Talk:Evolution/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Sweeping changes to FAQ by 76.200.190.35

I'm not getting a good feeling about an IP address with a total of 80 edits on about 6 different pages mostly all dealing with creationism and evolution to make vast sweeping changes to the structure and format and content of all the faq questions that have remained unopposed for a very long time. Opinions of these edits? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The edits seem fine. There's no reason to be so xenophobic... this is wikipedia. Being bold is a virtue. Graft | talk 18:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The backwards-looking Mr. Policeman-Raeky (based on his userpage) failed to notice that I did not change body of the answers in the FAQ. I changed the questions so that they have yes/no answers, related to the consensus and the article (rather than the forum-like "truth"), and provided the yes/no answers. With the current version, for those uninterested in the explanations, they can just read the yes/no answers and conform. You would think that Mr. Policeman would like the yes/no answers but I realize that they are possibly less satisfying for the backwards-looking Policeman because they do not make the person asking the question to seem to be a childish, emotional ignoramus!! (Hmmm... should I add even more exclamation points?) They also avoid the lecture-like explanation, which I suspect that Policeman prefers to dwell upon once he starts up his enforcement process. So sorry. Does it make the Project less satisfying for Mr. Policeman? So sorry.--76.200.190.35 (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, IP. I had the same concerns about those edits, too...this page has frequently been assaulted by anonymous, "bad-faith" edits for its entire history. The fact that he posted his concerns instead of just reverting them out of hand showed a lot of restraint and thoughtfulness.Quietmarc (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out that in this case, I sorted the questions simply by whether the answers were yes or no. The yes answers come first simply to show that the FAQ affirms something about the status quo. I also avoided any negations (to avoid confusion) or intensifiers (for fairness) in the questions. By that latter, I mean that I question like "Should the article say some very, very extremely thing?" is not a fair question because the answer is always no. Also, the tone of the questions is now such that we seem to be respectfully asking ourselves a question rather than some flawed outsider (where the answer is always No). In a well-organized deliberative sessions, that is how the propositions would be worded.--76.200.190.35 (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's great that you want to improve the FAQ, and a (very cursary) scan of the changes, I didn't see anything objectable. I just wanted to point out that when you make anonymous changes to an article that sees high levels of vandalism, POV-pushing, inaccuracies, and sometimes outright deception, being met with some skepticism is to be expected. The tone of your response (eg "Mr. Policeman," "So sorry" twice) read more as sarcastic and prickly than as a good faith attempt to explain your changes. Tempers and exasperation run high here, so it's always a good idea to double-check that you aren't coming off as rude or defensive. Again, there are many here who appreciate any honest effort to improve the article and its associated texts, including myself. Thanks.Quietmarc (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see anything majority objectionable or I would of just reverted your changes and warned you. So I posted here for some opinions. Generally sweeping changes by IP addresses that seem to have edit histories like yours (evolution + creationism pages) are 9 times out of 10 vandal edits. So yes I did want a magnifying glass put to your edits and draw attention to the other editors here. This page is a magnet to vandals. And keep in mind that FAQ's primary target is creationist/skeptic editors who want to come here to POV push or promote their psudo-sciences. I didn't mean offense by my inital post, but your retort was a bit defensive and mean spirited. A key principle of wikipedia is Assume Good Faith, which I did by not reverting your edits. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sweeping changes by IP's and Edit War

To avoid an edit war, explain your edits, line-by-line, point-by-point, question-by-question why you think they are an improvement over the existing questions that have gone under GREAT debate and consensus with the editors here (See Archives). I'm not happy with the changes I'm seeing, for example: "While distinct Microevolution and Macroevolution" is a new addition to the text, the general consensus here and in the scientific community is that they are NOT distinct, but the exact same process over different time scales. You can't inject something like that without proper reliable sources and expect us to allow that. If you hope to improve our FAQ you will need to propose each change individually here, this FAQ isn't a rough product it's been refined by EXTENSIVE debate here. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This anonymous editor has been making unilateral, usually un-discussed, and often unconstructive changes to several FAQ documents on Wikipedia, as if every FAQ must conform to his opinion of what it should look like. The following users are evidently the same editor:

• contributions
• contributions
• contributions

The FAQs on Evolution, Muhammad, Sara Palin, Global Warming, etc. have not benefited from these changes, and have been reverted. I would say to this editor: discuss what you want to do before making such sweeping changes. You are removing content in some cases (by removing links or merging questions). You are inappropriately forcing all questions in to Yes/No form. In many cases your rephrasing of the questions to Yes/No format often causes a disconnect between the question and the detailed answer. You have technically violated WP:3RR by repeatedly reverting attempts to correct your edits in multiple FAQ documents.

In short, you are being disruptive. Please stop, or be blocked from editing. =Axlq 03:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Patañjali

I removed the following material, but then had second thoughts:
"A yogi belonging to 2nd c. BCE by the name Patanjali who is considered to be the actual father of evolution in India propounds his theory of evolution in his yoga aphorisms. In his Yoga Sutras, he mentions that change into a different species occurs due to filling of nature and that every action of any being is basically negative work which only tends to manifest the already existing perfection in that being's nature."

Does anyone here know anything about this? Is there anything to this, or is this a case of claiming things in the name of a favored historical figure? J. Spencer (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would you have second thoughts about that, this article is about the theory of evolution as it pertains to modern science and understanding. Even if some "yogi belonging to 2nd c. BCE" hallucinated some half-baked idea about "perfection in that being's nature" doesn't make it even REMOTELY relevant to this article. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this but I know that what it says doesn't make any sense to me. Other early sources of these notions just get a brief mention in that section so I'm not sure why we would single this one out for special treatment. Also, I don't think the ref can be used like that. It's seems almost but not quite like a secondary source based on Swami Vivekananda's 9 volumes, 4000+ pages so who knows where this bit comes from....somewhere in vol 8 I guess. I would imagine this is Vivekananda's interpretation of statements by Patanjali viewed through a post-Darwin lens. Vivekananda read Darwin. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just part of a trend to retrofit interpretations and suggest that everything was already known. Somewhat different the approach of Bible scholars but one is assured that every equation in physics can be determined from any large text if the suitable translations and interpretations are applied by someone who already knows what to find. http://blog.shunya.net/shunyas_blog/2007/10/its-all-in-the-.html No second thoughts on removal of this kind of pompous idea. Shyamal (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I get second thoughts because occasionally I'm a nice guy and feel bad about removing stuff. Once in a while I'm surprised when something legit appears beneath the puffery. J. Spencer (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Is an RfC on User:Writelabor's edits to various FAQs in order?

His changes to the Global warming FAQ have not always been helpful -- for example, he got some questions backwards. I don't doubt that this was done in good faith but he appears to lack sufficient subject matter expertise to interpret the nuances of the questions. In reviewing his contributions I came here and have seen similar concerns. This wouldn't be a big deal but he is also showing some WP:OWN type behavior such that he reverts corrections and other changes. Am I making a mountain out of a molehill, or is this cause for concern? Thanks for sharing your thoughts - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Theres no need for a RfC if all the regular editors of those documents completely disagree with his edits. Just mark them as unconstructive/vandal and warn him. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It does get tiresome. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Source for genetic drift definition

Reference 21, given for the first sentence in the "Genetc Drift" section, does not support that sentence. Neither does it contradict it. But to fulfill its purpose, the reference shuld lend positive support. --Ettrig (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution

Do we need a dab link to Introduction to evolution at the top of Evolution, forcing us to wait three lines before actually starting the article? Quantum mechanics doesn't have a dab linking to Introduction to quantum mechanics. (And a physics article is the only type of article that would really need an in-depth 'introduction' anyway.) I also think we should keep two things in mind: First, the top of our Evolution infobox already links to the Introduction right below the image; and second, the introduction article is actually less accessibly informative, less concisely simplified, and less user-friendly than Evolution itself. -Silence (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(I'm also forced to note that Introduction to evolution is strictly speaking an editorial POV fork, not an introduction. (In effect, if not in intent.) This is why it spends over five pages on 'Evidence of evolution', and a page and a half on scientific controversies in evolutionary biology, while it spends only three pages actually explaining what evolution is. It's a fork for well-intentioned editors who nonetheless think we need to defend evolution more than explain it.) -Silence (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with removing the 'fact and theory' link, since it can be supplied in the article body ( though the stickler in me has always been a bit annoyed that we don't redirect 'theory of evolution' to modern evolutionary synthesis.. :) ), but I still don't see the purpose of linking to the same largely unhelpful article twice at the very top of Evolution. If it's featured so prominently in the box, we don't need it dabbed. -Silence (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I found it quite hard to discover in the box (the link loks so much like a figure legend under that tree). Narayanese (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Another plus. Hopefully others won't see it either. (More seriously: Either remove it from the box, or from the top of the article. If you're OK with removing it from the top, but think it should be more visible in the box, redesign or rearrange the box a little so it's easier to spot.) -Silence (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

New resource - NCSE makes available online the Creation/Evolution Journal

NCSE makes available on-line the Creation/Evolution Journal running from 1980 to 1996. I guess a good resource for all Creationism/ID/Evolution articles--LexCorp (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

and the Reports of the National Center for Science Education running from 1997 to 2009.--LexCorp (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Natural phenomenon"

Should the introductory statement of Evolution somehow include the term "natural phenomenon", similar to the article on Gravitation? It's widely understood in biological science that evolution is an undeniable fact, like gravity. Should that be included in the opening sentence? For example: "In biology, evolution is the natural phenomenon defined by change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." Or something to that nature, which implies that it is not merely a scientific hypothesis, it is a realistic fact; a natural phenomenon. I'm not great with grammar, but you get the idea. Torvik (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Our primary goal is to explain what evolution is to readers, rather than to go to lengths emphasizing its uncontentiousness. The best way to achieve that goal (as well as the parallel, aesthetic goal of 'drawing users in' to continue reading, rather than scaring them off) is to make the lead sentence as simple, short, and to-the-point as possible. Saying "evolution is change" furthers that goal much more than saying "evolution is the natural phenomenon defined by change", and educating our readers in maximally clear language about how evolution works is a much better method in the long run for combating misconceptions about evolution's scientific status, than simply chanting "Evolution is a fact!" in as many different ways as possible in the lead section.

However, since I like your analogy to gravity, I like the idea of a link to natural phenomenon somewhere in the article (though I'd be even more supportive of it if the article in question wasn't a stub, and better yet if we had a source that actually calls evolution a natural phenomenon so we'd know we weren't drawing ORed conclusions). I don't see any ideal places to slip it in without making any sentences clunkier, though. Perhaps at the start of Evolution#Heredity? "The natural phenomenon of evolution occurs through changes in organisms' heritable traits" isn't perfect, but it isn't too intrusive, and it is one of the most prominent locations in the article. Fair compromise..? -Silence (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but even slipping it into the introduction of the Heredity section like that seems a bit too intrusive or grabby. It's like you're reading the article, get to the Heredity section, and are taken aback by this "natural phenomenon" thing - like, why now? Why wasn't it brought up earlier? It's almost like we're trying to slip it in unnoticed, whereas in my opinion it should be something approached blatantly. ("Evolution, which is a natural phenomenon by the way, is the change in..." vs "Evolution is a natural phenomenon.")

I understand that what I proposed is also overly intrusive, but at least you get my intention. Maybe someone else has an idea of how it can be worked in? Or if it should be at all, or whatever. Torvik (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I like the idea, but right now I'm leaning against using it anywhere in the article, at least until someone finds a really good location where it'd benefit a particular sentence. If it was a longer and more useful article, or a less vague term ('natural phenomenon' is just a vaguer form of 'natural process'—indeed, I could see an argument being made for sneaking the link into the article's first paragraph as a piped link from "process"), I'd be less on the fence. -Silence (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Heads up re Macroevolution

This edit seemed to me to introduce a rather incoherent fringe spin on an issue already mentioned in the macroevolution article. I've moved it to talk:macroevolution, and would be grateful if it could be given expert review. Thanks, dave souza, talk 18:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

I'm going through the article very slowly - in so much as I am reading it a paragraph or so and then coming back to it a couple of days later and re-reading. I made some grammatical changes to the first para recently but this is a bit more complex so I'm coming to the talk page (especially as I've been away from the article for several months so I'm not party to the recent discussions)..

I'm a little concerned by the second paragraph. This part in particular:

The basis of evolution is the genes that are passed on from generation to generation; these produce an organism's inherited traits. These traits vary within populations, with organisms showing heritable differences (variation) in their traits.

The first sentence is fine. The second one not (to my mind at least).

I'm not going to quibble about the traits varying. To my mind their is variety in the alleles but I can understand why traits is used as it is a friendlier and more "visual" term. It also leads on to the rest of the paragraph.

However, variation in brackets doesn't help comprehension (These traits vary ... showing variation in their traits (to paraphrase). A bit of tautology there? Also, the heritable difference in their traits is a partial repeat of genes that are passed on ... in the first sentence.

That second sentence has somehow lost its way.

I'm not certain what the article needs to state here. I offer up simply:

Traits vary within a species and within populations. ' ' Please continue ... --Candy (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The only difficulty here is that we're trying to be careful about the colloquial understanding of a 'trait', which can be any property, not just an inheritable one. The purpose of reiterating the "heritable" aspect of traits is to protect the entire rest of the article from potential misunderstandings about what is and isn't a 'trait' (or what 'traits' are and aren't relevant to evolution). I also think that including "(variation)" in parentheses here is excusable partly on the grounds that it's a useful wikilink, in addition to a common and important term for the rest of the article, which would be lost if we removed it from the lead or pipelinked it. (Even pipelinking it from "vary" would lose most of its utility and clarity, since most people don't notice pipelinks.) Usually I don't like even a hint of redundancy, but in this case it seems like it could only help those who are completely unfamiliar with Evolution, and couldn't harm anyone who's already quite familiar. People often don't consciously notice etymologically linked verbs and nouns unless they look very similar. -Silence (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the tautology is excusable. If you know some basics about evolution than it becomes confusing I feel and could even start that sort of audience to question whether this article is a seriously written affair. Why not simply rewrite the sentence such as: Populations show variation and heritable differences in their traits. ? This then removes the passive tenses as well as tautology? What is true for organisms as also true in this respect for populations, --Candy (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

How about something like, "Because x, traits vary in a population" (x can be:"genes may mutate, are recombined in sexual reproduction, and because several diferent genes may be required to produce a given trait" or something like that. The first sentnce has two halvs, talking about genes in the first half and traits in the second. The distinction is important as it naturl selection acts on traits. But anyway, I was just trying to follow the same structure. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing information

The article is very well done but it fails to mention that evolution is a scientific theory. In support of presenting the facts in an accurate manner, I have to ask why this there is no mention of said Theory status, —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoIsJ (talk • contribs) 03:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see Question 3 of the FAQ above and Evolution as theory and fact. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The word theory is used extensively in the "History of evolutionary thought" section of the article.--Charles (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the article, and it seems imcomplete to me. For one, it never answers, "What is evolution?". It only says "the process of change', but not why or how. Making it seem to have extra qualities, as if it can think. Same goes for Natural Selection. Yes, we know how it works, why it works and what causes it are never adressed. If it were, it would probably take a religious turn, but since this artcle seems to be an atheist's POV, could you try and find a reason for such changes, without just "Evolution is change". Which is pretty obvious. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this definition "evolution is a generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles within a population that shares a common gene pool.", see section 2.3 The "why" and "how" questions are addressed in section 3, which discusses mechanisms. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution FA review

Thompsma has nominated Introduction to evolution for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article may be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" with regard to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -Silence (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism

One of the earliest parallels with Darwinism and evolution is seen by some (like the geneticist and evolutionary biologist JBS Haldane) in the Dasavatara tradition of Hinduism..<ref>http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/101713</ref>

I can't access this source and this seems an unusual claim. Can anybody else verify this and how important do people think this is? Tim Vickers (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The source is clearly not reliable, per the disclaimer at the bottom which includes "This website and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here. The contributor(s) and news providers are fully responsible for their content." At any rate, the material seems pretty unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, um, patently absurd. (Fish -> Tortoise -> Boar -> Man-Lion -> Dwarf -> Human = Evolution????) The Dasavatara#Similarity_to_Darwinism_and_evolution section is also a very clear candidate for erasure. -Silence (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Man-Lion -> Dwarf seems suspect. Man-Lion -> part in the patriotic film Meet the People -> costarring in a much-praised version of Waiting for Godot....oh, wait I'm confusing it with the guy who played the lion in The Wizard of Oz. Nevermind. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Guys, as man-lions run out of food in their range, nature selects for them to become smaller and smaller so as to require less energy. Until they become dwarfs. Isn't this obvious? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

When I entered *parallels* I meant just that. The fact is that there exists the Dasavatara concept, and that it has certain similarities with evolution. Nothing more and nothing less is being claimed. Dunno what qualifies as "patently absurd"! Maybe Human->Dwarf->.....Fish is more "patently absurd." That said, I agree that more reliable and "respectable" sources are needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GOC-in-C (talk • contribs) 09:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I stand with the "absurd" camp. A great many societies believe that over time some animals transformed into others, including people. This is widely documented for native peoples of the Americas, see Claude levi-Strauss's Mythologiques or the much shorter the Story of Lynx - if by "Darwinism" we simply meant the mutability of species, we would not single out India or any other part of the world, we would just say that outside of Abrahamic religions the belief in the mutability of species is almost universal. However I do not think that the mutability of species is the key point in Darwinism. Darwin's brilliant idea is natural selection. Of all the mythos of all the Native Peoples of the Americas I know, from the Athabascins to the Mapuche, in no case is mutability the result of natural selection. I do not believe this is the case for Hinduism either. I would have no objection to having some article point out that the belief in the mutability of species - more in a Lamarkian sense than a Darwinian - is widespread. But I would never say this constitutes a parallele with Darwinism. What matters is natural selection. I don't know of any parallel to that. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And branching common descent! While Darwin was completely original in his brilliant development of his ideas, he wasn't unique. For example, see the historical sketch written in response to all those trying to jump on the bandwaggon. The bandwaggon jumping continues with some very stretched claims for various cultures. As Slrubenstein rightly says, the idea that species are mutable was commonplace, the belief that species are fixed and are essentially defined by always reproducing the same species, with variation allowed within the species, is an odd quirk of the last few centuries of Christianity, introduced by John Ray in the late 17th century. A word of caution: Darwinism largely included what we call Lamarckism in the late 19th century, until the convention developed that Darwinism meant natural selection. . . dave souza, talk 10:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. But then do I believe Anaximander, Empedocles, Al Jahiz, the brethren of purity and others mentioned were proponents of natural selection? I'm a little handicapped on this topic, but either they should be given priority over Darwin for Darwinism, or not be mentioned in this article at all. Further, if transmutation in mythologies have been studied in so much detail, as they seem to have been, then it merits either a new section or a separate article on (pseudo or lamarckian?) evolutionary theories of the ancient world. GOC-in-C —Preceding unsigned comment added by GOC-in-C (talk • contribs) 11:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess the simplest thing to say would be, that Darwin was the only one of the bunch to convince all other life scientists of his theory. One reason was he compiles careful evidence - certainly more carefully and more detailed than those listed here. Also, the ones you list, at least Empedocles and Al Jahiz, seem teleological, or to believe that evolution has a direction, that some species are superior to others. In Darwin's view evolution is an ongoing process and what appears to be fit now will turn out not to be fit in the future. From what I have read 9which I admit is not a lot) all the people you mention are still in some way providing an origin myth i.e. atarting out with some chaotic beginning and ending with the present order of things. That is not the Darwinian theory of evolution, which has no end, and no ultimate order. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal comment

(General Skeptic) Evolution cannot be explained in exact terms and science itself contradicts this theory-- NOT scientific fact. After spending a few years studying the complex sciences, especially zoology, I am convinced that the evolution theory is impossible and far fetched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briativa (talk • contribs) 20:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have any constructive comments based on reliable sources your post will be archived, the talkpage of articles are not the place to state your personal opinions. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution"

A new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution".[1] --Atomic blunder (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds.[2][3] --Atomic blunder (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd question really, how can you "believe in" an explanation for a set of facts? It would be like saying you "believe in" general relativity. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Not so odd given that evolutionism is a fact only because it is derived from Naturalism which is a philosophical belief. That's why the majority of people in the US don't believe it true. They don't buy Naturalism's--The Cosmos is all there is, has ever been, or ever will be" clueless mantra. Christian Skeptic (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Christian Skeptic, there is a difference between naturalism and methodological naturalism, which is what science uses. Please learn the difference.Farsight001 (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Evolution has nothing to do with naturalism, any more than gravity does. Gravitational theory, too, makes no appeal to the Divine. That is how science works. -Silence (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

See evolution as theory and fact, you are conflating the observations and the theory that explains them. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Atomic blunder's news is as noteworthy as it is irrelevant here. I do not understand why Tim Vickers is arguing against it. You can't argue against a fact, and it is a fact that people doubt evolutionary theory, whether or not it is a fact that they are right. What matters is that this fact has nothing to do with biology, and this is a biology article. The relevant pages are Creation–evolution controversy and Level of support for evolution. -Silence (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC) -Silence (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you, if people do object strongly to the idea of evolution, then I would show my protest by protesting strongly against gravity.

That's very true, this isn't the place to discuss that data about public attitudes. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim's right, even Genie Scott doesn't "believe in" evolution..[4] . . dave souza, talk 22:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a polemical position. I agree with it as a pragmatic strategy, but personally am entirely comfortable saying things like "I believe the earth goes around the sun" and "I believe that milk exists", in that I consider knowledge a subtype of belief. (When something becomes true, you don't suddenly stop believing it!) But that's just me. This is really a semantic issue, deriving not from word meanings but from connotations, in the exact same way that the "theory"-talk is. -Silence (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Americans have always been a bit slow to get on the bandwagon. tommy talk 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussing recombination

Recently I noticed that this article uses 'genetic recombination' to refer to recombination that occurs during in meiosis and brings about genetic diversity among organisms. This isn't necessarily correct: genetic recombination can also refer to non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) or V(D)J recombination, neither of which, to my knowledge, occur during meiosis or produce heritable genetic diversity among organisms. To account for that, I think it would be helpful to replace instances of 'genetic recombination' with 'homologous recombination', the type of genetic recombination to which this article refers. What are others' thoughts on this? The only drawback I could see would be the slightly less reader-friendly word 'homologous'. This, however, seems clarified by the first sentence in the 'Sex and recombination' section to invoke the phrase: "In the related process of genetic recombination, sexual organisms can also exchange DNA between two matching chromosomes." If the inaccessibility of the word 'homologous' were in fact a drawback, I think it would be more than compensated for by the greater accuracy of the information being presented to the reader.

Yesterday I tried introducing this change, but was reverted. In the summary of that reversion, the editor noted: "why be less general? homologous excludes translocations, duplications, fusions, etc." I've offered my rationale for being specific just above, but was curious about the second sentence. If homologous recombination excludes translocations, duplications, fusions, etc., then is that somehow accounted for by other types of genetic recombination, like NHEJ or V(D)J recombanation? To my understanding, it is a failure of homologous recombination in meiosis that produces heritable chromosome translocations, fusions, and gene duplications. Emw2012 (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are correct, being more accurate is better since the sentence does refer specifically to matching chromosomes. I've reworded this to state In a related process called homologous recombination, sexual organisms exchange DNA between two matching chromosomes. I've added the idea of general recombination to the previous section, adding Mutations can involve large sections of DNA becoming duplicated, usually through genetic recombination. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

"A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer." [5] --Atomic blunder (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a laugh. Please don't try to make evolution look like it's a helpless victim being attacked by a bunch of religious nuts. The theory of evolution does have many loopholes, but America is not religious by any means; I'm shocked that an American producer turned down the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kookywolf (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I just don't see how evolution can be a controversial topic - evolution is all around us, simple as that. People who tend to object to such basic fundamental facts of life tends not to understand the depth of the topic to the point of understanding it, but rather the shallow aspect to justify their lack of understanding. Not everyone is good at science so some people would tend to take the shallow route of critizing something if they don't understand. Example; I'm terrible at pre-calculus so I critize the aspect of pre-calculus to justify my understanding - see where I'm getting at?

Not relevant here. The Evolution article is not about Charles Darwin, the film is not about evolution, and there is an entirely separate page for the creation–evolution controversy. Please don't post sociological trivia on the Talk page of a biology article. (Also, evolutionary theory does not have "loopholes.") -Silence (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A hatnote?

I know the article has two hatnotes already, but how about one more like this?

This page is an overview of evolution. For a specific article on contemporary evolutionary theory, please see Modern evolutionary synthesis

I suggest this because there are a couple of understandable anomalies in redirects. Theory of evolution ends up here, whereas Evolutionary theory ends up at Modern evolutionary synthesis. It's also highly likely that some people searching on "evolution" are actually looking for the modern theory (which is mentioned here, but not in great detail). An alternative could be that the MES page gets more prominent linking to in the lede. Just to help people navigate wikipedia better.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Too many hats spoils the broth. Personally, I'm of the opinion that we either need to redirect Theory of evolution to Modern evolutionary synthesis, or make a dab page briefly explaining the distinction and linking to both Evolution and Modern evolutionary synthesis and perhaps a few others (loathe as I am to create redirects when there are so few articles to list); this simply isn't the article about evolutionary theory. -Silence (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

New discovery

I'm not an expert but has this been incorporated? Spiderone 15:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they're adding it to human evolution. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

fitness

Right how our article says, "The central concept of natural selection is the evolutionary fitness of an organism.[83] This measures an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which decides the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation.[83]" Surely, what we mean to say is "This is measured by ..." How long an organism survives and how many offspring it has are quantifiable. Unless there is some "fitness scale" biologists have come up with that I do not know about. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

See the linked article. Absolute fitness is a measure based on survival and fecundity. There's some semantic issue with the way the sentence is constructed, maybe, akin to: "Height is a measure of the number of inches totalling up to a persons length." Maybe measures => quantifies suffices? Graft | talk 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree it may be a semantic isue but I'd like to fix it. How about, "Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation?" (Note i also change decide to determine for I hope obvious resons). Unless anyone objects, will another editor who agrees with me make the change? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Make that change. Pasado (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will make it myself. There hasn't ben much argument here so I consider it uncontroversial, I hope I am right! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't like "indexed by" much, could you find a more lay-friendly way of putting that? Tim Vickers (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliance on wikilinking

Hey folks, Reading through the introductory paragraph is a bit difficult - it seems to me that it relies heavily on linking to other articles to encode meaning. This is a dense subject with a lot of ground to cover, but I wonder if a useful principle for a good article should be that it "works as plaintext", so to speak, that is, the reader can learn something from it without have to rely on jumping off to another article twice every sentence clause. Graft | talk 17:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: what I mean is that right now, the text is not *explanatory* in any way - it's merely a framework for holding a collection of relevant links. For example, this clause: "new combinations of genes are also produced by genetic recombination" tells you nothing if you do not already know what genetic recombination is. And if you do, it still tells you nothing you didn't already know! Perhaps we should be working on the intro to make it a little more explanatory... Graft | talk 17:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to improve the explanation by providing context (-- i.e., mentioning that the type of recombination being discussed in that sentence occurs in meiosis). Leads are inherently difficult places to convey much meaning, but that doesn't entail we must rely solely on wikilinks to convey meaning. Subjects in the lead are also expanded upon in the body of the article. For example, consider how the idea of genetic recombination in the lead is further discussed in the 'Sex and recombination' section later in the article. Emw (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My edit was reverted based on what seems to be a misunderstanding of the contexts in which genetic recombination occurs ("...GR only happens during meiosis"). Genetic recombination also occurs during mitosis, for example when homologous recombination is used for bacterial and eukaryotic DNA repair. The importance of genetic recombination is not limited to producing diversity among organisms over generations -- it is critical for horizontal gene transfer (a major evolutionary engine among bacteria) and for generating diversity among cells in the adaptive immune system. Given those facts, and the genetic recombination was brought up here as an example of something that may need to be explained even in the lead, I think my edit -- which consisted of adding "during meiosis" -- doesn't significantly lengthen the lead and should be reinstated. Emw (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's stated in a way that assumes the user understands genetic recombination, and that if they don't, they'll be tempted to click the link to investigate. So either they already know what genetic recombination is and thereby most likely understand it only occurs during meiosis and not mitosis, or they'll read it in the second sentence of the GR article and find out there. The third option is they read past the word without understanding it and not caring, which means the reference to meiosis will be read past as well. All three situations render the "during meiosis" redundant.

For the record, I'm not adamantly opposed to this nor any vested interest in prevent you from adding it. I just think we needn't lengthen an already lengthy lead for the sake of a redundancy. That's all I have to or will say on the matter (I hope). DKqwerty (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it helps a reader to understand genetic recombination to add a new technical term "meisois", particularly as this doesn't relate to what the process actually is. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

descent with modification

this article does not describe evolution, but Darwinian descent with modification. Evolution, literally meaning "to unroll", is the idea of organisms going from Aristotle-type simple and imperfect to complex and perfect (ie bacterium to human). Darwin originally never even used the term "evolution", because it does not describe his theory. Darwinian descent with modification is all about organisms adapting to their environments, not "evolving" from simple and imperfect to complex and perfect.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbarry12 (talk • contribs)

Are you kidding? This article deals with the scientific Theory of evolution, which is called, unsurprisingly 'The Theory of Evolution', and with the process described by that Theory, called, unsurprisingly, evolution. If you read the article, you'll discover this is true.

While the term evolution may have etymological roots in the latin evolvere, the word, today, is used to refer to change, even undirected change. Your suggestion that the term must by applied to a directed process has never been true, nor has the term ever implied a process that would lead to perfection.

You cannot honestly expect anyone to take your attempt at redefining the word evolution seriously. -- Ec5618 (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sbarry12, unless you provide reliable sources that support your definition we cannot include it in the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Darwin's theory is Evolution by Natural Selection, for those pedantic enough to distinguish between these terms. This term is used on often wikipedia where appropriate, I have noticed. The term "evolution" is indeed considerably older than Darwin, and so is natural selection, a term used by breeders. Please read up on the subject before you propose any changes in the terminology on here. Innotata 18:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innotata (talk • contribs)

Simple organisms are not less perfect than complex ones, they just have different functions.--Charles (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

genetic atrophy

There is a mention of the "neutral theory of molecular evolution", however, there is no mention of the effects of "genetic atrophy". This is how, for example, blindness probably evolved in moles and hairlessness might have evolved in humans. It has been repeatedly demonstrated in the lab that without selective pressure, certain genetic traits quickly atrophy. (See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16187892 for example). Although I don't have time to dedicate to writing this section, I think it's a) cutting edge and b) very important to understanding evolution. 69.134.54.59 (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The loss of features such as eyes in cave fish either occurs through active selection against the structure (driven by the energetic cost of building or maintaining it), or simple genetic drift (see PMID 17306543 as a good example). This isn't really a separate mechanism, only one of the many possible outcomes of the basic forces of evolution. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added this as an example in the genetic drift section, using loss of pigmentation as a character that is probably driven by drift. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Third mechanism which the article says little about (not that the literature mentions it hugely much): s, which has a similar effect as genetic drift except the fixating force is not low population size but selection for something unrelated that is close enough on the genome to not be segregated from during recombination. Seen one or two papers stating that to be the cause of the majority of fixed basepair changes across a genome. Narayanese (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned in passing in the third paragraph of Sex and recombination, I've expanded this a bit and linked to selective sweep. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

do you think people with genetic "differences" could or might have genes that are a part of an evolutionary stage for humans?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bright87 (talk • contribs) 08:22, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

There's no way to tell until the future. thx1138 (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In my non-expert understanding, all people have genetic differences, with the possible exception of identical twins, and all these genes are part of the current evolutionary stage for humans. Whether such genetic differences will accumulate in the future to lead to noticable evolution, and what that might be, is another question. . dave souza, talk 20:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

An average human has about 100 mutations that his/her parents do not have. Genetic differences, as well as genetic similarities are a part of evolution, but it would be misleading to talk about "stages" here. Evolution is a continuous process: As long as there is life, evolution won't stop and it won't take breaks. - Soulkeeper (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

having conflict with Narayanese's view of putting the words "random" in the intro

Evolution is not suitably described in the intro text. I mean, for a theory based on random chance or undirected processes, I'd expect that the random component be emphasized, at least in the intro text. Now, it completely omits it.

[[ Comder ]] (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

OOps, sorry didn't notice this and started a new section below at #Random edits where Tim has already commented. The descriptions "random chance" and "undirected processes" are, in my limited understanding, mistaken. Variations are structured by genetics and by the various sources of mutations and gene exchange, and the main processes are directed by the environment, including other living organisms, through natural selection. There is also of course the question of genetic drift, which itself is influenced by population size. Expert opinion verified by reliable sources will be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 20:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Further Reading

Would someone please add the origin of species by charles darwin to the list of further reading. Seems like an obvious one to have on the list. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy N. Cognito (talk • contribs) 19:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Darwin and The Origin are linked from the lead and the history section, but if others think it's a good idea we could add Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species (1st ed.), London: John Murray to the further reading list. The first edition is the version usually recommended nowadays as being more readable than the 6th edition which used to be thought more definitive. . dave souza, talk 20:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We could, it is of historical interest I suppose. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point, have added it under "History of evolutionary thought", revert if not agreed. The others could do with a review: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins and Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne are highly commended.[6][7] . . dave souza, talk 21:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Random" edits

These edits overstated "randomness" in the origin of variations, and introduced the old red herring of "evolution is a theory" when dealing with the fact rather than the theories explaining the fact. So, I've restored the earlier and in my opinion better lead statement. If Comber thinks more needs to be said about the randomness or otherwise of genetic variation, a good source is needed and this is something that should be explained in the body of the article before hacking about the lead. . dave souza, talk 20:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is very hard to say if evolution is random or not, some evolutionary changes will be random, such as those produced by genetic drift, but adaptations produced through selection are certainly not random and neither is speciation. Equally, evolution can happen quite quickly in a rapidly-reproducing population (such as yeast for instance), so it is wrong to say it requires "massive amounts of time". Overall, this edit introduced several serious inaccuracies. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read both responses... sorry for reverting the second time without discussing, but wikipedia said that reverting wasn't vandalism, so I just did it, but I did refine my edit to improve paragraph flow. Anyhow, I'll respond regarding other things like next week or so... i have an exam & modern physics to study for. COMDER (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As an example of evolution that is neither slow nor random: a culture of mammary epithelial cells tranformed to express TERT and a gain-of-function version of ras will after a while (like weeks) have any type of mutation that raises the expression level of c-myc [8] Narayanese (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about this more, I suppose if you were being very picky you could argue that the genetic changes in a population due to genetic drift are not really random, since only those that are not removed by natural selection will be represented. Perhaps that argument is a bit close to semantics though. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, while not wanting to push this discussion further in the direction of semantics ... I think the core issue is some fundamental way in which scientists think in probabalistic terms. This is something that many non-scientists have trouble understanding. My sense is that "randomness" whether the word is appropriate or not just misses the point - from a scientific point of view. For non-scientists if may just be the easiest way for them to understand that it is non-teleological or non-deterministic or something. Or perhaps some textbooks use the word "random" as a shorthand way that excuses them from the more time consuming and challenging chore of explaining to undergraduates what it means to think probabalistically, what "sampling error" means, and so on. My point is that the concept of drift itself rests on a whole set of assumptions and proofs that are basic to statistics and that someone studying statistics will learn. Someone not studying statistics will often give up on trying to understand and just memorize the formula or whatever. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This really began with the common creationist claim that evolution is "undirected", meaning lacking the teleology of divine intervention. Wilkins covers it pretty well, noting that "This conception of genetic changes as accidental and unique, about which no laws may be formulated, is fundamentally flawed, for all that it reappears in a number of influential works on evolution. Causes of genetic change are being uncovered routinely, and they involve better or worse understood mechanisms that are very far from random, in the sense that there are very clear causes for the changes, and that they can be specified in detail over general cases. Monod's use of the phrase "realm of pure chance" is rhetoric and is misleading at best, simply false at worst...... changes that get encoded in genes occur with no forethought to the eventual needs of the organism (or the species) that carries those genes... So far as the local environment is concerned, the change is the result of a random process, a black box that isn't driven with reference to things going on at the level of the environment. It's not really random, of course, because it is the result of causal processes, but so far as natural selection is concerned, it may as well be." . . . dave souza, talk 21:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

See also Random Genetic Drift for Larry Moran promoting that aspect: the same principle applies, that it's random in a narrow sense. . dave souza, talk 21:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Another ref: Darwin, Dover, ‘Intelligent Design’ and textbooks, Padian and Matzke, Biochem. J. (2009) 417, 29–42 doi:10.1042/bj20081534 p. 42 – "A definition of evolution as ‘random mutation and natural selection’ is popular among ID advocates and other creationists..... Mutation is not ‘random’ in any causal sense.... The causes and processes of evolution are not random in any important sense." . . dave souza, talk 17:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember the Grant thirty years study of evolution in Darwin's finches emphasized the predictable and unpredictable features of evolution. But several articles have noted somewhat predictable evolution in wildsuflowers, bacteria, stickleback fish, and fruit flies when separate population of each similarly solved an environmental challenge with the same derived trait. In other words similar mutation or recombinant events arose to solve a challenge and natural selection expanded the populations in a similar fashion. I remember a Science article discussing the limited Darwinian mutational options in a bacterial enzyme (lactamase I think). Out of hundreds of mutational possiblities only a few were feasible. So it isn't random nor is it completely predictable either. That's as ambiguous as I can be. hee,hee. I should also note that mutations and recombinations occur in hot spots within genomes and some areas are more prone to change. Much like variable regions of immunoglobins and T cell receptors are hypervariable. Still natural selection has also been demonstrated to over ride genetic drift and "random" changes. GetAgrippa (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

request for additional heading under mechanisms

3. Mechanisms 3.3 Self-developing genome

Self-developing genome

The theory of the self-developing genome is a systems-based solution to the problem of explaining the source of variety which acts as the raw material for natural selection. There is a three-fold requirement for any natural evolutionary process, namely, reproduction, variety and competition. According to the theory of the self-developing genome any natural system satisfying these requirements will evolve a mechanism of evolvability. The copying error, which is a cornerstone of neo-Darwinian theory, will evolve into a system of variety generation and variety maintenance at the level of the heritable sub-unit. The critical objection to this idea, emanating from the strict adherence to the principle of selfish survival, is overcome by recognising that many traits of life such as sexual reproduction (or gene exchange), cell structure, multi-cellularity and the genetic code itself are universal characteristics and are not subject to the same environmental scrutiny as more manifest physical characteristics.

Underpinning the inevitable evolution of evolvability is the fact that the environment of every heritable unit (which is composed of all other heritable units) is never stable and this, coupled with the restrictions placed on design possibility by the limitations of physical and chemical possibility and the limitations of the DNA code, enable the system to ‘learn’ in an algorithmic sense something about this varying environment. Increasing complexity, whilst by no means necessary, can naturally evolve from this system due to the fact that heritable sub-units are linked together in a cooperating whole to form the genome. Increasing complexity can then emerge from the twin phenomena of variety-maintenance and cooperation which together can create genomes with novel combinations of sub-units. These unique combinations of sub-units can lead to the emergence of organisms of novel design which might find a suitable, available, vacant niche to which they are pre-adapted.

source: www.evolutionarytheory.co.uk

Jonnoknox (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC) DEREKHOUGH@AOL.COM

Hi there, can you please provide some peer-reviewed scientific papers, preferably reviews, which discuss this hypothesis? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt he can. Obviously cannot "evolve" a mechanism of evolvability, just like you can't haul yourself up by your own bootstraps. Graft | talk 01:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

theory

should it not be noted somewhere that this is only a theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.245.157 (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

See the Frequently Asked Questions at the top of the page. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also see evolution as theory and fact. Mkemper331 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not only a theory. It's also a fact. The word theory means something more in science than its common language usage. The Theory of Evolution is presently stronger than the theory of gravity, because we have not yet found the mechanism for gravitation but we have found the mechanisms for mutation, selection, and inheritance. 76.185.61.24 (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I made sure to edit the gravity wiki to reflect the fact that gravity as well, is also a theory. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.0.39 (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Those FAQs are amazingly one-sided. 24.23.7.103 (talk) 06:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no "sides" here. this is not an opinion piece. The faqs answer Frequently Asked Questions, and they do so quite correctly and accurately and with ample citation. Being that they abide by the guidlines of wikipedia just fine, exactly what makes them one-sided?Farsight001 (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is only one side to actual valid scientific theories, so, technically, they were correct. If evolution were a mere hypothesis like abiogenesis, they'd have a point...But they don't. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I changed the opening sentence to

Evolution is is a scientific theory in biology which states that small changes in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.

However, it was reverted without any reason being given. I think that my verstion is better because it describes that evolution is, in fact, a scientific theory, something which the old version of the article did not. ----J4\/4 <talk> 16:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Evolution" is primarily the name of the observable phenomenon. It is also used as an abbreviation for "theory of evolution", but that's hardly the primary meaning. Therefore the original version was more precise. If you want to rename this article to Theory of evolution you need to get a consensus for that first. Hans Adler 16:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, evolution is the observation, the modern evolutionary synthesis is the theory that explains this observation. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence is currently "In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next" which is extraordinarily broad. I come to this talkpage because the sentence has been cited on an internet forum in order to justify the position that evolved can be used for any change at all, for example, "the boy evolved blue eyes from his brown eyed parents" or "the microsattellite evolved from 14 repeats to 16 repeats". While I understand that modern biologists assumes no direction in evolution, I put it to wikipedians that the pure Darwinian meaning of the word is not yet the only one in use, even for biologists writing about biology. Please ask yourself if the following mean the same thing:-

• The partially evolved gill-like structures
• The partially changed gill-like structures.

Comments welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

To what end? No one questions that the word "evolution" has many meanings (you do not need an enecylopedia for this, go to a dictionary, this is one of the jobs of dictionairies) and I think we have a history of evolution section or article that discusses the changing (evolving!) meanings of the word. This article provides the mainstream view, and the introduction starts with the mainstream view. If anyone thinks that just quoting the first sentence of a Wikipedia article is the way to win an argument on some chat-room or list-serve, well, they probably deserve to be expending their mental energies at a chat room. If you want to understand evolution, stop arguing over the meaning of the first sentence and read the article as a whole. Then read the lniked articles. Then start reading the books and journal articles cited. That is the way to learn, not by endlessly turning the first sentence over and over. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with specialized meanings or specialized articles, but the first sentence is written as if it is intended to be a definition of the word as such?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. For better or worse, it is a Wikipedia convention to begin almost all articles with (title of article) is (predicate). And unfortunately this often gets read as a definition. I think this is understandable, but unfortunate and often a bad idea but th bad idea is on the part of a reader. When I go to an encyclopedia, I assume that there is an article - one paragraph, one page, or twenty pages - because that is how long it takes to explain the subject to me. I wish all people had this approach to encyclopedias, but sadly I am not the dictator of the world. But my advice to people (I am of course not speaking to you personally, Andrew) looking for definitions is to go to dictionaries. I am not sure what to do except create a template saying "AND THAT'S NOT ALL! IF YOU KEEP READING TO THE SECOND SENTENCE YOU WILL LEARN EVEN MORE ABOUT THIS EXCITING TOPIC" that we could insert after the first sentence of every article.... Slrubenstein | Talk 16:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That's all fine by me, but in practice, there are different ways of wording things which sound more or less definitive. Choosing the right shades of wording is a valid priority for all Wikipedia editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, shades of meaning - and also intelligent versus stupid readers. You mention a chat room where someone uses our opening sentence to say a boy evolved blue eyes. Our definition says evolution is a change in genes in a population. By what "shade of meaning" does that get you to one boy? Now, if you have an isolated population and because of selection or drift you reached a point where all the children had blue eyes, where presumably the allele for brown eyes had disappeared from the population, yeah, that is an example of evolution at work. A boy having blue eyes when his parents have brown eyes is an example of variation - something which is certainly essential to evolution in theory and practice. So explain to me again what is worrying you? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

ATHEIST PROTECTIONISM?!

General discussion lacking specific and constructive suggestions about the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why unregistered users not allowed to edit this page? I guess you darwinists don't want "the wrong sort" (like Christians) arguing with their atheist, Adam-centered worldview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.131.196 (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC) No, we don't care who edits the article, so long as they use scientific and factually accurate information, irrespective of who agrees or opposes it. WP:CENSORED. The semi-protection is there because people have been editing this page without adhering to that by putting religious or other views there, which cannot be backed up using science. We do not believe Christians to be 'the wrong sort, and we respect people's views, but an article about a scientific concept is not the place to air them. If you wish to edit constructively, it is very simple to create an account. Jhbuk (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC) All registered editors welcome, particularly knowledgeable Christians such as Kenneth R. Miller. Of course, creationist "worldviews" are covered in accordance with WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL. . . dave souza, talk 17:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Up at the top right is a link that lets you register. It's free and everything. I know, a novel concept. Mkemper331 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I am not interested in giving away my personal inofrmation to athiest stalkers. Many Christians have lost their jobs, homes, been dragged to jail, ect ect ect, for refusing to bow before the atheist/darwinist government. And yes, this IS censorship. so say "putting religious views" is wrong, well guess what, evolution is a religion too. It's jsut YOUR religion which is what atheists can't admit. Obviously I'm not welcome here so I won't bother. Anybody interested in a discussion of REAL SCIENCE, not slaves to atheist/naturalist/humanist/darwinist principals, should come with me to CreationWiki. http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page Bye jerks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.131.196 (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

More accurately, this is protectionism for the scientifically-literate. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm convinced. Where do I sign up for the nearest creationist course in biology insults, paranoia, non sequiturs, martyr complex and spam? On the more serious note, this page has been vandalized quite a bit lately, despite the semi protection. Do these people really make user accounts in advance, just in case they will feel like vandalizing Wikipedia at some point in the future? - Soulkeeper (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell, yes. Many, many, many times. Although, why you would be willing to wait four days and make ten random edits just to have your vandalism in place for a grand total of maybe twelve seconds is beyond my comprehension. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The word Fanaticism springs to mind.--LexCorp (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The anticipation only adds to the bliss. (j/k) Kevin Baas^talk 16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Gregor Mendel

I think this article should include Gregor Mandel's work on inheritance. I believe inheritance and adaptation go hand in hand and the lack of emphasis on Mendelian inheritance skews the article towards adaptation. Sumanch (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

He's mentioned in the Evolution#History_of_evolutionary_thought section, but he's more relevant to genetics than directly important in evolutionary thought. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It's questionable if he accepted evolution at all, he seemed to be more interested in Linnean hybridisation. The historical section looks ok in that regard, but having noticed it I've changed "Even though Hugo de Vries and other early geneticists were very critical of the theory of evolution" to "Even though Hugo de Vries and other early geneticists rejected gradual natural selection". For one thing there was no such thing at the time as "the theory of evolution", in the eclipse of Darwinism there were numerous competing theories of evolution, one of which was the mutationism of de Vries. I don't have Quammen to hand, but Peter J. Bowler's Evolution, The History of an Idea pp. 268–269 notes that de Vries thought that new species originated by sudden mutations or bursts of mutation, not the gradual accumulation of variations in Darwin's natural selection, but de Vries still saw natural selection as important in weeding out the unsuccessful new species amongst those formed by sudden mutations. . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what Mendel thought about evolution, his work on inheritance was key to developing the theory. thx1138 (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We cannot resolve this unless we first have unanimity on what we mean by "the theory," which I do not think likely. If by "the theory" we mean Darwin's theory of speciation, no, Mendel was not key to developing the theory. If by "the theory" we mean the modern synthesis, yes, Mendel was key. So .... ? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The discovery of genetics was one key to the modern synthesis, reintegrating natural selection with Darwin's other crucial points about evolution occurring through common descent. Mended's work was rediscovered after the same research was independently carried out by Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns. Though Mendel was rightly given precedence, it's a least questionable as to whether the others had to read his laws before understanding the significance of their work. . . dave souza, talk 14:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dave and SLrubenstein's points are right on. Darwin had no idea of what the means of inheritance was-in fact he wrongly thought gemmules, however that ignorance in no way impedes his theory of natural selection (and it's correctness). Mendel's work was essential for the Modern Theory and the evolution of Population Genetics. GetAgrippa (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

<ri> And, since both Darwin and Mendel are mentioned in two places, in the lead and in the History of evolutionary thought section, what's the problem? . . dave souza, talk 00:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's re-read the initial comment for the real point (valid or not): this article emphasizes adaptation, without giving due weight to other elements of the theory such as inheritance (and I would add variation). I am not sure how to respond: I think inheritance and variation are as important as "adaptation" (although I prefer the word selection). But is this article giving them short shrift - I mean, in relation to adaptation or fitness? This is a judgment call and it is hard for me to say. Can anyone see any places where something would be gained by saying a bit more about the importance of individual variation among members of a population, and the fact that traits that are selected for are inherited? I think this is the real issue being raised (i.e. I think continuted discussion of Mendel is actually a diversion from the key point). Slrubenstein | Talk 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The very first section covers inheritance. Perhaps it's a bit lacking in not spelling out the unitary nature of heritability with recessive and dominant genes, which was Mendel's contribution in contrast to ideas of blending inheritance. Seems to be well covered in Introduction to genetics#Genes and inheritance, a brief statement on the issue could be helpful. . . dave souza, talk 10:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you, perhaps Sumanch can explain where specifically there is a problem. But it seems like most of us agree that the article handles this issue in a deliberate and thoughtful, well-informed way. Good enough for me. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Mendel is probably underemphasized. I recommend everyone read the preface and first chapter of R.A. Fisher's "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" here. I'll quote the first paragraph of chapter I:

That Charles Darwin accepted the fusion or blending theory of inheritance, just as all men accept many of the undisputed beliefs of their time, is universally admitted. That his acceptance of this theory had an important influence on his views respecting variation, and consequently on the views developed by himself and others on the possible causes of organic evolution, was not, I think, apparent to himself, nor is it sufficiently appreciated in our own times.

The kind of rigorous work that Fisher did in establishing population genetics and turning evolution into a sharp mathematical science was impossible without the foundation provided by Mendel; it's easy to forget this with the benefit of hindsight - we take genetics for granted now, but this was a major debate in the first part of the twentieth century, and its introduction was key to the modern understanding of evolution. I think this article in general errs, contra to the first sentence of Fisher's preface: "Natural Selection is not Evolution." Graft | talk 01:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The story of genetics begins, in principle, with Gregor Mendel's work on the inheritance of diverse characters in peas, performed in the 1860s. But Mendel's account of his laws was largely ignored, and thus does not figure directly in our story. .... The laws of inheritance which bear his name were rediscovered independently in 1900, and and they led to the creation of Mendelian genetics, providing Mendel with posthumous fame as the figurehead of the new science

Bowler, 'Evolution, the History of an Idea, 2003.

The coverage of Mendel in this article seems reasonable, but both the lead and the historical section are rather misleading in implying widespread scientific acceptance of evolution pre. Darwin, and missing the point that species were not seen as static until the 1690s, when Ray introduced natural theology, with transmutation a minority radical view until Darwin convinced the scientific establishment. The history section gives the bizarre impression that Anaximander#Origin of humankind expounded common descent and the transmutation of species, Lamarck had wide influence, and all Darwin did was introduce natural selection which was only held back because he hadn't explained genetics. Ooops. See On the Origin of Species#Developments before Darwin's theory for a more balanced prehistory, and On the Origin of Species#Reception for the sequence of acceptance. Revision needed, but I can't sort it out for a couple of weeks. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention of Thomas Morgan Hunt and his work in fruit flies to demonstrate the chromosome theory (which was also proposed by Sutton). Morgan's hunt for mutants and the proposal genes occur as alleles on chromosomes is essential to population genetics. Mendelian genetics of segregation and independent assortment of alleles of genes,the chromosome theory, and the discovery of recombinations of homologous pairs during meiosis (and random matings) generate variation and offer mathematical and proabablistic analysis of genetic pedigrees (and the ability to discern natural selection from genetic drift). GetAgrippa (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

an interesting discussion but it is not really about Mendel and definitely is not about improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1. It's not science. You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation. 2. It devalues real science. Chemistry, physics and biology don't have the same problems of legitimacy because they are real sciences, not philosophical wannabes trying to appear legit. 3. Complex engineering. Do you ever drive past a skyscraper and think to yourself 'Gee, I guess billions of years of random chance could have just as easily assembled all of that glass, steel and concrete as well as a team of engineers, architects, construction workers working from blueprints? Of course not! But that's what evolutionists would have you believe in when it comes to living organisms. 4. Genetics. The programming code of life, according to evolutionists, is just a series of biochemical accidents and mutations. If you believe this, I have a bridge in New York that's for sale. The infinitely complex engineering of this code means that it did not come about via 'natural selection,' aka random chance. 5. Mathematically Impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds. 6. Evolution is a religion. Yes, evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science. 7. Racism. This is the ugly secret that evolutionists don't want to discuss; that Darwin, Huxley and many of the early advocates of evolution stated publicly that Asians, Africans, Australian Aborigines and other non-white, non-European groups were evolutionary throwbacks. Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, was a pioneer in the early field of eugenics which was the study of skills by ethnic groups. While Galton's work was relatively harmless, Hitler's work -- to synthesize natural selection by exterminating a race of people -- was not. 1. It's not science. You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation. 2. It devalues real science. Chemistry, physics and biology don't have the same problems of legitimacy because they are real sciences, not philosophical wannabes trying to appear legit. 3. Complex engineering. Do you ever drive past a skyscraper and think to yourself 'Gee, I guess billions of years of random chance could have just as easily assembled all of that glass, steel and concrete as well as a team of engineers, architects, construction workers working from blueprints? Of course not! But that's what evolutionists would have you believe in when it comes to living organisms. 4. Genetics. The programming code of life, according to evolutionists, is just a series of biochemical accidents and mutations. If you believe this, I have a bridge in New York that's for sale. The infinitely complex engineering of this code means that it did not come about via 'natural selection,' aka random chance. 5. Mathematically Impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds. 6. Evolution is a religion. Yes, evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science. 7. Racism. This is the ugly secret that evolutionists don't want to discuss; that Darwin, Huxley and many of the early advocates of evolution stated publicly that Asians, Africans, Australian Aborigines and other non-white, non-European groups were evolutionary throwbacks. Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, was a pioneer in the early field of eugenics which was the study of skills by ethnic groups. While Galton's work was relatively harmless, Hitler's work -- to synthesize natural selection by exterminating a race of people -- was not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.213.40.100 (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC) 1. Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. Yes, one can observe evolution, and in fact it has been observed countless time. Yes, one can also test and repeat it. 2. Evolution doesn't devalue real science because it is real science. Also, as a famous biologist whose name escapes me as present once said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." 3. Mutation and natural selection easily explain how a complex organism can arise from a simpler one. The analogy of a skyscraper (or a watch, or a coke can, or any other inanimate object) fails because those do not undergo mutation and natural selection, as they are not alive and do not reproduce. 4. Argument from ignorance. 5. Demonstrates a lack of understanding of evolution. Learn what evolution actually says before you try to criticize it. (Hint: It does not involve ooze turning into a person overnight.) 6. Wrong, evolution is a part of science that requires no faith to believe in. 7. Unsubstantiated attack. Mkemper331 (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Please remember that this is not a discussion forum on the general topic of evolution. Please see WP:FORUM and WP:TALK. Gabbe (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly

when you write this material do not and i repeat do not use the words of certain confirmation, ie. "is" and "are" when you speek about this ie. evolution "is" what occured. it has the possibility to take away from ones religion because the text is not certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.9.68 (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how evolution is a fact of life - as observable as gravity even - we're gonna go ahead and keep using "is" and "are". If it contradicts your interpretation of your holy book, that's your problem, not ours. It doesn't contradict my interpretation of my holy book, and I'd bet money that we use the same one.Farsight001 (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Well, seeing as how evolution is a fact of life - as observable as gravity even - we're gonna go ahead and keep using "is" and "are"."

Regarding that... you mean to say micro evolution is a fact of life, to which I won't argue against, but the theory of "bacteria to human" evolution is not an obvious fact. Rather that is speculation. COMDER (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

See evolution as theory and fact, and WP:WEIGHT. . dave souza, talk 22:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no such thing as "micro-evolution". There is only evolution. To make a distinction is foolish and unscientific. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Micro vs. macro evolution is really an artificial distinction. The only difference between the two is time scale. Mkemper331 (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether a fact is "obvious" or not, doesn't change its being a fact. It wasn't always "obvious" that the earth orbits the sun, but it does (and did). Quietmarc (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, reality doesn't change to match your religion. There's probably a direct correlation between the age of your religion and the number of things it claims that are false. If that impacts your faith negatively, you may want to consider alternatives. 76.185.61.24 (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate to have to do this, but there is actually a grain of truth to the argument being made. All scientific facts(evolution, gravity, etc) have two components. The "theory" and the "explanatory". The theory of evolution is that organisms evolve. The "explanatory" part of evolution is the path that evolution took over the last +3 billion years. The same can be true for any scientific fact. Now, this isn't the same thing as micro/macro evolution(which is complete bizarre misunderstanding by creationists). The distinction is important, because it helps people who don't understand the "theory of evolution" to understand how evolution has been proven. We have proven that organisms evolve. Since we know that organisms can evolve, we can reasonably conclude that all life has evolved from simple organisms over billions of years. Hypothetically, an alien race could have visited, destroyed all life, and left new life that looked exactly the same(with drastically different DNA). This is very unlikely, but it hypothetically could have happened. It also wouldn't impact the theory of evolution in any way. The theory of evolution does not contain any information about how organisms evolved. It outlines rules for how organisms will evolve. Just like a rock at the bottom of a cliff is probably there as the result of gravity, the theory of gravity doesn't tell us how the rock got to the bottom...it just tells us what would happen if you pushed the rock off the top of the cliff.PuckSR (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC) PuckSR

Non-biological evolution?

The article seems to center around biological evolution and, in fact, does not mention non-biological evolution directly. Should more information on non-biological evolution be added? (74.160.130.112 (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC))

Do you refer to any of the topics linked from Evolution (disambiguation)? Otherwise, what do you mean by "non-biological evolution"? Gabbe (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The article intentionally limits itself to discussing biological evolution. Information on topics like stellar evolution, technological evolution and sociocultural evolution is beyond the scope of this article; readers interested in those topics are already referred to a disambiguation page containing links to those respective pages. Emw (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I missed the "See also" section of Evolution (disambiguation). (74.160.130.112 (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC))

I agree

The Denver Post noted that "stylistic infelicities abound." I didn't even finish the introduction, but I have to say I agree. I'd like to see what I can do to make this baby read better.Neptunerover (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so the introduction was basically the bumpy part. Much of the rest looks nearly to have been copied from a textbook. And so Wikipedia teaches me not make assumptions about how things are written based on just a small sample. These articles have more authors than anything in history, except maybe the bible. --Neptunerover (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If it seems to be textbook level, does that mean we have hit the wrong level of explanation? Were there any parts that seemed particularly over-technical? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if somebody's looking for an easier path to a basic understanding of the concepts, there's always the 'overview of evolution' article. (Which needs some help to be what it ought to be, like having its name changed for one thing.)--Neptunerover (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay Tim, the section on Mutation is one that stands out to me as being overly heavy with that textbook feel. It seems real thick with information. But then also a couple of things in it seem simplified and even questionable. The very first sentence is one, and my question is, does genetic variation only come from mutations? That seems to be what the sentence is saying, but doesn't variation arise simply as a result of sexual reproduction regardless of any mutations occurring? Then there is the first part of paragraph 2, where it talks of duplicated DNA and genes, but without looking at the picture I think it can be difficult to understand what sort of duplications are being referred to, as don't all genes get duplicated each time a cell divides? Or is that called replication, which only idiots confuse with duplication?--Neptunerover (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on that a bit. Sexual reproduction just shuffles pre-existing genes about, like shuffling and re-dealing a pack of cards, so this doesn't really create anything new, just new combinations of what was there before. Mutations are therefore the ultimate source of variation. However, a species can acquire a "new gene" from horizontal gene transfer from another species. Although you can argue that it is not the gene that is new, but that it is just in a new place. This was a bit confusing, so I've changed the first sentence to Random mutations constantly occur in the genomes of organisms, these mutations create genetic variation. which allows for that exception. I've also reworded the duplication section to deal with a single chromosome, which might be clearer. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Random mutations produce SNP's and tandem repeat insertions throughout genomes that produce variation and are used in DNA testing. But besides mutations within a gene new genes are often formed from parts of old one such as with alternate splicing and genetic recombinations of the small tool box of genes that produce the variablity in our humoral and celluar adaptive immunity. Meiosis produces new variation from previous mutations too by combining them in new ways. Generally gene flow can introduce new genes into a pop. but there is no de novo synthesis of new genes from nothing but generally is insertions, deletions, duplications, transpositions, etc. within the genome. We wouldn't want to give the impression that new genes arise de novo from nothing. I think Tim's point there is no "new gene" is well taken. Creationist often make the argument there is no new DNA so no new information. Failing to grasp you don't need new DNA to create new information. You can reshuffle the deck and add or leave out cards in new ways. All life is conserved because all organisms have used the same tool box of sequence for the various functional domains, motifs, signatures, structure, etc. that create life. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay.--Neptunerover (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent rework, thank you. The first sentence does however need something to make it properly compound. Personally, I would lean toward making the comma into a semicolon, since they are sort of daring, or else the word 'and' should go after the comma.--Neptunerover (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good call. I've also tried to make the section on recombining modules and the idea of gene families flow a little better. Is this new version better or worse? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about that example. I also want to move the word 'usually' to the front of the genetic recombination sentence. Some other wording stuff too.--Neptunerover (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. Multienzyme proteins would be an alternative example; these are assembly-line proteins that contain multiple enzymes each doing a single step of the chain of reactions needed to transform one chemical into another PMID 18357594 is a good review on that. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure if edits can get crossed, so I've been hesitant to make a change while someone else might be making an edit, which is why I have pointed out some things that I could easily have changed myself.--Neptunerover (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've rewritten this section again, switching the order and changing the examples. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool. So the sentence I worked on before was actually missing a word, and I tried to make it sound good without the word. Good that you fixed that. It's currently incomplete though, so I may hit it again, and you can make sure that I don't screw up what it's saying.--Neptunerover (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The commas didn't quite work with that sentence before to get the aside that I wanted it to be. I'm thinking perhaps parentheses, although it works fine as it is now with two sentences, and improvement can be a point of view, so... --Neptunerover (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The intro seems to overemphasize gradualism without due weight to punctualism. This Science article supports my argument.

Large Punctuational Contribution of Speciation to Evolutionary Divergence at the Molecular Level Mark Pagel,* Chris Venditti, Andrew Meade

A long-standing debate in evolutionary biology concerns whether species diverge gradually through time or by punctuational episodes at the time of speciation. We found that approximately 22% of substitutional changes at the DNA level can be attributed to punctuational evolution, and the remainder accumulates from background gradual divergence. Punctuational effects occur at more than twice the rate in plants and fungi than in animals, but the proportion of total divergence attributable to punctuational change does not vary among these groups. Punctuational changes cause departures from a clock-like tempo of evolution, suggesting that they should be accounted for in deriving dates from phylogenies. Punctuational episodes of evolution may play a larger role in promoting evolutionary divergence than has previously been appreciated. Something to consider. GetAgrippa (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

However, even fast punctuational evolution is slow by human standards, so this is more a question of what you mean by "gradual" Tim Vickers (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is still gradual by human standards but the idea of stasis and then change-so it isn't a linear time clock is the emphasis. I guess gradual is fine for the intro as long as the subject is entertained elsewhere in article. By the by, Happy Holidays TimVickers! Your efforts on Wikipedia are greatly appreciated. I've ended my retirement and started working (teaching) at a local college. My next goal is to apply for a grant and hopefully start a research career again. Wish me luck. In the words of Ian Anderson:"I'm too old to rock n roll:too young to die". I've also decided to end my Wikipedia hiatus and start working on articles again. Just call me YoYo Agrippa.Best wishes. GetAgrippa (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, and good writing! Tim Vickers (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Basis?

Evolution is a process. The basic units of the process are genes. The basis of the process is not the unit but rather how it is used. This is my argument for the change I already made.--Neptunerover (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny this is similar to an earlier version that emphasized the Dobzhansky definition of a shift in gene alleles in a pop. over time. This article seems to recycle the same ideas over and over again. When will the insanity end. Neptunerover is correct that Evolution is a process which acts on variation. The generation of variation by mutations or epimutations, and independent assortment and crossovers are biological processes (not evolutionary ones although they did evolve). Evolution acts on the biological variation and we measure the effects of the process as changes in gene alleles and phenotypes (pop. genetics). The old version emphasized phenotype and there lies the rub as gene and trait are often not a one to one translation but gene networks or cell signalling events. Such as calmodulin allele shifts and changes in beaks in Darwin's finches. The neural crest and bone morphogenic protein regulate beak development and obviously cell signalling events related to calmodulin prompt the changes in beaks. But then there is the example of the dog genome which indicated the length of dog breed snouts is related to the length of tandem repeat sequences within a specific gene (more of a one to one. Further the article doesn't discuss dominance, codominance, recessive, etc. to explain how gene traits can remain cryptic in a population but still be present (like explain why two brown haired, brown eyed parents can have blue eyed blonde haired kids). Or like the transposon responsible for pesticide resistance in the majority of drosophila remained cryptic in the fly population for tens of thousands of years and now within 200 years be expressed within the majority of fly populations. Another example in humans would be how polydactyly (six fingers) is a dominant gene yet most of the population possess the recessive phenotype (five fingers)-because of evolution (you could mention the founder effect in the Amish which display polydactyly). I think some examples would be helpful to demonstrate how variation occurs and how evolution acts on this variation. I also believe examples will quell the evolution is only a theory crowd and there are no examples of evolution crowd. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as quelling certain crowds, the thing is, evolution runs on a logical system that can be laid out and seen for how it works, so that examples become nearly self evident. If there are groups of individuals who sincerely believe it is unreasonable, approaching them with reason is the definition of futility.--Neptunerover (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've experimentally confirmed that many times over. Kevin Baas^talk 15:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to make the first sentence read evolution is "the process of change" through generations, since it now reads, "change" through generations, which seems to me more the result of evolution than what evolution is, although I feel I might be glossing over quite a mire here. Or am I simply splitting hairs? Is change through generations itself considered a process, so that calling it a process might be little more than a redundancy?--Neptunerover (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

When we are talking about evolution as "fact" it is simply change (change in gene frequency over time). When we talk about evolution as "theory" (how we model this change) we talk about processes and mechanisms e.g. drift, natural selection, sexual selection. Right? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think there are definitely different ways of looking at what the word means, depending on how it is used or at least intended. Good thing this isn't a dictionary! =)--Neptunerover (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

why isn't It mentioned in sentence one that evolution is a theory.

Species can and do adapt to their surroundings but total evolution is unproven and a concept that cannot be proved. So it should be mentioned up front that isn't fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.172.61 (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

even the darwinism page refers to the modern evolution theory. And clicking that links to this page.

I would suggest that the IT read MODERN EVOLUTION THEORY at the top instead of Evolution. It is wrong to leave this out and misleading some to believe Evolution is fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.172.61 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You might like to read Question 3 in the FAQ at the top of this page. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ben but why does the darwin page refer to this page as Modern EVOLUTION THEORY and this page leave out Modern and theory?

I just went to the darwinism article and I couldn't see a modern evolutionary theory link that pointed here. Are we looking at the same article? Ben (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

sorry its not a link. Its under the title.

This article is about concepts called Darwinism. For modern evolutionary theory, see evolution. For other uses, see Evolution (disambiguation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.172.61 (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Even the page of the father of evolution admits that evolution is the modern theory of E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.172.61 (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The modern evolutionary synthesis is the theory that explains the observation that species evolve. Evolution is the data, the modern synthesis is the theory that explains this data. See evolution as a theory and fact for more detail. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ahh, I see. Well modern evolutionary theory should probably point to modern evolutionary synthesis. But I have a feeling the purpose of the hatnote was to point people looking for information on evolution to this article, in which case the preceding text should be modified. What say anyone else? Ben (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've modified the hatnote. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good, though I figured the last link in the hatnote wasn't necessary any more so I removed it. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Was that the evolution of wikipedia or slight of hand. Changing Darwinism page to hide the theory wording, isnt that ironic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.172.61 (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The evolution of Wikipedia. Beautiful, isn't it? Ben (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Read the FAQ at the top of this page. Kevin Baas^talk 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Evolution and historical linguistics

Mark Liberman points to an interesting quote from Origin of Species that demonstrates that the idea of descent with modification was borrowed by Darwin from historical linguistics, rather than the other way round, as is usually assumed.

It's time to include this aspect in articles related to the subject evolution, most of which don't even mention languages or linguistics at all, even when the application of the idea to other fields is discussed, as in the subsection History of evolutionary thought of this article. (It is worth noting that languages are not the only aspects of human culture to develop in a broadly analogous way to species, just think of musical genres, sports or games, but they are by far the most prominent aspect to do so.) Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a novel idea, but there were a whole range of influences on Darwin at the time of his wide ranging brainstorming leading to his ideas of descent in a branching twig of coral, and subsequently his famous tree. It's probably something to mention in the history of evolutionary ideas article, but doubtful if this particular issue should feature in this overview. Desmond and Moore's Darwin p. 215 discusses Darwin's interest in Herschell's comment to Lyell about the time implied by the development of languages, and how Darwin mentioned it in a letter to his sister.[9] The parallels and interactions between linguistics and biology are discussed in a recent paper, which is a more useful source than the blog you quote.[10] The blog refers to a paragraph in On the Origin of Species where Darwin describes how a perfect genealogy of mankind would allow classification of the branching descent of languages.(p.422) Interestingly, Costa's note to that paragraph in The Annotated Origin says that Darwin borrowed the metaphor from geology, quoting Darwin writing to Lyell that "Your metaphor of the pebbles of preexisting languages, reminds me that I heard Sir J. Herschel at the Cape say, how he wished someone wd. treat languages, as you had Geology, & study the existing causes of change & apply the deductions to old languages."[11] The meeting with Herschel was in June 1836, before Darwin first expressed any doubts that species were fixed. . . dave souza, talk 20:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Words are to the Anthropologist what rolled pebbles are to the Geologist—Battered relics of past ages...." – handy source . dave souza, talk 20:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Mutations in regulatory elements rather than mutant alleles in evolution

My latest Science makes for interesting reading talking about mutations in the regulatory elements of genes in evolution compared to the notion of "alleles" which historically have referred to the protein sequence portion of a gene. "Almost 3 years ago, biologists got into a tussle over what drives morphological evolution: variations in the protein-coding portions of genes or changes in the DNA regions that regulate gene activity. At the time, some researchers felt there was little hard evidence to support the idea that regulatory changes were indeed important (Science, 8 August 2008, p. 760).

Now, on page 1663 and in last week's Science Express (www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182213), two teams not only independently report that changes in regulatory DNA were responsible for an adaptation in natural populations of fish and insects, but each group has also pieced together details of the underlying genetic alterations in those animals. "They provide beautiful and convincing examples of how [certain] regulatory elements can be lost or modified to reduce [gene] expression, ultimately causing morphological change," says Hopi Hoekstra, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University and one of the chief skeptics. " The notion of "allele" in the old genetic sense,the evolving modern usage of "gene" (which can be RNA and also epigenetic with epimutations), and what evolutionist see as units of inheritance (Dawkins gene-centric vs Gould the phenotype)is an interesting topic. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll quote myself from 2005 on Talk:Gene:

[D]ivergence of form by contemporary accounts has a lot more to do with differences in gene expression (e.g. the faddish "Hox" genes) than changes in genes themselves. Thus the desire to chase evolution into regulatory regions. Since that's relatively unknown territory, it'll probably be a while before we can know whether this is a reasonable line of argument.

I.e., it's easy to find mutants responsible for morphological evolution in genes because we know pretty much everything about them: where they start and stop, what each base pair is for, what they make, what the products do (sometimes), etc. In regulatory regions we know... sometimes where certain transcription factors bind. Much harder to make definitive statements. Graft | talk 02:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

It this bit "While various religions and denominations have reconciled their beliefs" worded correctly? As far as I know the Church of England (which was Darwin's own church) welcomed the theory of evolution as soon as it appeared as per sae completely in line with Christian thought... by I don't have a better source than QI for that without looking...whereas the sentence implied they had to reconcile anything. --BozMo talk 16:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

See On the Origin of Species#Religious attitudes, Reaction to Darwin's theory, Essays and Reviews and Baden Powell (mathematician). The splendid QI seems to have oversimplified things a bit. . . dave souza, talk

Darwin's photie

From an edit at Charles Darwin, I've been reminded that the image here is a cropped version of the photograph in File:Charles Darwin seated.jpg which is dated to circa 1854, as shown on the description of that image and in Charles Darwin: a life in pictures. I've adjusted the caption, as conveniently it was in 1864 that Darwin finished his barnacles and took up full time work on species, starting the writings eventually trimmed to an abstract and published as the Origin. Have also changed the statement about Lamarck having wide influence to make it clear that his evolutionary influence was limited to radicals like Grant, and was rejected by the mainstream in France as well as in Britain. Of course Lamarck did have influence with his taxonomy of invertebrates, but not so much with his transmutation ideas. . dave souza, talk 20:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Scribbles

Some words in the picture on the top are scribbles that can't be read.

173.183.79.69 (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Mr. Anonymous

Try looking at [12] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Social and Cultural Responses

Great article - it is well written, interesting and to the best of my knowledge factual.
Only complaint is this sentance on Social Darwinism.

"Another example associated with evolutionary theory that is now widely regarded as unwarranted is misnamed "Social Darwinism," a term given to the 19th century Whig Malthusian theory developed by Herbert Spencer into ideas about "survival of the fittest" in commerce and human societies as a whole, and by others into claims that social inequality, sexism, racism, and imperialism were justified."

It reads poorly, escpecially when compared to the rest of the article. Maybe some one can break it up into two sentances or re-write it to make it clearer AIRcorn (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've tried re-writing this. Any comments on the new version? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That is much better AIRcorn (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the rewrite depicted "social Darwinism" as though it were a coherent movement, when the label was coined by Richard Hofstadter as a term of abuse for capitalist greed and social ideas predating Darwin. It is commonly used to misrepresent Spencer's ideas, and note that he was a sociologist and philosopher, not a politician. Have had another go at clarifying it, but the original seems to have covered the main points reasonably well. This blog source gives some explanations, tho note that in OtOOS races refers to cabbages as much as to pigeons. . dave souza, talk 05:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Tried to go back to the original but make it a bit clearer AIRcorn (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Evolution is a scientific fact and Creationism is a religious myth?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

FYI it is called the Theory of evolution. Project Gnome (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And the fact:-) See below... dave souza, talk 05:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to using Wikipedia in this way (actually trying to contribute as apposed to just being a viewer). Nevertheless I'm going to dive right in. I noticed that, as the subject/headline states, Evolution is being considered a scientific fact and Creationism a religious belief or myth. I think this is incorect and should be modified, first of all "Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested." -Henry Morris Ph.D. (1) Secondly Creationism is scientific since, "Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.”" (2) And Creationism does exactly that from the perspective that the world was created, usually by a Diety.

I apologize for mistakes I've probably made in ignorance and am open to criticism and discussion. I suspect this has probably also been brought up before in the past. And I'm a little confused by, "...and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes..." Since no one seems to do that... (Edit: Interesting how the tildes work, please disregard the comment about them.)

-Ian Smith, Sunday, January 24th, 2010, 9:02PM Eastern Standard Time (-5 GMT).

Scarch (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(1)http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-religion-not-science/ (2)http://www.gotquestions.org/creationism-scientific.html

You are using creationist sources - hardly reliable unfortunately. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. As noted above your information comes from highly unreliable sources. Please read both articles (Evolution and Creationism) and their respective FAQs at the top of their Talk Pages (at the top of this very page for the evolution one). After that you will have a much better handling on both subjects. On a personal note I recommend you to start reading some popular scientific literature about evolution starting with the very simple but informative booklet by the National Academy of Sciences (The most prestigious science body in the world) called Science, Evolution, and Creationism (This is just a intro brochure, the full text is in the link ahead) and its companion "Evolution in Hawaii: A Supplement to Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science" both available as free pdfs here and here respectively --LexCorp (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A Ph.D. is not reliable? All I extracted from those sources were two quotes anyway. And you did not adress the questions I raised. Thank you though for the advice, I have read some of both articles, but have not read them in their entirety. I will read more of them periodically, and thank you for the book suggestion. Honestly I must admit I have not read Darwin's Origin of Species yet either.

Scarch (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A PhD doesn't mean one is right about everything, or anything for that matter. A PhD in civil engineering certainly provides no expertise on evolutionary biology or geology. Auntie E. (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As noted above (I hate edit conflicts and my slow writing) Ph.D are not as reputable as they were once, when education was more or less a privilege. Nowadays it is a prerequisite of any research profession so obtaining one is really the beginning of the profession. Also relevant is the type of Ph.D and the subject of the thesis being awarded. No much use as a reliable source on evolution if you got a Ph.D in Ancient History for "Medical remedies at the Roman forts along the Hadrian's wall". I would not recommend reading Darwin's Origin of Species as a source of understanding Evolution. The book is quite old and its information very dated. There has been 150 years of research and discoveries since its publication. The NAS booklets contains a much better and up-to-date "further reading" section. Also a favourite of mine is Cesare Emiliani's. Planet Earth : Cosmology, Geology, & the Evolution of Life & the Environment. This is a somewhat advanced (university entry level) book on all the sciences pertaining to evolution. I recomend this 'couse learning evolution apart from all other earth sciences is quite ridiculous given that evolution draws evidence from all of them. The full info is:

• Emiliani, Cesare. (1992). Planet Earth : Cosmology, Geology, & the Evolution of Life & the Environment. Cambridge University Press. (Paperback Edition ISBN 0-521-40949-7)

IMHO reading Darwin's Origin of Species is only useful as historical perspective of the origin of evolution and not really useful to learn or study evolution proper. Remember that genes and DNA were still unknown at the time and most other sciences were at their infancy so the level of their understanding of the word to us, 150 years later, seem childlike in many ways.--LexCorp (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As to addressing your specific point. The sources you quote are wrong in their assertions. Both articles, their Faqs and the NAS booklet will inform you as to why they are wrong.--LexCorp (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Also as you are new to WP. I would say that it is common usage to put the signature immediately after your comment. No need to add a separate line. In fact some users will request you to follow such convention when engaging in the talk pages as it reduces confusion in long and populous discussions.--LexCorp (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"A PhD doesn't mean one is right about everything, or anything for that matter." I am aware of this. But on what ground are you dismissing my source? My source says as I quoted origionally, "Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested." Do you deny this? Can you find a single source that actually tests evolution? Or that says something can be a scientific fact even if it isn't demonstratable?

I want to read Darwin's Origin of Species primarily for the historical perspective of the origin of evolution.

I should check out the FAQs, what's the NAS booklet?

The thing is, I was only showing where I extracted my quotes from. My point still stands, evolution is not even a hypothesis, and Creationism is not a myth. The main articles should be edited to reflect this. Aren't they both fields of study in science? Scarch (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

NAS booklet -->National Academy of Sciences (NAS) booklet called "Science, Evolution, and Creationism" as described in my above comment.--LexCorp (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"I am aware of this. But on what ground are you dismissing my source? My source says as I quoted origionally, "Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested." Do you deny this?" Scarch, your source may or may not make such a claim, but unless it was part of the conclusion of a scientific paper, and clearly justified based on the evidence presented within, then this quote and others like it cannot be presented here as anything more than opinion. Opinion is not particularly good evidence even when it is the opinion of a relevant expert. In this specific case, it is arguable that the quote is not even the opinion of a scientist. It is the opinion of a hydraulic engineer, who may or may not be a scientist in either a philosophical or professional sense. Whether Morris is a scientist or not, he is certainly not an expert in a relevant field, such as chemistry, biology or geology. His personal opinion, presented as a quote, has no relevance at all to the science of evolution.DoktorDec (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Grrr... edit conflict. My reply is below, but I should also note that many of the PhDs that argue against evolution got their degrees in religious or philosophical studies. And, of course, they usually won't tell you what their PhD is in, but will start reciting literature from the field of evolutionary biology, obviously with the intent of implying that they come from the field. Sorry, no source for that, just a lot of personal experience. Anyway...

Scarch: No, the main article should not be edited to reflect this because your point is wrong. It has already been stated above, but I will repeat: Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. It will address your concerns. That's why it's there... so we can avoid lengthy discussions like this.

To address your sources, the first source plays off the colloquial sense of the word "believe" and how scientists and every-day supporters casually demonstrate their support of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not a belief system. There is plenty of data to back it up, which you would know if you'd spend more time looking at science sources instead of creationist sources. The rest of that article was addressed in the FAQ at the top of the page, as previously stated. Your second source clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of what science is when it states: "Creationism, like naturalism, can be "scientific," in that it is compatible with the scientific method of discovery. These two concepts are not, however, sciences in and of themselves, because both views include aspects that are not considered "scientific" in the normal sense. Neither creationism nor naturalism is falsifiable; that is, there is no experiment that could conclusively disprove either one. Neither one is predictive; they do not generate or enhance the ability to predict an outcome. Solely on the basis of these two points, we see that there is no logical reason to consider one more scientifically valid than the other." If something is not falsifiable or predictive, then it is not science. Thus Creationism is not science. Naturalism is a philosophy/principle (not a scientific hypothesis) that underlies modern science, dictating that hypotheses should be tested by reference to natural causes with observable effects. Evolution, either by natural selection, genetic drift, etc., is falsifiable and predictive and it has been tested. Again, see the FAQ at the top of the page. –Visionholder (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Once creationists do some experiments to test their ideas, they will become scientists. But not before. Can you suggest an experiment to test the hypothesis that God created the world? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest you look at the Creation Myth article to get an understanding of the formal definition of the term before you assume it's being used in an informal / negative manner. Nefariousski (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: Neither Creationists or Evolutionists can prove how everything began. Because in order to prove a hypothesis the experiment must be observable, repeatable, and measurable.

So...until evolutionists "do some experiments to test their ideas, they will become scientists." Can you suggest an experiment to test the hypothesis that life happened by chance?

As for me...I have enough evidence to prove that life was not created by chance.

All life has design.

For example: the bird...Tell me how many billions of years did it take the bird to figure out that in order to fly; they need hollow bones, feathers, and an aerodynamic body?

It is only logical to believe that some powerful being, AKA GOD created everything, rather than something coming to life out of an inorganic substance. Use your brain! Even the mind is far too complex to be created by chance...

Project Gnome (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To the best of our knowledge, birds still haven't figured that stuff out. Ben (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol...I will admit birds aren't that bright...Hence being called a bird brain does not imply that one is all that smart :D

Project Gnome (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

While you've ably expressed a widespread religious view, in science it's correct to view evolution as theory and fact. However, this page is for discussing specific improvements to the article, so the conversation can't be continued here. Enjoy the complexity, dave souza, talk 05:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Grrr... edit conflicts every time I try to post. Anyway, I was going to say to Project Gnome: Once again, read the FAQ at the top of the page. Argument from ignorance don't prove the existence of any deity, nor do they disprove that life could have arisen by chance. And anyway, the origins of life are not part of evolutionary theory since it deals only with existing life. And the bird's adaptations for flight did not occur entirely by chance, they occurred by natural selection. But if you had read the FAQ, you would know that. –Visionholder (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Should we try renaming it to "Evolutionism as theory-ist and fact-ist" to potentially increase readership ? Bigger fonts ? Free gifts if you read it ? We're missing something obvious. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI The problem is that Creationism and Evolution are not logical alternatives to one another. Neither one on its own excludes the possibility of the other. Any perceived discrepancy between the two concepts is based upon a misunderstanding of their relation to one another. Creationism is an understanding/belief/theory that concerns Why. Evolution is an understanding/belief/theory that concerns How. Each is it's own argument, and neither can be logically used in order to contradict the other. Any argument between them is a bogus one conceived by Satan. --Neptunerover (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested." Do you deny this? Can you find a single source that actually tests evolution? - I'll bite - yes, I can find one easily. Neil Shubin used phylogentic trees and some rudimentary knowledge of geology to predict where he could find a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods. He spent 3 years digging on Elsemere island and voilà - he found what he was looking for, Tiktaalik. Evolution passed his test. Just because someone claims that there's no way to test evolution doesn't make it so. It just tells you that person making the statement lacks imagination, knowledge of the subject, or both. Raul654 (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And if the person continues to make such statements after being corrected (as most outspoken creationism pushers do), they probably lack honesty as well. Project Gnome, you really need to get some better sources. - Soulkeeper (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Oh, and please read the FAQs at the top of the respective pages. Thank you. Kevin Baas^talk 15:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evolutionary novelties

Excellent Current Biology review out today Evolutionary novelties Günter P. Wagner and Vincent J. Lynch. I'll mull over how to work it into this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And also a PNAS issue devoted to Evolution in Health and Medicine. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

General Question

Input needed. Please follow-up on my talk page if that is more appropriate. (discussion not related specifically to this article). Ken Ham's Book Evolution Exposed magically appeared in high school library. Sadly we now have three books on evolution ... Origins ... BeHe's and now Kens. Question to which I can't seem to find the answer. Is it formally classified as a science book or is it classified as religion? Thanks and apologies for the "blog-like" intrusion. --JimmyButler (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - just read archived post above. I guess we may all be interested in seeing how the library systems classify its contents! And Wikipedia is not a "formum" so talk page if you know the answer. Cheers--JimmyButler (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:JimmyButler. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

scientific debate

WP:SOAPboxing "not relevant to improving the article" (archived per WP:TALK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
evolution is not science, and should not be counted as such. Science is classified as the the study of the scientific method, which is the orderly process by which scientists investigate the secrets of nature by observation, hypothesizing, and experimenting. You've got the hypothesizing part down, but what about the other two??? The direct definition of evolution is the belief that the universe (and all that's in it)originated by natural processes over billions of years. Cosmic evolution (the big bang theory - key word is theory) refers to the chance origin of the universe as a whole. My question is where did the stuff that caused the bang come from??? It states that after the bang some gases swirled together and made the sun and the leftover stuff formed rings and planets. Earth was covered with water (called primordial soup) which got struck by lightning and formed an amoeba (where did the lightning come from??? the non-existent protons and electrons???). Over lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots of time became you. Are you telling me that your extremely complex DNA and cells in general just randomly happened??? And don't even get me started on the question of where your consciousness came from. My last points are don't drink water (it might be your cousin - you don't want to be cannibalistic) and whenever you tell an evolutionist that their grandmother was an ape they get insulted, and i don't see why because that is exactly what they are advocating. In the Bible (YES! I said that word) it says, "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers...saying...all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." These are the end times, maybe I'm an extremist, but that's what it says. It said that 2000 years ago, long before Darwin went to the Galapagos and twisted the amazing showcase of God's creation into lies and misuse of his imagination. The Bible is scientific, just read it. God said that he would preserve his word, and he has in the King James Version, which he had the scribes put to death if it was not a perfect copy of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text. People say that God can't exist because of the war, poverty, and famine. God didn't make it that way, man's disobedience did. Darkness and light cannot exist without each other. He gave us choice to follow him because he loves us and gave us free will because of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.42.23 (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC) If you wish to debate evolution, Wikipedia is not the venue to do so (see WP:NOTAFORUM). Might I suggest talk.origins instead? Gabbe (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I think it's the perfect place because so many people read this and because I'm not only debating evolution, but supporting creation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.42.23 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. If you would like to discuss evolution, creation, or any other topic for that matter, there are quite a lot of other places online to do so. Gabbe (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Also, that's not the definition of evolution. thx1138 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC) May I suggest you to read the informative booklet by the National Academy of Sciences called "Science, Evolution, and Creationism" and its companion "Evolution in Hawaii: A Supplement to Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science" both available to read online or as free pdfs here and here respectively. It features examples of the "observation, hypothesizing, and experimenting" parts of evolution.--LexCorp (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I love the fact that you got the "don't drink water" part right. Yes as far as we can tell all life is related, even the bacterial world within a glass of water. Also to keep the record straight, my grandmother is an ape same as me and so are you. Shocking!!--LexCorp (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Not to mention from a biblical point of view we all share common blood since we all come from the bloodline of Adam and Eve. Saying that those who support evolution kill their cousins when they drink water is the same as saying creationists have sex with their cousins when they go home to their husbands / wives. Nefariousski (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC) TL;DR, but "He gave us choice to follow him because he loves us and gave us free will because of that" reminds me that He also announced that he would burn us eternally if we didn't believe in him. As Darwin said, a damnable doctrine. Love! . . dave souza, talk 22:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC) }}

Why isn't there a section on Criticism of Evolution ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.76.170.2 (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, and read the FAQ at the top of this page. garik (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is covered in the Social and Cultural Response where it talks about religious criticisms. There are great debates in Evolution theory (which would be nice to have a section) but there are no "scientific" criticisms of Evolution per se. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

that's what i was going to say: because there are none. (no valid/meaningful ones, that is. but why would we count invalid/meaningless ones? "the moon circles the earth. ya, but frogs are green! what?!?!" = not considered an argument. unless we're going to start including dr. suess quotes in every article...) Kevin Baas^talk 15:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what, find me a good reliable source demonstrating scientifically that all offspring of all species are exact replicas of their ancestors both in genotype and phenotype and i will BEG for it's inclusion in the article. Kevin Baas^talk 16:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting posit?? Pineapples are clonally maintained and so should have the same genotype and phenotype. Remnant populations of species of Australian sandalwood no longer reproduce sexually and are now asexually clonally maintained by root suckers. I wonder how living fossils which maintain the same phenotype for millions of years would fit with genotype change? Interesting post anyways. GetAgrippa (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I recall there's this weird small translucent aquatic organism that reproduces pretty much by cloning, and it's been evolving for millions of years on genetic mutation alone. unfortunately i forgot the name. i do recall something about scientists being curious how it could survive so long without genetic cross-over and with such a high risk of genetic regression / decay. and i think it was something i saw on t.v. years ago. anycase, it still "evolved", albeit very slowly, even though the offspring were all clones. Kevin Baas^talk 17:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes Bdelloid rotifers don't reproduce sexually but display variation and diversity. Horizontal gene flow and gene duplications and mutations prevent Muller's ratchet phenomenon. GetAgrippa (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one(s) I was thinking of. I remember them saying they were "rotifiers" now and the pictures resemble what i saw in my visual memory. And you were spot on w/Muller's ratchet, though i didn't know what it was called. (as a programmer i'd just as soon call it "bit rot") Impressive. Kevin Baas^talk 21:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is on a science-based subject. There is no valid scientific criticism of the concept or existence of a process of biological evolution. There are criticisms of the various theories of evolution, but that is an entirely different matter, as this article is not about theories of evolution per se. The only criticisms of evolution itself are of a fundamentalist theological nature and which, being contrary to the nature which the fundamentalists contend was created by God, serves merely to undermine a) their grasp of science, b) the veracity of their faith and c) respect for, and promotion of, the belief systems to which they adhere. --JohnArmagh (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

ya, put otherwise, "evolution" is empirical. like sand. we would not put in the "sand" article "criticisms of sand", now would we? (sometimes its hot and it burns my feet...) It's amazing we give the opposition as much credit as we do. If it weren't for history, i suppose we wouldn't mention that the earth was once thought to be flat... but you see, again, that's an empirical matter. we're talking about what you see and hear with your eyes and your ears. we can talk about beliefs elsewhere. Kevin Baas^talk 16:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the unhelpful responses that amout to "all criticism of evolution is invalid", the real reason is that criticism sections are discouraged in all articles. It is perfectly alright to include critical responses in other sections. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Or even an article such as Objections to evolution. Tmol42 (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the FAQ at the top of the page and it turns out that "the real reason" (according to it) is actually precisely what we said it was in out "unhelpful responses"., and not because "criticism sections are discouraged in all articles" (which i doubt). Kevin Baas^talk 17:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:STRUCTURE and WP:CRITS point to the issues with "criticism sections" which are essentially a matter of making sure they don't introduce a NPOV problem. Which may explain why there isn't a section on Criticism of Electricity or a section on Criticism of Gravity in the relevant articles. . . dave souza, talk 18:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add a message to the edit page for this article and the talk page, much like the one for BLPs, saying something like "If you wish to add or remove content from this article, or start a new topic on the discussion page, please see the FAQs, which provide explanation as to why certain additions have been deemed inappropriate to include in this particular article. This especially applies to topics regarding subjects such as objections to evolution and others which are not directly relevant to the science of the subject, or which express a belief or point of view." While this is unlikely to deter people such as the user who posted "ATHIEST PROTECTIONISM???", I think it would reduce the numbers of these "zombie arguments", (from people such as this user) which seem to come up very often. It could also be used for other similarly misused articles. I think this would be more effective than the "important notice" at the top, as people would have to see it. It's just a suggestion though. Jhbuk (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. sounds like something for the Wikipedia:Village pump or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Kevin Baas^talk 18:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps even a mention that the majority of christians believe in evolution (although a theistic version much like Francis Collins)and that only fundamentalist christians and muslims (Islam doesn't have a problem with evolution either)seem to have a problem. Although I don't know if this would be like throwing water or gasoline on the subject. hee,hee,hee. GetAgrippa (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

...or water on a gas fire. Kevin Baas^talk 20:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there isn't any real scientific criticisms of evolution, it is almost exclusively religious (with some logic thrown in). Unfortunately, by definition, religious POV are pretty difficult to engage with. 'God exists' 'How do you know this?' 'Leap of faith'. Of course, if you really extend Cartegian Evil Demon theory, perhaps all evidence of evolution is a strange and complicated hoax made by God just in order for us to be tempted to doubt His word, which could be used to legitimately destroy all scientists and intellectuals (in a Maoist Great Leap Forward?) But science, by its nature, has to test its hypotheses with the most rigorous (even if silly) criticism.--AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is exactly why I stay out of Vietnam now. Nobody can agree here. --Neptunerover (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute! How about the second law of thermodynamics? That eats evolution for breakfast! --EnderWiggin1 (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_violates_the_second_law_of_thermodynamics Guettarda (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Put in it's proper relation, the second law of thermodynamics is what drives evolution. (consider mutation, cross-over, natural selection, etc.) I think your criticism is more appropriately targeted at life (and in particular its ability to mantain form and function in spite of dissipation), for which I would refer you to Ilya Prigogine's book on "Dissipative Structures". Kevin Baas^talk 15:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't cover it. The solar system is a very isolated system. What about chromosome reproduction? Animals with different chromosomes 99.9% they can't reproduce. Puts a hole in evoltution. Or birds with useless wings? How about that? Why did they evolve to have useless wings? Does that make them more adaptable to their environment? --EnderWiggin1 (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than continuing to violate WP:TALK would you care to discuss how you would like to improve the article? If you don't, you run the risk of your posts being deleted. Shot info (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I am only trying to say that there is criticism. He is inferring that there is no scientific evidence to the contrary, and that is wrong. --EnderWiggin1 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You're failing to provide reliable sources and specific proposals for edits, as required by WP:TALK. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or forum, you're evidently commenting in the wrong place. Fail again, and this section can get archived. . . dave souza, talk 17:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an ad hominem. Even if the average hobo raises a question about evolution that is valid, it should go under criticism. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1 Have a source raising questions. I am not debating, I am pointing out holes that should be included. --EnderWiggin1 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you're being polite and going out of your way to find sources leads me to believe you're acting in good faith. Nonetheless, you need to inform yourself about Wikipedia and evolution a lot more before you continue with this discussion. As far as informing yourself about how Wikipedia operates, I would suggest reading this link which talk about reliable sourcing. Obviously anyone can post anything they want to a forum, so the reliable part is important. As far as informing yourself about evolution, I had a quick look at the objections mentioned in the forum post you linked to, and can I just suggest you read objections to evolution, an article we have already have? As far as the first objection in that forum post goes too, we have evolution of birds. Cheers, Ben (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Those "holes" aren't holes at all. That's why Wikipedia requires reliable sources, so nonsense like that doesn't get in. thx1138 (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Above Top Secret is hardly a reliable source and per WP:Undue the average person's opinion or crackpot conspiracy theory doesn't merit mention. There is an objections_to_Evolution for you to view if you'd like to see the objections / criticisms. Or you could just go over to conservapedia.Nefariousski (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

a.k.a. propagandapedia. Kevin Baas^talk 14:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, judging by your comment "I am only trying to say that there is criticism. He is inferring that there is no scientific evidence to the contrary", I think you missed my comment: "Put in it's proper relation, the second law of thermodynamics is what drives evolution. (consider mutation, cross-over, natural selection, etc.) I think your criticism is more appropriately targeted at life (and in particular its ability to mantain form and function in spite of dissipation), for which I would refer you to Ilya Prigogine's book on "Dissipative Structures"." Point of that is that entropy, far from being "scientific evidence to the contrary", is in fact the fuel that makes the whole thing work. So whatever you heard / want to put in is just logically incorrect. A good example of why we require reliable sources - 'cause not everyone can figure that out all the time. Kevin Baas^talk 14:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And furthermore (beyond the "no scientific evidence" misinterpretation / straw man), you are not "only trying to say that there is criticism". You are trying to say that this particular criticism is valid and furthermore that it should be in this particular article. A point which is in contention on multiple fronts. As others have pointed out, multiple wikipedia policies prohibit it, quite irrespective of the feelings and opinions of any of us. Kevin Baas^talk 15:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore you missed that this page is not about the scientific theory(ies) explaining "evolution". This is about the observable changes in life over generations. Like you not being an exact clone of your mother / father. For further clarification on that, see the FAQ at the top of this page. Kevin Baas^talk 14:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I move to archive this discussion. Mildly Mad^T_C 16:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

well i thinks its great we are looking for the answer of why and how we came to be. but lets remember how things happen does not equal why they happen =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.183.233.226 (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A dog is a dog is a dog is a dog. evolution is like saying "my dog had kittens" and you expecting no one to say, "wait,what??" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.42.23 (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, creationists try to pawn off evolution as saying "my dog had kittens" so that people will stop and listen to them instead. As stated in the archived ("closed") discussion above, Wiki is not a forum. Stop trying to reopen the debate with these little snide comments, read the FAQ at the top of the page, and—for the sake of humanity—get an eduction. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Appendix

I suggest removing the link to the "appendix" as a vestigal organ. As mentioned on the page for the appendix, new theories suggest it functions as part of the immune system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statr (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've heard of the new research, but not familiar with it or the level of support it is receiving from the scientific community. If it has already become the dominant view within the scientific community, then it should be changed as you suggest. However, if it has little support and is too controversial at this time, the changes you suggest would give undue weight to this research. Anyone familiar with this line of research and the response of the scientific community could make a better decision than I. This is just something to consider before making the suggested changes. –Visionholder (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

While it retains some function, it's still vestigial. thx1138 (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct; as a vestigial organ, it no longer serves the original function for which it evolved. There are several species (including lesser apes) in which the appendix is still a functional component of the digestive system. However, in Humans it no longer serves this function. It has been adapted to serve as part of the body's immune system, but is not (yet?) a critical component, given the number of people that have it removed without any difficulties. IIRC, our tailbones also have this quality, no longer functioning as tails but critical as an "anchor" for certain muscles related to renal control.Ruined Saint (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

lol...Why not let us debate?

One of the greatest things about science is conflicting ideas and theories...If everyone thought the same way, we would not have any of the technologies, that we have today...The Greeks built their entire society around education and research...and the Greeks spent a vast portion of their time debating...So my question is, "Why not let us debate...just as long as we don't attack each other, rather than each other's beliefs."

NOTE: An example of a poor debater, is one who can not differentiate an opposing debater, from his/her opposing idealism.

Suggestion: It is always unwise to attack a person directly, because they will tune out everything you say...and you cannot change someone who does not have an open mind.

Apology: Sorry, if I have caused any trouble...I just love debating, that's all...I'm not trying to get everyone mad, I just wanna force people into thinking rather than believing what they have been taught. (I, myself, have doubted creationism in the past...but after assessing the evidence, I don't see any way that evolution could explain the complexity of anything form of life.)

"By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise."

Adolf Hitler

Personal Note: Once again...I'm not trying to insult anyone...but rather consider the logic and reason behind their faith... 99.169.91.224 (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a chat room. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

talk.origins is an excellent place to participate in the evolution-creation debate. Mildly Mad^T_C 21:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

But as with any scientific subject, the real debate takes place in the academic journals. Do your research and submit a paper! thx1138 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Go to onlinedebate.net if you want to debate. 69.226.111.50 (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

New lead

Here is my first stab at the first paragraph for the lead:

In biology, evolution explains the origin of species by means of natural selection. Natural selection is a force that acts on the product and tendency toward the overproduction of offspring, differential survival rates among the varieties of life, and the heritability of traits passed from parent to offspring. The first treatise on evolution was published in 1859 by Charles Darwin in a book entitled: "On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life". Darwin's founding principals remain an important resource in the modern scientific understanding of our biological origins. Darwin's original thesis has since been quantified, tested and analyzed extensively. The principals of natural selection explain observations in genetics, paleontological studies of the fossil record and in social studies on group dynamics. The premise of natural selection remains one of the solidifying foundations in biological studies. Scientists have yet to find a convincing alternative explanation in their studies of natural systems that would refute Darwin's theory.Thompsma (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "product and tendency toward the overproduction of offspring" is almost completely opaque. Please remember that we are not writing for experts. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Natural selection as a process is not debated but as an outcome the debate continues between the natural selection camp and selectively neutral genetic drifters. Another good topic for a debates section. GetAgrippa (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't have any debate with the theory of neutral molecular evolution. It is a fascinating theory and I don't see any reason why it would be incompatible with multi-level selection? The neutral theory of molecular evolution is used extensively in phlogenetic analysis illustrating trees that closely match the morphological character state cladograms. The nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution by Ohta[13] is also an important contribution to the theory, but even the founders of the neutral theory of molecular evolution didn't have an issue with multi-level selection:

"Evolutionary change at the morphological, functional, and behavioural levels results from the process of natural selection, operating through adaptive changes in DNA. It does not necessarily follow that all, or most, evolutionary change in DNA is due to the action of Darwinian natural selection." (King & Jukes, 1969 - Non-Darwinian Evolution)[14]. (Emphasis added)

I think that the behavioural level may qualifies as group selection; morphological is epigenetic? It was called non-Darwinian because there is no element of fitness. However, the non-Darwin title reference is kinda unfortunate - because Darwin never argued that natural selection was the exclusive means and even suggested otherwise. It is non-Darwinian in the sense that it was a certainly a monumental and new discovery. Neutral theory is natural selection minus the fitness, making it random and statistically pleasurable.Thompsma (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope I'm not offending the people who wrote this lead. Don't get me wrong - it is interesting and the ideas are cogent. It just isn't the idea that Darwin had presented - and I think that we can all agree that Darwin had - at the very least - the basic premise. You will also notice that in all the introductory texts on evolution that I quoted above that everyone leaves room for other levels of selection - hence it is not a minority viewpoint at all - it is widely accepted that natural selection can or may act on multi-level basis.

Here is what one of my past supervisors wrote[15]:

"As a process, adaptation is synonymous with natural selection, which occurs when fitness varies predictably with a genetically determined phenotypic trait, changing the trait distribution between consecutive generations. Because of selection, each generation tends to perform better than the previous generation, on average, and so is more adapted. Accordingly, complete analysis of the adaptive process must assess: (1) phenotypic selection, or the association between trait and fitness variation within generations; (2) the extent to which genetic inheritance creates resemblance between parents and their offspring; and (3) the change in trait distributions between generations."

I actually don't like the 'more adapted' bit - but I put it here because GetAgrippa talked about natural selection as a process. It is pretty much universal that all authors pin natural selection down to three parts:

"The theory of natural selection rested on logical deductions from certain very general observations. These include the observation that variability can be found in all species that are carefully observed and that at least some of this variability is hereditary. The assumption of an appreciable chance that occasional slight accidental deviants would be superior could not be supported from direct observation of wild , but it obtained support from the success of artifical selection in livestock, to which Darwin devolted much attention. Malthus' principle that all populatoins tend to increase in geogrmetric ratio gave plenty of scope for natural selection." (Sewall Wright, 1968)

I put the preceding quote in - because Sewall Wright was a hard core geneticist and you can see that he also mentions the three parts to Darwin's theory that I put in my revised lead. This is why I am making the claim that this article is too gene centered - it is missing much of what the great thinkers of evolution had to say and distills it down to the gene. Perhaps my sentence could be changed:

"Natural selection is a force that eliminates individuals across generations and results from is a consequence of three universal observationsof life, including: 1) the overproduction of offspring leading to an exponential increase in population size if not constrained, 2) differential rates or probability of survival among the different representative varieties, and 3) the heritability or stability of traits passed from parent to offspring."

Does this read better?Thompsma (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Good ideas. I recently returned to academia after retirement-teaching at a local college. In the intro bio course I use Mayr's five observations and three inferences, and the conditions of non-evolving populations in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium to make empirically obvious the fact of evolution. Students pick up on it quick when you logically examine the facts. GetAgrippa (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - one more simplification:

"In biology, evolution explains the origin of species by means of natural selection. Natural selection is a force that eliminates individuals across generations and is a consequence of three universal observations, including: 1) the overproduction of offspring leading to an exponential increase in population size if not constrained, 2) differential rates or probability of survival among the different representative varieties, and 3) the heritability or stability of traits creating a resemblance between parents and their offspring. The first treatise on evolution was published in 1859 by Charles Darwin in a book entitled: "On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life". Darwin's founding principals remain an important resource in the modern scientific understanding of our biological origins. Darwin's original thesis has since been quantified, tested and analyzed extensively. The principals of natural selection explain observations in genetics, paleontological studies of the fossil record and in social studies on group dynamics. The premise of natural selection remains one of the solidifying foundations in biological studies. Scientists have yet to find a convincing alternative explanation in their studies of natural systems that would refute Darwin's theory."

Does this look reasonable to add as a first paragraph?Thompsma (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence should define evolution, rather than give an example of one of the outcomes produced by one of the several forces that produce evolution. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That alternative version of the lead also fails to define what natural selection actually is - it only tells the reader the three conditions that are required for it to occur. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You are missing something here: 'Natural selection is a force that...' - this is the definition!!!! The actual definition of evolution going back to its early roots means an unfolding - referring to the spermatid homunculus unfolding its organs. Is this what you are looking for - an etymology of the term? Here is the current opener:

"In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations."

As we've already established - this is not what evolution is in its entirety. This is one aspect to evolution, but it is abundantly clear in papers and texts on evolution that there is more to it than bean counting. How does the current version accomplish what it is that you are after any better than the newly proposed version? "...rather than give an example of one of the outcomes produced by one of the several forces that produce evolution." - seems to me that the current sentence does exactly this. Moreover, the opening sentence I provide is taken straight from Darwin.Thompsma (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That draft doesn't mention fitness, defining natural selection as only a "force that eliminates individuals". Many forces eliminate individuals, but they are not all natural selection - natural selection is differential survival and reproduction that results from inherited traits. If you dislike the current definition, what one-sentence definition of "evolution" would you prefer? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I purposefully excluded the term 'fitness' in the lead because it is always misunderstood, such as in "survival of the fittest". Many evolutionists have argued that this moniker should not be used to introduce evolution - it was coined by Herbert Spencer and it propagates the wrong idea of what fitness means - yet it is the prevailing concept stuck in everyone's head. Douglass Futuyama talks about this here [16] - and you can also read about it here Gregory, T. R. (2009). "Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions". Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2 (2): 156–175. doi:10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1.. I thought it better to describe fitness later in the article where its correct meaning as reproductive output spanning generations can be described in greater contextual detail.

In the current form - I used the following as a synonym for fitness: 2) differential rates or probability of survival among the different representative varieties. Perhaps I should add the qualifier within generations. Perhaps you are also correct that it doesn't capture the idea of the struggle for existence and adaptations that offer utility in the leverage toward survival - but once again, there are different explanations as to why there are differential rates of survival - adaptation being one of them, neutral drift another - that can be introduced in the second paragraph.

The section I wrote on eliminating individuals was inspired by the simple definition in the glossary of Ernst Mayr's book on "What Evolution is". Moreover, note that I include and in that sentence - which you have missed and this is where the comprehensive meaning of natural selection follows. If you really think hard about what natural selection means - it is referring to something natural (not supernatural or due to human breeding) and there is some selecting going on. As such - neutral genetic drift qualifies - it is natural for certain and some genes go toward fixation at the expense of others that go extinct (i.e., selection or sorting is going on). Moreover, it gets a little more complicated when you consider contingency genes in bacteria, for example:

"For many bacterial species, this flexibility results from the presence in the genome of hypermutable contingency loci, which provide a repertoire of variation, allowing the population to adapt rapidly in the face of unpredictable contingencies, such as changes in the host environment (2). These loci generate large amounts of genetic variation at genes that have a disproportionately large impact on microbial fitness, and this process operates in a stochastic manner. Although this hypermutability can result from several mechanisms (2), there is growing interest in those loci containing tandem DNA repeats (microsatellites) with unit sizes of 1–8 bp. We define these regions as “simple sequence contingency loci.”"[17]

Hence, even neutral genes evolving in a stochastic manner that seemingly confer no immediate utility may do so under certain environmental conditions. This means that even neutral genes are an adaptation of sorts - they serve as hypervariable mutation search strategies in times of stress. Here again we see Gould and Vrba (1982)[18] on aptation, exaptation, and adapation properly encapsulating these more dynamic elements of evolution. For the lead sentence we could say:

In biology, evolution explains the origin of species by means of natural selection and other processes involved in decent with modification yielding diversity in the tree of life.

In this way natural selection is not presented the exclusive mode. The 'tree of life' is kinda cliche and misses the reticulated aspects, but it serves its purpose.

Revised version (bold highlights added components):

"In biology, evolution explains the origin of species by means of natural selection and other processes involved in decent with modification yielding diversity in the tree of life. Natural selection is a force that eliminates individuals across generations and is a consequence of three universal observations, including: 1) the overproduction of offspring leading to an exponential increase in population size if not constrained, 2) differential rates or probability of survival within generations among different representative varieties, and 3) the heritability or stability of traits creating a resemblance between parents and their offspring. The first treatise on evolution was published in 1859 by Charles Darwin in a book entitled: "On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life". Darwin's founding principals remain an important resource in the modern scientific understanding of our biological origins. Darwin's original thesis has since been quantified, tested and analyzed extensively. The principals of natural selection explain observations in genetics, paleontological studies of the fossil record and in social studies on group dynamics. The premise of natural selection remains one of the solidifying foundations in biological studies. Scientists have yet to find a convincing alternative explanation in their studies of natural systems that would refute Darwin's theory."

The current lead to this article is truly a significant problem, so I hope that you will try to work with me to see if we can find a way of rewording things. If you don't like my suggestions - please take the sentences and re-word them. However, in its current state the lead is original research and not NPOV, because it describes evolution in a reductionistic gene only way not as it was originally nor subsequently described and it misses major works and views that have been published on alternative modes by which evolution operates. It needs to be fixed!Thompsma (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Genetic drift is not a subset of natural selection as drift can drive deleterious traits to fixation. You're still lacking a one-sentence definition of evolution at the start of your draft. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem here is one of lack of understanding. The definition is there - clearly in sight and I'm using the literature to support my claims. For comparison, here is what the Berkeley page[19] says:

The Definition: Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

Does this lack a definition? It seems to match what I have said and still you claim that a definition isn't there? Are you sure you are not just taking this personally? Are you reading this through with an objective mind? What I have written accords with published versions. I hope that others will start to weigh in on this - because I think you are taking this personally or you have an alternative conception on evolution that does not match the scientific definition. Either way, my version is clearly supported by the literature so unless you have a problem with the grammar or some other technical issue that you can back up with cited work - start putting some constructive comments rather than trying to block this for personal reasons.Thompsma (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this:

"In biology, evolution explains the origin of species by means of natural selection or otherwise. Evolution is decent with modification yielding diversity in the tree of life."Thompsma (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Closer, "In biology, evolution is descent with modification" would be a simple alternative definition. The earlier draft of "In biology, evolution explains the origin of species by means of natural selection and other processes involved in decent with modification yielding diversity in the tree of life" lacked any reasonable level of clarity. However, I'm not sure if the classic phrase of "descent with modification" is much better than the current version. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Aww, pre typo being fixed, "decent with modification" implied that anti-evolution was "indecent without modification" :-/ More to the point, descent with modification is a redirect to evolution, would it be better redirecting to Common descent? . . dave souza, talk 21:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Great!! Yes - it was getting wordy as I was trying too hard and over explaining. Thanks for helping out. Later today or tomorrow I will integrate this into the rest of the lead for a full proposal. Is this what we have agreed for the first two sentences, followed by the rest of the paragraph posted above?:

"In biology, evolution is descent with modification. Evolution explains the origin of species by means of natural selection or other mechanisms yielding diversity in the tree of life. Natural selection is a force...etc."Thompsma (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This may be too much of a tangent, but most definitions of fitness always struck me as circular and useless. Is it possible that fitness is best understood not in the sense of "physical fitness" where "fit"= superior in some way, but rather understood as a function of how well the organim fits into the local ecosystem - "fit" in the sense of do I fit into this shirt or does this screw fit into this hole? I realize that this is not what Spenser meant, but given that species fill a specific niche in an ecosystem, isn't fitness a function of just how well a specific member of the species fits into that niche? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Talk - great post! The meaning behind fitness is important for understanding what Darwin had to say. Darwin only switched to using 'survival of the fittest' in later editions of 'The Origin' after being persuaded by Alred Wallace to adopt Herbert Spencer's catchy title because 'Natural Selection' wasn't as populat. Fitness the way you describe it is the way that the term is used in the mainstream or colloquial sense. People think this is what is meant by survival of the fittest - the biggest, strongest fastest individuals will surive. This is false. Another mistake related to fitness is the Lamarkian view of evolution - such as a giraffe reaching for the tallest trees increasing its fitness by stretching its neck even further. Lamark posited that this kind of fitness gained over ones lifetime could be passed onto the next generation - run fast and your children will run even faster. Today we understand that there is a difference between the genotype, the phenotype and the rules pertaining to these known as the central dogma of molecular biology. The CDMB states that the phenotype can be changed within a generation, but the genotype remains stable. Natural selection acts on the phenotype in the struggle for existence, but the stability of genotype is important because it passes a copy of itself onto the next generation. It is the copying mechanism and the inheritance of traits that is important to the theory of evolution. If the genotype is unable to copy true, it becomes difficult or impossible for the natural system to mould favorable traits. In Darwin's time the prevailing idea was blending inheritance - where the parents were thought to be averaged out in the child. If this were to happen the system could not remain stable over time because once a red flower crossed with a white flower and became pink - there would be no way to go back being either true white or true red. How could natural selection preserve red and white traits if they were to be adapted? Darwin seriously considered naming it natural preservation instead of natural selection, hence the second part of the title of his book. In evolution, fitness has a technical meaning (actually it has several technical meanings). Evolutionary fitness relates to the reproductive output, survival and preservation of the genotype across generations. A genotype is said to be fit as more replicas of favorable genetic traits spread through the population. In this way natural selection is not a random process, because the traits are selected by their degree of adaptive utility. There are other definitions of fitness - such as inclusive fitness. It is a complicated term and Dawkin's devoted a chapter to it in 'The extended phenotype'. He gives five definitions and talks of how unfortunate a term it really is. This is also why I am avoiding using the term fitness in the lead - it leads to too many misconceptions!Thompsma (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor correction – "after being persuaded by Alred Wallace to adopt Herbert Spencer's catchy title because 'Natural Selection' wasn't as popular" gives the wrong reason. Wallace described how the term "natural selection" commonly led to the misconception that it needed "the constant watching of an intelligent 'chooser' like man’s selection", and suggested adopting Spencer’s term.[20] Darwin agreed, saying the thought had not previously occurred to him, but he would be sorry to give "natural selection" up entirely.[21] . . . dave souza, talk 21:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

First I must caution not to over emphasize speciation as people oten make the mistake Evolution is synonymous with evolution rather than an outcome of evolution. Second, that is funny SlRubenstein. I have often thought the same as to the "circular argument" in regard to fitness but I think that is an imprint from the circular nature and cyles of life-everything is interconnected, nature often cycles, and life molds itself. Fitness has no value except relative to the particular niche or environmental challenge. I often tell students if you measure success by diversity and biomass then Prokaryotes win hands down. Then per mammals rodents have greater diversity and numbers than any other mammal. It really bursts their bubble they aren't the center of the universe-hee,hee. Great discussion bye the bye-for a change-no sarcasm intended-well maybe a little. It all has to work together or it doesn't work at all, so no part has any greater significance because all are neccessary within their part of the biosphere. Carbon cycles and water cycles and all life is carbon and water based and tends to cycle. It dose seem circular indeed. GetAgrippa (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have sketched a rough draft for an entirely new lead in my sandbox[22]. I read through the existing lead and it was a struggle. Parts were not explained properly nor were they explained very well. I can add citations as needed, but thought I would present a draft first. I will start putting in links, citations, revisions and suggestions as they come along. I'm looking forward to discussion on this proposal. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I worked on the new lead and here is what I have to offer:

In biology, evolution is descent with modification. Evolution explains the origin of species by means of natural selection. Natural selection is a force that eliminates individuals and their associated traits from the population. Natural selection is a consequence of three universal observations, including: 1) the overproduction of offspring leading to an exponential increase in population size if not constrained, 2) differential rates or probability of survival within generations among different representative varieties, and 3) the heritability or stability of traits creating a resemblance between parents and their offspring. The first treatise on evolution was published in 1859 by Charles Darwin in a book entitled: "On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life". Darwin's founding principals remain an important resource in the modern scientific understanding of our biological origins. Darwin's original thesis has since been quantified, tested and analyzed extensively. The principals of natural selection explain observations in genetics, paleontological studies of the fossil record and in social studies on group dynamics. The premise of natural selection remains one of the solidifying foundations in biological studies. Scientists have yet to find a convincing alternative explanation in their studies of natural systems that would refute Darwin's theory.

Gregor Mendel, a contemporary of Charles Darwin and the father of genetics, disovered the laws of inheritance by performing a series of garden pea experiments. Darwin's theory of natural selection coupled with Mendels laws of inheritance gives a complete explanation for the non-random or adapted preservation of traits. Traits become adapted, suited to their environment and assist in the life functions for survival and existence. Genes, organisms and species have traits. Traits are features that can be observed and described about living things. Traits are also used to construct and test hypotheses about evolutionary relations, adaptations and the principals of natural selection. Traits that are similar by means of descent are said to be homologous. A homologous trait is an organ or gene that is found in a similar place performing similar functions in different organisms for reasons that are due to common ancestry. For example, a bats wing and a birds wing are not homologous, because a birds wing is an elongated arm with feathers whereas a bats wing is an elongated hand with a skin membrane and fur. As vertebrates, however, these animals share a distant but common ancestry which is identified by their many homologous parts including vertebrae, radius, ulna, femur, brains, hearts, other organs and large parts of their genome.

Evolutionary biologists study all levels of biological organization, from genes to the highest taxonomic levels in the Linnean hierarchical system. As members of the life sciences, evolution and ecology are highly integrated disciplines. Ecologists study populations, communities and biomes where the living and non-living context of the evolutionary process is sorted out. Like ecologists, evolutionary biologists study and gather data on the anatomy, morphology, geography, genetics and history of living things. Evolution is also applied and studied in the fields of psychology, paleontology, philosophy, medicine, agriculture and conservation biology. Recent advances in molecular genetics have also made evolution applicable to whole genome biology as scientists piece together the complex and dynamic history of life. Evolutionary biologists study the development of organisms, their traits and genes in great detail. The analytical methods for testing evolutionary relations has been developed by various philosophical, systematics and statistical approaches, including taxonomy, cladistics, and phylogenetics.

Please post your comments - revisions, edits. I will start entering citations to get this ready for posting to the main page.Thompsma (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That draft is unclear and much too wordy - phrases like "eliminates individuals and their associated traits from the population", "exponential increase in population size if not constrained" or "differential rates or probability of survival within generations among different representative varieties" are going to be completely incomprehensible to the general reader. This is not an improvement over the current lead. Tim Vickers (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In defense: It makes sense that it would be unclear to someone who thinks that the current lead actually describes what evolution is. The current lead is not only confusing I have shown how it is generally incorrect, how it is original research, it violates NPOV and it needs to be replaced. I can pick sentences out as well: "Evolution is the product of two opposing forces:" - who said this? Give the citation. What is this - the ying and yang of science? "Genetic drift results from the role that chance plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals survive and reproduce." What?? I doubt anyone could understand this. "Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes" - this is philosophically ignorant. I've been teaching introductory biology for over fifteen years - the concepts I'm presenting are part of the normal introductory material and they stem from reliable sources. I want to send my students to wikipedia to learn about these concepts - this page would not qualify. You might be having issues with the words because they are foreign to you - but they are the terms that are used regularly in the field of evolutionary biology, in the journals that I publish in and in the books that I read that introduce concepts of evolution. I recomend The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin for starters. I've also wiki linked relevant terms - compared to the gene centered list of terms in the current lead, these terms actually give an impartial introduction to evolution.Thompsma (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I will use Ernst Mayr's (2001) 'What Evolution Is" book and Futuyama (2009 - intro textbook[23]) to compare some of your critiques. This was a very simple book that Mayr put together to reach out to a very wide audience. Lets compare what you find complex to what Mayr wrote:

You find this complex: "eliminates individuals and their associated traits from the population"

Mayr (2001): "Natural selection: The process by which in every generation individuals of lower fitness are removed from the population." Without a direct quote - my sentence closely parallels and it is not confusing.

Next: "exponential increase in population size if not constrained"

Mahr (2001): "Every population has such high fertility that its size would increase exponentially if not constrained."

Next: "differential rates or probability of survival within generations among different representative varieties"

Mahr (2001): "However, these surivors are not a random sample of the population; their survival was aided by the possession of certain attributes that favor survival."

Futuyama (2009): "The differential survival and/or reproduction of classes of entities that differ in one or more characteristics."

My sentences closely parallel what has been written by experts in the field who have published books to reach out to a wide audience. This also gives a correct overview of evolution that isn't reduced down to one thing: "The basis of evolution is the passing of genes from one generation to the next", which is false. The basis of evolution is Darwins theory by means of natural selection.Thompsma (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this, but as a non-expert I find your proposed lead much harder to follow than the existing lead. One particular difficulty is that you go straight into speciation and historical development of the idea, while the existing version correctly describes how evolution occurs whether or not there is speciation. . . dave souza, talk 21:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thompsma, please read WP:AGF. Everyone here wants an accurate and informative article. Everyone here is ioen-minded to improvements. It is possible for people in good faith to disagreeas to what is an improvement .... Slrubenstein | Talk 21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TimVickers. Natural selection is not a "force" -in scientific context "force" is generally thought of in terms physics and acceleration (sounds too spiritual).It is a process. Emphasizing the Linnaean system is incorrect as now the trend in systematics is to emphasize phylogeny and then cladistics. We should speak in terms of clades and primitive and derived traits.I will continue with the critique later, but first a point of order. You seem to forget NPOV by presenting arguments only from Mayr and Futuyama and ignoring the rest of the vast literature, and the evidence almost seems an admission of plariarism. Further I get a bit of condescending tone that you assume no other editor has read anything about evolution. "It makes sense that it would be unclear to someone who thinks that the current lead actually describes what evolution is." That kind of language is inappropriate, unbelievably arrogant, and borders on delusional. Tim Vickers didn't write this article. The present article is a consensus-(not one that I have written, and I agree with some of your criticisms as I have offered similar arguments) but you need to change your tone. The FA article lead (as recollect) defined evolution using Dobzhansky's a shift in gene alleles in a population through successive generations. I believe that was offered by one of Gould's grads who now is in texas (???). Graft worked on it as he attained his Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. You seem to be preaching to the choir, and insulting their singing. GetAgrippa (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"The basis of evolution is the passing of genes from one generation to the next", which is false. The basis of evolution is Darwins theory by means of natural selection." That fails the NPOV litmus test and ignores genetic drift and the modern synthesis. Gould often referred to Darwin's contribution as a Bauplan and a foundation for evolution theory. The shifting of genes within populations is the outcome of evolutionary processes at work (often simultaneously)that produce heritable changes in traits (morphological, biochemical-metabolic, physiologic) we can measure and observe. These evolutionary processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow (migration, HGT,Hybridization)act on populations to to change the genetic-phenotypic composition of the population through successive generations. GetAgrippa (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have tried here to comment only on the various drafts of the text and am disturbed by the increasing personalisation of this discussion. I personally disagree with some of the critiques made above of the contents of the present article, but would welcome more focussed and specific suggestions on how it could be improved. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the "delusional" comment. That was out of bounds too, but I was offended by his tone and it raised my ire. Which I think most editors would agree is unusual for my usual civil demeanor-I apologize once again. I am trying to focus constructive criticisms as any peer-review system accomodates. Thanks for the reprimand TimVickers. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I also appolgise if I have offended anyone - this can get frustrating. I have not favoured Mayr or Futuyama - I used those quotes as an example. Once again - a false claim is being forwarded here - read my earlier posts and you will see MANY citations from an extensive base. I am also familiar with the phylocode and rank-free taxonomy - but this is an introductory article and not everyone is settled on this debate either (for example [24]). The Linnaen taxonomy still has an important role both in a historical context and remains an applicable tool. I'm a subscriber to Cladistics and have read Willi Henig's "Phylogenetic Systematics" - the father of cladistics and where the principal of individuality in evolution is paramount toward a proper understanding:

"We argue with these views only to the extent that phylogenesis actually can be understood only if 'microevolution,' the origin of small and smallest evolutionary steps at the individual level, is known. But we must emphasize strongly that this does not provide a complete understanding of the evolutionary process and its laws." (Willi Hennig, 1966, p. 199)

Let us now look at the rejection of my lead based on the use of the word force:

• "Battle within battle must be continually recurring with varying success; and yet in the long-run the forces are so nicely balanced, that the face of nature remains for long periods of time uniform, though assuredly the merest trifle would give the victory to one organic being over another." Charles Darwin
• "First, evolution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces." (Lynch, 2007)[25]
• "And what other sort of force, than a physical force, is there? By ‘physical force’ I mean something having a spatio-temporal location and direction (a field of force is defined as a continuum of lines of force) revealed by its effects and measurable by their magnitudes. Elliott Sober has written at length in defense of the idea that natural selection is a force, analogous to a physical force, the effects of which are evident in the course evolution takes (Sober (1984), 13–59)"[26]
• "The evolutionary forces act, of necessity, on individuals, but their effects are not achieved within single individuals. These effects work out within associated groups of individuals, but their effects are not achieved within single individuals." (George Gaylord Simpson, p. 211, 1949)
• "But despite these intrinsic weaknesses and problems, interdemic slection has now been empirically validated as an important force in evolution-thus strenthening the prima facie case for the even greater importance of species selection in macroevolution." (Gould, 2002)
• "Nearly neutral nucleotide substitutions and minor duplications and deletions of the regulatory elements of duplicate genes are being tested by natural selection, but in the early stages, their rise and fall in the population are mainly governed by drift (38). Selection pressure seems to be inseparable from the force of drift." (Ohta, 2002)[27]

I hope those few quotes settle the dispute about natural selection as a force - it is a very commonly used scientific reference to natural selection as such - it isn't spiritual sounding, it is scientific but was just co-opted for its use in Star Wars. Similarly, Tim Vickers was incorrect about multi-level selection above - stating that it is a minory or purely theoretical view. If ideas are going to be rejected - please back-up the claims using literature or some means of persuation other than opinion or personal distaste. The current version fails the NPOV because it presents evolution in a very reductionist view - as though we can distill everything down to the genes, whereas I have provided many references that completely disagree with this viewpoint. It isn't that I'm ignoring neutral theory and the modern synthesis - I know how important this is:

"(Darwins theory) was rescued, ironically, by the mathematical modellers of the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary theory in the 1930s. Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright and J. B. S. Haldane showed, among other things, that even small selective advantages could permanently affect evolution in populations. They brought back natural selection with a quantifiable vengeance, and it has been the primary focus of evolutionary research ever since." (Padian, K. 2008. Darwin’s enduring legacy.[28])

In an earlier version to the lead - I started to introduce the concept of drift and neutral theory, but it seemed out of place for the lead. However,

"It was claimed by Kimura (1983) and others that neutral evolution is in conflict with Darwinism. This is not correct, since the assumption in the theory of neutral evolution is that the gene is the object of selection, rather than the individual. However, in reality, it is the individual as a whole that is the target." (Mayr, 2001)

I realize this is a Mayr quote - but you will see that I have cited numerous authors (Hennig, Gould, Lloyd, Elderidge, Green, Wilson & Wilson, Jablonski etc.) who agree with Mayr. As I stated earlier - if you want to understand evolution - you need to understand what an individual is. Without this understanding - the concept of neutral theory makes no sense. The concept of genetic drift requires a more complete exposition of the details. For example,

"The latter half of the twentieth century has been marked by debates in evolutionary biology over the relative significance of natural selection and random drift: the so-called “neutralist/selectionist” debates. Yet John Beatty has argued that it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the concept of random drift from the concept of natural selection, a claim that has been accepted by many philosophers of biology."[29]

Hence, even among the philosophers there is disagreement and so it seems innapropriate to place such a complex idea into a lead - people will get confused. I have not avoided the modern synthesis nor have I avoided neutral theory - I just didn't give the full story and I am hesitant to put it in the lead, but it may be worth while at the end of the second paragraph to add a statement to this effect:

Advances in molecular mathematics and DNA sequencing has shown Darwin's principals of natural selection operating in parallel with neutral or random mutations that are non-adaptive or even deleterious as they replicate, hitchhike and drift through genomes in populations. These forces of evolution are inseperable, contextually dynamic and how they relate to evolutionary theory remains an active area of scientific inquiry.

I'm going to quote Kimura's theory of neutral theory to put this in context:

"The neutral theory (or more precisely, the neutral-mutation-random drift hypothesis) claims that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are caused not by Darwinian selection acting on advantageous mutants, but by random fixation of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutants. The theory does not deny the role of natural selection in determining the course of adaptive evolution, but it assumes that only a minute fraction of DNA changes are adaptive in nature." (Kimura, 1986)

The confusion rests on people (including professionals) thinking that natural selection is purely non-random - i.e., everything that is selected is adapted. However, it is the process of moulding an adaptation as traits are used for purposes of survival that is non-random. Adapation and natural selection are not the same thing otherwise we would have only one word to avoid confusion.

"As this short history demonstrates, population genetics has made remarkable strides in understanding both the phenomenology and the theoretical models of molecular evolution. However, it also demonstrates that we have yet to find a mechanistic theory of molecular evolution that can readily account for all of the phenomenology." (Ohta & Gillespie, 1996)[30]

I am not trying to be offensive toward anyone - but it is frustrating to do all this research, post the relevant information on here and then have the ideas rejected on false claims. There was an arrogance presented here at the very beginning when I asked why multi-level viewpoint is largely absent from the reductionsistic lead and throughout the rest of the article it is presented as a sideline or abstract idea. It was rejected on the basis that this was a theoretical and minority viewpoint. I think I've now given dozens of citations, links to the literature and a historical overview that reveals otherwise. However, the same person who made this claim has rejected my contributions for what seems to be frivolous reasons rather than assist. Hence, this is supsect and has raised my ire. Now there is the claim that the use of force is a problem. This is getting frustrating - because I think I can see what is really going on - I've been in academia for too long to know that academic PhD credentials are often used to reject claims rather than use of an impartial examination of the evidence.

dave souza states the following: "while the existing version correctly describes how evolution occurs" - I've made a convincing case that this is not true. This lead not only describe evolution incorrectly - it is misleading as it describes one way in which some people think evolution might occur, it is a reductionist viewpoint only and it is riddled with mistakes philosophical and factual (please read some of my earlier posts).Thompsma (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What I am trying to present here is a more holistic view of evolution that is NPOV and scientific. Holism - a scientific term (e.g., [31], [32]- is captured in the phrase - the sum is greater than the parts. To understand a system it has to be realized that there are different emergent explanatory phenomena as scientists study different levels of the problem. This might be a difficult concept to grasp, but to present evolution as though the discovery of genes solved everything does little credit to Darwin's work nor the work of a great many others that followed after him. These people studied the emergent properties of evolution of which the neutral theory of molecular evolution is of profound relevance. Perhaps you should read:

Jaume Terradas1 and Josep Peñuelas. (2009) Evolution: Much More than Genetics. The Need for a Holistic View. The Open Evolution Journal, 2009, 3, 38-45 [33]Thompsma (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand my objection to "Force". I didn't object to its use in the literature but made mention it sounds too "spiritual" for an encyclopedic article-as generally it would be associated with physics. Perhaps I am too sensitive to creationist-ID semantical games, but I don't like the idea of describing a force that later will be described as process. It use in the literature doesn't justify its use for a simple encyclopedic article. Why not add Stephen Wolfram's Cellular Automata as evidence contrary to nat selection because it exists in the literature too. I don't understand why you are so thin skinned about criticisms within a peer-review process. "This is getting frustrating - because I think I can see what is really going on - I've been in academia for too long to know that academic PhD credentials are often used to reject claims rather than use of an impartial examination of the evidence". Once again with the insults. You will never reach a consensus for change with such insults. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinions on the use of force - but your contrast against Wolfram doesn't hold up. Natural selection as a force has been used over and over again in many forms of the literature by many people who have talked about evolution. In contradistinction, Wolfram's theory of evolution through cellular automata is based on his opinion in a book that he wrote through his own funds that he received from writing and selling mathematica. The difference is huge and we shouldn't refrain from using terminology on wikipedia simply out of fear that some creationist will misinterpret its meaning. We should present the arguments properly and have them well cited so that they stand solidly and firm on that basis. Hence, use of force as a term it is fair game and part of the general theory and discourse. You can take what I said as an insult - it wasn't intended to be - it is no secret that we are all people and the literature is filled with persuasion where "...social factors, such as the professional standing of the cited author, play a significant role in citation decisions in ecology."[34]. It is no different in here and it is more than likely to happen in discussions about evolution. This is why I believe it is more effective to focus on the actual issue of evolution - so if we could please keep the comments on topic.

"Possibly understanding has been blocked by the failure of experts to explain that evolution is more than the sum total of small mutations and selection. Thus neo-Darwinism has obscured the clarity of Darwin’s theory by emphasizing just the genetic mechanisms of innovation, like mutation and other small changes...From Darwin we know that natural selection acting upon variations is the key to understanding biological evolution. There is no evolution without innovation steps. Neo-Darwinism places great emphasis on innovation through random changes in the genome, caused by processes such as mutation, translocation and inversion, hybridisation and genetic drift. These changes, after passing through the filter of natural selection, generate new life-forms. Such lines of thought are still vividly alive today, although it is obvious that the evolution of the genome alone cannot suffice to explain the evolution of life on Earth, an evolution that is dependent on far more processes than mere genetics ("descent with modification")."[35]

The only error in the preceding quote is that it suggests that eperts didn't explain this - many have tried, including Darwin, Gould, Wilson, Mahr, Dobzhansky, Simpson, Hennig, Wright and many others. We shouldn't ignore the importance of what these evolutionary biologists had to say no matter how abraisive my personal argument may come across.Thompsma (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My use of Cellular automata was to demonstrate the use of "force" is needless. Why not say Natural selection is a "process" rather than force. You make my argument that pop culture encyclopedia readerw will likely associate force with Star Wars. It needs to be appropriate for the average reader. I don't see how you are going to get around the gene-centric measure of evolution as a genetic shift in a population through successive generations. The basis of heritable traits is the gene or gene networks. Changes in gene alleles or changes in regulatory elements are asssociated with evolutionary changes in birds, insects, fish, reptiles, and mammals. The general use of a standard genetic code, molecular evidence of endosymbiosis, and molecular tools usage in cladistics and genomic sequencing, pop genetics all point to a gene-centric analysis. On a personal note Thompsma concerning your frustration-I couldn't agree more and for that reason I would rather chew my arm off than write one sentence in this article. I too have given lengthy arguments using the literature to suggest change and have been rejected. Your BOLD attempt to rewrite the entire article maybe too ambitious. GetAgrippa (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As others have said, the notion of a one man complete rewrite of the lead achieving consensus is quite a hard undertaking and won't work in an article as stable as this one. IMHO for a serious review and rewrite we need to engage a large number of editors and first discuss the structure of the lead and the theme of each paragraph. From there we should proceed with each paragraph line by line. In order to illustrate how hard a process this can be I will add that I cannot understand Thompsma's defense of the "force" wording when words like "mechanism" or "process" are equally well supported in the literature and are in fact exactly the formal manner to refer to natural selection. For what is worth I also don't think Thompsma's lead an improvement over the current lead.--LexCorp (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I might as well give up on wikipedia - this seems like a futile exercise. I've been on here for a little over a year and gave a lot of time to a lot of articles. I guess people are not really interested in the science of evolution - seems like people are more comfortable with a lead that fits with their preconceived notions of how they think things should be. This is supposed to be the worlds encyclopedia. I'm surprised at the negative reception over my lead proposal in comparison to the current version. The current lead is not only confusing it is factually incorrect - but I guess people like to read what they are comfortable with rather than learning the facts. I'm about ready to throw in the towel and give up on wikipedia all together after this futile experience - this was something that I believed in in terms of getting free and proper information out to kids in schools or just people who want to learn. Evolution is an important topic and as an educator I feel it is very important to teach this subject properly - but I wont be sending my students here any time soon. I've been reading about evolution for over 20 years, I have taught classes on it in universities and I have studied it in great detail reading the complete works of Darwin (grandfather as well), Lamark, Mayr, Gould, Dawkins, Avise, Maynard-Smith and many others. I have travelled and attended conferences on evolution, worked in a palaeontology lab for five years where I was part of a discussion group on evolutionary theory and published a few meager papers in book chapters and peer-reviewed journals on the topic. This article does not present the concept of evolution as I have read it in the literature and it is a distortion of what the greatest thinkers in evolutionary theory have said. I had hopes - but what a waste of time this has been. People in here seem to want to ignore facts and go with what is easy. There is something wrong here and it does not make sense what has happened on this page. Its a real shame!

The wording "Forces of Natural Selection" actually has some history and meaning in evolution.[36] I guess the pre-eminent thinkers on evolutionary forces were wrong to think of it this way - what were they thinking? Elliot Sober a philosopher who has written extensively on evolution wrote an entire chapter on 'Evolution as a theory of forces'.[37] It also seems that it must not be all that important for people to understand the terminology that is being used in the science of evolution - it is better to duck and tuck your tail in between your legs for fear of the creationists getting the wrong idea. Do a search on 'forces of evolution' 'evolutionary forces' 'natural selection as a force' and you will find a long-list of historical and contemporary literature using this, but like so many things in this page - there seems to be an effort to block and ignore what has actually been said. Better to stay ignorant. I've cited some of the greatest leaders in evolutionary theory who had some strong words against the reductionistic approach that this article has adopted - but who needs them anyway - what they said must have been a waste of time.Thompsma (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't argue that force was not used by evolutionary biologist in the literature just "I think" it would be inappropriate for this simple article. You are way out of bounds with the insults. Force disambiquation makes no reference to evolution and if you look you will see it supports my contention it will mislead novice readers-why not use process. The Nat Sel article uses process (as I recollect). Who said fear of creationist-NO! just why bait them to attack this article as they endlessly attack this article (it has been protected for months in the past). Have you ever published in the field of evolutinary biology and call yourself an evolutionary biologist-NO from your homepage. So your opinion has no more clout than mine with thrity years in academia, research, and studying evolution as a non-expert. No professor will ever allow their students to use Wikipedia. You need to be patient and let other editors (some like Graft are evolutionary biologists)comment on your suggestions-(as many are good and may make it into the article. But you need to change your tone. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark Ridley's text book on Evolution characterizes evolution with four components: • Population genetics provides the fundamental theory of the subject. If we know how any property of life is controlled genetically, population genetics can be applied to it directly.

• The theory of adaptation; how features of an organism evolve within its environment.

• The diversity of life; what a species is, how new species originate, and how to classify and reconstruct the history of life.

• Evolution on a grand scale; the fossil record is the main testing ground for large evolutionary events, which occur over the geologic time scale of tens or hundreds of millions of years.

So the topic can be presented in different ways. Agree?? He does start with Pop genetics. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, let's leave "force" in as a nod to all the Francis Collins and theistic evolutionists in the world. So they can fill in the force as God, Yahweh, Allah, etc. Is that the goal?? I was being sarcastic but you get the point. Since the majority of religions accept evolution and adapt it to theistic evolution then "force" will imply Deity. I think we should be aware of that kind of interpretation and just avoid the term and use process. What the heck is the big deal?GetAgrippa (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added tha statement that selection can work at many levels to the lead, along with Thompsma's excellent idea of adding a list of disciplines that use evolution. Hopefully people will think this is an improvement, but feel free to revert to the previous version if you think the lead is becoming too technical. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TimVickers! It seems I have stepped on some toes in here and I appologise for doing so. Many people are starting to use wikipedia as a teaching tool - many high school projects and some university projects are starting to come to terms with this idea. I fully admit that I'm not a great evolutionary biologists - my name barely registers as a blip in citation tracking. However - this isn't about me - it is about presenting the whole of the idea. The point I was making is that it is shocking after having read much of the history and then to see this reductionist narrow viewpoint being presented in here. There is a diverse and rich history of evolutionary biology has raged against this - Willi Hennig talked about this at great length and so did Stephen J. Gould. Perhaps everyone can agree that the sum is greater than the parts, but this lead doesn't even present the parts (although - I'm seeing some slight improvements) it gives a simple summation of one narrow bit of evolution - microevolution. Here is a textbook definition of evolutionary reductionism from the lead:

"Although the changes produced in a single generation are normally small, the accumulation of these differences over time can cause substantial changes in a population, causing the emergence of new species."

What about vicariance biogeography - cladistic splitting - allopatry - founder effects - all population level phenomena that are the rules rather than the exception. This is reductionist because it looks at accumulation of genes through decent with modification without looking at the bigger picture. It has lost all meaning. I've been working as the molecular geneticist at UNBC for the past six years now and have taught classes on evolution and genetics. I say this because my argument is not that genes are unimportant - but rather we should be presenting the whole of evolutionary biology. This article gives a narrow view of evolution because it misses what many evolutionists have written - evolution is MUCH more than simple genes randomly or selfishly bouncing about leading to descent with modification. This is a micro-part of the story, albeit an important part that needs to be told. At present the article is disjointed - it first presents microevolution in the genes as the modus operandi and throws in a bit of factoids about other possible types of evolution. Why not thread the ideas together with some decent prose? Unless this side of the story is told in its proper form - this article favors a reductionist stance leaving aside some of the most exciting and dynamic parts of the theory. The big deal is that this is supposed to be the worlds encyclopedia where diverse and neutral points of view are to presented. The bit about force is a bit of a side issue - my argument is that it is an acceptable as a term because there is lots of precedent in using it. Your argument is that people will mix up the metaphor and get the concept confused with pop culture. I also made this argument earlier against the use of fitness, but I don't feel that force is as confusing and I haven't seen any author writing about its ambiguity in evolutionary biology - but some of written extensively on the confusion stemming from fitness. Interestingly - the use of force in physics has its own problems.[38] English language works this way - as George Lackoff and other linguists have shown, metaphors (like 'selfish gene') play a vital role in stimulating the mind - this is part of our cognitive evolution. "We know from cognitive semantics that conceptual metaphors are one of the basic mechanisms of mind."[39] Like the selfish gene metaphor, forces of natural selection has been used similarly as a tool for conveying meaning. There are also real physical forces acting in evolution that are part of the natural selection theory - which was what D'Arcy Thompson wrote about extensively in his book - 'On Growth and Form'. Hypotheses stem from the imagination[40] and scientific metaphors have important roles in this respect.Thompsma (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither founder effects, allopatry or the like cause the instant creation of a new species. Instead they accelerate the accumulation of differences between two populations, making it more likely that they will eventually become reproductively incompatible. They are certainly important in speciation, but that doesn't invalidate the general statement that speciation is caused by the "accumulation of differences over time" The only real exception to this general statement are polyploid species, but I feel OK with missing out that minor detail from the lead. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is once again a micro/narrow view of evolution in the sense that it looks at the problem through a limited human perception of time - but looking at the problem through geological time where natural selection has its bigger voice - the principal of allopatric speciation is of much more importance. Read the abstract to this paper - or the whole paper if you would like:

Bruce S. Lieberman, William Miller, & Niles Eldredge. 2007. Paleontological Patterns, Macroecological Dynamics and the Evolutionary Process. Evol Biol, 34:28–48 [41]

There is so much more to this point that you are missing and if you read this paper I think you will see that this is not a minor detail. Much of the discussion and understanding about evolution hinges on this point. Hennig's cladistics, Leon Croizat's panbiogeography, Gould and Eldridge's punctuated equilibria, Templeton's genetic revolutions, Mayr's biological species concept, and many other fundamentals stem from this understanding of evolution. It is a law that has been built into the principals of phylogenetics in much the same way that neutral theory has its role in the coalescence and other null-models for building genetic trees.

"A naturalist like myself has trouble with the question whether `the gene or the genome is the unit of speciation' (p. 14). For me it is the population that is the unit of speciation (even in cases of sympatric speciation)." (Mayr, 2001)[42]

Your draft above only mentions speciation once, saying Evolution explains the origin of species by means of natural selection. (a description that ignores the importance of drift in processes such as peripatric speciation). Since your draft doesn't mention any of the processes you are evoking above, I don't see why you think the present lead is inadequate since it also does not mention these processes. If you dislike saying that speciation is produced by the accumulation of changes in a population, what simple one-sentence description of how evolution causes speciation would you suggest instead? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over again - and I'm not alone - the anti-reductionist movement expresses as much in the literature. I think this is also why Gould wrote such a big book when he wrote the 'Structure of Evolutionary Theory' - it was essentially one LONG argument against the sort of microevolutionary proposition in this article. The reason why I did't mention this in the revised lead - is because it doesn't belong there any more than the reductionist viewpoint belongs there. These are two contrasting and complex views on evolution that need to be balanced. Either put them both in balanced or don't put them in at all. This lead is giving the impression that microevolution is the main way that evolution works and even at this it describes it in an awkward and complex way - it is a radical view of evolution. I formulated my lead proposal in such a that these divisive issues are circumvented yet I give enough of a foundation that the more ecompassing body of theory can be elaborated upon in the article. This lead pounds in the reductionist notion that evolution is microevolution writ large and not much more. Have you ever read articles in Systematic Zoology or Cladistics? These journals are devoted almost entirely to the oposing view against this type of reductionism. For example: [43][44][45][46][47][48]. - every one of these articles speaks against this approach and state emphatically that a more complete understanding of evolution is only arrived at when you get out of the test tube and into the real world. This list of citations is new - I haven't used these in my other extensive literature source in support of my previous arguments for this case (see above). If entire journals that have been around for a long time are devoted to this - I have to ask critically - why is this scientific part of evolution being ignored? I'm not saying this to be offensive - but I don't think that you understand the point. Please don't take this as an offense - many people have missed the importance of this. Here is what Daniel Brooks (another influential evolutionist who was E. O. Wiley's[49] grad student who also forwarded these sentiments in his landmark book: Wiley, E.O. 1986. Phylogenetic systematics. McGraw-Hill Yearbook of Science and Technology. McGraw-Hill, NY: 343-346.):

"From a macroevolutionary perspective, a further distinction is evident. Events in deep time address the origins of clades and radiation, diversification and extinction or persistence of higher taxa relative to physical and biotic processes that may be global in scale (e.g. plate tectonics) and span longer timeframes. By contrast, events in shallow time encompass shorter timeframes, often resulting in reticulate rather than dichotomous branching relationships between populations and taxa...As such, rather than being inextricably tied to the evolutionary history of their hosts, parasites (like free-living organisms) can exhibit independent trajectories in which biogeographical context, palaeoenvironmental parameters, and ecological settings are critical in determining faunal structure and patterns of diversity over time (Hoberg, 1997a, 2005a; Erwin, 1998; Hoberg & Klassen, 2002)." [50] (emphasis added)Thompsma (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well Thompsma I'm glad you have't given up, and I see progress (told you patience as other editors will see the merits of good points). I see your main point is to emphasize macroevolutionary perspective and Nat Sel earlier in the article than presently (and you don't have a problem with the reductionist mechanisms just not the first sentence-is this a correct analysis? Not a bad idea as seems like Jerry Coyne used a similar idea in his anti-creationist book. He described evolution starting from the last universal common ancestor and the role of nat sel in adaptive evolution, then developed it from there. That idea does have merit. Perhaps the first sentence should be a common ancestor-tree of life timeline of some 3.5 billion years of nat sel and adaptive evolution has produced the diversity of life we see in the fossil record and presently, blah, blah,blah A quick marcoevolutionary timeline of the tree of life, descent with modification and nat sel. emphasize the explanatory powers of evolution over the timeline of life. GetAgrippa (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks GetAgrippa - I'm really glad that there are no feelings here. Just people trying hard to figure things out. I hope that I'm contributing something meaningful here - I wouldn't be trying so hard if I didn't think the point was an important one to make. I like your suggestions - getting people to think about the vast depths of time is always a good way to get people thinking about evolution in the bigger picture. I don't give up easily - I get frustrated and then keep at er. There are some hard core cladists out there that would be even more offended by this article than I.Thompsma (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not having read the entire discussion, I'd like to mention I find this article interesting. It argues against selection in speciation. And though being a single study, it is based on data and simulation, which I prefer to philosophical argumentation. Narayanese (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not getting anywhere since your suggestions fail to provide a simple explanation of the fundamentals of evolution that will engage and inform a reader and introduce the article. Saying that we should avoid providing any explanation of the basics in the lead since you think we need to cover the debates in advanced evolutionary theory is not a very useful approach. How about:

Although the changes produced in a single generation are normally small, these differences accumulate over time and can produce substantial changes in a population, causing the emergence of new species. While this simple process of incremental change underlies evolution, the rate, direction and outcomes of evolution are unpredictable, since they depend on the multitude of interactions within complex ecosystems, as well as the past history of life on Earth.

I realise that macroevolution is not microevolution writ large, but we are not writing for experts - the most we can do is introduce the basics and point to some of the complexities. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I realise that, but it's early days. Quibble – suggest "causing the emergence" is rather teleological, "resulting in the emergence" might work better. . . dave souza, talk 22:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tim for trying so hard to work on this!!! I really do appreciate that you are trying here. However, a little tweak here and a little tweak there isn't going to fix this problem - sorry, but it is still reductionism that you are presenting. The only difference here is that you first give a reductionist account of evolution then say it underlies evolution and then say in the bigger picture things become complex and unpredictable. This is not how it works. A macroevolutionary view states the opposite - that there are predictable explanatory outcomes; for lack of a better term and for simplicity I am calling it macro vs. micro-evolution. In the article Narayanese posted - a great article - the authors test for a constant rate of speciation (i.e., predictable) and this summarizes the point really well:

H1 (microevolution): "We find that the hypotheses that speciation follows the accumulation of many small events that act either multiplicatively or additively found support in 8% and none of the trees, respectively."

H2 (founder event - genetic revolution - population level event, macroevolutionary principals): "By comparison, 78% of the trees fit the simplest model in which new species emerge from single events, each rare but individually sufficient to cause speciation."

Wandering off topic a bit, I'd argue that this paper fits a genetic approach very well, since each speciation event will be accompanied by several allele changes, one of which produces reproductive isolation and the others produce adaptions to a novel niche. If no mutation produces reproductive incompatibility, then you may get divergent populations, but you won't get a new species. Your interpretation of the paper depends on what you see these rare but single events to be - ecological changes or the spread of a novel allele that changes the biology of a population sufficient to prevent interbreeding. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at this article: [51] It is Alan Templeton's review of exactly this problem. Take what you are thinking and expand it over a large number of species and across the depths of time. The small anagenic bits don't really matter nor are they necessary toward the explanation of the larger phyletic pattern. Moreover, you are incrementally starting to meet up with speciation concepts here - which opens another can of worms.Thompsma (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The small additive bits that you are trying so hard to drive in this article (H1) explains very little of the overall evolutionary process (H2). I also realize that we are not writing for experts - but reading the lead to this article you need to be a geneticist to understand what it is saying and as a geneticist I am saying that it is wrong. Once again - I ask why nothing is being said about the phenotype? The lead talks about traits - but nowhere does it say what these are. If it actually made this distinction you would realize that you are forced to describe evolution of something other than the genes - which seems to be a complicated matter for some reason. Evolution can be described simply - but we need to describe whole organisms in the way that they are familiar to people, in the way that Darwin described them to give a real vision of what evolution is. I've given my proposal above for a complete re-write in an effort to settle this dispute - but it was rejected outright without anybody suggesting that we discuss parts and tweak it a bit. I'm not trying to be obstinate - but it seems to me that the microevolutionary road has been ingrained in this article and I'm suggesting that we break away from this and try a new founder approach in the adaptive landscape of possibilities (speaking metaphorically, of course). This must be very difficult for someone who has a world view on evolution through a microevolutionary perspective to describe the larger systems view (and you are not alone - the simpler reductionistic approach is running rampant these days). It is obviously difficult for me - and I have a good handle on what Gould and others have been saying about this. Let's do a re-write that is more balanced rather than a patchwork of fixes that leads to an incoherent argument and does little but reinforce this microevolutionary stance.Thompsma (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Multilevel Selection

Why is this article primarily based on the genetic reductionist view of evolution? There is no mention of multi-level selection theory and only brief mention of group selection as though it is a fringe concept. There are many published papers on this topic:

• Gould, S. J. (1980). "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?". Paleiobiology. 6 (1): 119–130.

• Gould, S. J.; Lloyd, E. A. (1999). "Individuality and adaptation across levels of selection: How shall we name and generalize the unit of Darwinism?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 96 (21): 11904–11909.

• Wilson, D. S.; Wilson, E. O. (2008). "Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology" (PDF). Quarterly Review of Biology. 82 (4): 327–348.

• Traulsen, A. (2010). "MATHEMATICS OF KIN- AND GROUP-SELECTION: FORMALLY EQUIVALENT?". Evolution. 64 (2): 316–323.

• Jablonski, D. (2008). "Species Selection: Theory and Data" (PDF). Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39: 501–24.</ref>

• Rabosky, D. L.; McCune, A. R. (2010). "Reinventing species selection with molecular phylogenies". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 25 (2): 68–74. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.002. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help)

• Herron, M. D.; Hackett, J. D.; Aylward, F. O.; Michod, R. E. (2009). "Triassic origin and early radiation of multicellular volvocine algae". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106 (9): 3254–3258.

• http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/2/182

It is evidently an important part of evolution (historic and contemporary) and scientifically accepted as peer-reviewed. This article currently presents this part of the argument in a non-partisan manner, which is un-encyclopedic. There really is no excuse for this - the concept has been around for many years. Too many people are focused on Dawkin's 'Selfish Gene' (a wonderful book - no doubt) without realizing that other research has been taking place in the peer-reviewed journals on multilevel, group, and species selection.Thompsma (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this topic and the article could probably more clear about this. However, there are separate articles on Group selection, Unit of selection, Microevolution, and Macroevolution. Also note the FAQ at the top of this talk page has a section on Why is microevolution equated with macroevolution?. Furthermore, the article is at present over 150 kb and "unit of selection" is already mentioned a couple of times. On the other hand, the Unit of selection article could certainly need some help regarding references, so IMHO your attention should go to that page. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 09:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Fama Clamosa. I put the citations up here so that people (including me) could take a look and possibly improve the sections mentioning group selection. If I sound a little testy about Dawkin's - it is because I am noticing an online trend that really favors his views on evolution. I have great admiration for Richard Dawkins - but some of these other authors and thinkers of evolution have some important stuff to say about species selection. Let's look at the bias in this article from this perspective. First, the reductionist gene-eyed view of evolution:

'In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,[12] which connected the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research and providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.'

Here are all instances in this article where group selection is mentioned:

'Selection at a level above the individual, such as group selection, may allow the evolution of co-operation, as discussed below.'

'Other processes that may promote cooperation include group selection, where cooperation provides benefits to a group of organisms.'

'If one species can out-compete another, this could produce species selection, with the fitter species surviving and the other species being driven to extinction.'

If I didn't know any better I would think that group selection was a wishy washy theory with no scientific or philosophical credibility to it. If you read the peer-reviewed literature I posted, however, you will leave with a very different understanding of group selection and what it means to evolutionary theory. For example:

'Absent such events, within-population selection and genetic drift are the higher order determinants of evolutionary stasis and change; genomic level processes operate independently of such higher level population processes (as Dobzhansky made very clear in 1937: 11) and seldom override the higher level processes. We would argue that, far from being driven by the genome, evolution is a top–down process where higher-level phenomena set the context for the operation of lower-level processes.'[52]

The peer-reviewed science gives a more definitive view on multi-level selection. Even Darwin had something important to say about this in the Descent of Man:

'It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe . . . an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another.'

It always amazes me how precient Darwin was! The Dawkin's forum has been highly critical of this - they think it only relates to social evolution as Wilson and Wilson (2008) discuss it. However, the palaeontologists have also used species level selection to explain radiation and species replacement in the palaeontoligical record (e.g., [53]). As far as I'm concerned, Stephen J. Gould and David Hull killed Dawkin's selfish gene replicator as THE unit of evolution by pointing out the distinction between an interactor and replicator in context of Darwinian individuals, which are multi-leveled.Thompsma (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have long felt that Wikipedia should give more attention to debates, especially theoretical debates (e.g. Dawkins versus Gould) among people who largely agree on the modern synthesis. I think most of my fellow editors have considred the "unit of selection" aticle as the appropriae place for that; maybe it could be developed and better linked to this article. Either way, the suggestion is constructive. We just need to welcome this comment in a way that does fit in to existing structures in th encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's most pressing to fix any problems in the lead, so could you help me to understand the exact nature of the problem in your first bold paragraph, please:

In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,[12] which connected the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research and providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

Is the problem that we are presenting the modern evolutionary synthesis as the last word when it isn't, is it that it nowadays it takes into account other units of selection and we pretend it doesn't, or is the truth somewhere in between these two extremes? Or perhaps the main problem is "units of evolution (genes)", which looks as if it was a general definition of units of evolution, when it really only says what the units of evolution are in the context of the modern evolutionary synthesis (as it started its life)? I would like to propose a way of fixing the problem in the lead, but being a bit fuzzy about these points makes it impossible. Hans Adler 08:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the modern evolutionary synthesis is not all that modern. It was emboldened from the 1940's until the 1970's. It gained much popularity with Dawkin's 'Selfish Gene', but the peer-reviewed science went in other directions. The "units of evolution (genes)" sentence also emphasizes genes, whereas the entire discussion on the units of evolution (see [54]) is much more than genes. The following statement in this article is patently false:

This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research and providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

I will follow up on this claim by using a few select quotes (old and new):

The proponents of the synthetic theory maintain that all evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes, guided by natural selection, and that transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species. (Mayr, 1963, p. 586)

In general, population geneticists have argued in favor of microevolutionary extrapolation, whereas paleontologists have sought to establish an autonomous and hierarchical macroevolutionary theory based on the operation of selection at several levels of biological organization (especially species)...Genome size evolution provides a clear example of hierarchy in action and therefore lends support to the theoretical approach of macroevolutionists. (Gregory, 2004)[55]

...species selection, based on differential probability of speciation or of extinction can be a significant part of the process driving the lineage along the adaptive ridge. This is in contrast to the view that selection at a higher hierarchical level than that of the organism is not significant in evolution. (Kemp, 2007)[56]

The rest are taken from Gould (1980) and I add bold for emphasis:

I have been reluctant to admit it--since beguiling is often forever--but if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.

The modern synthetic theory embodies a strong faith in reductionism. It advocates a smooth extrapolation across all levels and scales-from the base substitution to the origin of higher taxa.

Many evolutionists now doubt exclusive control by selection upon genetic change within local populations. Moreover, even if local populations alter as the synthesis maintains, we now doubt that the same style of change controls events at the two major higher levels: speciation and patterns of macroevolution.(synthesis was used as short-form of modern synthesis)

The truly modern evolutionary synthesis is one that not only recognizes, but incorporates multilevel selection into its repertoire:

THIS powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research and providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

The gene centered dogma presented in this article is founded upon shaky ground once you start to dissect its parts. Genes are replicators, but it is hard to pinpoint what a gene really is. Is it a string of nucleotides that codes for a protein? What about the upstream regulation components, the splicesome, exons, introns, or small ribosomal RNA? What are the domains and boundaries that can be used to define the gene as a unit? (see [57]) By its very nature, a gene is not a unit, but a multilevel entity that interacts - it is an individual.[58]

This article needs a re-write to purge itself from the textbook orthodoxy of gradual allelic variation as the be all and end all of evolution extrapolating its principals to every level of organization. This idea has been abandoned. The philosophers have also been wise to point out that species are individuals.[59],[60],[61] An individual is spatially and temporarily unique and it has a birth and death. You can find instances of individuals through time, but only one representation of each. In contrast - gold is a kind that fits into the periodic table of elements in the Cretaceous in the same way that it does today. Hence, species are individuals and they are Darwinian individuals. A Darwinian individual is subject to the laws of natural selection because there are heritable varieties and differential survival rates among them. Natural selection imparts its forces on the interaction of individuals to govern replicatory fitness levels. The distinction between the genetic replicator as THE unit of evolution, versus the Darwinian interactor as the facet whereupon the forces of natural selection acts is an important one to understand. There are higher laws that govern the processes of evolution, such as speciation via allopatry, that are not governed by replacement of allelic variants within populations. Species level selection occurs and by extension group selection occurs. In popularized literature - Dawkin's places emphasis on differential survival among genetic replicators, whereas in peer-reviewed literature - Gould (and many others) emphasize differential survival of replicators mediated by forces of natural selection acting upon the emergent properties of interaction. The later has also been supported by developmental systems theory.Thompsma (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe Gould's view is important. I am not convinced it is now mainstream among evolutionary biologists - can you demonstrate that it is now mainstream among evolutionary biologists? Before you reply please make sure you are not violating our WP:NOR policy by introducing your own views of what is better or how things should be. If it is not mainstream among evolutionary biologists then what we have are multiple views, perhaps even a debate. That is fine, although we need to be sure: is this a debate among evolutionary biologists? Is this a debate between deneticists and paleontologists? Is this a debate between biologists and philosophers of science? Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy requires that we include different, even contradictory, views. So far you have convinced me that Gould was critical of the modern synthesis as generally accepted. That to me is sufficient grounds to include Gould in the article. But how? As a minority view? As one leading voice in an important but unresolved debate? As the dominant view? What kind of external evidence (i.e. not our own judgment) can help us answer these questions? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst review is pretty authoritative and it seems to be saying that species selection is still not very widely-accepted, since the review describes its aims as describing the "still-incomplete formalization of species selection," and summarising the "growing but scattered body of data" that supports this idea. This is an idea that needs to be mentioned in this article, but it shouldn't be given too much weight. In fact, we should aim towards textbook orthodoxy, rather than endorsing any one of the emerging models that may extend the allele-centered view of evolution that is encompassed by the modern synthesis. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree and so does the peer-reviewed literature on the subject matter. The textbook orthodoxy I was referring too came from Gould's quote in 1980!!! A lot has happened since then, but even at this earlier time you can see that multi-level selection theory had a prominent role in evolutionary theory, discussion and peer-reviewed papers. Moreover, species selection appears in recent textbooks on evolution. For example, take a look at Matt Ridley's Evolution textbook:

Species selection is another example of a reason why macroevolution cannot simply be extrapolated from microevolution (Section 18.8, p. 550). Within a species natural selection favors one character in one species and another in a different species; but species selection over long periods may cause the species with one of the characters to proliferate, because of the character's consequences for speciation or extinction rates. This does not mean that the long-term process contradicts, or is it incompatible with, the short-term process, only that we cannot understand the long-term evolutionary pattern by studying natural selection in the short-term alone and extrapolating it. (p. 666) (Emphasis added)

It is also inappropriate to say that one of the papers I posted above is authoritative while ignoring everything else. This seems to imply that the Quarterly Review of Biology, for example, is somehow not as authoritative. Moreover, picking a few quotes out of context of the Jablonski article gives a gross distortion of what he was saying. Nowhere in his paper does he say that species level selection is not widely accepted!! What page did you read this? Have you read any of Jablonski's other papers?[62]

"You cannot do history by selective quotation and search for qualifying footnotes. General tenor and historical impact at the proper criteria." (Stephen J. Gould - cited in Blind Watchmaker)

You cannot ignore the empirical evidence for group selection that is discussed at length in the peer-reviewed literature I list above. I can continue to add even more:

• Chuang, J. S., Rivoire, O., & Leibler, S. (2009). Simpson's Paradox in a Synthetic Microbial System. Science, 323(5911), 272-275.

• Poulin, E., Palma, A. T., & Féral, J. (2002). Evolutionary versus ecological success in Antarctic benthic invertebrates. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17(5), 218-222.

• Rankin DJ, López-Sepulcre A, Foster KR, Kokko H. (2007). Species-level selection reduces selfishness through competitive exclusion. J Evol Biol., 20(4), 1459-68.

• Roy, K., G. Hunt, and D. Jablonski, 2009. Phylogenetic conservatism of extinctions in marine bivalves. Science 325: 733-737.

• Kerr B, Godfrey-Smith P. 2002a. Individualist and multi-level perspectives on selection in structured populations. Biology and Philosophy 17(4):477–517.

• Kerr B, Godfrey-Smith P. 2002b. Group fitness and multi-level selection: replies to commentaries. Biology and Philosophy 17(4):539–549.

• Kerr B, Neuhauser C, Bohannan B J M, Dean A M. 2006. Local migration promotes competitive restraint

in a host-pathogen “tragedy of the commons.” Nature 442:75–78.

• Rainey P B, Rainey K. 2003. Evolution of cooperation and conflict in experimental bacterial populations. Nature 425:72–74.

Each of these papers suggests that multi-level selection occurs and that it is important. Hence, the problem is not one of endorsement of a particular viewpoint, but rather presenting the concept in its proper place. To obtain a proper understanding of the theory it absolutely needs to be threaded into the concept of evolution with the same degree of weight it has been given by other authoritative peer-reviewed papers on the subject matter. This article states the following:

"In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution.[127] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one - the difference is simply the time involved."

This statement, which is the prevailing sentiment presented in this article, directly contradicts what Stephen J. Gould and others have argued extensively. Why? Why would this article ignore what the literature is saying about this? It endorses a particular slant on evolutionary theory that runs counter to the modern textbook example (see Matt Ridely quote cite above). Multi-level selection has been thoroughly considered throughout the history of evolutionary development one of the BIG questions (e.g., Stanley, S. M. (1975). A theory of evolution above the species level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 72(2), 646-650.) The reason why Jablonski says "growing but scattered body of data" is because it is one of the more difficult aspects of evolution to investigate but it has still had a prominent role in evolutionary discussion, theory and analysis. This article does not give proper perspective on this issue. In fact - group selection has been a major player in driving evolutionary research - yet this article makes it read as though it is a peripheral concept, which is far from factual. I am not saying that we need to endorse multi-level selection as accepted fact, but this article misses the point that it has had a major role in evolutionary theory and development.Thompsma (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As another of the reviews you cite above states, "Species selection as a potential driver of macroevolutionary trends has been relegated to a largely philosophical position in modern evolutionary biology.". This position may be unfortunate, and species and group selection may warrant more attention than they have gathered to date, but on Wikipedia we have to present the mainstream view. The article notes the continuing debate about the level of selection but we can't present these alternative ideas as if they have more support in mainstream evolutionary theory than they currently do. I do agree that this article may not present species and group selection very clearly, so I'd welcome clearer language and possibly a better selection of references. However, I'd object to rewriting the article to advocate the minority view that these ideas are an uncontroversial and widely-accepted part of modern evolutionary theory. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

One part of the article that could be easily improved would be the addition of a clear and simple example of group selection driving the evolution of cooperation - maybe a sentence or two at the end of the third paragraph of Evolution#Co-operation? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Another part that you might add to would be adding a paragraph to Evolution#Extinction explaining our current understanding of the evolutionary effects of large-scale environmental change. A good example of species selection either through competitive exclusion or in a mass extinction would also improve this section. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV obliges us to include minority as well as mainstream views.

Also, there are a number of philosophers of scence who are keenly concerned with proving elements of Darwinian theory, the modern synthesis, etc. I think it would be reasonable toi have a short esction in this article on the views of (or debates among) philosophers of science, linked to a separate article that can go into their views in detail. Manhy philosophers argue that while biologists are best trained for the technical side of forming and testing hypotheses, it is philosophers who are best qualified to assess and revise theory itelf. These guys are not enemies of science, far fro it, they just have taken upon themselve another role. I am not aguing that they deserve equal prominence in this article, but we should not dismiss them. I think their views should be represented at least in summary form. (Some philosophrs of science support Dawkins against Gould of course)Slrubenstein | Talk 00:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where it is written as a minority view by quoting that it is largely theoretical? I respect that there is agreement that the wording could be improved - but I am not trying to argue if this is a minority or a majority view. Macroevolution via emergent phenomena has been part of the evolutionary dialogue and debate ever since Darwin.[63] This has been THE raging battle in evolutionary studies over the past century. It is what split the Gould camp from the Dawkins camp in popular literature.

"Whether macrovolution is reducible to microevolution is one of the persistent debates in evolutionary biology."[64]

Moreover, some people have found evidence for macroevolution:

"The data obtained here, and in the previous work on plants (Vinogradov 2003), provide factual support for the hotly debated concept of hierarchical selection (reviewed by Gould & Lloyd 1999; Gregory 2004)."[65]

This article presents the argument in a very one-sided manner and in so doing it gives an inaccurate portrayal of evolution in its historical, theoretical and analytical contexts. This was the BIG debate that took place in the last century and continues to this day. There is a rich history here that is being neglected in both the scientific literature and in the philosophical literature - including the work of David Hull. The debate has not been resolved, yet this article implies that microevolutionary processes add up to macroevolutionary phenomenon as fact. In almost every review article on evolution there is a section on macroevolution and looks at the data to see if there are emergent properties at work. Reading Gould and Lloyd and then coming here really gives a stark contrast to what is in this article and what is happening in the published world of evolution.Thompsma (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This article, first sentence:

"In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations."

Theodosius Dobzhansky had some important adivise on this in 1937:

"...there is no way toward an understanding the mechanisms of macroevolution, which require time on a geological scale, other than through a full comprehension of the microevolutionary processes...For this reason we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and micro-evolution..." (p. 12, see [66]

Does the first sentence of this article read as though there is a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and micro-evolution? Has this been resolved - or did I miss something in the past century? I think not. At present, paleontologists, philosophers, taxonomists, biogeographers, social scientists, ecologists and geneticists are researching this question in a serious way. These scientists, including Stephen J. Gould and Edward O. Wilson have published landmark works in evolutionary theory, published an extensive theoretical framework and some have published evidence supporting natural selection occuring among higher levels of biological organization, including group selection, species selection and possibly others.(see [67]) Like ecosystems, evolution by means of natural selection exhibits emergent properties over large geological time scales and among social groups where ecological complexity is encountered. Natural selection at these levels require different sets of explanation, such as punctuated equilibria, an understanding of the ecological niche model (Dawkin's extended phenotype) explaining emergent natural selection by means of legacy effects across successive generations (see [68]), and a philosophical understanding of Darwinian individuals as replicators and interactors (suggested reading listed above). Darwin was the first to propose a theory of group selection in the Descent of Man. Equally powerful and revealing in the past century giving an even sharper context to Darwin's theory of the evolutionary origin of species by means of natural selection is Dawkins selfish genetic replicators explaining genetic drift, neutral theory, and the nature of random processes leading toward adaptations.Thompsma (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"I don't know where it is written as a minority view by quoting that it is largely theoretical?" – This makes a lot of sense to me. Group selection is harder to understand, and given the advances in DNA sequencing it's natural that biologists are concentrating on individual selection at the moment. There might be similar statements by physicists about relativity or quantum theory. But that just means that group selection, relativity and quantum theory can be ignored in the majority of subfields. Group selection, like quantum theory, strikes me as the kind of principle that you only start considering when you absolutely have to. Not considering it does not imply that you don't believe in it.

However, it seems reasonable to me for didactic reasons not to dwell too much on group selection. I think it's OK to write this article generally as if that's the only type of selection, so long as there are clear hints, pointers and examples pointing to the more general principle in some strategic places. (Of course we should still avoid outright false statements that deny group selection or its acceptance.) Hans Adler 08:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a nice example where it's not a priori clear whether the individuals of a species are the single cells or more complex bodies consisting of many cells, and where evolution can be observed on both levels. (Perhaps certain algae colonies?) Perhaps something like this would fit into the article? Hans Adler 09:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of Evolution#Co-operation we use cancer as one such example. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The article can be written in a way that you don't need to dive into the debate straight away. I worked on Introduction to Evolution recently and did a re-write on the lead with JimmyButler. It originally suffered from the same bend that this article has. You can take a look and you will see that the concept of multi-level selection doesn't jump out nor does the reductionist concept of genes as the only guiding force. All you need to do is talk about evolution the way that Darwin talked about it - which somehow automatically leads to a certain kind of NPOV. This article gives a transmutated version of evolution as though it all has to do with the genes. Genes are important - I do not deny this - I have been working as a geneticist for the past six years. However, this article needs to be reworded by referring to individuals instead of genes and there needs to be a better explanation of what natural means in context of Darwin's theory. Once this is well explained - the process of extending the principles to a multi-level context is easy to do.Thompsma (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually the Introduction to Evolution lead does introduce evolution from a microevolutionary perspective, but it doesn't commit the same crime that this article does by suggesting that it is the only way that evolution happens. Moreover, it is an introductory article and as Hans has said - the theory of multilevel selection is a bit more complex of a concept to grasp. With some crafty prose I'm sure we can get the point across.Thompsma (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's start by making some relatively simple changes to Evolution#Co-operation and Evolution#Extinction. If you add some simple and clear examples of group and species selection to these sections it will help focus this rather wide-ranging discussion on the text of this article. Presently we mention that these processes may occur and what they may do, but adding some examples will help balance the article, since the sections on natural selection have many molecular-level examples. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

While I agree many of the suggestions Thompsma has made are accurate (as I have made similar arguments in the past) the whole article doesn't need a rewrite. At least three card-carrying evolutionary biologist (one trained by Gould) have added their comments and suggestions of organisation. This article still bascially holds true to their persective. A gene-centric view with Population Genetics (as the workhorse of providing models to test theory) are still the backbone of the Modern Synthesis-with evolution acting on units of populations. The whole species concept is a quagmire (something like 9 definitions now??) and many evolutionary biologist have abandoned the notion of "species" and use "population". This article takes an encyclopedic approach, while I agree with Thompsma on many assertions and suggestion, and we should work on improving detail in the present construct and resist rewriting the whole shebang. However, recently in Science and other publications we see evolutionary biologists proposing to extend the Modern synthesis and incorporate epigenetics, other levels of selection, etc. to update theory. Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with GetAgrippa. For a long time my only major complaint with this article is that, unlike many others, it minimizes theoretical debates. Now, I understand this has to do with the way the profession is organized and the way most biologists work. Still it seems to me hat we have here a contentious but legtimate, verifiable view and there should be a way for the article to explain that these debates occur even if they do not currently have a major impact on how scientists actually work.Slrubenstein | Talk 21:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I toyed with the idea of having a "Current debates" section, but instead chose to highlight each debate in the context of the section that deals with the basic ideas that it is based on - eg the neutral theory in the genetic drift section, or the various species concepts and punctuated equ. in the speciation section. This makes each debate easier to grasp and avoids classifying one set of ideas as "standard ideas" and another in a separate section as "questionable ideas". Tim Vickers (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead to this article presents an entirely new theory of evolution that differs from the concept that Darwin first proposed. The problem here is not one of inclusion, but rather their is an underlying reformulation of evolutionary theory that is being presented here. The lead to this article presents evolution in a very narrow sense - and it needs to be re-written to explain evolution correctly. Look at Douglas J. Futuyma's definition of natural selection:

The differential survival and/or reproduction of classes of entities that differ in one or more characteristics. To constitute natural selection, the difference in survival and/or reproduction cannot be due to chance, and it must have the potential consequence of altering the proportions of the different entities. Thus, natural selection is also definable as a deterministic difference in the contribution of different classes of entities to subsequent generations. Usually, the differences are inherited. The entities may be alleles, genotypes or subsets of genotypes, populations, or, in the broadest sense, species.

Here are some definitions from other texts and peer-reviewed authors:

Rose and Mueller (2006)

The differential net reproduction of genetically distinct entities, whether mobile genetic elements, organisms, demes, or entire species.

Freeman and Herron (2007):

A difference, on average, between the survival or fecundity of individuals with certain phenotypes compared with individuals with other phenotypes.

Kardong (2008):

The culling process by which individuals with beneficial traits survive and reproduce more frequently, on average, than individuals with less favorable traits.

Padian (2008):

"More offspring are produced than can survive; some are better suited to the prevailing conditions than others; and those better-suited individuals are more likely to leave their advantageous heritable features to the next generation."

Go back and re-read the lead to this article - it is all about genes!! It is nothing like I've seen before - and I've been reading about and studying evolution for a long time. Not only is it all about genes, in so doing it creates a new "sub-theory" that is very different from Darwin's original idea. It ignores what every other evolutionary text has been saying for the past fifty years. Selection acting on genes in not the only way that evolution works. The lead even gives a weird explanation for the origin of species via sympatry without reference to allopatric speciation. This article presents evolutionary theory as though we can go and count all the genes and arrive an explanation. What about the phenotype? Not even mentioned until well down in the article do we see phenotype explained. The first two paragraphs in the lead don't even give you the impression that genes do anything. The third paragraph talks about traits - but does not link this to anything about the shape and form of varieties. It is reductionism ad nauseam! It is as though Darwin and Ernst Mayr never existed. Did Thomas Hunt Morgan write this? Morgan said that he didn't need evolution to understand genetics. This article suggests you don't need anything but genetics to understand evolution. We might as well close the books on all the great thinkers. This lead is even a stretch for Richard Dawkins who would have problems with it - I'm sure. Not all parts to this article are problematic - but large sections need to be re-written to get rid of this weird explanation.Thompsma (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The article shouldn't emphasize evolution acts on genes as that is incorrect. I hope it doesn't make that impression. Pop. genetics examines genetic changes in the structure of a population in successive generations so it is an outcome of evolution we can measure, much as speciation is an outcome of evolution. It shouldn't be confused as a process of evolution but just the biological observation that all populations display heritable genotype-phenotype variation and the processes of evolution will determine the success of genotype-phenotypes within a population over time. The beauty of Natural Selection in my mind is it really already encompasses all levels of selection within the Biosphere from ecosystem to the organism (even macromolecules) and it is total interactive process that takes the clay of neutral genetic change and is able to mold incredible adaptive change and diversity, building multiple levels and higher levels and the Biosphere itself. Dobzhansky is correct-nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. GetAgrippa (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Science article suggesting the Modern Synthesis needs to continue and update theory highlighted a similar argument. Darwin described natural selection in regards to the phenotype, then the Modern Synthesis molded a gene-centric pop genetics emphasis and the middle connector has been neglected and needs updating. I agree with that analysis. The phenotype as that being selected and neutral molecular evolution seem like disconnected processes. I like the works of Jablonka and others who examine epigenetics and the influence of the environment having more of an influence than previously appreciated (Similar to cancer researcher claims that 40-100% of cancers may be avoidable through regulation of environment as cancer genes alone aren't enough without environmental influence-even more bizarre cloning murine cancer cells and producing normal offspring-scratch my head!!!!). I should mention though there are plenty of examples where the exact genetic change correlating with a phenotypic change is known such as ectodysplasin alleles in stickleback fish, bone morphogenetic protein and calmodulin alleles and Darwin's finches, etc. Natural selection pretty much equates to reproductive success and passing on genes so it seems inevitable to emphasize genes. Perhaps we should emphasize Darwin's greatest contributions of common descent and natural selection, mention how the theory was updated in the 30-40's with the Modern Synthesis with Wright, Haldane, Fisher, Dobzhansky, Mayr (blending Natural Selection and Mendelian Genetics-Pop Genetics). Then more updated notions with Eldredge-Gould punctuated equlibrium (addresses the issue of "tempo of evolution", Kimoto neutral theory and Near-neutral theory (examines molecular evolution), Cooperativity, Evolvability, Levels of Selection, etc. Even better like SlRubenstein suggests a great debates section Kimura vs Mayr, Gould vs Dawkin (Gould handsdown!!!!hee,hee),etc. I have to agree with Thompsma that the word "phenotype" needs to pop up in article sooner. Addressing "species" is problematic since it is hotly debated at present. While I agree with Thompsma's analysis I wonder if we would be synthesizing an argument (original research) from the published literature rather than presenting more of consensus of scientific thought. I would appreciate other editors thoughts on the subject as I wonder if we shouldn't bite the bullet as Thompsma suggests as it really would make the article more upto date than any other medium. GetAgrippa (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ernst Mayr was one of the great evolutionary thinkers of the last century and he placed high prominence on the concept of species level selection. Here is what Mayr (2001) had to say about species level selection:

"The theory of speciational evolution was developed not as the result of theoretical considerations but strictly on the basis of actual observations. When studying a series of peripherally isolated populations of a species of birds, the present author noticed that the population that was most peripheral, and that was the product of a sequence of consecutive colonizations, was usually the most different. This observation was fully confirmed and strenthened by the studies of H. L. Carson, K. V. Kaneshiro, and A. R. Templeton on Hawaiian species of Drosophila. They showed that colonization of a different island or a different mountain range on the same island might result in a morphologically quite distinct new species, even in a genus with such a stable morphotype as Drosophila...For the new species to be truly successful it must be able to compete with larger, more diversified species." (Emphasis added)

I don't know where this idea came along that species level selection is such a hotly debated concept - it is an active component of evolutionary thinking even among the geneticists. I seem to remember Alan Templeton - a statistical geneticist - talked about it this a fair bit in his earlier genetic work on Drosophila with respect to genetic revolutions (e.g., Templeton, A.R. The unit of selection in Drosophila mercatorum. II. Genetic revolutions and the origin of coadapted genomes in parthenogenetic strains. Genetics 92: 1265-1282, 1979). The concept may be questioned - but this is the way that science has always worked - what seems debatable in science is actually where all the productive thinking is taking place. We need to rid ourselves of the idea that species level selection is an oddity and mould it into the article in its proper form. I like the ideas that talk presents. It seems more reasonable to have the article follow a gradual transition through the time lines - from Darwins theory of natural selection to the modern synthesis and then onto the even more modern synthesis.Thompsma (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)