Talk:Evolution as fact and theory/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Encouraging use of a logical fallacy?

I'm not sure I get this. Why should I accept the "Established Hypothesis" definition as a definition I should use in general practice? This article seems to be pushing the idea that I should be using the fallacy of equivocation, rather than attempting to use clear, concise language. Why should I attempt to use two senses of the same word, when we have other words clarify the distinctions between the shades of meaning of the words?  —CobraA1 21:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I really would like a good word to mean "absolute certainty." It's useful to talk about such things, and the idea that we have to muddy up our conversations with less precise meanings just because there's a spat about one area of science seems pretty absurd.  —CobraA1 21:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that this is not a forum for discussing the article topic in general (per WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK), do you have a specific suggestion on how to improve the article? Gabbe (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say delete it (the Wikipedia is not a dictionary . . .), but apparently a vote was held, with the conclusion to keep it. In that light, I'd say add more material about avoiding confusion when talking about the philosophy of science, as this page is essentially a description of a debate about words that have multiple meanings.  —CobraA1 21:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I don't think the "established consensus" meaning of the word "fact" truly reflects an accepted consensus of any sort - the "established consensus" meaning of the word "fact" appears to be simply the definition of the word "fact" that Douglas Futuyma chose to use. I'd like to see more evidence that this usage of the word "fact" is commonly accepted.  —CobraA1 21:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As it happens more evidence was available in a historic version of this article [1]. More recent authors decided it was overstating the point and removed. — Axel147 (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the default Wikipedian definition of "fact" can be found in the article about Fact...? - Soulkeeper (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Causation

Let me first set out some brief (and hence sketchy) philosophical issues which this article ignores.

An important difference between the way that 'fact' and 'theory' are used in many scientific contexts relates to causal explanations. That new species have come into existence over time and other species have disappeared is either a true or a false fact. It can be verified by observation (and logical deductions from those observations). Wikipedia does, and should, reflect back the expert consensus that this is a true fact.

The theory of evolution proposes a cause for this fact (along with other facts.) However, as first most clearly set out by David Hume, there's a problem with verifying causal explanations. As scientists we can observe that A has always been followed by B, either naturally or in experiments when we initiate A. But to say that A causes B is to say something more than that A is always followed by B (all other things being equal); it's to say that it's impossible for A to occur without B following, so that for ever in the future, B will always follow A. We can't verify this by observation.

It's for this reason that Popper proposed 'falsificationism' as a better description of scientific activity: we put forward causal explanations (=theories) which can be falsified but never proved/verifiied. However, although this may be a satisfactory account of the 'logic' of the scientific method, as Kuhn showed, it's not what actually happens. The lead to the Kuhn article says that "Scientists can never divorce their subjective perspective from their work; thus, our comprehension of science can never rely on full "objectivity" - we must account for subjective perspectives as well". It's characteristic of the actual behaviour of scientists that they aggressively defend their current theories (=causal explanations); it's been said that scientific theories only disappear with the death of their adherents. Now this is a perspective which I believe is thoroughly verifiable in Wikipedia terms from the literature on the philosophy of science. The problem is that many of those rightly defending the Darwinian theory of evolution seem to want to hide this perspective from view within their 'walled garden', in case it gives comfort to the creationists. The danger is that it just echoes the stridency and distortion of the other side. In as much as the theory of evolution proposes a universal causal explanation, it could in future be replaced by another theory which explains the all the currently known facts and more. There's not the slightest sign at present that it will be, but it could be.

I'm not sure that the current article can be improved, but I'll continue to think about it. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but isn't it a secondary cause, with no necessary implications for the first cause? ;) More to the point, for any of this to appear in an article it has to be fully set out in a verifiable published source – at present this looks like original research which Wikipedia can't publish. . dave souza, talk 13:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What I've written above is highly derivative, and certainly can't be credited to me! I haven't referenced it because this is a talk page. I could re-write what I've said above fully referenced (many of the sources are already in the Hume, Popper and Kuhn articles). The article is the problem, particularly the synthesis; e.g. the references don't compare evolution to gravity in the way the article does, as has already been pointed out on this page. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that science at the cutting edge may be biased towards scientists aggressively defending current theories. And that the theories themselves may have been influenced politically by money directed into particular areas of research. And maybe it is true in an extreme case bad theories really do only disappear with the death of their adherents. Evolution though cannot be placed in this category — it has retained its place in mainstream science for more than 100 years after the death of Darwin. — Axel147 (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the above is not that it is derivative but that it is out of date. Popper was rejected by philosophers after a withering critique by Quine. In the philosophy of science, why not use Philip Kircher, who is far more up-to-date in the philosophy of science than Popper (or historians of science like Kuhn)? And yeah, he read Hume. In fact, there is a lot of work by curent philosophers on aspects of the theory of evolution. I wish we had an article on it. But no one here seems to care to research the most recent work. I have attended public lectures at universities, by philosophers of science discussing aspects of Darwin and the modern synthesis and they do have interesting stuff to say, I am sure they publish in appropriate journals, let's have an article based on work that came out last year or five years ago or ten years ago - philosophy did not stop with Hume, there is still a lot of active work going on and if we want to have a good article on philosophical discussion of theoris of evolution, it should be based on current notable works. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Gravity and fruit flies

I am consistently bemused by how wooly the thinking is on evolution, and this article is no exception. It seems futile trying to reason with "believers", but since there is scope for discussion here - this section in the article is worth considering. In my opinion it should be re-written truthfully. It is both misleading and unscientific.

The section compares evolution with gravity.

"for example fruit flies, the process of change from generation to generation — that is, evolutionary change — has been observed in the laboratory.[19] The observation of fruit fly populations changing over time is also an example of a fact. So evolution is a fact just as the observations of gravity are a fact."

- this statement (and the reference given) rests on especially engineered lab processes geared to producing such a result. Fine - but it is no more meaningful to say evolutionary change has been "observed" than it would be to put a load of fruit flies in a box and declare that evolutionary change has NOT been observed. What a scientist should say is, evolutionary change has been engineered. That is true. Back to the excerpt above: evolutionary change has been engineered... "so evolution is a fact". It simply does not follow. The "fact" of evolution requires an engineer to create it, and without the engineer there is no fact. (I am NOT pushing creationism!! To be absolutely clear, I am saying there is NO engineer outside of the lab.)

Is this trivial? No it is profound, due to what flows from it. In the article we have a table sumarising the matter. It reads:

Gravity: Objects on Earth tend to fall downwards unless otherwise prevented from doing so.

Evolution: The prevalence of different traits changes from generation to generation in populations of fruit flies.

If we are going to be at all scientific in this article then these comments need to be stated properly. To be meaningfully compared to the statement about gravity, what the Evolution statement should say is: "The prevalence of different traits DOES NOT CHANGE from generation to generation in populations of fruit flies, unless engineered to do so."

This is a true statement, and it says the opposite of what the current statement says, which as it stands, is pure speculation.

Where's the rational, scientific thinking? 86.181.45.121 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a fallacious argument. Laboratory observation of genetic change does not rule out the existence of observable genetic change in nature, in response to selection pressures which have nothing to do with human activity. The laboratory observation shows the existence of a mechanism for such change. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The confusion and woolly thinking is of course mostly on your side, but I agree to the extent that the sentence "The prevalence of different traits changes from generation to generation in populations of fruit flies." is problematic. I haven't read the sources, so I am not sure if the sentence is factually correct if read in the (natural) context "under natural conditions".

One way in which the statement could be true even in this context would be if the time from one generation of fruit flies to the next was about 36 hours, so that generations would alternate between different environmental conditions. In this case you would expect that there are traits that are better for fruit flies "born" during the day and others that are better for fruit flies "born" during the night. Paradoxically, selection would make sure that fruit flies "born" during the day would be more likely to have the traits that are optimal for those "born" during the night, and vice versa. Under these circumstances a trait that ensures time between successive generations is closer to 24 or 48 hours would have an evolutionary advantage. If this advantage (which corresponds mostly to the difference between day and night adaptation) is bigger than the advantages of a 36 hour cycle, then you would expect fruit flies to evolve towards a 24 hour or 48 hour cycle.

Therefore it seems more likely to me that under natural environmental conditions the prevalence of traits does not change detectably from one generation to another. Similar to climate, evolution is a long term thing. The fact that there is no clear trend for the changes in average temperature from one year to the next does not imply that there are no long term changes with phenomena such as ice ages. Also the fact that there is no noticeable trend for differences in solar brightness between one year and another does not imply that the Sun will eventually run out of material to burn. This is a classical fallacy known as Zeno's paradox.

Of course we don't want such complications in an illustrative example for this article. Therefore it would be nice to have a formulation that doesn't give the erroneous(?) impression that the changes are observable from one generation to another under natural conditions. Even if there is a species for which this is the case, it would be atypical, and a more typical example might be preferable. Hans Adler 06:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tone

This article does a very brave effort to be neutral, but I do not think it is very successful. Overall, the information it gives is mostly objective, with a few exceptions, but reading between the lines still gives the impression of someone trying to make a point. This is suitable for an amateur blog, but not for an encyclopedia. An article from an encyclopedia should be no more ambitious in trying to convince people than a dictionary, or at least, it should not show such ambitions. Even the Oxford American Dictionaries call it "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed […]".

The quote from Douglas Futyuma represents quite accurately how I think we should regard "fact", as "a hypothesis we may assume to be true." However, this is just one perspective, and is not a dictionary explanation. A fact is "a truth known by actual experience or observation." So far, all our observation shows with regards to evolution is that there have been different species in a pattern which would fit in evolution, but people may always put forward alternate explanations. It is not possible to directly observe evolution.

I do not want to get philosophical here. Of course nothing is certain, and indeed everything does point at the fact that evolution occurs. If we can't trust the indications to evolution, we can't trust our own memory either, as the indications are basically the "memories" of the biosphere. The problem is that there's still billions who believe otherwise, and if we want to give them a chance of conquering their bigotry, we need to be exemplary of open-mindedness, and present the theory of evolution to them as nothing but a hypothesis, a thought experiment, as there will otherwise be no way that they will consider it: if we give the impression we try to convince them that evolution is a fact, they will be far too frightened to lose their immortal souls to the fires of perdition to listen. It is demeaning, yes, but it's the only way. If we really care about helping them, then we have to empathize with how they think.

It may feel like a humiliation to represent the theory of evolution as a mere thought experiment, but does it really matter? Basically, we might see everything as a thought experiment. Why should we be so proud as to think we know the truth, even if we do know the truth? Even if it is the truth, seeing even the truth itself as a thought experiment will help us to keep an open mind. At the least, it will expand our imagination by making us consider other possibilities, even if they aren't true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernovic (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions about what parts of the text should be changed, and how they should be changed? - Soulkeeper (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I fear this is more of the "theory vs. fact" crap. Is the article on evolution any more problematic than our article on gravity? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a pity you do not make more effort to understand this "theory vs. fact" crap, as you call it. This article is far from encylcopedic in its tone. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions about what parts of the text should be changed, and how they should be changed? - Soulkeeper (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do. For a start, as a physicist, I have never seen the strong distinction between theory and fact made that you make in this article. The whole bit about gravity being a fact and a theory is unsourced and does not represent the views of physicists on the subject. In physics we have observations, and theories, which attempt to describe those observations. In Newtonian gravitation, for example, the observations that lead to the theory were: that things fall when you drop them, and careful astronomical observations of the way certain celestial bodies appeared to move. Newton's theory starts with the concept that all massive bodies attract one another and proceeds to describe mathematically how they do this. Neither Newton nor physicists since have made a clear distinction by describing the first part of this theory as fact and the second part as theory. The whole gravity argument is bogus and unsourced and should be removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts." (sourced statement from article Fact). Also see the distinction being made in Newton's law of universal gravitation, and see Quantum gravity and General relativity being described as theories. When you write "Neither Newton nor physicists since have made a clear distinction by describing the first part of this theory as fact and the second part as theory.", you are labeling both the theory and observations as "theory", which does not seem accurate to me, and at the same time you are making claims about "physicists since" which don't seem correct to me in light of what these other articles say. - Soulkeeper (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I know how the word 'fact' is generally used but it has little scientific currency. The article you mention (Newton's law of universal gravitation) does not claim that gravitational attraction between massive bodies is a 'fact' but the formula quantitatively describing this a 'theory' and I have never seen any book on physics which does this. The concepts of universal gravitational attraction and the mathematical law of gravitation were introduced round about the same time by Newton. Before this, neither was a fact or a theory. In general relativity (GR) gravitation is no longer considered as a force between objects but as a curvature of spacetime, thus your so-called fact is no longer valid.

As you are using a example from physics to try to demonstrate your point, you must provide reliable sources from the field of physics to support what you claim. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is this statement: "It is not possible to directly observe evolution." Evolution is a change in gene frequencies over generations. We sample a population at generation n to determine its gene frequencies. We sample the same population at generation n+1 and observe a change in gene frequencies. We have observed evolution. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not one particular statement but the whole unscientific tone of the article. Although they are not nearly as common as creationists, there are a few crazy people who challenge Einstein's theory of relativity. There is a very good book which 'defends' the theory. It is not called 'Relativity fact or fiction' or 'Why special relativity is a fact' but 'The experimental foundations of special relativity'. It simply shows, in a proper scientific and unsensational way, that there are many disparate experiments and observations that verify the theory and none which disproves it. There is no need to say more.

This article needs to have a more serious scientific tone and a good start would be to change the title to something like the 'The scientific evidence for evolution'. It is currently nothing more than a rant. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. The article currently seems directed towards convincing crazy people. Those who have irrational and unscientific objections to the theory. No rational or scientific article is ever going to convince these people.

The article should be directed as sensible people who may have doubts or reservations about evolution. It should explain in an encyclopedic manner what the evidence is for the theory and what alternatives and problems there might be with it. The evidence alone should be enough to convince sensible people. The only people that should be treated as idiots are idiots and Wikipedia is not written for idiots. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to this proposal. However, evolutionary scientists (for whatever reasons) do indeed take a different tone; Richard Dawkins regularly trumpets that evolution is "true." This article is itself based on a point Stephen Jay Gould made, that evolution is both theory and fact. So Martin has to understand that evolutionary scientists and physicists do not talk the same way about their work. I have no objection to Martin fixing the sections that represent physics. Martin makes the point that there are observations like "things fall when you drop them." What Gould was saying is that "evolution" means both things: the theory, and an event that is observed. By "fact" evolutionary scientists mean that evolution has been observed. If Martin wants to clarify this in the article, great! That sounds like an improvement to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am keen to remove the unsourced and inaccurate statements on gravity, but I would also suggest that biologists could learn from physicists. This may seem somewhat arrogant but it just happens that physicists were forced to confront some of the philosophical aspects of the subject at the start of the twentieth century. If the question 'Is Newtonian physics theory or fact?' had been asked at the and of the nineteenth century, there would have been a very strong temptation to say things like, 'Newtonian physics is how the world works' and 'Newtonian physics is a proven fact'. No doubt some scientists and philosophers would have pointed out that there is a philosophical difference between reality and a very well established theory (something understood by the ancient Greeks) but there certainly was a temptation to think that physics was nearly complete and proven. The advances in physics at the start of the twentieth century, namely relativity and especially quantum mechanics, changed all that. Physicist were forced to re-learn what they had known all along, that scientific theories could never represent absolute truth or be 'how the world actually works' they can only be models useful to humans in describing nature.

Of course, in other scientific disciplines the above distinction is not nearly so critical. We can indeed ask questions like, 'what is the mechanism for evolution' but I do not see this as an excuse for unscientific language.

Another way to look at this is to ask ourselves who the target audience of this article is. It is not evolutionary biologists at one extreme, neither is it creationists at the other, nothing will convince a committed creationist or supporter of intelligent design. I imagine that it is aimed at those who are learning about the subject and who may have had some contact with creationism. To those people, this article is as bad as the creationist propaganda. It says, evolution is a fact because we say so and then gives a bogus parallel with gravity.

The way to convince people is to give the evidence clearly and simply without any tub thumping. Make sure to mention any areas where the evidence is weak or tends to conflict with current theory. Be open and straightforward, that is the way to convince those that can be convinced. The others, of course, cannot be helped. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

However, the reason this article exists is that there is a large amount of commentary outside Wikipedia about "fact" and "theory" regarding Evolution ("it's only a theory"). Accordingly, the article needs to point out the relevant issues, and those issues have nothing to do with a philosophical discussion about knowledge. The parallel between evolution and gravitation regarding "fact and theory" is precisely correct. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The claims about gravitation are completely bogus. Please show me any source which makes the claimed distinction between fact and theory regarding gravity. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This one by Stephen Jay Gould is linked in the article. doi:10.1007/s12052-007-0001-z makes a similar distinction between "fact" and "theory" regarding gravity. Gabbe (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This distinction is not made by physicists. Can you find a physics source which makes this distinction? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you said "any source". Anyway, I have a faint recollection of Richard Feynman making this distinction in one of his lectures on gravitation, I'll see if I can find an online copy or transcript of it. Gabbe (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you send me the quote from your first source, it seems you have to pay to read it. Regarding Feynman, please send me the quote, I cannot believe that Feynman makes the distinction in the way that you do here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be that there are crazy people out there who misuse scientific terminology in order to mislead people, so we must do the same. I say that we should do the opposite. Evolution is only a theory, but so is the whole of science. Once people understand this, the argument that 'evolution is only a theory' falls apart. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The "theory of evolution" is a theory, but that doesn't mean that "evolution" is just a theory. The problem lies in that the word evolution is used to refer to more than one thing, similar to the word gravity. In one sense "gravity" is just a theory, in another sense it is a fact. Same thing with evolution. Gabbe (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

To say that 'gravity is a fact' is meaningless. What do you actually mean? Is it the observation that things fall when we drop them? Is it the name we give to the force which we understand causes that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. That apples fall to the ground is an observable fact, the Newtonian model is one theory which explains why and how this occurs. The change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next (one meaning of the term "evolution") is an observable fact. Natural selection, genetic drift and the modern evolutionary synthesis (other meanings of the term "evolution") are theories which explains why and how this occurs. Gabbe (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The observation that things (usually) fall when we drop them is just that, an observation. If we wish we can then invent a word for this class of observation. We can then say, 'things fall because of gravity', but this tells us nothing, except that we have invented the name 'gravity' for the general observation that things fall when we drop them. That is just a definition of a word.

If we choose to define 'evolution' as meaning 'the observed change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next' then of course we are free to do that, but that is not something that anyone would argue about, it is just the definition of a word. An article that tells us that a word can be defined to have a chosen meaning is not necessary. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article has seven references to demonstrate that the topic discussed really does exist. Your personal observations do not alter the fact that a lot of material has been written on this topic. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is seemingly directed at those who make statements along the lines of 'evolution is just a theory'. Are you seriously telling me that a valid response to this is to say that the word 'evolution' is also used to describe certain observations (facts if you insist). Such a flimsy argument serves no purpose whatever except to convince interested readers that rather than address the real issues involved we are going to engage in a pointless semantic argument. This is also not the point that the sources that you refer to are making the point they are making is about the common misunderstanding of the word 'theory'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm seriously telling you that it is one of the valid responses. The word "theory" in common usage differs from its meaning in science. But the everyday meaning of the word "evolution" also differs from its exact meaning in science. I assume what you're trying to say is that "Evolution (that is, the modern evolutionary synthesis) is not a fact (that is, an incontestable truth), it's a theory—and there's nothing wrong with that". While true, this is only a partial response. The word "evolution" is not exclusively used to refer to the modern evolutionary synthesis, neither in common everyday usage nor in science. This article brings up several aspects of this issue, including what the term "theory" means and what the term "evolution" means. Gabbe (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And yes, the argument that the term "evolution" has more than one meaning is what several of the sources are saying. Gabbe (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read all the discussion above, but in looking over the article it seems there are references to publications that discuss the issue of whether evolution is fact or theory. So this article is not a made-up discussion, it seems to me, but one that exists already. Tuxedo junction (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe Martin's concern is misplaced here, the concern being that the article is not "the way to convince those that can be convinced." An encyclopedia's job is not that of convincing people one way or another, but rather presenting a digest of notable items, processes, personalities, and so forth. To my eyes, the article does a fair job of doing just that. What particular, specific changes need to be made to it? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

@All. Firstly it it not just my concern but also the concern of Hypernovic and others previously that the tone of this article is wrong.

Maybe there is also some misunderstanding about the point that I am making. According to Gabbe, he word 'evolution' can be used to mean 'The change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next... an observable fact'. Now I do not dispute that, but I doubt than anyone else does either. This is not what I understand that creationists are arguing about, or are there really some people who argue that the observed change in allele frequencies does not actually exist?

Even if there are people who argue that there has never been any observed change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next, it is extremely confusing and unhelpful to call this 'evolution' in the context of this discussion, better just to call it just 'an observed change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next'. Using the word evolution to refer to this specific observation and also to the modern evolutionary synthesis in a discussion about whether evolution is a fact or not is just confusing the issue. That is what creationists thrive on. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Martin, I never said you were the only one claiming a concern here. Why should we be concerned with "what creationists thrive on"?

The Futuyma quote uses allele frequency change as just one example of things that biological evolution "embraces". How is that confusing? Again, what specific changes do you propose? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My point was that using the word 'evolution' to mean two different things in this context is confusing to the reader, creationist or otherwise.

Are you telling me that this article is just about the fact that the word 'evolution' can be used to mean either one of several theories, such as modern evolutionary synthesis, or it can refer to actual observations such as 'an observed change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next'? That is not what the quotes sources are about.

Regarding specific changes, I would start with the complete removal of the bogus and completely unsourced argument about gravity. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Meaning two different things" and "covering a lot of ground" are two different things. I don't remember telling you anything about what this article is "just" about. Other editors here seem to hold the opinion that the gravity comparison is relevant and sourced. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no quoted sources for your claims regarding gravity. As to what this article is about, I have no idea, that is the problem and even after a long discussion her no one has managed to explain it to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop bringing up gravity. I told you I do not object if you change the stuff on gravity; who else here has voiced a real objection to your correcting the stuff on gravity? I even suggested a way you could modify it to be accountable to physicists and still to make an important point in the context of this article. Hogbin, at Wikipedia anyone can edit. Please tell me: WHo has reverted your editing the material on gravity? That you keep bringing it up on the talk page rather than editing the article suggests you prefer to argue rather than to edit.

I was trying to build a consensus. You may not object but others may do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen anyone object to your characterization of how physicists see gravity. So I guess we HAVE consensus, that is my point. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: "According to Gabbe, he word 'evolution' can be used to mean 'The change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next... an observable fact'. Now I do not dispute that, but I doubt than anyone else does either. This is not what I understand that creationists are arguing about, or are there really some people who argue that the observed change in allele frequencies does not actually exist?" You do not understand what creationists are arguing about. There really are people who question this. I have seen them argue on street corners, and have read their letters to the editor of newspapers. They are real. Now, the basic definition of evolution is a change in allele frequencies. Over time this can lead to speciation. Speciation has been observed and is another one of these "facts." There are different varieties of creationism; one rejects all of this, including changes in gene frequencies. Others (including Intelligent Design) accept that changes in gene frequency exist but that this cannot result in speciation; they call changes in gene frequency "microevolution" and speciation "macroevolution" and say that the former happens but not the latter. However, you would be mistaken if you really concluded from this that this article is arguing over semantics. According to the theory of evolution, species are statistical phenomena; the difference between one species and another is a difference in gene frequencies. Changes in gene frequencies therefore can result in speciation. This is observable and has been observed, and so is part of the "evolution as fact." And this is something that creationists regularly reject. It is highly contentious in the United States and increasingly in the UK. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine, so everyone agrees that changes in gene frequency exist. That is exactly what I thought. So using the term 'evolution' to refer to this phenomenon, although correct, is particularly confusing in the context of a discussion about evolution as fact and theory. We have two meanings of the word 'evolution', the first referring to (undisputed) observations and the second to various (disputed in some quarters) theories that follow from those observations.

Not "fine." I specifically wrote that there are people who do not believe that changes in gene frequencies exist. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I presume therefore that the purpose of this article is not to explain that 'evolution' has these two meanings, which would seem to me to be a rather trivial and non-contentious issue and not the one that the sources are referring to. Would you agree? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are creationists (such as Timothy Wallace) who dispute that allele frequencies differ from one generation to another. Secondly, since the word "evolution" itself is commonly misunderstood, in my view part of this article should be to clarify what the word means. Many responses to "Evolution is just a theory" begin by doing just that, for example [2]. Gabbe (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There sure are some crazy people about. No doubt, some creationist will attack every experimental result that supports evolution but we should not confuse our reader by essentially saying, 'Some people use the word "evolution" to refer to some of the experimental observations that support the theory of evolution. A certain specific observations has been well enough reproduced that it can be regarded as fact, thus evolution is a fact'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

On the Ccontrary, martin, we have to. We are obliged by NPOV to represent all significant views from reliable sources. This view you so deprecate is a significant view found in reliable sources. You do not like it? Too bad. This is not the place to push your own views. Telling people here to violate Wikipedia policy is just an abuse of the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Article by Gregory

I have just read the article by Gregory, which talks about gravity and evolution and I think it is excellent. If only we could adopt the same scholarly tone in this article I would have no problem with it.

The section on gravity makes a very good job of explaining what a theory is in physics and I agree with it completely. For the most part it uses exactly the same terms that I am suggesting, 'observations' and 'theories'. In this context he uses the word 'fact' to refer to 'observations repeatedly confirmed and considered accurate' and also to refer to theories, such as common descent, which have been universally accepted by the scientific community. I have no argument with any of this.

On the other hand, the paper does not support the table likening evolution to gravity that we have in this article. This does nothing but confuse and I propose to delete it. I will also try some editing of the article to make things clearer. I would support any attempt to make the tone and content of this article conform to the standard set by Gregory. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have never objected to your revising the sections on gravity to make it clearer to readers what a "theory" is. I do not see anyone who ever has. Go ahead and make the edits. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Meanings of the word 'evolution'.

It has been claimed on this talk page that the word 'evolution' can be used to mean one of the many observations concerning the subject, such as, 'The change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next'.

I believe that this use of the word is not a significant use and concentration on this usage serves only to confuse the reader. It is not the meaning of the word in the quoted sources that I have read. What sources do we have using the word 'evolution' in this way? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the definition of evolution is so commonly held among evolutionary biologists the burden of proof is on you to show that there is some other definition held by a significant number of biologists. The proper venue for this is the article Evolution, not here, so if you want to push your personal POV on wikipedia, try it there. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply but I am not pushing any personal POV, I am trying to help improve a very confused article.

Martin: To answer your question, this definition is used by most biologists. To name but a few:

• "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." from Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974.
• "Evolution is [...] changes in gene frequency within a population" from Ridley, M. 2004. Evolution. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Pub., p.227.
• "By the mid-20th century [...] 'evolution' was redefined as 'shifting gene frequencies,'" from Stoltzfus A (2006). "Mutationism and the dual causation of evolutionary change". Evol. Dev. 8 (3): 304–17. doi:10.1111/j.1525-142X.2006.00101.x. PMID 16686641.

This list is by no means exhaustive. Gabbe (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Your last quote says it all, the meaning of the word has shifted over time to have a somewhat technical meaning.

The point I am making is that saying something along the lines of 'the word "evolution" commonly refers to the routinely observed shifting of gene frequencies thus evolution is a fact' is pointless, confusing, and not what any of the quotes sources are saying. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Words like "force" and "energy" also have specific, technical definitions in science which are distinct from other meanings assigned to those words. In order to fulfil the purpose of this article (that is, to clarify what is meant by statements like "evolution is a fact" and "evolution is a theory") among other things it is necessary to explicate on several meanings of the word "evolution". I don't understand how we create less confusion vis-à-vis other articles by ignoring the proper scientific meaning of the word in the article. Gabbe (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the main point that your quotes sources are making. No source is making the point that 'evolution is a fact' means that shifting of gene frequencies has been observed. The point that all the sources are making is that the current theories of evolution are well enough verified and established that they can be considered as fact within the generally accepted meaning of that word. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead

Further to what I have said above, the lead currently says, 'The "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in the genetic material of a population of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experiments'. This is not the point being made by the quotes sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. For instance, Gould and Gregory both make this point. Gould, however, also uses the word "fact" in other senses in his article. Gabbe (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me where in his article Gregory makes this point. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Martin, you may know something about gravity, but clearly you do not know anything about evolution. If you wish to make a contribution, why not stick to what you know. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I know what the quotes sources say and they do not support what is written in the lead of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Try reading linked articles. Try reading the article on Evolution. It has links to other articles that detail the evidence for evolution, including observations of changes in allelel frequency over time. You are just a troll. Rather than improve the article based on what you do know, you prefer innane arguments on the talk page. Don't you have homework to do? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not need to read linked articles I can read the quoted sources on which this article is supposedly based. I am quite happy to edit the article but I would rather try get some kind of consensus. You have still completely failed to understand the point that I am making. Why not give it try, then at least we could have a meaningful conversation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Persistent comments that this article is confused

I have had a look through the archives of this article and, as in addition to my many comments, I have found persistent comments from other editors complaining that the article has the wrong focus. Here are some examples:

1) There is no such thing as a "scientific fact." There are only theories; those which are very likely and those which are less likely. The entire basis of this article is a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Andrew Nutter Talk | Contribs 01:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

2) Of course when we say "evolution is a fact" we do not just mean we can or have observed trait differences in the lab from one generation to the next. Of course something much more profound is meant by this (otherwise why would creationists get upset!). In the article itself Dawkins, Futyuma, Campbell, Muller, National Academy of Sciences are completely clear about this. "Evolution is a fact" implies we are cousins of monkeys and that there is no doubt about it.

That's much more like it. That is what all the fuss about! The opening paragraph is in great danger not reflecting this properly. — Axel147 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

3) The distinction between 'theory' and 'fact' used on this page cannot be sustained, as shown by Duhem, Collingwood, Quine, Kuhn and others. For instance: "The law of gravity is a scientific fact that bodies of mass attract each other..." This 'fact' is entirely dependent upon our current theory of gravity --

Aristotle, for instance, would not have taken this to be a fact at all, but a falsehood! GeneCallahan (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

4) It seems to me that the article mislocates the ambiguity: the ambiguity comes from two different uses of the word "theory", not from two different meanings of the word "evolution". The ambiguity lies in not distinguising between "theory" meaning well established scientific theory and theory meaning unconfirmed theory, or even supposition or idea. Hairhorn (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with Hairhorn to the extent that I think historically people have got into a muddle by using all or any of the three words imprecisely. The opening paragraph seems to be trying to paint a picture in which "evolution is fact" applies to a simple uncontroversial definition of evolution on which everyone can agree, while "evolution is a theory" is reserved for a more complex definition involving mechanisms and things that cannot be directly observed.

I do not doubt that is a possible answer to the conundrum but misleadingly it is not the whole story. In support of this explanation we are told "the fact of evolution refers to the changes in populations of biological organisms over time". And it is hard to disagree that these changes do occur. So the implication is that those dumb creationists who have been denying evolution is fact have been using the wrong definition of evolution all along.

I'm afraid this explanation simply will not do. "Evolution is a fact" really does mean something more profound than a few observations of changing characteristics in a lab. The creationists get it which is why they are angry. So do Dawkins and Futuyma who later in the article say respectively "evolution is a fact" implies 'we are cousins of bacteria' and that 'organisms have descended from a common ancestor'. Of course 'evolution is fact' at least sometimes means something profound and worth attacking from a creationist point of view. Maybe the author of the opening paragraph did not 'get it'? — Axel147 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

5) I have to admit I am completely confused by the discussion here. Prejudging? Look, scientists get to define what a scientific fact is. And they define it as data. And scientists get to define what a scientific theory is. And they define a scientific theory as an explanation So what? What is the big deal? --Filll (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

6) Calling the data the "facts of evolution" is a bit disingenuous the data are facts, but not necessarily of evolution. They only become the facts of evolution when used in support of evolution, but for creationists, they are the "facts of creation." For example, if you see a row of fossils, they might just be various dead animals that lived at the same time, in which case they are facts but not of evolution. Somebody who disagrees with the interpretation would disagree with the classification. Ezra Wax (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You can either dismiss all these comments as the ravings of crazy creationists (maybe 6 is a creationist, I do not know) or you can get the message that something is very wrong with this article and work to improve it. As it is, the article does a serious disservice to science and presents a simplified, confused, and over-dogmatic view of the subject that actually weakens the case for evolution rather than strengthening it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

1) Opinion, and dubious at that.

2) Complains that the opening paragraph is not inflammatory enough.

3) Aristotle did not know it all; views do change.

4) Editor from #2 still complaining that the top paragraph is not inflammatory enough.

5) Out of context, irrelevant.

6) Looks like the argument of a creationist nutter with an axe to grind.

Then you offer a false dichotomy: "dismiss ... or get the message that something is very wrong". I suggest you take your own advice, and work on the article, or at least offer specific reformulations of the particular parts you see as presenting problems. If you are into dichotomies, the other side of that one makes you look like a concern troll. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A knee-jerk reaction that all criticism of this article is from mad or stupid people.

The problem with my editing the article is that it needs completely rewriting, as it is currently based on a misconception of what the cited sources say. Rather than trying to rewrite the whole thing from scratch myself I am trying to get some understanding of what the problem is so that we can all work together to fix it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a more concise and clearly defined point would help you. What was written above is extremely difficult to make sense of because it involves the usernames of several different people, but they are not linked, implying a copy and paste from where we don't know.Farsight001 (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside from my opinion of #6 which I have amended to more reasonable terms, claiming I said "that all criticism of this article is from mad or stupid people" diminishes your credibility in my eyes, since I said no such thing. "So we can all work together to fix it" begs the question of whether it is broken. So far I do not see consensus gathering to say it needs fixing. You will make your case far better with specific recommendations based on your reading of the sources, with accessible links where possible. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The quotes above were taken from the talk page archives of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

So you snagged a bunch of random quotes from the archives, context free, and declared that something is wrong with this article and expect us to understand what you're trying to say how? Out with it, man. What, specifically is wrong with the article?Farsight001 (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Farsight001, you are well-intentioned, but ... DNFTT. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, please cut out the personal attacks. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Farsight001, I cannot put it much better than Axel147 did above 'Of course when we say "evolution is a fact" we do not just mean we can or have observed trait differences in the lab from one generation to the next. Of course something much more profound is meant by this.... "Evolution is a fact" implies we are cousins of monkeys and that there is no doubt about it'.

This is the point that the quoted sources make, for example, Gregory says in his section 'Evolution as Fact', ...it was not long before the contemporary scientific community came to acknowledge the historical reality of evolutionary descent.

This article makes a different and more obvious point, that changes in traits between generations is routinely observable (and thus can be informally called facts) and these changes are sometimes referred to as evolution. Thus evolution is a fact. This is indeed true, but it is not the, more profound, point being made by the sources. If you really insist on using the word fact to describe well verified reproducible observations then I might suggest use of the term 'facts of evolution', although I would much prefer to use proper scientific language. Have a read of Gregory's paper, it makes the point very well. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the only way forward is an RfC, I do not want to rewrite the article on my own. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this article properly reflect the opinions of the quoted sources?

Although the statements in this article are generally correct, several editors do not believe that the article accurately reflects the views of the quoted sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

One editor has expressed the problem this, Of course when we say "evolution is a fact" we do not just mean we can or have observed trait differences in the lab from one generation to the next. Of course something much more profound is meant by this.... "Evolution is a fact" implies we are cousins of monkeys and that there is no doubt about it'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This quote. cut&pasted from the article, says what amounts to that, and a bit more:

• Richard Dawkins says, "One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact."<ref>[http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/101500/the-illusion-of-design Natural History article : The Illusion of Design] by Richard Dawkins</ref>

Calling us "cousins of monkeys" seems to be a sore point with some of those who deny the validity of evolution, so such language may be considered inflammatory. Putting it in the lead paragraph may tend towards editorializing or POV pushing, but there is a quote to back it up, and it deserves a place somewhere in the article. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure the quote says that, and so do the sources, but the article itself makes a completely different point. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Call me philosophically naive if you like, but I fail to see a problem expressed in that Axel147 ("one editor") quote. Can you explain how you see that problem, and summarize that difference between the article's point and the sources, preferably in few words? I've yet to see a concise description of what the "problem" is. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, the article says that the fact of evolution is used to refer to the observable changes in organisms' traits over generations while the word "theory" is reserved for the mechanisms that cause these changes. The sources, and indeed many of the quotes, say that the theory (eg common descent) can be regarded as a fact.

But we should be having this conversation elsewhere, this section is for comments by uninvolved editors. Curiously nobody wanted to discuss the issue before the RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbole is not that far from falsehood: "nobody wanted to discuss the issue before the RfC." Previous discussion is up there for all to see. Attempted "discussion" with someone who claims scientific rigor while employing rhetorical shenanigans quickly becomes tiresome. Ciao. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never claimed scientific rigour nor employed, 'rhetorical shenanigans' yet it has been suggested that above that I am a troll and should be ignored. This is not the way WP works. The article is a mess and needs sorting out (or deleting). This is best achieved by discussion rather than name-calling. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If you care to discuss how Wikipedia is meant to work, here is a good way to go about it. Martin, up to now you have made exactly one edit to the article, for all the stirring you have done on the talk page.

Rhetoric rather than reason

"I have never ... employed, 'rhetorical shenanigans'" Martin Hogbin

Here, in his own words, are some of the rhetorical shenanigans Martin has used:

It is currently nothing more than a rant. Hyperbole, minimisation

The article currently seems directed towards convincing crazy people. apparently biased opinion, and inflammatory appeal to emotion

...this article is as bad as the creationist propaganda. It says, evolution is a fact because we say so... appeal to emotion, and mischaracterisation of what the article says

Can you send me the quote from your first source, it seems you have to pay to read it. Stephen Jay Gould quote behind a paywall, but...

Please tell me where in his article Gregory makes this point. so is the Gregory paper Martin keeps referring to without quoting from. This looks suspiciously like a courtier's reply, that is, "I can't talk to you until you've read XY by Z" which happens to be behind a barrier.

You can either dismiss all these comments as the ravings of crazy creationists ... or you can get the message that something is very wrong with this article and work to improve it. false dichotomy

A knee-jerk reaction that all criticism of this article is from mad or stupid people. gross mischaracterisation

Rather than trying to rewrite the whole thing from scratch myself I am trying to get some understanding of what the problem is so that we can all work together to fix it. begging the question that it needs fixing, and appeal to emotion "so we can all work together"

Curiously nobody wanted to discuss the issue before the RfC. simply not true

---

Lastly, "I have never claimed scientific rigour" shows an interesting contrast with Martin's earlier "I would much prefer to use proper scientific language."

Both are true. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I call that shenanigans. If there is indeed a case to be made that "The article is a mess and needs sorting out (or deleting)." it will be better made without such shenanigans. That is how Wikipedia is meant to work.

__ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind advice Bill. If you want to discus this article and exactly what is wrong with it I am happy to do so. As I have explained I would rather try to get consensus for change on the talk page than try to rewrite the article from scratch myself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

To restate my argument from above: In biology, the word "evolution" alone means "changes in allele frequencies within a population from one generation to the next". Several sources, many of them quoted in the article, make specifically the point that one proper meaning the phrase "Evolution is fact" is simply that it is a fact that these changes happen. For example, the three biologists quoted in this section of the article, as well as a number of articles on talk.origins (for example [3], [4] and [5]). They all distinguish between "the theory of evolution" and "the fact of evolution". With the latter they do not simply mean "the theory of evolution is widely accepted, hence the theory is fact". Instead they distinguish between the process that changes the frequency in inherited traits ("evolution") and the mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc.) proposed to explain why, when and how this process happens ("the theory of evolution"). The exact mechanisms and their relative influence is a theory, albeit one that is so widely supported among scientists that it is by some referred to as "fact". This ("the theory of evolution is a fact") is one meaning of the phrase "evolution is a fact", but it is not the sole meaning. Gabbe (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right, at least two sources 'distinguish between the process that changes the frequency in inherited traits ("evolution") and the mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc.) proposed to explain why', but more make the point that 'the theory of evolution is widely accepted, hence the theory is fact'. As the word 'fact' has little currency in scientific literature, this makes the article pointless and confusing. To try to extract one clear meaning from the sources is therefore impossible and the article serves no purpose. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Another factor is this. Becoming a scientific fact is complicated by the logical fact that according to Popper the best that the scientific method can do is falsify an hypothesis. Thus a scientific fact is really a theory or hypothesis that has not yet been falsified. It also means that the theory of evolution is and must be falsifiable and that the goal of scientists should be to falsify the theory and expectantly fail to do so. But is this happening? Are scientists actively seeking to falsify the theory of evolution and publish their results in the literature? Or is the fact of evolution the major assumption within which science is done, interpreted and then published? These are two very different things. --Trabucogold (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Every time they look for new evidence, specifically in the geological record, there is a chance they could falsify the theory, finding just one fossil out of order in the geological record would do it (the famous bunnies in the Precambrian). Just because there is a virtual mountain of evidence that exactly neatly fits the theory and not one single piece of valid evidence has every been found to contradict it doesn't mean it isn't falsifiable. Are scientists in your estimation looking to falsify gravity or that the earth revolves around the sun, both are still theories. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that you are rather missing my point. I agree that the word 'fact' is generally not used in serious scientific discussions for the reasons you give but the theory of evolution is well verified, in other words there are many observations in agreement with it but none which falsify it. Biologist continue to make observations which could falsify the theory, but so far none has done so, thus evolution as a theory is as much a fact as, say, general relativity, or the big bang theory. But this is not what the article itself says, although many of the sources and quotes do. The article manages to both overstate and understate the case for evolution in a confused manner. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your wrong, in the scientific community evolution is a fact as much a fact as gravity or that the sun produces light. It is the most rigorously tested theory of all time and has been put under more scrutiny then any other scientific theory for the past 150 years and still hasn't had one single piece of evidence to cast doubt on it. There is no debate, it's long been settled. The only debate is from the history deniers who can't accept it's implications on their religious views. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are replying to me, that is exactly what I say above, '...evolution as a theory is as much a fact as, say, general relativity, or the big bang theory'. Unfortunately, that is not what this article says. Martin Hogbin (talk)

It probably should, but in the past such firm declarations have been heavily fought over by those same history deniers who watch these pages. Fact should be broken out into the facts (evidence, fossils, etc..), and that it's such a rigorously tested theory that it is all but thought of as fact by the scientific community. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 11:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If I understand Martin Hogbin correctly, he is saying that when people say "evolution is a fact" they mean one of two different things, and these are very different things. I think that it is worth making it clear in this article, that these are two distinct views. I think this clarification is the important thing. I may agree that both, one, or neither of these two things are "facts" but as we all know, the points of view of editors never go into articles; it does not matter what I or any other editor thinks. What matters is that this article represent all major views from reliable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

If I am to understand the controversy, the main "sticking point" is whether or not the quoted sources intend the words "fact" and "theory" in the same sense as defined in the article? I'd back up and ask whether these quotes are even integral to the article? These are mostly quotes of primary sources which may not be particularly appropriate for Wikipedia. Then it wouldn't be so important to decide "does bob mean 'theory' in a colloquial way or a rigorous scientific way?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngaskill (talk • contribs) 04:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ngaskill is right on. This article uses the wrong kind of sources and not enough sources. It has too muhc original research. MiRroar (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by involved editor

Editors must try to understand all the angles. The whole "evolution, fact and theory" debate is basically summed up as:

1. There are 2 meanings to the word "evolution"
2. There are 2 meanings to the word "fact"
3. There are 2 meanings to the word "theory"
4. There are 2 explanations as to why "evolution is both fact and theory"

Most editors get 1-3 as follows:

1. Evolution is either "changes in alleles" or "we are cousins of monkeys"
2. Fact is either "something directly observed" or "something for which the evidence is so overwhelming we have no practical reason to doubt"
3. Theory is either "idle conjecture" or "established scientific model explaining observations, making testable predictions"

But I think a lot of editors struggle with 4. The answers are:

4. "Evolution is fact and theory" because there are 2 different uses of the word evolution as described above ('facts and theories are different things' the Gouldian answer) OR because evolution — in the sense we are cousins of monkeys — has 'graduated' from theory to fact ('theories also become facts when the evidence is overwhelming'). It remains a theory as 'we are cousins of monkeys' explains and predicts. But it simultaneously is a fact as it so well established.

Although I have been slightly critical of the opening paragraph it is really a question of emphasis (and perhaps clarity). I don't think the article is hopelessly flawed. In terms of purpose it has to be put everything on the table in the "evolution, fact, theory" debate for a general audience in an encyclopedic manner.

— Axel147 (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, scientists may be equivocal about 1 and 2, but unoquivocal about 3 (theory has only one meaning for scientists). Am I right?

Yes, no scientist would use theory to mean "idle conjecture". However if this point is really put under the microscope there is even inconsistency among scientists — some prefer to reserve the word theory for a model which is generally accepted and established; others are happy to talk about "new" theories (e.g. when a new model is too complex for the term "hypothesis" to do it justice). — Axel147 (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may i think this is a stunningly good summary of the situation and I hope it provides a basis for revising and perhaps teaking the organization of the article. Perhaps this could be rewritten as an introuction? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!! Yes I hope it can be a basis for improvement. The difficulty I have is in deciding what the emphasis of the different points should be - what should be the key message? Maybe it's all of the above. If I have time I might propose a new intro, but as the existing opening has remained in article for a long time I'm a little hesitant to change it. Let's see if there is consensus in this talk as to what to do... —Axel147 (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I would put it something like that: There are two meanings for "theory," one held by lay-people and a very different one helpd by scientists. But it is not enough for lay-people to learn what scientists mean by theory. They also have to understand that when evolutionary scientists say evolution is a fact, they are using two equally acceptable meanings of "fact." One meaning is empirical, and when this is what scientists mean, then by "evolution" they mean changes in allele frequency. But another way they use "fact" is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powrful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that we are cousins of monkeys (even though this cannot be directly observed.

Am i getting your meaning correctly? If so, I would ask you to rewrite what I just wrote to make it clearer and more accurate, and I would endorse making it the new introduction and even reorganizing the article to conform to the structure of this paragraph. Or do it as a page in your own sandbox and then ask others what they think, but I bet others will agree it is a big improvement. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"If you can't write your idea on the back of a business card, it is too complicated." The source of that quote is unknown to me, but I agree with it. Bravo! While I believe that dichotomies are seldom accurate (and that inaccuracy is very much the case in the premises above, especially in 1 and 4, to a certain extent in 2, and perhaps less so in 3) such a division can be useful in summaries, if carefully used. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes given that 1, 2, and 4 are concise, clear, and provide an accurate account of the situation, I think they would make a great introduction to the science! 3 of course explains a more basic source of why most non-scientists are confused, but 1, 2, and 3 show important distinctions scientists make.Slrubenstein | Talk 12:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Bravo to SLR for your 11 April explanation of the two meanings of "theory". This is the clearest account of the matter I've seen in print to date ... anywhere! --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I certainly endorse that paragraph from Slrubenstein. I think it's very clear and very well written. I'm not sure I can improve at all. We could incorporate into an opening paragraph something like this:

The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Evolution is a theory in the sense of it being an established scientific model that explains observations and makes predictions through mechanisms such as natural selection.

When scientists say "evolution is a fact" they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical, and when this is what scientists mean, then "evolution" is used to mean changes in allele frequency. But another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that we share a common ancestor with monkeys (even though this cannot be directly observed).

Feel free to adapt...

— Axel147 (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand the need to change the current wording. At any rate, I think the current "which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experiments" is a much clearer way to to explain a large part of the meaning of "fact". Also the existing "genetic material" is much more accessible than "allele frequency" for anyone likely to benefit from reading this article. There needs to be some wording like "for example" before the "common ancestor with monkeys" text because the proposal currently could be misunderstood to mean that there are no other facts to evolution. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason I see to change is that "evolution is a fact" to a lot of people implies we are cousins are monkeys. We all know this an essential part, I would say the most important part, of the "evolution, fact, theory" story and yet the opening paragraph does not really address this. Instead it limits itself to saying "the fact of evolution refers to changes in genetic material". On the other points yes we need to convey it is only an example of common ancestry and maybe "gene frequency" is more accessible than "allele frequency"? — Axel147 (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

When you say "we all know," who is your audience? The story is far more complex than "we are cousins of monkeys." That sound-bite raises emotional heat without shedding light. The business of the lead paragraph is to illuminate, not inflame. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

When I say "we all know" the important point is that this is the sense of Futuyma and Dawkins in the article itself. Yes the story is more complex but an introductory paragraph can only mention the key points. Common ancestry is surely a key point here. Maybe you're right that mentioning monkeys is an inflammatory sound bite rather than clear communication. So how about this version...?

When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) even though this cannot be directly observed.

— Axel147 (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see we now have monkeys in the lead section, which is probably more relevant to this discussion than saying finches and penguins are cousins, or jellyfish and E. coli ditto.

Next, in the interest of making things bulletproof (i.e. robust in the face of attempts at reasoned refutation) I'd like to know if we have a reference explicitly saying that "all living organisms have descended from a [single] common ancestor" since I believe it is useful to decouple abiogenesis from the evolution discourse.

We could quote Darwin himself, or we could quote any biology textbook that describes the theory of evolution - this seems unnecessary to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Must there have been a single source, though? ISTR something about the possibility of one species incorporating genetic material from another different species; there may have been multiple "original" sources. Darwin did not have access to modern genetic info... speculating about minutiae here, sorry. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...saying there is a single common ancestor is not quite the same thing as saying life originated only once. Yes, the idea that multiple forms existed that interacted with gene transfer and resulted in an organism from which all subsequent life developed (because the rest died out) is compatible with a single ancestor. — Axel147 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Right - th single common ancestor does not at all have to have been the first life form. Put another way: me, my sister, and my cousins are all descinded from the same two grandparents. Now, my grandparents themselves had many ancestors. But I do not define by relationship with my cousins in terms of the great and great-great ancestors we have in common. What is important is we can trace back to common grandparents. No, the single life form from which we are all descended may itself have been the product of a complex genetic history inclusing horizontal gene transfer, but that does not change the point. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Lastly, perhaps a minor nit, but what counts as "direct" observation? Inference from observable similarity of genomes is mighty persuasive... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the inroduction is much clearer now - thanks, Axel!! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have modified, more or less reverted the edit of Ezra Wax. The phrase 'resorting to theory' somehow sounds as though theories are bad and somewhat undermines the 'no sharp line' argument later in the article. Also the definition of evolution suggested implies that if a person dies that will be sufficient for evolution. I have a doubt about this as I think more of a trend, a pattern of shift is needed. Finally I think the opening paragraph should stay fairly concise. — Axel147 (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)