Wikipedia

Talk:Evolution/Archive 62

< Talk:Evolution
Latest comment: 12 years ago by 137.111.13.200 in topic FAQ nominated for deletion
Archive 55 ← Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65

Survey / Motion

Latest comment: 12 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

Since we continually face opposition to the new lead, we need some way of making a change in the article. Therefore, I offer the following motion and survey. The question: Is the new lead proposal superior or better than the lead that is currently found in the article? Second, if there is agreement that the new lead is superior, can we insert it and deal with remaining issues working from the main article?

The new lead is:

Insert the new lead (iron out details later):

  • SupportClaviclehorn (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. danielkueh (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • SupportThompsma (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support assuming agreement that a concerted effort to continue improvements is intended. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support conditional on the deletion of 2 sentences as discussed below.Joannamasel (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose See above.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Done! - will continue with effort to address concerns and improve.Thompsma (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Been away awhile, but KUDOS to all the great work by diligent editors. I've just started to follow and read all this, but I do have one comment that jumps at me. "Evolution is any change over time in the heritable characteristics of biological populations". Shouldn't that read is any change in "successive generations" ???? "Over time" could imply that any genetic change over time within an individual may qualify as evolution-so although monozygotic twins are genetically identical at birth this would suggest that the twins epigenetic changes in phenotype is evolution. Successive generations cover both asexual and sexual reproduction. Just a thought. Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I support this change.Joannamasel (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey GetAgrippa - good to see that you have returned!! I'm sure you are pleased to see that we've managed to get evolution on its proper track. What a discussion and debate we had over that first sentence! Successive generations was in the list of proposals. However, (and I'm sure some with think this heresy) I think that genetic change within an individual qualifies as evolution and I've always found it a peculiar stance when authors segregate it otherwise; I'm not alone in the perspective that the "central dogma" is not as universal as it first seemed.[1], [2] First, every organism has an entire cohort of commensals, from bacteria to mites that form mutualistic populations. The boundary between a cohesive organism, its multicellular components, and its mutualists is never a fully completed transition where a simple straight line can be drawn.[3][4] Monozygotic twins are not actually genetically identical, there is of course a persistent mutation rate in the synthesis of DNA: "DNA synthesis is spectacularly accurate, making only 1 ‘unforced’ error for every 107–108 bases copied. But DNA methylation has an apparent accuracy of ~96%, which is ~1 error for every 25 methylated sites copied."[5] What does this matter for the population of individuals when small changes occur in the cells of an organism you might ask? Well, this is where evo-devo steps into the picture, the black box that separates the line between genotype to phenotype. Brian Hall (and others), for example, have written about the role of cell condensations in the development of phenotype: "At the cellular level, condensations (as modules) are fundamental developmental and selectable units of morphology (morphogenetic units) that mediate interactions between genotype and phenotype via evolutionary developmental mechanisms."[6] Even within our bodies, mitochondria form populations, migrate, and compete for inclusion into the gametes; Wolbachia provide another model to consider in this regard. There is also the dual synergistic feedback between organisms and their niche constructing behaviours that occur within generations coupled with the microbiological world of horizontal gene transfer - all occurring in tandem, where discreteness is the exception less the rule. Over time is a general enough gradient that is inclusive of the range of evolutionary phenomena that are not so discrete in the hierarchy of life and the population context (over successive generations) is explained in the 2nd paragraph "Thus, when members of a population die,..." I think "over time" is completely satisfactory and that is my perspective on the matter.Thompsma (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Thompsma, I thought the big difference between monozygotic twins was in gene copy number rather than differences in genes???? Anways to your points. I tend to agree (if you look back I offered the same "through time"}, but my concern is the average reader will be confused. Most basic Bio books emphasize populations evolve not individuals but you correctly state the contribution of individuals and populations of cells to evolution. My lord the role of epigenetic in the testes and the formation of sperm is bewildering. I really like the EvoDevo points because I think this area offers a lot. I think too much emphasis is on genes and mutations (when we have about the same number and synteny of genes as rodents)it is obviously the spatio-temporal expression of various genes that drives development to create man or mouse. However you don't want to overlook homeotic genes and things like Pax that serve in eye development in Cnidarians, arthropods, and chordates. I'm getting off topic. I agree "through time" is more inclusive but the text should clarify what is meant later on. Funny about the mitochondria-until recently all humans have had mitochondria from Mom but now due to one form of in vitro we now have people running around with male mitochondria-wonder what evolutionary implication this will have-no more mitochondria Eve hee,hee. GetAgrippa (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "successive generations" is clearer and very useful in clarifying the likely existing confusions of the average reader. I also think it is correct even on a more stringent reading. Insofar as it is reasonable to talk about evolution within an individual (eg at a different hierarchical level, such as somatic evolution of cells during cancer), then "generations" takes on a different meaning when applied to that other level, in this case meaning mitotic replication of the cells rather than meiotic replication of the whole organism. Evolution can ALWAYS be defined as across generations, so long as the generations and the evolving entities are paired with one another in a consistent way. Joannamasel (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Then, since we aren't yet going into that level if detail, it seems the phrase can be applied and will add clarity for the average reader. Sounds good to me. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay - I support the change. I was also thinking about the muddy waters when you get into the microbiological world as the evolution of acquired characters (e.g., horizontal gene transfer) kicks in within a generation to create a networked "coral" of life. Evolution also applies to culturally acquired traits, but I will accept in principle that generations can take "on a different meaning when applied to that other level."Thompsma (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead progress

Latest comment: 12 years ago88 comments10 people in discussion

I'm posting the lead that with citations below so that we can continue to work on it and address some of Kim's outlined concerns above. I've added a few changes (italics) in this direction also taking Joanna's suggestions into account.Thompsma (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added som prose changes, not meant to change any meaning. If they do please protest. I wanted to get rid of some of the repetitiveness and sequences of very short sentences.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Text so far

Evolution is any change over time in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. The evolutionary process gives rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]

The theory of evolution by natural selection was formulated by Charles Darwin, who was the first to recognise natural selection as an important cause of evolution. Natural selection is a consequence of three widely accepted premises: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[2] Thus, when members of a population die, they are replaced, over time, by generations of offspring that are not born from random parents. Instead, these new members are born from parents that are better adapted to the environment in which natural selection took place. This can cause the evolution of traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[3] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[4]

Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be traced through shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences. These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[5] The development of organisms is also a crucial component in evolution, as genes are expressed within the hierarchy of cells, organisms and species responding to and modifying their surrounding environments. In this context, evolutionary biologists have drawn greater attention to the roles of ecology and developmental biology in shaping patterns of biodiversity. [6]

In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. All other branches of biology were made compatible with the resulting synthesis while previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress", were made obsolete.[7] Since then, evolutionary biologists have continued to expand, refine and rigorously test questions and hypotheses pertaining to evolution. Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.[8][9]

I oppose adding the last 2 sentences to paragraph 3, for reasons that I have given earlier. The citation is not sufficient to support the inclusion of the material, as the source is animal-specific. If those 2 sentences are deleted, I support inserting the remaining text to replace the current lead. Joannamasel (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Joannamasel - are you saying that those last two sentences are animal-specific (i.e., missing prokaryotic organism), or are you saying that the citation is animal-specific? I would say that it is not animal-specific (nor plant-specific), but multicellularity that you are after. If it is a uni- vs. multi-cellular issue that you are after - I think it is fine to address multi-cellular developmental biology, which has given us great insight into the evolutionary process. Perhaps this can be balanced by adding a component that discusses horizontal transfer in bacterial evolution or symbiogenesis? The reason Thompsma entered these sentences was to address a concern that Kim had raised - "epigenetics and evo-devo are missing". I read your rebuttal "that do not feel that these topics are a "must" for the lead" and I concur. However, you also say you will agree if we can find something that fits and certainly there are authors and papers that have argued that evo-devo and eco-evolutionary dynamics "has only recently captured our attention"[7]. Perhaps:

Evolutionary biologists have recently focused more attention on the central yet complex role that ecology and developmental biology also has in shaping and regulating patterns of biodiversity in both the short and long-term. Organisms express a complex array of genes that may have epigenetic effects as individuals respond to and modify their surrounding environments."Claviclehorn (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I was saying that the citation is animal-specific. But the real point is that I don't feel that these topics are a must. If we add horizontal gene transfer and symbiogenesis, motivated by balancing things out, then we should add the effects of meiotic sex and recombination, to balance things out yet again. And so on and on. I would rather not go there, and just delete those two sentences. If we are only mentioning the phenomenon and stating its importance without having room to spell out exactly what it is that it has added to the understanding of evolution as a whole, then I don't think the lead is the right place for it, and I intend to oppose any such addition, whether evo-devo or anything else. Eg, to explain why epigenetic inheritance is important, for balance one should first explain why genetic inheritance was an important addition to Darwin in the first place, which takes us to the way in which Hardy-Weinberg solved the problems of blending inheritance, and onward to ever more material being added to the lead. Joannamasel (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree Joannamasel - but we need to convince Kim of this. Kim also wanted the fact of evolution sentence re-entered. Could we use the following: "Scientists continue to devise and execute carefully controlled laboratory experiments and have globally uncovered vast amounts fossil evidence that has yielded results that are empirically consistent with the theory and fact of evolution." - perhaps this would be a sufficient compromise?Thompsma (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Claviclehorn, I just modified the insertion by Cadiomals to the version in the original lead. I have no strong opinion on this issue. danielkueh (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kim noted above that the fact of evolution sentence should be re-entered and that the sentence should indicate that many scientists support this. I offered my sentence above, but it did not include the scientists support component. Hence I have created the following: "Scientists continually devise and execute carefully controlled laboratory and field experiments on evolution, paleontologists continue to uncover vast amounts fossil evidence across the globe and through the depths of time, and there is broad consensus that these studies have yielded results that are empirically consistent with the theory and fact of evolution."Thompsma (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Revised proposal: "Scientists continually devise, execute, and publish on carefully controlled laboratory and field experiments on evolution, paleontologists continue to uncover fossil evidence across the globe revealing change and connections through the depths of time, and there is broad consensus amongst biologists and the academies to which they belong that these studies are yielding results that are empirically consistent with the theory and fact of evolution." -> This could be integrated and/or used to replace the following sentence: "Since then, evolutionary biologists have continued to expand, refine and rigorously test questions and hypotheses pertaining to evolution."Claviclehorn (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The sentence is long, but it flows. Alternatively, it could be broken apart: "Scientists rigorously devise, execute, and publish on carefully controlled laboratory and field experiments on evolution. Paleontologists continually uncover fossil evidence across the globe that reveal evolutionary change and connections through the depths of time. There is broad consensus amongst biologists and the academies to which they belong that these studies are yielding results that are empirically consistent with the theory and fact of evolution."Claviclehorn (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (ec x I lost count) Personally, I get a little smile when reading "through the depths of time" - kinda reminds me of Soul Calibur's "...from the shades of history" in the intro, and I can't read that sentence without hearing that narrator's voice. Perhaps it's just me. If others agree though, perhaps we can come up with some sort of alternate wording? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Scientists rigorously devise, execute, and publish on carefully controlled laboratory and field experiments on evolution. Paleontologists continually uncover fossil evidence across the globe that reveal evolutionary change and connections through the depths of time. There is broad consensus amongst biologists and the academies to which they belong that these studies are yielding results that are empirically consistent with the theory and fact of evolution. We need to be brief. --Ettrig (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks good Ettrig! Support.Thompsma (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that this could be tacked onto the very end of the lead, but I would also suggest adding a couple extra words to make it flow a bit better (given in bold):

Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.[8][9] Many scientists execute carefully controlled experiments on evolution while some scientists Paleontologists continually uncover fossil evidence that reveal evolutionary change. Taken together, There is broad consensus amongst biologists that these studies are yielding yield results that are consistent with the theory and fact of evolution,. which has made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.[8][9] [10]

I also added a citation.Thompsma (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Much better, I can support this version. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
My two cent edits (in bold above). danielkueh (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence is already in the lead...I added it to show where the sentence could be added. Are you suggesting that we delete that sentence danielkueh??Thompsma (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
No, look carefully. I merely repositioned it to the end to minimize redundancies. danielkueh (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't like the word "continually", fossil discoveries are discrete not continuous events, however frequent. I don't like "while" either, the activities are synergistic not contrasting. The last sentence is now too long. Joannamasel (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you did. I like the paleontologist component instead of many v. some scientists. How about:

Many scientists continue to execute carefully controlled experiments on evolution. Paleontologists frequently uncover fossil evidence that reveal evolutionary change. Taken together, there is broad consensus amongst biologists that these studies yield results that are consistent with the theory and fact of evolution.[10] Evolutionary biology has made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.[8][9]Thompsma (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I like this version better. However, I don't like it that Paleontologists get special mention while the rest are grouped under "many scientists." I suggest substituting "paleontologist" with "others". danielkueh (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but removal of that won't work without an entire rewrite - read the next sentence "Taken together..." - which has no meaning without something to take together with "current research". Not saying I am against rewriting - just pointing out it's not simply a matter of removing paleontologists. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I like this wording, but perhaps it can be used as a template for some wording tweaks that wont require an entire rewrite...
  • Many scientists continue to execute carefully controlled experiments on evolution. Combined with frequently uncovered fossil evidence that reveal evolutionary change, there is broad consensus amongst biologists that these studies yield results that are consistent with the theory and fact of evolution.[10] Evolutionary biology has made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.[8][9]
As I said, it can probably stand improvement, but perhaps someone better at such who likes the idea can formulate something better. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Great job Robert! Support. danielkueh (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
As I see it, the main sources of evidence are, in no particular order, i) observational data on current taxa either in the field or through sequencing, ii) fossils interpreted in the light of current taxa, biogeographical and other data, and iii) "carefully controlled experiments" including both field and lab manipulations. If we single out any of them, we should include all three. Right now, i) is excluded altogether, but it is probably the largest of the 3 in terms of numbers of scientists and quantity of data. I oppose until this is fixed.Joannamasel (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
WOW! Glaring omission! Thanks for catching that Joanna! Probably easily fixed. I'll try to come up with something in a sec - if no one beats me to it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Wow indeed. :D danielkueh (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Good point Joannamasel and great work ROBERTMFROMLI. I like paleontologist in there, but get danielkueh's point about singling them out. How about:
I have an idea!!! Oh, who am I kidding? What Thompsma said above. ;-) I think that covers it pretty well. The only thing, and I didnt "catch" it till the third read, is that the "that are universally consistent with evolution" sentence tail seems missing something. Perhaps... "...the theory of..." or "the process(es) of..." or some other wording? I can't quite put my finger on it - it just seems... I dunno. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
That'd bring us this:
Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Your post ROBERTMFROMLI helps!! In fewer words:

Many scientists continue to execute controlled experiments on evolution. For example, paleontologist regularly uncover fossil evidence and geneticists routinely sequence DNA molecules. There is broad consensus amongst biologists that these studies yield results that are universally consistent and can only function according to the theory and fact of evolution.[10] Evolutionary biology has made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.[8][9]Thompsma (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Those proposals do not accurately distinguish between observational and experimental approaches. How abut the following alternative:
Joannamasel (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmm... I read that one a few times, and I think it follows lead structure closer than the previous. The previous is more... explanatory... but it does cause limitations by doing so (what it lacks by only a "for example"). This way, it becomes a summary of the topic and the fields that will be touched upon in the article, without also being a summary for those fields. That may make it even more suitable. It also prevents re-bloat from trying to be more thorough in over-summarizing sections of the main. :-) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
My concern with your proposal Joannamasel is that paleontology is not just observational science -- paleontologists regularly execute hypothetical-deductive tests on observational data (e.g., phylogenetic bracketing) in addition to employing the inductive.Thompsma (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
How about making it non-definitive (observational not defining Paleontology) thusly:
Better? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Why not just drop "such as p..." out of it, as we were discussing earlier so it doesn't single out a single field? That would give us this (and prevent the "and" above from needing to become an "and/or" for accuracy):
Thoughts? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
It sorta simplifies it, but I see a few problematic parts that were settled in earlier debates surrounding organisms. Hence:

04:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Even better, and removes unnecessary redundancy. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
An improvement. First sentence is a little short. I wonder if it could be integrated it into the next sentence. danielkueh (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I find "explained by" to be a bit woolly in meaning. How about:
Joannamasel (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I like it Joannamasel! Should we add: "and only make sense in the light of evolution..."?Thompsma (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I dislike Wikilinks at times. This is one. May I propose we Wikilink the entire "evolution as...t&f" section? My dislike is in the emphasis it sometimes seems to give to something. At least with the full wikilink, it's a wikilink of the article name. If others disagree, I can live with it, so consider this post an "I like!" either way. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter to me how it is wikilinked - it kinda makes more sense to bracket evolution as a theory and a fact.Thompsma (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: "It does not matter to me how it is wikilinked..." Can we do every other letter then? Like this? evolution as a theory and a fact?
OK, perhaps too much coffee today... guess that's just as bad as too little. In all seriousness though, I think it looks great and is finally ready sans suggestions from everyone else. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course I was implicitly referring to the two options, not the universe of wikilink possibilities.Thompsma (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
But it looked so pretty... and I was about to color each letter different colors too... ok... I think I can gain a reign on my sensibilities for a bit. I'll stop. :-) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I personally enjoyed the light-hearted break from the real discussion ;-) Joannamasel (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Should we put only in, or leave it out?Thompsma (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, yes. My comment above applied to that too. Though, it may bring no end of debate on the topic from those already leaning against evolution. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't recommend putting "only" as it would make the sentence look like a half plagiarized sentence of Dobzhansky's famous quote. Instead, I recommend that we substitute "make sense" with "provide insight." Otherwise, great job everyone! The new lead is looking really great! danielkueh (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

OK...here is the sentence:

There is consensus amongst biologists that results of such studies are consistent with and (make sense / provide insight?) in the light of evolution as a theory and a fact. Here is the problem:

"Make sense" makes the most grammatical sense, provide insight is a little clunky, but ok. Proposal:

  • There is consensus amongst biologists that the results, predictions, and execution of research to date is entirely consistent with evolution as a fact and new insights into the mechanics of life are consistently being generated in the light of evolutionary theory.

I realize that this expands it out again and I've added new words that others can help to trim. However, I think this extended revision highlights our problem. Theory and fact are so different and that we are trying to push the same kind of meaning into it is making this sentence difficult to conceptually organize.Thompsma (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, then let's just leave "make sense" in it. Or we can cross it out. I think it is good as is. danielkueh (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Switching things around might help to see the problem:

There is consensus amongst biologists that results of such studies make sense and are consistent with in the light of evolution as a theory and a fact.

I realize that I could move "in the light of" to follow make sense, but the structure is a little confusing when you stop to really think about it (or perhaps I am over thinking this!). The flow is a little off. What are key words we are after here? Do fact and theory have or make: consistency, prediction, explanatory power, sense, insight, logic...?Thompsma (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I really don't like the inclusion of Evolution as theory and fact for the very reasons that you brought up as theory and fact are two separate things. I prefer not to have them conflated. But if this statement has to be included, it needs to be explained. Here are my thoughts:
Since evolution can explain and be revealed in the results of field and laboratory research, biologists have come to a consensus that evolution is both a theory and a fact.
My two cents. danielkueh (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you danielkueh. I like where you are going with your proposal. I'll think about this a bit more after a break. In the meantime, this paper [8] is a good review of this topic.Thompsma (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the paper. Break for me as well. Have good weekend folks! danielkueh (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead progress (arbitrary break)

OK, does that bring us here then? I've made one strike-out to improve structure:

Great weekend to those of you taking some time away from your computers! Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A difficult sentence it seems! Too many words. All solutions will come in the direction of not adding words. How about: There is consensus amongst biologists that such studies show evolution as a theory and a fact.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as I am aware, there is no need for references in the introduction, because the lead is a summary of the rest of the article and everything in the introduction has been included in the rest of the article. I suggest removing all the references from the introduction. Snowman (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • That is correct, and part of the lead guidelines. Often, articles will have such cites to end the countless uncited tags that those not aware of such guidelines will dump in for content they may disagree with or think should be cited. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Ironically, the lead for WP:LEAD contains a citation. :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I would have thought that removing all the cite tags in the introduction, will enable editors to write in a more flowing style. The jargon needs removing too. Snowman (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is good to sometimes remind of these principles on this talk page, although if you look through the laborious discussions on this lead you'll see others agree, and no one really disagrees. Why is it difficult? Concerning references one reason the guideline is often flexed is because some articles have leads that suffer a lot from "drive by" editing and tagging from people who have opinions and think they see mistakes. This subject would in my opinion be a classic case of one where, if we do not at least put a few footnotes, we can expect this, and we have seen it in the past. Secondly, concerning jargon, efforts are being made and your help on this will surely be appreciated. The discussion tends to be cyclical: dealing with getting a technical point right, is followed by trying to remember to put it back into normal English. It is not always easy to do this without causing technical concerns, so it is a good idea to browse through the discussion cycles here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Snowman (or anyone else) - could you please direct us to a help page stating that lead's should not contain citations. The lead guidelines have specific rules on citations in the lead and they have been followed in this example. As far as the "jargon" - please see at the very top of the article where it states: "For a generally accessible and less technical introduction to the topic, see Introduction to evolution." Issues of "jargon" have been thoroughly debated in here and this lead has been constructed out of serious discussion and consensus building on this matter. This does not mean that improvements cannot be made, but at this point I think that a good compromise has been reached. This lead is nowhere near the level of jargon that existed in the previous version. A poll was taken and minus one objection (see above), this lead was supported.
Following up on Andrew Lancaster's suggested revision of the sentence under discussion. I don't think that the sentence say's what needs to be said - i.e., "...that such studies show evolution as a theory and a fact." What does show mean? There is a deeper philosophical and scientific issue at hand here. Many of us object to including this kind of statement - because fact and theory are very different things and they require an in depth description for the reader to really walk away and understand what is being said. Thinking this through as such, I'd like to offer the following:
  • "Evolution is both a theory and a fact in the proper scientific meaning of those terms. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science that builds on the theory of evolution to make sense of results from field and laboratory studies on genes, fossils, and the developmental biology of modern and extinct organisms."Thompsma (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thompsma, I think that polls and things apart, as a stylistic thing avoiding jargon and avoiding too many footnotes in the lead are ALWAYS good. Coming to your point of substance, I'll be devil's advocate: why does the lead of this article need to get into a very debateable point about the philosophy of the words fact and theory? Is that what leads are for? I certainly don't want to say my proposal is the right answer. If anything though, I would make it still shorter and still simpler. It is a very old piece of advice to anyone writing anything not to try to do too much in one sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thompsma: That makes perfect sense to me, and resolves a lot of issues. But I wonder (for those not very familiar with the topic) if it will just cause confusion? I'm in a bad position to judge that though, since I'm not confused by it. Thoughts? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I actually disagree that avoiding jargon is ALWAYS good, but would agree on the emphasis of "too many" or "too much". We have ten strategic footnotes I think, the previous version had many more and most of them had no clear link to the sentence that preceded them, so we have made improvements in this context. This is a scientific topic, jargon cannot be avoided and it is an effective necessity. Jargon is often used with a negative connotation, but the lines of distinction between jargon and colloquial are not set in stone. Most of the terms used in the lead are precisely the kinds of words Darwin used in "The Origin", which became so popular precisely because everyone could read and understand it. However, in today's culture of sound bites that book might be considered too jargony. It is a battle to find harmony and I think we have struck a good balance in this respect. Like danielkueh - I think the fact and theory of evolution statement does not belong in the lead. First, it requires an essay to really explain what this means, which is why this part is being debated so hotly. It is not something that can be short and simple, that kinda goes against the very being of fact and theory. Facts are short, perhaps not so simple, theories are rarely short and are certainly not simple. I think the debatable point about fact and theory and their interpretation (i.e., "in the proper scientific meaning of those terms") is perhaps the best way to move forward on this. If you read the papers that discuss this issue (e.g., Gould or the Gregory paper I linked above), the issue is on those opposed to evolution stating "oh, it is just a theory" - referring to the colloquial meaning of theory as just an idea that popped into my head. The common thread in the discussion papers on this topic is that fact and theory means something quite different in science and so I think pointing this out actually sums up the issue in as few words (short and simple).Thompsma (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Let's just leave it (fact and theory) out. There is really nothing to be gain by putting it in there. If anything, it adds more confusion if it is not explained carefully. Plus, to devote a large amount of space in the lead just to explain it would be an overemphasis WP:undue. danielkueh (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I also agree. Let the fact and theory of evolution stand firm on its own without resorting to a brutish style of stating that this is so and should be accepted as such. Tomes have been written on the philosophy of science - what fact and theory means. Unless we have a Gould in our midst (and I imagine he would have a tough go of it), I hardly doubt we can explain why evolution is fact and theory in a single sentence. Fact would require one sentence, theory another, and a third would be needed to explain why and how they properly relate to evolution - at best!! However, I think Kim van der Linde was quite firm in her position that this was necessary. Should we take a poll?Claviclehorn (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I am also of the opinion that the current lead has cut back on a lot of the jargon - so I think it has been much improved. Now for the body of the article - it needs an over haul. Question about the citation formatting - is it consistent? Should we be using MLA or APA? What format is that standard template (e.g., {{cite journal...}}) anyway? We should fix the citation format in the lead to adhere to the same style throughout the article. Many of the citations in the article are chaotic.Claviclehorn (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Since this is a science article, I believe the APA format, or something similar should be used. I am afraid WP:citing sources is not much help. danielkueh (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
If we do go ahead with inserting this, I like Thompsma's suggestion - but would modify:
  • "Evolution is both a theory and a fact in the proper scientific meaning of those terms. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science. This fact builds on the theory of evolution that explains countless results from field and laboratory studies in genetics, paleontology, ecology, and the developmental biology of modern and extinct organisms."
This is longer than what most people would probably like. Otherwise, I would vote to leave it out.Claviclehorn (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
That is a more acceptable form. But like you, I vote to leave it out. danielkueh (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice job Claviclehorn! That could go straight into the body of the article.Thompsma (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I support Andrew Lancaster's proposed lead wording near the start of this section, slightly tweaked as follows: Scientists continue to study evolution using both observational data and experiments in both the field and the laboratory. There is consensus amongst biologists that such studies show evolution as a theory and a fact[10] Evolutionary biology has made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.[8][9] Short, to the point, leaving all the difficult issues to be dealt with via the link, the lead to this article is not the place to deal with them. I think the statement and link is a good idea because I think it addresses major questions held by many typical readers of the lead. I do not support the more recent alternative proposals, they attempt to deal with those issues and unsurprisingly, given space constraints and the difficulty of the material, fall short. For example, what is a "proper" scientific meaning? Joannamasel (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
How does a study show evolution as a theory?
  • "That evolution is a theory in the proper scientific sense means that there is both a fact of evolution to be explained and a well-supported mechanistic framework to account for it. To claim that evolution is “just a theory” is to reveal both a profound ignorance of modern biological knowledge and a deep misunderstanding of the basic nature of science."[9]: 50 Thompsma (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Joannamasel - but I am of the opinion that the latest proposal you have offered falls short, whereas the recent proposals offer a more comprehensive and complete description of evolution as fact and theory that is consistent with the literature. "In the proper scientific meaning of those terms" means that there is an alternative colloquial meaning that gets it wrong. Gregory refers to the the proper scientific sense of those terms, Gould refers to the vernacular meaning:
"The basic attack of the creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their complaints against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice...In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess."[10]
The alternative can be reduced:
  • "Evolution is both a theory and a fact in the proper scientific meaning of those terms. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science. This fact builds on the theory of evolution that explains countless results from field and laboratory studies."Thompsma (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
or:
  • "Evolution is both a theory and a fact in the non-vernacular scientific meaning of those terms. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science. This fact builds on the theory of evolution that explains countless results from field and laboratory studies."Thompsma (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
A "proper" scientific theory may work in the complete context of your citation, but in this briefer context, it begs the comparison with what an "improper scientific theory" would be. Your second option could perhaps work, but it would need be the "non-vernacular philosophical meaning" not the scientific one, since it refers to a meta-theory about science from the philosophy of science. And it would need a citation to a clear and broadly accepted philosophical definition of scientific theory. That said, there isn't that much consensus within the philosophy of science.
You asked "How does a study show evolution as a theory?" If no such studies existed, that would imply that evolutionary theory is not making testable scientific predictions, and would therefore be on dubious grounds not as a theory in general, but as a scientific theory. This is related to Popper's original (recanted) objection to evolution as a science. So yes, studies are needed to show evolution as a theory, and there is nothing wrong with that statement. Joannamasel (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Joannamasel for your well informed reply. I understand where you are going with your "theory": If evolutionary theory makes testable scientific predictions (or falsifiable hypotheses), then studies show evolution as a theory because the formulation of such studies are themselves constructed on a coherent explanation of the facts. However, the statement implicitly creates a bit of circular logic with theory on par with demonstration or proof, i.e. studies show evolution as a theory. How? Well they make testable scientific predictions and testability is key criterion of scientific theory (Popper, 1968, p. 48[11]). My concern is that studies make testable predictions because they rest upon a coherent explanation of the facts, but do they show evolution as a theory? I'm not entirely convinced that consensus amongst biologists was reached because such studies "show" evolution as theory inasmuch as the studies "work" according to evolutionary theory. It provides a slightly misleading interpretation of theory as something that is shown rather than constructed. I'm not entirely opposed to the proposal, but I think it is important to consider the way that this will be read and interpreted, since this is a particularly troublesome semantic issue "evolution is just a theory".Thompsma (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: can the latest proposals be laid out in a table again for comparison?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Before we get into the nitty gritty details, can we at least come to a general consensus as to whether we need this material in the lead? danielkueh (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
A logical suggestion, except at least in my cases I am not sure I have a clear vision of what options are being discussed, even concerning "this material". What would be removed or what would be included? The range of options is perhaps large.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The material in question is evolution as fact and theory. Do we need this in the lead? I could be convinced either way. The philosophical science of evolution is important enough that I could be easily convinced that it needs to be in the lead. How and if that can be effectively structured around the fact and theory wikilink is what is being debated.Thompsma (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Following on Andrew Lancaster's suggestion I am putting the text on table display below. I simply call it version 1-3, if claviclehorn or Joannamasel want to put names, please feel free to do so. Version 3 includes the full paragraph to see the sentence(s) (italics) in context.Thompsma (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Version1 Version2 Version3
"Evolution is both a theory and a fact in the proper scientific meaning of those terms. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science. This fact builds on the theory of evolution that explains countless results from field and laboratory studies." "Evolution is both a theory and a fact in the scientific (as opposed to a metaphysical or vernacular) meaning of those terms. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science. This fact builds on the theory of evolution that explains countless results from field and laboratory studies." Scientists continue to study evolution using both observational data and experiments in both the field and the laboratory. There is consensus amongst biologists that such studies show evolution as a theory and a fact[10] Evolutionary biology has made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.[8][9]

I agree with Thompsma's persistence on this serious matter: "At a time when evolutionary biology, and science in general, is under attack from advocates of creationism and intelligent design, with the caveat that theirs is a ‘scientific research program’(Dembski 1999: 13; Ross 2006; Wells 2006), it is incumbent upon evolutionary biologists to carefully and correctly outline the nature of scientific investigation."[12] The quoted paper provides some excellent insight on this matter. This quote, taken from Bock (2007) in the linked paper above is also relevant: "Facts, as used in science, are quite different from theories and the two are best kept strictly separated." This seems to be a point that Thompsma and Danielkueh have considered above. Moreover, the paper also states: "'Evolution' cannot be both a theory and a fact (Cohen & Nagel 1937; Nagel 1961; Hempel 1965; Harré 1970; Fetzer & Almeder 1993). Regardless of one’s certainty as to the utility of a theory to provide understanding, it would be epistemically incorrect to assert any theory as also being a fact, given that theories are not objects to be discerned by their state of being. But, is there a proper context in which we might speak of evolution as a fact? One might argue that it is conceivable to speak of ‘evolution’ as a fact by way of it being the subject of reference in explanatory hypotheses." This seems to parallel some of the concerns that Thompsma has outlined above. In this context I am opposed to inserting this text. It seems to controversial and complex of an issue to outline in the lead of this article.Claviclehorn (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The last paragraph in the paper above (Fitzhugh, 2007) is particularly notable and so I quote it here at the risk of putting too much information, but it gives fair warning to this issue at hand that Thompsma argued previously in arguments against the fact and theory of evolution statements that were being suggested:
  • "An emphasis on associating ‘evolution’ with ‘fact’ presents the misguided connotation that science seeks certainty. Acknowledging that the statement, ‘evolution is a fact’, is an incorrect assertion has the benefit of focusing our attention back on the goal of science, which is to continually acquire causal understanding through the critical evaluation of our theories and hypotheses. Certainty provides no basis for elevating any evolutionary theory or hypothesis to the level of fact. The characterization and practice of science should be burdened as little as possible with catch phrases that promote misunderstanding."[13]Claviclehorn (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Would it not be easier to just reduce to one more basic sentence? Something like this one I pulled out from the versions above: "Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science." It think that is the point? I think all the rest, no matter how important, how able-to-be-sourced, is not clear and not on topic. In order to explain what it meant would require a whole other article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Claviclehorn for providing that article link! I had not come across that paper and it was an excellent read. It sums up quite nicely what I have been after - except that I went along with the notion that evolution is both a fact and a theory, but qualifying exactly what is meant by those terms. In my mind - descent with modification is the fact as Andrew Lancaster has indicated in his post and I would be fine with this. I kept on having trouble with the theory part, because evolution is actually a bunch of interrelated theories - theory of natural selection, theory of neutrality, and many others. Those could all be lumped into a class of theories that are consistent with descent with modification, which is what I was aiming for in the third sentence: "This fact builds on the theory of evolution that explains countless results from field and laboratory studies." I support the sentence that Andrew Lancaster has proposed. The fact and theory component is too complex and controversial for this lead. Information from Fitzhugh (2007) should be incorporated into evolution as fact and theory. I am curious to know what Joanna thinks about this paper? She seems quite well informed about the philosophy of science, evolution, and Popperian ideals in this context.Thompsma (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 1 November 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please add a "[Citation needed]" to the sentence "Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago." Rich search for truth (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No need - the information is cited at the end of the paragraph (page 43, if you're interested).   Not done Yunshui 雲水 23:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead fact

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Are we in agreement that the following sentence (italics) can be added to the lead:

Scientists continue to study evolution using both observational data and experiments in both the field and the laboratory. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science.[10] Evolutionary biology has made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.[8][9]

  • SupportThompsma (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • SupportJoannamasel (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I will go ahead and make the change - based on the discussions above, I doubt there will be any dissent.Claviclehorn (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving into the meat of the article

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Now that the lead has been revised and reads more like an introduction to evolution, I would like to move into the meat of the article. There is a gargantuan barrier that I see before the actual evolutionary science stuff gets tackled and this is the history section. This is where I first started poking into this hornets nest and the end result isn't exactly what I was after. The content has improved in terms of its reliability status, but the length is still a problem. Previous attempts to reduce the length resulted in a mess - sentences and information were truncated in a way that the original meaning was lost. Hence, before we do anything rash - I suggest that we put out a call to the editors in the history of evolutionary thought article to team up and pull some of the material in here to that main article; I'll actually go and post a notice over there to see if I can round up some troops. Some of the information contained in here is not found in the history article. It would be nice to get the history section in this article down to two or three succinct paragraphs linking into the main article for additional information.Thompsma (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Just my two cents but I think this section should be "allowed" to be reasonably long. This article is unavoidably a long one which needs to rely on other articles for details, and for that reason it should focus on what biologists "basically mean" by evolution. In order to explain the answer to this, you need to explain the history. The history is of course not only the history section as such, because it includes the recent history such as new concepts like selfish genes and co-evolution and all that. That's I how think the article is, and how it needs to continue to be? Obviously, in that case, we can not say much about each such key concept, but at least if we can get in a link, people can go to the more specialized article. Anything else, such as long sections on how genetics works, are less important for this particular article.
  • For my second "cent" I will point out that in practice, every call to shorten the history section leads to initial progress and then a whole bunch of people getting worried that their favorite thing is not there. (The same thing happened now with the lead, which has not ended up very short.) It is in other words not that compression is impossible, but that we need to consider what can be "stable" on Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Andrew, though if it were up to me I would trim down the coverage of Aristotle, de Vries, and possibly Weismann a little. However, whatever you do please don't add any material to history of evolutionary thought that duplicates material already there, or material that was moved out of that article into child articles like the eclipse of Darwinism or evolutionary ideas of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, which has always been the result of past efforts, and there have been a few, to do what you are proposing. Rusty Cashman (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I basically agree with Andrew and Rusty. The current section doesn't just inform about history, it also addresses common contemporary misconceptions that may be held by many naive readers. Joannamasel (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this article is going to be necessarily long, but much of the material can be seriously condensed if a phylogenetic (or "tree-thinking") approach is introduced shortly after the history of evolution section. This will provide a logical structural framework to attach and shorten some of the ideas to follow. I agree with Rusty that we should not duplicate information in the other articles - which is why I am seeking to round up assistance from others in this respect. I'm not sure what Andrew Lancaster is saying with respect to the current lead not being very short - it is much shorter than the previous version and is now an acceptable size conforming to WP lead guidelines.Thompsma (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree it got a little bit shorter and this is good. I think you misunderstand me a bit about a few things. I do not know if the article or the lead need to be as long as they are, only that to make them shorter requires taking wiki-psychology into account - and I suggest that the discussion of the history of the theory will be one of the hardest bits to compress because it is inevitably part of any explanation of the core concept itself - evolution.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverse Paragraphs 2 and 3 in the Lede?

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Sorry to return to the lede, but reversing the current paragraphs 2 and 3 would be an improvement. It would flow, paragraph-by-paragraph as: Para 1 = Evolution is organisms changing over time, Para 2 = Evolution on earth occurred over billions of years etc., Para 3 = Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution by natural selection etc., Para 4 = Darwin's theory led to biology now being like this etc. This order puts the science-history paragraphs together, and makes paragraphs 2-4 run chronologically. No change to the carefully-edited text, just putting it into a better order. I'll let the long-time editors decide. CouldOughta (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems reasonable and I also noticed that trait is not Wikilinked. Anyone else have perspective on this?Thompsma (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I had the same thought. --Ettrig (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Slight problem is that para 3 is not really about evolution at all. I am still a "minimalist" proponent of removing such things from the lead. But if we are going to keep it, then I see no enormous problem moving it - it will just makes its questionable relevance a bit more clear (which may distract some readers).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear Andrew Lancaster that you are stating that the theory of evolution by means of natural selection as formulated by Charles Darwin is "not really about evolution at all"? That is the topic sentence of the third paragraph and so I want to make certain that I understand your assertion. If I understand you correctly, then I have to say that I disagree that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection (the subject of paragraph 3) is not about evolution. I think you will have a tough go with that argument.Thompsma (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Ooops...I see that paragraph 3 has already been switched and thus the confusion. I apologise Andrew Lancaster. However, I disagree that the other paragraph isn't about evolution. The fuzzy boundary transitioning from inorganic to organic origins can certainly be encompassed under evolutionary theory. It's like saying the big bang has nothing to do with the origins of the universe. We learned about the big bang by looking at what is going on now and extrapolation. The same can be applied to the origins of life (simplifying my argument for brevity, but rna world comes to mind), plus the topic sentence also includes "originated and then evolved".Thompsma (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd say it is more like the relationship between the big bang and the formation of the solar system?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I would agree Andrew Lancaster - except there is information contained within our solar system that leads us back to understand and link it to the big bang. It has been stated, however, that scientists in a future of this universe using the same deductive logic will not be able to explain the big bang, because the universe will have expanded beyond the point where other galaxies can be sighted. In many ways, the big bang and the creation of the full-spectrum of elements and the admixture of these into the physical laws of this universe are tied to the inevitable origins and evolution of life. (see: 50:50 here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3jRZnD7TqI)Thompsma (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
So I wonder if our solar system article has a paragraph about the big bang in the lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not mentioned in the solar system article at all, but this is not surprising because we are talking about an analogy and not a very good one at that. Obviously the origins of life and evolution have bearing on each other as Darwin himself noted: "No doubt it is possible, as Mr. G. H. Lewes has urged, that at the first commencement of life many different forms were evolved; but if so, we may conclude that only a few have left modified descendants." (5th edition of Origin, page 573). Obviously, evolutionary biologists are interested in the biochemistry of life and look to things such as autocatalytic protein nets in prebiotic evolution and what sort of inorganic vesicles (e.g., volcanic pumice[14]) would be required for a prebiotic evolutionary niche. If you want to understand the origins of life, you need to understand how things evolve (Origin of species, Origin of life), their biochemistry, and the inorganic chemistry of the planet. Authors in the journal Evolution have commented on this important relationship (e.g., [15]) - so I'm not alone in seeing the relationship between evolution and the origins of life - it isn't as far fetched a relationship as you are suggesting in your analogy. These are just discussion points, because the paragraph is about evolution and not the origins of life anyway.Thompsma (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Made compatible??

Latest comment: 12 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion

Should this sentence:

  • "All other branches of biology were made compatible with the resulting synthesis while previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress", were made obsolete."

Be reconciled or even consilience? It sounds odd to think of scientists making theory compatible with their ideas (is this confusing corroboration in Popperian sense - hypotheses that have withstood testing and have yet to be falsified are not been verified but corroborated???). I don't think made compatible is the correct wording - it goes against the grain of falsification.

  • "The synthesis brought about a consilience among previously fractured branches of biology, which made some evolutionary theories obsolete, such as orthogenesis and "progress"."Thompsma (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I prefer "integrated." danielkueh (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Integrated is a synonym of synthesis, consilience is not, but it is related. Gould defined described it like so: "I use consilience (See Gould, 1986) for Darwin's principal tactic of bringing so many different points of evidence to bear on a single subject, that history wins assent as an explanation by overwhelming configuration and unique coordination."[16] What about:
  • "By adding a new theory of heredity with Darwinism, the modern synthesis forged a consilience to previously fractured branches of biology, which made some evolutionary theories obsolete, such as orthogenesis and "progress"."Thompsma (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The alternatives you are proposing change the meaning and do not represent the cited source. Here is the wording of the original citation, following a clear statement that the only part of the so-called synthesis that was really a "synthesis" at all was mathematical pop gen combining Mendel and Darwin. "...the rest of the "evolutionary synthesis" was mostly exercises in removing barriers, consistency arguments (these two are closely related) and forging a consensus. A lot of what mathematicians call "hand waving" was also involved" So how about changing "made compatible" to "made consistent", so that it more closely follows the wording of the cited source? Joannamasel (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem with "made" is it reads like it has been contrived or molded to fit the theory. This is not what Provine is saying and scientists are not in the practice of contriving theory toward consistency, compatibility or otherwise. While Provine did not use the word consilience, it is an apt descriptor of what he is describing. If you don't like that term - something other than made is needed. The Provine reference is cited improperly BTW - it is a book chapter; unfortunately, I don't have access to it. However, I have a copy of Provine's book on Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology and in it he talks about Dobzhansky bringing Wright into evolutionary literature in the way that Simpson brought Wright's ideas to paleontologists. He talks about the modern synthesis as the quantitative synthesis of heredity. This is both consilience in the true sense of science coming together and the science of heredity being the key ingredient.Thompsma (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Consistent with Provine (as I interpret it), we could say:
  • "By adding a new quantitative theory of heredity with Darwinian selection, the modern synthesis forged a consilience to previously fractured branches of biology, which made some evolutionary theories obsolete, such as orthogenesis and "progress"."Thompsma (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
According to the Provine reference, the synthesis did not simply make some theories obsolete, it "drove from evolutionary biology all the purposive theories of evolution that had been so common and popular before 1930". In other words, an active purging, or in Provine's words a "constriction" was involved. Your alternative proposal does not represent either the wording or the meaning of the citation, which you admit that you do not have access to and so have not read. In any case, I would take a lot of persuading to put a word as little-understood as "consilience" into a lede that is supposed to be accessible, the bar of necessity would be pretty high. "Made consistent" is both plain English and closely follows the citation. Joannamasel (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Made consistent is not correct - biologists did not make their theories consistent or compatible with heredity and selection, that is not how science works. Their theories were corrobrated by heredity and selection, but in no way contrived (made) to fit with heredity and selection. It was a colleague of mine (an evolutionary biologist) that recently pointed this out to me, which is why I have raised the issue. I have not read the citation - but as I said - I have access to some of Provine's other published work, I have read it, and it is highly unlikely that Provine fundamentally changed his mind between 1986-1988 on this matter. You are right about the poor structure in the 2nd part to the sentence: "make some theories obsolete", but that is not the point we are discussing. There is nothing wrong with using consilience (no more than orthogenesis), but as I said - an alternative would be fine, I just think it is a highly apt term (poorly described in Wikipedia, but very common in literature) for what is being said. Hence,
  • "By adding a new quantitative theory of heredity with Darwinian selection, the modern synthesis forged a consilience to previously fractured branches of biology and purposive theories, such as orthogenesis and "progress", became obsolete.
There is also something wrong with the Wikilinks in this sentence (more of the feedback I received, and I agree):
  • "In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection."
This is making a false comparison between classical genetics morphing into population genetics, which is not historically accurate.Thompsma (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
How about "became consistent?" It doesn't mean they were "made to be consistent." They just became consistent. danielkueh (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
If you use integrated the sentence can be made shorter, neater, and easier to read. I also think it is not wrong to say that theories are integrated with each other after major discoveries.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Except the major point made in the cited article is that the various fields of biology DID NOT become integrated, after the initial integration of Mendelian inheritance with selection. What happened is that by dropping certain ideas, they became compatible. We need to follow the source. Joannamasel (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I obtained the referenced source in our library and have read it. It was compatible with the views that Provine expressed in 1986 - no surprise - and it is compatible with my proposed text. Integrated is not the right term either - for reasons that Joanna stated and also because an integrated-synthesis is as meaningless as a synthesized-synthesis. There are two components to this. New theories could be made compatible - this makes sense as they could subsequently be tested, but existing theories were either falsified or corroborated via their hypotheses in the Popperian sense of that word (see below). The following sentence is illogical: "What happened is that by dropping certain ideas, they became compatible." Theories (i.e., certain ideas) that are dropped could not become compatible - they were falsified. Existing theories did not also become compatible, they were tested in light of the synthesis bringing Darwinian selection and quantitative laws of heredity into evolutionary theory. On corroboration:
"Hypotheses, according to Popper, should stand up to the most severe tests. In the cases where hypotheses were not falsified under those circumstances, Popper introduced the term Grad der Bewährung initially translated by Carnap [Rudolph Carnap 1891–1970 German logical positivist] as ‘‘degree of confirmation,’’ Popper rejected this wording and in its place used ‘‘degree of corroboration’’ (Popper, 2002, p. 248)...The degree to which a hypothesis stands up to severe tests, the appraisal of the worth of the hypothesis, is its degree of corroboration."[17]: 272 Thompsma (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thompsma, that is why I recommend that we phrase it as follows:
"All other branches of biology became compatible with the resulting synthesis while previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress", were made obsolete"
That way, we are simply stating that each branch as a whole that became compatible with the synthesis and not the specific falsified theories, laws, or principles within each branch. danielkueh (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct the contentious point with my proposal is the word consilience, which is unfortunate - because it is the perfect term for this. danielkueh's proposal isn't too bad, but it does not address the problem with the first sentence. In an attempt to drop the consilience term and to remain consistent with Provine's description of the modern synthesis I offer the following to replace the first two sentences in the fourth paragraph (the first uses consilience):

  • "In the early 20th century, an evolutionary synthesis coupled a newly quantitative theory of Mendelian heredity to Darwinian selection and forged a consilience of knowledge from previously fractured branches of biology. Purposive theories, such as orthogenesis and "progress", became obsolete."
  • "In the early 20th century, an evolutionary synthesis coupled a newly quantitative theory of Mendelian heredity to Darwinian selection and offered a new approach for testing evolutionary theory. This new way of investigating evolution served to unite previously fractured branches of biology and purposive theories, such as orthogenesis and "progress", became obsolete."Thompsma (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Reading danielkueh's proposal over again. Provine refers to unification and "consistency arguments" (which is induction by consilience), not compatibility. I don't know if I believe that "All other branches of biology became compatible with the resulting synthesis" - I find it easier to believe that "Other branches of biology became unified by the resulting synthesis." Are you referring to the branches of biology or the theories within them? Did this happen to all other branches of biology? Evolutionary medicine is still in its infancy and was hardly impacted at the time of the modern synthesis.Thompsma (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I am fine with "became compatible/united/consistent." My preference is for the least amount of change as possible not because I am against the word, "consilience" per se but because I prefer the minimum amount of change needed to get consensus. danielkueh (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I oppose the proposed wording change. Nothing in the Provine article talks about testing of evolutionary theories. Consistency arguments are of the philosophy sort: internal consistency of existing parts of biology with each other, rather than with new data. I am happy to change "were made compatible" in the current text to "became consistent", which there seems to be consensus for so far, and also to change "All other branches of biology" to "other existing branches of biology" so as to exclude those that hadn't been born yet, but not to make further changes beyond that. Provine is very explicit that the various branches of biology did NOT become unified during the so-called synthesis, which was primarily a constriction not a synthesis. This is Provine's main point. Joannamasel (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
This is my understanding of Joanna/Daniel's proposal:
  • "In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Other existing branches of biology became consistent with the resulting synthesis while previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress", were made obsolete"
The first sentence still needs to fix the false historical transition from classical to population genetics-I mentioned this earlier. In light of what Provine said, the second sentence does not capture the components of "theoretical predictions and field experiments" (Provine's words). My earlier point about evolutionary medicine - was that medicine was around at the time of the synthesis. It is a branch of biology and it did not become consistent with the synthesis (not to mention the international scope that Provine discuses). The same can be said of many other branches of biology at the time. Provine talks specifics - e.g., genetics, paleontology, and developmental biology and he also says that the synthesis was more than consistency - so this text does not match Provine's description of the specific details. It presents a misguided suggestion that branches of biology could become consistent (in the meaning Joanna gives: "internal consistency of existing parts of biology with each other") - rather than the corroboration of facts and theories within them. How can a discipline become consistent in the manner suggested? It is odd phrasing. Provine (1998) states in the preface : "the disagreements were almost suddenly cleared away and a seemingly new theory of evolution was synthesized from the valid components of the previously feuding theories." I emphasized theories, because you can have consistent theory, but I don't see how you could have consistent branches of biology. The following is longer, but perhaps others can help to trim:
  • "From 1920 through 1950 a consensus was reached among biologists on the mechanism of evolution. This development is an important footnote in the history of biology known as the modern synthesis. Newly quantitative theories of Mendelian heredity offered a new approach for testing and theorizing about Darwinian selection in other disciplines. These and other developments served to unite previously fractured branches of biology as purposive theories, such as orthogenesis and "progress", became obsolete."Thompsma (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Provine (1998: 399 ) states: "One certain conclusion emerged from the conference. All participants, whether scientists or historians, young or old, agreed that a consensus concerning the mechanism of evolution appeared among biologists during the 1920-1950 period." His point wasn't that there wasn't a unification per say, but "Mendelism and Darwinism were synthesized only with considerable difficulty."Thompsma (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there consensus that "became compatible" is better than "made compatible?" if so, then let's go ahead and change that. As for the other details, I think they are overkill for the lead. Perhaps they could be discussed in the main text or in daughter articles. Also, to address your concern about population and classical genetics, I suggest that we change the wikilink of genetics to point to just genetics. danielkueh (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not support it. Provine does not say this and to the best of my knowledge it is not what happened.Thompsma (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want the text to say that biologists reached consensus, you had better spell out what that consensus was. According to the Provine citation, such consensus as existed was extremely limited. It consisted of a list of things that were definitely important (selection), a list of things whose existence was acknowledged by all but whose importance was disputed (eg drift and inbreeding), and the remainder that was excluded altogether (orthogenesis etc.). Also, I have no idea why you want to get rid of the link to classical genetics, please explain. "Genetics" means a lot of things today that simply did not exist back then. Classical genetics is the term for those parts of genetics that did exist then, which went beyond Mendel but did not include molecular genetics. Classical genetics is the historically precise term.
If you want to stress what biologists did agree on, what about the following: "In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. Other existing branches of biology accepted the importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution and became consistent with the resulting synthesis, while previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress", were made obsolete." Joannamasel (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
"They believed that the evolutionary synthesis was a function or product of advances within the fields of genetics and that these advances were then applied to other fields like systematics, paleontology, embryology, cytology, and morphology...Surprisingly, only Waddington and Mayr from fields other than genetics challenged this dominant view." (Provine, 1998, p. 402) History seems to repeat itself. This view has since been challenged by more than Waddington and Mayr. However, your proposal fixes the problems I've outlined. In the body of the text, I think it would be important to address the concerns that Waddington, Mayr, and others (e.g., [18]) have with this perspective on history. Removing the consistency among disciplines - whether became or made, fixes things. Thanks. It can be made a little shorter:
"Other existing branches of biology accepted the importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution. Previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress", were made obsolete."Thompsma (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Theory in lead

Latest comment: 12 years ago21 comments3 people in discussion

Can we add theory in here?:

  • "Scientists continue to study evolution using both observational data and experiments in both the field and the laboratory."

Not just observation & experiments - theory as well:

  • "Scientists continue to study evolution by gathering observational data, theorizing, and executing experiments in both the field and the laboratory.Thompsma (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
"Theorizing" should not go in the middle, or else grammatically "both the field and the laboratory" applies to it to. If people want to put it in, how about: "Scientists continue to study evolution by using both observational data and experiments in both the field and the laboratory, and by constructing theories." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joannamasel (talk • contribs) 03:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Evolutionist theorize in the field (e.g., field notes) and in the lab (e.g., computer simulation) as I understand it. Hence, I don't see what is grammatically wrong with my version.Thompsma (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The sentence is getting over-loaded under this proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Yet theory is crucial.Thompsma (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Building on Joanna's proposal, how about:
  • "Scientists continue to study evolutionary theories by framing hypotheses that predict and test observational and experimental data in both the field and the laboratory."
I suspect Joanna will have a problem with the "testing" component - because if I understand correctly from past posts, she holds an unconventional view that evolutionary science doesn't involve testing, "mostly observation". It is not a view that is shared widely (e.g., [19], [20], [21]).Thompsma (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
My earlier complaints were never about "testing" but about "experiments". The two are not the same.
I object to this proposal on grammatical grounds. You can't have a subject of "hypotheses" doing the verb of "testing". Also, in the context of the proposed text (not as a general position statement), I don't see the distinction between "theories" and "hypotheses". If the distinction isn't made clear in the text, there is no reason to use both, and we are back with the original text. Joannamasel (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the grammatical error. Does this fix the problem:
  • "Scientists continue to study evolutionary theories by framing hypotheses for predicting and testing observational and experimental data in both the field and the laboratory."
One understanding I have of theory to hypothesis is the general to specific.Thompsma (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The grammar is still a problem. Now you are "testing...data". Even with that fixed, I oppose the change. I see no point in revising the text to include theory unless this includes formulating theories and calculating their consequences, a highly mathematical business in evolutionary biology. If all the text mentions is testing theories, it might as well stick to testing hypotheses. The proposed text, like the existing text, continues to identify only empirical work as the scientific study of evolution. To me, the point of including theory is to include the works not only of Haldane, Fisher, and Wright, but continuing on to Hamilton, Barton etc. in contemporary times as an important and influential strand of scientific evolutionary work. Joannamasel (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be illogical to study evolution without theory and this should be reason enough for its inclusion. From your feedback:

  • "Scientists continue to study evolutionary theories by formulating hypotheses for testing observations and making predictions while gathering experimental data in both the field and the laboratory."Thompsma (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Question for Joannamasel about test vs. experiment. My understanding is that the experiment is the formal or realized test of the hypothesis. Wikipedia test brings you to a disambiguation page listing experiment as one of the options. You have stated that test is not experiment. Perhaps you could elaborate or provide a reference that could help to sort this out?Thompsma (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
"Experiment" usually implies that data is gathered under controlled conditions. In other words, the scientist does not merely observe outcomes, but manipulates the conditions that give rise to them. Observational data means that the conditions could not be controlled. Both sorts of data are used to test hypotheses.Joannamasel (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
This is how I understand things as well, except I don't believe that the scientist needs to be the one manipulating the conditions. This is also what Robert MacArthur stated as per our discussion in evolution as fact and theory: "Actually an experiment is only observation motivated by curiosity...the population biologist can find his experiment already performed for him somewhere."[22] This has bearing on the way that other evolutionists have viewed the science and Darwin's work as experimental in nature. Are there any concerns regarding my latest proposal for inclusion of theory into the lead? "Scientists continue to study evolutionary theories by formulating hypotheses for testing observations and making predictions while gathering experimental data in both the field and the laboratory." The same is true for the way that Hubble experimented with the theory of an expanding universe by observing galaxies. There was experimentation.Thompsma (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I oppose the proposal, for the same reasons I gave last time, which have not been addressed. "I see no point in revising the text to include theory unless this includes formulating theories and calculating their consequences, a highly mathematical business in evolutionary biology. If all the text mentions is testing theories, it might as well stick to testing hypotheses. The proposed text, like the existing text, continues to identify only empirical work as the scientific study of evolution. To me, the point of including theory is to include the works not only of Haldane, Fisher, and Wright, but continuing on to Hamilton, Barton etc. in contemporary times as an important and influential strand of scientific evolutionary work." Plus the proposed text still contains multiple grammatical problems, eg observations rather than hypotheses are tested. Joannamasel (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay - I think infer is better than calculate:
  • "Scientists continue to study evolutionary theories and formulate new ones that generate hypotheses for testing observations, making predictions, and to infer their consequences while gathering experimental data in both the field and the laboratory."Thompsma (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I still oppose. The sentence is a long and convoluted mess. The distinction between experiment and observation has been abandoned. The "while" neither indicates concurrent events nor creates a valid contrast in keeping with the grammar of that word. "Testing observations" is wrong, it is the hypotheses not the observations that are tested. "Generate hypotheses for...making predictions" is tautological. Which word do consequences belong to, theories or hypotheses? The grammar is so convoluted that the word "their" has become ambiguous.
What is wrong with my earlier, grammatically much simpler proposal, which simply added four words to the end of the existing consensus sentence: "Scientists continue to study evolution by using both observational data and experiments in both the field and the laboratory, and by constructing theories." Joannamasel (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing technically wrong with what you have written, but I don't understand why you think that you need to add "constructing theories" as an addendum. Why is it both observation and experiments and constructing theories otherwise? There is nothing wrong with saying that "Scientists continue to study evolution by constructing theories, by using observational data, and by executing experiments in both the field and the laboratory."Thompsma (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The difference between your sentence and mine is grammatical. Observational data and executing experiments both get subdivided into field and laboratory components. Theory does not. The grammar I wrote captures this. Your latest suggestion subdivides only experiments into field and laboratory components. Your sentence is better if and only if we do not intend to apply "both field and laboratory" to "observational data".Joannamasel (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we have a fundamental disagreement over theory? I agree that some of my previous proposals were too complicated - trying too hard perhaps. However, I do not understand why you would think that observational data and experiments need to be subdivided into field and lab components, whereas theory does not? This traces back to a classical shift followed by Robert Boyle's methods to study nature - if you want to understand the properties of something, you need to isolate the thing you are after by contriving it experimentally to produce singular, odd, and mechanically strange instances of the effect; "Carving nature at its joints." Stop observing nature as it normally is, but start producing effects that you can isolate to create public witness to the events, which was called a matter of fact by getting people to agree on what they witnessed; Boyle actually held public demonstrations to create witness to these experimental facts. This is the birth of the laboratory experiment vs. field observation distinction that you are making, but it has not stood up to scrutiny by most of the modern philosophers of science that suggest the distinction is one of contrivance rather than something that is unique to the experimental process itself. It does not matter (fundamentally) if the scientist creates the controls, it matters only if controls are set in place and understood in context--developed naturally or otherwise. Despite its appearances to the contrary, witness to an isolated phenomenon through contrived experiment can create false exaggeration of what is really going on. Simply because the event occurs in an isolated contraption is not enough to build up the generality and reason for the phenomenon across the rest of nature. This is where Popper's universality of theory steps in through the principle of falsification, because you cannot test infinite examples of a theories mettle, you can only disprove isolated instances thereof. There is a long history of theory being tested and developed in the field and the laboratory. Hence: "Scientists continue to study evolution in both the field and in the laboratory by constructing theories, by using observational data, and by executing thought provoking experiments." - I add thought provoking, because it is not enough to just do the science proper.Thompsma (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
On reflection, I liked Thompsa's previous suggestion: experiments, which take place in a controlled setting, should be subdivided according to that setting, but it is artificial to subdivide either theory (whose job it is to unify, after all) or non-manipulative observations. I put that last suggestion in the lede. Joannamasel (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Joanna!! Again, a great job.Thompsma (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Slight error in lead

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

On Charles Darwin it is stated that he "was the first to recognise natural selection as an important cause of evolution." Technically, this is false, because we have the earlier case of Patrick Matthew to contend with. Perhaps Charles Darwin "provided the first compelling argument and fully developed theory for natural selection as an important cause of evolution." Darwin referred to his theory as "one long argument" and of course Matthew came up with the idea of natural selection, but it was not enough because he did not champion the idea. It was only mentioned in an the appendix to a work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture and very few were even aware that this idea has even existed before Darwin. Darwin's approach was more inductive, whereas (as Mayr said of Metthew's proposal): "Patrick Matthew undoubtedly had the right idea, just like Darwin did on September 28, 1838, but he did not devote the next twenty years to converting it into a cogent theory of evolution. As a result it had no impact whatsoever."Thompsma (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The current text is "The theory of evolution by natural selection was formulated by Charles Darwin. Darwin was the first to provide a compelling scientific argument for natural selection as an important cause of evolution. Evolution by natural selection is a consequence of three widely accepted premises...". I think this is too repetitive. Sentence 2 repeats the information, including that implied by wikilinks, in Sentence 1. Joannamasel (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I made the change. Suggestions? I'll see what I can do.Thompsma (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Better but I think the two mentions of the word "scientific" is redundant. It also gives the impression that scientific reasoning in evolution did not begin until Darwin. I would like to suggest the following instead:
"Charles Darwin provided a compelling argument in support of his theory of evolution by natural selection."
Or something along those lines. danielkueh (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Argument or arguments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Got rid of the scientific redundancy (kept one) and went with argument instead of arguments. Darwin called it one long argument in the singular.Thompsma (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Consequence

Latest comment: 12 years ago41 comments6 people in discussion

In the lead it states: "Evolution by natural selection is a consequence of three widely accepted premises:" -> How can evolution by natural selection be a consequence of premises? Evolution by natural selection is a consequence of things that happen in the natural world - premises explain how this occurred. "Three widely accepted" is wishy washy terminology for fact - Gould, Mayr and others have used the word inference to describe the 3 part syllogistic core of natural selection. I changed it to inferences, but this is incorrect for the same reason as the first point I raise. "Evolution by natural selection is a mechanistic inference based on three facts of consequence:"Thompsma (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, so go edit Plantsurfer (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Evolution by NS is a logical consequence of the three listed things, do we agree on that? In terms of science, those things are widely accepted empirical facts. In terms of logic, those things are premises. Generally speaking, it is a good idea for one's premises to be true facts. The sentence in question deals with logic. There is nothing wrong with the current wording. What exactly do you think that premise means, for that word to be wrong? Joannamasel (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Evolution by NS is a logical consequence (i.e., syllogism) of the three listed things - yes. However, evolution by NS is not itself a consequence of those three premises. The first places the emphasis on the logic of NS, the second places the emphasis on the process of NS itself as occurs in the current lead. If you want to take Mayr's approach to this - evolution by NS is based on five facts that lead to those three inferences. If you follow Gould's approach, he states that the inference of evolution by NS is the logical entailment of those three facts. We cited Lewontin and he calls them the three principles of NS. Hence, they are premises, inferences, facts, and principles - depending on who you consult. Gould and Endler state that the three parts to NS form a syllogism - so NS is inferred from the premises. Hence - I put the following on the table that could be re-arranged:
  1. "Evolution by natural selection is a mechanistic inference based on three facts of consequence:"
  2. "Evolution by natural selection is a process that is logically inferred by consequence of three facts:"
  3. "Evolution by natural selection is a theory that is logically entailed in the three premises that follow:"
The important point here is that authors have called NS a theory, a mechanism, a process, and a force. I have never seen NS being called a consequence as the current lead implies. I realize that this is not your intent, but it does seem to imply this.Thompsma (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
How about "Evolution by natural selection is a process that results from thee observed premises:"? danielkueh (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I think Thompsma's concern is not addressed by this. It is a nuanced but correct point: premises are not causes themselves. They are descriptions of things that are used to determine that something is true if they are true. "X is true because these 3 premises are true" is OK I guess, but not "X is true as a consequence of 3 premises".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, then let's change "premises" to "observations" or "conditions." danielkueh (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I would be OK changing "premises" to "facts". "Conditions" is more or less synonymous with "premises". "Observations" has the wrong emphasis: the logic follows in the natural world, whether we observe the facts or whether they are unobserved. Joannamasel (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so here is a proposed revision: "Evolution by natural selection is a process that results from three conditions:" danielkueh (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I will make a slight correction that may help: "The theory of evolution by NS is a logical consequence (i.e., syllogism) of the three listed things" - yes. danielkueh's recent proposal fixes this problem, but it introduces a new one. The three-part's of the syllogistic core are not conditions. It implies that the scientists have worded the conditions, but they are observations (facts) that have been inferred through extensive research. Evolution by NS is a theory and it is process - it is studied as theory, but it is an inferred process (or mechanism) through experimental observation of natural facts.Thompsma (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The theory of evolution by NS is a consequence of the neural firings of scientists given certain stimuli... I do not support that change. I don't see what is wrong with my proposed revision, which addresses the criticism, as clarified by Andrew, with the minimum of change: "Evolution by natural selection is a consequence of three widely accepted facts" Joannamasel (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see where anyone wrote about neural firings of scientists and don't agree with your point. Second, you never gave a proposed revision until now - you threw in suggestions. Third, your proposal is okay - but we don't need "widely accepted". Facts, by definition, are already widely accepted.Thompsma (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Here is what we have so far:
  • Evolution by natural selection is a consequence of three facts.
  • Evolution by natural selection results from three facts.
  • Evolution by natural selection is inferred from three facts.
Anymore? I'm trying to keep it short and sweet. danielkueh (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the final - "Evolution by natural selection is inferred from three facts." A more technically correct version: "Evolution by natural selection is a syllogistic inference and process that is supported by three facts."Thompsma (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the first, continuing to wikileak consequence to entailment so that the technical correct logical details are implied via the link without being laboriously spelled out. Joannamasel (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually I agree with Thompsma on this one Joannamasel - there is a problem with stating that E by NS is a consequence of three facts. Consequences result from cause-effect relations. However, E by NS is not a consequence of facts, it is a consequence of biological factors that are inferred to be factual.Claviclehorn (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
"Consequences" has two relevant meanings here. One is indeed cause-effect. The other, as implied very clearly by the current text, is premise-entailment. The first is in the physical world, the second in the world of syllogisms and other forms of logic. Andrew's complaint is a more subtle one, that in the current version the grammar is awkward, with the premises not obviously marked as being factually true, and the conclusion following from the truth of the premises, not from the premises per se. How about the following?

Yes...this is what I have been trying to express. Consequence has several meanings:

  1. the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier: The accident was the consequence of reckless driving.
  2. an act or instance of following something as an effect, result, or outcome.
  3. the conclusion reached by a line of reasoning; inference.[23]

Joanna alludes to the third meaning, but this can cause confusion in light of the meaning of effect. Facts cannot cause effects in nature, they can effect our inferences. Consequence is not synonymous with entailment that has a specific reference to the third part of this definition. This debate stems from our different schemes and interpretations of meaning that are equally legitimate. However, we need to convey clarity on a topic as important as natural selection. I do not support your recent proposal Joanna for the following reasons: 1) "widely accepted" appears again, 2) the syllogistic core is an established fact, so it is a tautology to say whenever the statements are true, and 3) once again, NS will not occur because statements are true - NS occurs independent of what we infer to be true. Hence, I stand by my explicit proposal that is: "Evolution by natural selection is a syllogistic inference and process that is supported by three facts." - if you don't like "syllogistic inference" then use the word "entailment" or "logical consequence" so there is no ambiguity.Thompsma (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we please keep this simple? As accurate as they may be, words or phrases such as "entailment or syllogistic inference" are practically impenetrable to the non-specialist reader. I agree that inference is a better term. Joanna, would you object to a text that is phrased as follows:
  • Evolution by natural selection can be inferred based on three facts:
danielkueh (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Grammar police
"can be inferred based" - Perhaps: "Evolution by natural selection is a process and is logically inferred from three facts:"Thompsma (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. Two suggestions. I recommend striking out "logically" as it is redundant and substituting "and is" with "that can." danielkueh (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I am okay with: "Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts:"Thompsma (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Works. danielkueh (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Natural selection is the process. Evolution is the outcome. Even aside from this grammatical issue, what one needs to infer is not simply the process in the abstract, but its prevalence. I am not OK with that wording. I am OK with "Evolution by natural selection can be inferred from three facts" Joannamasel (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The first concern is already covered because it is "Evolution by natural selection" - hence the process refers to natural selection proper. The second part on its prevalence isn't even addressed in either your revised proposal or in the original - so it is a mute point. Perhaps you can elaborate, because I really don't understand where you are going on the issue of prevalence? Moreover, it "can be inferred" or "is inferred" - the later is more direct and what others (e.g., Darwin) have stated.Thompsma (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Grammatically "evolution" is the subject of that sentence, with "by natural selection" modifying that subject. My proposal eliminates the second problem very simply by eliminating the word "process" that the problem refers to. I am also fine with "Evolution by natural selection is inferred from three facts" instead of "Evolution by natural selection can be inferred from three facts", but I prefer the latter because the three facts are not ALWAYS true. Sometimes a population lacks heritable variation, and so doesn't evolve. The latter version accommodates this possibility, the former does not. Joannamasel (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect. Grammatically - the verb is is, which follows the subject E by NS and precedes the predicate. By NS is a subject modifier, but still part of the subject - grammatically. If the three facts are not true, then NS is rejected. Hence, I prefer "is inferred".Thompsma (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I prefer "can be" but I am ok with "is" as well. But since we are just are talking about preferences and not outright objections, I have no further comments. Have a good Thanksgiving break. :) danielkueh (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

My reason for a preference of "is" over "can be" is that "is" is a stronger statement - "can be" leaves it open to interpretation. Previously Joanna was an advocate for the entailment of the syllogistic core - which cannot be interpreted as "can be" but only that it "is". The statement is a syllogism - so the conclusion is necessarily inferred from the premise, it can't "can be". Hence - is is technically the correct description and it maintains the active voice for better prose.Thompsma (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see the lead changed back to "Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts:" - please. Richard Lewontin (as cited) called it a process "Principles 1, 2, and 3 describe a process": 2 , Gould calls it a process, Mayr calls it a process, John Endler calls it a process - many other evolutionary biologists state that E by NS is a process - it is backed up by WP:V.Thompsma (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
E by NS is not necessarily inferred, it is only inferred IF the 3 facts are true. They are usually, but not always true. This is the rationale for "can be" rather than "is". As for the process, the citations are irrelevant, since this is an issue of grammar not content. Joannamasel (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
E by NS is the complete subject - "The simple subject is always a noun or a pronoun; the complete subject consists of the simple subject (SS) and all of its modifiers."[24] Hence, if this is an issue of grammar, it seems I am correct that E by NS is the complete subject and therefore defined as a process as per WP:V. The phrase "can be" is as absurd as me pointing at a tree and saying "that can be a tree" - "that is a tree" is the correct phrase. The sentence does not say: "is inferred from any one of the three facts", the three facts are the syllogistic core. If one of the facts turns out false, the inference fails - according to the grammar of the sentence. Hence, the entailment necessarily requires that we use is not can be.Thompsma (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Why add "is a process" to what is already a very (and necessarily) complex sentence? The simplest accurate sentence should be used. "Is a process" therefore needs to be NECESSARY, not merely correct. I already said that I can live with "is" rather than "can be" BUT sometimes not all three "facts"/premises are true. I think it would be nice to allude in some way to this fact. "Can be" is intended to do this. Without it, the text would read as though we are asserting that all three facts are always true, which is quite simply inaccurate. If you propose another, equally short and simple way of achieving this acknowledgement of non-universality of the 3 facts, then I would be happy to consider it as an alternative. Joannamasel (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
First you tried to reject it on grammatical grounds, now it appears that you are "fishing" for some other reason to reject it. Try to locate a paper that defines natural selection without stating that it is a process, mechanism, action, or force - you cannot. This is an encyclopedia with the aim of giving a reliable representation of the material. Comprehensiveness is one of the qualities of reliability. If every notable evolutionary biologist, including Charles Darwin, refers to NS as a process with regularity (e.g., Darwin: "the very process of natural selection") we should define it as such. Adding "is a process" does not make it "overly" complicated - a highly questionable basis for rejection. Your statement - "needs to be NECESSARY" is not a valid criterion - it is an emotional opinion (I infer emotional based on caps). Regarding: "the text would read as though we are asserting that all three facts are always true" - is false and you are putting extra words into the meaning - re-read the sentence, the subject is E by NS not just E - if it were just E - then you would be correct, but that is not the complete subject because it has been modified by NS. We also state: "Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution." Hence, the sentence does not imply that all components of the syllogistic core are always true (truth is not the right word, occur is what you are after), but it does imply that the complete subject E by NS is inferred. If all three always occur - it would lead to a ridiculous conclusion that E by NS always occurs. As Gould stated:
"By the "syllogistic core" of natural selection ("the bare-bones argument"), I refer to the standard pedagogical presentation of the abstract mechanism of the theory as a set of three undeniable factual statements followed by the inference of natural selection (the fourth statement) as a logical entailment of the three facts".[25]
How about: "Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from a set of three facts"?? This is an unnecessary addendum, but it makes it redundantly clear that the three facts do not always occur.Thompsma (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The simple point is that adding "is a process" adds clarity to the sentence. It is a notable point of historical significance surrounding the definition of NS. If it doesn't add clarity, then what were Darwin, Gould, Mayr, Lewontin, and other notable evolutionists thinking when they repeated this statement about NS?Thompsma (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a more important question to be asking here is Joanna's statement: "Sometimes a population lacks heritable variation, and so doesn't evolve." Could you provide an example where this is true? I can imagine a situation where a population lacks heritable variation in a particular trait, but I cannot imagine a situation where a population entirely lacks heritable variation of any sort and does not evolve; even the natural preservation of traits in a population is evolution. All individuals have DNA and reproduce, so heritability and variation is a given - environmental variation or just down to the laws of entropy --> the arrow of time will always ensure new conditions. If you are looking at traits in isolation - NS may not be detected. All three facts: variation, superfecundity, and differential survival are universal factual properties of populations, not of traits in isolation. This is why NS is a theory - it applies universally to populations. Genetic drift, NS, and gene flow do not act in isolation.[26] Even in a theoretical population where there is absolute stasis (i.e., same trait distribution spanning generations) there is still a differential rate of survival and reproduction for those traits subject to stabilizing selection. I think it is important to add that NS is a process for many of the reasons that Thompsma has outlined. It needs to be defined and I cannot think of any other way that it could be defined without reference to the process. I think it should be worded like so: "Evolution by natural selection is a population level process that is inferred from three facts" - or "Evolution by natural selection a process that is inferred from three facts about populations".Claviclehorn (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I support either one of Claviclehorn's suggestions.Thompsma (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not opposed to "Evolution by natural selection is a population level process that is inferred from three facts". But I still feel that if it is desirable to stress that we are talking about a population level process, then it is preferable to do so in a separate sentence, one that is doing fewer other things at the same time. As for egs of populations that fail to evolve, think of your average population that goes extinct in the face of massive environmental change. For example, a mudslide covers up a population of plants, and while they do not die instantly, they fail to evolve to their new underground environment. There is no differential reproduction here: none of them successfully reproduce. Joannamasel (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Once a population has been buried under mud and the creatures suffocate to death, I think we can be fairly confident that they no longer constitute a living population. I might accept that a few milli-seconds prior to their death that they may be a population that is not evolving, what does this mean that the surviving populations cease to evolve? Or are you referring to an example of an endemic species that consist of one last remaining population that is suffocating under the mud? Perhaps someone gets lucky and managed to squeek out an offspring at the last moment.Thompsma (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Please guys take a step back sometimes and ask if you are still proposing things which will make sense to normal educated readers of standard English. One problem which comes from long discussions about details like this is that you can end up with something which has faced a lot of logical parsing, but is no longer flowing English. "Evolution by natural selection is a population level process that is inferred from three facts" is not likely to survive long. "Evolution by natural selection is a process that can be inferred from three facts about populations" has at least some sort of chance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree Andrew Lancaster and I prefer the second option over "population-level process". I was thinking the same thing - a lot of people will not know what that means. This was also the point of my last post about the example population that Joanna gave - it is an odd example to give. It is important to remember that random mating can occur with respect to some traits in a population, but non-random with respect to others. I would argue that it is not possible to have a population with simultaneous non-randomness of every trait (i.e., absence of natural selection or any other evolutionary mechanism), at least I have yet to learn of a study that has found such a population to exist in all the molecular ecological studies that have been done to date. A population that goes extinct is still evolution, because species are niche constructors that create feedback loops and effect the context of the environment and selection regime for other species. The loss of a population opens avenues for other species, it changes the branching pattern for sister taxa and so on. The important point here is for historical reasons of notable consequence and for definition purposes NS must be defined as a process, mechanism, or action - which is what the theory is all about. Otherwise, theory just becomes an abstract concept instead of having an actual cause-effect relation in the real world.Thompsma (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Core Contest

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

In my view, this talk page is incredible in the amount of language and content awareness it displays. An enormous lot of good work has been accomplished here. I suggest that for three weeks in the early next year, you move over to Natural selection, to produce an entry in the recently announced Wikipedia:The Core Contest. I think that the same effort you have shown here, would produce much more substance on that, less polished text. The contest is also a way to lett more people see what a wonderful group of editors you are. --Ettrig (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Just put it on my watchlist.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll try, but it depends on the dates. I am incommunicado Jan until the 11th, and then expect to be frantically busy given my preceding absence, teaching load and early Feb 1 grant deadlines. If the 3 weeks includes some of February I may be able to do more.Joannamasel (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm in a similar boat to Joanna - serving as a reviewer for papers, finalizing my thesis, and teaching classes in January. I'm pulling back for a while, but expect to be back in full swing by February some time.Thompsma (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Guys, don't forget WP:NORUSH. Just maybe put it on watch and look when you get a chance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Great! Hope the planners don't rush then. --Ettrig (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:The Core Contest states that it is running in early 2012 and to check on the site for dates - the WP:NORUSH applies to articles in general not to the contest.Thompsma (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe improving articles is the more fundamental aim, but concerning the lesser aim of the contest, even any small edit or talk page advice can help that too.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

My original assumption is wrong. Individual achievement is judged, not the total effect on an article. Sorry! --Ettrig (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This will strike many as a n odd-ball comment, but if people are going to turn their atentions to another article I would propose Embryology. I realize this will never get as many hits as Natural selection, and it is not nearly as major a topic as Natural selection or Evolution. But it is an area in which there is a lot of serious scientific research, and it has played important roles in larger theoretical debates, in very different ways, over the past hundred + years. Today it is a relatively neglected topic, but I think if we want to have a cluster of powerful articls in evolutionary biology, Embryology should be one of them. Even if people are refering to out-dated theories that relied on embryology, they would benefit from an article that reviews the history as well as the current state of the field. Our curent article is okay but pretty weak by any measure. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting suggestion, and I see nothing odd ball about that reasoning. @Ettrig and @Thompsma, I should perhaps clarify that I don't have much interest in such contests per se (or similar), but I do think that when there is focus upon an article by groups of people with good intentions, then it can be a good time to be at least watching to see if you can help. One of the pushes for recent work here came from Thompsma saying we should aim this article at FA status. I don't see that particular aim as more important than just simply improving the article, but if this call got people working, then that was good.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to the coal face

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I hesitate to intrude on the global discussion above with my parochial concerns, but I am having difficulty with the following sentence: "Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be traced through shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences." My first point is that overwhelmingly the biochemical and DNA evidence comes from extant organisms, and we infer rather than "trace" relationships between these and their morphologically-similar ancestors. Secondly, the most reliable data comes from DNA sequences, which are rarely convergent and most reliably conserved, and morphology is the least reliable data. The sentence therefore itemises these things in the wrong sequence.Plantsurfer (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a re-wording proposal?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, for a first attempt, something like this: "Repeated speciation and the divergence of life is inferred from shared DNA sequences and shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits among extant organisms that appear to represent the surviving descendents of all grades of organism known to exist in the fossil record." Feel free to improve, of course. Apart from my initial comments, my chief concern is to emphasise the idea that we infer this from phylogenetic analysis of modern organisms, there being no other available data on the DNA sequences of the ancestors.Plantsurfer (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I support the proposed rewording.Joannamasel (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not support the proposed rewording. Scientists are not basing their conclusions on the fact that "appear" to represent descendants, this would be equivalent to saying that it looks like they are related. Moreover, I don't agree with the notion that DNA evidence is the most reliable while morphology is the least reliable. That is complete hogwash. DNA evidence is plagued by many problems in phylogenetic inference, from saturation, numts, to issues with orthology and paralogy. Morphological evidence gives insight into the form and functional aspects to evolution. The proposed sentence uses a string of and and and's to separate DNA sequences? I don't agree with this at all. Replace traced with inferred and this should settle the problem: "Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred through shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences." - I think I made this suggestion earlier, but it wasn't liked for some reason.Thompsma (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to raise a side issue, but may I question the felicity of the term "divergence of life"? There must also be a better way to say that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Speciation = cladogenesis, divergence of life = anagenesis. I don't think there really is a better way of saying it Andrew. Life splits and it diverges.Thompsma (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
If you really need both of those two terms instead of just speciation then maybe you need to use those two terms instead of "translations". Life has a lot of meanings so talking about the "x of life" is inevitably going to be confusing. The last thing you think of when you hear the word "life" is "a population".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not that I need both of those terms, it is that those terms have been used to describe the process hundreds of times over in the literature and others agreed to that sentence structure. Using cladogenesis and anagenesis is not appropriate for the lead - we used speciation and divergence instead, because they are more familiar or colloquial terms. The rest of the sentence was constructed out of consensus work with others. The sentence does not allude to a population, so I don't understand the context of your last sentence.Thompsma (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Mutation

Latest comment: 12 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion

The intro states "Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift." However, mutations only occur in individuals, and those individuals will only survive to replace unmutated individuals if the mutation is beneficial and acted on by natural selection. This is acknowledged in the Mutation#Description article which correctly states "Mutation is generally accepted by biologists as the mechanism by which natural selection acts, generating advantageous new traits that survive and multiply in offspring as well as disadvantageous traits, in less fit offspring, that tend to die out." How else but adaptively can mutation bring about evolution?? Plantsurfer (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Check the archives for a thorough discussion Talk:Evolution/Archive_56#Organization_of_article. Many issues like these have been discussed extensively in the past. Cheers. danielkueh (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Disappointing that one of my recent edits was summarily dismissed in its entirety, especially as the stated objection could have been resolved simply by switching two characters, but by all means let us discuss. I reworked the three sentences for three reasons: because they contained what seemed to me to be a logical error, they used the word "born", when a majority of organisms are not born (e.g. fish, plants and microorganisms to name just a few) and used the word "seemingly" when what "seems" is anthropocentric and irrelevant, and a better choice of word would come from among best, better, optimally, among other possibilities.

This was (and now is again) the original text: "Thus, when members of a population die, they are replaced by individuals that are not born from random parents. Instead, these new members are born from parents that are better adapted to the environment in which natural selection took place. This can cause the evolution of traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform"

This is my suggested modification: "Thus, when members of a population die, they are replaced by the offspring of the most successful parents, those best adapted to the environment in which natural selection took place. This can cause the evolution of traits that are best fitted for the functional roles they perform."

I think my version is at the very least a constructive contribution, and rest my case. Plantsurfer (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is the nature of this article that changes almost always need to be discussed. It otherwise spins out of control quickly. But by all means can you please post your suggestion here for discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Plantsurfer, many editors have devoted considerable amount of time and effort to editing the lede. While I applaud your willingness to improve this article, I strongly recommend that you discuss your ideas or suggestions here first, for vetting and to gain consensus. That way, your edits to this article are likely to remain stable and long lasting. danielkueh (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
No, don't rest your case. This suggestion is an improvement and you are arguing well. I definitely support it. On a side note: I think you can imagine that this article is under heavy pressure from people who don't understand the subject matter or even worse, push for very firm non-scientific theories. This has caused weariness and a measure of unfriendlyness to newcomers in some of the protectors. Not an ideal situation, but please don't give up. --Ettrig (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a problem with and without the loss of "seemingly", however. I think the intention with seemingly is a reference to purposeful design, which is just seeming. But fitted could also refer to a form that is suitable for its task, without the connotation of design. In this case "seemingly" is pointless. --Ettrig (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes Plantsurfer - you have not even seen the beginning of the struggle that editors have in this article. Like Ettrig states - don't rest your case. Please keep posting, your suggestions are completely reasonable. That sentence in particular took at least three days and several thousand lines of debate before we agreed on its content. I'll surf through the history, because I think I might have suggested something similar to what you are proposing. Joannamassel is the one that constructed that sentence - perhaps she could provide a comment?Thompsma (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Found it - click on here to see where this sentence was discussed and hotly debated.Thompsma (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Struggle?!?! I like to think of it as an "opportunity!" Many more to come! :D danielkueh (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Your right danielkueh - think positive! It was both a struggle and opportunity. In the end we had a positive outcome - so it turned into an opportunity. I read through that bit of history and think you were actually the one that came up with the "born" part. We all agreed that this was fine, but in retrospect and after reading Plantsurfer's post - I think his alternative is an improvement.Thompsma (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Plantsurfer's proposal is an improvement. danielkueh (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for that - then can I suggest a couple of further tweaks of my wording? I suggest that the word offspring is replaced by progeny, and that causes is replaced by drives, so that the final wording would become:

"Thus, when members of a population die, they are replaced by the progeny of the most successful parents, those best adapted to the environment in which natural selection took place. This process drives the evolution of traits that are best fitted for the functional roles they perform." Plantsurfer (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I still find the description, "most successful" troublesome. I would like to suggest replacing "....of the most successful parents, those best adapted to..." with "...of parents that have successfully adapted to..." danielkueh (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't support the metaphor in the second sentence that natural selection "drives" the traits. Seemingly fitted should also remain, because it alludes to form and function of traits. It is not just that traits are better or superior, they are formed for the roles they perform. How about:
  • "Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform."Thompsma (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, on second thought - perhaps we should introduce the concept of carrying capacity??
  • Thus, as individuals die, populations can be replenished to their carrying capacity by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform."Thompsma (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Or breaking the sentences apart to make it more clear:
  • Populations fluctuate as individuals die and numbers replenish to values that approach the carrying capacity. Individuals that replenish the numbers tend to come from the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform."Thompsma (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the first suggested edit. I agree that the concept of carrying capacity is important but I believe it would be TMI for the lede. If introduced, it would be better placed in the main text. danielkueh (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I prefer Thompsma's first version "Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform" but I cannot understand your adherence to the word "seemingly". What on earht does it mean. Either these traits are fitted for the functional roles they perform and survive, or they aren't and they don't. They don't have to seem anything.Plantsurfer (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Why don't we just remove the term "seemingly" or "best" and just leave it as just "fitted?" danielkueh (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
SecondedPlantsurfer (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to remember where I got the "seemingly fitted" from - it may have been from Gould, but I can't locate it. Seemingly means "from appearances alone". The reason it was included was to draw attention to the idea that things look like they belong together, a natural order to nature. This goes back to Paley's classical work "natural theology", which inspired Darwin and actually parallels the design and layout of the Origin. Why things appear so designed for the functions they perform was a central question at the time and Darwin provided the answer. Why does a humming bird's beak seem to fit so nicely into an Orchid flower? It is seemingly fitted for the task because of natural selection. The link was provided to teleonomy, which provided a clue behind the terms that were used. There is nothing inherently wrong with leaving seemingly fitted in there and it actually gives the right intent behind that sentence. We have to be careful here, because fitness is a difficult term to toil with. It has multiple meanings. If we leave it at "fitted" alone - it kinda implies that the traits have been designed. I'm not entirely opposed to its removal, but I think there is nothing wrong with it staying there and if we remove it we should think carefully about the concept and use of "fitness" without making it confusing.Thompsma (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I am struggling to see why fit or fitness implies design. Ettrig implied the same thing, and I just don't see it. In my mind it just implies best able or best suited to coping with and surviving in a particular environment or niche. I am a professional scientist, and I prefer to see things written in detached, objective style, so in my world highly subjective terms like seemingly have no place in scientific writing. To me its use in this context indicates that our view or interpretation makes a difference to the process of adaptation and evolution, and of course it does not. Evolution worked just fine for thousands of millions of years before we appeared, and will continue to do so after we're gone. So whether or not there is historical precedent for the use of such subjectivity by a Victorian writer, let's get rid of it here unless its use as a direct quote attributable to Darwin has value in this article.Plantsurfer (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Many of us are scientists, some with PhD's others with masters degrees. Scientists make use of metaphors and you are incorrect about your understanding of language in science as a march toward the objective truth. You might want to look up Gould's papers on Science War's where he talks about the history of this. It is not Victorian either - black hole, red shift, and natural selection are all metaphors. "However, the scientific revolution that occurred in the 16th and 17th centuries had left the living world out of scientific explanations, because organisms seemingly show that they are ‘designed,’ and thus call for an intentional designer." (Ayala, 2008, Journal of Genetics; [27]). As I stated earlier there are multiple meanings behind fitness. How about "appear designed" or "seem designed"?? I prefer seemingly fitted.Thompsma (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The connection between fitness, design, and adaptation is real, although you are correct that fitness in the more modern scientific sense has several meanings that do not explicitly refer to design. Population geneticists refer to fitness as a measure of selection equal to 1-s, where s is a coefficient of selection against a genotype. Fitness is also a measure of average fecundity of a gene surviving into a subsequent generation relative to other genes. Adaptation is also about form and function, how a trait is adapted or shaped for its functional utility. Many have noted how adaptation and fitness (adaptedness) are complementary concepts.[28] Darwin expressed this concept of fitness: "Let it also be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close-fitting are the mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life; and consequently what infinitely varied diversities of structure might be of use to each being under changing conditions of life."Thompsma (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
To summarily (I am travelling) answer the enquiry about mutation as a nonadaptive cause of evolution, please read the current text of section 4.2 and the article, and the references cited within that. Joannamasel (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fitness and Design

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Fitness I am fine with. Fit is OK, Fitted is not if it allows the implication that some external agency did the fitting. I reject the idea that organisms are designed. That is not how it works and it is not the scientific consenus. The article must be careful about using words or phrases that allow the possibility that some intelligent designer is doing the job. Plantsurfer (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The only use of "fitted" in the article is a single use of the phrase "seemingly fitted". This does not imply design. Instead it indicates why things look like they were designed, even though they were not. The wikilink from this phrase further clarifies. I think the text is fine.Joannamasel (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Joannamasel. Plantsurfer - organisms are designed in the sense that they have form and structure that serves an adaptive utility, but the design does not come about by a designer, but by the process of natural selection. "The inner surface of the femur (fig. 13, r) is furnished with a longitudinal row of minute, elegant, lancet-shaped, elastic teeth, from 85 to 93 in number and these are scraped across the sharp, projecting nervures on the wing-covers, which are thus made to vibrate and resound. Harris says that when one of the males begins to play, he first "bends the shank of the hind-leg beneath the thigh, where it is lodged in a furrow designed to receive it, and then draws the leg briskly up and down." (Darwin, Descent of Man)Thompsma (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
This caught my eye. As a minor point of clarification, Darwin was showing evidence for various mechanisms of stridulation, quoting the "designed" statement made by Harris in 1842 when "design" was the conventional explanation, see footnote 38 on p. 357. Darwin concludes his discussion of stridulation on pp. 384–385 with his own explanation, that "stridulation serves as a sexual call " and "it seems probable that the two sexes of many kinds of beetles were at first enabled to find each other by the slight shuffling noise produced by the rubbing together of the adjoining parts of their hard bodies; and that as the males or females which made the greatest noise succeeded best in finding partners, the rugosities on various parts of their bodies were gradually developed by means of sexual selection into true stridulating organs." Thus Darwin is quoting a naturalist who presumed design, but his own explanation is sexual selection with no "design". . dave souza, talk 20:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Dave - I had left it in quotes and was looking into this further as you had done. Glad to see that you fact checked this and clarified. I've been searching through Darwin's works and note that he rarely referred to design other than this passage. In other instances he refers to design, but he uses it as shorthand in reference to Paley's intelligent design or argument from design. He rejects design through designer (of course), but the point I was trying to raise here is captured in the quote below. Evolutionary biologists do discuss how individuals are designed by agency of selection.Thompsma (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
This quote might also help, which comes from Louise S. Mead and Eugenie C. Scott (2010). Problem Concepts in Evolution Part I: Purpose and Design. EVOLUTION: EDUCATION AND OUTREACH, 3(1): 78-81:

"Design and purpose are related concepts, and have some of the same problems. Both children and adults tend to attribute design and purpose to nature (Sinatra et al. 2008), and children have cognitive biases towards creationist explanations (Evans 2000)...The biological version of the Argument from Design was abandoned after Darwin devised a purely natural explanation—natural selection—for the fit between a structure of an organism and the functions it performs...Scientists, however, use the term design differently. Because science depends on methodological naturalism, it does not, and cannot, use the explanation of divine design. Scientists often speak of a structure having a “design” that allows an organism to do something or have something done to it—the shape of an orchid encourages pollination by a particular species of insect. In this descriptive sense, all that is meant by a structure’s having a design is that its parts work together or are put together to get something done. Hence the purpose of a structure is what it was good for, whereas the design is how it achieves its purpose...Within evolutionary biology, design can also be used to indicate a driving force of evolutionary change—not in response to a designer, or an internal directional force such as orthogenesis, but in response to directional selection, as might be found in signal-receiver systems."

Thompsma (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I am also fine with "seemingly fitted" - it gives the correct meaning in that sentence. Gould and Lewontin used fit in this sense in their famous article on Spandrels of San Marco[29]: "Adaptation -- the good fit of organisms to their environment -- can occur at three hierarchical levels with different causes." This is fitted in the sense of organic design: "An organism is atomized into "traits" and these traits are explained as structures optimally designed by natural selection for their functions." --> Organic form appears fitted as though there is a natural order to nature. Darwin provided the solution to this not as an argument from design, but as an argument for design by means of natural selection.Claviclehorn (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, should we then settle on the following?
  • Thus, when members of a population die, they are replaced by progenies of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.
danielkueh (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change danielkueh before I saw your post. I did not go with "progenies" in the plural, but just used "progeny of parents" because I think it reads better and since parents are in the plural and we are technically talking about a single generation of change it should be singular - if you are fine with this change?Thompsma (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That is fine. danielkueh (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the Evolutionary biology article

Latest comment: 12 years ago46 comments8 people in discussion

The Evolutionary biology was deleted and converted to a redirect page pointing to Evolution. Any attempt at recreating it is constantly reverted. This is ridiculous. There is not even a single paragraph about evolutionary biology as such in the Evolution article and, what is more important, there is no reason for merging and confusing Evolutionary biology with Evolution. These are different things. Merging them is like merging Zoology with Animal or Psychology with Mind. We even have such articles as Current research in evolutionary biology or Evolutionary anthropology, yet we do not have the main article about the scientific field. --Kyknos (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a consensus (WP:consensus) that a merger should took place. Moreover, there was only one reversion, which was done for reasons of WP:BRD. If you feel this consensus should be revisited, then you should have taken it to the talk page. As far as the terms are concerned, many reputable books (e.g., Evolutionary Biology by Futuyma) treat the two terms synonymously. So your analogy of "Psychology" and "Mind" does not hold. danielkueh (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with danielkueh - this article is about evolutionary biology, there is no distinction.Thompsma (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
No distinction? Yes there is none. And that is the problem. Because evolution is not a scientific field, evolutionary biology is. And I have looked into the Futuyma's book and he clearly distinguishes the terms "evolution" and "evolutionary biology" and uses them in non-interchangeable ways. So does Flegr and other authors. --Kyknos (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Evolutionary biology and evolution are one in the same. Evolution is short for evolutionary biology. You can read Matt Ridley's textbook titled "Evolution" or Futuyma's book on "Evolutionary Biology" - they both cover the same topics. Your statements on Futuyma using the two in non-interchangeable ways is complete fiction.Claviclehorn (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Kyknos, do you have the specific page numbers from Futuyma's book? I'm looking at his book, (1998, 3rd ed.) and I don't see any explicit distinction being made between evolution and evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology is not even listed in the glossary. I suspect Claviclehorn is right. It's complete fiction. In any event, it doesn't matter. The point of the merger is that it serves no purpose to have two articles that will ultimately cover the same topics. Google "Evolutionary biology AND syllabus" as well as "Evolution AND syllabus." I challenge you to find fundamental differences based purely on the title of those two courses. In the end, you would need more compelling reasons than just wanting to have a separately named article. danielkueh (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I have copies of Futuyma's textbook as well and have taught lectures using it. There is no basis to this argument and I wonder if there is a way to settle it for future reference as it tends to pop up from time to time??Claviclehorn (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Claviclehorn, I agree with you. Unfortunately, I am not aware of quick and easy way to do it. Perhaps a slight modification of the Warning section in the Table of Contents located at the top of this page? danielkueh (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
@Claviclehorn:This is a completely ridiculous statement. Evolution started (at least here on Earth) some billions (US) years ago. Evolutionary biology started some hundreds years ago. These things are completely different. --Kyknos (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
@Danielkueh: I cannot find differences because I do not see any similarities :) The Evolution article should be about the natural phenomenon of evolution, which exist independently of humans or biological science (but is described by them, of course). The Evolutionary article should be about the scientific field, the cultural phenomenon fully dependent on humans, its history, structure, development, problems, famous scientists, books, scientific journals, scandals, whatever. --Kyknos (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Kyknos, that is not a compelling reason. These topics that you listed are already in this article and they are covered in most, if not all respectable books on evolution or evolutionary biology. The threshold is WP:V. I also suggest that you read Wikipedia:REDUNDANT#Redundant. Until you can provide more compelling reasons that are backed by reputable sources, I am afraid you are not going to get very far as the consensus so far is for retaining the merger. danielkueh (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Biology started with Lamarck who first coined the term, yet we don't see an article on biological sciences talking about the scientific field - instead it links back to biology. The same applies for chemical sciences - it links back to chemistry. You will find in those articles both the theory and information on the scientific field. This was already debated - consensus was reached. Evolutionary biology (or evolution, for short) started with the origins of life approximately 3.8 billion years ago. The history of events leading up to this discovery and since can be accessed in the history of evolutionary thought. I agree with Claviclehorn - we need a way to close this debate when it arises. It is a waste of time.Thompsma (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Consensus of two or three people? Look at the Evolutionary biology discussion page and you will see the same number against.--Kyknos (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I missed that discussion, and I think it is unfortunate that it was deleted. Evolution is a mechanism, a principle, a concept. Evolutionary biology is a field of research based on the theory of evolution. As such, they are related, but separate entities. I propose undeletion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Great. Then I suggest that the same be applied to biology, chemistry, physics, and every other discipline of science that has not followed this route.Claviclehorn (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, we discuss articles one by one, not categories. In some cases we have compelling reasons to combine, in other cases to split. This is a case for splitting just considering the sheer size of the field and well as the concept. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Claviclehorn on this one. The point she was making is that biology does not have a separate page for dealing with the science versus the concept. Biology is a larger field than evolution. There is no compelling reason to split.Thompsma (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Biology is about the science. Life is about the concept.--Kyknos (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
As Kyknos said. Also, chemistry has chemicals, molecules, etc. Evolutionary biology has evolution, natural selection, and a whole host of aspects. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I am amused by all this obsession with names and titles. I have two textbooks. One called "Life" by Sadava et al. and once called "Biology" by Campbell et al. Guess what? Aside from a few pictures, they are both the same thing. Should we ask the authors to change the contents of their text to better reflect their titles? Should there be one whole volume on "Life" and one whole volume on the "Science of Life?" Would they not look the same and cover the same things? After all, you can't describe one coherently without the other. Suppose we have a separate article on evolutionary biology. Would it not look like this article? Would we not have to define evolution again, which is after all the subject matter of evolutionary biology? There are many more questions. But in the end, stick with the big picture and keep our readers in mind. Because I really don't see how having a duplicate article with a different title serves any beneficial purpose. danielkueh (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Fallacy. The possibility of use of two different words as a title for the similar book does not make the words synonymous. And no, the article on Evolutionary biology would not look like this article, it would be different - about different (cultural, not natural) phenomenon. So different, that it was simply deleted, instead of merged (as was proposed). You can read it in its history. --Kyknos (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Kyknos, read the books. Because at the end of the day, what you are proposing is original research. See WP:OR. danielkueh (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I have read enough already. And no, it is not my research. Apart of being obvious that evolutionary science as a cultural phenomenon is something very different from the natural phenomenon of biological evolution, it is also covered in literature. For example Flegr has nice chapter of history of the scientific field (not history of the evolution of life) in his big Evolutionary biology (just to name what I have close to me at the moment). --Kyknos (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Do we not have a History section in this article? Is there no article called "History of evolutionary thought?" danielkueh (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
History is not the only aspect of evolutionary biology. --Kyknos (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not. So what is your point? danielkueh (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
My point is that the Evolutionary biology article should be undeleted as we need article on the topic of the cultural phenomenon of the scientific field called Evolutionary biology. --Kyknos (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Then why don't you create an article called "Cultural phenomenon of evolutionary biology?" And if you do, would it be different from Social effect_of evolutionary theory?
Because its natural title is Evolutionary biology and it already exists, despite it is currently overwriten by an unnecessary redirect. --Kyknos (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Aside from the section on Current Research, which is now back as its own article, everything else is essentially the same. What's the difference again? danielkueh (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Kyknos states: "Evolutionary biology would not look like this article, it would be different" History proves you wrong. When this argument was raised previously and we reached consensus to delete evolutionary biology the reason for this was that the article duplicated exactly what was in here. This is nothing more than semantic hyperbole. We have current research in evolutionary biology and history of evolutionary thought and this article. What could yet another article on evolutionary biology possibly offer?? We could rename this article evolutionary theory and then debate this. Biology is not about the science whereas life is about the concept - you can make the following statement: "the biology of a worm" or "the life of a worm" to see where you are incorrect about this. This argument is a waste of time, because when it comes to writing a separate article those in favor of it will find themselves in the same boat as before - they will duplicate the material herein. Debate something more worthwhile, like the content in this article.Thompsma (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Do not ask me, just read what is there. It is short, but it well illustrates what it should be about. --Kyknos (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
We already did, that is why we merged it. This discussion is going in circles and the review below is not gaining much traction. Is there consensus to close this discussion? danielkueh (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
No, it clearly is not. --Kyknos (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is another way to resolve this debate:
  • "The Journal of Evolutionary Biology is a bimonthly, peer-reviewed, international journal. It covers both micro- and macro-evolution of all types of organisms. The aim of the Journal is to integrate perspectives across molecular and microbial evolution, behaviour, genetics, ecology, life histories, development, palaeontology, systematics and morphology."[30]
That does not sound at all like this journal is about the science versus Evolution:
  • "Evolution, published for the Society for the Study of Evolution, is the premier publication devoted to the study of organic evolution and the integration of the various fields of science concerned with evolution. The journal presents significant and original results that extend our understanding of evolutionary phenomena and processes."[31]
One is not about the science where the other is about the concept. This is an imagined distinction. I have textbooks on my shelf, one is titled Evolutionary Biology, another is titled Evolution, and another is titled Evolutionary Theory - they all contain the same kind of information!! Gaylord Simpson's "The Meaning of Evolution" does not say that it is distinct from evolutionary biology the science. Futuyma's textbook has a glossary definition for evolution, but not a separate entry for evolutionary biology. In fact, his textbook title Evolution - the first chapter is Evolutionary Biology and chapter 22 is Evolutionary Science, Creationism, and Society. In Chapter 1 Evolutionary Biology - it starts by asking "What is evolution?" - it doesn't start by saying "What is evolution? and What is evolutionary biology?" He even states in the preface that his book titled "Evolution" descends directly from his book titled "Evolutionary Biology". His first chapter states that Biological (or organic) evolution refers to the process. He uses "Evolution" and "Evolutionary Biology" interchangeably. There is no difference.Thompsma (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I am seeing the same logic that underlies the comments of Kyknos, Kim, and Plantsurfer. The logic is that one easily describe what is known without describing how is it studied or known. I think such a distinction is an illusion. Knowledge of anything does not come out of thin air. Especially scientific knowledge. Because in the end, whatever it is that we know is ultimately tied back to how we describe and study it in the first place. danielkueh (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
danielkueh Please do not drag me into arguments I did not participate in. The words you use are imprecise and do not accurately represent my views.Plantsurfer (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, I was not trying to drag you into an argument. I was making a general comment about trends that I see in this talk page that I suspect we will continue to see for other issues to be discussed in the future. In any event, I struck out your name from the comment. danielkueh (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
ThanksPlantsurfer (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It is complete logical fallacy. You can name the very same book by different names according to your taste, but it does not make the names synonymous. Fish is something different than ichthyology, human mind is something different than psychology, insect is not the same thing as entomology and bird is not the same thing as ornithology. Yet both Birds and Ornithology are valid titles of a scientific book on birds. --Kyknos (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Kyknos, if reputable authors of major texts cover the same subjects with different names, then why should Wikipedia, which relies on secondary sources not do the same? Again, you really need to read, understand, and apply WP:V. Until you do, I don't think I will respond to anymore of your comments on this issue, which I think is pretty resolved a long time ago. danielkueh (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I already explained to you why you cannot infer synonymity from usage in book titles. And I also recommend to stay away from ad hominem arguments. I read a lot, I would not be afraid to compare what I have read with what you have read, but I strongly prefer argumentation on a different level - ad rem. It is how we do it here in Wikipedia and for good reasons. Thanks. --Kyknos (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
"I had intended to prepare a digest of Evolutionary Biology (Third Edition, 1998), rendered of its excess, and while much of the structure and some of the text of this book descend directly from that tome, it became clear that a new book was in the making." (Futuyma - preface for textbook titled "Evolution" [32]). Notice that earlier editions of this book were titled "Evolutionary Biology". Kyknos - Fish, mind, insect, and birds are creatures and organs. Evolution is both fact and theory. Like danielkueh suggested - please read WP:V. Futuyma has written multiple textbooks on the subject and does not see the distinction as indicated in the WP:V material I have supplied. The argument is indefensible in light of the stated missions of the two journals Evolution and Journal of Evolutionary Biology I have supplied above. You are avoiding this issue, because your stance has no footing in reality.Thompsma (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the last post Thompsma provides the definitive closure to this debate. There is nothing further that can be argued. Everyone's position has been made clear - the rest is just fuel on the fire. Unless Kyknos or Kim van der Linde can come up with an equally credible source or sources that meets the WP:V threshold that Thompsma's post's have given - this debate is closed. Evolutionary biology is redundant.Claviclehorn (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Totally ridiculous argument that completely misses the point. We don't need sources to show that evolution as an abstraction from certain things that happen in nature, and evolutionary biology as a subfield of biology, are different fields. It is so obviously wrong to argue otherwise, and it is so obvious that you are using fallacies in bad faith, that this can only be seen as a deliberate provocation. Whether we want to treat evolution and evolutionary biology in a single article or in two is a much more reasonable question that we can debate, but then please do it seriously.
Meanwhile I will restore the article. It attempts to give an overview over the academic field and builds an entry point into the field's history, subfields etc. It doesn't do a particularly good job of that, but if we just delete it, nobody can improve it. And neither was the material actually merged here, nor would that make sense, given the size of this article and its greater overall quality.
I can understand that creationists don't like it when an encyclopedia describes reality accurately to the extent that evolutionary biology is a large field with many subfields, a rich history and a lot of activity. But that's life. If you want to change this in Wikipedia, change it in the real world first. Hans Adler 01:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
As others have said, Evolution is a theory, and Evolutionary biology is a wide discipline. it should have its own article.
Current research in evolutionary biology is a title that only makes sense if Evolutionary biology exists. Also, Danielkueh should stop edit-warring already. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I wish to clarify the comments made by Enric Naval about my reversions of specific edits made to Evolutionary Biology. First of all, Eric misunderstood the context of my reversion of Joanna's reversion, which occurred on August 27 (~three months ago). She restored the article because she wanted to retain a section on Current Research in Evolutionary Biology that she wrote, which has been reverted to its own article after a lengthy discussion. Second, 78.45.177.68 and Kyknos are one and the same individual as Kyknos is from the Czech Republic and occasionally edits under an anonymous i.p. when on English Wikipedia. Three, there is already consensus for this merger and Hans Adler, like Kyknos, decided to ignore it and revert the redirect. He then proceeds to call my behavior "vandalism" and accuses me of "vote stacking" and being a "creationist." He implies it as well on this page. This is my first time interacting with him and I have to say, it is one of the most unpleasant.
I have said all I need to say about this issue and won't comment further. Personally, this is one of those moments where I wish credentials do carry some weight in Wikipedia. In any event, I will leave this discussion to be resolved by other long time editors as I am just tired of debating this issue. Especially with dilettantes. danielkueh (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Evolutionary Biology

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I listed Evolutionary biology at Deletion review here in order to get a better discussion about the issue at hand. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not needed, it was already debated in here. The splitters lost.Thompsma (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
If there is anything new to say about Evolutionary Biology splitters should focus on developing Current Research in Evolutionary Biology and leave Evolution alone.Plantsurfer (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Of course they can, which is why that article was created in the first place. Hopefully we can now move onto more productive work rather than wasting our time arguing about the creation of further redundancy. It is important not to make things get too crazy and create a billion articles on the same topic line. Moreover, another editor noted in the deletion review discussion that the deletion review page was not the right place to bring this discussion and so the deletion review has been closed. Thompsma settled this dispute above using the WP:V threshold criteria. A separate evolutionary biology article would be redundant.Claviclehorn (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I think creating content forks such as Current Research in Evolutionary Biology is about the worse way to go. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll on fate of Evolutionary Biology article

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, this is to notify you all that I have started a more in dept discussion about whether the Evolutionary Biology article should be restored and in what form exactly. Please see Talk:Evolutionary_biology#Restoration_of_Evolutionary_biology for the discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Evolutionary Biology is a distinct class of research and if you work in that field you call yourself an evolutionary biologist and is why there are hundreds of people in that classification. It's even WP:N since departments of universities are named in this manner. Alatari (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

request for comments at Natural Selection, concerning Aristotle and other pre-Darwin thinking

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The above-mentioned article, in it section on Pre-Darwinian thinking about natural selection, has been noted to be apparently saying something different about Aristotle than both this article and History of evolutionary thought. See initial discussion. After some circular discussion I have started a new section aimed at trying to improve the wording in order to avoid controversy as much as possible. I think this needs some wider participation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 December 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Big textTHEORY


67.235.145.245 (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

  Not done: Off-topic for this article; we have an article, Evolution as fact and theory, that addresses that nomenclature issue better. See also FAQ #3 at the top of this page. —C.Fred (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hypothesis would be an insult, Theory is not an insult. Evolution is a heavily tested and respected theory. And we have clearly seen bacteria and fruit flies evolve new forms in the lab so that is fact. The Theory (explanation or the facts) has changed since Darwin once DNA was discovered and introduced the the theory. Of we ever find gravitons then the Theory of gravity will also evolve. Science itself is an evolutionary process. --Alatari (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sidebar on top

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I don't know what happened but after I added citation tags to the history section, the evolutionary biology sidebar now appears on top of the lede and not at its side. I am trying to see what can be done to fix this. If somebody else knows the problem, feel free to correct it. danielkueh (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that this is a recurring problem in other pages that uses the sidebar such as evolutionary biology and history of evolutionary thought. It appears to be a problem with the sidebar itself. danielkueh (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, something wrecked all the evolution articles (and your edit just caused the servers to regenerate the cached page with the error). I fixed it with an edit to {{Evolutionary biology}}. I don't know why, but a recent change somewhere conflicted with the style used in that template. All I did was to delete a bunch of style settings so the defaults would be used. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Johnuniq, thanks for looking into this. It was quite puzzling. danielkueh (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Al-Jahiz

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

A recent edit (diff) has introduced some text including some prescient claims from a 1000 year old book. The edits are totally different from previous undue material added to the article (see archive 54), but should be examined: are the two newspaper columns by Jim Al-Khalili presenting a reasonable interpretation of history? Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Jim Al-Khlalili is fairly mainstream and has been actively involved in the promotion of science, particularly in the UK. I am not too sure about his views presented in his newspaper columns. I am not saying I distrust them. I just don't know enough about Al-Jahiz to be sure. They seem reasonable. In any event, I reverted the edit because the Wikilink to "Struggle for Existence:" is taken out of context as I am not sure if Al-Jahiz meant it in the same way as Darwin did. Moreover, much of the newly added text is a carbon copy of one of the newspaper articles. They should of course be paraphrased. danielkueh (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Good. The problem is that a theoretical physicist probably has no particular knowledge of the history of science, or of developments within biology (such a person of course may be an expert on these matters, but they have no known credentials in the field). There has been a large industry both on and off Wikipedia devoted to the promotion of dubious historical factoids to suggest that Islamic scholars were the "fathers" of various branches of scientific knowledge (one extreme case involved the idea that some writings many centuries in the past were forerunners to Einstein's relativity). Al-Jahiz was outstanding, but it is extremely unlikely that information available in his time could have led to any serious finding that "Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring", and the text asserting that there is a line from his book to Darwin is an enormous stretch. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Johnuniq, you may feel that line is a stretch but I quoted directly from Al-Khalili, a reliable source. That there are people out there who make claims about people being 'fathers' of fields is irrelevant and cannot be used as an argument in this individual case. danielkueh, if you did not like the style I added the material, then I think it is fair to request that you at least add this info in the way that pleases you instead of not mentioning this at all. Sodicadl (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Sodicadl, this is a featured article and so any changes made to this article must be well written, adequately sourced, and have strong consensus. The material that you added is not very well written, in fact, it was very much plagiarized. The sourcing needs to be improved, how about finding a secondary source that says the same thing written by an evolutionary biologist? Otherwise, it might just be a WP:fringe view. Finally, please don't give me or other editors "chores" to fix up your mess. You want it in, you need to the leg work. danielkueh (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I understand you feel this may be fringe, for Al-Khalili's point was that it is not known and I am trying to get outside opinion about it [33], but I don't get who was plagiarized. It's not the Telegraph or Khalili, because I cited them, and it's not Al-Jahiz, because Khalili is not claiming the quote is his?! What I meant by the "chores" is that it may be better to correct a material than to not have it at all. Maybe that policy is wrong, but if your policy is consistent shouldn't you delete the first two paras in that section as they are not "adequately sourced" (or not sourced at all)? Sodicadl (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Sodicadl, just because you "cited" another person's work doesn't mean you can or should copy their texts and sentences verbatim and pass them off as your own or as WP's (see WP:plag). I know what you meant by chores. But in the end, it is still a chore and it is a chore that no one cares for at the moment because it is based on an info that is not adequately sourced. You made a fair point about the first two paragraphs of the history section. I recommend that we add citation tags to those two paragraphs. The references are there and are fairly mainstream, they just need to be added. danielkueh (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I would not consider Al-Khalili a reliable source on the history of science. And I trust newspapers as sources concerning the news, not as sources on the history of science. If a newspaper is reporting on emerging scholarship - e.g. a book review of a new book published by an academic press or by a notable scholar in a trade press, or an article reviewing some debate in a journal (as when they often report on something going on in Science or the Lancet — great! We can track down the book, or find the article in Science or the Lancet. My point is, if this is a significant view among historians of science, we should be able to find an appropriate source which would be a book or journal article by a specialist. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find that Al-Khalili is an authority on the history of science especially muslim science. He has fronted/authored a TV series on it and written at least one book on the subject.For obvious reasons his expertise is strongest in maths and physics. Abtract (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
It still fails WP:WEIGHT. There is no evidence that Al-Khalili's views are shared by other historians of evolutionary thought. His book was evidently written to aggrandize the historical role of Isalmic science, a self-confessed agenda which no doubt makes him give significant weight to events and persons that are largely ignored by most, if not all, academic experts on the subject. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

First line of second paragraph in the intro

Latest comment: 12 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion

"Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago."

I'm not sure why this sentence is written so unambiguously. All the links in the sentence are very forthcoming in regards to this sentence not being a hard and fast fact. I know you guys get very angry when people say things like "Evolution is *just* a theory" and that it hasn't been proven, but could we at least try to make this sentence a little more open-ended with regards to abiogenesis and common ancestry? Billytrousers (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

How else would you state this? From the links and references I've read, the only thing up for debate is what kind of bacteria it was, and the exact time. Judgeking (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Well abiogenesis would not be from "bacteria", but the sentence is not saying much anyway. The most controversial point is perhaps whether there was one or more such events, something which was for example not clear to Darwin. But one single "common ancestry" is today I believe not seriously contested? Does anyone have a source for any real contestation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Only creationists. They have a source that's perfect. At least it is to them. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The only thing that isn't a hard fact in that sentence is the number 3.7. Of course there is no way for scientists to know exactly when life originated, but its somewhere around there. Maybe it could be changed to "between 3-4 billion years ago" to acknowledge that, otherwise the rest of the sentence is fine. Cadiomals (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of articles on the subject and at a evolutionary biology meeting the consensus was the LUCA was already a complex organism-likely bacteria evolved by gene loss. A polyphosphate organelle (yes prokaryotes do have this organelle contrary to dogma)is universal to bacteria, archae, and eukaryotes, so it is believed that this organelle was in a common ancestor that precedes the divide into the three domains. GetAgrippa (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I can agree with making the 3.7 less certain sounding.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Why not be consistent with the LUCA Wikipedia article: "The last universal ancestor (LUA), also called the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), or the cenancestor, is the most recent organism from which all organisms now living on Earth descend.[1] Thus it is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all current life on Earth. The LUA is estimated to have lived some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago (sometime in the Paleoarchean era).[2][3] A universal common ancestor is at least 102860 times more probable than having multiple ancestors…[4] A model with a single common ancestor but allowing for some gene swapping among species was... 103489 times more probable than the best multi-ancestor model...[4]". The consensus is that is wasn't primordial soup or a gene pool but an actual sophisticated cell. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
That is long and getting off topic. This article here has a history of getting over-taken by other subjects. Let's keep whatever we say short.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The statement that life arose approximately 3.7 billion years ago is within the ballpark of what is found in many reputable sources. I am looking at an introductory text by Hillis et al, and it says 3.8 billion. But before we decide to go with whatever source, I think it is important that we put this in context. 3.7 billion years might sound precise to some people, but that is only because they are thinking in seconds or minutes. 3.7 "billion" is a very large number. For example, the difference between 3.65 billion years and 3.7 billion years is 500,000,000 years. That is a long time. To us, at least. If someone says that life arose 3 703 562 922 years ago, then I agree, that is a little too precise. But the statements says "approximately." There is enough room for error there. My two cents. danielkueh (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't like the "Life on Earth originated". It may confuse people about the origin of life and biological evolution. Perhaps "The tree of life originated from...." or "All life is related by common descent from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago that gave rise to bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes." That way it isn't confusing that this LUCA is the first original life form. Abiogenesis could have lots of successes and failures that finally produced the LUCA that gave rise to all life we presently know. Or just leave the sentence alone. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I am fine with LUCA. How about "All life originated from a common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago"? danielkueh (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
To the point. We have a winner give that man (Danielkueh) a Kewpie Doll. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you are in agreement. Let's wait a bit and give some time to the rest of the peanut gallery to chime in. danielkueh (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Concerning the 3.7 thing I have no big concern. My only point was that I would not be against wording which does not sound so exact. Note that I am talking about an impression. So just a style thing. Concerning other aspects of the wording, well now that we are looking at it, would this not be more accurate: "All life today has a common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago"? The point is that there must have been other types of life before the common ancestor. Who knows, maybe there was even more than one abiogenesis. In this article we do not need to go very far with this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
How about the following? "All current life on earth originated from a common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago." danielkueh (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
On second thought, I really don't like the word "current" or "today", as it is quite exclusive and ignores all the other life forms before it. I think it is understood that once you refer to the common ancestor, it really doesn't matter if there was life that occurred before it or other abiogenesis that never caught on. My two cents again. danielkueh (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, your original proposed sentence ("All life originated from a common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago") is preferable (and great). --AlphaEta 20:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
DK, Your logic is sound, but I do think people get confused about the difference between a common ancestor and the earlier origin of that line of descent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Andrew, I understand but I won't worry about it. danielkueh (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Aside from the words "evolved from," and "all," there is really no difference between my proposed statement and the existing one in the text. So no changes were made. danielkueh (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is there any mention of Intelligent design?

Latest comment: 12 years ago24 comments15 people in discussion

What possible purpose does any mention of that half-brained idiocy serve on this article? No creationism articles have sections dedicated to evolution from a scientific perspective and we don't go forcing "THEORY OF" in front of every single creationist belief. I opt to remove all reference to non-science in this scientific article. Opinions are NOT facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.171.127.77 (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh actually you do go forcing "theory of" before everything. Why don't you read the pages? "attempt to explain" "theory of" etc. Seriously. 71.214.218.58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC).
First of all, you should always post your messages at the bottom of the discussion page. Secondly, i removed your unneccessary swear word. Third, please sign your messages with four tildes (~). Anyway, intelligent design can be mentioned where it is relevant. No where in the article is it presented as scientific or a valid alternative theory to evolution. Anything can be mentioned in an article as long as it is on-topic, factual, referenced, and relevant, whether you would like it to be there or not. Cadiomals (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no prohibition on using swear words on Wikipedia and it was against talk page guidelines for you to edit the content of this user's post. Noformation Talk 23:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed Cadiomals please see the relevant talk page guidelines on refactoring others comments. There is no prohibition on swear words. It also wouldn't hurt to be nice to the newbs.--Adam in MO Talk 02:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
And I'm pretty much with our IP newbie on this. I'd like to see the article completely ignore creationist crap. If anything, what's in the article is too much emphasis on one bunch of crackpots in just one country. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Like it or not, opposition to evolution is perennially newsworthy. The US does not have a monopoly on creationists. Brief mention in one section seems appropriate, in this lengthy article. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Right. I agree on the lack of value of ID and creationism generally, but we cover all notable material that gets written about a lot, and there is no real doubt that ID is a notable thing that has to do with the theory of evolution. ID might be wrong, but it really exists and is unfortunately probably more widely known than real biology in some parts of the world, so it is part of our duty according to WP:NEUTRAL to make sure we note it as a well-known error and source of notable of deliberately produced hot air and confusion. If you prefer not to think in terms of policies, then see it as a help to guide naive readers who might in fact in many cases not quite understand the true relationship (or lack thereof) between ID and real science.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the legal system has made the link between ID and creationism and basically disqualified it as science. So if the legal system doesn't recognize it as science why should we? Sad really because, evolution withinstanding, the possibility of life being artificially designed is a real possibility. Venter has designed life (not from scratch and maybe more a deconstruct-reconstruct) but still the scientific possibility has to recognized. Then there is this interest in other "earth-like" planets and the search for intelligent life (although personally I don't see the logic). We have moved from artifical selection to artficial design. Still the principal of evolution persists but I find it fascinating we are molding and designing life and this will likely increase more and more. I have to admit I have some reservations and often lament we have evolved to the point we are usurping evolution. Like aging research. Ecologically and evolutionarily do we really want people to live hundreds of years? Genetically manipulated species and non-native introduction of species and the ecological and evolutionary implications possible-are we designing. I was just reading how scientist will clone a wooly mammoth in the next five years???? Jeez. We will defy extinction events and time itself. We zealously protect species from extinction but extinction events are central to earth's life history. Is there method to the madness and do we really know what we are doing? Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a particular suggestion for the article. This is not a forum for your opinions on evolution or scientific consensus.--Adam in MO Talk 09:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Not to be argumentative but I didn't relate my opinion on evoution but artifical design and altering evolution. That is factual. Just like now there are human beings running around with mitochondria from their Dad rather than their Mom because of one in vitro fertilization technique. So much for mapping a mitochondrial Eve in the future and will this have evolutionary implications. Gentically modified crops and organisms like modified silkworms, etc can have a huge impact on ecosystems, ecology, and evolution. Anyway the problem at hand has been addressed. I was just expouding that a real science independent from creationism is feasible for artifical design-I wouldn't call it "intelligent" is my point. Great progress in the article as a whole. My bet is in the next five years there will be an "artifical design" article. Hmmm maybe sooner. GetAgrippa (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
GetAgrippa, (sticking to your first 2 sentences) agreed that WP should not describe ID as conventional science. But does it? Not everything notable to say about the theory of evolution is about science.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, but are we discussing one sentence in one paragraph? This hardly seems disproportionate to me. Can we close this thread? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The IDiocy is mentioned once, under the heading "Social and cultural responses". Read the sentence for yourselves: "Since then, the competing religious belief of creationism was legally disallowed in secondary school curricula in various decisions in the 1970s and 1980s, but it returned in the form of intelligent design, to be excluded once again in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case." This is a storm in a teacup. - Soulkeeper (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that wording is there, but I'm sure the religious nutcases would just point to it and say "Look, the law got it wrong." The reality that we should be making clear is that creationism and ID are just plain wrong. We are not actually saying that at all. We're just telling readers what a couple of American legal cases have said. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Better now? (unless it's reverted) - Soulkeeper (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
No, that's not better at all and I reverted you. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC) And I got reverted too. Sorry about this. I simply misread the change as "...ID in its pseudoscientific form..." --Fama Clamosa (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That misreading was understandable. I think I just fixed it. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok by me, technically ID was preceded by the pseudoscience of creation science but there's no point in going into these nuances of more or less covert creationism. . dave souza, talk 18:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Fine here too. Thanks. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place for an attack on creationism nor the place to throw around the term "religious nutcases". Keep it cool. A little fun fact, scientists used to think the earth was flat, while the bible described the earth as a sphere...guess what? The Bible was correct!TalkWoe90i 19:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Funny fact, not fun fact. I would love to see any evidence that "scientists used to think the earth was flat." Slrubenstein | Talk 20:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Clearly spurious, as the Bible makes several references indicating they took the Earth as being flat (and having four corners), unlike the ancient Greeks, and scientists didn't exist before the term was coined by Whewell in the 1830s. Of course natural philosophers for some time before that knew that the Earth is approximately spherical. All of which is offtopic for evolution, as is creationism dressed up as "intelligent design" . . . dave souza, talk 21:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Where do you mean? Because if it is in culturall responses section, then its okay.142.22.115.5 (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)142.22.115.5

FAQ nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago35 comments14 people in discussion

The FAQ section of this talk page has been nominated for deletion. [[34]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Holy banana-nut-bread! That's one of the best FAQ pages in the known universe. Gads. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking the same. (Redacted) *cough* — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
My religious beliefs have nothing to do with my deletion nomination. I nominated the FAQ for deletion, because it is violates the neutral point of view policy and misrepresents policy. Jeraphine Gryphone, need I remind you to assume good faith. I have often been involved in areas where I had a personal opinion, yet I was neutral and followed policy. That is precisely what I am doing now. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Guys, you are horribly immature right now and these attacks on Alpha Quadrant will probably not help your case anytime soon. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I cannot see good faith from Alpha Quadrant. I only see an objection to the FACTS of evolution. It would stun me if that wasn't based on religion. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that the FAQ dismisses a controversial subject for one particular point of view. It isn't up to editors to decide who is right and who is wrong. Information presented must be done so neutrally. The FAQ is endorsing one point of view, and dismissing all others, which violates policy. Plain and simple. The wording to the FAQ needs to be changed so that the answers are presented neutrally and without bias. You can't honestly tell me that the FAQ is, at this moment, neutral. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The point of view the FAQs are rejecting and the view that it's a controversial subject is one held only by deliberately uninformed, religiously motivated nut cases who are opponents of Wikipedia's goal of improving the world's knowledge. By their actions they encourage a wider mistrust of genuine and important scientific knowledge. I regard them as dangerous people. The FAQs are completely neutral. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
HiLo48 you are absolutely correct. You know things are going south when words like "bias" are used. I'm sure "liberal bias" is next and will be followed by labeling people as atheists. Disrupting Wikipedia just to make a WP:POINT is very bad form. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
It's already happened. If you follow the link in Dominus Vobisdu's initial post, you'll find precisely that allegation from Kevin Rutherford, twice. So, good call. And, as someone from a country where the word "liberal" would never equate with "spawn of the devil" (in fact, it's the name of the more conservative of our two major political parties), I laughed out loud when I read it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yikes, that was fast. Sounds like you've got it easy. I live in Texas where liberal is soaked in condemnation then hurled at others with the force of hatred and being gay or an atheist is still illegal. Tis a silly place. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, in the UK liberal is often soaked in condemnation. but that's because they're in coalition with the conservatives, and opposed from the left. . . dave souza, talk 18:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Your disgusting lack of NPOV, even that it is unrelated to this article, shows quite well why you are deeply unsuited to comment here Dave. Refactor or remove please. Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, have refactored: tis but a silly comment, and rather offtopic. The point about WP:BIAS has already been made. . dave souza, talk 20:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
You're correct, of course, AQ, that we must be neutral. The two most prestigious scientific journals in the world are Nature (Journal) and Science (Journal), would you care to find me an article in either of those publications that attempts to dispute evolution? I have a subscription to science, so if you can't get the full text I'm happy to pull it up for you. As Hilo said, the only people who consider evolution controversial are those with a high degree of religiosity, or those who are uneducated in biology (the former generally being the latter as well). There are literally no alternatives to evolution being taught in any universities worth their salt in the world. I'm sure you did this in good faith, but, and I don't mean to be rude but there's no other way to say it, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Noformation Talk 08:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

@ (Redacted) Noformation Talk 08:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: these may be of some relevance/interest:

— Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wholly relevant, and thanks for those statements. Noformation Talk 09:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Many of those who favor evolution refer to creationism as pseudoscience. Similarly, many of those who favor creationism refer to evolution as pseudoscience. There is even an article, Creation Science, that explains that mainstream science rejects creationism and vice versa. It isn't our place to decide who is right, and who is wrong. To say that there is no controversy surrounding the topic is false. There is an entire article on the controversy. The FAQ page is a mess and needs a complete rewrite.
I do find myself wondering, if there truly was no problem with the template, then why has over half of the keep !voters resorted to personal attacks, ad hominem remarks, or assumption of bad faith? If their arguments were highly compelling, there is no need for such attitude. I merely brought up a concern that I felt to be valid. That is what MfD is for, to discuss a particular concern that may lead to deletion. Rather than discuss my concerns in a calm and neutral tone, several users felt the need to act with hostility. This hostility was not needed, but it would explain why they don't see any neutrality problems with the FAQ page.
There is really no point for me to argue neutrality with users who can't even write three sentences without including personal attacks. I have better things to do than fend off personal attacks while arguing for deletion. If editors can't get past the "Alpha Quadrant is a Christian, so he must be bias." attitude, they need to have a serious self analysis. Not once in that MfD, or elsewhere, have I expressed my personal opinion about the accuracy of evolution. Wikipedia isn't the place for such remarks. Wikipedia is run by a set of policies, and if we can't even adhere to them when we have strong personal opinions, how can we possibly hope to write a accurate and neutral encyclopedia. I'll leave this discussion with that and wish you all the best. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed that the personal attacks are un-called for. Editors in this area of the encyclopedia have a tendency to be over-firm with "creationist" editors who edit articles like Evolution, Natural selection, Intelligent Design, Creation Science with the viewpoint that the Evolution vs. Creation debate is not settled within the scientific community--it is a constant battle to prevent creationism, intelligent design, etc. from sneaking in to article on scientific topics. Making statements like "There are a number of scientists on both sides of this debate" is a red flag that can very quickly get you labeled as one of these "creationist" editors, and bring with it the attitude/firmness towards that kind of editor. (As an aside, read up on Project Steve--that statement is demonstrably false/misleading) Personal attacks are still inexcusable, but that's a bit of a view of where they're coming from.
You are correct that there exists controversy about Creation vs Evolution, which is a notable social phenomenon. However, the fact remains that evolution is a scientific fact--there is no scientific controversy about it--which is the basis for how this article (and the associated FAQ) is written. There are even a few high-profile court cases that confirm this (1, 2). As a corollary, one could also claim that there is controversy about the shape of the earth, but yet the Earth article unequivocally states that the Earth is round, not flat, because there is no legitimate scientific debate over the matter. That said, I agree with you that the FAQ's tone could overall be less WP:BITEy, but its content is still fundamentally sound. Mildly MadTC 17:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, AQ, I didn't attack you (I said you don't know what you're talking about but this is not a personal attack, it's an observation that would be equally valid if someone said there was a controversy between flat earth and round earth theory). I asked you to furnish an article from one of two of the most prestigious journals in the world because if there is a scientific controversy they will be the first to print it. If you are able to do so I will set up a webcam and eat my shorts for your viewing pleasure. No joke, you have my word as a gentlemen that if either one of those journals has an article which posits that evolution may be false and that there is another viable theory, I will eat my own underwear and I won't even wash it first. Noformation Talk 21:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree, you did not make personal attacks against me. However, some other editors did make personal attacks. For example, comments like this one. As for the journals, I will see what I can find. I don't have access to either scientific journals, so I would have to go on abstracts. I found Easterbrook, G. (15 August 1997). "SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY: Science and God: A Warming Trend?". Science. 277 (5328): 890–893. doi:10.1126/science.277.5328.890. Retrieved 12 January 2012.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link). It is difficult to determine from a three sentence summary, but it appears it may be what you requested. It was published in 1997, so I want to find something a bit more recent. However, before I start looking for recent reports, I want to make sure I am looking in the right place. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
That comment you linked to is mine. Why not have the guts to say so. I totally re-endorse everything I said there. Creationists, and all the evidence identifies you as one, ARE dangerous. They make proper science education harder by sowing doubt under all scientific knowledge, and encourage ignorance and myths. Bad for the world. Bad for Wikipedia. Oh, and another tactic of the religious nutters is niceness. When called on the facts, they retreat to the "love another and don't be rude" mantra. I don't love people who deliberately mislead innocent youth. And I will be brutal in pointing out the tactics. Stuff your niceness. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think AQ has ever identified himself as a creationist (creationism =/= Christian) but either way your views on this are noted but honestly not relevant to the discussion here, and automatically criticizing an editor's beliefs is an WP:AGF violation as well as a chilling effect on discourse. AQ may not be educated in the sciences, he may simply not know what you know regarding biology, but that's no reason to attack him. Evolution has enough evidence that we don't need to resort to ad hominem.
@AQ: That article makes no claims questioning the validity of evolution, here is a passage from it: "But “flood” creationism, which attempts to deny both evolution and the basic findings of geology, is preached only by a few subsets of the monotheist denominations. Catholicism, for instance, is today conservative but not creationist, while mainstream Protestant denominations and most of Judaism and Islam long ago stopped making claims such as Earth was only recently created. “Creationism is an incredible pain in the neck, neither honest nor useful, and the people who advocate it have no idea how much damage they are doing to the credibility of belief,” says physicist Houghton, who has written articles on the value of prayer."
If you'd like the full text I can email it to you, let me know. Noformation Talk 22:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Just want to address your point regarding scientists calling creationism pseudoscience and creationists calling evolution pseudoscience. It seems to me that the 99% of biologists educated in sciences would be the correct experts to whom to appeal regarding classifications of pseudoscience. In the same way, a flat earth theorist may call geology pseudoscience but their opinions are not on equal footing and are severely misinformed. There is literally zero controversy among life scientists that evolution is a fact - a totally indisputable fact. I would not offer to eat my own shorts on a webcam for anything less certain :). Noformation Talk 23:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Telling me to shut up by appealing to WP:AGF ignores my comment about the niceness strategy of religiously driven creationists. They actually don't assume good faith themselves, but hide their manipulativeness and nastiness behind a façade of niceness. They do massive damage to scientific learning and waste an awful lot of valuable editors' time here. We need to look beyond the seeming niceness to what they are really doing. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
If this were talk origins I would agree with you but we're here to build an encyclopedia, not debate. Two wrongs don't make a right, if AQ is being dishonest then that's something to deal with civilly, not by attacking him (though I do not believe he is being dishonest, I just think that you know more than him about this subject; stupidity is something to condemn, ignorance is not as everyone is ignorant to the majority of human knowledge). Noformation Talk 23:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
You make some very good points Noformation. Looking through the Science journal archives, it does appear that in recent years, opposition in mainstream science by other scientists has faded. The most recent article I could find was this one, and it was not presenting any evidence against evolution. I have withdrawn my deletion nomination. I still believe the current wording is problematic, but that isn't going to get resolved at MfD. I'd like to thank you for your patience and civility in this discussion.
@HiLo48, I'm sorry my civil attitude is offensive to you, but you are going to have to deal with it. I am here to build a reliable and neutral encyclopedia based on the policies we have laid out. I am not here to defend my personal beliefs, nor push an agenda. Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. Yes, I am a Christian and I don't hide that fact, but that does not mean I am incapable of acting neutrally on contentious topics. I have yet to see a diff where you substantiate your claims against me. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
That all fits my point about using niceness as a manipulative tool. Many religious folk do it, in fact so much so, that you probably don't realise you're doing it yourself. I regard my approach as far more honest (surely a positive attribute) and, while likely to upset some folks along the way, actually gets my point across much more effectively. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility is a manipulative tool. Now that's a new one. How is acting with a civil attitude harmful to this project? Your statement goes against multiple Wikipedia behavior guidelines. With that kind of attitude, we might as well throw all of our policies out the window. I will note that users who follow the ignore civility philosophy usually end up indefinitely blocked/banned in the long run. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to debates the merits of being civil versus civil POV pushing (which is sometimes seen here, although not for a while). As no examples of problems with the FAQ have been presented, this discussion can be closed ... until next time. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Obviously it's sensible and necessary to keep this FAQ to point out to editors holding minority or fringe views the extent and way in which these views should be shown in articles. As in WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI as well as WP:FRINGE. There is of course a place and way to show such minority views in articles, taking care to give due weight to the majority expert view. . . dave souza, talk 18:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The mere fact people want to delete the FAQ as having a "liberal bias" only reinforces in my mind strong need for this FAQ and its message. Yobol (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The FAQ should stay precisely because it is difficult for some editors to see what is neutral concerning this topic. The idea that evolution is just one scientific theory amongst various options is not only a misunderstanding, but is in fact a myth which has been deliberately spread by a well-funded political-religious movement in one particular country where many WP editors happen to live. It is part of local politics and religion. Of course there are many theories considered true in particular parts of the world, but we aim to summarise what can be generally agreed by people independent of their political, geographical and religious position. So where peculiar local beliefs and debates are notable we can mention them as what they are.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There have been no sources cited which suggest the FAQ should be altered, let alone deleted. The action of nominating it to be deleted appears to be a gesture of emotion, and opposing responses seem to have facilitated the venting of this user's frustration rather than merely ending when no citable reasons were given for deletion. Antagonism usually falls flat when there is nothing for it to push against.137.111.13.200 (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hall, B. K.; Hallgrímsson, B., eds. (2008). Strickberger's Evolution (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett. p. 762. ISBN 0763700665.
  2. ^ Lewontin, R. C. (1970). "The units of selection". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1: 1–18.
  3. ^ Darwin, Charles (1859). "XIV". On The Origin of Species. p. 503. ISBN 0801413192.
  4. ^ Kimura M (1991). "The neutral theory of molecular evolution: a review of recent evidence". Jpn. J. Genet. 66 (4): 367–86. doi:10.1266/jjg.66.367. PMID 1954033. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  5. ^ Cracraft, J.; Donoghue, M. J., eds. (2005). Assembling the tree of life. Oxford University Press. p. 592. ISBN 0195172345.
  6. ^ Carroll, S. (2005). Endless Forms Most Beautiful: : The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-06016-0.
  7. ^ Provine, W. B. (1988). "Progress in evolution and meaning in life". Evolutionary progress. University of Chicago Press. pp. 49–79.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Moore, R.; Decker, M.; Cotner (2009). Chronology of the Evolution-Creationism Controversy. Greenwood. p. 454. ISBN 0313362874. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |fisrt3= ignored (help) Cite error: The named reference "Moore09" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Futuyma, Douglas J., ed. (1999), Evolution, Science, and Society: Evolutionary Biology and the National Research Agenda (PDF), Office of University Publications, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Cite error: The named reference "Futuyma99" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine (2008). Science, Evolution, and Creationism. National Academy Press. ISBN 0309105862. Cite error: The named reference "NAS" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution/Archive_62&oldid=1142760603"