Talk:History of evolutionary thought

Latest comment: 20 days ago by Gen. Quon in topic Serious sourcing issues
Featured articleHistory of evolutionary thought is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 12, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 18, 2007Good article nomineeListed
December 15, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 28, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article


edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of evolutionary thought. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

James Hutton

edit

In the paleontology & geology section, it just mentions that he "described gradual geological processes operating continuously over deep time," but from reading the article about him, it seems that he also wrote directly about evolution/evolutionism and even suggested natural selection as a possible mechanism. Additionally, according to that article as well as the ones on Geology & History of Geology, he is considered to be "the father of modern geology," perhaps that should be mentioned as well. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

He certainly hinted at evolution, but please recall that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, you must check facts externally. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Goethe

edit

is missing. See the German-language Wikipedia article, where he is called "the most remarkable precursor of Lamarck and Darwin". This should be either corrected there or integrated here.--Vergänglichkeit (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Serious sourcing issues

edit

I'm not sure if this is an issue that plagues the entire article, or just a section, but the sourcing for the "Augustine of Hippo" section is just wildly wrong. A snapshot, taken on August 7 2024, contains the following errors:

  1. First, the big block quote is attributed to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's "Aristotle: Biology" article, but this quote isn't featured on that page at all (Augustine isn't even in that article's reference list). Either way, a direct reference to De Genesi ad litteram makes way more sense.
  2. I cannot find the "But at least we know [the days of creation] are different from the ordinary day of which we are familiar" quote in the cited source (Science and Civilisation in China), but that might be because I don't have access to the exact edition used? Again, a direct reference to De Genesi ad litteram makes way more sense.
  3. The next big quote cites the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on "Lucretius"(?) when, once more, a direct reference to De Genesi ad litteram makes more sense.
  4. The claim "Which has led Francis Collins of Biologos to believe Augustine espoused a form of theistic evolution" is followed up by a footnote to Barth, Origen, and Universal Salvation (2009), which does not mention "Francis Collins" or "Biologos" whatsoever.

Again, I don't know if this is just an issue with the Augustine section, but given the egregiousness of the sourcing here, I think it's worth 'ringing the alarm bell', so to speak.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 14:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the interim, I have cleaned up the errors outlined above.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 14:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply