This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 15 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion
I am not sure what is the clearest and most precise way to word it, but we need to reword this:
Genetic drift results from the role chance plays in whether a given individual will survive and reproduce.
because it is not just about whether an individual will survive or not, it is - among sexual species - about whether a trait will be inherited or not. Read no more if you know what I mean; if you do not: Hardy-Weinberg suggests that for a locus with two alleles, 25% of the offspring will be aa, 25% AA, and 50% Aa. But even if a couple were to have four offspring, how often does this happen? And what about couples who have only one child, or two? these kinds of things are part of drift too, not just a piano falling on my head before I have had a chance to reproduce. Suggestions? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Good Point Slrubenstein. As long as the mating is random HW will maintain. Perhaps: Genetic drift results from the role chance plays in whether a given individual will survive, and nonrandomly mate (small population for instance) and reproduce. That may be confusing-and a mouthful. I've forgotten how gene linkage (or imprinting)influences HW??-someone give my brain a jump start.I remember the frequencies are different.GetAgrippa (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
GetAgrippa, HW will not necessarily apply even if mating is random (unless i misunderstand you). Drift is sampling error and sampling error is greatest when the numbers are low. For example, whether a flipped coin is heads or tails is virtually random. But it really is possible to flip it five times and have five heads in a row. If you flip it fifty times, the probability that it distributes 50%-50% increases, but that is only a probability, it could easily come up 40 heads and 60 tails. If you flip it 1000 times, the probability of 50-50 is even greater. And it is even greater still if you flip it 10000 times. But it always remains a probability. Same with HW. If a couple has 20 children, it is more probably that HW distribution will occur than if a couple has only four children. And if they have only two children, HW cannot possibly occur for the one couple. Now, if that couple is part of a population of a million people, even if every couple in the million had only 2 children it is highly probably you will find an HW distribution. But if you have a population of 500, that probability is low. When we are talking about rabbits and fruit flies perhaps their reproductive strategies lead to high probabilities of HW distributions, but when you are talking about human population genetics, where populations really can vary very widely in size, and fertility rate can vary widely, this stuff really matters. It is not just a question of random mating. Even if mating really were random, small population size and low fertility rates could lead to a high level of genetic drift meaning a significant departure from HW predicted distributions of traits. I am really sure I am right about this - am I explaining it clearly (this is why I hesitate actually to edit the section yet!! "Non-randomly reproduce," if you are using "reproduce" to refer to the actual offspring someone has rather than any pattern in their sexual behavior, verges on tautology, I think ... ) Slrubenstein | Talk 20:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Slrubenstein, that puts it over well for me. As a complete amateur, here's my précis of what you've said:
Genetic drift results from the role probability plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals randomly survive and reproduce, with larger populations tending to even out the distribution, but smaller populations more prone to sampling error and the chance that allele distribution will change.
For the lede, the second part may be too much detail, so in short –
Genetic drift results from the role probability plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals randomly survive and reproduce.
That sound better to you? . . dave souza, talk 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
"Genetic drift results from the role probability plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals randomly survive and reproduce." - yes, well put. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Jeez, you are good! Yeah, sounds good to me. Would one of you make the change or do you want to wait for any other comments? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
That is good. Yeah, Slrubenstein as soon as I read what I said I did the double take. My attempt to keep it simple just made it confusing. Kudos to Dave!GetAgrippa (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
One tweak, since the whole point of evolution is that individuals (on a population-wide average) don'trandomly survive and reproduce; survival, reproduction & heritability is subject to random variation...maybe something like this:
Genetic drift results from random variation in the survival and reproduction of individuals, affecting the probability that a given trait will be passed onto offspring.
I imagine that could be made clearer, though. — Scientizzle 22:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with Scientizzle and the premise upon which it is based. Evolution does not have a "point." It is non-teleological. Natural selection may have a point, but drift does not. The edit in question is not an account of natural selection let alone evolution as a whole, it is merely an acount of drift. I think dave souza nailed it. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It appears I should have chosen my words more carefully. I certainly did not mean to imply that evolution has some sort of cosmic reason or underlying direction or intelligence...
I simply meant to argue that the foundation of evolution via natural selection is that survival of individuals/discrete genetic traits is, on average, not random; rather, an allele that alters fitness modifies the probability of propagation from the individual's baseline "average" chance of successful propagation. That "average" is a function of nature's chaotic effects upon survival & genetic transmission, dependent and independent of genetic characteristics. Fitness-altering traits affect the "genetic-dependent" portion of this random variability (i.e., efficient foraging or predator-evasion)--over time, on average, these traits will be selected for or against based on this. Alleles that do no affect fitness are subject to the same natural chaotic patterns, just without the mathematical multipliers of those that affect fitness.
My discomfort with Dave's wording was that it states that "individuals randomly survive and reproduce", which I think is clearly incorrect...an individual's suvival & reproduction is largely random, but not wholly (otherwise natural selection would not ultimately occur). This nuance, I feel, is the crux of my argument. As another attempt to clarify my suggestion: Genetic drift results from underlying variability in the fitness-independent survival and reproduction of individuals, affecting the probability that a given trait will be passed onto offspring. I hope I've made this clearer and I'm not just confusing myself and others... — Scientizzle 22:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
But"drift" is not "natural selection." You are talking about natural selection. We are talking about drift. they are distinct and different. (And drift effects genes selected for, and genes selected against - randomly, that is the point) Slrubenstein | Talk 09:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is clearer to separate the two, since drift will still occur in the complete absence of selection. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I really am not talking about selection, but I can see that I've not made a clear point and that it may be best to keep the ideas firmly separate. Don't let my minor quibble hold up improvement to the article. Cheers, — Scientizzle 18:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I am trying to understsand your point. Question: would you agree with Dave Souza's version if we just deleted the word "randomly?" Dave, Tim, Agrippa, does it still make sense? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I think that succinctly addresses what I was getting at (in a far too convoluted manner). :) — Scientizzle 20:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"Genetic drift results from the role probability plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals randomly survive and reproduce." is intended to convey the point which might be expressed as "Genetic drift results from the role probability plays in whether a given trait will be passed on when individuals survive and reproduce without any influence from natural selection." Does that cover it better, or is it getting clumsy? . . dave souza, talk 21:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I would propose to keep th enew sentence except delete the word "randomly" and then just make sure that it is explicitly clear in the article that natural selection and genetic drift are two distinct processes, that they operate independently of one another, and that both shape evolution. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm no expert. Presumably that would make the lede discussion of drift read "In contrast, genetic drift produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift results from the role probability plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals survive and reproduce." Since random is already in the first sentence, including it in the second seems unnecessary. From your comment above, would it be worth changing "In contrast" to "Independently" or "In an independent distinct process"? dave souza, talk 07:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I still like Dave's first attempt-short and sweet. But I'm O.K. with dropping the "random" if it gets it done. I agree that the distinction between the two processes must be emphasized. Anyone care to comment on how the two processes can be distinquished via genetics-QTL analysis and fitness (probably more suited for Pop Genetics article)? GetAgrippa (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is trying to be a textbook when it's not
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
There's a huge amount of peripheral cruft in this article that has no reason for being in an evolution article: e.g.
"Present-day extinction rates are 100-1000 times greater than the background rate, and up to 30 percent of species may be extinct by the mid 21st century." (shocking and true, but how does it relate to evolution? if it does relate to it, there's no mention)
Or lengthy definitions and discussions of related concepts, that just aren't needed to explain "evolution". E.g.
The time for an allele to become fixed by genetic drift depends on population size, with fixation occurring more rapidly in smaller populations.[67] The precise measure of populations that is important here is called the effective population size, which was defined by Sewall Wright as a theoretical number representing the number of breeding individuals that would exhibit the same observed degree of inbreeding.
Yes, but what does it have to do with evolution? I know it's a related concept, but the article is too busy giving a textbook definition of genetic drift to relate it back to the topic.
I only recently discovered the divide between the two evolution articles. The other being Introduction to evolution -- which, far from being a "for dummies" article, it is simply a better article. "Introduction" should simply replace this article. —Pengo 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tim - the Intro article is certainly good and has its place, but it's far too simplistic a picture of evolution to serve as an overview article for the past hundred years of history. That article gives a summary of selection and stops at the modern synthesis - hardly satisfactory. This article is far more comprehensive and needs to be, though I would agree it can be made more approachable and better written. Graft | talk 06:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say that genetic drift or extinction weren't "important" to evolution. I said there's no need to include so much detail in this article, and it fails to tie the concepts to the central topic (evolution). To give an example of what I mean, if the article on stars were structured the same way as this article, it would contain 3 paragraphs on hydrogen, 3 more on helium, and then 3 more on thermonuclear fusion and that would be the end of the article. Note, that it actually has no description of hydrogen or helium even though they are incredibly important to a star. "Important" does not mean "include a mini-essay within the article". —Pengo 22:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Poor analogy Pengo because "Star" is an object and evolution is a process. You could compare "Evolution" with "How Stars Form". In explaining how gene alleles shift with time and a trait and allele dominate a population (Evolution) one has to discuss the processes of genetic drift and natural selection. Seems we would be remiss not to explain these fundamental processes explaining how traits and gene alleles change with time. The size of the population is a critical factor in how gene alleles shift with time. Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I do think Pengo has a point about this article being a bit textbooky, and I kind of agree that "Introduction" is more appropriate for a main article (whereas this one would do well as "Evolutionary theory" or something). I'm not necessarily proposing we up and switch the two, but these issues seem worthy of more discussion. The current article is certainly very good, but I suspect most readers are more interested in the sections at the end of the article--Evolution#Evolutionary history of life, Evolution#History of evolutionary thought, Evolution#Social and cultural responses---than in the lengthy, technical sections that precede them. To give one small example, as I've brought up before, it seems a shame that there's no room to discuss dinosaurs and birds or the evolution of humans. Gnixon (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
"I'll believe it when i see it." "In that case, take a look at this..."
Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
Good reference, thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The original:Blount ZD, Borland CZ, Lenski RE.Inaugural Article: Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Jun 4. [Epub ahead of print]PMID: 18524956. "This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit(+) but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection." Very, very interesting article. Can't wait for follow-ups. Kudos to Kevin. GetAgrippa (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is an earlier article from same experiment:Cooper TF, Rozen DE, Lenski RE.Parallel changes in gene expression after 20,000 generations of evolution in Escherichiacoli.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Feb 4;100(3):1072-7. Epub 2003 Jan 21.PMID: 12538876 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Good stuff. GetAgrippa (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Added to the adaptation section, along with the nylon-eating bacteria. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I noted this article in a recent Science that may be of interest for the HGT section:Gladyshev EA, Meselson M, Arkhipova IR.Massive horizontal gene transfer in bdelloid rotifers.Science. 2008 May 30;320(5880):1210-3.PMID: 18511688 [PubMed - in process]. These asexual rotifers have incorporated elements from plants, bacteria,and fungi. Oops, forgot to log on. GetAgrippa (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, added to the HGT section. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, added to the section on allopatric speciation. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I covered that in-depth on the Podarcis sicula page. Too cool not to... — Scientizzle 14:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
History
Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
There's a nice NY Times column about the history of early evolutionary theory and the impact of Origins. Gnixon (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Good article Gnixon-much to my posit of too much emphasis on Darwin. Sometimes it is he who can popularize an idea that gets all the attention. I think of Fred Hoyle who popularizd the steady-state universe in contrast to the growing evidence of the Big Bang. His resistance to the Big Bang delayed the popularization of the idea. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It's true that advocates can skew things, but it seems Origins did much more than popularize. Origins was significant because it made the first convincing case for evolution by natural selection, using extensive evidence. In that light, it's entirely appropriate that Darwin and Origins get all the credit. Gnixon (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that article, pretty good. See they've made the mistake of using a post 1866 picture of Darwin! Someone here is to be greatly thanked for noticing that today's the anniversary of Darwin receiving the manuscript from Wallace, and has added it to the Main Page "On this day..." column. Well done! All pretty well covered on Publication of Darwin's theory#Forestalled onwards, a quick rush to improve the intro, about time I tackled the other detailed biographies :-/ dave souza, talk 17:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I always like Gould's notion of a Darwinian Bauplan. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yo, lay off Fred Hoyle, man. Working backwards from the anthropic principle to stellar nucleosynthesis is one of the coolest pieces of science I think I've ever read. Plus it's always awesome when outsiders to a field get to come in and yell "Chumps!" Graft | talk 17:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The fact that he identified the triple alpha process is no reason to lay off him for promoting the anthropic cop-out or panspermia. :) Gnixon (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You are correct Graft. Hoyle was correct about nucelosynthesis. Dave I can't remember. Nowadays I feel like August Kekule, but it is information that is like snakes gamboling before my eyes (but instead of biting each other on the tail they are biting me). Like Dan Quayle says: "What a terrible thing to lose ones mind.". GetAgrippa (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Ooops, we're both right! And I've much less of an excuse for my memory, because this page is still open in another tab – there was an early bauplan idea which was championed by Owen amongst others, then it was revived during the "eclipse of Darwinism", then another variation brought in "bauplans" as part of evo-devo. Which is where Gould comes in. See also this article's brief mention of Historical constraints/bauplans. . . dave souza, talk 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the research Dave. Hey Gnixon, Francis Crick and I think Doolittle also fell for the panspermia notion. What's up with that??? I guess great minds atrophy with age (Linus Pauling got a little nutty too with age). No wonder by my age your brain shrinks from a prune to a raisin. Still works pretty good,but I'm at the point that I can say "I've forgotten more than most have learned". Pi$$e$ me off something fierce. At least I've realized when I've told someone the same story for the third time. I think I may human combust. GetAgrippa (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that redirect is correct, since this article is about both the fact of evolution, and the theory used to explain this. I think we should keep the distinction clear in our links and sub-articles. The "modern evolutionary synthesis" is also used to refer to the current state of evolutionary theory, since it hasn't really changed significantly since the 1950s, except for details like punct. equ. and more emphasis on gene-centered selection. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
First line
Latest comment: 15 years ago33 comments11 people in discussion
I suggest changing the first line from;
"In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next."
to;
"In biology, evolution is the process of generation to generation change in the inherited traits of a population."
The second of the two is shorter, without losing anything; giving a more concise, clearer definition that places the necessary emphasis on the generational aspects of evolution.--THobern 20:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is a shorter way of expressing the idea, but I'm not sure if it is still as clear as the longer version. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Like Tim I find the current verion clearer. And I don't think we need to be counting words. Anyway, just my opinion, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The difference in length is minor, and I agree that the current version is clearer and more immediately understandable. Stick with the current version, please. Pyrospirit (talk·contribs) 20:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Isn't evolution specifically the change in allele frequency? "Genetic traits" sounds vague. Or are they synonymous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.126.180 (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
One tends to follow from the other, although most alleles have no phenotype. The difficulty here is choosing between being precise and being comprehensible. The first line states what evolution is in terms that most readers will find comprehensible, then the rest of the introduction expands on this imprecise summary in more accurate terms. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Other stuff
Although both are really tautologies...--203.129.46.253 (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
No, genetic changes is simply a reality. - RoyBoy 15:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Uhuh... I fail to see what you're getting at. I, however, was arguing that a sentence using both "inheritance" and "generation" is tautologous.--THobern 06:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)
Well not really, a slowly-changing environment could produce a shift in the acquired traits of a population over generations, but that obviously wouldn't be evolution. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It is obvious because that is the definition. Changes in acquired traits are not evolution, only changes in inherited traits are evolutionary changes. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course evolutionary change is inherited change by definition. That's not my point. What the hell is "a shift in the acquired traits of a population over generations" other than inherited changes. Acquired traits (Phenotypic plasticity) is not transmitted to the next generation (unless you are
Lamarckian), therefore cannot be accumulated over generations unless it is inherited, in which case it would be evolution.Plantsurfer (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The ability of phenotypic plasticity is heritable, but the epigenetic changes produced are generally not heritable (although there are cases of heritable epigenetic changes for a number of generations)but dependent on the precipitating environment cause. Further there is a literature that supposes some of the epigenetic changes can be later fixed by genetic change to produce evolution. I also think it would difficult to say that phenotypic plasticity is not evolutionarily significant in adaptive ways (especially in plants) GetAgrippa (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
No, let's get this straight - phenotypic plasticity is NOT heritable, at least not in any direct sense.
Plantsurfer (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I said the "ability" of phenotypic plasticity is heritable as not all organisms display the phenomenon, but in social insects, for instance,the ability is heritable and the environment activates the program to determine their caste. Although upon reflection I think I mispoke that some organisms don't exhibit phenotypic plasticity, and probably all do to some degree. However, I have beat this horse to death and you can look in the archives to find the articles that discuss heritable epigenetic changes that last several generations. This has promoted the misleading term of NeoLamarckism that some authors have adopted. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well Plantsurfer if you say "No" with impunity you'd be wrong. I will do some homework for you:Nussey DH, Postma E, Gienapp P, Visser ME.Selection on heritable phenotypic plasticity in a wild bird population.Science. 2005 Oct 14;310(5746):304-6.PMID: 16224020 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Tim's saying that a shift in traits acquired through use and disuse is not evolution as now defined, though it's still possible. To take a Darwinian example, generations of blacksmiths may be more muscly than the general population without the shift in traits being genetically inherited. Of course we now think that Darwin was wrong in thinking that such change was heritable, but it's not all that obvious unless you're familiar with the definitions and research. . . dave souza, talk 08:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That is no Darwinian example, with respect. Darwin wouldn't have been seen dead with such an idea, although it might have intrigued Lamarck. No way did Darwin think such change was heritable.Plantsurfer (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
See Effects of Use and Disuse, in 1859,[3], and his foreword to the 2nd edition of Descent dated 1874:[4] "I may take this opportunity of remarking that my critics frequently assume that I attribute all changes of corporeal structure and mental power exclusively to the natural selection of such variations as are often called spontaneous; whereas, even in the first edition of the 'Origin of Species,' I distinctly stated that great weight must be attributed to the inherited effects of use and disuse, with respect both to the body and mind." On page 32 he discusses the idea in relation to sailors and soldiers,[5] Desmond & Moore referred to the blacksmiths example, but I've not found it in Darwin's writings available online. . . dave souza, talk 18:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, I may have been a little unclear. When the environment of a population of organisms changes slowly, so that each generation faces slightly different environmental conditions, then non-genetic phenotypic changes will occur that will be more pronounced in each generation. As an example, if the weather in one country got hotter slowly over time, each generation of people living in that country might get slightly more suntanned each summer, but this acquired trait would not be an evolutionary change, since it is not hereditable. This was the point I was trying to make (even if in a rather muddled fashion) - that not all changes over time are evolutionary changes, some are acquired characteristics attributable to environmental fluctuations. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Tim, you minx. You must a been a trapper in another life. The "bait" is critical to your success. Hee,hee,hee.GetAgrippa (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
And, btw, the mutual admiration society is unhelpful to this discussion and to the project. This is an encyclopedia. If you cannot discuss these points in a civil and even-handed way you should think about taking it elsewhere.Plantsurfer (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't get your panties in a wad-no offense meant. It just struck me as humorous. Nothing uncivil about my comments-just an observation that hit my funny bone. You must be a new editor if you think that in the least uncivil (which by the way I have a history to the contrary).Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC).
On an unrelated amusing note, I've changed the caption to the Hornet cartoon with a reference to Browne's description of how the cartoon of Darwin's head on an ape or monkey body developed as an icon of evolution as the idea became widely accepted in the 1870s, and reflected amusement and affection for the slightly daring idea. . .. dave souza, talk 20:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
You're failing to grasp my point. Inheritance, by definition, is between generations. To use both words in the same sentence is a tautology. Nobody has seemed to address my point of language, instead going off on unrelated tangents.--203.129.46.253 (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not a tautology. I assume you are arguing for the omission of the word inherited, to say simply "In biology, evolution is the process of generation to generation change in the traits of a population." But that would not be as clear. The word inherited is inserted for clarity, to make it clear what sorts of traits are referred to. Also, importantly, there are all sorts of other traits (using the word loosely, which is what happens when the adjective is removed) that might be supposed to vary from one generation to another, but that sort of variation is not part of evolution. So the pairing of generation-to-generation and inherited is not only not a tautology, it is essential. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a tautology. I'm not, however, suggesting we get rid of it.--THobern 08:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)
It is really a qualifier. Qualifying that the generation to generation changes are heritable changes. I get your point using "inherited" (as most people use it) does make it sound like a tautology. Perhaps "heritable" is a more appropriate biological term indicating "the proportion of phenotypic variation in a population that is attributable to genetic variation among individuals." GetAgrippa (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's a qualifier. It is not logically equivalent. generation-to-generation does not narrow down to a parents-offspring relationship. And inheritance does not narrow down to a single generational increment - nor does it, in fact, innately refer to generations at all, "inheritance" is simply the act of something being directly preserved (for instance "passed on") from one of it's priors. That something might be, for instance, DNA, or it may also be wealth, or it may be responsibility in the case of taking over somebody else's job or position. "Inheritance" defines a mechanism of transmission. "Generation-to-generation" does not. Generation-to-generation only defines the two ends of an unspecified transaction. It might be said that one is a predicate, while the other is a subject. Only in combination - only by the intersection of these two ideas - does one arrive at a context that is sufficiently narrow (yet sufficiently broad), to properly discuss biological evolution: The transmission of something from generation to generation by way of the preservation of that thing from parent to offspring. Not all generation-to-generation things are heritable. And not all heritable things are generation-to-generation. Kevin Baastalk 16:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Re-reading the original sentence makes the essentialness of the word "heritable" even more clear: for without it, there would be no way to tell whether the sentence was referring to those things that were passed down (were the same from generation-to-generation), were not passed down (were different), or both. Kevin Baastalk 16:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This debate is confusing "tautology" and "redundancy". They are not equivalent. It might be redundant to say "inherited from one generation to the next", but it is not tautological. Consult your nearest wiktionary. 01:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
True enough. "...a sentence using both "inheritance" and "generation" is tautologous" probably should really have been "...is redundant". Which might be true, had the words the same meaning. Tautology are logical circles and therefore can't be tested for by looking for pairs of words in the sentence. A tautology would be something like "if a, then b. if b, then a. therefore, both a and b.", if i'm not mistaken. To the dictionary!... Kevin Baastalk 01:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
One is a grammatical error of redundancy, and the other a logical argument that says nothing (is that an oxymoron, tautology or both hee,hee). The structure of the argument is constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed (so a tautological argument is not an argument). People say that about evolution all the time, but generally it is a strawman argument that they say is a tautology. Most often creationist quote Darwin and then address his errors, but then again atheist use the bible in much the same way-Touche'. I often think the layperson emphasis on Darwin creates many of the misconceptions. Ironic ain't it! Hee,hee,hee.LOL-I am just too funny. GetAgrippa (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
We should plot the life of this article as an example of evolution. It has changed in so many ways, and there have been periods of drift and selection. Shifts in "alleles" of the population and everthin! Sorry can't help myself I have internet Tourettes. hee,hee,hee. GetAgrippa (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hysterical. Get a grip, GetAgrippa! And btw I don't wear panties, I find them an impediment to gene flow.Plantsurfer (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey Plantsurfer. Good one!!!LOL. I would get a grip, but I may need that little blue pill. I hope you appreciate my good natured humor. Better than the general uncivil attitude or ad hominems many see as an argument. I appreciate your efforts to help improve this article. Keep it up-no pun intended. hee,hee,hee. Dang I'm bad to the bone-no pun intended again. Hooboy! Back to improving the article. GetAgrippa (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Competitive Exclusion
Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion
I see Tim Vickers changed my edit and would like some discussion on it. The article stated "competition for shared resources". I object to this as it is an oxymoron (as stated in my edit). If you are competing you are not sharing. I don't have access to Gause's original paper but I would be pretty certain he wouldn't use this language, A quick web search indicates shared is used in some contexts when in context but not in many (even though one is presitigious and should really know better). --Candy (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Good point, I've deleted the word "shared". Since this is an introductory article I try to define as well as link technical terms. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Could it be "available resources"? --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I hate to throw a monkey-wrench into such succesful collaboration, but I do not think "available" is a good substitute; moreover, I do not think that any adjective is even necessary. I agree with Candy's criticism of the word "shared" and Tim's initial response. suspect that the original intention in using the word "shared" is that the individuals concerned are competing for the same resource, that is, they share a need or desire for the same resource. This is very different from the concept of availability. After all, individuals of different species may exist in the same environment, where the same resources are available, yet not compete for them (because different species specialize for different foods, for example). In fact, I do not think we need to say that the resources are available - if individuals are competing for them obviously they are available - nor do I think we need to say that they resources are shared - but in this sense, because if individuals are competing for them, obviously their desire for them is shared. I just don't think we need either word; plain "resources" serves. I hesitate to revert editors I respect though and maybe i am actually misunderstanding this thread, so I leave it to Tim to decide whether what I wrote makes sense or not. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You say that resources are "available" by definition but in fact if they were simply available (in other words available to all) there would be no competition, everybody would be satisfied. It is when resources are limited to what is available that beneficial traits kick in to drive competition. --FilmFan69 (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
What about "limited resources"? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You beat me to it - if this is what FilmFan means, then "limited resources," rather than "available resources," is the proper phrasing. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Still not the most succinct phrasing but I feel far more accurate, Thanks. --Candy (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we're still open for suggestions. --FilmFan69 (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
How about "common resources" anyone? --Plumbago (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
"Limited resources" explains better – it's not that both organisms use the same resources, but that demand exceeds supply. Fish don't compete for water, they compete for food. In my opinion. . dave souza, talk 11:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Limited resources is the right phrase. As for succinct - well, it is only two words. The only way to be more succinct is to use just the word "resources." Slrubenstein | Talk 11:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe you guys talked about this one word so much. Graft | talk 00:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I suppose the sharper the article gets, the smaller the point of debates will become. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article is up as a FAC, see discussion here. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Modern Synthesis Update???
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I thought this recent Science article of general interest to editors concerning the question "Is Evolution theory due for an update?": Pennisi E. Evolution. Modernizing the modern synthesis.Science. 2008 Jul 11;321(5886):196-7. No abstract available. PMID: 18621652 [PubMed - in process]. Note how epigenetics is starting to turn heads as I once predicted. hee,hee,hee. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
There is also PMID17924956, which is also useful. This is very, very important, as you said GetAgrippa. Might even merit a few new sentences! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Philosophical basis
Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion
Nothing useful for article improvements
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The page for evolution theory definitely needs a section explaining its philosophical basis, because many of its arguments directly stem from this source.
If you read through the article, you'll see that evolution isn't based on philosophy, but on science. It is a demonstrated fact.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ramdrake,
EVERY kind of science has a philosophical basis. In mathematics, the basic assumptions are called "axioms" - things that we accept without proof.
In mathematics these are made known to those who study it, so should it be done for evolution science also.
See also: Philosophy of science, Scientific methodKgeza7 (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2008 (GMT)
Except, evolution is based on a ton of proof. It is not without proof.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussions about the philosophy of science belong in that article, not each sub-article on the various types of science. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's good that there is a reference to that page. But to be fair with the reader, you should let naturalism be mentioned here also. It is the rule that science uses "to play the game". If we have different rules, we'll get different results (from the same ton of evidence). Kgeza7 (talk)
Out of curiosity, why is this area of science the one that you think we should discuss the philosophy of science in? Why not add an identical section in gravity or atom? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I never said you should discuss the philosophy of science here: I just referred Ramdrake to that page. What I'm saying is that the philosophical basis of this field of science should be made visible just as it is done for other fields. Out of curiosity, why do you think that the philosophical basis of this one science should not be made explicit? Kgeza7 (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2008 (GMT)
Because the philosophical underpinnings of evolutionary biology are no different than other sciences, so it would be redundant to add this to all the science articles, and unjustifiable to add it to one. This is the topic of the philosophy of science article, not a topic for sub-articles on particular sciences. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
You are only partly right. Evolutionary biology is a combination of natural science and historical science. It is generally accepted that natural science should use methodological naturalism; but there is a debate whether history should be called science at all, not to mention what its philosophical basis should be. And it IS discussed on the Wikipedia page of history. So it should be just natural to allow this matter to appear on the page of a combined science like evolution theory. Kgeza7 (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2008 (GMT)
No, general concepts go in general articles. General points about the philosophy of science belong in a general article on the topic, it is not "just natural" to add redundant material to sub-articles. Once you have persuaded the editors of the main articles on chemistry, physics and biology that they should have a section on the philosophy of science, only then you might move on to adding equally unnecessary sections on the same topic to the next level of sub-articles, such as mechanics, organic chemistry or evolution. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
All science is based on methodological naturalism. Should we add that to every single science article? thx1138 (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
"Einsteinism", classic! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit disappointing, but the article Dave quoted seems to be fake: there's nothing like that on the page of Discovery Institute. Kgeza7 (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2008 (GMT)
I'm gutted! I was enjoying the vision of RC becoming "visibly excited" by his nonsense. I'd have paid good money for the video. Plantsurfer (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
There are different schools of science beside those that require naturalism, e.g. critical rationalism requires falsifiability, instrumentalism emphasizes utility. (See Philosophy of science.) They seem reasonable to many scientists, and e.g. chemistry, biology, etc. satisfy both, while evolutionary biology satisfies neither. Kgeza7 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2008 (GMT)
Bluntly put, is your point that evolutionary biology isn't falsifiable, and without proof? That seems to be the slant of your argument right now, but I'd like to make sure what it is really that we're discussing.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that evolution, per se, cannot be falsified: the theory accepts any natural cause that we know of or could discover in the future; but rejects every other possible cause (supernatural/intelligent) as unscientific. Therefore if new evidence is found that doesn't fit the theory (e.g. some fossils), the theory changes to include that evidence, but there's no way to say it's falsified (because the alternative would be considered unscientific). (It has changed a lot since Darwin, and it is sure to change in the future. In fact, many predictions Darwin made have turned out to be false, yet we still talk about darwinism, it just means something different. And the open questions still abound.) Kgeza7 (talk) 0:40, 30 July 2008 (GMT)
[ec]Ah yes, the post-modernist religious apologia...The evolution is unfalsifiable canard has been dealt with here & by others.[6] Even if I grant your premise (which I won't), what, pray tell, is the alternative? The completely and clearly unfalsifiable religious/supernatural explanations offered instead? — Scientizzle 23:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Scientizzle: many people have written many books listing findings that do not very well fit into the current theory of evolution. But I am not trying to prove that evolution is right or wrong. All I'm saying is that writings dealing with evolution should admit that there are some assumptions that evolution theory makes, and make them explicit. Kgeza7 (talk) 0:49, 30 July 2008 (GMT)
It's never surprising that evolution seems to be the first target of those that want to attempt the unnecessary "qualification" of scientific statements. — Scientizzle 00:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
...and around to the same old discredited arguments we go again. See the FAQ and if you are interested in discussing your ideas further I'd recommend talk.origins. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Tim, which is the idea that you do not agree with? Which do you think is discredited? 1) There are other acceptable criteria for checking if something is "scientific" beside naturalism. 2) Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified in the current paradigm. 3) Evolution theory is a combination of natural sciences and historical sciences. Kgeza7 (talk) 0:06, 30 July 2008 (GMT)
I think we are close to ending this discussion. Kgeza7 is apparently not very familiar with either the theory of evolution or the philosophy of science. "Falsifiability" was an idea proposed by Karl Popper; do you think science did not exist before Popper? In fact, there are some problem's with Popper's concept. But the main issue is simple: is there any consistency across the different sciences (and Evolution is a scientific theory, and not history, unless you consider astronomy to be history too) in the relationship between theories and evidence? This is the question Popper was trying to answer, and most philosophers of science have moved beyond his answer which to be sure made some valuable contributions but is not scripture or dogma (as science lacks scripture or dogma).
Several philosophers and historians of science have, however, argued that Popper's definition of theory as a set of falsifiable statements is wrong [1] because, as Philip Kitcher has pointed out, if one took a strictly Popperian view of "theory", observations of Uranus when first discovered in 1781 would have "falsified" Newton's celestial mechanics. Rather, people suggested that another planet influenced Uranus' orbit—and this prediction was indeed eventually confirmed.
Kitcher agrees with Popper that "there is surely something right in the idea that a science can succeed only if it can fail". [2] He also takes into account Hempel and Quine's critiques of Popper, to the effect 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, while others—those he calls "auxiliary hypotheses", are.
According to Kitcher, good scientific theories must have three features:
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).
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 it can currently answer. But incompleteness is not vice. On the contrary, incompleteness is the mother of fecundity…. A good theory should be productive; it should raise new questions and presume that those questions can be answered without giving up its problem-solving strategies" (1982: 47–48).
Auxiliary hypotheses 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).
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 the orbit of Uranus, falsification is only one possible consequence of observation. The production of new hypotheses is another possible—and equally important—observational consequence.
I'd say with this we can dispense with Kgeza7's concerns. The theory of evolution is in all that matters like any other powerful scientific theory. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above and have read it earlier myself. I also agree that evolution IS a scientific theory and never denied it. But your arguments do not refute my claims. In one sentence: evolution is a fruitful scientific theory, but has (to have) some philosophical basics, and cannot claim that all its statements are true - because they are true only if the axioms are true, therefore these should be made explicit. For example let's suppose that God does exist and did create mankind on Earth directly from soil (to be similar to monkeys, etc.). If this is true, then evolution is wrong, in as much as it claims that He did not. How do you decide whether this is true or not? You cannot decide, you can only believe in one or the other. I hope everyone understands this, and then this is the end of my arguments also. Kgeza7 (talk) 0:39, 30 July 2008 (GMT)
Evolution overcoming entropy
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
There seems to be a lot of debate about how Evolution works with the second law of thermodynamics. Is there any reason the arguments, or a link to these arguments are not covered here? 162.18.76.206 (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
If you mean that evolution "violates" the second law of thermodynamic, that's a common fallacy. Please read more here.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If there are any professional evolutionary biologists who watch this page, I wonder if you could take a look at that article, specifically the second paragraph of the "Statement" section, which is a criticism of the term "Darwinism". To me, as a neuroscientist, that paragraph looks silly, and I think it will look silly to most people who do biology for a living. When I've said so on the discussion page, though, I haven't gotten much traction. It would be nice to have more voices here if you can spare the time. I emphatically don't want to have a war with people whose viewpoint I generally agree with, but it would be nice to improve this. Looie496 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Two potential articles for consideration
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I have suggested a couple of potential articles here in the past that were not met with much interest, though I'd like to suggest a couple more for consideration: evolution and religion/religion and evolution (we currently have a lot of articles that are closely related to this topic, including many subtopics of it, but nothing identical) and applications of evolution/applied evolution. I think the latter would be a particularly good idea, which could become an offshoot of the final section. One article that would be useful is "Applied evolution" by Bull and Wichman, 2001, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:183-217. The scope of the latter article would basically be to answer the question "why study/research evolution"? (I can't think of a title that's quite adequate). Richard001 (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, as the Reverend Baden Powell put it, "the grand principle of the self-evolving powers of nature"... religious approval of evolution is interesting, but does tend to be seen as a minor aspect of the "controversy". . . dave souza, talk 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with TimVickers that the religion and evolution controversy has been dealt with but the applied notion may have merit as in evolutionary strategies applied to molecular medicine, agriculture,etc. but I think there is a sentence that at least makes some mention of if???GetAgrippa (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree, after looking at the content, that religion and evolution would probably be too similar to creation-evolution controversy. That's sort of a historical accident I guess; if we had had an article on religion and evolution first, that one may not have existed instead. If anything, a redirect (or rename, perhaps?) might be appropriate.
Another one I forgot is neutral evolution - something that discusses all forms of neutral evolution, such as the neutral theory of molecular evolution, genetic drift, and analogous processes at the macroevolutionary level (see e.g. Stearns and Hoekstra, Evolution: An introduction, chapter 3).
I'll probably never get around to creating these myself even if they are considered good ideas, given my low rate of article creation, long list of ideas and need to spend less time here. Richard001 (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Reticulate Evolution
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The term "reticulate evolution" does not appear to arise in the article. In view of the fact that Web of Science lists 513 papers with this in the title since 1963, perhaps it should be included. Plantsurfer (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hybridization is discussed so the topic is addressed (indirectly). To use the term in a cladistic sense is not necessary (cladistics is not mentioned either as I recollect). I don't believe convergence or adaptive radiation are mentioned either, so the omission is neutral. GetAgrippa (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
species and variation
Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
I have been mulling over this for a long time ... there is one important idea that I think is missing - or too implicit for lay readers to grasp - yet which I think is essential to the theory of evolution and to the way this theory has had an impact on the life sciences comparable to the impact Newton had on the physical sciences.
A symptom of this problem is in the introduction, the paragraph that beings "One definition of species ..." - a sentence which is notable for what is left unsaid. Left unsaid is this: "There used to be a clear definition of species, as a general type. Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian theory demolished that definition. There is no single authoritative definition that has taken its place." It is the reason why the general type definition was demolished, and why no single definition easily takes its place, that is really interesting (more interesting than the particular definition we provide) and also really important.
This reason is summed up in the following, which is from a book on US intellectual history ... I chose it because I think it is well-written and conveys what I am getting at, not because I think we ought to quote this particular source in the article. But I think that what follows would be accepted by all biologicsts working within the framework of evolutionary theory:
Darwin's fundamental insight as a biologist was that mong groups of sexually reproducing organisms, the variations are much mofe important than the similarities...
A way of thinking that regards individual differences as inessential departures from a general type is therefore not well suited for dealing with the natural world. A general type is fixed, determinate, and uniform; the world Darwin described is characterized by chance, change, and difference - all the attributes general types are designed to leave out. In emphasizing the particularity of individual organisms, Darwin did not conclude that species do not exist. He only concluded that species are what they appear to be: ideas, which are provisionally useful for naming groups of interacting individuals. "I look at the term species," he wrote," as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other ... It does not essentially differ from the word variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for convenience sake." Difference goes all the way down.
Once our attention is redirected to the individual, we need another way of making generalizations. We are no longer interested in the conformity of an individual to an ideal type; we are now interested in the relation of an individual to the other individuals with which it interacts. To generalize about groups of interacting individuals, we need to drop the language of types and essences, which is prescriptive (telling us what finches should be), and adopt the language of statistics abd probability, which is predictive (telling us what the average finch, under specified conditions, is likely to do). Relations will be more important than categories; functions, which are variable, will be more important than purposes; transitions will be more important than boundaries; sequences will be more important than hierarchies.
I think many of you who work so hard on this article have advanced training or are even active researhcers in the life sciences. If so I suspect you take the above so for granted that you may not be aware (or care) about what a shock this was to natural historians in the 19th century who following Linnaeus thought of species as ideal or general types. But I think this is one of the shifts in thinking that really make evolutionary theory so revolutionary.
And here is why it bugs me that this is not made clear in the article. Although the above may be old-hat or banal, or true only in some general philosophical sense, to those of you who are pros, because your own research is restricted to a domain where one can accept some arbitrary definition of species for practical purposes and produce great science ... I think (1) most lay people actually still think that a "species" is a real thing and not a way of thinking about things; and that species are ideal or general types. Even lay-people who claim to accept evolution and hate creationism, still think this way - at least, most of my students and friends do, and it comes across in popular culture too. And I think wikipedia articles need to educate these people. Yes, this article must be accurate in the eyes of experts who really know this stuff inside-out. But it also has to be educational to people who know next to nothing, and in this case I think it means explaining the above.
Actually I would propose to quote the above in one instance in this article: "species are what they appear to be: ideas, which are provisionally useful for naming groups of interacting individuals" and then we can say that a popular (or, a very useful) definition of species is... (and go into what we have in the introduction).
But just as important, I think somewhere in the article we need to explain this idea - it can be in a section on species, or on variation, or in the introduction. But the rejection of any definition of species as an ideal or general type in favor of a statistical description of interacting individuals is in my opinion (1) really important and (2) generally overlooked or misunderstood by our average reader, and thus needs to be explained somewhere in the article. I am not exactly sure where or how but hope to open up discussion on this. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm a microbiologist, so "species" is a pretty arbitrary concept in my field. Many of the protozoa I work on are effectively clonal lines, and bacteria share genes so often that they can be seen as a single gene pool. Perhaps a new section on "Species" after the section on "Population genetics"? Tim Vickers (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I whole heartedly agree. The species concept by taxonomic standard, Mayr's definition, a phenotypic species, the trend towards genetic distinction, cladistic,ecological, etc. needs to be addressed as speciation has become so inappropriately linked with evolution (as often many think evolution is synonymous with speciation). Then with microbes as Tim mentions it becomes problematic quickly. The species concept was fundamental to Darwin's quest, but now it has become a beast. Further the link I gave above with how to blend the modern synthesis and genetics to Darwin's observations of forms really highlights the significance of the issue. We can't just gloss over it. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I am very glad that the two of you are supportive of my general proposal. But I have expressed my own views as best I can above - aside from perhaps actually adding the one small quote I suggest, I have no concrete proposal and frankly would rather defer to people who really know the field much better than I. Could either of you propose something, or perhaps move this to the sandbox where we can collaborate on drafting something if you think it should be more elaborate and detailed (which I would wholely support)? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. In some ways Introduction to evolution#Species gives more of an indication about this issue than the #Speciation section in this article, but still doesn't set out this important point. It's arguable that this as much as the species concept was fundamental to Charles Darwin's quest, as the difficulty in determining whether organisms were species and varieties helped to shake his confidence that species were fixed, and suggested to him that transmutation of species was real. It's true that the “mystery of mysteries” of the origin of species was a hot topic at that time, but see Second voyage of HMS Beagle#Keeling Island homewards and Eldredge's discussion[7] of how Darwin was finding patterns of replacement by similar organisms – "But I do agree with Kohn et al. (2005), who have convincingly argued that “only varieties” is Darwin’s first statement toward the view that became so central to his later evolutionary arguments: that varieties, rather than simply reflecting variation within created kinds, are actually incipient species. . . dave souza, talk 19:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well having no expertise I decided to bite and added a Section Stub with some quick thoughts-surely missing other criteria. I do believe there is a web group using genetic markers to distinquish species?? And I believe there is at least one author who argues species is a real category in nature?? But I have always wondered when entymologist discover a new species by specific criteria is it a species by reproductive, ecological, or genetic criteria? GetAgrippa (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Folks, I have to travel for a few days and will not be checking WP regularly. But anything that Tim, GA and Dave agree on I am pretty sure I will value. I appreciate your collective willingness to work on this, it is the one thing about the article (as a way of educating people about the essentials of the theory of evolution) that has really been bugging me and only now did was i able to articulate it. I'll try to check in again in a few days or a week, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Very good Tim! Sorry I forgot to sign in-Dang. I think you are on the right track with the species vs pop. angle. GetAgrippa (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
TimVickers do you think we should mention different definitions of a species as in Mayr's, ecologicial, cladistical, etc. or is that handled in the Species article and we can just link the details there?? Also for the History section should we add a sentence about the articles related to updating the modern synthesis as it also demonstrates science is a process? GetAgrippa (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Tim, can you show me where you moved the material on species I wrote and sourced? I was surprised - I thought you too were disatisfied with the current article. But I have no problem with moving wehat I wrote here if you and GetAgrippa and others would be working on it and improving it in order to reinsert it into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Micro- and Macro-
Latest comment: 15 years ago27 comments8 people in discussion
I've just removed a good faith edit to add this to the article's lead. I've done this as the distinction between these two processes (if there is one), is too subtle for the lead of a general article such as this one. The distinction would obviously sit comfortably in the leads of the respective articles on micro- and macroevolution, but not here. Further, the distinction is already spelt out nicely in the main body of the article. There is no need for it in the lead, and especially not since creationists and their ilk (forced to recognise the readily demonstrable reality of microevolution) are wont to misrepresent and play up differences between the two processes. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 15:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand your take on this, however, I do think that it is important to have these in the beginning of the article. They are two major realities that make up evolution. I think to have the links right there readily available for the casual seeker is a good thing, it will allow them to quickly research these two areas that make up evolution (I think any good article on wikipedia has this type of format, where the components of a major theory or fact are expressed in the introduction). I understand the fear of misinterpretation by fundamentalist creationist types, but we can't allow fear of misunderstanding to drive science. It is covered well in the article, however it is way down in the outcome section. I think the distinction is real and needs to take a more prominent place in the article. My reasoning for this is, in part, due to the fact that not all microevolutionary changes lead to speciation, and in fact, often times microevolutionary changes revert themselves. It is important to see how the two distinct (though definitely not mutually exclusive) processes work. Also, I think it is important to state that the two major theories of evolution, genetic drift and natural selection are in fact, theories. I am in no way disputing their occurrence or importance, but we need to maintain integrity in our articles. See evolution as theory and fact to see that they are in fact theories, and there are other scientific (not creationist) views of how evolution takes place. Science is not a collection of facts, but a mutable collection of scientific theories and observations that in fact evolves to form a more correct interpretation of our natural world. Thanks!Jumacdon (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
What references are you basing your proposed changes on? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Check with WP:UNDUE. Micro- and Macro-evolution are not separate theories or hypotheses, but rather uncommon terms used to describe evolutionary changes over different periods of time. They are not notable enough to be discussed in detail in the very introduction of the article, and are not vital to understanding the premise of evolution. They are covered in more detail later on. These terms might be notable in regard to social aspects of theory of evolution or Intelligent Design claims, but there are no sources to suggest their prominence in the Scientific field, especially in regard to Evolution theory.
I'm reverting the changes. Please revert back if you can support notability with any citations according to WP:RS, otherwise, it might be a better idea to address the part of the article discussing these definitions specifically. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
And it is common knowledge that neo-creationists will often subdivide Evolution into these two more or less artificial distinctions. They are not "theories" of Evolution. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 16:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Gould was an advocate of macroevolutionary processes being important, such as species selection, but this is not a widely-accepted viewpoint and is still an area of much debate. (See article). The subject of whether or not such processes exist and if they do how important they are is therefore a very specialised sub-topic that needs to go after we've coverd the various levels of selection, not something to add to the lead. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I respect all of your opinions, however, it is apparent that micro and macro evolution are in fact to distinct things. AS I stated not all microevolutionary processes lead to macroevolutionary changes. How cares if creationists are insistent upon using (or misusing) this information to their liking. Is science a reaction to fundamentalism or a sincere pursuit of truth and understanding? I am confused. Scientists created the differentiation of micro and macro because they are different...I can't understand how that can be denied or belittled. Gould himself, among others, recognized this reality. Is it your take that all microevolutionary processes lead to speciation? And Orangemarlin, they are THEORIES of how evolution occurred, so yes...theories (don't assume I don't know the importance of a scientific theory, I do). I think it is important that you all stop reacting to creationists and start being fair and unbias for the sake of science and integrity. I am merely stating that the distinction is real, it is important, and your opinion does not lessen that. I enjoy looking at microevolutionary change and macroevolutionary change both in combination and in distinction. I am not in a battle with you all, I am in a battle to make science responsible. When did micro and macro distinctions lose favor? Hmmm...when creationists attempted to use them. I am dissappointed in this discussion, I was hoping we could all be un-bias and see the merit of each component and its importance in understanding. IN fact, for people who question macroevolution, microevolution may be used to convince them of macroevolution, but let's just pretend it's all the same, because we know everything. Thanks Vickers for the article, I appreciate it! Jumacdon (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
They are not theories about evolution. Please show me one reliable source that indicates so. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 18:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The distinction in the literature is between macro and micro processes, from selection acting at different levels. Gould argues that the process that could be related to macroevolutionary processes is species extinction or survival, speciation itself and adaptation are not the result of species selection. The idea of "macroevolutionary changes" is therefore incorrect, since the macroevolutionary effect is digital - the species either survives or it becomes extinct. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you cite any distinctions? Even the macro/micro-evolution articles don't make it, less of all cite them as separate theories.
I'm not sure what you mean by micro-evolutionary changes not necessarily leading to macro-evolutionary ones... It's a given, by why is it so important, and how does this imply the two definitions are suddenly notable enough to be included in the introduction? --Draco 2k (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Paragraph 2 of Evolution#Outcomes deals with this in the current article, but this is not an important area and I was careful to word this so that the species selection argument is not presented as more than an interesting hypothesis. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I never said that microevolutionary changes don't lead to macro, I stated that they do not ALWAYS (therefore it is not a given). Secondly, "Suddenly notable enough"? They have been notable since their inception, just because you claim them not to be does not cease to make them so. It is important to understand the different stages at which evolution occurs, I don't see why that is so difficult to understand-evolution consists of multiple stages (oh but these aren't important). This is obviously a knee jerk reaction to creationist criticsm and not a real scientific endeavor. I don't care about the creationist arguement in this, this is about science, why can't someone just be fair? Why must it be assumed there is some secret motivation? It reminds me of when I defend gay marriage, I am assumed to be gay. Besides, what makes you all experts? So far as I can tell I have the most credentials in here regarding this topic (with the very notable exception of Vickers), reading wiki articles does not make you an expert. However, I have already "yelled uncle" so to speak as I am evidently outnumbered and stubbornness has yet again prevailed over humility and logic. Bon Voyage. Jumacdon (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
That's too kind, my PhD isn't in evolutionary biology, so I'm certainly not the best-qualified person who has edited this page. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
However Sir Vickers, you are a scientist. I am, by no means, a PHD in evolutionary biology...however I have been researching it for years and have formed many of my own theories and ideas in regards to it. I guess I get a bit frustrated when it seems as though science (in this context) is taking a back door to opinion. However, much of what I state is my personal opinion as well, so I guess I should not be too harsh. I just want to talk scientifically without the shadow of fundamentalism or pseudoscience dictating what we can talk about as viable science.Jumacdon (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is no science, however. It merely presents verifiable data in the best format possible for the reader. Ideally.
It is up to you to prove that these terms are notable enough to be mentioned in the introduction of all things if you want to insert them, not for others to disprove it. If you can find any reliable sources suggesting these terms are undeniably relevant and important enough to be mentioned from the very start, please, go ahead and add them.
Lastly, let's try to keep within WP:GOODFAITH here. Just because you think some users accuse you of being X is not an excuse to do the same in return. All edits make it through based on their validity, not good or bad intentions of the author. --Draco 2k (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Tell me exactly what undeniably relevant means, because I don't think that exists. What would satisfy your hunger sir? Why is it such a big deal? Do you think they do not exist as different entities? Microevolutionary changes should not be studied of their own merit, but must be incorporated into the great evolutionary theory? MUST IT? EVERY time we see microevolutionary changes we are seeing the miniscule makings of a new species, is that what you are implying? Would you give such a big argument if we were discussing the different types of earthquakes, because they all move the earth? This makes no sense, it is important to differentiate the two because I said so, the fact that there exists two different types of evolution makes it so, it is self evident. They are different, it is dumbfounding for me to wrap my head around any idea that states the contrary. Think with the mind of a scientist, not with the mind of anger. Jumacdon (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I am doing these edits in good faith, I never would do otherwise. How am I doing it in return (accusing others wrongly)? The way at which you talk to me and the way at which you haphazardly undo my edits explains why I think about you the way I do. "All edits make it through based on their validity"? What does that mean? My edit is not valid, what I stated was not valid? WRONG, you know it was valid...you just disagree with its placement. The reason you disagree with the placement is because you don't think that the differentiation is important enough to be in the intro, that is not determining validity, that is personal bias. Jumacdon (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Draco, I am sorry...I looked up the link for WP:GOODFAITH, and you are right, I am not assuming that people are acting in good faith when undoing my edits. I still hold my own opinions about what is right in this, but I think you are holding to what you think is right as well. So, I am sorry for assuming badly of you, it was not personal. Jumacdon (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's a way friendlier atmosphere setting there.
Either way, it might be helpful to remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. You have present something to validate your edits - either here on the talk page or through direct citations - before or after committing them. This page is for discussing the article, not it's subject, Wikipedia's policies or anything else. You can request an expert's opinion on the subject, or a help from administrator if you feel yourself or your edits are being treated wrongfully. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand that wiki is not a forum, I truly do. I was not attempting to make it a forum by arguing content issues or personal beliefs, I was attempting to justify my edits, which were done in good faith, to make the article better, in my opinion. I do think the article would be better with my edits, I think they provide info-seekers with helpful links to help them understand what evolution is, and what constitutes evolution, the two components that are interrelated that make up evolution (remember, some people really don't realize that small changes below the species level that are readily documnted and/or observed with the untrained eye, are in fact, evolution). My discussion here in this topic has been to back up my claims of validity, not out of spite, anger, or underhandedness. However, as I stated earlier, I can see that the consensus among the editors of this article is that I am in the wrong and my edits are not warranted, I respect this opinion and will not go against it. I still, however, hold to my earlier statements and do apologize for my emotions, I am an emotional being! :) Jumacdon (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The meaning of "macroevolution" used in the papers I've cited in this article is "selection at a level above that of an organism". This probably does occur - think of organisms that specialise to deal with a very specific habitat, they will go extinct more rapidly than organisms that have evolved to be generalists and are therefore able to deal with environmental change more easily. However, the two are not really very easy to separate, since the adaptations that result in differences in extinction rate come from selection at the organism level (or below). Since this is such a difficult concept, and its importance and even existence is still debated, I don't think it should be given any more weight than it is now. However, it is important to realize that speciation is not "macroevolution" in this definition. Macroevolution is the result of competition between species. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand Vickers, and I agree. However, I don't think controversial, difficult, and/or debated topics should be avoided here at Wikipedia. Jumacdon (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Jumacdon, I know you've been around for a while but perhaps you've still to get really familiar with the essentials around here, particularly the need for verification of what you want to add to articles, avoiding new conclusions or too much emphasis on minority views. Talk page guidelines give some leeway, but still require you to cite good sources. .. dave souza, talk 22:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I do notice that some authors use "macroevolution" to mean "trends in the evolution of several species", such as in this paper on diatoms. Here they are discussing forces that might bias the evolutionary process in one direction or another. I think the article did at one point mention Cope's rule, which is the best-known of these hypotheses, but that isn't in the present version. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This issue isn't about whether or not they are important concepts. I think we all agree they are. The issue is, how much discussion do they merit in a general encyclopedia article about evolution? This article is very long. We need to strike a balance between not enough detail and too much. thx1138 (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Dave, I appreciate you steering me in the right direction, but I have read the links and understand the ideas. I actually didn't think that citations were necessary as there are many assertions in the text that don't have proper citations. I could cite "good sources" but to be completely honest, I am too busy right now to do so...I wanted to do it the easy way. Sorry. Jumacdon (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I think there is some confusion on the use of terms when considering micro and macro evolution. It can refer to changes related to time as in:A Localized Negative Genetic Correlation Constrains Microevolution of Coat Color in Wild Sheep J. Gratten, A. J. Wilson, A. F. McRae, D. Beraldi, P. M. Visscher, J. M. Pemberton, and J. Slate Science 18 January 2008 319: 318-320 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1151182] or changes related to amount of change as in: Correlated Evolution and Dietary Change in Fossil Stickleback Mark A. Purnell, Michael A. Bell, David C. Baines, Paul J. B. Hart, and Matthew P. TravisScience 28 September 2007 317: 1887 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1147337 which this paper examined microevoluton changes in fossil teeth related to diet over thousands of years. I think Gould used the term in reference to amount of change as implied in this retort to an article by Davidson and Erwin's paper "Gene Regulatory Networks and the Evolution of Animal Body Plans" by Jerry Coyne:" If one accepts the view that differences between phyla or between other higher level clades involve the accumulation of lesser differences between lower level clades over long periods, then microevolutionary theory (i.e., adaptive accumulation of micro-mutations through natural selection) does explain the evolution of different body plans. Indeed, there can hardly be another explanation. Although Erwin and Davidson imply that major changes in the conserved "kernels" of the genetic network are responsible for "critical morphological innovations," it is unlikely that macromutations played an important role in major evolutionary change. This view, once an important part of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, was abandoned even by Gould and Eldredge, the architects of that theory (4)." So the terms appear somewhat ambiguous as it can refer to amount of time and amount of change. I would add that time maybe less important than number of generations as the reproductive abilities (when mature to mate) differ amongst organisms. I would also add that evolution isn't synonymous with speciaton and, if anything, it is a capricious measure of change in populations given a species has a number of definitions. Also references and resources are always just a click away now. In any case, micro and macro aren't a distinction which involves different processes but just different amounts of time or change. Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Evolution of the Great White
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'm planning to write an Evolution section for the Great white shark, to replace the irrelevant Megalodon material. I was wondering how I ought to format an evolution section. Any suggestions?--THobern 10:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Bird has quite a good evolution section. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
That's true. I'm looking, however, for a more species-specific format, as opposed to a class.--THobern 06:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Humans and horses are the only species that we have evolution of- articles on. Richard001 (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
I would just like to humbly point out that the entire first paragraph of this article has not one citation. Just thought I would throw that out there considering I was reamed (rightfully so---to a degree) about not citing. Thanks! Jumacdon (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph is a summary for what comes after - as long as it does not introduce information that is not cited later then there is no need to cite it here. It makes it easier to read and neater. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I see the introduction like the abstract of a paper. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Google test:
Evolution - 208,000,000 hits
Natural selection - 22,300,000 hits
Speciation - 2,190,000 hits
Macroevolution - 343,000 hits
Microevolution - 256,000 hits
It's not an official technique, but it should give you the basic idea of why things are and aren't mentioned in the introduction paragraph. Micro/Macro-evolution are already addressed later on in the article.
As already been said, Introduction paragraphs are typically a brief summary of the article rather than any distinct data - thus, citations mostly come from later on. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
There used to be a convention that the lead didn't have citations as it summarised properly cited sections of the main article, but on some controversial articles citing all lead statements has become more common. Either way, proper citations are required for all statements. . . dave souza, talk 12:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
My macro and micro addition was not introducing topics that are not covered in the body, yet I was asked to cite them. I guess it depends on what you consider to be intro material. Thanks for the clarification Jumacdon (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Intro material should not cover obscure or vaguely important terms. Actually, I'd say it could use being more eloquent than it is now. --Draco 2k (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Social and cultural responses
Latest comment: 15 years ago22 comments5 people in discussion
"Evolution is still a contentious concept in some quarters outside the scientific community. Debate has centered on the philosophical, social and religious implications of evolution, not on the science itself; the proposition that biological evolution occurs through the mechanism of natural selection is standard in the scientific literature.[186]"
It is simply misleading to imply that the debate outside of scientific quarters has not focused on the scientific merits of evolution. Indeed, perceived failures in evolution have been a focus of the modern creationist movements.--THobern 04:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, it's very clear that the "debate" in creationist quarters has emphatically not focused on the scientific merits of evolution. The same old nonsense is trotted out time and time again, sometimes dressed up in new clothes (ID), more frequently in exactly the same form as last time (which might, charitably, be because a new creationist has latched on to it).
Secondly, were creationists (or other members of the non-scientific quarter) onto something in a scientific sense, they would have published it in the scientific press, and we'd never have heard the end of it [*]. A key aspect of the scientific community is the overturning of old ideas - nothing is sacred. If no-one has overturned evolution, it's because no-one (so far; I hasten to add) has come up with anything that challenges the central aspects of evolutionary theory.
Anyway, I seem to have gone off on one there. My apologies. I think you'll need to at least supply some examples of where you think the non-science debate has touched on scientific issues. It could certainly be argued that creationism "dresses up" its arguments in seemingly scientific clothing, but my POV (which I flatter myself to think parallels that of the scientific community) is that it's all talk and no trousers. How one describes that in the article without resorting to POV language like "disingenuous", "pseudoscientific" or "deceitful" may be worth discussing, however. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
[*] Either that or some devious scientist would have snuck in at the back of some church meeting, stolen the discovery hard-won by the sweat of creationist thinkers, and published it themselves to take the credit. The scientific community, in large part, is no different from any other human subculture.
That's complete nonsense. I'm not arguing the validity of their claims, simply that the controversies outside of the scientific community have indeed focused on the scientific merits of evolution. Regardless of whether you consider it to be void, the debate has focused on scientific merit.--THobern 08:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)
How do you define "Scientific"? If you refer to the Irreducible Complexity principle "anti-darwinists" tend to employ, or the adherence to second law of thermodynamics, or what have you - that's hardly too scientific. I'm not exactly sure, but can't "scientific" refer to different things inside and outside the scientific community itself, sort of like the word "theory"? Maybe that's what's the problem here?.. --Draco 2k (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You're willfully misunderstanding me. Creationists criticise the scientific merits of evolution. It is claimed that there are scientific failings with evolution. It is therefor misleading to imply that no such claims are made.--THobern 11:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)
Not willfully, I just don't understand what you're referring to. Are there any examples of said scientific criticism you could provide here? --Draco 2k (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You're failing to grasp my point. A creationist, whom we both can consider to be outside of scientific circles, will not only argue that evolution is philosophically, socially and religiously flawed, but also scientifically flawed. A creationist will argue that "evolution is scientifically flawed", citing allegedly-scientific criticisms that demonstrate that question evolution on scientific grounds. You yourself mentioned a few.--THobern 12:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
As I said, none of the arguments creationists claim to be scientific actually are, or do actually address scientific merits of evolution (evolution doesn't address abioginesis, etc.) How can we say they centered on it's scientific merits if they fail to address them?
Not to mention, the original phrase says "centered on" - which does not imply non-existence of said arguments, but merely their non-prevalence, which is a whole other matter. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
[Oops - edit conflict; makes sense if I slip in here!] Hmmm. I still don't buy this. If creationists were really interested in the scientific merits of evolution (beyond disagreeing with them for "philosophical, social and religious" reasons), they would tackle the subject in the proper manner: by laying out their case in the scientific literature. If they have a case, that should be easy, and we should see it already. That we don't see this suggests that they don't have a case (at least, not one that has any scientific content). In which case, is it accurate to describe their use of scientific language as tackling the "scientific merits of evolution"? I can see no answer here other than "no".
However, that said, we may still have a problem in the article: to the non-expert, creationists sound like they're disputing evolution on scientific grounds, but the article only refers to disputes around "philosophical, social and religious" issues. For reference, the article specifically about the creation-evolution controversy refers to this as a political dispute. Trying a different tack, how's about this for an opening paragraph to the section in the article:
"Even before the publication of On the Origin of Species, the idea that life had evolved was an active source of debate. Today, the proposition that biological evolution occurs through the mechanism of natural selection is standard in the scientific literature, and the supporting evidence has grown and withstood more than a century of intense scrutiny. Nonetheless, motivated by philosophical, social and religious concerns, the validity of evolution is still questioned outside of the scientific community.[3] The format of these disputes often focuses on the implications for human behaviour of accepting evolution, or pseudoscientific questioning of accepted scientific knowledge."
The last sentence may be omitted if it seems too POV, but it does adequately describe the situation (at least to my particular POV), and is congruent with other articles on creationism (which label the movement in this way). Anyway, this might spell things out a bit more clearly. I certainly would still question the idea that creationists are really opposing evolution on the grounds of science. That's simply not what's going on here. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
It probably fair to say that a theological dispute between fundamentalists and modernists in the early 20th century resulted in ant-evolution creationism preventing teaching of evolution in schools, and when the weakness of U.S. science teaching was revealed by Sputnik the reintroduction of evolution teaching was responded to by creation science which made untestable or erroneous assertions about science. When teaching that in public schools was deemed unconstitutional by court decisions, intelligent design re-labelled the claims and added the assertion that science should be redefined to accept creationist claims. Seem fair? . . dave souza, talk 12:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
This is very interesting. Is it cited anywhere in the article yet? --Draco 2k (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
It is interesting. I'd also suggest that Dorothy Nelkin's work (Science Textbook Controversies and the Politics of Equal Time, 1977) could do with a look-in. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not, and neither is anyone else here, arguing that creationist criticisms have any merit, but they do claim that evolution is unscientific or that it fails on scientific grounds. It pure equivocation and quibble to decide that the criticisms are not scientific and therefor that there is not controversy outside of the scientific community.--THobern 12:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)
The current revision does not address what creationists claim their assertions to be, but what they really and - mostly - are. If you want to mention it that way, you'd have to say something along the lines of "Creationists claim that their arguments centre on the scientific aspects of evolution" - but you'll probably need a citation for that to begin with. I can't comment on notability or validity of that claim, myself.
PS: You can sign your posts with --~~~~. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, we don't need to argue about whether creationist claims are scientific or not. We know that they are not by their absence from the scientific literature. If they had an ounce of scientific sense to them, they'd be publishable there. Even crazy stuff of as-yet undetermined validity like string theory gets published there. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Read the damnable line. "Quarters outside the scientific community." It comes under social, not scientific responses. Valid or not, the scientific merits of evolution have seen considerable debate outside of scientific circles. We could also argue that as their claims are philosophically flawed, we can say that there is no philosophical contention.--THobern 12:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)
Is mixing cement a form of pastry just because someone says it is? Does the discussion focus on scientific merits if it fails to actually address them?
Exactly. We need to be careful when we describe something so that we don't misrepresent it (e.g. make it sound like science). Among other things, reframing creationism as science, if only in the public eye, is one of the goals of creationists. We shouldn't be doing their job for them here. --PLUMBAGO 13:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hold on a second. Isn't "the debate has centered on" a rather weasel-y phrase? Or is it cited directly from the references? --Draco 2k (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
What about my proposed new opening paragraph above? Does that improve weasely-ness? --PLUMBAGO 13:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
"Does the discussion focus on scientific merits if it fails to actually address them?". That is not the question! Does a debate, regardless of merit, exist outside of the scientific community? The answer is a resounding "yes". No amount of quibbles and equivocation will discount the fact that there has been a lot of debate outside of scientific circles concerning the scientific merits of evolution. The sentence is phrased to imply that all that evolution's detractors take issue with is its philosophical, social and religious ramifications.--THobern 13:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)
Hmmmm. We don't seem to be going anywhere here now. While, yes, the current draft of the article may oversimplify the situation, altering it to suggest that creationists have scientific debates about evolution is completely inaccurate, and we should not do that here. The alternative text I posted above instead makes (to me; although I wrote it) the possibly more defensible distinction that "philosophical, social and religious" reasons motivate the questioning of evolution. That may resolve this problem in the current wording. Unless, of course, one believes that creationists are primarily motivated [*] to question evolution on scientific grounds. But that would make their refusal to resolve things through the normal scientific channels rather problematic. Anyway, THobern — could you suggest an alternative wording that we can thrash out here? That might allow us to make progress. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 13:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
[*] Note: why they do it; not how they do it.
If you are going to mention the social debate concerning evolution exists, then shouldn't you also mention that all legal battles have ruled in favor of evolution and offered other arguments as non-science, and even state legislatures have either defeated bills or created non-binding laws.I found this 2005 article that reviewed many of the cases. http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050927_ID_cases.html It is a social issue so social justice would also qualify in the discussion. Upon reflection it seems the debate is mainly an U.S. debate so wouldn't this qualify as an undue weight issue as it isn't a global debate?? Even as a religious argument the majority of Christians believe in theistic evolution so then only a minority of fundamentalist drive the debate.GetAgrippa (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
"No amount of quibbles and equivocation will discount the fact that there has been a lot of debate outside of scientific circles concerning the scientific merits of evolution" If this is said then it should be immediately followed by the sentence "This debate evolves mostly from either a misunderstanding of evolution and the practice of science in general, or the willful misuse of the misunderstandings of others." Once you open the door to this you must tell the full story. This is why creationism can't pass scientific muster. Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Suggested drafts
Plumbago's proposal seemed a useful start to me, but it's missing the point that the scientific debate on evolution really ran from the 1790s to around 1870, at which time evolution was generally accepted by scientists (and much of the general public) though the mechanism remained under debate until the 1930s.
"In the late 18th century the idea that life had evolved became an active source of debate, then following the publication of On the Origin of Species this became widely accepted. In the 1920s anti-evolution was taken up as a religious cause in the United States, leading to legal restrictions on teaching evolution. When these were overturned in the 1960s, creationists introduced pseudoscientific claims for the validity of creation science which have been repeatedly rejected by courts. Today, the proposition that biological evolution occurs through the mechanism of natural selection is standard in the scientific literature, and the supporting evidence has grown and withstood more than a century of intense scrutiny. Nonetheless, the validity of evolution is still questioned by creationists who express philosophical, social and religious concerns and reject the scientific method."
More sources available as needed. . . dave souza, talk 17:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Just in my defence ... ;-) I was trying to make the minimum change to the existing text that "got around" the article's suggestion that objections to evolution were (solely) "philosophical, social or religious" by instead positing these as motivations. I generally like the section in the article at present, but can see that it could be tweaked. I certainly don't want to re-write it completely - mostly on account of can't-be-arsed-ness. And we do have to watch for article length here - it'd be nice to expand it for clarity, but the article's already pretty long. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 17:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, just I'm unhappy about the "even before" aspect and the implication that there's been continuous argument since 1860, which gives undue weight to a tiny minority from 1860–1920. A minimal revision suggestion which avoids the suggestion that there have been no scientific objections –
Even sixty years before the publication of On the Origin of Species, there was active debate about the social and religious implications of the idea that life had evolved. The theological debate was revived in the United States in the 1920s, and evolution is still a contentious concept in some quarters outside the scientific community. Debate has commonly centered on the philosophical, social and religious implications of evolution, and no scientifically supportable objections have been raised; the proposition that biological evolution occurs through the mechanism of natural selection is standard in the scientific literature.
The cartoon caption in the section includes a reference to Browne for the degree of acceptance by 1870. . . dave souza, talk 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Me and TimVickers have edited the offending section a bit. Right now it reads:
In the 19th century, particularly after the publication of On the Origin of Species, the idea that life had evolved was an active source of academic debate, which was centered on the philosophical, social and religious implications of evolution. Nowadays, the fact that organisms evolve is uncontested in the scientific literature and the modern evolutionary synthesis is widely accepted by scientists. However, evolution has remained a contentious concept in some groups outside the scientific community.
This basically fails to address what the *current* debate centers on, but - is it really needed? Do we even have sources to say it's this or that? --Draco 2k (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Tweaked it a bit more. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Good job. Reads a lot better, and seems to address most points. --Draco 2k (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Tweaked it a little to not exclude academic debate within science, thanks all round for a good improvement. It's arguable that there was more debate in 1844 with the publication of Vestiges of Creation than there was after On the Origin, but very debatable and the current statement is ok. . . dave souza, talk 22:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Dennis Diderot
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the "History of evolutionary thought" section, I think it would be appropriate to add [in the third sentence (line 4)] Dennis Diderot's name between Maupertuis' and Darwin's. Diderot published Pensées sur l'interprétation de la nature (Thoughts on the Interpretation of Nature) in 1754, in which he states the following:
"Just as in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, an individual begins, so to speak, grows, subsists, decays and passes away, could it not be the same with whole species? If faith did not teach us that the animals came from the Creator's hand as we see them now; and if it were permitted to have any doubt about their beginning and their end, would not the philosopher, left free to speculate, suspect that animality had from all eternity its particular elements scattered in and mingled with the mass of matter; that it has happened to these elements to reunite, because it was possible for this to be done; that the embryo formed from these elements had passed through an infinity of different organizations and developments; that it had had in succession, motion, sensitiveness, ideas, thought, reflection, consciousness, feelings, passions, signs, gestures, sounds, articulated sounds, a language, laws, science and arts; that millions of years had passed between each of these developments; that it changes or will have a stationary condition, that it changes or will change itself from this condition by an eternal decay, during which its faculties will go from it even as they had entered it; that it will disappear for ever from nature, or rather it will continue to exist in it, but in a form, and with faculties, quite different from those observed in it at this moment of time. Religions spares us many errors and much labour. If it had not enlightened us on the origin of the world and on the universal system of beings, how many different hypotheses should we bot have been tempted to take for the secret of nature? These hypotheses being all equally false, they would have appeared to us almost all equally probable..."
This excerpt is taken from Diderot: Interpreter of Nature, Selected Writings Translated by Jean Stewart and Jonathan Kemp, edited by Jean Stewart. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1937. p.48. This quotation has a footnote, on p.330, which reads: "The disarming opening clauses and the final paragraph which enclose the clear exposition of Diderot's evolutionary hypothesis in Section LVIII, Questions, were no doubt deliberately designed to escape the censor....In 1754 Diderot had already had one book burnt and the permit for the Encyclopedia had been withdrawn and the first two volumes suppressed [by the French authorities]..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanist89 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
"Amusing caricatures"
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
As "Darwinism" became widely accepted in the 1870s, amusing caricatures of Charles Darwin with an ape or monkey body symbolised evolution.
Just a question: isn't "amusing" a POV material here? --Draco 2k (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. It should be removed. Caricature covers it pretty well already. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It's just a theory.
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Sorry.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
All of you unfaithful heathens are forgetting to mention that evolution is a work of satan, and therefore, cannot have happened. Please, think of this weight upon your soul, and include knowledge to educate the people you are misleading with knowledge that God did create the world, therefore, EVILution CANNOT happen!. 129.3.173.156 (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I find it funny how you think evolution is wrong, and I feel pity for you. JSchytte (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Dude, it doesn't say anything about God not creating the world. Perhaps he did. Perhaps he used evolution to do it or whatever you believe. Besides, this isn't the place. We report what the scientific commmunity believes; if you want that changed debate it with them please.--Serviam(talk) 17:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Please read the FAQ linked to at the top of the page. Hut 8.5 18:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I laughed heartily, thank you. But this has to be archived. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
words, words, words ...
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
"In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next."
I've just read this for the umpteenth time. Shouldn't it be "inheritable traits"? Evolution doesn't occur retroactively! --Candy (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. "The inherited traits change over time" versus "The inheritable traits change over time".
I think the second is better, since the traits we are interested in are the ones that may be inherited between generations, rather than the ones that are inherited between generations. This lets the loss of traits fall under the definition. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Tim. I think you have expressed that better than I did. --Candy (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Applications
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I confess to being a little befuddled by this following section. I think I understand what most of it is trying to say. I wish to propose a clean up.
A major technological application of evolution is artificial selection, which is the intentional selection of certain traits in a population of organisms. Humans have used artificial selection for thousands of years in the domestication of plants and animals.[196] More recently, such selection has become a vital part of genetic engineering, with selectable markers such as antibiotic resistance genes being used to manipulate DNA in molecular biology.
I am specifically unhappy with the idea that selectable markers are used to manipulate DNA. I thought they were used to isolate successfully transformed bacteria from non-transformed bacteria and not to manipulate DNA (which I would leave to restriction endonucleases and ligases)??
As a start, I suggest: There are many examples where over thousands of years, humans have artificially selected traits in species in the domestication of plants and animals. (Hopefully more succinct) and, In the last thirty years, genetic engineering techniques have allowed the direct manipulation of genes (and therefore traits) between organisms.
--Candy (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Domestication doesn't take thousands of years, a few hundred at most. That period of time refers to when domestication first started being used. For selectable markers what about - "More recently, such selection has become a vital part of genetic engineering, with selectable markers such as antibiotic resistance genes being used to transfer genes between organisms."Tim Vickers (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Your point on domestication is well taken Tim. What I feel it should be saying is that artificial selection has been used as a tool by humans for thousands of years. However, I still don't follow the selectable markers part. My understanding is that plasmids with antibiotic resistance genes (eg ampycilin) have been used as transforming agents because if a gene such as that for human insulin is inserted into the plasmid and the plasmid is encouraged to enter bacteria then those bacteria that have not taken the plasmid up will be killed by the antibiotic thus allowing the isolation of only transformed bacteria (ie have the human insulin gene in the plasmid). How are antibiotic resistant genes being used to transfer genes between organisms. My understanding is they are not? --Candy (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Discrete traits only?
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This needs to be restated: "Evolution in organisms occurs through changes in discrete traits ...". This makes it sound like evolution occurs through changes in discrete traits only - NOT quantitative traits.
^Hempel. C.G. 1951 "Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning" in Aspects of Scientific Explanation. Glencoe: the Free Press. Quine, W.V.O 1952 "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" reprinted in From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
^Philip Kitcher 1982 Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Page 45 Cambridge: The MIT Press
^For an overview of the philosophical, religious, and cosmological controversies, see ...
