Talk:Evolution/Archive 42

re: split between coevolution and cooperation
Tim Vickers i made that split here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=143252194&oldid=143246976

I certainly read the passages carefully.

the coevolution of various symbioses between two different species, and the evolution of cooperation within a species are two very different topics. I think my split and adding in the headings that we are talking between vs within species was a clarifying edit.

why do you think they ought to be the same topic?

ok, i am splitting interspecies vs intraspecies, and you are splitting conflict vs cooperation.

ain't biology fun? however i think that in terms of the way these things are studied, my split makes more sense. the term co-evolution is used specifically for between species and can involve predator prey interactions, complex mimicry interactions, and mutualisms.

the evolution of mychorrhyzas and the evolution of eusociality are two very different topics.

what do you say?Wikiskimmer 16:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be grouchy, I hadn't had my coffee when I wrote that edit summary. I'm in a better-adjusted metabolic state now! I don't think the species of the two interacting replicators is all that important. The outcome, which is what the top-level section is about is the same. The species certainly impacts the mechanism, but this is not the approach that is taken in this article's organisation. Cheerfully Tim Vickers 16:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * is that your point of view, or that of most of biologists? i was under the impression in my studies that the field splits it the way i mentioned.  the point is that this is a survey article.  It should point readers into further study.  i don't think that the impression that evolution of mychorrhyza and evolution of eusociality  are to be found in the same biological discussions is generally helpful.
 * for instance when i look up the term cooperation in my Futuyma: evolutionary biology textbook, all that comes up is discussion of within speceies cooperation. the article this subsection points to: Co-operation (evolution) also states: within species.


 * i'l admit that there are grey areas such as two different species of rock hyraxes taking care of each others young, or the messy matters of interspecies colony founding between species of Fomica (which to my knowlege are never mutual however!) but for the most part i stand by my method of separation.Wikiskimmer 20:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are several ways you can sub-divide these areas. I preferred to recognise the overlap here and consider these two linked concepts in a single paragraph. The overlap is particularly clear in the section that we are discussing - co-operative interactions that involve co-evolution! Tim Vickers 21:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Biological evolution occurs at levels other than just species
Biological evolution occurs at levels other than just species. I can understand the emphasis on species level. But cooperation and competion are especially useful concepts for understanding selfish genes and networks of coperative species (ecosystems). It seems a shame to have those sections in particular so species-level-centric. WAS 4.250 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is entirely fair, the co-operation section does contain a cellular-level example, and the kin selection discussion is directly focussed on the gene level. Tim Vickers 20:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

there are over a 100 references in this article. how many actually apply?
if i were to go through each one, how many would i find actually applies to the sentence it's attached to and supports it? i'm finding many of them don't. is this a product of lazy attempt to make the article look referenced or is it a product of the fact that there are dozens of editors cut and pasting? very disturbing. i try to fix 'em as i go, but i'm afraid i'm not good at doing literature searches to find ones that do apply.Wikiskimmer 21:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you find badly-applied references, tag them with the template and we can find better ones. That would be a very useful piece of double-checking, thank you. Tim Vickers 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of them are from journals so I'd see the number growing, not shrinking. Maybe we can coordinate our efforts so we're not all skimming through the same papers? Bendž|Ť 22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The situation might not be as black as it has been painted, Bendzh, but perhaps I'm just an optimist. Tim Vickers 22:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging Hoyle's fallacy
This merger has been sitting dormant Hoyle's fallacy since September 2006. I am just noting this for clerical purposes. Is this merger dead, or just ignored? --Haemo 03:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * With mergers, there's not going to be any discussion if the template is placed on the low-traffic article only. If it's on the talk page here, however, I'm sure something will soon be done about it. Richard001 03:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't personally think it needs to be merged - it looks like an interesting topic, and the article just teases the reader at present without explaining why it's so improbable. We can of course read about it elsewhere, but it leaves much room for expansion. This is an awfully general and large article to merge to anyway, protein would be just as relevant a place. I think it just needs categorizing and expanding. What's your position (I realize you weren't the one who proposed the merger). Richard001 03:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It might make a good subsection in objections to evolution. However, this article describes evolution itself, not misconceptions and misinterpretations of this process. Tim Vickers 03:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Seconded - if Hoyle's fallacy is to be merged, it should go into Objections to evolution. -- MarcoTolo 04:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and moved the propose merge to "objections to evolution". Please feel free to revert me. Tim Vickers 04:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There's nothing really to merge, might I suggest a simple redirect to Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit? ornis 04:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It would fit in quite neatly as a brief mention within Objections to evolution, so I think this merger is a good idea. Hrafn42 04:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * hmm.. this is messy. the point of the Hoyle fallacy, that randomly forming proteins are not likely to have any biological function,  is very different than the point of the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit, that natural selection is a more parsimonious explanation of biolgical design than a supposedly complex god.  so i vote that it merges with Objections to evolution.


 * but the way i usually hear the boeing thing being used by creationists or just ignorant people like this:


 * saying that dumb molecules can randomly come together to produce life is like saying that a bunch of dumb boeing parts can randomly come together to make an airplane.


 * and what i think needs to be pointed out about that analogy is that at the molecular level, molecules behave much more dynamically and creatively and interactively and non randomly than rusted old boeing parts at the macro level. Learn some chemistry and physics of dissapative systems.  To me this is much more interesting than all this philosophising about which is more parsimonious, natural selection or god.  after all, when talking about abiogenesis, we aren't necessarily talking about natural selection, we are talking mostly about chemistry.  I think i'll post this point in the objections to evolution talk also.Wikiskimmer 09:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Proteins have fitness landscapes, while 747's either fly or they don't. Tim Vickers 04:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Wright brothers might take issue. ;)  Gnixon 05:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps prion proteins are the Wright Flyers of the protein world. Tim Vickers 20:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * every new protein changes the fitness landscape of all the other's, it's a mess. come to think of it i think a lot of different kinds of airplanes can be made out of boeing parts.  actually you can make alot of different things out of boeing parts.  in fact you can make lots of useful things out of watch parts too.  we aren't imaginative enough.Wikiskimmer 01:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then again, maybe we're too imaginative. Gnixon 05:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiskimmer, not ALL proteins. Orangemarlin 06:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ? not all proteins change the fitness landscape or not all proteins are affected? but the trouble is you can't tell what will happen.  you ever read about the wacky crystallin proteins used in eye lenses? in the different animals groups, totally arbitrary different enzymes have been copted to become crystallins!  you can't predict what protein will end up being copted for what function!  here's a whole book:
 * Joram Piatigorsky. "Gene sharing and evolution: the divirsity of protein functions"
 * It's amazing to me that organisms work at all!Wikiskimmer 16:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * p.s. there's even a nascent wiki: gene sharingWikiskimmer 16:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The 747 was already in Objections to evolution, so I've expanded it slightly to explicitly mention that this is 'Hoyle's fallacy', so it is now ready for the redirect to point there, if you so choose (alternately, you can have it point to Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit, or you can just continue to argue about proteins). Hrafn42 06:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As nobody ventured an opinion, I've redirected Hoyle's fallacy to Objections to evolution. Hrafn42 03:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Inversion operator
A description of this rule of genetic variation seems to be missing?--Kjells 08:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you provide a reference? Tim Vickers 17:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * O. k., Goldberg, on page 166, uses "inversion (and other reordering) operators" to simulate what Maynard Smith describes as for instance inversion, intragenic, etcetera. It may be that biologists do not use the "operator" concept, but I can't see that inversion has been described in the article.
 * Maynard Smith, J. Evolutionary Genetics. Oxford University Press, 1998.
 * Goldberg, D. E. Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization & Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, New York, 1989.--Kjells 07:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That content would be better placed at Evolutionary algorithm. WAS 4.250 11:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it sounds like a computer science term, I can't ever remember having heard it discussed as any part of genetics, evolution or biochemistry. Tim Vickers 12:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

O. k., but I still think that "inversion" as a reordering mutation should be described in the article about evolution.--Kjells 06:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mutation links to chromosomal inversion already. Bendž|Ť 09:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, perhaps inversion operator can link to chromosomal inversion.--Kjells 05:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary questions?
I would like to see a section added about the questions evolutionists still have about evolution. Perhaps this would be in a different page. I tried to look, briefly, for a section with this information but I did not find one. I imagine it may be hard to source publications about what is not known or what is being wondered about. But I'm sure there's some way someone could research and contribute this information to the appropriate article, if it doesn't already exist somewhere. Non-evolutionists would likely try to take advantage of a section like this to add their criticisms and beliefs, but I want to know what questions there are in the theory itself. 75.4.232.227 21:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What are these evolutionists? Could they be the creationists' Bogeymenists? ... dave souza, talk 21:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * [Edit Conflict] The main ones - punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism, whether species selection has laws that are unique to that level of evolution, and so on - are largely already covered. There's some questions about the nature of genetics, e.g. Evolutionary development is showing more interconnectedness of features than was once believed to be the case, and there's probably a case that the current views are too simple, and sooner or later, we'll have to start assembling all the different fields into a grander scheme with even more explanatory power. Epigenetics and neo-Lamarckism's another big one: DNA can be chemically modified, and it takes a few generations for the chemical modifications to be cleared out. Also - and this is just one example - the female pre-loads the egg with a selection of proteins important to development. How much can the female's life history modify these? A couple of these might reasonably be put in, but there's a limit to how much you can include in an introductory article. Certainly, Epigenetics was a bit of a wrench when it had to be lost.
 * Then, of course, are all the little questions, of the "How did feature X evolve?" mode. But at this point, we're getting way out of the scope of this article. Adam Cuerden talk 21:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The article also covers the neutral theory of molecular evolution. That is an area of current controversy. Tim Vickers 21:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 *  To be fair, probably the intention is a section on areas of research, which would really be all areas – skimming it, there are mentions in the Natural selection, Genetic drift and Adaptation sections – perhaps a brief mention could be made in the lead that active research continues in all areas? A section seems thoroughly inappropriate, detail has to be in context. .. dave souza, talk 21:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Dave may be right on that point: most of the questions and conflicts are too complicated to easily deal with separated from their context: It's easier to disscuss them while discussing the other concepts relating to the questions and controversies. Otherwise, we'd be explaining everything all over again to give the context. Adam Cuerden talk 22:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention anon's point that such a section would be obvious troll-bait. Silly rabbit 22:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye. Though I would like to do another article on Evolution that extends it out towards the cutting edge - a bit of Evo-devo, a little epigenetics, some neo-lamarckism.... Dunno what we'd call it, though. Advanced concepts in evolution? Eh, should probably instead work it all into Natural selection or summat. The sub-articles need a lot of work. Adam Cuerden talk 22:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionists is just the word I used for the people who accept to any major degree the theory of evolution. I agree with Dave I probably meant areas of research when I wondered about "the questions evolutionists still have about evolution." An ongoing research statement in the intro could be added, which could maybe link to this new article. Many interested in the latest research would not mind either a lack or repetition of background information. I just noticed the Recent developments in evolutionary theory section of History of evolutionary thought seems a good place to find the current big questions they are wondering about. I feel another article focused on the most recent developments and questions (without using that word directly) could serve knowledge seekers. We have pretty up to the date information on things like sports and news. For now I'll be satisfied to go through the topics in that section. 75.16.77.4 00:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many Questions on evolution by very competent scientist from fields of mathematics physics and biology and probably chemistry. Here are a few problems: 1) the probability of evolution happening is so low that for the same price you could pick any hypotheses you like. 2) There are physical constants that are too precise to be an accident. 3) It goes against the physical law of entropy, which is the third law of thermodynamics. 4) One mechanism cant evolve from another because its completely different and therefore you have to start from scratch, the same way that you cant get Microsoft word from Open Office Writer, even though they are very similar you must start from scratch. 5) The whole point of evolution is that a complex being must evolve in stages, but the cell is an extremely complex being but that just happened in one go according to evolution.

I think evolution has a value in explaining non-biological change but has zero value as a biological science.

Not knowing the answer and being pissed of with religion is no excuse for this “science”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.129.202.75 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 18 July 2007


 * Hmmm. I just tried to delete this trolling, but it got reverted.  222.129.202.75, all of what you said is bunk (evolution is inevitable, it doesn't contradict any physical laws, scientists don't believe that a living cell was the first self-replicator, physical constants have nothing at all to do with evolution, and so on)... but this page is NOT for debating the validity of evolution itself. --Robert Stevens 15:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Which came first?
Another chicken/egg question I wouldn't mind answered - which came first, the pollinator or the flower? --124.181.248.216 11:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Short answer: coevolution. Please ask at Reference desk/Science. Bendž|Ť 11:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that the question raises an important point which is that eco-systems, as much as populations, are the object of the mechanisms of evolution. Coevolution is one concept that recognizes this, but I think the article itself could say more about the importance of ecology - the importance of approaching the study of individual species as well as natural history in general from an ecological point of view, and of making ecosystems as such and not just individual species objects of study by evolutionary scientists. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

List of misconceptions
This article (which looks like a junk pile to me) has a list of misconceptions about evolution. I cleaned it up a bit and then some other editor came in and hacked it up. Anyone want to take a stab at this mess?--Filll 21:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Had a slash. Tim Vickers 00:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Vestigial Limbs
I would like to make Wikipedia just this much more accurate by having someone edit the claim that "'c' indicates vestigial hind limbs" in reference to the whale diagram. I would just like to say that those bones are not "vestigial Limbs" but anchor points for muscles that are crucial for whale reproduction. It angers me that people use this source as a means to promote their completley illogical and unscientifically supported claims. This claim is a direct violation of the rule: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

75.128.195.238 20:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In the interests of verifiability, could you please provide a reliable source for the statement that these bones are essential for whale reproduction? Thanks. Tim Vickers 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking in "Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss" by Lars Bejder and Brian K. Hall there is the statement that:


 * In contrast to the forelimbs, hindlimbs did not maintain or acquire a new function during the evolution of modern cetaceans.

I think this idea that these vestigial bones have a reproductive function is incorrect. I've added this new reference to the article. 20:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Tim Vickers


 * Actually, a structure (like the hind limbs of a whale) can be vestigial and still have a function. I don't know if the hind limb bones are crucial for whale reproduction or not, but they're certainly vestigial because they are homologous to quadruped hind limb bones except they no longer serve that function. SeeVestigiality Bgplayer 20:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * claim and counterclaim WAS 4.250 20:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim appears to be a creationist publication. It is not a WP:RS, using it would violate WP:NPOV Bgplayer 21:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that might be the problem, this is a confusion between limb bones and pelvic bones. Limb bones in whales are both vestigial and functionless, while their pelvic bones are vestigial and retain an ancestral function. Tim Vickers 20:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All legless vertebrates (snakes, lizards, and cetaceans) develop limb buds that usually regress before birth. Hox, Sonic hedgehog, and Hand2 all have been implicated. Certain whales maintain the limb buds for a longer embryological time period and hence the tendency for what is considered a vestigial hind limb. This might be a good Evodevo example because of hindlimb regression and forelimb convergent evolution into a fin, and associated changes with Hox,Sonic hedgehog, etc. GetAgrippa 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

An article related to evolution of sexual differences
It needs some serious editing and clarification I think: Evolutionary theory of sex--Filll 22:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, just wow. Tim Vickers 22:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be good stuff, but it needs some serious editing to be in Wikipedia, I suspect. I do not think the editor realizes what an encyclopedia is or is supposed to be. I suspect that the editor might be the same as the person who advanced this theory. I looked at other sex ratio theories and I am not sure where it fits in exactly, not being a biologist.--Filll 22:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Translation
I think there should be a big effort to translate this article into as many languages as possible. Richard001 09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary medicine
This should probably be mentioned in the applications section as well, no? Richard001 09:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Problems
There should be a problems with evolution section, to prevent bias —Preceding unsigned comment added by PopiethePopester (talk • contribs)


 * Please read the evolution FAQ and the WP:NPOV policy. Tim Vickers 19:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen your reverted edit, PopiehePopester. Creationist falsehoods are not "problems with the theory".  Please don't attempt to edit this article again until you've done a LOT more research. --Robert Stevens 22:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect.
Where is an acceptable place for
 * A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect.

in the article? --Yqbd 04:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This topic is covered in the first paragraph of the mutation section, of particular note is reference 21. Tim Vickers 04:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added another reference that directly addresses this question. link. All the best Tim Vickers 16:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "This item requires a subscription to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Online." --Yqbd 01:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the PubMed link and here is a related paper by the same authors. Tim Vickers 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

missing critics
Why is it that there a lot of "critics" in the Intelligent Design article, but no "critic" found in the Evolution article? --Yqbd 04:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Are there any objections to adding weaknesses and suggestions pointed out from "critics"? --Yqbd 04:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read the FAQ, this is discussed in detail in relation to WP:UNDUE. Tim Vickers 04:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Where exactly is it discussed? --Yqbd 04:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Evolution/FAQ


 * Could someone please place the banner at the top of the introduction to evolution discussion page as it is here.


 * "Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Evolution FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about evolution. If you are interested in discussing or debating evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins."


 * It seems to effectively address many of the issue shared by that article as well. --Random Replicator 04:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Evolution is not Natural Selection
I have taken the bold step of writing a new Intro to reflect the fact that Evolution is not natural selection, nor is it the theory of natural selection, nor the widely accepted Neo-darwinian theory of evolution. It is the phenomenon that the many theories seek to explain, not any of those theories. No matter how much we think we may have explained it one day, Evolution will still be the phenomenon, and not the explanation. This is of absolutely fundamental importance, and to say otherwise is to misrepresent science and make it look as if the whole issue has been hijacked and wrapped up - not a good thing in the present climate of debate with Creationists and not good for ongoing discussion.

Though this may look like vandalism, it is not intended as such, but is a serious attempt to stimulate a re-write of this page, which was essentially a duplication of Modern evolutionary synthesis and not therefore about Evolution. I've added sections on the many theories of evolution, because I think this page should be a summary of these (all are covered in detailed articles already). I've taken nothing out, just moved one or two things to make a start, so others can review everything that is here, decide whether it is really appropriate to the article, and move it to appropriate sections. I will wait for reactions before I do any more.

Please study the intro section before reverting. It can be improved, but the old intro was quite simply misleading. --Memestream 15:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You should consider discussing changes like this first, considering how long it took to get to such a stable state. My first impression of your edit, is that the new lead is terrible, and trying to shoehorn in a history lesson rather pointless, given that there's already a far more comprehensive article on that. ornis ( t ) 15:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I did consider discussing first, but decided to go ahead as the easiest way to demonstrate my aim. The essential point is that Evolution is not Evolutionary theory. This is such a massive error that it cannot be left unchallenged. Do you disagree with this fundamental statement? I can find quotes to support what I am saying. I recently noted that one famous book on evolutionary theory opens with exactly the statement, 'Evolution is not evolution by natural selection'. It was one of the famous books by a biologist from the modern sythesis, but I can't find it at the moment. Meanwhile, I think it fair to revert, and ask you to leave it for others consider and comment. Yes, there is an introductory article, but that doesn't alter the fact that this one is plain wrong (and others above seem unhappy with it). You have not commented on the fact that there is also an article on the modern synthesis. --Memestream 16:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well other users can see your edit by following this link. Until you can get consensus for such drastic changes I suggest you leave it as it is. ornis ( t ) 16:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * From modern evolutionary synthesis: "The modern evolutionary synthesis (often referred to simply as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis), refers to a period of about a decade (1936-1947) when ideas from a number of biological specialities came together in a unified theory of evolution which was agreed and accepted by the great majority of working biologists."


 * Not really covering the same ground is it? ornis ( t ) 16:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

People have discussed this repeatedly over the last few years, as you can see in the archives. A consensus has been reached. This consensus has helped the article achieve FA status even, and positive reviews from outside entities (see above). This issue is addressed in the text, and in the daughter articles which are linked from the text, including evolution as theory and fact. This point you are raising is indeed well understood and the LEAD you dislike is an attempt, achieved through tremendous effort and consensus, to accommodate this view. Thanks.--Filll 16:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The current introduction explains both what evolution is and also how it occurs. The description of alterations in allele frequencies describes evolution itself, and outline of the modern evolutionary synthesis explains how these changes occur. Adding a mass of historical information does not make this explanation any clearer. Tim Vickers 16:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Plus the proposed intro appears to be just flat wrong. Evolution is not about the process of change in individual organisms. Individuals don't evolve. And I agree with what's been said above. The intro should not be a history lesson. Bgplayer 16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) Yikes! What a horrible intro.  Sorry dude, but no way.  To my mind, it serves only to confuse the topic, and mixes in a rather eclectic selection of historical anecdotes (Lysenko?) that are better dealt with in appropriate subsections.  And the point that evolution is not natural selection, while technically correct, is made in such an obtuse way that it won't help casual readers at all.  The old intro, while glossing over things that were dealt with elsewhere, was a much better summary of the article and the topic in general.  Sorry.  --Plumbago 16:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing 'casual' about an encyclopedia entry. It's not allowed to be 'technically incorrect'. Sorry, that just won't do!

Tim Vickers: So you think it's all settled then. Please note that I am not a creationist, but a serious scientist with a deep understanding of evolution and genetics, but I do not consider it to be all sorted, and even if it were, the phenomenon of evolution is not the theory, not the mechanism. It's a basic semantic problem. We must not hijack a fundamental term and use it as if it refers to the latest theory. I find this a common problem on Wikipedia, for example Psychiatrist is defined in terms of current medical qualifications (USA specific at that) and psychiatric practice, hijacking the basic word which really refers only to someone who works in the field of Psychiatry, whether practically or theoretically.

Another problem is raised above, with the quote "The modern evolutionary synthesis .... refers to a period of about a decade (1936-1947) when ideas from a number of biological specialities came together in a unified theory of evolution which was agreed and accepted by the great majority of working biologists." Really? I think it refers to the theory, not the period! So, apparently does the editor above who says, "the outline of the modern evolutionary synthesis explains how these changes occur." He uses the term to mean a theory. You can't explain something with a period!

It's very basic errors of grammar and semantics (hierarchy, what includes what, what explains what) that I am trying to point out here. By all means rename this page 'current accepted theory of evolution', and I will be happier, but 'Evolution' it is not. Do yous see? --Memestream 17:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But there's nothing "technically incorrect" about the current intro. It doesn't give all of the details certainly, but it's an intro, the details come later. Bgplayer 17:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That is the worst intro to this article I've seen yet. "Evolution" is not "the history of thought concerning evolution". WAS 4.250 17:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to admit I was profoundly underwhelmed by User:Memestream's suggestion of a new LEAD. Of course the word evolution has multiple meanings. That is why there is even a link to the couple of articles that discuss this at the top of the page. But in biology, evolution is used as a shorthand phrase for "current theory of evolution" and for "data, observations, experimental results, etc which we call evolution". That is why evolution is BOTH a theory and a fact. As explained in great detail in evolution as theory and fact and which is linked from this article. And if you read the current LEAD carefully, is described in the current LEAD. This was carefully crafted in this way. You are not explaining something that no one understands and no one has considered here. The word evolution refers to BOTH the purported explanatory mechanism AND the data which the theory is attempting to explain. And somehow you have turned this into a huge confusion and muddle. So please, try to take a step back and read carefully.--Filll 17:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This article deals with many aspects of evolution, both the requirements for it to take place, the changes that occur in evolution and the mechanism by which these changes are brought about. The current lead introduces all of these aspects of evolution in a clear, accurate and approachable manner. The proposed new version of the lead fails to do this and is therefore not an adequate introduction to the article. Tim Vickers 17:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't support the changes proposed by Memestream. Still, he's right about something; this article is strongly biased towards a very old interpretation of the modern synthesis. While there's still a complicated debate going on about what is the driving force of evolution (natural selection, drift or mutations), this article clearly puts the emphasis on natural selection. Also, while we know for quite some time that mutations are more than just the source of variation, this article still promotes this old view (a problem we've inherited from the modern synthesis, at the time Fisher and al. believed in "infinitesimalism", we know now that's nonsense). In other words, this article provide a popular, but biaised, account of the theory of evolution. - PhDP (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The article does note specifically that the relative importance of these two forces is unknown "Although natural selection is responsible for adaptation, the relative importance of the two forces of natural selection and genetic drift in driving evolutionary change in general is an area of current research in evolutionary biology". The outcomes section does deal mostly with natural selection, since the role of drift in adaptation is unknown, although drift is noted to be important in speciation. Tim Vickers 19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am pleased to see some understanding from PHDP, and this raises yet another twist when he says, "this article is strongly biased towards a very old interpretation of the modern synthesis." While I agree with what I think he means, I would point out that he has re-defined Modern synthesis yet again, as being a theory that is ongoing, and so can have an 'old interpretion'. Is that true or is not the 'modern synthesis' something arived at in the 1930's, as summarised for example in 'Evolution the Modern Synthesis' by Aldous Huxley. The latter is my understanding. Either way, it's not about 'a period of about a decade', is it'?


 * Please realise though, that I did not edit this page in order to dispute the details of emphasis, which I recognise have been worked over, and am prepared to work further at myself. I came here to say, "this page is utterly wrong in it's most basic premise, that evolution is the theory of evolution." To say in the intro that the word evolution is often used when referring lazily to a theory of evolution would be acceptable, but to define it as such is very very wrong.


 * When you define the object of a theory as the theory itself you END SCIENCE! You permit of no further question. It is widely accepted that science proceeds by theories which are the best we have until superceeded by better ones. We therefore must never equate the object of study to the theory, or we give science a bad name. The public and the press do it, and then are quick to pounce when something they thought was 'scientific fact' is proved wrong. Good scientists do not do it. I would be happy to see the contents of this article move to a new page with a new name, but his page must surely be reserved for a totally correct, 'technically correct' definition of evolution, as a phenomenon which is the subject of ongoing study and theorising. --Memestream 20:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Show some proof, then I may support you, although I doubt it. I'm also not giving you good faith with what you're intending here.  You sound awfully like someone with an agenda.  When someone says "reserved for a totally, correct, 'technically correct' definition of evolution," I sincerely doubt your credentials as a scientist.  No scientist I've ever met relies upon scientific fact.  Provide some references.  As I was taught evolution, by one of the leading individuals in the field, Evolution is defined in the article correctly.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You miss the irony, that what you have just said about no scientist relying upon scientific fact is exactly what I am saying! You MUST assume good faith, while I am civil and polite and reasoning. That's a rule on Wikipedia. By accusing me of having an agenda you break that rule. I cannot easily show proof, as I am questioning this article in semantics terms, not in terms of its facts. The phenomenon is not the theory. Simple as that. --Memestream 20:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't see where you get the idea that evolution is defined as a mechanism or a theory, the first sentence of the present introduction states - "evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation." what don't you agree about in this definition? Tim Vickers 20:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What I don't agree with there is the use of the phrases 'inherited traits' and 'population' and 'generation to generation'. These are ingredients of the modern synthesis explanation, not necessarily features of evolution itself. Does evolution really only concern 'generation to generation' (speciation is an observed feature of evolution, but it's hardly 'generation to generation' though it may well have happened by changes from generation to generation, but that's the theory, not the phenomenon. Inherited traits assumes the modern synthesis. Herbert Spencer talked broadly of evolution from simple to complex, by, fundamentally, a reduction in entropy and an increase in order. I'm not arguing here about the modern theory, I'm simple saying that the phenomenon of evolution is bigger than that, and comes first. Evolution was explained by Spencer and Lamarck differently, and may well be explained by future theories differently. The quote you have given above is only a bit of what is wrong; the article gets steadily worse as it drags the reader into an assumed neo-Darwinian synthesis, and away from the phenomenon itself as meant by the word Evolution. The article is about a 'slang' interpretation of the word Evolution, which is not good enough for an encyclopedia, as it goes on to push the modern theory as if it were the very phenomenon itself. --Memestream 20:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I see above that someone says, "evolution is both a theory and a fact". Someone else says, "it's shorthand for currently accepted theory of evolution." Help! Much more of this and I'll be joining the creationists! The word Evolution can only describe a theory in the shorthand sense. This whole article assumes the shorthand sense, while the bigger, only true sense, as a phenomenon which is the subject of ongoing theory, is ignored. That can't be right. Put crudely you might as well say 'an audio system is an iPod' or 'physics is quantum mechanics' --Memestream 21:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you've joined long ago. This is pretty clear to most of us.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate to say it, but I am starting to agree with OM on this one. Somehow you are suffering from WP:POINT problems here I think. "Gravity" is a word that stands both for the observations of gravity, and the theory of gravity. "Radioactivity" is a word that stands both for the observations, and the theory that explains them. "Electromagnetism" is a word that stands both for the observations, and the theory that explains them. "Friction" is a word that stands both for the observations, and the theory that explains them. "Relativistic" refers both to the observations, and the theory that explains them. "Quantization" refers both to observations, and the theory associated with them. And so on and so forth. I could give you hundreds, ney, thousands of examples. I could bury you in this nonsense. You are having some problems with your comprehension, on purpose, I fear. If this is not the case, I apologize. However, in any case, whether you are being willfully difficult or not, you probably would be happier editing other articles.--Filll 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The edits, misunderstanding of "theory" and "science", edit-warring about natural section, and other things of Vacu...I mean Improb...sorry, I mean Memestream does not convince me that he/she/it is a scientist of any sort.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I am reminded of an old sock. What do you think OM?--Filll 22:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The definition of evolution as a change in the inherited traits of a population over time is the definition used in modern textbooks on this topic. Consequently, it is the definition used here. Using alternative definitions of this term runs into problems of undue weight, as this would be stepping outside of the mainstream scientific view. Of course, if you can provide some modern reliable sources that use an alternative definition, we can consider them here. Tim Vickers 22:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who is responsible for the introduction as it now reads, but it is vague, factually ambiguous, and insufficiently cohesive. I suggest that an introduction to evolution must first define evolution. Vickers provides not only the scientifically accepted definition, but the most accessible. Natural selection is obviously not evolution, nor are the two that often confused. Many concepts are, however, often confused, and I'm curious as to how you all feel about the inclusion of common misconceptions.

The most destructive misconception, I believe, surrounds the belief by many that evolution is a goal oriented process. This usually involves the dismissal of all but humans from the discussion, and inevitably includes the misguided idea that there is some future perfect humanity, and that evolution is the means by which that perfection will occur. This idea often coexists with the idea that all other species form a heirarchy, with human at the top. I think that many of society's attempts to wield evolutionary theory to support a range of agendas is seeded largely within this misconception. Therefore, I think an introduction should clearly extirpate such ideas from reader's minds, or the remaining explanation will be lost to them. The laws of physics aren't used to support social agendas and evolution either shouldn't either, or should be intellectually understood clearly by any policymakers. That requires an aware public, ready to challenge misuse. I must state that I prefer evolution to remain the purview of scientists, but that may be a myopic view.

Misconceptions about altruism, and its pervasive use by people to attempt to undermine evolution's credibility must also be addresses. A sub-heading titled "kinship and altruism", or something to that effect must demonstrate the mathematical data that indicates the increased probability of a gene's frequency in the subsequent generation through "altruism" is necessary. The fact that altruism has so far been observed only in small populations of mammals with low genetic variability, and minimal breeding outside the population is demonstrable evidence that nullifies the anthropomorphic use of the human concept of altruism to explain animal behavior.

I'll bring up some others later, but the vague use of population in the intro troubles me. Populations of conspecific members is very different perceptions and needs to be distinguished. Also the generation to generation assertion is vague and will confuse many readers unaware that evolutionary change is very slow. further speciation needs to be distinguished from adaptation, as the intro now seems to confirm the misconception that modern humans have evolved in modern times, which is emphatically incorrect. Perhaps a different article should address human evolution.

Finally, mutation is too quickly introduced, for it contributes, as far i know, the least genetic variation. Natural selection acts on changes in the genome, and genetic drift, the bottleneck effect, and geographic isolation contribute far more to adaptations. Mutation is merely one cause of four, and the least noteworthy. The intro's organization needs to clearly inform the reader that natural selection effects evolution by acting on four sources of genetic variability in a population.

Let me know your thoughts and when refreshed, i'll try to be clearer.˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoldhenk (talk • contribs) 06:26, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

A Citation re 'Evolution is not Natural Selection'
I feel that many of the above comments are becoming abusive towards me. Is Filll accusing me of sock puppetry? OrangeMarlin, having accused me of edit warring on my user page, now says 'I think you joined long ago'. Yes, I did, and did lots of editing, and then I joined again using a new name to edit what I consider to be more controversial topics. It's specifically allowed. I have never edited this or any other article under different names (sockpuppetry). What has happened to WP:Assume good faith? And the only point I am trying to make is that this article is flawed, and I would like it changed. OrangeMarlin says, 'show some proof, then I may support you'. I'll try:

"Natural Selection is not Evolution. Yet ever since the two words have been in common use, the theory of Natural Selection has been employed as a convenient abbreviation for the theory of evolution by Natural Selection, put forward by Darwin and Wallace. This has had unfortunate consequences ...." - R. A. Fisher The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (1930) (taken from Valiorium Edition (1999).

Fisher was of course a key man, some say the key man, in the making of the Modern evolutionary synthesis, and this work was absolutely central to it, so this is straight from the horses mouth. What's more, it's the opening sentence of the Preface, which is dated 1929.

By the way, OrangeMarlin. Do you think I could produce that book (which cost me £40 I see) from my library, within ten minutes of your request, if I were 'not a scientist of any sort'. I'm a serious worker in the field, and I think an apology might be due.--Memestream 22:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Time to start not feeding you, but you have been accused of edit-warring by two admins so far, User:MastCell and User:Bishonen, both of whom garner much respect on this project. I didn't actually accuse you of edit-warring, I accused you of not watching WP:NPOV.  At least try to get who is accusing you of what correct.  OK?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You accused me under the heading of 'Edit warring'. MastCell also accused me under identical conditions where I made an edit in good faith which added to the article and it was reverted immediately. There, as here, I entered into lengthy discussion and did not revert or even edit again! I quoted Help:reverting:
 * Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
 * Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof.

--Memestream 23:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A splendid citation, and I've no reason to doubt Memestream's scholarship. However, objecting to "the theory of Natural Selection" being "employed as a convenient abbreviation for the theory of evolution by Natural Selection" has no conflict with the present lead to this article, which clearly sets out what evolution is, then makes reference to that theory as "the main but not exclusive means of modification" of species, as a well known author put it. .. dave souza, talk 23:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but he is objecting to just one ingredient of the theory (natural selection) being used as shorthand for the "Evolution" in his first sentence, and I'm objecting to "Evolution" being used as shorthand for "the theory of evolution by natural selection". Surely you see that my objection is very much like his. Furthermore, if, as he says, "evolution is not natural selection", then natural selection is not evolution (I believe that follows semantically). The fact is, all three terms are often used interchangeably, and it would be better if they were not. --Memestream 00:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, changes in allele frequencies come from both genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection. It is therefore quite correct to say that evolution is not natural selection - instead natural selection is one important mechanism by which evolution occurs. These points are already discussed in detail within the current article. However, other reliable sources will be needed to support your proposal to use an alternative definition of evolution than the one used in this article. You have not provided any such sources, Memestream, so the current definition remains the best option. Tim Vickers 23:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Another Citation
I've made just a tiny advance in convincing some of the fundamental semantic error, I feel. Now let me try to indicate why it is important to separate the phenomenon from the theory.

While I am no radical opponent of evolutionary theory in general, I do feel that current portrayal of it in the media, and in many books, is out of date and fails to reflect the turmoil that now exists in the field. Let me quote from today's 'Nature', page714, where an article is headed 'DNMT3L connects unmethylated lysine 4 of histone H3 to ''de novo' methylation of DNA'. The first line reads: ''Mammals use DNA methylation for the heritable silencing of retrotransposons and imprinted genes and for the inactivation of the X chromosome in females'.

"Heritable silencing" note. Within genetics, the doctrine of the Weismann Barrier has long been proved simply wrong, and this article seems to be yet one more of many that go beyond the idea that genes are only changed by mutation, or that genes, mutated or otherwise are the only thing that is inherited. Such ideas cast much doubt on the sentence: "These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction" (though it may depend on how you define 'gene'). It's because of such recent work that I am keen to see a more accurate separation, in the intro, of the phenomenon, and the 'Modern synthesis' which is now out of date. The jump to 'Natural selection is a process that causes heritable traits that are ...' in the second paragraph of the article is too abrupt, given that we are talking about Evolution, not natural selection. Surely it would be better to start with something like: 'The most widely accepted theory of Evolution, often referred to as Neo-Darwinism, has three components - natural selection, genetic mutation, and the separation of somatic (body) cells and gametes (sex cells), only the latter passing on Genetic information according to the doctrine of Weissman.' Then we are off to a reasonable start. Note that genetic drift is not a mechanism of change, as I think some are suggesting. It's a mechanism of population genetics, acting on mutational change only. --Memestream 23:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All that, and "evolutionary theory" huh? Oooooookay....You just let the cat out of the bag. Sorry. --Filll 00:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely a Creationist. Phenomenon?  No, Creationism is a phenomenon, Evolution is a scientific theory.  You're quoting Nature which issue?  Nevertheless, your probably out-of-context quote doesn't tell us anything.  Neo-Darwinism?  Who uses that terminology?  Oh, Creationists.  I forgot.  Genetic drift is a mechanism of change.  Oh geez, this is giving me a headache.  Let me get back to actually writing a Featured Article, because Evolution is already one, and real scientists understand it and have written it.  Why do I bother?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Abuse again! Creationist! Which issue! Neo-Darwinism, who uses that!

No way am I creationist. I'm a fan of Dawkins, with reservations. Which isse? Read what I wrote, - 'today's issue' - that's the one dated 9th Aug, 448, 623-726 August 2007 which I received and read avidly this morning. Don't be so quick to say 'probably out of context when you presumably haven't read it yet! "Neo-Darwinism". I'm suggesting that it's use helps to distinguish between modern theory based roughly on Darwin, and the 'Modern Synthesis' which is no longer modern. I would not have it redirected on Wiki as it currently is --Memestream 00:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Genetic drift is a mechanism of evolution, your statement that it is not and that it only works by "acting on mutational change" shows clearly that you have little idea about evolutionary biology. All the mechanisms of evolution only act to alter the frequencies of polymorphisms created through mutation. I would recommend you learn a little more about this subject before trying to write about it. Tim Vickers 01:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant that genetic drift is not a candidate for the change that natural selection acts on. This is complicated of course, as drift does influence the genes in the population that are available for selection, but it cannot generate the new material that is required as one of the three elements of Darwinian theory. That's all: I wasn't saying anything against the theory, just trying to clarify a basic point. Similarly with crossing-over in sexual reproduction, which cannot produce new material. We are left with only random mutation as the source of change in the modern synthesis view, that's my point, whereas we now know of other sources of change, both epigenetic and, more controversially by reverse transcription mechanisms, as in the immune system, as described by Ted Steele.

Your statement "All the mechanisms of evolution only act to alter the frequencies of polymorphisms created through mutation" is surely very wrong? Do you not include mutation as a mechanism of evolution. It surely doesn't "only alter the frequency of polymorphisms" - it creates new polymorphisms or alleles. Population genetics can achieve nothing without mutations, or other primary sources of new material. --Memestream 01:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Neo-Lamarkian hypotheses don't belong in this article as they are, at present, just hypotheses. Equally, mutationism and the inherent propensities for the effects of mutation that arise from the constraints of developmental biology might fit as a section on current research in a specialised eco-devo article, but not in this article. This article deals with what is known about the process and mechanisms of evolution, not avenues of future research and interesting hypotheses.


 * Your confusion on the mechanisms of evolution is quite common, but mutation is not a mechanism of evolution, it is indeed a requirement for evolution to occur, but not a way in which the process takes place. If you read the article carefully this distinction might become a bit clearer for you. Tim Vickers 01:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction." Although I'm loath to consider epigenetics as playing any significant long term role in evolution, this sentence does nothing to exclude epigenetic phenomena -- almost all things "epigenetic" involve inherited changes to the expression of genes, thus epigenetic effects are included within the definition of trait. And it says genes are inherited, also true. Although I'm not an evolutionary biologist, I don't see the need to include more epigenetics in this article. Yes, sometimes in particular organisms some particular aspects can be epigenetically inherited to varying extents, but my impression is that there isn't yet enough evidence that it is widespread enough and has the sort of stability that would warrant inclusion in the article on Evolution, let alone the lead. I should also note that this topic has been discussed some before. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 02:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a definition I've found that is much more acceptable
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 What is evolution?

Note that it talks of change in the properties of populations or organisms, not "change in inherited traits" as in our article. Properties are more fundamental, inherited traits, too specific and not necessarily the same. It also talks of "inherited via the genetic material", not "expression of genes". Inherited material is exactly right, as it may include chromatin structure, methylation, and other 'epigenetic' factors. And it doesn't say "generation to generation", but "which transcend the lifetime of the individual" which again is less specific and more accurate. I'd accept this definition - it's carefully thought out with the pitfalls in mind. --Memestream 02:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve." The article that deals with evolution by this definition is Evolution (term). See also Evolution (disambiguation). Perhaps you would like to help improve Evolution (term). It's a very neglected stub. You could start by adding the above sourced quote. WAS 4.250 19:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Chromatin structure, histone modification, and DNA methylation all affect the expression of genes. I don't see the difference between the words "trait" and "property" ... feature, characteristic, quality, attribute ... it seems to me that you're inventing a difference between the words. Again, generation to generation vs. transcend the lifetime -- looks equivalent to me, the first one is more clear, less florid. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 02:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The first point is that chromatin structure, histone modification, and DNA methylation are not, I suggest, 'genes' in the commonly accepted meaning of the word. "Mutations in genes can produce new traits" is therefore not quite right, as we now know that alteration in these other factors can be inherited too (as per my quote). In other words things seem to be being inherited that are not 'genes'. "Generation to generation" is a problem because we know know that some things are inherited that jump generations, and are therefore, strictly, as traits, not passed "generation to generation". I'm not talking about recessive genes here, but thinking of recent work on Arabidopsis, and things that resemble fragile-X disease in that a tendency to rapid mutation seems to be inherited, rather than an immediate trait. It's not that "trait" is different from "property", but "inherited trait" is different from "property", the latter being the fundamental thing itself, while the former is oddly restrictive because, strictly, a mutation doesn't have to be present in the last generation and inherited, to be passed on. Mutations that affect evolution occur in the gametes and are therefore not present as traits in the generation they come from, they only appear out of nowhere in the generation that receives them, ie the trait itself is not inherited as it wasn't there to be inherited. Subtle stuff, but others have considered it carefully, and realised the difficulty in providing a perfectly correct definition, as is said in the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memestream (talk • contribs) 10:16, 11 August 2007


 * You've picked a poor example. That Arabidopsis work (Lolle et al., Nature 434 (7032): 505-509, 2005) was called into question by another group that could not reproduce the results (Peng et al., Nature 443 (7110): E8-E8, 2006). It's an excellent example of why Wikipedia must be cautious about covering any recent research developments.
 * Even if the experiment were reproducible, consensus is that there must exist an unknown inherited physical basis for the trait -- eg. in the form of RNA -- something is still being inherited, similar to inheritance of a recessive trait. Nobody argued that the inheritance was physically skipping generations.
 * Regarding the semantic issue - I don't know why you discarded this argument, but the simple observation that recessive traits can skip generations seems a lot more convincing to me. My personal opinion is that this a valid but minor issue and you should be treating it as such. Your confrontational approach has received a predictably bad reaction, as this article is regularly attacked by people with ID / creationist agendas. Saying you're using this username for "more controversial topics" only supports this interpretation. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 13:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Current article - "In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation."


 * Futuyma version - "The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next." and in the next section "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."


 * These two versions are direct restatements of the same ideas, to me, your objections are increasingly appearing to be entirely imaginary. Tim Vickers 02:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Again it's that same subtle difference. New "changes in populations" are not "inherited trait" the first time they appear as a mutation, because, having appeared in the gametes, they were not expressed and so had not become "traits"! --Memestream 10:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take the current version, much pithier. In other words, it gets straight to the point. Or, you might say,it isn't so pretentiously wordy. That is to say it doesn't take as much verbiage to express the idea.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The Ancestor's Tale as a further reading ... and others
Hey, folks. May I give you a diversion from the recent weird attempt to rewrite the lead section, by proposing to add the fascinating, encyclopedic book The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins to the list of Further readings section?

Now, some disclosure: I am currently expanding each and every rendezvous point in this book to illustrate how each pilgrims tale illustrates a particular aspect or theory of evolution (I am at concestor 16 out of 40). I am afraid a lot of people (including this reviewer despite his positive review) did not understand Dawkins' goal. The book is very friendly for an average reader, but I feel this is not Dawkins' main goal. The book was written to be almost like an encyclopedia of evolution, as would be evident if you have read the book (or do a cursory check of what I have written so far in the list of rendezvous points).

I do not think this book is an 'introductory' reading. But on the other hand, it's not 'advanced' reading, in that an average reader with very little background on evolutionary ideas can easily enjoy it. Fred Hsu 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To Fred's suggestion I would like to add two more, not necessarily for the further reading list but as resources for editors to this article. Both are books by Philop Kitcher: Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design and the Future of Faith and Abusing Science: the Case Against Creationism.  One was reviewed, and the other discussed, in an essay by H. Allen Orr in the most recent issue of The New York Review of Books.  Orr is an evolutionary geneticist in the Biology Department of the University of Rochester; he has published in Science and Nature as well as other top peer-reviewed journals in evolutionary biology, so his credentials as a scientist are impeccable - and he argues that both of these books, while specifically polemics against creationism (and thus clearly relevan to our articles on the controversy) are also superb and accessible inroductions to th philosophy of science and evolutionary theory.  Kitcher is himself the subjct of a Wikipedia article; he is a professor of philosophy (of science) who holds the Dewey Chair at Columbia University, and who has published on both creationism and sociobiology and has also published in a host of peer-reviewed journals.  I have to say, I am especially impressed when a pracicing scientist heaps praise on a philosopher of science.  Orr emphasizes that in addressing creationists Kitcher is really trying to lay out as clearly as possible the essence of scientific thought and the history of the development of evolutionary theory.  I do not have these books, but if any editors here has access to them they might provide us with helpful ideas not just of themes we might want to develop, but of ideas about how better to express certain ideas.  I just read the review this week, and it really is an outstanding review, which is why I bring it up now. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm against it. We already have a book by Dawkins, I don't see what The Ancestor's Tale would add, but it could be interested in an article about the history of life on earth. Both Living With Darwin and Abusing Science could be included in another article, but this is an article about evolution, not about the evolution-creation 'debate'. I think you both made very good suggestion, however I also think that we have to keep this section from becoming too big. - PhDP (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a clarification. Dawkin's Ancestor's Tale is not about evolution-creation debate.  It is about evolution and all aspects of evolutionary theories.  Please take a cursory look at the Rendezvous Points section in The Ancestor's Tale.  If there is an article to add this book to, as "Further Reading", I believe this article is the place.  This book is comparable to the The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Gould.  They are different in that Dawkins' book is for the public, and is not organized in a structured way like a text book.  It is a fascinating read for the average person. Fred Hsu 19:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said the Ancestor's Tale was about the creation-debate, and I maintain that we should keep the Further Reading as small as possible, with the best references we can found. Dawkins has a very specific view of evolution, and he has a book in the Further Reading section. Also it's not really an "Introductory reading" about evolution, nor an "Advanced reading", we would have to create a new subsection for it. - PhDP (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Gould has two books, and he has a very specific view of evolution as well (on punctuated equilibrium in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory). I am not sure your argument makes sense.  Surely the wikipedia article is for the mass. And excluding a new, excellent and accessible book on all topics of evolution simply to keep the reference list short is not reasonable.  I am not familiar with all books listed there.  If there is already one which is similar to and better than Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale (from the point of view of a layman), then I will stop insisting.  Please enlighten me. Fred Hsu 00:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Still, it is NOT an introduction to evolution, it's a book about the history of life on earth. And keeping the list short is very reasonable, wikipedia guidelines are very clear about that, we should be parsimonious about adding references that are not cited in the article (see W:CS and W:EL). It's a little ironic, the Ancestor's Tale is the only book by Dawkins I would recommand, and I think it should be included in the Further Reading list somewhere, but probably there. - PhDP  (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. You have a point.  It's main them is about "history of life on earth".  I was about to add it to that article, but then I noticed that the Further Reading section there is identical to the list here, with exactly the same 3 subsections.  Ah.  Sigh. Fred Hsu 01:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have an observation. Three really.  The first is just to obseve that it is ironic that the modern synthesis is SO well-established among scientists at the same time that that creationism and ID has become this massive industry at least in the US.  But my real observation, the second one, is simply that the modern tynthesis is so well established it is what historians of science call normative science.  The main consequence of this is that the vast majority of scientists, ranging from paleontologists to physical anthropologists to molecular geneticists take a great deal of the modern synthesis for granted as they research very specific focused questions that of course make sense within the framework of the modern synthesis.  And this leads to the third observation: once a theory becomes normative science and its principal assumptions are just taken for granted (i.e. become fact-like if not facts), it frees up a new generation of scientists (who no longer have to do research to test the theory) to speculate more philosophically about how the theory may lead us to rething ourselves and life itself.  I think this is what Gould and Dawkins have in common.  Not that they are/were both popularizers, though that is true, but that since they had no need to prove to themselves as scientists the truth of the modern synthesis, they felt free to wax a little philosophical, and speculate in other directions.  I think that there are many biologists doing normative science who view much of Gould and Dawkin's work as either "just popularizing" or as "premature speculation i.e. they are churning out lots of new hypotheses without taking the time to test any of them and some of the 'hypotheses' may not even really be testable."  I want to suggest that we look at it a third way, that they are philosophizing in a way that is made possible by the work of normative science, although their philosophizing is not itself noarmative scientific research.  The easiest way to treat this would be to expand the articles on Dawkins and on Gould, or even to have detailed articles about some of their books.  But I wonder whether there might be room for an article on what I will call - solely as a placeholder (we can't introduce our own neologisms in actual articles, I am hoping someone can come up with a better and appropriate term) "metatheories of evolution:" far-reaching, at times highly speculative, reflections on the nature of life (really, a pice of cosmology) but done by people who are extremely well-grounded in the normative science.  Just an idea. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not insisting that Kitcher's books by cited; I am recommending that some editors look at them. I am recommending that editors look at them not because it takes positions in the creation-evolution controversy, but because the author - a philosopher - may have insights into evolutionary theory that one would not see emphasized in books by and aimed at biologists, and because the author, in chosing to address a controvery, had to write for a general and heteogeneous audience and may therefore give us ideas about how to talk about evolution and the theory of evolution for a wide and heterogeneous audience. Just to clarify. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there should be long debates about the suitability of books for inclusion. The more the better, within reason, and the above paragraph is excellent reason for inclusion. --Memestream 13:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Why limit a further reading list, especially in light of the various debates surrounding the article itself? Given the number of variant (no pun intended) opinions surrounding the function of the article itself, however subtle the differences may be, shouldn't the wealth of material available for further reading be availed readers? Perhaps some sort of precis might accompany each entry, so that the exploring readers can find those texts most concordant with their needs. Maybe within each subheading, further reading lists ought be included? Is this possible? I think it's quite cumbersome to scour every relevant journal etc. to remain abreast of topical issues, and therefore I, and I'd imagine others, would appreciate the information. I was a biology major in college, and am now a lawyer, so as a non-scientist very interested in relevant new information, but without the breadth of knowledge many of you possess, I'd certainly enjoy your recommendations. Those of you opposed to expanding the further reading list who don't need any assistance discerning helpful new material should consider those of us who might benefit. If there are other objections, please provide them, as I assume all of us are rational thinkers. The Ancestor's Tale, in my opinion, is a wonderful resource that need not be muted simply because a thirty year old Dawkins' text has already been included. The God Delusion certainly doesn't warrant a presence here, but TAT....Why not?˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoldhenk (talk • contribs) 07:48, 25 August 2007

Article on evolutionary rate of change
Shouldn't there be a paragraph in this article which talks about various different ideas about "rate of change" in evolution? There is Punctuated equilibrium, Punctuated gradualism, Quantum evolution, Phyletic gradualism, Gradualism, and various things in between (Punctuated equilibrium)? Perhaps there should be a main article to summarize all of these. Fred Hsu 01:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I put this at the end of the speciation section, since the essence of Punct Eq for me was a linkage between speciation and evolution. Tim Vickers 02:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I created a new "Category:Rate of evolution" and will be adding this category to the above articles. Any objections? Fred Hsu 02:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not from me. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  13:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Very interesting category. Go for it.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 13:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Excellent idea. But do at least write a stub at Rate of evolution that clarifies what would go into that category. Horizontal gene transfer ? WAS 4.250 18:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Modern evolutionary synthesis
One of the reasonable and readable daughter articles to this article has recently been expanded by a factor of 3 (from 10-12 Kb to 35 Kb in about 2 months). Unfortunately, many of the edits were not of particularly high quality and I have the impression that it is now being "guarded" by a group of people with questionable motives. I believe that this article should be reverted to its status about 2 months ago, and that select material from the last 2 months should be introduced, after it is carefully vetted and carefully written. Comments? --Filll 16:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with the Danish article
I would do it myself, if only my Danish were good enough; but the article has, "gone to the creationists", so to speak. Its not too bad, but help with parts on speciation would be appreciated. Regards--THobern 01:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Undskyld, jeg kan ikke tale dansk. Tim Vickers 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Small addition
I don't want to cause a big fuss or anything so I thought I'd give a heads up on my tiny edit. There is a definition for a species in the first section of the article and I feel it is incomplete. Sorry if this has been hashed and rehashed somewhere before (I haven't gone through any chat archives to be sure, sorry). Basically I feel that "to produce fertile offspring" is missing. Any objections? I know it makes it a little clunky but it is the generally accepted definition of a species (certainly for layfolk); "can reproduce" alone doesn't really cut it, sorry. AlanD 00:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. A useful change, thanks. Tim Vickers 00:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "A species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another and produce fertile offspring." This is in fact a problematic and dated definition of species that at best is useufl under certain circumstances.  It does not apply to asexual species.  It does not account for clinal variation between series of breeding populations when individuals at far extremes of the series cannot produce fertile offspring (ring species).  finally, it suggests that species are in some sense real things (the linnean view) when in fact they are statistical phenomena.  One could just as well say a species is a group of organisms with certain physiological features in common; or, a species is a population of organisms that occupies a particular niche ... and so on.  The fact is, there are many different definitions of species, and no one definition is "right," rather, different definitions are useful depending on the context/purpose.  I do not object to using this definition under very specific conditions when it is clearly useful, but it ought not be presented as "the" definition of "species." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * True, this is why no specific definition is offered in the body of the article. However, trying to discuss bacteria/archaea/protist "species" - or even if they really exist - would be far too complex for the introduction. However, this simplified "reproductive" definition is a useful one when introducing speciation, since barriers to gene flow are central to this process. What do you suggest Slrubenstein, can you think of a better way to approach this problem? Tim Vickers 00:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno - this is more accurate but not poetry (and it might make more sense after the paragraph about Darwin i.e. as the concluding paragraph of the intro):
 * Before Darwin, most natural scientists thought of species as stable, ideal types, although they acknowledged that actual organisms often diverged from their ideal form. In calling attention to the importance of variation among organisms in the evolution of species, Darwin presented a radically different view of species not as ideal types but as statistical artefacts, the temporary results of a variety of forces.  Therefore, there is no single definition of species.  However, evolutionary scientists use a number of working definitions of species; one is a population of organisims adapted to the same niche; a common definition for sexual organisms is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another and produce fertile offspring.

Yes, I know it is longer - and perhaps it should be evern longer if we want the first two sentences to be more accessible. But it is accurate and far more informative (I think people actually working in the biological sciences today often do not realize how revolutionary Darwin's view of species was and still is for most people). Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good historical background. That might fit well as part of the speciation section, but is far too long for the lead. Could you add some citations, and we'll see about fitting it in? Tim Vickers 15:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * most of the content comes from our species article and it should be enough to link there. I know Louis Menand makes the point about species as statistical in 2001 The Metaphysical Club New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux. pp 122-124.  Darwin wrote:
 * I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other .... it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluxtuating forms. The term variety, again in comparison with mere individual difference, is also applied arbitrarily, and for mere convenience sake" from 1988 (1859) On the Origin of Species in The Works of Charles Darwin edited by Paul H. barrett and R. B. Freeman.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press vol. 15 page 39.
 * I have no problem with your putting this in a later section. But given that contemporary evolutionary scientists fundamentally have not rejected Darwin's position, I think it is essential that the first time we define "species," especially in the introduction, we make it clear that any definition of species is ultimately arbitrary and has meaning only because it is convenient. But i appreciate your willingness to try to fit it all in.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, how about this way around the problem. I've changed the lead to read "One definition of a species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another and produce fertile offspring.", which is accurate and short. We can then add a larger and more complete discussion of the possible definitions in the first paragraph of the speciation section. How does that sound? Tim Vickers 16:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I think it is important to stick to easily understandable definitions initially to ease laypersons in. I like it. AlanD 17:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would only add/ask that the intro state up-front that the definition of species is controversial and a complicated matter - that is the key point. I do not think any of the working definitions of species are particularly complicated.  The point is not that the definition of species is hard to understand.  The point is that many people may find it hard to understand why Darwin thought that any definition of species is arbitrary.  I am content for Tim or others to suggest or try ways to incorporaate the material I wrote, and/or the Darwin quote, later, in the body of the article.  But the introduction should not mislead people.  I agree that Tim's phrasing goes far towards satisfying my concern by implying that there are several definitions of species.  But to go all the way we need to let readers know that for evolutionary scientists the word "species" refers to a heuristic device and not to an actual thing. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Slrubenstein, once again he is right on. However, rather than say "one definition" which will immediately send the message of ambiguity to the reader, just briefly mention the criteria for speciation based on reproductive and ecological criteria and elaborate the heuristic nature in the body. Regards. GetAgrippa 22:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we draft the paragraph outlining the species concept here? Let's use the proposal above as the first draft:

Please edit. Tim Vickers 23:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Great TimVickers but perhaps we should just state:"Species are most often defined as interbreeding populations, but species can be defined as populations that are selected and maintained by sharing an ecological setting." Something along those lines of simple and then develop the issue later. This maybe too simple in reflection. More input!!GetAgrippa 15:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a big push to use molecular markers to identify species? I remember reading over a book suggesting that species are just a reflection of the human tendency to organize and group, although it sounds outlandish he did make some good points as I recollect. I would guess most people recognize Mayr's biological species definition as the main. GetAgrippa 03:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just an aside....
From www.conservapedia.org's main page:
 * '''Article of the Month::


 * Many scientists have noted the shortcomings and implausibility of the Theory of Evolution. Learn what Wikipedia does not inform you about the theory of evolution.

...Yep, looks like the encyclopedia right-wing nutjobs can edit is still up to its same old tricks. Adam Cuerden talk 12:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to hand it to them though, if you wanted to write a gibbering, ham-fisted parody of the attacks on evolution, you'd struggle to do better than Conservapedia's evolution article. It's got everything - even Hitler!  I'll certainly be forwarding it around to my colleagues - it'll make their afternoons.  Cheers, --Plumbago 12:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, now that you made me look, I have to share with my my favorite passage from "conservapedia" (funny, they drop the "wiki" but it is still a wiki..." (this doesn't have to do with evolution): "Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well" Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly resent these leftist barbs at a heroic leader who calls us to march in lock-step towards our homeland's glorious and victorious future. Tim Vickers 16:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought this page was about the Evolution article. I can understand and agree with posting your thoughts about conservapedia's silly (but potentially dangerous) article, because it is about evolution. But gratuitous ad hominem attacks in a forum where the victims of the attacks are not even in a position to respond are not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. DCDuring 17:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Side note to "recombination"
There are Y-chromosome sequencing projects being done to trace the line of male heritage for some human families. There is a practical application of the fact that mammalian Y-chromosomes accumulate mutations (harmful or not.)--Minasbeede 13:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary fitness
It doesn't have to be that a particular beneficial mutation immediately confers an evolutionary advantage on the offspring of the parent in which that mutation first occurred. Only when the mutation becomes advantageous would that allelle begin to predominate: it could lurk for generations, unpreferred. Clearly, nothing in nature is going to make beneficial mutations occur when (and precisely when, and only when) they confer an advantage. I'd think that this is such common knowledge among those in the field that they can find multiple references to it. I'm not one of those individuals. --Minasbeede 14:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Neutral mutations (later) covers this. --Minasbeede 14:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Help --- Speciation Question
As an example of speciation is this an adequate and/or accurate example. I wanted to include it in the intro version in the speciation section. Obviously it will be a creationist magnet if it is not too solid --Random Replicator 19:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (Creationists have nothing against natural selection and speciation. rossnixon 02:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

''Scientist have documented the formation of five new species of cichlid fishes from common ancestory since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, in Lake Nagubago. The basis for speciation in this case was by morphology (physical appearance) and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration which with only slight modifications would change the mate selction process. The five forms that arose could not be convinced to interbreed.'' Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348


 * Perhaps supersaturate the point giving a number of references in birds, insects, plants, fish, amphibia, etc. and highlight one example in the text. I think you are correct to push the emphatic nature that speciation has been observed (despite the arguments about ambiguity as noted above). Biological and ecological speciation has been observed and measured in various ways (morphology,genetics, behavior,etc.). I think the biological species concept is considered a feature of the modern synthesis so that would be consistent with the rest of the article.GetAgrippa 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can not seem to find the primary sources. There are numerous articles stating that speciation has been directly validated; but none that cite specific research documents. Is this a credible source to use as a ref/citation to support the above statement? or here . 98% of the Introduction article is general knowledge (as it should be). This however, needs serious validation --- I need some help here. --Random Replicator 21:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Define "species" and identify what counts as evidence. Some define species and acceptable evidence in ways that rule out all possible examples (a population difference too great to occur naturally within the scientific era; yet actual observation by scientists is insisted upon). There is a one celled species artificially created from a human cell and maintained by scientific methods for research purposes that we have an article on. I forget its name at the moment. WAS 4.250 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are already citations for this in the article, see references 103 for a list and the specific example of reference 106. Tim Vickers 23:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I just copy/pasted that reference as you cited it into the Introduction to Evolution under the species section. I like the Mayr example as it has more impact on high school students than would speciation in say something like bacteria or even plants. Just didn't want to be embarrased later should it have already been ripped apart in a more recent publication. So I thought I would run it by the experts. --Random Replicator 23:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Cichlid article makes it seem both that there is a high likelihood that something specific in Mayr's article is wrong or obsolete and that there should be some more contemporary stories that would support your point. It also would show science-on-the-move. DCDuring 00:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The phrase "greatly debated" in the Cichlid entry was not exactly support for the rock solid example I was seeking!--Random Replicator 02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a Science article that I remember Pennisi talking about Cichlids and other examples.Science 10 March 2006:Vol. 311. no. 5766, pp. 1372 - 1374. Speciation Standing in Place. Elizabeth Pennisi. Regards. GetAgrippa 02:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Short-term cost: cancer
In the mutation section could there be a parenthetic explanation of why cancer is (may be) a short-term cost of a higher rate of mutation? I'd guess that some (most?) forms of cancer are the result of a mutation and that the recurrence of such cancers (that is, the same cancer, which indicates it's the same mutation that has initiated the cancer) in diverse individuals indicates there is an inherited characteristic making that mutation far more probable than a random mutation. Some nudge from some agent (radiation, chemical) can alter the DNA in a cell in a way that causes that cancer. I'd guess that for some few forms of cancer (but maybe lots) the nature of the change is known. That is, the un-mutated DNA and the mutated DNA have both been sequenced and the differences noted. In some manner the reason the mutation is likely has been determined.

Since I'm guessing my request is for someone to add a few words that provide facts. I haven't looked: maybe a link into the cancer article would do this. --Minasbeede 13:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=sQY&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=cancer+%22rate+of+mutation%22&spell=1 produces "Principles of Neural Aging - Google Books Resultby Akira. Hori, Sérgio U. Dani, Gerhard F. Walter - 1997 - Medical Thus, pediatrie tumors are a special case which also conform to the view that cancer incidence reflects the underlying rate of mutation. ... books.google.com/books?isbn=0444823298..." WAS 4.250 13:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There's something else here. The cancers occur in the body of an individual. A cancer that occurs in an organ due to a mutation doesn't lead to any heritable trait. The heritable mutations (for sexual organisms) would seem to have to occur in the ovaries (or even the eggs) or gonads. A mutation anywhere else dies with the individual. Unless I'm wrong and there is a mechanism for mutated genetic material to migrate to the sexual organs. --Minasbeede 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cancer has little relevance to evolution since the individuals old enough to suffer from cancer are past reproductive age. Tim Vickers 20:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cancer is indicated in the article as a cost of evolution. The same propensity for mutation that contributes to evolution also (apparently, according to the article) also contributes to cancer.  I'm not advocating that nor disputing it, but it is in the article.  the request was for a short explanation of the origin of the "cost," since right now it's just an assertion (doubtless properly cited.)  The article referenced above seems to also say aging is a cost of evolution, or at least that cancer and aging are related. --Minasbeede 00:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cancer is most often sporadic but there is evidence of evolution as well. Mutations in the BRCA1 gene are thought to be the most common predisposing factor in familial breast and ovarian cancer. There is evidence of positive natural selection on these mutations. Half of all cancers involve p53 mutations, and there is evidence of positive selection there as well. In fact, a number of diseases are associated with genetic mutations that have been positively selected. There is a cost benefit that effects early and late phases of life. There is also a strong link of in utero environmental influence and the development of chronic disease later in life. Natural selection acts on all stages and phases of life.GetAgrippa 04:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a useful and interesting discussion that is getting somewhat away from the original proposal (a quick parenthetic explanation.) The "early and late phases of life" concept ought to appear somewhere in Wikipedia (for all I know it does) and it could be pointed out wherever that is (again, maybe it already exists) that natural selection operates primarily with reference to organisms of breeding age. (Males can breed much later than females in at least some species.) In the case of older breeding males the issue would be that of relatively how often do they breed (pass on genetic material): does their contribution matter with respect to natural selection. (I can see that there's opportunities for research here.) For organisms beyond breeding age their influence with regard to natural selection is at best secondary (if a breeding population is more successful because of some prowess possessed and utilized by the elder members of the population. I have no idea if that latter idea has been published anywhere.)  --Minasbeede 13:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Aging itself evolved. W.D. Hamilton's: "The Moulding of Senescence by Natural Selection" addresses that (an old but seminal reference). It talks about the forces of natural selection over the entire life history. Natural selection acts on the gene, individual, deme,population, etc. and is measured as the outcome reproductive success. Natural selection acts to influence aging, and the aged have already reproduced. GetAgrippa 15:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned comment regarding atheism and science
Just think this should be added to the article. According to a scientific poll done by the Journal nature about 90% of all "greater" scientists in the world do not believe in a god, and do support the theory of evolution.

The statistics come from the journal nature, which repeated the same famous survey that psychologist James H. Leuba first made in 1914, when he randomly selected 1000 "great scientists" (scientists with a masters degree or higher) and found that 65% of scientists did not believe in a god. Leuba repeated this same experiment again 20 years later, and found that the number had risen to about 75%.

In 1996 the journal Nature (one of the most prominent scientific journals of all time) repeated this famous survey, except included far more scientists, including every scientists in the national academy of sciences (a group that includes the best scientists from around the world). And found that amongst scientists with a masters degree or higher, only 7% believed in a god. . With biological scientists being at the lowest, with only 5% of scientists in this field believing in a god.

I just feel its an interesting fact that should be included


 * I feel it's in an interesting fact too, but it shouldn't be in this article. Maybe in the atheism article. I moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page. thx1138 07:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it an interesting statistic but it could be construed a non sequitur if your are trying to make a point. There is an article that Fill wrote addressing the overwhelming support for evolution (I am not sure what the final title ended up), and it seems the statistic would fit there nicely. GetAgrippa 13:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Level of support for evolution. ornis <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 13:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! after all the debate the title remained. Thanks Ornis! Fill does a great job creating articles. I especially enjoyed his bees and toxic chemicals article (what happened to bees and intoxication or alcohol title?). GetAgrippa 14:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Favors"
The word is used in "Mechanisms." The problem with the word is that it implies volition or choice (like "I favor chocolate over strawberry.") The favoring that occurs isn't in any way the result of volition or choice. Those that understand evolution almost certainly understand this. The problem is the confusion the word can cause in those who don't understand. It's almost Lamarckian to them.

Do I have a better word? No. If I did I'd suggest it. --Minasbeede 13:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How about "increases the prevalence"? To my mind "favors" is preferable because it conveys the idea of the "choice" between individuals made by natural selection more straightforwardly than alternatives.  Sometimes accuracy makes understanding something quite simple actually more difficult.  Consider how helpful the shorthand expression "selfish gene" is compared to a full, mechanistic explanation of what's being meant (then again, possibly not the best example c.f. Mary Midgley!).  Anyway, if you do change the text, please bear in mind that the more sensible replacement to you might not be the same as for others.  :-)  Cheers, --Plumbago 13:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Mary. A fully-qualified exposition can be so cumbersome that intelligibility is significantly reduced. I'd be glad for those who make the major beneficial changes here to keep this point in mind, though. The mechanism is random mutations. Then it works out that some are beneficial (in the circumstances), some not, some perhaps not mattering at all until many generations in the future, when the circumstances alter. It's not a volitional process nor an orderly one. It just happens - even though the result of "just happens" can be a source of awe. (Boy, if I'm talking about how well a reader can grasp the meaning you'd think I'd choose a shorter word than "intelligibility.") --Minasbeede 14:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence in the "natural selection" subsection does a far better job of expressing the concept. --Minasbeede 16:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Temporary Page Protection
I've temporarily full-protected the page due to the Genesis vandal. It's set to expire in three days, if anyone wants to edit it until then, just ask an admin to make the changes.

It was semi-protected before, and yet we had two users with the same modus operandi appearing one after the other when one got blocked, and that means there must have been some advance preparation. Better to go this way.

In three days, someone will have to restore semi-protection. Adam Cuerden talk 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review
We are seeking peer review on Introduction to Evolution. The appropriate link is on that article's discussion page, as well as here. Since this article was created as a mandate from this discussion page to eliminate the constant complaints over complexity in the main entry; I would hope that all of you will contribute to this review process. The challenge of course, is to be accurate, yet maintain readability. Your suggestions will hopefully be based on that philosophy. Thank you in advance for your support on this project. --Random Replicator 03:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the link: Peer_review. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We are hoping for peer review from the many experts on the subject; clearly this is the place to ask. Any suggestions, comments, criticisms, or "God Willing" - compliments would truly be appreciate as well as increase the probability of GA status on the article. You will be there --- right? If not - let me know and I'll solicite help on the creationist page. --Random Replicator 15:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've received an excellent suggestion from the Creationist site. Replace the text with "God Determines Truth". I decided to go with it. Thanks!--Random Replicator 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Social effects section
I just reverted (via a slip of the mouse, mistakenly tagged as vandalism) to remove a section on the social effects of evolution. It appeared to be questionable scholarship, focusing primarily on Nazism and Social Darwinism. Being that it was largely a collection of quotes woven together to make a point, it might have also been original research or improper synthesis. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 16:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sources were not reliable, subject already covered. No reason to include. Tim Vickers 16:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical context in the Lead
I should have participated in the FA discussion, however the lead should include Lamarckism and the initial controversy of evolution; to flesh out its history and to better conform to WP:Lead. Reading the lead doesn't provide me any context as to what Evolution replaced, and that it was initially contentious. While controversy doesn't exist and objections to evolution are marginal now, that was not the case in the past. - RoyBoy 800 14:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Beware of over-simplifying it into a black and white before/after. Pages 10-11 here (and other chapters) gives an interesting simplification of the situation at the time: as natural philosophy developed into science, up to the 1830s natural theology claimed each new discovery of science as an additional proof of the wisdom, power, and goodness of the Deity, complementing revelation. Alternately, discoveries were seen as undermining the Biblical account of creation and of man's spiritual nature, This was welcomed by freethinkers and atheists, and feared by conservative Christians and monarchists. From around 1820 to 1875 a new natural theology developed, emerging in the 1840s as a separation of science and theology, so that when discoveries appeared to conflict with scripture, the understanding of scripture was reconsidered. The Reverend Baden Powell (mathematician) is cited as the most consistent proponent of these ideas – all before 1860... dave souza, talk 23:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that's why I was not bold... however "new natural theology developed"... developed where, when, who; and to what extent was it adopted? Was it only the scientists/academics which adopted this new meme, or was it more widespread? Despite your obvious nuanced understanding of the historical context (first half of proposed sentence), there was significant (and perhaps Lead notable) black and white commentary/resistance from blank and blank (second half of proposed sentence). Could it be argued Evolution somehow marks the transition to naturalism in influential (political/teachers) spheres? Here's just an offhand rough draft:


 * Natural theology, the process of separating science from religion was taking hold in academic circles in the mid 1800s; but the arrival of Evolution put the clash of cultures in the public sphere and attracted heavy criticism from religious conservatives and monarchists who were being increasingly marginalized by scientific discoveries.


 * That's kind of what I'm going for... - RoyBoy 800 03:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The questions you ask are pretty much answered in the linked article. Natural theology developed from the 16th century, and was entrenched by the early 19th century in the expectation that empirical science would provide evidence supporting Christianity and showing how God's laws controlled nature, as in Newtonian gravity. Advances in geology overcame ideas of Genesis being correct about the age of the Earth by the 1830s, and at the same time higher criticism from liberal Christianity made the Bible subject to historical testing rather than being taken as unquestionable truth. Baden Powell and other proponents of these ideas in the Church of England came into conflict with the conservative evangelicals (who feared that evolution would bring Radical republicanism), and Essays and Reviews was much more controversial than The Origin. It's worth reading for the way in which Darwin set out to support natural theology, and came unstuck. Anyway, will try to get back to this and think of a form of words  ... dave souza, talk 00:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is looking rather too complex for the lead, though a re-write of the opening paragraph of the Social and religious controversies section seems in order. In a crude sense there was a shift 1780–1880 from directly created fixed species to evolution from a common ancestor, with a lot of vigourous debate mixed in with a wider theological debate about whether the Bible could be opened to historical scrutiny.. not sure how soon I can tackle this.... dave souza, talk 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If complicated then it should be expanded from one sentence to two or even three. Summary style is crude and can handle these ideas. Yes evolution has great predictive power and is very successful today... but it is more than that; it directly highlighted a philosophical divide/debate in society/science. That is extraordinary, and I see no whiff of it in the lead. - RoyBoy 800 02:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Theory
Certian aspects of this article should not be explained as fact when there are so many variables that are simply out of our grasp to understand. Science is about gathering facts. No hypothesis can be stated as fact unless it is given substantial evidence to be proven to be anything beyond that. This article should show more that this subject is debatable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.51.134 (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What is debatable is explained in the article, what has been proved is also explained. For more details on this topic, please see Evolution as theory and fact Tim Vickers 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is quite true Tim. Let's take a simple example from early on, where it says "these traits are the expression of genes". What do you understand that to mean? What exactly do you take the word 'gene' to mean? Dawkins has argued for a definition of gene that is wider, but in general a gene is taken to be, I suggest, a unit of 'coding' DNA capable of making a protein (or actually several with alternate splicing of exons forcing us to dump the 'one gene one protein' idea), and gene expression is taken to mean protein production. So how are traits the result of gene expression? Is there not a missing 'magical' step here, at least so far as this article goes? The missing link lies in the field of morphology, of gene cascades, of promoters, insulators, enhancers; of positional effects, epigenetics, RNA and so on, which is a huge area that is still largely mysterious. The weakness of the modern synthesis, according to many, was it's failure to incorporate morphology. I do not doubt that traits are produced by our genome, but I think they are still some way from being explained. Until you can explain how genes make us as we are, how can it be right to say bluntly "traits are the expression of genes" as if that were a definite fact with a fully understood mechanism? Where even are we to find the definitive version of the modern synthesis. Huxley's "The Modern Synthesis" leaves room I think for Orthogenesis, and certainly invokes positional effects. He talks of genes "achieving dominance with time" and other such things that are not talked about by the others. Many of the other contributors to the Modern synthesis, say absolutely nothing about biological mechanisms (Fisher especially, who was famously obscure) and some talk only of Speciation and population genetics. Schmalhausen's 'Factors in Evolution' is subtitled 'The Theory of Stabilizing Selection', and actually owes a lot to his Ukranian past and Lysenkoism. Was it part of the 'Modern Synthesis'. Dobzhanski says it was very important, yet Schmalhausen wasn't published in the West until 1948, and that was pretty much after the synthesis was supposed to have been achieved! Was there in fact ever a synthesis? I have doubts. There were big arguments between gradualists and mutationists, and saltationists, and they ended when the gradualists died. Were the problems really resolved? I seriously don't think so. It may not be PC, or convenient to those of us who don't want to expose the weak points to creationists, but it's the truth. --Memestream 11:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no missing "magical process." It is true that the article leaves out much current work in molecular genetics, and also mathematical population genetics, that deepens our understanding of the processes of evolution.  But this article cannot include everything.  What we should instead be doing is developing linked articles on population genetics, molecular genetics, embryology, and evo-devo. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As great as it would be to shove all that detail in this article, it is not practical. These main articles have to be succinct, with this sort of more complicated information placed in well-written subsiduary daughter articles. Also, Fischer might have been famously obscure in Biology, but he is a model of clarity in areas like statistics and information theory.--Filll 16:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Darwinism - help please
I've just realised that some editors here are not taking part at Neo-Darwinism where my real troubles lie. I only started working on that article to try to sort out problems with Modern synthesis which had a redirect that I considered not properly dealt with. Now my new page is up for deletion.

GettaGrippa: You don't seem to have commented there, and if you look at the talk you will see I have, in response to a suggestion, taken examples of useage of the term from many Wikipedia articles - not to cite of course, but just to demonstrate the problem of confused useage I'm trying to put across. One of the articles is evo-devo, which you talked about to me, and it supports everything I am saying. Can you perhaps help me persuade others that Neo-Darwinism is a respectable term used to refer to modern theory, not necessarily the modern synthesis. --Memestream 13:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah I see the problem Memestream. You my friend have inadvertently stepped in a stinky using weasel words that are an alarm to anyone with experience with the article."Truth" often refers to Christ. You also cited an ID reference which is another alarm, also beware primary sources as that is generally considered a no no. The internet is a wonderful resource but you need to be cautious and find excellent peer-reviewed journals or qualified books. You have also synthesized an argument from the literature, which many have unconsciously done (I'm guilty and I was justly corrected). TimVickers provide two excellent references concerning the historical perspective. I don't remember Gould using the term neoDarwinism except in historical context in Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Dawkins I don't remember, but I wouldn't be surprised if he misused it in context of his audience (popular culture). I agree the term is often misused, but a search of Pubmed, Highwire, and Science doesn't produce a quagmire of confusion. What are your concerns about the revert to the original article before your additions? As an aside, I can appreciate your concerns over the perceived paranoia from creationist, but it is a concern that I have grown to appreciate. I have often wondered does it influence NPOV, but creationist have used unethical means and are a major frustration and distraction. Don't take it personal. I once made a posit and I was perceived as a creationists (say what?)much to my surprise and chagrin. Regards GetAgrippa 00:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC).

If it is any comfort, both I and Orangemarlin have been repeatedly accused of being creationists here.--Filll 13:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What a hoot Fill!! I bet Orangemarlin came close to a documented case of human combustion. Hee, hee. I've missed you guys. Both of you are stellar editors. Regards to you both!! GetAgrippa 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The seismological record of his response was publicised by the Russian government as evidence of a covert US nuclear test. Tim Vickers 20:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ROLFMAO. That was good.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

'Semantic Inversion' the real problem on these pages
In response to TimVicker's friendly approach on my talk page, I have written a long reply there on what I call the problem of 'semantic inversion'. I believe that the problems on Neo-Darwinism as well as on Evolution and Modern synthesis arise because some secondary sources have taken material out of context, for example taking George Romanes use of the term in a sense that he did not intend. This is a very real problem of spreading 'bad memes' and, as I have tried to explain on my talk, not about pushing POV.

I will not attempt to make my case here in full, but basically I have tried to explain that an article on Animal that opened with the sentence "A dog is an animal" would be very very wrong. The sentence itself, which might well be found in many 'authoritative' sources, is not wrong, it is a matter of context and semantics. The semantics arises in that 'animal' is a category that includes 'dog' but of course the reverse is not true. I suggest that neo-Darwinism is a category with a meaning that includes both the historical use and the modern use, in that, quite simply, it means "new-Darwin-like" and Romanes was using it in a current sense when he used it, and did not intend to define the term in terms of anything but 'current'. Once you see the semantic problem that is leading to the misinterpretation then the problem of different definitions disappears.

I suggest (on my talk page) that 'authoritative sources' have to be filtered, by wikipedia editors, for this semantic error, to which they are prone, because their writers do not always have the in-depth overview that is needed to avoid falling into the trap. I also suggest that such filtering is not OR, and that this issue of filtering, and how we do it with careful regard to semantics, while avoiding accusations of 'selective primary sourcing' could become a topic for much discussion. Personally I think that 'lots of primary sources, from lots of editors' is a good direction to go. Other editors might like to read what I wrote there and reconsider. I am interested to know whether people can understand what I am saying regarding 'semantic inversion', and my hope is that if they do they might start to see these dificult pages, and my approach to them, in a whole new light. Please don't quote OR or POV or such things at me glibbly. I do understand the rules, so far as they go, and am not out to break them deliberately or create a war. I hope my explanation goes deeper, showing that the rules need more careful interpretation. --Memestream 12:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

GettaGrippa: I see considerable support (at the deletion vote and elsewhere) for ignoring issues of Creationist and Anti-Creationist sensitivities and just getting on with the task. I will never set out to offend, but I will resist letting PC get in the way of the facts. I'd like your comments on my above stuff, and my talk page reply to Tim, because you, like Tim, seem to be working against me somewhat when I think you need not. --Memestream 12:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)