would prove either one of them wrong. And, of course, one of them is actually correct, which is why it is part of Newton’s laws (or theories, if you prefer). - - Does any such experiment exist for the theory of evolution, specifically, with regard to the origin of new species? That is, an experiment that if it failed would prove evolution to be wrong? And if such an experiment does not exist (an experiment that would prove it were wrong if it were), is the Darwinian theory on the origin of species really just a tautologous pseudo-scientific story? Or do Darwiniacs claim that the existence of an experiment that would show a scientific theory to be false is all well in good for the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, and so-on, but such an experiment is not required of scientific theories from the softer sciences?—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:199.62.0.252 - |199.62.0.252 - ]] ([[User talk:199.62.0.252 - |talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/199.62.0.252 - |contribs]]) 19:14, 20 December 2006 - - :Please log in and sign your posts.--Filll 20:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - ::It is preferable for all scientific theories to be "falsifiable" for them to be taken seriously. There are theories in physics which we do not know how to test yet, or can test only very indirectly, and they are not taken nearly as seriously. In the case of creationism, it is true by fiat, so there is no test. No matter what evidence is presented, there is always an escape valve like "God made the earth appear old when it really isnt to test man's faith" or "The Devil makes the earth appear old when it really isnt to tempt men away from God" or "The fossils were put there by the Devil for wicked purposes to support evolution" or "God is just testing our faith with the 3 degree background radiation and the red shifts" and on and on and on. You can never pin down creationism because at its root is a core belief that the facts will be bent to accommodate no matter what. The same is not true of a theory in science. What we call The Theory of Evolution has been through numerous changes over the years to accommodate the data better, just as the Theory of Gravity has. In science, the theory changes to fit the data. In creationism, the data are explained away to fit the hypothesis (not calling it a theory because it is so poorly supported by the data).--Filll 20:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - :A famous example of a test for evolution is, show me a fossil of a rabbit that is 100s of millions of years old. If that is true, it is all over. Biology is a hard science like physics and chemistry. A soft science is something like anthropology or sociology.--Filll 20:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - - :I will also point out that your examples of "Ohm's law" and "Kinetic Energy" are not that reasonable. That expression for Kinetic Energy is only approximately true with bodies of a certain size at low velocity etc. That expression for Ohm's law is only approximately true for certain materials for certain ranges of the relevant variables.--Filll 20:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)