Talk:Evolution/Archive 21

Archive created November 19 2006 Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Dysgenics
Dysgenics falls into the scope of this article. Are there any suggestions where and how this should be mentioned? --Zero g 15:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick search for scientific papers on that topic shows almost non-existent research (I found only two papers, one of them being on the philosophy of medical science and the other a out of the way psychological journal). Can you provide any kind of research that shows this topic to have any kind of evolutionary impact at all.--Roland Deschain 17:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dysgenic is used as an adjective for negative traits in modern research:

http://www.ionchannels.org/showabstract.php?pmid=1650725 Muscle fibers from dysgenic mouse in vivo lack a surface component of peripheral couplings. http://www.ionchannels.org/showabstract.php?pmid=2558151 A novel calcium current in dysgenic skeletal muscle. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/77/10/6042 Site Specificity of Mutations Arising in Dysgenic Hybrids of Drosophila melanogaster

In the devolution section it might be worth mentioning that an accumulation of negative traits is known as dysgenic, this because many people seem to use devolution where dysgenic is more appropriate.

One mention of dysgenic research in humans:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10842506&dopt=Abstract

There's also some information in the history section of the dysgenics article which might be of use since it involves early thoughts about human evolution. The word hasn't been used a whole lot after WWII, though dysgenic has 100K entries on google. I only bothered skimming past the first 100, so there's likely more to be found on the subject. --Zero g 12:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, is there an actual scientific or reputable site with any information? Ionchannels, source of your first two links, is "Targeted Life Science Marketing" - selling snake oil, so far as I can see. How do you propose to use the third for anything like a quick blurb on dysgenics? The content is not general, nor informative, and dates from October 1, 1980. Finally, the nih link is based on a survey? This is hardly definative research. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's always Dysgenics Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, Richard Lynn, Praeger Publishers, 1996
 * The Bell Curve also has a chapter devoted to the subject. --Zero g 12:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think we should be using The Bell Curve here: It's widely considered bad science, and, indeed, racist. Adam Cuerden talk 00:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll second that.--Ramdrake 00:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is broader; it is just not a significant view, period. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is not overwhelming scientific consensus for evolutionary position
The article states that there is overwhelming consensus for the evolutionary position. This is simply not true. According to a Gallup poll 95% of American scientists are evolutionists. ken 05:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
 * I'm confused. If 95% of US scientists support evolution and the theory of evolution, wouldn't that constitute a overwhelming scientific majority?  In addition, the US is only one country on this planet of ours.  Europe is an even greater example of why the statement of overwhelming scientific consensus is appropriate.--Roland Deschain 05:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are certainly right. You are confused.  95% is not an overwhelming majority.  Secondly, I would add that 40% of American scientists are theistic evolutionists  which means that God had to help out the process of macroevolution according to these American scientists.  ken 05:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

(edit conflict)
 * America is not the world; do you have worldwide figures? Secondly, the scientists that matter are biologists, because meteorologists and so on not believing in it are so distant from biology that they might as well be laymen.
 * In any case, no or extremely little creationist literature has been published in respected scientific journals, whilst the amount of evolution-related information is huge. Adam Cuerden talk 05:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it no or little creationist literature has been published in respected scientific journals? Does the name Stephen C. Meyer ring a bell? ken 05:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

(edit conflict)
 * - 	::: 95% of scientists accept evolutionary processes, but 99% of life and earth scientists accept evolution. Both numbers represent an overwhelming majority. For example, if George W. Bush beat John Kerry by 95% to 5%, that would be reported as an overwhelming majority of Americans selected GWB. Secondly, your point about 40% of scientists believe in theistic evolution. This is besides the point, as theistic evolution and atheistic evolutionists accept the exact same science. Thanks. JPotter 05:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The article purports that the evolutionists has the overwhelming consensus of scientists. The article has the burden of proof but it gives no citations.  I would also add that creationism is currently spreading thoughout the world quickly.  ken 05:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
 * I don't view Christian blog entries as authoritative on evolution. Read up on Reliable sources.--Roland Deschain 05:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice try. The Christian blog cited sources such as PBS and other authoritative sources. You failed to mention this fact though. kenkdbuffalo

I like that you ignore the first paragraph on the page you linked "That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%" Adam Cuerden talk 05:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would add that the wikipedian who stated that theistic evolutionists and atheistic evolutionists accept the same science didn't cite his material showing this to be true. I would point out that theistic evolutionists (40 percent of American scientists are theistic evolutionist according to a Gallup poll) believe that God guided the process of macroevolution.   I don't believe we have theistic gravitationalist because gravity is much more well established than the evolutionary position.  ken 05:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
 * How about you cite somthing to convince us they don't accept the same science? You're the one sticking the tag on the article. Origin of life and the theory of evolution address different issues so don't come back with some stat saying they accept speacial creation to explain the origin of life. David D. (Talk) 05:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia: "Theistic evolutionists may believe either 1) that evolution (namely macroevolution) is a viable biological mechanism but was guided by God for the determination of species, or 2) that it is not viable and each genetic alteration leading to a new species required God's intervention."  ken 05:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo


 * So when they answer the polled question and choose answer "Evolution was simly the means God chose to create life on this planet." Are they declaring quided evolution or unguided? The way its worded it does not distinguish. David D. (Talk) 05:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a couple high-quality references to the article. I particularly like P.Z. Myers' list of evidence. Adam Cuerden talk 05:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey everyone, another troll, whatever you say to them they won't accept reason. Don't feed them. --Michael Johnson 06:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I cited credible sources to make my point. Your troll comment is quite trollish.  ken 06:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo


 * From what I remember, the last time this came up (it may have been on the intelligent design page) we decided to use a sample of scientific organisations as representative of the scientific consensus (I think I may be thinking of the List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design). Rather than wading through ambiguous polls it seems that it would be better to use the statements of organisations on the subject. If we cannot find a reasonable number professional scientific organisation rejecting evolution then the case is pretty much closed. --Davril2020 09:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Johnson is correct. There is a method to their madness-trolling and wikilawyering. There have been a number of Science articles on the subject of evolution belief. World wide there is no problem with evolution, except North America and specifically the U.S. (Canada and Mexico no problem), but this article is not about belief. It is about Evolution. It doesn't matter what any of us believe about the subject. It is clear that this is POV pushing and not a valid attempt to improve a science article. GetAgrippa 13:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ken, the simple answer on the issue is that famous phrase "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" by evolutionary biologist and Christian, Theodosius Dobzhansky. Outside of the evolutionary framework, especially common descent, there is no science in biology, only stamp collecting, because without the (very well-supported) assumption of evolution there are no tools for inference outside of the species on which you are working. Without evolution animal testing has no value, it's only ritualised cruelty. Anyone who tries to make scientific inference in biology does so by embracing evolution. Guettarda 13:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at the statements from List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design and virtually all the statements there are criticising creationism along with ID and nearly always involve a statement endorsing evolution. If the article was renamed (e.g. Statements on evolution by scientific societies, or something similar) it might be quite helpful as a reference demonstrating the overwhelming support for evolution on this page as well. What do you think? --Davril2020 13:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This link (currently no 7 in the article's references) includes links to statements by scientific orginisations supporting evolution, as well as a whole lot more. Hence I chose it to cite the point. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden] talk 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Kudos to your reply Guettarda. A brilliant retort. Dobzhansky's comment would make a great first sentence for the entire article. GetAgrippa 13:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Dobzhansky quote: I would point out the following quote by Dr. Pierre-P. Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences and editor of the 35-volume Traité de Zoologie, "Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved. Through the use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case. - Dr. Pierre Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 202  ken 09:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Had to dig deep for that one, did you Ken? Grassé also said "Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the [fossil] history of the living world." --Michael Johnson 09:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Grasse seems to be a conflicted individual judging from these two quotes. I would be confliced too if I tried to believe in something as ridiculous as the evolutionary position. ken 10:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo


 * ken, if we selectively quote-mined your edits in the same way that you do to other sources, you might sound pretty conflicted too. Come to think of it, I'd have thought using a computer, a prime example of the application of the scientific method, might conflict someone using fairy tale geology and taxonomy.  Troll somewhere else please.  --Plumbago 10:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is my favorite quote from Pierre Grasse, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, ""[Mutations are] merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. . they modify what pre-exists. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." —*Pierre P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), pp. 8788. ken 10:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
 * Not wanting to feed a troll, but there's not conflict there. Mutations alone do not produce evolution; it is natural selection acting on the mutations that do that. People who think evolution is random often base this on the odd view that it is supposed to be produced by mutation. Skittle 13:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have time to enter this debate but I just wanted to say that I support from the sidelines the efforts of MJ,Skittle, Plumbago and others to repel trolling and other uninformed and small minority POV attempts to spoil an otherwise excellent article about a branch of science important to us all. I have a suggestion ... why not enforce the statement at the top of this talk page and push this discussion elsewhere, so that you can get on with the more important job of further improving this article. Abtract 14:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ken, I and several others would be glad to debate you on these issues, but this is not the place for it. Wikipedia is not a debating club. And 99.95 % of 430,000 surveyed earth scientists and biological scientists supporting evolution is what I would call an overwhelming majority (taken from your religious tolerance reference you quoted). And earth sciences includes people trained in areas like meteorology and seismology and physical oceanography, with NO background whatsoever in stratigraphy or biology or anything related to evolution. I guarantee that a good fraction of earth scientists have never taken a single biology course or had any training or background dealing with evolutionary issues. So if you surveyed ONLY those who dealt with evolution, I suspect that the fraction of scientists who support evolution would be MUCH higher than 99.95%. How much closer is it necessary to get before you concede that evolution is supported by an overwhelming consensus of scientists? What constitutes an overwhelming concensus? only 1 out of 430,000 disagreeing? only 1 out of a million disagreeing? ten million? You do realize there are sampling errors and survey errors that can cause problems as well, so I am not even sure about the figure of "700 dissenters" quoted in the religious tolerance blog. I would be glad to discuss this further with you, but I think we are clogging up this page with nonsense and distracting the editors from important work.--Filll 16:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ...clogging up this page with nonsense... indeed! I didn't object to this earlier, because the serious contributors to this article were willing to take the time, yet again, to respond reasonably to Creationist trolling. ken, please review the big red warning notice at the top of this page. This page exists to discuss article improvements, not to discuss your religous beliefs and pointed objections to properly sourced scientific material. I'm willing to take responsibility for unilaterally deleting any further nonsense posts on this talkpage. Just call me an "Evo-Nazi" :) Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of investigating "ken" aka kdbuffalo's history on Wikipedia. I was very dismayed to realize that what we are seeing on this page is just the tiniest tip of the iceberg. For example, take a look here. I am not sure what the answer is, but I get the impression this is a radical fundamentalist who is not open to reason. I as well have to reluctantly say that maybe the only solution is to delete any trolling by ken/kdbuffalo on sight. I could say far more, but this is not the place.--Filll 17:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with either ignoring or if possible diverting these questionable attempts to modify an article with disingenuous intent (POV pushing). What I find paradoxical is that Creationism and I.D. is creating a barrier of incredibility between Christians and the secular world (a stumbling block for spreading the "Word"). Jewish and Christian theologians debate the meaning of Genesis in the Judeo-Christian bible, so there is not unanimity on the subject. Some of the intruders here appear to be children, but all are naive (uneducated). Some aren't even rational, which is evidence of either immaturity or being mentally challenged (blunt but what else can you say). There has to be some strategy to deal with this problem (before ill feelings are created). I've noted several good suggestions. GetAgrippa 18:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The answer is to ignore him. If that fails and he continues to disrupt the talk page with fruitless crankish objections to the degree that productive discussions are hampered then the usual method is to move to have his discussion moved to his user talk page. If he disrupts the article itself with similar stuff, we'll just follow the steps at Disruptive editing for a community article ban. FeloniousMonk 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have often noted that these fundamentalist Christians are their own worst enemies, and statistics support that there is a slow drop in the last couple of decades in the number of self-identified Christians in the US since they have begun this last "offensive" on other religions, other Christian sects and assorted heretics and nonbelievers (see the religioustolerance.org site for example for statistics). It is a reasonable conjecture that the drop in people claiming to be Christian is associated with some of these combative tactics. Basically, they present themselves and their beliefs in the worst possible light and drive people away (I was going to write something far less charitable but I thought the better of it and censored myself). There is apparently a growing body of evidence in the psychiatric literature and mental disorder literature that people who are drawn towards highly erratic and irrational thinking such as evidenced in the more extreme forms of religious fundamentalism often are suffering from some sort of mental disorder (this was from a long conversation with one of the authors of the revised version of the DSM which will appear in a few years). So to your list of contributing factors to this problem, besides immaturity and mentally challenged, I would add mental instabilities of various kinds which appear to be more prevalent in those espousing these kinds of views. Therefore, certain articles in Wikipedia will be magnets for deranged and irrational and incapable individuals. A policy must be created to deal with these situations, accordingly.--Filll 18:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fill, I am aware that religious faith and mental health are positively correlated according to a meta-study by Johns Hopkins (850 studies looked at).  I am also aware that Professor Vitz found that prominent proponents of atheism are not exactly paragons of mental health.   So where are you studies that show that Bible fundamentalists are often suffering from some mental disorder?  You cited no studies!  Is the American south which is full of Bible fundamentalist chock full of raving maniacs?  Are there more mental institutions in the south to handle the great masses of maniacs?  Needless to say, I found your lack of support suspect. ken 00:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
 * Let's just get this straight. One of your "sources" refers to a publication in "Mayo Clinic Proceedings", which I'm sure has an impact factor that'll blow us right away. The second spells a famous German philosopher as "Nietzche" (no baby, it's Nietzsche), and the third is a set of lecture notes? That just sent me rolling. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I figured you would not. I did not go to any effort to develop my thesis here because it has nothing to do with this article, and this talk page is not an encyclopedia article. However, this is not the place to discuss this. This page should be for the discussion of the article. In fact, I would suggest that this entire discussion and any further off topic material from kdbuffalo in particular be removed from this page.--Filll 00:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fill, you were so forceful when you did not feel you had to cite a study in regards to mental health and fundamentalism, but now you are not so forceful. In fact, now you want everything erased so your non supported diatribe against Bible fundamentalists will be erased.  Perhaps, you would do better to stay on topic and no go on some quixotic attack against Bible fundamentalists.  I would also remind you that Bible fundamentalism is not necessarily religious fundamentalism in general. ken 01:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

At this point, it would appear that there is clearly no consensus for the proposed change, and the discussion seems to have wandered off-topic. I do not feel that continuing this thread is productive and will plan to archive it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do. I just created Archive 021 with link to index. I was trying to move this section but didn't succeed. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove it and archive it. This is typical of what ken/kdbuffalo has done over and over. You cannot discuss anything with him rationally, clearly, and this has been true for well over a year on Wikipedia. He has repeatedly been banned and caused disturbances on many many other pages where he just insists on some narrow religious interpretation.--Filll 01:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

First Sentence
Hi. That definite article "the" before "changes" in the first sentence has been driving me crazy for months. Don't you think it sounds better without it? Can I change it? Or is it necessary?--Ggbroad 04:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh. What a pleasant change of pace. Yes, I agree the sentence would read better without it. I had wondered if it was one of those national variations like spelling, in which case we should follow the original usage. But if not, then the change sounds good. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversial statements presented as fact
Why are statements that are controversial being presented as fact? --Ezra Wax 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's always seemed to me that most editors to this page feel that due to the lack of controversy among scientists concerning evolution, that it should not be presented in any form which questions any part of evolutionary theory. Homestarmy 19:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because they are scientific facts. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity and the Theory of Evolution is as established as the Theory of Gravity.  You might want to read up on a recent discussion here: #1, #2, and #3.  Homestarmy, I hope you can see the huge logical fallacy in your rather backwards statement.--Roland Deschain 19:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The statements you question are not controversial in scientific fields, and this is a science article. There is no need to insert weasle words into factual representaions of current Theory. Thanks for trying to help, and for bringing your concerns to the talkpage, but the article is just fine as it stands. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should the claim that it is an established scientific fact matter? It is a question of truth, and science just attempts to tell you what the truth is if you assume that nothing supernatural happened. That is an assumption made by science, but it is nothing more than an assumption. The law of gravity is no longer accepted scientific consensus. It has been replaced by Einstein, and it is well known that Einstein's theory will eventually be replaced as well. Although it is normal in scientific literature to treat hypothesis as facts, it remains a hypothesis. Evolution cannot be proven because you will never be able to get enough evidence to prove it conclusively. It thus remains a theory even if there were no alternatives to it. --Ezra Wax 19:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My comments on this page were just censored
I am going to vehemently protest the censorship I was just subjected to. How dare you delete what I have written before it was addressed? So what if you are afraid of "Trolls". This is an open subject and it is flagrantly biased, and instead of addressing serious problems with the article, you are summarily censoring criticism of it.

I looked back at votes pointed out by Roland and the subject was not addressed there either. It was summarily dismissed by a straw poll which was given very little time to come to a conclusion being that the results were near unanimous and there is no doubt in my mind that there is no near unanimity on this subject. --Ezra Wax 20:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comments were not censored. They were archived because they were non-productive. This page is to be used for improving the article, not educating editors who lack familiarity with fundamental concepts in science. This is not intended as a personal attack, but as a basic statement of position. If and when you have constructive comments to make about this article, please feel free to post here again. Until then, this too will be archived. Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Stating the truth accurately about a topic is improvement. If you want to improve the article about evolution, you have to accurately state its degree of truth. Any discussion regarding that is germane, and should not be archived until it is finished. Otherwise I have the right to assume that the discussion was deleted because it might prove persuasive to some. --Ezra Wax 20:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ezra Wax, your basic arguments show a deep confusion both about the philosophy of science and science in general. Your posts seem to miss the major point: there is a fundamental difference between evolution/gravity (fact) and theory of evolution/theory of gravity (theory).  This was my major point in my original post and you seem to have missed in entirely.  (Please keep in mind that I use the terms fact and theory as they are used in science and not how they are used in general language).  I beg you not to drum to the tune of the age old fallacious creationist idea that evolution is just a theory.  I try not to judge people by just one sentence, but anytime somebody utters that sentence I know for a fact that they know nothing about science and evolution.--Roland Deschain 20:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Comments
My comments have been deleted for a third time while I in the middle of having a conversation with someone. All three times it was by the same person. Is this policy generally supported over here? You can just go to history to see what I mean. --Ezra Wax 21:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your discussion is in the wrong place, as has been pointed out to you by way of the edit summaries, which you have read. You are not raising any points that haven't been refuted before, and since your contributions are thus not going to contribute to improving the article, we ask you to take your essays elsewhere. Thank you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been told that they are in the wrong place, but I don't agree. The issue is a wikipedia issue and not only a general issue, and should therefore be discussed on wikipedia. If we don't discuss what discussions are allowed on this page, then where should they be discussed? --Ezra Wax 21:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Make specific objections to the article with specific examples of how you want certain sentences/paragraphs changed (provide the original material side by side with your changed material so it's easily accessible to people in the discussion). Source all your statements, as this article's major points are already heavily cited.  Refrain from harping on such issues as Truth, as Wikipedia isn't about truth, but Verifiability.  Also, understand that this is a scientific article with scientific terminology.  So terms such a fact and theory (as explain in this section) have specific scientific meanings that are different from common language.  Debate is encouraged, but pointless absolutist discussion is deleted instantly.--Roland Deschain 21:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. What do you think about our discussion being deleted while we were in the middle of having it? For example I replied to you and my reply was deleted before you had a chance to reply. I don't agree with your scientific article idea. The article is one on evolution. That is the title of the article and that is what it is about. It should be accessible to the general public and use terms that are generally known or those terms should be immediately explained. --Ezra Wax 21:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In a somewhat related note, I had tried to reply to you Roland right before I left school, only to learn when I opened my laptop at home I had been edit conflicted :/. Maybe next time.... Homestarmy 21:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at the deleted discussion. Sorry, your contribution is just the result of massive confusion, and to put it bluntly, ignorance. This sort of issue has been raised many many times previously and it is tedious to dismiss the result of huge misunderstandings over and over again. Often people who bring up these objections do not want to accept that they misunderstand, but just cause disruption and will not listen to reason. Your contribution gives evidence of not understanding the meaning of the following terms in a scientific context: science, scientific method, fact, theory, proof, truth. These all have very specific meanings and you need to learn about them in detail before you start pontificating. These terms have different definitions in science than they do in common usage.--Filll 21:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Filll: What you are saying is all very eloquent, but I don't think you are right. I believe that I have fairly good understanding of those terms, and if you wish your criticism to be constructive, you will have to be more specific about what is wrong with my understanding of those terms. --Ezra Wax 21:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ezra Wax, make your case about any changes you want to see in this article by succinct and verifiable arguments or stop wasting every bodies time.--Roland Deschain 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ezra Wax, regardless of whether your previous deleted discussion was in the right place, this discussion is certainly in the wrong place. If you have issue with somebody deleting your comments, you might want to discuss it on their user talk page. This discussion is not about the content of the article Evolution, and thus does not belong here. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Schaefer: Oh but it is. This deletion seems to be policy over here. The rule is that any discussion of this type is immediately archived even if it is active. Even Roland didn't protest even though he was replying to me. --Ezra Wax 22:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Mr. Wax, take a look at your talk page. Although I should not have bothered, I have graced your talk page with an extensive reply to your deleted contribution.--Filll 23:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph
All contemporary organisms are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years.
 * This statement is not believed by many scientists never mind by those who believe in creation. --Ezra Wax 22:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair start. This statement is heavily cited.  Please provide verifiable scientific sources that contradict this statement.  Until that is done, may I suggest that nobody responds further in this discussion.--Roland Deschain 22:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This also has been discussed before. I recommend trying to understand the basic idea of coalescent theory before making any inroads on this. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Creationists don't believe in universal common descent -- Ezra Wax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Young_Earth_creationism
 * First sentance from that link: "The belief that the Earth was created by God within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in Genesis". I advise you to post that link in Geology, Radiometric dating, Age of the Earth,  and at least 20 other scientific topics ;).  Again, this entire section that you link does not cite a single scientific work, so I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish besides the fact that some unqualified people have certain religious believes about the world.--Roland Deschain 22:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We need more Colbert. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why a scientific work has to be cited. All I have to show is that there are a significant number of people who believe it. It's not the job of wikipedia to rule who is right. As far as qualifications are concerned, they are qualified. They are qualified theologians. --Ezra Wax 23:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NPOV. Wikipedia has never been about giving all view points equal weight.  That would lead to utterly unreadable articles.  The fundamentalist theologian position is discussed at the end of the article.--Roland Deschain 23:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A widely held view point should not be ignored in the opening paragraph. --Ezra Wax 23:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Opinions from scientists not published in academic, peer-reviewed journals are not considered to be reliable sources - for a good reason. Otherwise any view could be regarded as perfectly valid.  I would agree that "this statement is not believed by many scientists" regardless of whether they subscribe to evolutionary viewpoints, but you must supply some peer-reviewed article questioning UCD in order for it to be included as a valid point in this article.  The editors here are very loath to allow any views that are not rigorously tested and validated by the scientific community at large.
 * Generally speaking, it is best to state as many verifiable facts as possible rather than trying to bring up a creationist viewpoint. That way readers can decide for themselves rather than being faced with "majority vs. minority" which always collapses into a struggle over who gets the most space.  The best way to make a difference is to point out a clear statement of opinion that is being stated as fact and ask for a citation - but you must have documentation to verify that it is an opinion and not a fact. standonbibleTalk! 23:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Scientists don't agree on universal common descent -- Ezra Wax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism#History_of_life
 * Please read the article carefully and don't confuse common descent with universal common ancestor. Especially with horizontal gene transfer the notion of a universal common ancestor has become very nebulous, even with the fact of common descent (the tree of life is slowly transforming into a web of life).--Roland Deschain 23:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then they are not related to each other through common descent - they are related to each other only because they have similarities. --Ezra Wax 23:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the article, and Roland Deschain's post above. -- Ec5618 23:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are confusing (I think) common descent with Convergent evolution. With the advent of genetics, it is quite easy and straightforward to differentiate homology (common descent) from similarities due to similar environmental constrains.  Horizontal gene transfer is still common descent, but it goes beyond the old fashioned parent to child descent to a more sophisticated idea that deals with the common descent of genetic information.--Roland Deschain 23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ezra, read your home talk page. See if you can understand what is going on here before you get yourself in trouble.--Filll 00:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary of disagreement
There must be an explicit or clearly implied statement at the beginning of the article that common descent over billions of years is only a theory and is not believed by many creationists. It should also be noted that clearly that universal common descent is not a fact.
 * This article is specifically about the scientific theory of evolution and can therefore silently assume that there is nothing supernatural and that it need not specifically state that it is a theory.

In support of the distinction between theory and fact above here is a quote from the article: 'In the same way, heritable variation, natural selection, and response to selection (e.g. in domesticated plants and animals) are "facts", and the generalization or extrapolation beyond these phenomena, and the explanation for them, is the "theory of evolution"' --Ezra Wax 00:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? This article is about science, not the supernatural. --Michael Johnson 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The article should not say something that is false, and to a creationist, it is false, and it is something that is easily rectifiable if not for the political agenda of evolutionists. It need merely somehow separate what is universally held to be true and what is only held to be true by scientists and then clearly label the two. This is done in most of the religion articles, and should be done here as well. --Ezra Wax 00:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well creationists will just have to live with it, because it is accepted science. There is plenty about the creationist controversity later in the article. --Michael Johnson 00:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? An encyclopedia should inform you of the facts not try to sneak in anti religious viewpoint. --Ezra Wax 00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I repeat this article is about science, not religion. If the subject is uncomfortable for people of some religious backgrounds, that may be unfortunate but of no real significance. Once again, this article is not anti-religious, it is simply about science. --Michael Johnson 01:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ezra, I'm sorry but you're slamming your head against a wall here by going over the same arguments that have been stated and restated so many times. Go find a peer-reviewed article questioning universal common descent or alleging that macroevolution (natural selection + beneficial mutations) is a rare occurence and then come back. standonbibleTalk! 00:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And here it comes, the inevitable conspiracy theories about the "political agenda of evolutionists". I will repeat a sentence I made at the beginning of the discussion: "Refrain from harping on such issues as Truth, as Wikipedia isn't about truth, but Verifiability".  If you can get your head around this, you'll be a much better contributor to Wikipedia.--Roland Deschain 00:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to the following: 'In the same way, heritable variation, natural selection, and response to selection (e.g. in domesticated plants and animals) are "facts", and the generalization or extrapolation beyond these phenomena, and the explanation for them, is the "theory of evolution"' --Ezra Wax 01:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What is there to respond to? It seems a fair summary --Michael Johnson 01:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reading above, it is fairly obvious you are a troll. I think I will leave things here. --Michael Johnson 01:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to make specific proposals to improve the article. Be sure to cite sources that meet WP:V and WP:RS. Unless you make specific proposals there's no point in continuing this line of discussion. Also bear in mind WP:NPOV and pay particular attention to the undue weight clause, since based on your current posting you appear to misunderstand it. --Davril2020 01:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The burden of the evidence is actually with the current claim. Is there any reliable source that states that that evolution and historic claims based on evolution are proven facts beyond reasonable doubt? --Zero g 01:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. The article is currently fundamentalistic in its assumptions which isn't a good thing. Given the rather strict definition of what evolution is and what it did in the past it almost reads like the bible. However, the majority doesn't seem to wish to reach consensus. --Zero g 01:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, the objective of this article is to explain the current status of science in this field. Your comments could equally be applied to any science subject. And it differs from a bible in one very important respect. As scientific knowledge changes, so this article would change. To effect a change all you have to do is produce a peer reviewed article. Bibles, as I understand it, are not changeable. --Michael Johnson 01:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what Zero g is trying to imply. The article is fundamentalistic in its assumptions? What does THAT mean???? The strict definition of what evolution is? The definition of evolution is what the biologists define it to be. It is the biologist's theory. And this article is to explain their theory. Period. The majority doesn't seem to wish to reach consensus? What does THAT mean? People writing about science do not want to change and write about magic instead. Well is that a surprise? Give me a break.--Filll 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oxymoron much? "the majority doesn't seem to wish to reach consensus."??? The majority have achieved consensus and see no need to explain it again every second day. This topic appears in almost every single archive for this page. The result is always the same. Please read the archives. There is no need to rehash this discussion again, for the third time in a week. These sections will be archived shortly. Please use your personal talkpage for further discussion; this page is for article improvement, not soapboxing. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Specific Proposal for Change
Current version:

In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record

Suggested version:

In biology, evolution is the observed change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. Accordingly, scientists have theorized that all contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution would thus be the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record

The above are my suggested changes to the first paragraph of the article.--Ezra Wax 02:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How about:
 * The theory of evolution holds that all contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Therefore evolution  explains the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record--Filll 02:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry - we are related through common descent. I can only point you back at coalescent theory once again. There is also a book by Steve Hubbell that suggests how the coalescent can be applied in ecology. Life may have originated independently multiple times, in fact it is likely that it has, but none of the results of these earlier origins survive today. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good. You say it's a theory and I say it's a theory. So we agree. --Ezra Wax 03:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it IS a theory. Like Gravitational Theory or Electromagnetic Theory. Did you not read your talk page? My goodness!!--Filll 03:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a theory that explains the fact of common descent. That's what theories do, explain facts.  Theory of Evolution explains the fact of evolution.--Roland Deschain 03:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely. There are observations of evolution, which are called the "facts of evolution" if you will. And there is a theory, called the "Theory of evolution" which explains those facts. This is part of the source of the confusion. But the fossils and other evidence exist, and they are explained by the theory of evolution. Got it?--Filll 03:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be making a simple mistake. No scientist can reproduce common descent. Instead they take a bunch of facts like fossils and biology experiments and they connect them with a theory to deduce another "fact" namely that of common descent. The difference between the two facts is that the first set of facts are dependent only on observation while the second fact is dependent on observation plus a theory. If the theory is wrong, then the resultant fact is also wrong. So it has less validity than the first set of facts because it might not be true. --Ezra Wax 03:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. No mistake. Common descent could be described as either a part of the theory, or a prediction based on the theory. I would defer to the biologists here to decide. I do not think it is a "fact" outside of stating that it IS a fact and true (in the common English sense of fact and true, not the scientific senses) that common descent is part of evolution. I wish you would read what I wrote for you on your talk page. Try to learn what you are talking about before you get yourself in trouble and get banned from boring everyone to tears and annoying them. --Filll 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is very boring. This article describes what science describes as evolution. If it is true or not is not the point. The point is the article is VERIFIED by the references included in the article. If you want to change the article either show how the article mis-interprates the references, or produce a reference (in the form of a peer-reviewed paper) that shows the references used do not represent current scientific knowledge. --Michael Johnson 03:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Is this current theory? Life originated on earth multiple times? Wow. I knew I might learn something if I hung out here. Where can I find out more about this?--Filll 03:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's try something simple
Bob drops different sized balls 1 million times from different heights. The balls fall 1 million times. Bob measures the speed of the falling balls, and the time the balls take to drop. This information Bob has about the falling balls is data or the "facts" of gravitation that Bob has observed. Bob can say there are gravitational facts to explain.

Bob wants to understand why this is true and to predict how long it will take a ball dropped from a certain height. Bob develops some principles and rules, some of them in mathematical symbols and some not, to do this. This is Bob's gravitational "theory". Now Bob has a theory to explain his facts.

Bob can now use his theory to predict what will happen when he drops another ball. And if it is a good theory, it will be useful in predicting what will happen.

So the force of gravity is a fact. It is also a theory. It is also a prediction. It is even a scientific law.

All of these statements are also true of evolution. Clear? --Filll 03:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Very good. Now his theory will tell him that if he throws a ball up, it will come back down. And if he throws it higher it will still come back down, but it won't tell him that if he throws it really really high that it won't come down. So his theory will make predictions that are false, and those predictions are not facts. His law of gravity is true in some cases and false in others, so his law is not a fact. --Ezra Wax 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are starting to understand, possibly. His theory is ONLY good as long as it makes good predictions. Of course, near big masses or whatever he needs a different theory. That is how science works. So Bob's theory will get replaced with Jane's that works in more cases. Bob's theory of gravity is not a "fact". Jane's theory of gravity is not a "fact". The observations are the "facts". The predictions are not "facts" of course. The law is not a "fact". Scientific laws (Like the 2nd law of thermodynamics that creationists are in love with) do not necessarily hold true everywhere and always. See? Look on your talk page.--Filll 03:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. So now that we agree, you ought to agree with the changes I propose to the opening paragraph of the article. --Ezra Wax 04:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer my version which is cleaner, shorter and more accurate. However, I would defer to my biology colleagues, since I am a physicist, and this is their field and their theory.--Filll 04:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

New Proposal
Sorry Filll I didn't notice that you changed your original proposal. I originally saw that it said the theory of relativity and I assumed that you were simply making fun of my proposal. Your version is OK as well, except that I have an additional change to make to it.

Your version:


 * The theory of evolution holds that all contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Therefore evolution  explains the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record

Change:


 * The theory of evolution holds that all contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Therefore, the theory of evolution can explain the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record


 * Yes I slipped up because I was not paying attention and typed relativity like a dope instead. Your revision to mine looks fine to me. It is up to the biologists however. As long as they do not think it is too wordy to keep repeating theory theory theory over and over (because everyone in science KNOWS it is a theory; it is one of the most famous theories!!), then I suspect they will not have a problem with it. But I would check with a biologist to see.--Filll 04:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have edited it a bit more and included the first sentence and get:
 * In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. The theory of evolution holds that all contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. It is therefore used to explain the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record

That's my current proposed version. --Ezra Wax 04:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no real need for this change. The current version is accurate and verifiable, and has achieved FA status. The proposed change doesn't significantly enchance the article. The only change that might reasonably be considered is a link to a simplified explanation (as suggested earlier). --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of bringing up the same counterarguments every single time a creationists tries to insert some kind of fallibility in this article. The archives this month alone have at least two discussion of the consensus rejecting these types of changes.  The article represent correctly the sources it cites.  Ezra Wax has long ago stopped using any type of verifiable information to initiate this change and has rather used the same old arguments about how evolution is only a theory.  The proposed change is as fallacious as all the other changes proposed (and would require a huge amount of rewriting in every other scientific topic).--Roland Deschain 04:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but even Richard Dawkins would agree that what I've said is true, he just doesn't like it. A theory is fallible and that's life. You are correct that all of the scientific topics require rewriting, and I would like to start here. The fact that parts of evolution are a theory may be old, but at least once it is recognized it will allow poor university educated chumps to understand how a rational person could disagree with it. --Ezra Wax 04:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a very important reason for the change. The original version confuses fact with theory and this one doesn't. This version allows somebody who takes the opening sentence as the truth to recognize that some of evolution is a theory that he is free to disagree with. --Ezra Wax 04:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For the last time. This article is NOT about TRUTH.  It is about verifiable information.  Evolution is a fact and that statement is cited extensively.  It is up to you to provide verifiable information that contradicts this statement.--Roland Deschain 04:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed! I think the best thing to do is simply archive or delete these things while directing the editor to the Archives where it has been discussed so extensively already. Having this kind of nonsense pop up on the talkpage every day is totally counter-productive. With no offense meant to Filll (even though he is a physicist), I'm going to archive this as well. If there are further attempts to disrupt this page I will also seek sanctions against against the offender for violating WP:POINT. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You can archive the conversation when all of the participants are done. You may not archive it before. That would be simple censorship. --Ezra Wax 04:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This conversation is done. It has been done to death. It is pointless to repeat the same arguments every other day. Please see your own talkpage for details. Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've told you several times Ezra Wax that you aren't going to get anywhere here unless you bring sources. In fact, it's better that way.  Please don't continue this because it gives the creationist viewpoint a bad name.  I am in favor of archiving this conversation - the sooner the better. standonbibleTalk! 04:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes to the first paragraph re separating fact and theory

 * In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. The theory of evolution holds that all contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. It is therefore used to explain the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record

Issue of casting doubt on the truth of evolution
As Filll agrees the data about evolution is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether the theory that explains the data is true, and therefore whether common descent is true. It is verifiable that that is the case. You will not be able to verify that the theory is correct because like all theories it cannot be proven correct.

wikipedia being about verifiablity
I don't understand those who say that wikipedia is about verifiability and not the truth. It makes no sense. The only reason for verifiablity is because otherwise there is no way of knowing whether something is true or not, and wikipedia is not in the business of stating things that might not be true.


 * Ezra, you're stating the same thing over and over again. Go get some sources and come back.  You aren't doing any good. WP is about verifiability and not truth because editors can agree on whether a statement can be verified - they can't agree whether it is true.  Wikipedia works in practice, but not in theory.  This page is no place to argue about the merits of WP's policies.  standonbibleTalk! 05:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Censorship
The discussion has once again been deleted unilaterally. I was in the middle of a discussion with two people and it was simply deleted. This is the third time. If you are so concerned about the same issues being discussed over and over then you ought to make a summary of those positions so that people can know. --Ezra Wax 05:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ezra, part of it has been copied to your talk page you know. Homestarmy 05:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly. But I don't want to discuss the issue with myself. In any case the discussion belongs here. It is about this topic and should be available to anybody who wants to see discussion on this page.--Ezra Wax 05:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You have been engaged in this debate for more than 10 hours now, without gaining any support for your POV. Isn't it time for you to move on? --Michael Johnson 05:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ezra, there is no support for your proposed changes. At this point, I’m going to have to ask you not to continue bringing up the same points here repeatedly. You obviously have some ideas about how Wikipedia should work differently (using truth as a criterion, expanding the scope of article talk pages, and so on), but unfortunately they are not consistent with current Wikipedia policy or practice. If anyone wishes to continue discussing these matters with you, you may do so on your personal talk pages. Please refrain from further posting here unless you can back up your proposals with good evidence, preferably in the form of peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at my talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that though in theory Wikipedia isn't a democracy (see: WP:What Wikipedia is not) it in practice is exactly that, a dictatorship of the majority, as can be clearly observed on this talk page. Having had the pleasure of observing more experienced Wikipedians, the proper way to go about this issue is finding (preferably) two dozen people (these must include at least 1 admin) supporting your views and amass them at this article to push your pov. Be careful what you say at all times, since everything you say can and will be used against you once things get ugly. --Zero g 16:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that there's a difference between a dictatorship of the majority, and observing preset rules for writing articles. The editors of this article are bound by policy, and since the more experienced editors realise that more fully, it may seem that they are a majority. In fact, its simply a matter of the majority adhering to established policy. -- Ec5618 16:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "the proper way to go about this issue is finding (preferably) two dozen people (these must include at least 1 admin) supporting your views and amass them at this article to push your pov. " I find that statement terrifying. With that strategy, a planned invasion of the evolution article by a deluge of creationist could rewrite the article. Every editor should have a mantra of NPOV per subject, not "MY POV" per subject. GetAgrippa 16:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fear not, my friend, it ain't gonna happen. Not even if someone forces me to start using proper English :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Even the vast majority will not be able to change this article as long as there is no verifiable scientific data to support their claims. Most objectors complain about the intro out of gut instinct (or creationist propaganda).  Once the time comes for them to provide verifiable information, it is quite obvious that there are no scientific sources to support their claims.--Roland Deschain 17:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It is like a coyote caught in a Bear trap, it would rather chew it's leg off than admit defeat. Lives to fight another day. Well, my thanks to the "Watchers of this Oracle" that prevent mayhem. There are also a great pool of editors who have contributed to this article. I know every single one if they had their ruthers would change something in this article, however to their credit they resisted and worked together to create this article with NPOV in mind. GetAgrippa 18:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is no longer relevant to how to improve the article; I will plan to archive it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sprotection
I think we've had enough vandalism for a while. Maybe protection will help to resolve conflicts. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really necessary as we have many watchdogs on this article. However, this will hopefully encourage more discussion in the talk page rather than outright vandalism.--Roland Deschain 03:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I really think most of us can find more useful things to do than keep reverting changes on this article and issuing warnings (which is obligatory and the time-consuming part). There is also the concern of minimising the amount of time that a "bad" version is publicly displayed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I just had to post a warning to User talk:Marc210 for a vandalism that was made and reverted yesterday. It would be nice to work on things besides reverts and arguments. We have active discussions about images, refs and footnoting, and (shameless self-promotion) the new "Evo talk" page. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sprotection will be helpful. I've reverted I don't know HOW many vandalisms here in the past few days.... standonbibleTalk! 04:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * None since 17th November, and then you just posted a welcome message on the talk page of a user inserting unverified information, removing a comment of mine in the process. I'll assume good faith for now... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What did that statement accomplish, Samsara? I make a polite comment supporting your sprotection and you attack what I say and then make it "OK" by saying "I'll assume good faith for now" (emphasis added). The 4 or 5 rvvs I've done since November 16th (note: the past few days?) obviously don't count all the tags that I placed on user pages of new vandals. Vandals that someone else reverted. And for the record, I apologize for overwriting your comment when I told a user his information was unverified and had been deleted (the same way I was welcomed to Wikipedia, by the way) - I didn't mean to erase your comment. What got into your cheerios? ;) standonbibleTalk! 05:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I called you on a lie and you know it. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am clueless as to what is going on here but it does not sound particularly useful or constructive. Both of you are good contributors and I hope we can just move past whatever it was that caused this.--Filll 06:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, Samsara, you know that if two people revert at about the saame time, the Wikipedia software saves the second as a null edit (hence not logging it) but doesn't tell the second editor. So it's entirely possible he did revert, but someone else got there first. He wouldn't be told. Adam Cuerden talk 06:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's all part of my "check yo' facts" campaign. If he didn't go on record as having committed reverts, he shouldn't walk around boasting how very many there were. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Filll that this is neither useful nor constructive. I am perfectly willing to forget about Samsara's extremely provocative comments but an apology might be in order for such blatant disregard of WP:AGF and WP:ATTACK. Accusing someone of lying is quite offensive, especially considering that I was supporting Samsara's position by pointing out the large amounts of vandalism that I had seen and either reverted or, having gotten there too late, warned on a user's talk page about. I, like Filll, have no clue what it was that caused this outburst by Samsara but if he/she is willing to let it alone I won't bring it up again. standonbibleTalk! 06:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No apology forthcoming. You escalated it to the point where I had to use straight words. You really need to learn to distinguish between criticism and personal attacks. Saying someone lied is not a personal attack. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying "I called you on a lie and you know it" does qualify as a personal attack per the very first bullet of this section. If you feel that I "escalated it" please explain how and where I did so - I freely apologize for any comments that might have "escalated" anything here.  I do not and did not expect an apology from you but thought that asking for one would be the polite thing to do given the rather disturbing circumstances.  I am perfectly content to let this lie but I will thank you to stop berating me ("you really need to learn to distinguish between criticism and personal attacks" - this is the first time I have ever cited WP:ATTACK so your statement is rather thin). standonbibleTalk! 07:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's wikilawyer then. WP:AGF says (some of it in bold) This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By accusing me of wikilawyering and outright lying you are once again violating WP:AGF. Calling someone a liar is an extremely bold accusation that needs to be backed up with clear and convincing evidence.  So, let's see here.  As I was supporting your decision I stated "I've reverted I don't know how many vandalisms here in the past few days."  Naturally, I was thinking about any edits I had made regarding vandalisms on this page, whether I had actually done the revert or I had only posted a warning on the vandal's talk page.  Stating that I don't know how many reverts I've done is hardly grounds for "I called you on a lie and you know it".  You are behaving aggressively, Samsara, and I do not appreciate it.
 * I do not wish to make a big deal out of this, but I have no intentions of lamely standing by and being berated. You have nothing to prove, Samsara, so I would suggest that you leave this be. standonbibleTalk! 07:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You're going to take all the fun out of this if you make me stand up and defend standonbible. Please note that while this editor is (metaphorically) opposed to the information presented in the article, his/her behaviour on this talkpage has been exemplary. Contrast SOB's (sorry, couldn't resist) edits and exquisitely polite discussions with what we typically see here. If we are going to treat standonbible as an opponent, let us at least acknowledge a worthy opponent. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence there, Doc. FYI, I am a "he" and I definitely agree that I (inadvertently) set myself up for being called SOB for creating that username - but hey! people get a laugh out of it.  But yeah - thanks for the moral support.  I may not qualify as a worthy opponent, but I do intend to be a respectful opponent. standonbibleTalk! 06:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I appreciate SOB's reasonableness and rationality.--Filll 06:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, no more comments in this section. Let it end here and we can archive it. This does no one any good. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 07:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

To the friends of evolution
If you have not already seen it, you may wish to familiarise yourself with internal consistency and the Bible, or, for those who like it spiced with a little serendipity, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Har har. I'm sure many of us have seen these before. Fun as they are, they aren't relevent to the topic of Evolution. Titanium Dragon 06:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They're relevant with respect to the motivation for recent discussions here. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk pages aren't a forum; this page is about improving the article, not about making fun of creationists and fundamentalists or trying to convince them that their beliefs are false. I enjoy it as much as the next guy, but it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon 07:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This thread would have never gotten any longer had you not replied to it. Too much time on your hands? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro picture
I feel the current introductory picture has a negligible "stickiness factor": For one thing, you can't read any of the words without a magnifying glass. Has anyone else noticed this? The first picture should work to pull the reader into the article. The current picture, in my opinion, has the opposite effect: the print is too small to be able to adequately explain what the picture is about in the caption. The current intro picture should go on its own page in bigger full-page size, possibly with its own article or possibly lower in the evolution article itself; with its own section. I propose replacing this picture with Darwin (possibly as shown below): Or, if someone can think of a better picture (ideas are welcome)? I highly doubt that anyone gets anything meaningful from the current picture, but rather skips over it (because there is too much information there, in too small print). I know from previous talk pages that both the size of this picture and the caption amount is an issue. Any comments?

90 kb article
Also, has anyone noticed that this article is almost 100 kilobytes and 27 pages when printed out; online attention spans are limited, dial-up servers can't load pages over 32 kilobytes very well, and people don't usually read more that 10 pages or so on-line before moving on to something else. Web design theories and articles are very clear on these issues. Just some thoughts. (see: Article size)? Later: --Sadi Carnot 10:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * isnt wiki trying to provide an encyclpedia, not a conveinent referance for your average browser, the start is a good summary, the rest is neccesary for reaserch.


 * Hmm. It might look better if we mirror-imaged the photo, but that might be unethical? As for the length: That's being worked on. Adam Cuerden talk 11:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the current picture, but then again I know exactly what it is and the methodology used to create it. Therefore I do agree that a simpler pictures needs to be found that has a more resonating effect.  However, even though Darwin is one of my heroes, can we find a different picture.  Something that actually shows the ideas behind evolution (like the current picture, but more simple).  The Physics article is a nice examples of where the intro highlights the concept and ideas of the subject matter, rather than the people.  The pictures of people come right after the intro, and I think this article should follow the same guideline.--Roland Deschain 15:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the taxonomic tree as well, but we'd probably do better with one of the older depictions, even if they're less accurate: They tend to be more visually appealing, often with illustrations of forms. Adam Cuerden talk 16:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should use this one, but something like it in style might be useful:

Trees, such as the one above, are only useful when studying one branch at a time. Possibly someone who is a regular on this page make a simple diagram, with only the main branches clearly labeled? Or could some one find a picture of three animals that evolved from each other? Or the evolution of fish to reptile to tree shrew is a good image. DNA trees with 50-100 scientific words (i.e. foreign to those who don't work in these areas) don't help much. Even the peacock would be better at the intro than as compared to the current one. --Sadi Carnot 17:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Darwin does look like he is demonically possessed or at least bitter at the world. Creationist have to love that photo. Unless there is a copyright issue with your photo; you should switch them. --66.56.207.111 01:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Darwin pic is a little dark; I'll put in the peacock pic. If anyone finds a better one latter we can switch it. Later: --Sadi Carnot 00:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't say I like the peacock pic as the intro - I added this pic lower down the article some months ago to illustrate sexual selection, I don't think it illustrates evolution overall. Perhaps someone can create a collage of living creatures or something? I'd prefer that or the pic of Darwin (or the original one for that matter) over either the present peacock or the proposed giraffe below... Mi kk er (...) 01:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't like the peacock either. The old picture was better in my view.  Barnaby dawson 09:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, btw, WP:FP is useful for finding pics we can use... Mi kk er (...) 02:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, don't like the picture too. I don't have time right now, but can somebody change it back to the previous format till we have a better consensus.  So far three are against this piture without anybody actually arguing for it.--Roland Deschain 17:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put back the old pic & added the peacock back lower down. Let's get a consensus before changing... Mi kk er (...) 19:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Giraffe’s neck picture
Also, someone should add to the article a section on how the current theory of evolution accounts for the length of the giraffe’s neck and how in history it was an issue of contention, e.g. here is a related talk discussion. Later: --Sadi Carnot 00:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * None of these proposals seem any more clear or more on topic than the current image, which is a very standard "common descent" sort of thing. I don't think we should monkey with it. --Fastfission 04:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Rule #1 (in image use): Never use an image if you can't see the image or read the text on it. An image that you can't see is pointless. --Sadi Carnot 14:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't find it hard to read at all. --Fastfission 13:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? You have to use a magnifying glass to read the spelling of the small words in the branches. --Sadi Carnot 14:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you trying to read all of those words? The main branches are totally visible and one can understand the image perfectly. You can't see every scale on the armadillo either though if you wanted to you could click to enlarge it. In any case, I can read the words on the smaller branches; perhaps you use a higher screen resolution than I do. --Fastfission 22:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No one, for example, can possibly read the word "T. celer" in the phylogenetic tree image (at 300px) without resorting to a click to the main image page. --Sadi Carnot 05:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, actually, I can. (Although in all fairness, I should note that my eyesight is 20/10)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody needs to read the fine print. That is exactly the point that Fastfission is making.  It is the simple shape of the tree that is utterly important and unifying for this article.  The picture clearly shows the three branches of life and the fact that they all have a common ancestor(plus the classical tree shape divergence).  For the intro purpose, it doesn't even matter what organism belongs in which clade.  In addition, clicking on the picture makes all the labeling crystal clear (even when I used the highest resolution my monitor could handle).--Roland Deschain 05:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. Before the recent change, I believe that evolution was the only featured article, out of 1149, that had a first page image, which contained 31 words on it, that no one could read. The article caffeine, for example, is a good featured article with an opening image (w/text) that has perfectly discernable text. I think you are simply caught up in this one specific article too much. It is a basic publishing rule not to use an image if you have to squint to see it’s details. Later: --Sadi Carnot 08:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? You looked at all of them? As Henry Ford learned, the public grew tired of being able to have any colour they wanted as long as it was black.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Glyptodon
The consensus seems to be that users want a new intro picture; one that has immediate recognition, one that has readable text, one that is visually appealing, and one that captures the essence of Darwin's theory of evolution. I just spent time making a new intro image, which I uploaded. Please do not revert. Let the change sit for a while so to see how people feel about the new intro image. I’ll move the other one lower in the article. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 15:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant picture: -- Ec5618 16:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, let's hope it sticks. Later: --Sadi Carnot 00:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: "This is all fake, the world is only a few thousand years old." Thank you, Bayfield Shcolls. --16:28, 7 November 2006 User:206.123.204.226 (Talk)


 * I don't know what you had to do to these images to make them look so washed out (did you print them out and re-scan them?), but I don't think this is much of a solution (so I uploaded a new one, as shown below). 13:06, 8 November 2006 User:Fastfission (Talk | contribs)



Fastfission, I see you quickly changed my photo without a consensus. If you want to change the photos to a better quality, so they are not washed out looking that will be fine, but leave the dates in. If you can figure out a way to do this, while including the dates, then do so; if not than please do not modify my uploaded images. You can see here: User:Sadi Carnot/Sandbox6 that I toyed with a "gallery" but it didn't look good, so I copied the images, texted them, then scanned them, and then re-uploaded them. If you know how to do this (with the text) as I had it then feel free; for now I will revert. Thank you: --Sadi Carnot 14:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Easy enough with the GIMP. Graft 19:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I have no problem reading the original pic's branches either (and my eyesight isn't all that brilliant), secondly, the new pic doesn't really illustrate evolution that well IMO. Thirdly... I suggest you propose a new pic and WAIT for a consensus that it's the right one before changing. Mi kk er (...) 21:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sadi, perhaps you can realize that I took my time to re-create your image so that it looked much better, even though I don't like it much. As for doing things "without consensus", I don't recall you getting consensus for making your changes. --Fastfission 22:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The original image was still better. It at showed in a single image the basic tenants of evolution: all life is related and existing species evolved from common ancestors.  This image is too specific to be the first image a reader sees.  Definitely should be included in speciation, but not in the intro.--Roland Deschain 23:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fastfission, thank-you for changing the picture (w/ the text included); much appreciated! I like the phylogenetic tree, but it looks poor at 300px, but looks illuminating here.  From previous months talk pages, I know that arguments have erupted over the size of the phylogenetic tree as the opening picture, i.e. whether it should be 350px or 450px, etc.  As to consensus, Users Adam Cuerden, Roland Deschain, and User: --66.56.207.111, who likes the Darwin pic, all favor a change; Mikker suggests a collage of living creatures; User: Ec5618 thinks the Armadillo/Glyptodon is “brilliant”; GIMP doesn’t seem to have any problems with the image; and Dave souza, who immediately recognized and edited in the exact years and story behind this Darwin clue (which is supposedly one of Darwin’s two main stimulating clues [the other being the finches]), doesn’t seem to mind the change.  Anyway, I have actively proposed at least four images (as well as other possible ideas) over a seven day period.  The morphological relationship between the finches would be a fifth choice, but from what I remember there are 14 different varieties, and that would make for a big image.  Please, let’s let this change sit for a while to see how we all feel about as the days go on; or to see if other possible better ideas pop up.  But, then again, the Armadillo/Glyptodon was one of Darwin’s two main clues (according to books I’ve read).  Later: --Sadi Carnot 05:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * From my perspective (21" wide screen) there seems to be a sea of white between the table of contents and the Biology Series info box. Could the phylogenetic tree fit there? Also, is the older/wiser picture of Darwin furture up the discussion page copyrighted or something? Could it be used to substitute for the angry / demonic picture of Darwin? --Random Replicator 01:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think any actual relationship between the two animals would be better presented as a comparison between the skeleton of a glyptodon and the skeleton of an armadillo. --G4rfunkel 18:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of Man Image
I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but spelunking through the talk pages is pretty difficult on a page like this. There already exists a pretty iconic image to represent evolution: the chimp evolving into man while walking. A somewhat ironic example. Thank you for your sense of humor, Google. I couldn't find something like it in the commons, but it could be hidden somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adodge (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 November 2006
 * I don't really like that. Humans didn't evolve from chimps, and it connotes (for me at least) a simplistic view of evolutionary theory something like a creationist's, as your Google hit may show. I'd call it cliched, rather than iconic. Robin Johnson (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very ironic considering the book's by Jonathan Wells (creationist). There have been many variations on that theme, dating back to the 19th century, but they have the disadvantage of conveying the idea of creatures transforming rather than gradual evolution of their descendants through small changes in inherited characteristics. ... dave souza, talk 22:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed opening picture


I like the idea of a tree of life, but agree the one we have isn't yet suitable. However, we've been going through a series of highly tangental pictures. There were objections to the unfortunate appearance of Darwin in his previous photo, so what about this one instead? We could use a good caption, though. Adam Cuerden talk 04:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like putting Darwin into the intro. Yes, Darwin is the father of evolution, but you don't see Newton in the intro for gravity or Einstein in relativity.  People are important, yes, but they do not encapsulate the field of science.  Darwin no more deserves to be pictured in the intro than Newton deserves a picture in the gravity intro.  Let's try to find a conceptual picture (we keep coming back to the tree of life) that displays the concepts of evolution, rather than the picture of an old man that tells us nothing about evolution other than that is the face of the man who was smart enough to see it.  BTW, huge Darwin fan, so it hurts me to go against the suggestion.--Roland Deschain 04:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of using a tree of life image in general. In some ways, the lead image is as important as the written intro in terms of what it conveys and how it captures the reader's interest. Whatever image gets used will hopefully be colorful (to get attention) and interesting (to keep it). --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that a tree of life image is useful, or perhaps an alternative image of the ascent of man, horse evolution, or an illustration of genetic change and speciation like the lateral plates on Stickleback fish and ectodysplasin alleles would demonstrate speciation and a structural modification from environmental change and reproductive success.GetAgrippa 05:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

See also section is redundant
Why are so many of the links in the see also section redundant with the text and info boxes? This section is way to big. David D. (Talk) 04:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I could be wrong, but I think that because Evolution is a "parent" article, it's considered both proper and necessary for it to link to all related sub-topics. The links within the article itself are generally more of a "quick ref" for the reader who stumbles on an unfamiliar word or concept. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see, I had not heard of the parent article concept. Is it possible that this role is being supercede by all these infoboxs and indexing templates? They seem to be popping up on many articles now. David D. (Talk) 05:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have seen articles that seemed to replace the "See Also" section with an index template, and that might be a good idea here. They seem to be more efficient and look a bit more coherent, but I don't specifically recall seeing them used in science articles. A change like that should have discussion, and a consensus that it would improve the article. Then all you need is someone to do the dirty work :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you show some examples of articles using the index template? Maybe we should have a look. Delta Tango • Talk 07:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here are two examples of what I am refering to. Template:Biology-footer and  Template:organelles. Evolution already has three similar templates that overlap with the see also section. David D. (Talk) 07:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I lost the edit conflict and saw that David provided two example instead of my one, so I'm changing my edit. The templates certainly have a cleaner, more organized look than an extensive "See Also" section does. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 07:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if we were to do such a change; would we have all the see also listed articles in such a box? Would it be under a See also section, or would we leave it at the bottom? How would Template:Evolution and Template:Popgen play into all of this? Delta Tango • Talk 07:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Custom seems to be placing them at the bottom, but I'm not aware of an official guideline. Popgen looks like tertiary rather than secondary info in the context of this article, but Template:Evolution might be a good starting point. No doubt much discussion will follow :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 08:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a template in use in my other major interest: W. S. Gilbert, which uses (as do all other G&S atrticles) a template at the bottom. See also, for example, Venus, which uses a Solar System template. Adam Cuerden talk 14:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I just did a preliminary cross reference to see how many of the See also links are also included in one of the three templates on the page. i struck out those that are also in the templates. I'm actually surprised there are so many left as well as how many on the templates are not in the see also list. I would recommend we remove those that appear in the See also and templates from the list. That will be a start towards making this more manageable. Then we can discuss if some of these links can migrate to templates and visa versa. David D. (Talk) 03:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good work! Eliminating the dupliation seems a natural (and hopefully, non-controversial) starting point. Personally, I would favor use of templates over such an extensive "See Also". The issue is largely aesthetic rather than content-oriented, but more input from other editors would be good. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not just aesthetic. Templates give the opportunity to structure content much more than the bulleted list that is your typical "see also" section. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Second proposal for opening picture
What do you think of the idea of an illustrated tree of life, with sketches (or photographs) of representative species? I'd be willing to make one (based on the information contained in the old diagram) if there's interest.

It would probably be easier to do just the Eukaryotes: The Archaea and Bacteria have divisions hard to visually explain. Adam Cuerden talk 14:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How hard would it be to do a rough draft? I hate to ask you to do the work knowing it may be rejected, but a visual would be helpful. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If a stick-figure tree, starting at the Bilateria, and saying what I propose to illustrate and where will suffice, I could probably do it in a couple hours. Adam Cuerden talk 23:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to see it, if you were willing to do the work. I have the same reservations as KC about possibly wasting your time, but if you're willing to try... Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Distinctions between theory and fact
Can we lose the Gould quote, which tends to muddy the waters? Consider the two parts of it: First we hear that facts and theories are different things:


 * "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

Then we hear — wait a moment! — they're not so different after all:


 * However, a fact does not mean absolute certainty; in science, fact can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

If one reads the article from which these assertions are drawn, Gould basically contradicts his rhetorically appealing intro: after asserting that facts are different from theories, he takes care to show why evolution is a fact. Evolution (tho not necessarily speciation by natural selection, which is Darwin's theory) is a fact because many different sorts of observations bolster the idea (i.e. the theory) that creatures change over time, deriving from similar ancestral forms, rather than each being specially created (which was the older theory).

In short, a fact is (or at least can be) a very-well-established theory. This is not the place to argue deeply about this business, but basically, let's just guess that the world is a tissue of brute sensory impressions interpreted by theories that we don't question (e.g. if we see a two-foot-tall man, he's of normal size, but distant from us). These give us so-called facts whose interrelationships may puzzle us, giving rise to theories to explain them. And these theories, in turn, may be so serviceable that they become facts, and so on. Science comes into the picture to possibly bootstrap us up another level -- or remove several false levels -- of theory. A good scientific theory eventually gets to join the exclusive club of facts. A really good scientific theory actually throws out whole gangs of false facts that -- it now appears -- got into the club with forged credentials.

Anyway, Gould is a lovely writer, but does not do us any good here. Agree? Disagree? Jrmccall 00:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A theory can never become a fact. As Gould correctly points out, they are two different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty as you imply in the last paragraph of your objection.  I do not see where you see the contradiction.  To sum up the quote: "Facts are the world's data (such as direct observations of the sun rising, humans evolving, dinosaurs existing) which, due to the limitations of science can never be 100% certain.  Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."
 * One fact can bolster another fact. The key falling and the apple falling both bolster the fact of gravity.  The myriad of hominid fossils bolster the fact of human evolution.  That organisms evolve is a fact, not a theory; it is a direct observation of the world data.  Why they evolve is explained by the theory of evolution.
 * Also check the archives as such an objection has already been raised (recently as well) and the quote was kept.--Roland Deschain 00:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. I looked under "Wikipedia archives" and couldn't find anything. Could you direct me to the page(s) holding the discussion you refer to? Thanks. — Jrmccall 15:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In archives at the top of this page. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The original discussion is here. What most people stumble over is that fact and theory have a specific meaning within science which differs from the popular usage of the terms.  This is why Gould's quote is so confusing when people read it.  He is not using the terminology that a layperson is used to.  Rather he is using the scientific terminology (and he is using it correctly in my view).--Roland Deschain 03:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Roland Deschain, I applaud your patience and dedication to this article. I admit I initially thought you and Graft were paranoid and over protective of this article, but I admit I was wrong. Your diligence is appreciated. GetAgrippa 01:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My view of theories and facts (hopefully clearer)
Back to the topic of this section: theories and facts etc. Speaking as a scientist myself with multiple advanced degrees, albeit in a different discipline, there is no such thing in science as "proof". There is no such thing in science as a true theory, or a proven theory or a theory being a "fact". Proofs are found in mathematics, but not in science. In science the best one can hope for at any given point in time is an explanation that accounts for most of the data one has so far. That is why evolution is a theory and will never be a fact and never proven. The same is true of gravity, for example. Gravity is a theory and it will always be required to explain more and more complicated sets of data as they are available. Some people like to call the "facts", so one can have facts in science, but only sort of. Because even these "facts" are only really measurements, and statistics have to be considered to assess our confidence in these "facts". However, things like theories are not facts. They are slowly crafted to explain more and more of the data. When new data is available that the old theory cannot explain, it is usually replaced with a newer theory that does a better job. So the Aristotlean Theory of Gravity was replaced by the Galilean Theory of Gravity, which was replaced by the Newtonian Theory of Gravity, which was replaced by the Einsteinian Theory of Gravity, and that will undoubtably have to be replaced. This should not be seen as any defect of science. It is a self-correcting system and one of the strengths of the system, compared to other systems that are inflexible and unable to change (like the creationist worldview, for example). This is true of everything in science, even the "laws" of thermodynamics. When encountering people who attack evolution, I usually find out very quickly that they Hopefully this can help clear up some confusion.--Filll 03:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * data
 * evidence
 * observations
 * experimental results
 * 1) do not know what evolution is
 * 2) do not know what science is
 * 3) are repeating some poorly understood arguments that have often arisen and been dismissed conclusively repeatedly, sometimes for decades or even centuries.
 * 4) often have only the vaguest understanding of what alternative theory they are proposing instead
 * 5) sometimes are not even aware the volume of scientific evidence they are trying to dispute; hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed publications, hundreds of thousands of scientists, dozens and dozens of scientific societies, veritable mountains of supporting evidence that would take litterally decades to even list.


 * Without sounding trite, I think we know this. And so do the creationist editors. But the problem is they are really not interested. They have Faith, so they must be right. They will quote sources, never mind their sources are creationist websites. They will mine quotes, pull things way out of context. They claim scientists are conspiring against them, excluding important infomation, and excluding creationist papers from scientific literature. And they would like to paint "evolution" as another religion. When you do pull them up, point out their inconsistancies, they tell you to go away, they are not interested in talking to you. So I don't think there is much confusion. Just some editors trying to maintain an article at a high standard, and others trying to promote their religious POV. --Michael Johnson 04:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh I meant the confusion about the quotes mentioned earlier, discussing facts and theories and so on. I often even hear people who are biologists and supporters of evolution slipping into sloppy language that has a tendency to confuse matters.--Filll 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording slightly in the theory and fact section, but I am not sure that it is optimal the way I left it. If you can clean it a little but still capture the meaning of what I am getting at it, I think that would be an advantage. What I am trying to do is to deal with some of the sloppiness that happens when biologists try to use physical science analogies to explain these already confusing issues, since the words have different meanings than their everyday meanings. I am contemplating addressing the question of "Laws" of science as well. Theories that are very well established tend to be referred to as laws, so it is not uncommon to hear about the "Law of Evolution" or the "Law of Gravity". This can lead to even further confusion. --Filll 15:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to the article on physical law which could also use a bit of work. I just wanted to at least put a link in there since a reader encountering something called the "law of natural selection" might get a bit confused.--Filll 17:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your additions to the text of the article seem to provide some excellent clarification. The info is so useful I wonder if it shouldn't be mentioned earlier in the main body? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be glad to write a bit more or something slightly different or mold it into the article higher up if people wanted it. Where should it go?--Filll 04:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

But let's talk about the Gould quote!
Listen. I am for evolution as against creationism, as I assume everyone in this discussion is. I am hoping to improve the Evolution article by removing something that, while tolerated (apparently) in its friends, cannot but put off the neutrals and give a point of attack to its enemies. In the essay from which the contested quotes came Gould gives as "facts" the fall of an apple and man evolving from ape-like ancestors. Later in this same article he quotes Darwin, who, he says admiringly, established the fact of evolution.


 * "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."

What Darwin did, by his own description, was overthrow the dogma of separate creations. To see that evolution is a theory, try substituting "that an apple falls" for "of separate creations". Doesn't work, does it? That an apple falls, rather than floats or goes sideways, is a fact of observation. That man has arisen from ape-like ancestors is an interpretation — oh, all right, a theory — to connect many different observations (the remains of fossil hominids and the close physical resemblance we bear to other primates) into one story.

Gould is trying to defend evolution from the creationists by making the point that evolution is a fact, and therefore to be respected, rather than a mere theory. Well, I'm glad he was in there pitching for many years; he did good work in keeping the enemies of science off balance. But, as must happen occcasionally to one so prodigiously prolific (and so lightly-edited!), he got sloppy here.

I now regret being so facile with the notion of "fact" in my original entry. I will back off from any definition it might imply. Filll had a better take on it, but the essential point is really that almost everything is theory, or at least has a lot of theory in it (e.g. the amperage passing through a wire, if registered by a meter, has as "data" the reading of a dial, and as theory the beliefs under which the ammeter was constructed).

The motivation for this section was to assure people that Evolution is well-established. So how about we take the bull by the horns and replace this Theory and Fact section, perhaps with something called "Mere Theory?", which argues that a well-confirmed theory is the gold standard in every science. — Jrmccall 00:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a point when hypothesis or theory is dropped from the nomenclature. In muscle mechanics, it was initially the sliding filament hypothesis, then sliding filament theory, now people just generally refer to a sliding filament mechanism. Overwhelming evidence and facts support this trend. Evolution is a fact and evolution theory is really a catch phrase for all the nested hypotheses, theories, and laws advanced to explain the fact. While I agree Evolution theory is still appropriate, certain aspects have really entered the mechanism stage. Advancements in sequencing genomes, new fossil finds, and studies of Archaic DNA will quench any doubts in the next ten years for much what is considered theory (my crystal balls prediction). GetAgrippa 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. People use a theory after it has been well-confirmed, as far as they're concerned it's true. Sending a rocket to the moon, or building a bridge uses Newton's mechanics, which is a theory that (in these instances, where Relativistic effects are very small) has been so well-confirmed over the years that people just say they are "calculating" or "doing the mechanics" of the thing. The word "theory" does not come into this everyday use, but make no mistake. Newton's mechanics is still a theory. Likewise with evolution. That organisms have evolved (somehow) from earlier organisms is so well-confirmed by thousands and thousands of careful observations, and reasoning from our knowledge of genetics, that to fail to accept it shows a willful ignorance. It is so well-confirmed that one may, informally, call it a "fact". Go ahead. Just never forget that it is a theory that not so long ago (200 or so years ago) was definitely in 2nd place to the theory of Special Creation. (Because Special Creation is Biblically-inspired does not disqualify it. Think of the Rev. Paley's arguments from design. It is a powerful argument that scientists had to (still have to, actually) deal with.)


 * I am perfectly comfortable using the word "fact" for a very-well-confirmed theory (see my entry of 17 Nov). But Gould is talking about facts as opposed to theories, and to take him seriously we must go with his usage. He implies that a fact is a plain matter of observation (e.g. an apple falling), but then slips into his list of facts something that is not an observation: man evolving from earlier hominids. Of course, many observations (fossil remains, etc) are involved, but evolution is the story (i.e. theory) connecting them — just as Universal Gravitation is the story the explains the fall of the apple. Gravity and evolution are both theories, fossils and falling apples are the facts.


 * Gould is pulling this "fact" trick here because he wants people to accept evolution, and thinks that calling it a fact will help. Let's just drop that bait-and-switch and instead narrate the kinds of things that make a theory (mechanics, chemistry, evolution, whatever) something one can accept with a great deal of confidence, and then show that evolution passes those tests. Jrmccall 23:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Gould is simply pointing out that the modification of organisims within a population over time resulting in the creation of a new species at least in part as a reuslt of natural selection is a fact, and it is indeed an empirically verifiable fact. The modern synthesis provides a model for accounting for and explaining these facts, and that is a theory. People can thus use "evolution" to refer to two different things (much as one can refer to gravity as something they just experience, and theories of gravity - e.g. Newton or Einstein - that attempt to account for what people experience, and generate predictions. I do not see any "trick" whatsoever. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 06:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation format
Since this article is featured, I feel justified in being nit-picky. The footnotes do not use a standard form of notation. There are full on citations with author, title, publisher, date, ISBN, etc, and then there are footnotes that are simply an external link to a PDF file or webpage. I would urge everyone with spare time to convert the weaker references to a more standardized, using Magnus' tool, or one of the many citation template, like template:cite web. What do others think?--Andrew c 02:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur. Andrew is absoultely right, the cites need some attention. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I've been looking at other articles for examples, and there is a certain lack of consistency. MOS seems to allow some leeway when formatting, but which method would be prefered in this article? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree it would be a Good Thing to have standard refs, WP:WIAFA simply says an article should have refs, not a particular ref style. (Maybe it could be argued that what Andrew has brought up falls under consistency of referencing - which is a WIAFA requirement - but I think that part refers more to not mixing, say, Harvard with Chicago than having consistent Chicago). Anyway... Mi kk er (...) 16:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if I, (and any other editor) decided to convert some of the simple, one line external links to the citeweb template, would that be problematic? I personally thing it would only help, but if there is a downside, I won't touch the refs.--Andrew c 19:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no it would be great if you converted the simple links to proper citations, I was simply making the (perhaps Alexandrian) point that doing so has nothing to do with the article being an FA. I don't see a downside if it's done properly... Mi kk er (...) 19:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Fictional tool. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

NB cite science - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to try using cite science, but am unfamiliar with it and don't want to muck up the page. Can you explain briefly, or slip me a link to some directions on it's use? Thanks! --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You may be aware of this, but instructions can usually be found on the talk page, i.e. Template talk:Cite science, and examples of use can be found in the "what links here", i.e. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Cite_science. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Introduction suggestion
I suggest that this article needs a more elementary and accessible introductory paragraph.--Filll 16:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree and I've had a go, saving the full original intro as "Technical introduction"... do with it what you will .Abtract 17:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In general I would support attempts to make this more accessible to laymen (and laywomen too, of course). As of now there is significant duplication between the 2 intros. I'm not willing to edit this myself, I lack the academic background to do it properly, but some kind of clean-up and rewording would be in order. Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 18:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My intention was that someone else would edit the technical intro if we need one? My money would go on delete the old (technical) intro altogether but I may be biased cos I wrote the new one :) Abtract 18:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we should remove the duplication or incorporate the information from the technical information elsewhere in the text, leaving a relatively accessible introduction so that people can get a general idea of what the topic is about from the first few sentences. One of the most common problems I have noticed in Wikipedia is a sort of "introduction creep" where the introductions become more and more cluttered with technical terms, translations, names in other scripts, pronunciation guides, very detailed information, multiple dates and other material. Eventually a reader cannot tell what the article is about from the introduction at all, the articles become inaccessible and much less useful.--Filll 18:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So is the new one OK or not? Abtract 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is much better in my eyes, but I am not a specialist in this area. I would defer to a real biologist.--Filll 18:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO, it is easier to read and understand, but like Filll, I would prefer some input from subject-matter experts. Barring any objections from the local academic community, I think it is good. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm. It seems mostly the same to me; it just omits a few examples, and removes some technical language.  That said, to my mind this technical detail wasn't obscuring the points being made (sometimes being confined in brackets for instance), so I tend to favour the former as (slightly) more comprehensive.  That said, I'm a biologist (or was anyway), so might just like the big words.  One thing I would ask, however, is if we can get rid of/move that annoying panel on the modern and ancient armadillo.  It's totally in the way, messes up the format, and really isn't that exciting an example (apologies to all armadillos out there).  Anyway, please don't let the above put anyone off editing - as I've said, I'm probably not a good person to judge.  Cheers, --Plumbago 18:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reverted any changes made to the intro. The intro of a FA article should not be edited extensively in the actual article.  A lot of changes have been made and I disagree with some of them.  Let's move the new intro into this talk page and discuss the changes one by one.  I know it is tedious, but consider that just recently we had a huge three part discussion about changing just the wording in one sentence of the intro.--Roland Deschain 18:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While I'm not opposed to the changes (see above) I think Roland has the right approach. Better to talk first and edit later...Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new intro
In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations. This process results in the development of new species from existing ones and is thus the process by which life on Earth became so diverse. All contemporary organisms are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years.

The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection and genetic drift; these two mechanisms act on genetic variation as it occurs. Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. Those traits that are heritable are passed to the offspring, with the result that beneficial heritable traits become more common in the next generation. Over successive generations this process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.

The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, first set out in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. In the 1930s, these ideas concerning the process of evolution were combined with Gregor Mendel's ideas concerning the mechanisms of heredity to form the current theory of evolution, known technically as the modern evolutionary synthesis, or "Neo-Darwinism". With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of antibiotic resistance, eusociality in insects, and sex ratios.

Although there is overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus supporting the validity of evolution, it has been at the center of many social and religious controversies because it has implications for the origins of humankind.

Comments?
Most of the edit appears to be simply deleting somewhat technical parts of the intro, most notably the deletion of any reference to the change of allele frequency as the basic definition of evolution. I disagree with these deletions. The intro sentence is actually quite approachable, with a general definition in the first part of the sentence and a more formal definition in the second part. The later mention of allele frequency is the actual definition of the modern synthesis and should definitely stay in the intro. I also disagree with the rest of the deletions, as they are not technical at all, but rather serve to introduce the major players in such a large theory. Is there a specific change in the intro that you want to see implemented, as it's very hard to discuss that many changes at the same time.--Roland Deschain 18:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have argued to make several changes in the article (like changing allele frequency to genomic change), and I know the urge to want to alter the article. If you read the article closely and read the subarticles you see the definitions and nomenclature are cohesive. It would be a drastic change to alter this text as it would influence other sections and articles. I agree with Roland not to alter this text. I also appreciate all the monumental effort it took to craft the article as it currently stands. What I would recommend is a new introductory section titled "Basic Concepts in Evolution" for an immature audience, then an "Advanced Concepts in Evolution" the article as it currently stands. That way you serve two audiences and can appease the inquiring mind with more detail.GetAgrippa 19:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One issue that many science articles face is the dichotomy between a hypothetical "average reader", and the level of detail necessary to communicate useful and accurate info on a complex topic. It seems that a "Basic Concepts in Evo" would be a very useful addition for those without a strong academic background. Hyperlinks have been very well used in the current intro to give access to important concepts, but it becomes problematic when the end-user needs to read 12 seperate articles before finishing the first para. It would be a serious mistake to remove any material from this article (though no one is really suggesting that), but adding some kind of "Evolution for Dummies" intro material would be beneficial to a large segment of the audience. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Roland. While the issue of allele fraquencies may not be the most accessible, it's an important element of the definition of evolution (there's a big discussion about it somewhere in the archives). I disagree with the removal of the statement regarding evolution being the source of the diversity of life - I don't see how removing that statement simplifies matters at all.

Including "ecological, sexual, and kin selection" is useful. I don't think it should be removed. I prefer to state what the sources of variation are - people are often confused about that. On the other hand, I would be happy to see something more accessible replace "with the result that beneficial heritable traits". I'm fine with either "given enough time..." or "over successive generations..." - actually I'd prefer wording that included both the ideas of time and generations.

I prefer "Darwinian natural selection" to "these ideas" though "with Gregor Mendel's ideas concerning the mechanisms of heredity" may be more accessible than "with the theory of Mendelian heredity" (again, I think there's better wording that lies somewhere between these two). I prefer that "eusociality in insects, and the staggering biodiversity of Earth's ecosystem" be retained. It's an end-of-section sentance - if people don't want to read it, they'll gloss over it, but if they choose to read it carefully they will get a better sense of scale. Guettarda 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a very nice cleanup of the old intro. I've just added these examples. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One alternative would be a link to a "basic principles of evolution" or an "evolution primer" article where a beginner or nonspecialist or average person could learn about the subject without having to click on lots of hyperlinks, or look words and concepts up. I do not care if it is in this article, as long as there is a link to it very early on so a beginner can find it. In particular, here is some of what I think might be problematic in the current introduction:
 * heritable traits: this might be a bit confusing. Is there a simpler way to say this? Heritable is not a normal word. Traits is bad enough. Characteristics? Properties?
 * allele: definitely not for the beginner
 * frequencies: definitely not well understood, even by people who think they do
 * Speciation: too much for a beginner
 * common descent: Descending? they are dropping? This will confuse
 * attested to: this is a trial? We are in court?
 * And those are just a few from the first paragraph. Genetic recombination in the second paragraph definitely is too much for a beginner in the 2nd paragraph. I will give some more feedback when I look at the proposed "simpler" replacement. I am maybe able to look at this problem with fresher eyes than someone who is schooled in biology. I am interested in it, I have read a few books, but to be honest, I have only a smattering of knowledge. And I know from past experience that the average person will have far more trouble with something like this than me.--Filll 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you would be interested in simple:Evolution? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Very intersting. I hadn't seen simple:Evolution before; it certainly lives up to its name :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I do think that is a great idea, and we might want to put an early link in to the simple Wikipedia article on evolution. In the meantime, I have taken the liberty of compiling a bit more feedback. --Filll 21:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fill I like your idea for a simplified Evolution intro, but some of your statements can be misleading. For example, one could get the impression that evolution is synonymous with speciation, and that natural selection is the only means of evolution. It would have to be carefully crafted to to be informative and simple. Speciation can result from hybridizations in plants and animals. The red wolf is a hybrid of a grey wolf and coyote.GetAgrippa 12:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * From the simple:Evolution article "If these genetic differences help an organism survive and breed, they will be passed on to the next generation in larger numbers. If the genetic differences do not help an organism survive until it can breed, then those genetic differences will be lost." Another oversimplification. Genes can maintain a "cryptic" presence in a population or become pseudogenes or parts used to create a new gene with novel functions. I agree with Roland that this subject deserves a certain degree of sophistication to be accurate and informative.GetAgrippa 16:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As a contributor myself to Simple Wikipedia, it is a significant intellectual challenge to present complicated material in an accessible way, while keeping in mind the subtleties that exist. So if we were to provide an early link to the Simple Wikipedia article on evolution here, how would you modify the Simple Wikipedia evolution article to make it more reasonable and accurate?--Filll 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fill I can appreciate the great anxiety that probably went into creating the simple:Evolution article. I didn't mean for my comments to sound critical but just an indication how difficult a task it is to simplify the subject and why I support the present version of this article. The simple:Evolution article is reasonable for the intended audience (and some reference should be made in this article). I just think this article is presently accurate, maybe too long, and for my taste too much social implications (but I am changing my mind with all the Creationist POV pushers and vandalisms). GetAgrippa 18:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Annotated proposed new intro
In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations.
 * 1) heritability: should one have to click that link to find out ? this is the first sentence after all
 * 2) population of what?
 * 3) successive is a bit of a big word but maybe ok
 * 4) generations is reasonable i think

This process results in the development of new species from existing ones and is thus the process by which life on Earth became so diverse. All contemporary organisms are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years.


 * 1) common descent: again, should one have to click the link to see what it means?
 * 2) cumulative: a big word but maybe ok
 * 3) I do like the statement about "the process by which life on Earth became so diverse" or something similar with the same idea.

I will note that many times I encounter people that think the theory of evolution includes things like: (somewhat similar to the objections to relativity based on the name, and thinking it has something to do with everything being relative to something else) People with these kinds of misunderstandings is the audience one has to reach out to somehow. They need to be reached. Many times when I just talk about survival of the fittest and mutations, people think I am being sneaky somehow and holding back some other big idea from evolution, because they are so confused about what biological evolution is.
 * children growing up and becoming adults
 * stars changing type as they age
 * mountain building
 * erosion of river banks
 * cars rusting
 * the big bang
 * abiogenesis

The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection and genetic drift; these two mechanisms act on genetic variation as it occurs.


 * I would break that sentence into two. Genetic drift sounds confusing, like continental drift, or a boat drifting in the wind, as if it were going in a direction. Natural selection may be less problematic, but it is not as well known as the expression "survival of the fittest" among the great unwashed.

Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce.


 * I like that sentence. Reasonably descriptive.

Those traits that are heritable are passed to the offspring, with the result that beneficial heritable traits become more common in the next generation.


 * That sentence might be a bit too much. "Beneficial heritable traits" is a mouthful.

Over successive generations this process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.


 * Again, a bit of a horse choker of a sentence. Varied? Not too common a word. Adaptations is also something that might be confusing, and the more that one requires them to click links, the less accessible it will be. I do not object to the links being there, I just think it is best if they get the information without clicking through necessarily.

The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, first set out in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. In the 1930s, these ideas concerning the process of evolution were combined with Gregor Mendel's ideas concerning the mechanisms of heredity to form the current theory of evolution, known technically as the modern evolutionary synthesis, or "Neo-Darwinism".


 * Most people will not know Mendel and genetics and when they do not know what Darwinism is quite yet (having been confused in the previous sentences, all of a sudden here is "Neo-Darwinism".

With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of antibiotic resistance, eusociality in insects, and sex ratios.


 * Eusociality is a bit too much. Sex ratios again is confusing. Antibiotic resistance I would hope most people know about. This sentence might be too long and should be split up. In general I would argue for more and shorter sentences.

Although there is overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus supporting the validity of evolution, it has been at the center of many social and religious controversies because it has implications for the origins of humankind.


 * Again, I would break this sentence up a bit.

--Filll 21:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a big problem in expending the intro, as Filll seems to want. However, I don't think it is advisable to do that, as evolution is such a large topic with so many fields feeding into it that expanding the intro will make an already large article even larger.  The intro, I agree, is somewhat (but not overly) complex, as would be expected from such a fundamental topic.  But the rest of the article does an excellent job of addressing the intro and explain all the concepts.--Roland Deschain 21:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not have a big problem with the current intro or the proposed intro either. I just think that given that this is such a high profile topic, and there is so much misunderstanding of it, we should think about how to help dispel some of the misunderstanding, while still having a useful resource for people who have a bit more background. What about a link to simple Wikipedia? How does that article look? Beginners could be given a link to that as a primer, possibly.--Filll 21:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My purpose in putting up the new, simplified lead section was to make the article more easily accessible to the average reader. I feel no particular ownership of the exact wording (which on re-reading is far from perfect) but I think we should remember that this is a very important article and a highly contentious one (as we have seen in recent 'discussions' here). I guess it is visited a lot (is there a way of getting figures on this?) and that the vast majority of people who look at this article are not biologists or even scientists. Again I have no figures but IMHO a subject like this is bound to attract most intelligent, curious people at some time or another. It is also going to get a lot of 'hits' from google and other searches. With all this passing trade to this article surely we must ensure that they get the true flavour of evolution before they get bored or scared off by the science. There are enough people out there giving misleading messages on evolution and we mustn't miss any opportunity to correct these views. It is for this reason that I believe it is very important that the lead gives a good account of evolution that is easily readable to the end by an average person; of course this must be consistent with the science but not confused by it. I leave it to you better able people to achieve what I set out to do above but please don't miss this opportunity to inform a lot of people of the facts about evolution by scaring them off at the very beginning of the article ... lead them slowly into the science step-by-step and they will get more out of it. Abtract 10:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Usage figures
 * Starting point: Most visited articles. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks ... on one of the (disputed) sub-lists it sits between Optical fibres and Logic which has a certain piquancy.Abtract 11:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Offroad discussion
Just so we don't get torn into various battles on the edges of our camp, I thought I should mention the doubting Thomases have moved to Roland's talk page for now. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro
I am not complaining about the introduction exactly. I just want us to think about how to make this article more accessible to more people. Or barring that, to provide a link to a more accessible article or primer so beginners can get up to speed. I do not want to discard any important science or distort it. I just want to provide a more gentle onramp for people, since this is so important and many people seem to be confused about the issue. Having a difficult introduction definitely does not help matters when dealing with anti-evolutionists.--Filll 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

how to argue
I have placed a comment on NPOV (Comparison of views in science) about the methods applicable to these discussions. DGG 05:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of the evolution article
The editors of this article will probably find this interesting --Pixel ;-) 19:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That really is interesting. I had no idea this article got so much outside attention. Can you imagine what a similar graph for this talkpage would look like? Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect that this is one of the most popular pages on Wikipedia. There is an immense amount of interest in evolution, from all sides. That is why I am asking for accessibility to be considered.--Filll 19:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I noted the most recent Discover edition has an article on epigenetics. It is a subject of growing interest in biology and genetics. GetAgrippa 20:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding its popularity it is in fact the 74th most revised article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Mostrevisions
 * And the 245th most viewed: - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

so...
I am using only the CRUDEST terms when I say that basically,to my understanding,evolution is many good birth defects. If it is not good for a human to have an extra thumb, the variation dies out, if it is, then it over comes the 2 thumbed variation.Is that basically the theory? PS. I did not know the proper word,, so i used variation
 * That's the basic idea, yes, and variation is one of several correct words to use in this context. Saying they are birth defects, however, is not quite right, because birth defects can come about from environmental abnormalities, in which case, they would not be perpetuated. Thalidomide would be an example of that. People with Thalidomide-induced birth defects will have perfectly normal children, all other things being the same. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
Despite many recent prunings, this page is evolving into a behemoth. Perhaps not literally, but it's extremely long at this point. There has been no recent activity in the sections on "Lamark" and "Dysgenics". If no one objects, I'll archive those. Also, the early discussion of images has moved down the page and is continued is several more recent sections. Can the earliest section of image discussion be archived, or should it remain (because that's where the images are actually visible)? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please archive it. We may need to create an "FAQ section" at the top of this page, pointing to the places in the archives where various objections have been discussed to death. It's unclear to me whether it'll help, but it might be worth trying. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Your suggestion to produce a FAQ is excellent! I have created a new page to discuss that, and other issues (see below). --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

New discussion page
I have created User talk:Doc Tropics/Evo talk to discuss issues regarding this talkpage. This is not an attempt to "hide" the discussions, but to keep the talkpage itself free for efforts to improve the article. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment November 22 2006
Any talk about making clear that parts of evolution are theory is summarily archived. You will have to look into the history of the talk page to see it, because of course it's been archived. There is no addressing of the issues. --05:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue does not need to be adressed as Evolution is no different from any other scientific theory. See Portal:Scientific_method. --Regebro 13:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the issues have been addresed, repeatedly, and at great length. That is why further repetitive discussions are insta-archived unless they raise new points. The editors who make regular contributions here are more than willing to discuss any valid new points which may be raised, but repeating duplicate arguments every single day is counter-productive.  Editors who merely wish to repeat their personal opinions ad nauseum really need to visit a forum, not this article. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 18:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly. Doc nails it. FeloniousMonk 18:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. I have no problem debating them, except for the fact they often are not interested in anything but "proving" their point, not in understanding the issues, which they seem to have completely confused notions about. However, real article improvement efforts get lost in the sea of creationist attacks very quickly, and many editors give up and walk away.--Filll 19:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at the 'points already discussed' section there are almost a dozen links to this exact same topic. And it really, really is the exact same topic. Over and over. And please bear in mind that when I made that list I only used the most extensive and notable discussions of the subject. This issue has been discussed over and over. Without new information, the result of a discussion can only be the same as it was the last time, making repetitive discussion pointless.--Davril2020 20:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It all boils down to the same thing. Creationists claiming that evolution is being described as a proven fact, and them being offended by that notion since it disagrees with what they feel is the revealed truth.--Filll 20:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm here because of the RfC. The article seems to do a fine job of describing the difference between fact and theory, and I don't see a content problem here. It doesn't need to be re-litigated, so speedy archiving of these issues seems appropriate. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm also here from RFC, and agree with the above statement. - cohesion 07:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Points already discussed
It seemed to help at the Intelligent Design page so I've added a similar version here. Let me know what you think. I've gone through all the archives but I've only added meaty topics or discussions that have clear reference to Wiki-policy. It's not 100% comprehensive because there's a tendency on this page to delete absurd points (evolution not thoroughly supported by fossil records etc.) so I'd suggest that any creationist/ID talking point not already covered by the 'points already discussed' section should be allowed to run its course once. That way we can then add it to the list. Comments very much appreciated. --Davril2020 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Holy Crap! I had proposed something very similar to this. I had thought we would need a week to discuss it reasonably, 2 weeks to bicker with trolls about the contents, and another week to actually get it done. You seem to have accomplished the entire thing while I was refilling my coffee cup! I bow down before you in awe. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty good. Then all we need is a link to some FAQ and we have a couple of places to point new visitors and assorted malcontents when they visit the page.--Filll


 * Looks pretty good to me: a minor quibble is that editors will rush past it and post anyway. So a couple of suggestions – move the red banner and it to above the index box, and make the headings sub-sections instead of a numbered list, so, for example, we can respond to a post with "You've evidently not yet read yet: your enquiry is fully covered there." Or something on those lines. .. dave souza, talk 21:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --Davril2020 21:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Good call all! This should help. FeloniousMonk 23:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, excellent work. Many thanks. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey - how would this look? I think it would clean things up dramatically and put an even greater damper on useless discussions. standonbibleTalk! 00:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Too difficult to maintain. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Say - thanks for putting the tag in there.  But I don't understand what you mean by saying that it would be too difficult to maintain.  It is a simple matter to add another bullet or reorganize the cells for anyone who understands even a bit about tables (I knew practically nothing about tables when I created that but it was still pretty easy). standonbibleTalk! 00:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This table is more aesthetically pleasing (personal opinion there, subjective issue), and is significantly more space efficient than the present format. Furthermore, the intro under "It's already been said" is almost perfect. I might suggest changing "peruse" to "read" just so no one stumbles on the alliteration, but otherwise, I think it's great. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a distinct possibility, but the issue is there will be a lot more being added to it, and many of the points will only be discussed in the archives once or twice. Discussions of fossil evidence, conspiracy theories, dinosaurs, horses, atheism etc. should all be in the list, but right now they've only been discussed on connection with other issues rather than on their own and as such can't currently be picked out. Right now the table is good but I'm trying to visualise how effective it would be if we had 15-20 subsections on it. See for instance the Talk: Intelligent Design disclaimer - it currently has 21 subsections and I think that eventually this disclaimer will reach similar proportions. --Davril2020 01:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a lot cleaner than listing them out one-by-one; as it is the "already been discussed" section is a behemoth. As the table grows, we can easily add another column and/or create subpages for the different types, but it will keep things much cleaner than the list that currently exists.  Not that I am attacking the current list - whoever compiled it did a GREAT job. standonbibleTalk! 01:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be tremendously hard to go back to the old system if it ever did become unwieldy, so it would be nice to use for now. --Davril2020 02:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed it over - it looks pretty good if I do say so myself! standonbibleTalk! 02:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Davril2020's original work really was excellent, and standonbible's table gives us a well-polished final product. I think this is a good addition to the page; let's see how it works out. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The table is a bad idea - on my screen the archive box pushes it down, the two don't fit next to each other. Guettarda 05:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we do an expanable table?DGG 05:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would probably be a good idea to include links to articles as well as to the talk page archives. Many of the other related pages discuss these points, and this should be guided as well. The page to link to would be the page that discusses that particular problem in the most non-Darwinian manner. The status of our arguements is much higher if we have confidence enough to link to the strongest statements against us, and even enough confidence that we can do so without answering them every time.  Everyone who might come here is aware of the general difference of opinion. Science can stand on it's own, and the proper attitude is: Read the Darwinian view, and read the views of those who oppose it. Then think for yourself. Not to introduce something more immediately contentious, but the best news sites on the Near East do this: they link to their opponents. It was Eisenhower who, in opposing censorship, is supposed to have said that the best argument against Soviet Communism would be to send each American household a copy of a book by Stalin. DGG 05:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've tried looking at it in lower resolutions after Guettarda's comment and he's right - with lower screen resolutions the whole thing does become very jerky. Also, if we're going to have the archives next to the table it will be difficult to expand the columns - the only place to go will be down, which will mean the box will dominate several page length anyway. Given how seriously this affects viewing dependong on your screen resolution I'm cautious again about using it. It would be extremely bad to make the page semi-unreadable for low-resolution users. I suggest we leave it another day or so for people to weigh in then do a quick poll on what people think. --Davril2020 13:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with Davril. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree - maybe we should put an infobox over each linked discussions on the archive pages. If we try to put absolutely everything on this page, it will soon become unmanageable.  As far as resolution is concerned, both Firefox and Safari view the page fine at any resolution.  I don't know how IE views it....  If it gets bigger we can always put another column in the box.  I just think that this is a lot better than listing them all out.  We will probably have to use a subpage eventually. standonbibleTalk! 15:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I've fixed it a little. Adam Cuerden talk 01:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest to put the archives in two rows underneath the new box. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been tweaked a couple of times and it looks real good, at least on my monitor. If anyone is still having problems with display at this point, then moving the archives down as Samsara suggests should take care of it. Doc  Tropics  06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Creation-Evolution Controversy
Can I beg some help over there? It's drifted seriously towards the creationist POV, to the point where it all but dismisses accusations of creationists quote mining: "Many critics argue that these are quote mines (lists of out of context or misleading quotations) that do not accurately reflect the evidence for evolution or the mainstream scientific community's opinion of it." Adam Cuerden talk 00:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it a problem that many critics argue this? Homestarmy 23:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a problem that that is - well, was - the entire discussion of the scientific view of the Creationist quote mines. A wishy-washy statement about how it's claimed that, etc, when this is a point the scientific side has rock-solid proof of it being done. Adam Cuerden talk 23:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

despite the warning
This discussion on this page is ignoring the headnote:

IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the theory of evolution please do so at talk.origins, True.Origins Archive or Wikireason. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Perhaps it is time for all such irrelevant comments to be deleted, and the page archived once more.DGG 07:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think people are willing to discuss things a bit, but when it becomes repetitious, then it gets a bit tedious. That is the purpose of all the announcements at the top of the page. And many discussions have been summarily cut in the bud and archived, if you look at the history. Much to the annoyance of many I might add. --Filll 15:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)