Talk:Evolution/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Simple Wikipedia article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Not all the offspring will be identical.

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

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

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

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

Also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hybridization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defining genetic drift

Hi,

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

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

Icons of Evolution

The difference between Science and Scientism is accepting a theory as fact when supporting evidence continues to NOT support the theory.

Evolution is too often presented as fact when in reality it is just an old theory loosely based on bits and peaces of facts that do not fit together (Wells, 2002). A growing number of biologists, Like Jonathan Wells, believe and teach evolution is an old highly unsupported theory (Wells, 2002). Evolution is far from being well accepted (Wells, 2002). Wells (2002) wrote a book explaining how all of the Icons of the evolution theory hold very little empirical, logical, or factual evidence. Wikipedia should do its self a favor and at least mention evolution is a controversial theory, if not present REAL SCIENTIFIC contradiction to the theory.

Reference: Well, J. (2002) Icons of evolution: Science or myth? Washington DC: Regnery Publishing.

If believers and teachers of evolution continue to ignore prophesiers like Jonathan Wells and contradicting evidence they are jeopardizing the name of science and selling it out to scientism; for what I DO NOT KNOW, but some suspect it is because of there hatred for the U. S. historical culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.10.170 (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Put down that pseudo-science book by Well, and read Evolution as a theory and fact and then come back. I don't think the vast majority of people in the world who agree with Evolution do so because they have a hatred for the American Indian tribes - you're going to have to explain that for us a bit better - or is this just about the European immigrants ?. Ttiotsw 07:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We already have a page on Icons of Evolution. The book is, frankly, garbage. But it has not been "ignored": it has been quite thoroughly investigated and debunked. --Robert Stevens 09:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would presume the Intelligent Design article has a wealth of info related to Well. Intelligent Design is not science (courts say so)and so it cannot be entertained in this science article-it is no bias just intellectual honesty for an encyclopedia article. The debate of creationism, intelligent design vs evolution is discussed in the article so the issue is addressed. That sums it up! Oh to question Evolution theory questions all Biology and a number of other scientific fields. It is a cornerstone of Biology driving research in medicine, agriculture, genetics, etc. GetAgrippa 13:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Evolution in medicine

Discussion moved to Talk:Level of support for evolution. Tim Vickers 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

someone messed with this article

I searched 'evolution' and someone's put in Biblical material instead (aka Genesis). I looked at the 'edit' page and it looked like the actual material was there, but someone pulled a fast one and I don't know how to fix it. If someone could thank you! : ) 134.84.57.79 20:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's already been fixed. If it still looks like that to you, press ctrl-f5 to refresh skipping cache, and it should show up fine. Also, see WP:RV for how to revert things. Finally, thanks for warning us. Gscshoyru 20:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Uses in technology

I've recently listened to the Singularity Summits (online) in which the transition to smarter than human technology was discussed (and have also been reading, etc.). There is a concensus among AI scientists that most advanced and promising area of EA is genetic programming. A great first source in this area is "Genetic Programming, An Introduction," by Banzhaf, Nordin, Keller, and Franconé. But there is also already an entry on genetic programming in Wikipedia. GP was started by John Koza, who also has a Wikipedia entry. Development of "a complete cognitive system for robotics" based on GP and the work of Peter Nordin has been announced by irobis [1]. A little additional background on the basic thought: William James, the father of American psychology, argued in 1874, just 15 years after Darwin published The Origin of Species that mental processes could operate in a Darwinian manner. Evidence in cognitive research shows such competing patterns of thought and consciousness, where we consciously perceive only the tip of the iceberg. A very good overview of these thoughts is provided by Nobel laureate Gerald M. Edelman in his seminal book Neural Darwinism from 1987. It seems the most compelling, simple explanation, is that evolution of thoughts is fundamental to our adaptive nature and is an advanced survival mechanism: allowing destructive thoughts to die instead of the species. Rogerfgay 08:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be practical to put this in an article about biological evolution, though? It sounds as though the 'evolution of thoughts' is more an application of selective pressures that don't really relate to biological propagation but rather psychology. 'course, this is just my impression; correct me if I am misguided. -EarthRise33 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any published scientific literature on the topic? Tim Vickers 15:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask a pertinent question? What has this got to do with Evolution, even if it's somewhat interesting. Evolution of thoughts is definitely psychiatry or psychology or sociology, or one of the "soft" sciences. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with OrangeMarlin and Earthrise. It doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedic article on biological evolution, and I would think it belongs with a neuroethology or psychology related article. It is a good question, but it is like a "Why sex?" kind of issue where there are lots of published thoughts. GetAgrippa 03:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Please archive this page because a lot of the discussions above are troll magnets.--Filll 12:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to do my trolling in the Gulf of Mexico. Of course, both yield fishy results, but I can distinquish a mackerel from a herring. GetAgrippa 17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

But I thought you were just mad north-north-west, is that when the wind is southerly? Tim Vickers 17:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I usually get seasick trolling for Lake Trout. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

who is the father of chemistry?Jman301 01:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Can some of these concepts be included in this article?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Beyond this broad definition, the word evolution is used in a number of different ways, leading to a great deal of confusion. Two major uses of the word evolution include: Biological evolution: the observable scientific fact that the genetic characteristics of species change over time, as a result of recombination, mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. The General theory of evolution: the speculation that all life originated naturalistically without any act of creation (abiogenesis). All life on the planet is related because it originated in a single cell or population of cells (common ancestry). All the biological complexity, adaptivity, and artistry on the planet is solely the result of random changes and natural selection over millions and billions of years. It seems that the word 'evolution' is not used in a precise manner in these articles Partgreen 16:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Well, the various meanings of "evolution" are covered at Evolution (disambiguation), for a start... For the nuances of evolutionary fact and evolutionary theory, I recommend Evolution as theory and fact. You might also find Introduction to evolution helpful. Snalwibma 17:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC) I agree with Snalwibma. You are also confused with some of the semantics. Biological evolution is not about the origin of life. Evolution doesn't always take millions or billions of years as speciation can be seen in real time in some organisms. "It seems that the word 'evolution' is not used in a precise manner in these articles"-is that a point of view or do you have any references to substantiate that opinion. Seek and ye shall find-read the suggested material and come back with arguments. Thanks for the suggestions. GetAgrippa 17:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Piling on. First of all, abiogenesis is NOT a part of Evolution. That's a misunderstanding. Evolution in the sense of this article covers all of the other points. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Biological evolution: the observable scientific fact that the genetic characteristics of species change over time, as a result of recombination, mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. The General theory of evolution: All life on the planet is related because it originated in a single cell or population of cells (common ancestry). All the biological complexity, adaptivity, and artistry on the planet is solely the result of random changes and natural selection over millions and billions of years I mades some changes. Is this better? Partgreen 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Evolution and common ancestry are facts, the theory of evolution describes the mechanism that produces these effects. Like gravity is a fact and the theory of General relativity describes the mechanism that produces this effect. The article discussing modern evolutionary theory is Modern evolutionary synthesis, I think this covers the material you are describing under the title of "General theory of evolution". Tim Vickers 19:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Partgreen, just because you invent distinctions, certainly does not mean they actually exist in the intellectual and scientific world. Please, read what TimVickers has suggested. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC) My point is that evolution is defined as change in genetic material over time then you say creationists reject evolution which they do not. It is so dishonest. SOME creationists reject the DARWINIAN THEORY OF EVOLUTION. There are several if not many THEORIES of evolution. Why do you want to lie to people? Partgreen 23:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Geez, these dirty socks are left everywhere. Someone needs to get them tossed out in the garbage. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Personal attacks removed. Please don't feed trolls. Vsmith 00:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Partgreen you are either dishonest or confused saying a non sequitur like creationists believe in evolution. That is not even logical. You keep mentioning a change in genetics without mentioning a change in traits. Darwin's theory is historical and not much remains other than natural selection and his belief that evolution acted at the level of the organism. You are correct that evolution is not a simple theory but nested hypotheses,models, etc., but there is no deception in the article. Apparently you have a strong POV, so do I and neither of our opinions are needed in an encyclopedia. If you can't provide any resources or real criticisms then you are wasting everyone's time. This is a science article about biological evolution, and it is similar to countless text books and encyclopedias-they just don't offer you the soapbox venue to express your opinions. The subject has nothing to do with religions or beliefs. As an aside Partgreen, it becomes apparent that you are guilty of sockpuppetry, uncivility, and abusing Wikipedia rules. Is that ethical? GetAgrippa 12:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Theory of Evolution" Redirect

"Theory of Evolution" currently redirects to the page on Evolution. I think it would be more appropriately redirected to the article on Modern evolutionary synthesis, which is where "Evolutionary Theory" redirects to. Pyromania152 21:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It seems that in everyday language, "theory of evolution" really refers to evolution itself, while "evolutionary theory" refers to current academic thinking about the workings of evolution. So, having different redirects for each term seems appropriate.--Thomas Arelatensis 12:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I had evolutionary theory redirect to modern evolutionary synthesis and can see where you are coming from. Most people looking for the Theory of Evolution, however, will not be sure of the difference. I suggest that it stay as it is.--THobern 19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

Sexual Selection under-emphasized

This article only makes a passing reference to sexual selection. Darwin himself thought enough of sexual selection that he devoted 13 chapters (out of 21) to sexual selection in The Descent of Man. Clearly, after writing the Origin of Species, he himself decided that Sexual Selection was very significant. I would suggest adding a dedicated subparagraph to this article entitled "sexual selection" which would summarize the main points in a few sentences. Of course, the existing wikipedia article on Sexual Selection already has all the details, so it only needs to be a brief summary here. My point is: sexual selection is a very significant factor in evolution (lay-persons often wonder how evolution explains the peacock's tailfeathers) so sexual selection deserves more than a single sentence in this article.

Noleander 02:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article can't cover every subject in detail and omits some topics altogether. Sexual selection gets a mention, and we can't follow NPOV by over emphasizing sexual selection. The parent Sexual selection article is full of great info but the article is poorly written and organized. Hopefully posting here will recruit more editors to work on that linked article. I am not opposed to expanding the topic in this article slightly. Thanks for the suggestions. Regards GetAgrippa 12:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Noleander. You talk as if this article was a specialised one on NeoDarwinism, GetAgrippa, but surely it isn't, and there are articles on the modern synthesis and on NeoDarwinism that are the proper place for detail; this article should be the broad entry point to all aspects of evolution and NPOV requires it to cover a lot more, not less. --Memestream 20:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Odd I didn't talk like anything. I too had argued for more info and more detail in past incarnations of the article, but this article was a huge mess. It is pretty basic like most encyclopedias at present. I stated I was not opposed to expanding the topic appropriately in the article. Why not offer up a suggestive paragraph or sentences with references for an example. Recently I was successful in reaching a consensus for small changes related to hybridization by offering up posits and supporting literature. Actually NPOV doesn't require you cover everything is my understanding of Wikipedia-someone correct me if I misunderstand. I know, I find it odd too, but it is an encyclopedia and not an Evolution text book is the argument I hear most. Regards GetAgrippa 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a very rough draft of what I was thinking of adding. The goal is to briefly define Sexual Selection, give one or two examples, and explain how it is not inconsistent with the underlying principles of Natural Selection. It would be placed in the current Evolution article where Sexual Selection is currently mentioned (in the Natural Selection section):

One particular variety of Natural selection is Sexual Selection, which is selection that occurs as a result of mating choices based on attractiveness, and individuals fighting for the right to mate [wording needs improvement]. Examples of traits that have evolved as a basis of Sexual Selection include (insert here some examples). Sexual Selection can produce traits that appear to be inconsistent with the survival of the fittest prinicples commonly associated with Natural Selection, but some researchers have theorized that males that have the energy and resources to develop elaborate decorative features (or to win fights against rival males) must be healther and more efficient at feeding, than males that cannot develop elaborate decorations. [citation needed] Noleander 00:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As a comment on this, Fitness (biology) is defined as the contribution an organism makes to subsequent generations, so success through sexual selection is entirely consistent with evolution acting to maximise fitness through natural selection. This draft is really not very clear on that point. Tim Vickers 00:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What about using the current wording as a start:

A special case of natural selection is sexual selection, which is selection for any trait that increases mating success by increasing the attractiveness of an organism to potential mates. Traits that evolved through sexual selection are particularly prominent in males of some animal species, despite traits such as cumbersome antlers, mating calls or bright colors that attract predators, decreasing the survival of individual males. This survival disadvantage is balanced by higher reproductive success in males that show these hard to fake, sexually selected traits.

Main articles just cannot cover everything in as much detail as all would like. This article has come a very great distance in a year (just look at the history). It will continue to get better. Look how many good edits have been made recently! However, if a person wants to help, cleaning up some of these horrendous daughter articles is a good place to start. And sexual selection sounds like it needs some work.--Filll 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps make mention that sexual selection is usually manifest as competition between males and/or female preferences for certain male traits. This drives sexual dimorphism and the development of ornamental, defensive, etc. structures. I also agree with TimVickers that Fitness is what needs to be emphasized not Fittest, nor do I think we need to explain any advantage and disadvantage (that applies to evolution other than sexual selection also-like Garter snakes evolving resistance to tetrodotoxin from newts in their diets are also slower because of mutations in sodium channel making them easier prey). If we make these changes then we need to address asexual reproducing organisms evolution for NPOV-perhaps mention Muller's ratchet. Recent articles indicate gene duplications provides a source for evolution to act in asexual critters. The notion that asexual organism are limited in their ability to evolve is now being challenged. It would seem prudent to mention both sexual and asexual organisms evolve because we do tend to emphasize the sexual organisms and mechanisms of heredity and mechanisms of evolution. A glance at the numbers and variety of asexual organisms reveals our bias towards sex. I don't know do we really need to change the current statement? Some of the suggestion reads like OR. GetAgrippa 02:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the silence (whatever happened to Silence?). The argument has fizzled so it seems prudent to leave it be. The parent Evolution article could easily grow into a book and that would be useless as an encyclopedia article. Linking daughter articles do address the issue of completeness and I agree with Fill that many of the those articles need work. Too bad there is not a master plan or strategy to organize Evolution subtopics-maybe an A-Z index of just evolution related info. Reckon, GetAgrippa 03:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and meaning

Biological evolution as a series of objectively observable physical events including mutation, reproduction, and death is an obvious and necessary component of understanding biological evolution. The discovery of DNA and the development of computational abilities has allowed studies in iterated complex processes and thus the application of information science to see biological evolution from a deeper level; to see biological evolution as the biological evolution of information systems within physically and chemically evolving nonliving information systems. Yet this still is mere data self-organizing. Biosemiotics takes this one step further by trying to apply the study of meaning as defined by Semiotics. Semiotics is a logic based study of "sign processes (semiosis), or signification and communication, signs and symbols, both individually and grouped into sign systems". For example, a molecule of sugar is an object that can be interpreted by a bacteria as a sign of the presence of food. This event can be understood and evaluated in terms of meaning rather than merely as a physical, chemical, or biological event. See http://www.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/txt/casys99.html for more. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Misconceptions about evolution

My last suggestion for an article on 'evolution and perfection' was vetoed, but I'd like to toss another idea out there. There are no doubt many misconceptions about what evolution is and how it works. An article addressing these issues, such as misconceptions about evolution, or perhaps common misconceptions about evolution might be a future possibility. Some that come to mind are that evolution must involve increasing complexity, or that organisms propagate themselves for 'the good of the species'. There are articles out their about common mistakes and misconceptions students have about evolution as well which could be used as a source. Richard001 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As a note, Evolution of complexity has already been created. Tim Vickers 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And an article on orthogenesis already exists as well.--Filll 18:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are a range of articles that address the specific issues concerned (e.g. unit of selection), but would it be better to have an article addressing all such issues? You haven't stated your position; do you feel the same way as you did with my last proposal, i.e. that the matter is already sufficiently covered by other articles? Richard001 23:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a list, based on List of common misconceptions? Tim Vickers 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If such an article is to be created, it could use a lot of material from the Evolution FAQ and the Objections to evolution pages.--Thomas Arelatensis 16:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> As a historical note, there was a section in this article on misconceptions about evolution. It was a troll magnet and was eventually spun off into its own article, misconceptions about evolution. This helped tremendously in stopping the attacks on this article. The daughter article misconceptions about evolution was superceded by the present objections to evolution, and was eventually deleted by consensus. There was also a section on misconceptions about evolution in the introduction to evolution article but it was a troll magnet and discontinued as a result. There still is a section on evolution misconceptions in the article List of misconceptions and as can be seen List_of_misconceptions#Evolution. --Filll 18:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we should redirect these pages to one of the two above (objections or the relevant section at list of misconceptions). What do you think? By the way, there's no history of misconceptions about evolution being deleted. Are you sure you have the right name? Richard001 10:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. The actual titles were Misunderstandings about biological evolution and Misunderstandings about evolution. My mistake, and I apologize. After a while, these articles just start to all blend together. I am not sure if redirects are necessary or advisable.It would certainly be possible. I am sort of surprised that redirects were not produced when they were deleted, frankly. What do other people think?--Filll 16:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. After looking at the deletion discussion I think they didn't redirect because there was no article really suitable. It's an article worthy topic, no doubt, but there are already so many overlapping articles that it just becomes redundant to throw in another one. Thanks for your replies. Richard001 05:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I redirected all these titles to Objections to evolution, since having a redirect to the closest topic seems preferable to not having anything. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

theory

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Evolution is a theory. This should be emphasized in the opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.34.22 (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC) This is not necessary. This issue has already been discussed at length here and elsewhere and is already adequately catered for in the referred article Evolution as theory and fact at the top of the articleTmol42 22:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC) I agree with that. Evolution is a theory....and i dont see it stated as so. maybe i'm overlooking it, but i don't see it. and it really shoudl be emphasized. >>>Stef<<< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.214 (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC) This again. Can someone just archive/delete/blow up this crap? Tmol42, my suggestion is to never actually respond to trolling. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Ya know this "it is only a theory" is interesting. When does a theory move from "just a theory" to a pretty good understanding of the phenomenon? I was thinking of Hugh Huxley's Sliding Filament Theory of actin and myosin interaction, of which now is referred to as a model. With absolute certainty the filaments slide together so not much of a debate anymore. Evolution is a fact. Population genetics and modeling have accomplished much the same of moving from theory to a pretty good understanding of the phenomenon. The same applies to many physics related theories. "Just a theory" seems an understatement of the significance of any given theory in biology or physics. How many science articles would have to be prefaced with "this is only a theory". Perhaps there should be two articles. This article on biological evolution and an article on the the theory of evolution. Hee, hee, hee. Regards GetAgrippa 13:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC) In fairness to the original poster, they may not be trolling. They could genuinely be very stupid. Tomandlu 14:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC) From wiki: "In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity. In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis." I think that there is a point in what 72 said. Most people think evolution is a 'theory' in the common usage sense. And there is a confusion between the word 'evolution' as a type of change and a scientific theory. I think this should be mentioned somehow in the lead. Yes I know it has a diambig section but I think many people just read the first paragraph and ignore the disambig. What level of reader are these articles directed towards? Should they be easy enough for say the average ninth grader? Or a senior college biology major? Massachew 14:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC) There's a link at the very top of the article to evolution as theory and fact, which clarifies this issue. IMHO it would be a mistake (although a tempting one) to write every wikipedia article on evolutionary theory for an intended audience of creationists (as in correcting misconceptions, rather than pandering to them). Tomandlu 14:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC) But what is the assumption on the education level of the readers? Should ninth graders be able to understand these articles. And when you say 'creationists' you are referring to bible literalists, correct? I know Catholics who feel that evolution is 'just a theory'. Highly educated Catholics. I guess my point is should the lead tell emphatically that it is not just a theory if so many confuse this issue. And should it be mentioned that 'evolution' is a process and a theory. The way the word is used. It seems there is a common usage and a more strictly scientific usage. Should that be explained early in the article. I do not think people will go right to the disambig page first. I think they will just start reading. I think most people do not think evolution is the small changes that happen from generation to generation. For instance in the article on schizophrenia should it be mentioned that it is not a 'split personality' as is so commonly assumed. And that multiple personality disorder is not common and some think it does not exist. Should the articles start by dispelling common misconceptions? Massachew 17:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Catholics who disagree with the Pope? (and not in a good way ;) Bottom line, no one worries about "theory" (as in a scientific theory) in any other area (gravity, etc.). Just evolution. I do understand what you are saying, but I hate it when the evolutionary articles end up turning into assaults on creationists and similiar, rather than NPOV. IMHO the "oh, it's just a theory" crowd have come with preconceived notions that you aren't going to shift. That said, don't let me stop you trying, but my advice would be not to let it taint the NPOV of the article. For instance, I would love to blather on in the article about how chromosome 2 is a pretty good proof of evolution and the evasiveness of creationists, but I resist temptation... Tomandlu 17:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC) I think many people when they speak of economic theories and say theories of personality use the term theory has a 'best guess' There are many theories of personality. And for instance : "The labor theories of value (LTV) are theories in economics according to which the true values of commodities are related to the labor needed to produce them" In economics and psychology the term 'theory' is used as a possible explanation but not a proven one. Massachew 17:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC) This article is extremely simple so it reaches an appropriate audience for an encyclopedia. The "theory" and "misconception" arguments have popped up thousands of times, and had been addressed in past versions but consensus removed them. I think it is wiser to spend time writing what evolution is and not what is isn't-misconceptions. It does a decent job much like other encyclopedias. GetAgrippa 17:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC) The word "theory" is used twice in the lead. In addition, there's a hatlink to "evolution as theory and fact" before you even get into the text. Evolution is both fact and theory (observation and mechanism to explain the observation). Forget about gravity - 'extinction' is "just" a theory as well...and one which is far less well understood than evolution. Guettarda 18:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Theory is used twice (hadn't noticed). I remember an excerpt from Gould was used to address the fact and theory issue in a past version. All the concerns at issue have been addressed in link or word it appears. Regards GetAgrippa 03:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Perhaps we should qualify evolution is both an empirical theory, and a theorem-it is mathematical and part deductive. Hee, hee. Light two candles instead of one. I would love to read the creationist logic in addressing theory and theorem. Perverse. GetAgrippa 13:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Now is Lamarkism a theory? From reading this article I am getting the idea that a theory has to be validated to be called a theory. Are there not theories that simply are wrong? Massachew 14:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC) A theory has to be falsifiable. Lamarckism did not stand the test of time, but the sentiment still exits in a form some call neoLamarckism concerning epigenetic phenomena. So theories can be tested and fall short, and that is a testament to evolution theory having not done so-just more evidence to support. I had hoped the literature offered by link would address your concerns. I should add this is not a forum to educate individuals but a talk page to improve the article. Massachew you appear to be fishing to find some weakness in evolution to support a POV-this talk page is not for debate on the validity of the theory but a page to improve the article.[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC) My point is that 'theory' is used differently in different articles here. Should there not be a consistency among articles? And if a theory is falsifiable and then falsified does it still merit the label 'theory' ? Massachew 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC) I do not agree with GetAgrippa that theories must be falsafiable. They must be capable of generating statements that can be compared to some observable phenomenon, but strictly speaking, hypotheses must be falsifiable, not the theories that generate them. Also, no, the definition of "theory" should not be consistent among all articles. The meaning of "theory" in the life sciences, physical sciences, and social sciences is often different. My guess is that some article provide limited definitions of "theory." I would agree that the definition of theory in all articles pertaining to evolutiokn be consistent, though. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC) I am not familiar with the distinction that you suggest, between theories used to generate hypotheses and those hypotheses as the falsifiable elements. I would suggest that the idea that a "theory" must be falsifiable is a common shorthand for meaning that it has elements that can be tested, and so I think GetAgrippa's usage is fine and not greatly in contrast to yours. In any case, in response to Massachew's question, no, there is no simple label for "theory that has been falsified", and since theories cannot really be "validated" as you expressed above, the term is an inclusive one. I don't see where on this page you are seeing Lamarckism refered to as a theory, but I don't think there's any problem calling it one. It is, after all, a falsifiable theory, as opposed for example to intelligent design, which is not falsifiable and thus not a theory in the scientific sense. bikeable (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC) So Lamarkism would be a falsifiable theory that has been falsified? And evolution is a falsifiable theory that has not been falsified and has been validated. And evolutionary theory is a fact? Massachew 22:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Yes, Yes, and Yes-and-No. All evolutionary facts are part of the theory, but not all parts of the theory are evolutionary facts (they're just not contradicted by the facts). It's more like a dot-to-dot. The facts are the dots of the theory, and the purely theoretical is the lines between the dots. Essentially, the straighter the lines (i.e. the less interpolation you need to do to join the dots in a consistent pattern), the better your theory. Likewise, finding a dot that didn't fit the pattern you'd traced would indicate that you've drawn the wrong pattern. This is the principle of falsifiability. Likewise, the more complex and consistent your pattern, the more you can trust your theory. Or at least that's my understanding. I'd strongly suggest reading Evolution as theory and fact.Tomandlu 23:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC) I really think the word 'theory' should be consistent in all the science articles. There should be some characteristic of the concept 'theory' that should be common in theories of personality, economics, biology and physics. Massachew 21:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC) That's a problem for linguists, not articles on evolution. That said, in hindsight I wish science had adopted different words, but that's by-the-by.Tomandlu 23:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC) But I still think the word theory should be used in the same manner throughout all the articles. If no one else cares how different the term is used from one article to another I sure cannot single-handedly change all of that. Massachew 00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Please, everyone, DNFT. Snalwibma 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Don't feedyourself. Massachew 00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC) I'm a bit confused. What, exactly, are you suggesting we do to improve this article? And how has the term "theory" been misused in other articles? It appears that most of your questions have been answered above, but you obviously feel there is still a problem. Thanks, AlphaEta T / C 02:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Isn't a theory a very well-supported hypothesis? Guettarda 07:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC) No, for a variety of reasons but one is, a good theory generates hypotheses (in the sciences; in the humanities it is something else). Slrubenstein | Talk 12:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Humanities? You consider psychology and economics humanities? And can we not have 2 theories that use 2 different constructs to explain something? What I am saying it seems in certain articles that it implies we can only have only one prevailing theory. And that theory has to be backed up by much evidence. For instance in many case Ptolemy's theory is more predictive and more easliy used that Copernicus. And recently there has a little resurgence of Lamarkism. And certain theories even though that have many proven wrong facets can be very useful in the facets that are proven. I do not think it is that much of a constest to see who is right as much as what is useful. 13:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massachew (talk • contribs) I have no idea what you are talking about in your first two sentences. I also do not know where Pstologmy is more predictive than Copernicus.Slrubenstein | Talk 17:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC) I am trying to make sense of this, and struggling somewhat ... Are you (Massachew) proposing some amendments to the article (which is what this pages is supposed to be restricted to) or just sounding off about this and that? If you do have suggestions about how the wikipedia article on Evolution can be improved, let's hear them. If not, may I recommend another forum? Snalwibma 13:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC) All people who understand evolutionary science understand that the word evolution is commonly used to refer both to a set of facts and to a theory. It does not matter what most 9th graders or college-students think: we simply have to make it clear to them that "theory" is neither "personal opinion" nor is it "objective truth." This discussion, it seems to me, has two threads: first, what exactly do we mean by theory, and, is there only one valid definition of theory? I think the answer to the second question is “no.” I think scholars of different branches of knowledge have different definitions of theory. We should be able to come up with one consistent definition of “theory” that applies to the life sciences. But there is no reason to assume that this definition will apply to “theory” in the physical or human sciences. Here is Stephen Hawking’s definition of “theory,” and I think it is a good one for the physical science: …a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations we make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality (whatever that means). A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations. Note that even Hawking concedes that theories have some arbitrary elements. He does not explain what the relationship is between the arbitrary and non-arbitrary elements, but other philosophers of science have. Although Hawking does not use the word “falsifiable,” I think the idea is implicit in his assertion about predictions. Many people have suggested that theories must be falsifiable to be scientific. This reflects arguments made by Karl Popper and the concept of falsifiability is important in science – but it is not the sole criteria of theory, and it is not always a criteria of theory. In some of the social and human sciences it is not a criteria. Moreover, philosophers and historians of science have, for almost fifty years, been arguing that the view that a theory is a set of falsifiable statements is wrong . But much earlier, the scientist and philosopher C.S Pierce argued that in addition to the concepts of deduction and induction (central to Popper’s philosophy) a full account of science requires the notion of abduction – a creative and imaginative process. The importance of abduction is evident in the orbit of Uranus, which for a very long time did not follow the predictions of Newtonian celestial mechanics. If one took a simplistic view of “theory,” observations of Uranus when first discovered in 1781 would have “falisified” Newton’s theory. But this is not what happened. Instead, people suggested that there is another planet, whose influence would affect Uranus’s orbit – and this prediction was indeed eventually confirmed. Perhaps this is why Max Horkheimer defined what he calls the "traditional" definition of theory this way: Theory for most researchers is the sum-totl of propositions bout a subject, the propositions being so linked with each other that a few are basic and the rest derive from these. The smaller the number of primary principles in comparison with the derivations, the more perfect the theory. The real validity of the theory depedns on the derived propositions being consonant with the actual facts. If experience and theory contradict each other, one of the two must be reexamined. Either the scientist has failed to observe correctly or something is wrong with the principles of the theory . Note that Horkheimer too makes a distinction internal to theory between basic and derived propositions. Perhaps this corresponds to Hawking's distinction between arbitrary elements and predictions. Note tto that while Horkheimer calls attention to "actual facts," he does not use the words "prediction" or "quantities." I suggest that this is because hawking is providing a definition of "theory" appropriate for physicists, but Horkheimer is aiming at a more inclusive definition of theory. My main point is that good theories can’t just be ones that can be proven wrong – they must also generate new hypotheses when confronted with conflicting data. In his book, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, philosopher of science Philip Kitcher addresses the common creationist claim that the theory of evolution is a bad theory because it does not make definite predictions about the results of future observations. He does so by proposing a different account of “theory” than the simple “set of falsifiable statements” definition. I think this is a valuable book not because it is a response to critics of evolution, but because Kitcher is a very well-regarded philosopher of science, and this and other books by him have been very well-reviewed by biologists. Kitcher agrees with Popper that “there is surely something right in the idea that a science can succeed only if it can fail” . But he takes into account Hempel and Quine’s critiques of Popper, the point that scientific theories include statements that cannot be falsified (presumably what Hawking alluded to as arbitrary elements), and the point that good theories must also be creative. He insists that we view scientific theories as consisting of an “elaborate collection of statements,” some of which are not falsifiable, and others – what he calls “auxiliary hypotheses,” which are. According to Kitcher, good scientific theories must have three features: (1) unity: “A science should be unified …. Good theories consist of just one problem-solving strategy, or a small family of problem-solving strategies, that can be applied to a wide range of problems” (1982: 47). (2) Fecundity: “A great scientific theory, like Newton’s, opens up new areas of research. …. Because a theory presents a new way of looking at the world, it can lead us to ask new questions, and so to embark on new and fruitful lines of inquiry …. Typically, a flourishing science is incomplete. At any time, it raised more questions than i8t can currently answer. But incompleteness is now vice. On the contrary, incompleteness is the mother of fecundity …. A good theory should be productive; it should raise new questions and presume that those questions can be answered without giving up its problem-solving strategies” (1982: 47-48). (3) auxiliary hypothesis that are independently testable: “An auxiliary hypothesis ought to be testable independently of the particular problem it is introduced to solve, independently of the theory it is designed to save” (1982: 46) (e.g. the evidence for the existence of Neptune is independent of the anomalies in Uranus’s orbit). Note that Kitcher’s description of scientific theories avoids a reliance on quantification and prediction. Like other definitions of theories, including Popper’s, Kitcher makes it clear that a good theory includes statements that have (in his terms) “observational consequences.” But, like the observation of irregularities in Uranus’s orbit, falsification is only one possible consequence of an observation. The production of new hypotheses is another possible – and equally important – observational consequence. Kitcher’s account of a good theory of course is based not only on his understanding of how physical sciences work. He is also taking into account the way the life sciences work. According to Kitcher, this is the essence of the theory: The main thesis of evolution is that species are not fixed and immutable. One kind of organism can have descendents that belong to a different kind. From one original species, a number of different kinds may be generated. . The major claim of a Darwinian theory of evolution is that the principal factor of change is natural selection: The most important evolutionary changes come about because some allelic pairs are fitter than others, and these obtain greater representation for their constituent alleles in subsequent generations . From Kitcher’s point of view, Darwinian theory is without question an extraordinarily successful theory, and I hope this article can communicate why: The heart of Darwinian evolutionary theory is a family of problem-solving strategies, related by their common employment of a particular style of historical narrative. A Darwinian history is a piece of reasoning of the following general form. The first step consists in a description of an ancestral population of organisms. The reasoning proceeds by tracing the modification of the population through subsequent generations, showing how characteristics were selected, inherited, and became prevalent. Reasoning like this can be used to answer a host of biological questions . The same kind of story can be told again and again to answer all sorts of questions about all sorts of living things. Evolutionary theory is unified because so many diverse questions … can be addressed by advancing Darwinian histories. Moreover, these narratives constantly make claims that are subject to independent check . Darwin not only provided a scheme for unifying the diversity of life. He also gave a structure to our ignorance. After Darwin, it was important to resolve general issues about the presuppositions of Darwinian histories. The way in which biology should proceed had been made admirably plain, and it was clear that biologists had to tackle questions for which they had, as yet, no answers. . I leave it to others to decide if, and how, any of this could be incorporated into the article. I am sure we can explain it in a way that is clear to someone who knows little about science. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Wow. this thread is still ongoing. Thanks Slrubenstein for your input-great info by the way. I think Massachew realizes the distinction between theory and scientific theory as he quoted the Wiki article. I have yet to read a cogent contribution but more questions related to the validity of evolution. Many editors consider him trolling. Perhaps we should state that evolution is nested theories, hypotheses, models, etc that relate to the process and are unified. Often semantics is different in different disciplines. GetAgrippa 14:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks! Coming from pilosophy of science, I thik Kirtcher has a fresh POV and a valuable one. I hope we can figure out an appropriate way to incorporate at least some of his views into the article! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Massachew is another Raspor sock. Raul654 (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks Raul. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I knew something was suspicious about the editor. What's this make? Raspor Sock #10 or so? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Slrubenstein, isn't the fate of all theories, at least in the physical sciences, falsification? I think Newton's Theory of Gravity, being the tremendously successful theory that it is, is a good example (falsified not by the orbit of Uranus but by the "bending" of light, large masses and/or high speeds). My interest would be related to the wiki on theory. We can continue the discussion on that Talk page if you think it's not relevant here. Thanks, AikBkj (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC) What is importantis not what I think but what verifible sources think. On the relation between Newton and Einstein's theories, I think Thomas Kuhn, for example, is relevant to Wikipedia. What I think, or what you think, are not. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I find your response somewhat disingenuous in that it is wikipedians who select the sources to quote and which thoughts to highlight, etc. Possibly Kuhn would be the first to point out that there is a "social" influence on the wikipedia (with similarities to the social as opposed to logical selection of a paradigm?). To say that what wikipedians think is not relevant would be the ideal. If only it were so. As a case in point, it was a wikipedian and his thinking (not the sources) which decided to highlight the thought that falsification is not necessarily a criterion for a theory. After your large contribution to the wiki on “theory”, I asked this of you on your Talk page; “I found some of your talk on the "Evolution" talk page which it looks like you copied and pasted into the "Theory" article. I'm glad you shortened it considerably. Any chance you can further clean up that section? Also, try to be careful and not load otherwise less controversial articles with ammunition (adding fuel to the fire) for more controversial articles. For the Theory article, it would seem like a good idea to stick to what is generally agreed upon as the criterion for scientific status and then a very short comment on differences with links to the appropriate camps of thought (Popper, Kitcher, etc.).”. IMHO you have POVed and degraded the theory article and now wish to slam the door shut. You chose to significantly highlight the controversial. Your claim that what you think is not important is, to say the least, curious. I would again ask that you either clean up your mess on the theory page or just delete your contribution. AikBkj (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC) You do not make any sense. Is there anyone here - GetAgrippa, Orange Marlin, Tim, Raul, who can decipher for me what he is saying about my POVing and degrading the theory article? I do not understand his comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I'd like to ask of AikBkj how a clarification of what consituttes a theorycan constitute a degradation?Maybe if you started with sources as to what you understand a theory to be, and how thismay depart from the section SLR worked on, this might be better understood by all?--Ramdrake (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC) The falsification of theory is perhaps one of the more controversial aspects of the criterion for scientific status. In addition, it can be used as a lever in other articles which are more controversial. But falsification is exactly what Slrubenstein chose to discuss in some detail in the article on theory. It is my understanding that encyclopedic articles should concentrate on that which is well established and generally accepted, not the latest and greatest or those things which are hotly contested. His thoughts on the topic appear to have been spawned by debate in one of the more controversial topics, that of evolution. I feel it is telling that his contribution to the theory article originated as Talk on the evolution page and IMHO represents the spreading of controversy. I don't see how my position is so difficult to understand. AikBkj (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC) First, adding another point of view without deleting other views always makes an article more NPOV, not less NPOV. Second, Popper was a philosopher and mainstream philosophy of science has rejected his claims about falsification and theory for over 50 years. I do not doubt that some people still accept Popper's views, but the mainstream view among philosophers of science rejects Popper. There is no controversy. There is no ongoing debate. The debate occured and was resolved fifty years ago. Third, I have provided verifiable sources for all my edits. Hempel, Quine, and Kitcher are so notable they all have Wikipedia articles which, by the way, I never contributed to nor played a role in creating them. It has long been my view that the articles on theory and on the scientific method are seriously flawed. I just have not had time to work on them. The discussion here provided me with an opportunity to go over Kitcher's book and summarize parts of it. But his claims are not just about the theory of evolution, they are about theory in general. And he is an important, notable philosopher of science. So why shouldn't I add material to the theory article? I have made the article more accurate, and more complete. it is closer to compliance with NPOv. I followed V and NOR to the letter. I still fail to see any problem. I am not pushing any view except this: Wikipedia articles should not only comply with NPOV, they should be accurate and up-to-date. I am embarassed that we have some articles where research stopped with fifty-year-old sources and views. I want our articles to be better. Shouldn't you? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Yes, I would like the wikis to be current and the best they can be. I do not doubt your assessment of the status of falsification, except, perhaps, as it pertains specifically to the physical sciences. Consider the statement by Stephen Hawking that "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory." (see the section in Theory article - Description and prediction). If (1) an individual has this view, (2) knows of numerous theories, even very useful ones that have been contradicted and (3) knows of no characteristic of theories which would make them immune to contradiction, then it seems reasonable to expect that all physical theories will eventually be contradicted. I would go so far as to say that it is highly likely that any (physical) scientist working at the frontier of his field would hold this position. I can think of a number of instances where deletion produces a more neutral article. Consider the editors to hold to generally agreed upon POV C and two controversial POVs, A and B. Camp 1 edits into the introduction C, A and ~B (a belittling of POV B). Due to consensus, Camp 2 has not been able to edit its POV B into the introduction. Ideally the article should contain only C. The editors should strive to improve the article by eliminating both A and ~B. However, just the elimination of ~B would be an improvement. The elimination of ~B with the addition of B produces marginal improvement in my estimation. So when I eliminated ~B from the introduction, my intent was to be very careful not to introduce B into the article (and I felt I did so quite successfully). I feel that it is more likely that deletion will produce a more NPOV article than addition for the following reasons. One could argue that an article with POVs C, A and B would be balanced. If most the effort (and space in the article) was on C, than possibly. In my experience, it is too often the case that the majority of effort and space is given to POVs (A and ~B) and (B and ~A). AikBkj (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Proof of natural selection ?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This may be old news but if it isn't and you find it useful, by all means feel free to use it as you see fit.: Danny W : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks but I think we have enough evidence from peer-reviewed journal articles that we don't really need this. We don't want Wikipedia to be a compendium of all knowledge on the web. in fact, I think our article is better than the one linked! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC) No problem. My knowledge of and interest in evolution is just one jump ahead of marginal. I do read the Georgia Straight on a regular basis so sometimes I pass the info along, : Danny W : Albion moonlight (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC) But how can the central premise of evolution (that species can be formed from other species through natural selection) be falsified? What obvservation would falsify this most important premise? Patonq (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Well, I guess the most straightforward way would be this: provide compelling evidence that a species came into existence through a different mechanism. That's all. Offer an alternative and show how there is more evidence for the alternative, and we would have to concede at leasst that natural selection does not account for all examples of speciation. Be that as it may, see what I wrote above about theory. Hypotheses must be falsifiable but theories are not just sets of hypotheses, they include premises that are not themselves hypotheses and not subject to falsification - this is true of all scientific theories. The claim that speciation occurs through natural selection is better understood as a problem solving strategy. If one assumes that this premis is true, then, when one is confronted with a wide variety of phenomena - why are the internal organs of orchids so elaborate? Why are male birds of paradise so brightly colored? why do bats typiucally roost upside down? Why are the kmamalian fauna of Madagascar so distinctive? - one is led to look for data that really enriches our understanding of all these phenomena. Be that as it may, the premise you identify breaks down to two components: (1) a portion of the ancestral population can become geographically isolated in an environment that makes particlar demands, and (2) not every adaptation to an environment is equally advantageous. Both of these can be falsified, and in fact, scientists have only found and abundance of evidence supporting both claims. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC) But my point is there is no observation that will falsify the concept. In order for a theory to be scientific the proponents of that theory must give and example of an observation that would occur if the theory was not true. If heliocentrism was not true we would observe no parallax in the stars. Now tell me if species did not come about through natural selection what would we observe to validate this point? This has to be addressed. You must say ' if my theory is not true you will see X' You cannot give me that X. NS is not falsifiable just as Popper said. Patonq (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I repeat: read what I wrote about theory above. It is clear you have not. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC) I read it. But you did not state X, what one would see if NS was not true. If life did not come about by NS what would we see? Just answer that simple question. Patonq (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Then you know that in science not all propositions must be falsifiable. You have also just changed the question - you are now asking about "if life did not come about by NS..." No evolutionary biologist or natureal historian, certainly not Darwin, ever claimed that NS caused life to come into existence. So I do not understand the point of your question. I do not care how one would falsify a proposition no one has ever made. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC) But how can the central premise of evolution (that species can be formed from other species through natural selection) be falsified? That was my original question. There is no observation that will falsify. Therefore a tautology. Go ahead tell me what we would see different if species formed other species through a method other than natural selection. Patonq (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Ask Karl Popper maybe he or she knows :) Albion moonlight (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Actually Poppers ideas around verifiability are more apt in this situation. If someone were able to give an empirical example where natural selection did not take place then the theory would become suspect. Popper was far from the being the ultimate authority on such things. He was just a guy who had some very interesting ideas, : Albion moonlight (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Still the point is that there must be an observation predicted if the theory is not true. The classic example is 'the universe was created 5 minutes ago to look like its been around for billions of years' Then you ask 'well if your theory is not true how would thing look different and you say they wouldnt.' See no observation to see if the theory is wrong. There is no answer that is why NS is not falsifiable. Now I can say that the big bang happened. What would I see if the theory is not true. I can say I would see a universe that is not expanding. See my point. Just tell me what we would observe if NS is not true. Patonq (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Darwin's theory explains how tenrecs evolved on Madagascar: in the late Mesozoic or early Cenozoic ancestors of tenrecs rafted over to from contitental Africa to Madgascar. This process stopped when the island was too far away. descendents of the original continental population evolved into hedgehogs, shrews, moles and porcupines due to selective pressures as larger predators evolved. On Madegascar these pressures did not exist and tenrecs retained the simpler body plan of their ancestors and occupy diverse niches unoccupied by competitors - niches that are occupied by competitors on the continent. Now, how might one falisfy this? Easy: (1) was Madagascar ever close enough to the continent that animals like tenrecs could have rafted over? This can be answered by looking at similar species in similar environments. (2) since that time did the island drift far enough away from the continent that other animals could not raft over? This can be answered by looking at the geological record. (3) do tenrecs on Madagascar and hedgehogs, porcupines, shrews and mols have common ancesotrs? tis can be answered by looking at the foissil record from the late Mezosoic. (4) are all tenrecs related? This can be tested by looking at anatomical (and genetic) similarities among them. here are four positive claims any one of which coulod be demonstrated to be wrong. Thus, the theory falsified. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC) I appreciate your well thought out and knowledgeable answer. But why did not the tenrecs evolve on the island? You are saying there is something different about the island that prevented large predeators to come about. And could it be that the large predators were too large to raft over? Good example though I have to think about it more. Thanks. Patonq (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Right - tenrecs are smaller than their predators. But if it could be shown that predators of tenrecs could have rafted over in the same way, that too would falisfy the theory (you are right that the theory relies on the proposition that thepredaotrs of tenrecs were not able to raft over to Madagascar). So yes, this would be another way to falsify the theory. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC) But lets say that the tenrecs and the other animals came about through a process other than evolution through natural selection that would not have stopped the tenrecs from swimming over. Patonq (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Well, scientists studying tenrecs are always free to propose another mechanism and provide the evidence for it, of course! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Well its back to the original point. There would have to be a way to point to a speciation and say 'that speciation happened not through natural selection'. For instance if we breeded rats for a certain characteristic in captivity and then release a large number of those rats into a rural area then five years later took a sample of the rats in the area how would we be able to tell the naturallly developed rats from the ones that were 'designed'? Patonq (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Genetic drift would be one means. That said, perhaps the current discussion would be better served on someone's talk page as it does not seem to be about improving the article itself. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

POV

Although I strongly support evolution, do remember that it is a theory, although a very valid one. Because of wikipedia's NPOV policy, I suggest the article should start with "evolution is a theory in biology..." DISCLAIMER: I am not a creationist. T.Neo (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article already starts with "For more on how evolution is defined, see Evolution as theory and fact." Follow that link, and you'll discover that it is more than a theory! Snalwibma (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is covered in the Evolution FAQ: "Why is evolution described as though it's a fact? Isn't evolution just a theory?". -Eisnel (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Whenever someone says, "I am not a creationist," my good faith goes flying out the door.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer – this reaction to certain phrases has presumably evolved to deal with strange tribal customs, and on Wikipedia we must rise above our brute instincts to WP:AGF. .. dave souza, talk 21:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying I've evolved? How dare you! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just trying to help. As I said above I strongly belive in evolution. T.Neo (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, people get a bit jumpy since we see so much nonsense on this page. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is, (1) it does not matter whether anyone here believes in evolution or not, since editors' beliefs do not enter articles and (2) evolution is both a theory and a fact and the article explains both already with links to other articles. It is for this reason that while I welcome T. Neo's good intentions I reject his/her proposal. A good introduction introduces the entire article and cannot introduce only that aspect of the article that deals with the theory. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought about this a bit and have added the sentence: "While the fact that organisms change over time was accepted since the early 19th century, the mechanism by which this occurred was initially unclear." to the fourth paragraph of the lead. This might help make the distinction between the facts and the theory more clear. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Except ... it isn't really that organisms change over time, it is that the form of organisms that make up a group (or population) changes over time ... or something like this. What you wrote is more elegant and I get it, but I think it is actually technically wrong. I just don't know how to make the point you want to make elegantly ... (I mean, you do not mean that as I get older I first get taller, then fatter and my hair turns to grey and falls out, right? But some may think that is what it means when we say "an organism changes over time") Slrubenstein | Talk 19:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. "species change over time" will cover that. Or perhaps "Life on earth has changed over time" Which is better? The second is a better reflection of the historical perspective this realisation came from. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Kind of new here but admirer of your hard-work. I'm afraid that "Life on earth has changed over time" can be too open to intepretation. Kind of like, "Yeah, life before electricity used to be harder". 'species' seems more appropriate to me, if not yet perfect, but I don't want to open the 'populations' vs. 'organisms' vs. 'species' debate again. :) Hugo cantu (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Species change" is certainly accurate and to the point! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Final version: "While the fact that the species on Earth have changed over time was accepted since the early 19th century, the mechanism by which this occurred was initially unclear. The theory of evolution by natural selection is an explanation of how these changes occur, and was proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, and set out in detail in Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species."

Hmm, But evolution proceeds and can lead to speciation-will this lead to the conclusion that evolution and speciaton are synonymous? Also the whole "species" concept issue, although the average reader probably won't have an issue. I guess in context of the paragraph it says it best. GetAgrippa (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We could always saay "the number and defining features of species have changed" but is that geting overwrought for the context? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Time to archive?

This page is getting a bit long. --Filll (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I archived the talk page, fixed a few errors with the archives (for some reason 42 & 43 weren't showing up even though they were full), and most importantly, I moved the section on the criticism of Evolution to Thomasdid's talk page so it can be continued. Cheers!!! Baegis (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

definition

I'm sorry I'm not sure how to go about sifting through older talk pages just yet, but I remember a while back a discussion about whether or not to define evolution in the opening paragraph as specifically the changes in allele frequencies over time. Someone had pointed out that saying "inherited traits" isn't entirely accurate, since it sounds like it refers to the organism's morphology instead of its genes.

Was just wondering what happened in that discussion and why it wasn't changed. I know some people thought just saying "inherited traits" is simpler, but then I've always been taught "allele frequencies", and anyway there's an intro to evolution article for those who have trouble understanding.

Sorry if this was already discussed at length. Feel free to just point me to the older discussion if this was already resolved. Thanks.VatoFirme (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly this section ? Evolution is not Natural Selection David D. (Talk) 08:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been discussed over and over, for at least the last year and probably longer. The allele formulation is more accurate, but less accessible. And so they decided to go for accessibility instead of precision.--Filll (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Social and cultural views

The following is taken from the section on Social and cultural views:

some people believe that the origin of humans involved supernatural intervention, rather than natural processes

The phrases "some people believe" and "supernatural interventions" are, I think, a bit misleading. First of all, it's a bit more than just "some" people that believe in creation myths. And I'm not talking about Christianity, just about every religion has stories that are contradicted by science. I think it should be better to describe that the conflict is between religions vs science, and not just individual people who disagree with facts. I would like to replace the sentence with something like this:

most religions include a creation myth that describe the creation of life, which conflicts with the statement that life has been created from natural processes

Comments on this? Hmpxrii (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think showing it as being a battle between science and religion would be a bit of a misnomer. There are plenty of religious and even strongly religious people out there that have been able to make peace between their religion and evolution. For example, excluding the regular inane paradoxes (the Bible saying the earth is ~6000 years old), there are no be all and end all biblical statements that would invalidate the theory of evolution. Now if you want to pose it as a conflict between rationality and irrationality, that would be fine, though I'm sure someone would scream murder over POV implications. ;) Newtman (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Some people believe that natural processes are a divine creation, some such as Buddhists are atheists and see no reason for species to be fixed, or for humans not to have "animal" origins. This is an article about science, not theology, and the question should not be given undue weight. .. dave souza, talk 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Something between 80-90% of Christians in the US belong to faiths which officially have no problem with evolution (for example, the Roman Catholic Church has no problem with evolution). Of the remainder, only about 50% claim to subscribe to biblical literalism in anonymous surveys. And many Muslims and Jews and Hindus etc have no problem with evolution either. The largest group in the US believe in theistic evolution.--Filll (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the article should contain as little religious talk as possible, this is discussed in depth in other articles.

However, the section and statement is already there, it doesn't need expansion, but I would like to either remove it or rephrase it.

The reason I want to make the change is that the section is titled social and cultural views for a reason, not what some individuals think about evolution. It is far more factual to refer to descriptions of actual religions, than refer to what "some people believe" (about how literally their creation story should be read).

If you think I push a religious POV, I ask that you please read my "before" and "after" sentences and tell me why the latter is more pro-religion. Because I can't see why. Hmpxrii (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Even though I see where you are coming from, I would prefer it to be more vague. For example, even in the US, the biggest hotbed of creationism in the Western World, about 80-90% of all Christians belong to sects which have no problem with evolution and see no conflict with their interpretation of Genesis and evolution. Even those who belong to the largest US Christian sects which reject evolution, to support biblical literalism, about 50% of the members of these sects report that they do not personally subscribe to biblical literalism in anonymous surveys.--Filll (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fill and others. Hmpxrii, you say you wish to stick to views of religions rather than individuals, but you have to admit you are presenting your intepretation of these religious texts. When a scientist makes a claim about how life may have first appeared, or how species evolve, I think we all know what kinds of claims the scientist is making. You are suggesting that the authors of the Bible, perhaps three thousand years ago in a non-Western civilization, in providing their account now in Genesis 1-2, were making the same kind of claim i.e. a comparable claim to that of scientists, and the difference is that the authors of Genesis were wrong and scientists are right. But it is pure supposition to argue that the authors of Genesis were making the same kinds of claims as scientists. In fact, there are many commentaries on Genesis 1-2 that argue that the point the authors were making did not have to do with an explanation of how the world came into existence. Have you ever read a poem? have you ever read a novel? Do you know that human beings often express themselves through metaphor, allegory, and fable? Hmpxrii, you are assuming that Fundamentalists are right when they claim that the Bible was written with the intention that it be read literally. And you seem to hold the same view towards other religions. But most historians and sociologists of religion would reject your valorization of Fundamentalism. (In fact, some even argue that your kind of fundamentalism is in fact a modern phenomenon.) Many scholars of religion argue that religious texts were often written with the intention that they not be read literally. In short, you are welcome to your fundamentalist view of religion. And you are not alone in your fundamentalism. But many people, notable scholars, do not share your view. For us to edit the article in a way that endorses or privileges this highly controversial fundamentalist view of religion and religious texts would violate NPOV. And frankly, the detail we would have to go into to comply with NPOV just is not worth it in an article on evolution and not religion. The fact is, unless you are a fundamentalist, there is nothing intrinsic in the Bible or any other religious text that forces religion into an antagonistic relationship with science or the theory of evolution and we just can't rewrite this article to suggest that there is. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested in this sort of thing, we literally have dozens and dozens of articles on this subject, many of which are in sad shape. We are missing many articles on creationist organizations and individuals as well (For example, last I checked we had Reasons to believe redirected to Hugh Ross (creationist). Also, if you look at List of creationist museums you will see we are missing a huge number of articles. And so on and so forth). So if this is an interest of yours, there is plenty to do and we would be glad to have your help. But this sort of tweaking on an FA article where this is a minor point is really not helpful when we have huge disasters in other articles. We would welcome your assistance in any of these others, however. Just roll up your sleeves, and pitch in ! --Filll (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, this sort of tweaking is very important. This is a very high-profile article, not just on Wikipedia but on the entire web. It's the third result found when you search for "evolution" on Yahho! and the very first result delivered in a similar Google search. Just like when diplomatic treaties or business contracts are being written, most of time is spent hammering out the language. It's the same concept here.

Now I'm as far from creationist as one can possibly get, and I still believe the sentence glosses over the conflict. Usually when a sentence says "some people" it means "not very many" as opposed to saying "many people." And there are many people who are creationist... practically the entire Islamic world for instance, although that has a lot more to do with education perhaps.

At the same time, I don't like the sentence as Hmp has written it either. Most religions include a creation myth that describe the creation of life, which conflicts with the statement that life has been created from natural processes ... this basically flat-out states that there is a conflict. I've written what I think is a better version combining the two:

Many religious adherents believe that evolution is contradicted in the creation myths found in most religions, which usually emphasize supernatural intervention rather than natural processes when read literally.

I feel that this version gets across that there is a major worldwide conflict, not isolated to a couple of hillbillies in revival tents in the American South, while at the same time leaving open alternative interpretations, especially when combined with the sentences immediately following. Feel free to revert of tweak my change if there is consensus against it, or if someone has a better idea! Sheep81 (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I praise your efforts to more fairly represent the issue, but I think your sentence, in trying to be fair, comes out very awkwardly. Newtman (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, that often happens when there is compromise on language. How would you suggest to fix it? Sheep81 (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to clean it up a bit without compromising the spirit of your changes. Newtman (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally someone seems to understand this. Sheep81's and Newtman's combined version is better than my original one, and I'm happy with that.

And to Filll and Slrubenstein: I don't know where you got the notion that I endorse fundamentalism. As Slrubenstein points out: "For us to edit the article in a way that endorses or privileges this highly controversial fundamentalist view of religion and religious texts would violate NPOV" - I'm not trying to endorse that view, I'm trying to say that it's only when you actually endorse that view (being fundamentalist) that there becomes a "conflict" between religion and science.

And, as Filll points out: "I would prefer it to be more vague". But just putting a statement that "some people believe ... [in] supernatural intervention" is too vague. Who are "some" people? Why are those "some people" different from everyone else? Saying instead that there are "many creationists who believe evolution contradicts creation myths" is, although also comfortably vague, much more precise. It says who ("creationists" is a much more well-defined subset than "some people"), and it says why (creation myths obviously contradicts science when read literally).

As all of us has already pointed out, most religions and religious people have no problem with science contradicting religious myths. A conflict occurs only when religious canon is used as science. Hmpxrii (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I guess i misread you, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the desire to make things more specific, but to replace "some" with "many" is not much of an improvement. What is happening is that the suggested changes include more detail about "why" people object to evolution, but I think the passage is actually incomplete. This is a far more complicated subject than can be addressed in this article. Some people object because they do not want to believe humans are animals, or that humans are not special, or that humans have ape-like ancestors, or that natural processes can create life, or they are following some sort of tradition, or the claims of some religious leader. Some just find the notion of evolution counter-intuitive. Some object even though their religious sect has no problem with an interpretation of that religion's religious texts or beliefs that is in accord with evolution (for example, many Roman Catholics have a problem with evolution, but the faith does not). I am also not so sure that almost the entire Islamic world has a problem with evolution, although there has recently been some efforts on the part of Harun Yahya and others to attack evolution. However, Koranic literalism is not the centerpiece of the Islamic objections to evolution, but a focus on materialism instead. Also, many Hindus find no conflict between their particular version of the vedas and evolution; some even think that passages in the vedas actually affirm evolution (notably, Joan Roughgarden has written a book alleging the same is true of the bible). So this entire subject is just too involved for this article. That is why we have daughter articles like level of support for evolution, Islamic creationism, etc. I am arguing for vagueness and maybe some links to the appropriate daughter articles for more detail. --Filll (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It is already vague. There may be a lot of reasons why people object to evolution, but far and away the #1 reason is religion. I don't think anyone can argue that and I see no need to gloss over it. Sheep81 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is mainly because of religion. But it is not necessarily mainly because their religious faith has some origin account that disagrees with science. --Filll (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly drawing a line in the sand also precipitates vandals and creationist-ID attacks as they have dropped precipitously since we adopted vague language. Sad to say that, and not that I'm arguing that should be an influence-just an observation. Less vigil. I agree with Fill that this main article should only touch on subjects that are addressed fully in daughter articles. This article could easily expand into a book-several of them. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Terminology...Evolution is a "Law", not a "Theory" (Right?)

Should evolution be publicly described as a "Scientific Law" or a "Scientific Theory"? I think that both are accurate, but "Scientific Law" would be understood by the general population as a way of communicating what is actually meant by the level of confidence that the current scientific understanding of Evolution is. This is based on an article I read in wired magazine. The link is as follows: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_thompson -Alex.rosenheim 13:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If anything a "theory" is more certain than a "law" in science. The trouble is that these terms can have multiple meanings, which can generally confuse the public and be seized upon by people who have an interest in keeping the public ignorant. Personally I don't think that rebranding the subject just for the sake of the scientifically illiterate is a good move.

As far as the article is concerned, we should keep it as it is unless the "law movement" gains consensus in the scientific community. Jefffire 13:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting article, and I think that it raises some very interesting points about scientific discourse, and the disconnect that it has with everyday speech. However, the current wikipedia article on theory makes the different uses that the word is put to in different contexts very clear, and it is linked from this article. I also agree with Jefffire that "law" is generally less all encompassing than "theory"; generally laws describe observed behavior (see e.g., ideal gas law), while theories gather together many observed behaviors (multiple laws) and attempt to provide a general framework in which to make sense of them. While as a political move, it might be useful to convince scientists to change their terminology to fit public discourse, as an encyclopedia, it is not our place to make such changes in advance of changes in the community. As they say to newspaper reporters, we report on the news, we don't make it. I might suggest, however, that this would be an interesting article for the theory page, since this piece deals with exactly the linguistic community issues that are relevant to that page... what does theory mean? And to whom? Edhubbard 13:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

ps: You probably should bring it up on that page's talk page, just as you did here... Edhubbard 13:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As Jefffire points out, this needs to be adopted by the scientific community before it is notable enough to be included here. An editorial, even from a notable popular magazine, is not sufficient to introduce what's liable to be a confusing idea. Especially a fairly dumb idea like this one — does anyone seriously think that creationists will suddenly find themselves outfoxed by a language trick? Not to mention the fact that laws in the physical sciences are typically 19th century notions that, while still workable, are often only tangentially connected to reality (and note that it's still the special/general theory of relativity). Anyway, it's interesting to read this Wired article, but I can't see it improving the article. Cheers, --Plumbago 14:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Edhubbard...I had already posted similar discussions in the Scientific law article and the Theory article. (Good call!) But, regarding Jefffire's comments: the idea is not meant to "outfox" the ID community. (Although...I must admit that realistically, that is part of what i'm talking about) Primarily, I am suggesting that we stop using nomenclature as a hindrance in communication. If we mean something...we should say it. But if what we say is misunderstood by a majority of the audience, we can either educate the audience or change what we are saying so that the audience understands. This is not "dumbing down" the message. This is just the natural development of language. Nothing wrong with that.

If we mean that something is a "law", but use the term "theory" because a small group of people understand that to mean that a "calling an conclusion a theory shows stronger support than calling the same conclusion a law" then we are not communicating. If a position can be clarified by using different vocabulary, then that is what should been done.-Alex.rosenheim 15:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

People in the biology community have tried using the word fact, which seems to just add to the confusion. See evolution as theory and fact.--Filll 15:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That column in Wired magazine is great and I would recommend it to everyone. However, I have to agree with the sentiments expressed above. Namely:

• creationists, being masters of language games and deceptive language, will not be fooled by calling the "Theory of Evolution" the "Law of Evolution". The word "creationism" used to refer to something else before being appropriated by creationists. To ride on the coat-tails of science, they came up with "scientific creationism", and then "creation science". Then came "intelligent design", and any number of other deceptive campaign titles (such as "Teach the Controversy", "Stand up for Science", "Free Speech on Evolution", etc) and deceptive book titles (such as "Explore Evolution") or even deceptive wording of petitions like "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism". They will just adopt some other tactic, or even attack science for changing its language.
• We have to reflect what is found in the scientific community, not to push the community or the language in a particular direction ourselves.--Filll 16:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the article but I can appreciate its sentiment. To be honest when someone mentions biological laws I wince because it seems there are always exceptions to the rules in biology, but with evolution it seems appropriate. I can't think of any organism that hasn't evolved or is evolving-be it stabilizing or changes leading to speciation. A law usually implies "universal" recognition so a question mark exists about the universe but I have seen no certain evidence concerning life elsewhere. Given the information concerning life only on earth it seems a law would be appropriate to some degree-if life exists elsewhere the literature indicates scientist believe that life also probably evolved there too. I agree such a move would probably set off a firestorm. Religious fundamentalism repressing and suppressing science is a scary thought. GetAgrippa 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Search for "Law of evolution" in PubMed = Phrase not found

Search for "Theory of evolution" in PubMed = 234 publications

The phrase isn't used in the literature. Tim Vickers 20:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If a species has DNA and reproduces (that would be every life form on this planet at least), then it's under the influence of selection and therefore it's evolving. Seems like a pretty good candidate for a "law" to me. Not that I think the article should be changed until the scientific terminology does. Sheep81 (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with the use of power laws in patterning of growth in life but weren't there several evolution laws recognized at one time like Cope's law. Jog my memory. I guess they were more rules than laws. GetAgrippa 20:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more acceptable to refer to evolutionary theory as "the evolutionary laws" or similar? The plural form indicating that the theory is composed of multiple laws. I agree that "theory" has an ambiguous meaning to the general public (and even to some scientists). A law in the singular form however, should I think typically be expressible as a single equation? Evolution, like the incarnations of relativity, is too expansive for such a reduction. DoktorDec 20:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I should say though, it is pretty clear that the current naming convention is merely being seized upon by opportunistic ID exponents... I haven't yet heard of anyone attacking the theory of special relativity based on it's use of the T-word! Evolution's subject matter is apparently more innately frightening to some than Einstein's work. At least the "just a theory" tag-line might just die... DoktorDec 20:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Of course, you realize that Einstein's Theory of Relativity was heavily opposed, not for the use of the word "theory" but for the use of the word "relativity" because people misinterpreted that to think it meant everything was relative.--Filll (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A strong case for theories with crowd-pleasing names! Anyways, the above is sufficiently covered by the mention of theory vs. fact in Creation-evolution controversy. I think most biologists would see any change in the name of our beloved theory as some kind of concession to the ID crowd. DoktorDec (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Even the AIG informs its readers that arguments relying on "just a theory" should not be pursued [2] (near the bottom of that page). So, well-informed creationists <insert contradiction-in-term jokes here> shouldn't be raising that issue here. Of course, that AIG page is also full of, uh, "second-order" fallacies and misinformation. Don't argue about evolution being only a theory, only that it's not a "proven fact"! <Sigh> Tez (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

One does not have to listen to creationists very long before one starts to realize that they depend on obfuscation, lies, confusion, strawmen and simplistic reasoning. This article used to be the target of far more frequent creationist attacks before we "immunized" it.

We reduced the attacks by including the FAQ above, creating a simpler article (Introduction to evolution) to draw off some people, and removing almost all mention of creationism and criticisms from this article and putting them in dozens of daughter articles. By reducing the pressure on this article, it was allowed to improve considerably. Just look at the article history. --Filll (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You all know I have long advocate that this article include a concise explanation of how scientists use the word "theory," though of course the whole point of web-based encyclopedias is to take advantage of hypertext and links. That said I just want to point out: the general public understand what scientific laws are even less than they understand "scientific theory." Slrubenstein | Talk 11:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In general, the term "law" is used in science for things that are well-established and can be stated mathematically: Newton's laws of motion, for example, can be written as equations, as can the laws of thermodynamics. Not everything that can be put in numbers is called a "law," but the term isn't generally used for theories like evolution and plate tectonics, because if there are equations that will let us predict the details of either, we haven't found them yet. Vicki Rosenzweig (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There are actually a number of equations that allow us to predict evolution's course, but evolution itself is indeterminate - that is to say, while we can say that certain traits result in certain alleles spreading through the population at some rate, and/or we can say how long it will likely take for a given allele to become fixed in a given population, we cannot say which allele will be fixed (just which is more likely to be so) nor can we say that higher survival chances always equate to higher survival (if your odds of dying a death by shark are 80% instead of 90%, that's nice, but if you're a very small subpopulation you could be wiped out by luck of the draw). Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, the general public isn't really that confuse when scientists refer to evolution as theory. They know that there's a difference between "established scientific theory" and "a guess about what might have happened". And rarely do creationists (at least the ones who try to be taken seriously) use the decades-old "evolution is just a theory - even scientists say that" line. It just doesn't come up. Comparing biological theories to, for instance, the law of gravity might be useful in some circumstances, but "the Law of Evolution" is a misnomer. It would just be confusing. I wouldn't see anything wrong with referring to "biological laws" in the context of governing evolutionary processes, though. And that's from a creationist who understands that all the editors on here aren't out to "get" creationism. :) standonbible^Talk! 05:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Status Introduction to Evolution

I know many of you here have monitored the Introduction to Evolution Article. Perhaps your constructive criticism would be of help as we pursue FA status. I feel that it would lend credibility to the controversial topic to have the star and it would be appropriate; since we are the first link featured at the top of this article. So far two concerns have been raised over format of citations --- which we will fix. However this comment "The article is POV. Even if it's an introduction, it should still mention a little about the creationism debate." deals with the general nature of the article; thus is of greater concern to me. Sorry --- don't have the link to the commentary page; but you can bounce off of Introduction to Evolution. Thanks for your helpful input in advance :) --Random Replicator (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Weird, sounds like paint the kettle black. Why should a science article on evolution be side tracked with possible undue weight about a social issue. I can appreciate the gravity and concern but the article needs to focus on the science I would think. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me try this again. We have submitted the Introduction to Evolution entry for featured article status. It has been extensively edited by very talented people. At present - we are receiving rather knee-jerk commentaries of little or no value when it comes to improving the article. Again .... I would like to invite you to comment on the condition of the article and provided informed suggestions for improvement. I am seeking input from the names I am familiar with from this discussion page that are experienced on this topic. This is not a plea for support; but, for input --- for better or worse. It was based on discussions on this page that the Introduction to Evolution Article was created. The lack of interest from those whose opinion we value is very disappointing. I am not soliciting supporting votes - I merely asking for your input (support or oppose) and if it falls short then please tell us what we need to do to improve it or better yet ---- jump in and fix it!. Please join in the commentary. Thanks --Random Replicator (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

New external link

There is a new journal called Evolution: Education and Outreach available free online. Article about it; 1st issue
Does anybody support inserting it into the external links?--Svetovid (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As a teacher, I was delighted to see such a resource. If you would care to add it to the external links on Introduction to EvolutionI am sure it will be well received there. --Random Replicator (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Should mention sociobiology

The article should mention Sociobiology. It's as important and controversial as punctuated equilibrium. The treatment of sociobiology should ensure that it is not confused with Social Darwinism. Philcha (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Start of intro

Introduction to evolution begins, "Evolution is the accumulation of changes through succeeding generations of organisms that results in the emergence of new species." I think this is a much better first sentence than Evolution currently has: it summarises Darwin's original reasoning; it focusses on the core issue, speciation; it would work even if all our current understanding of genetics were blown away by some new discovery; and of course it requires less prior knowledge on the part of the reader.

"evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next" is slightly inaccurate; from a genetics point of view it would be more accurate to say e.g. "evolution is a change in the percentage mix of inherited traits in a population from one generation to the next" ( or "... in the frequency distribution of inherited traits ...", but I prefer the simpler expression in an initial sentence) since a population itself does not have traits. I suggest this slight inaccuracy is a symptom of trying to pack too much theory into the first sentence. Philcha (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Debate

No section on the problems with evolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.232.154 (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Current areas of research and points of debate, such as the importance of species level, rather than gene level selection, or the importance of genetic drift in speciation, are discussed throughout the article. This material fits best next to the section outlineing the concept involved. Tim Vickers (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be valuable to have a section that explores the debate between Gould (and others) and Dawkins (and others) on species vs. genes as objects of selection, as well perhaps on debates on the inpact of recent advances on evodevo on evolutionary theory (or, speculations). Editors have done a fantastic job of laying out clearly and elegantly what life scientists agree on and perhaps some editors feel more comfortable sticking to what we know for sure. But I think these debates are interesting and also it furthers our educational goals to explain to people what kinds of things scientists working within the same paradigm do in fact question and debate, and how such debates take shape.Slrubenstein | Talk 11:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Such debates are noted in the text, but not personalised or attributed. Tim Vickers (talk) 13:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... this is what I thought you were saying in your 12:50 comment, which is precisely why I feel we need a separate section. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"Such debates ... not personalised or attributed". I think not naming Gould, Dawkins and other participants in recent / current debates about the theory of evolution is an inconsistency, since all sorts of other scientists and pre-scientists are named. It also misses an opportunity to help readers, since some of them will know the name of e.g. Gould and / or Dawkins from other reading, and giving the names will help such readers to get oriented. Philcha (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

PS The "Co-operation" section should mention the name of Robert Trivers, the problem of altruism in species whose genetics do not mandate eusocial behaviour and the concept of Evolutionarily stable strategy. Philcha (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Originally Nowak was directly mentioned concerning cooperation. Trivers is an interesting individual. I think he only published seven papers and two or three books his career. I also think he never completed a degree-as I recollect?? Names have come and gone in this article. Concerning the debates issue. Why not start a stub and start adding topics: Ernst vs Kimura, Gould vs Dawkins, Mutationism vs natural selection, Level of selection, etc. and then we can start filling in various issues and debates. This may be more appropriate for the Modern Synthesis article. Oops! Forgot to sign in. GetAgrippa (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would favor putting this kind of material in a subsiduary daughter article or two, especially if it is explored in any detail. This has been discussed here on this talk page previously. And several editors and readers have called for a separate article, with all this material collected in one place so they can see the "edge" of the science and where progress is being made.--Filll (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This would be fine with me too, especially if this article is getting too long (otherwise I think it is generally good practice to start new threads in the main article and spin them off to daughter articles when they reach a certain length - but either way is fine by me)Slrubenstein | Talk 17:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "good practice to start new threads in the main article and spin them off to daughter articles when they reach a certain length." One can get into paralysis by analysis if one worries too much about structure up front. I know some good editors who find this approach works well. Philcha (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia believes there is stronger evidence for evolution being true than 1 + 1 = 2, you can't argue with a mad man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.46.152 (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)