Talk:Evolution/Archive 47

Lacking substantive clarity
"Though changes between generations are relatively minor,..." is not appropriate imho because it does not explain what this is relative to. The sentence, although understandable, does not adequately or clearly explain what it is attempting to express. --Candy (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the simpler phrasing of "small" any better? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. It's all "relatively minor" means, and it six times as long to accidentally say something else. Plain English for the win. Robin Johnson (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Changes are minor relative to the distribution of trait values in the population. I.e., the average value of some trait probably isn't going to jump three standard deviations in a single generation. Graft | talk 19:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please add an interwiki link to la:
la:Evolutio Thanks. --Roland2 (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Roland2 (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Implementing "approved version" editing
Hi there, I've been bold and made a rather radical change with this "draft" page, this is being discussed at the administrator's noticeboard. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Tim, Been away for a bit. Seems like a bit of re-inventing the wheel discussion before the invasion of the sock puppet. I applaud your idea and experiment to deal with this type of vandalism. It should have been implemented long ago as the incessant interruptions are just childish and disruptive. Many excellent editors have left Wikipedia in frustration or they reluctantly contribute. What is the process to gain approval for such an experiment? Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I did it on my own, any approval will be retroactive. You would be very welcome to comment in the discussion of what I've done. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We ought to ask for other levels of control - e.g., require an arbitrary number of user edits, > some number of days registered, etc. There ARE criteria we could use to recognize and lock out sock puppets, they just aren't implemented in software. Graft | talk 17:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agreeWacoJacko (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution on a chip
Just this could be worthy of inclusion somewhere here, or in sub-articles as appropriate. Excerpt: "The molecule, which stitches together strands of RNA, became 90 times more efficient after just 70 hours of evolution." - RoyBoy 03:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tweaks
Two tiny tweaks occur to me ... Anyway, use or ignore as you see fit. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The caption on the plot showing simulated genetic drift could perhaps be changed to: "Drift to fixation occurs more rapidly in the smaller population".  Qualify with reference to fixation since drift itself occurs at the same rate.
 * 2) End of second paragraph in "Social and cultural views" could perhaps be changed to: "While other scientific fields such as cosmology and earth science also conflict with literal interpretations of many religious texts, evolutionary biology experiences significantly  more opposition from religious believers".  The old wording doesn't make sense since the sentence is supposed to be drawing a distinction between evolution and other scientific fields.  While they all disagree with literal readings, only really evolution is attacked.


 * Drift doesn't occur at the same rate - that's the entire point. The only factor governing the first passage time of a random walk is the size of the steps, which is a function of population size in our case. Graft | talk 16:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm, I think what I was concerned about was that people (who, like me, jump to the figures and only read captions ...) might infer that the process underlying drift was somehow different in a small population. It's not, but the consequences of it are significantly different because of the relative, rather than absolute, importance of a shift in allele frequency.  Anyway, notwithstanding me mucking up my explanation (I'm still digging ...), I think my (tiny) amendment could still be useful.  Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Try working out edits on the draft? Once you've got something you're both happy with I'll copy it over. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Done.  Sorry, I was just been needlessly (or possibly not given my misunderstandings) hesitant in editing the draft.  Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please be bold, it's only there as a sandbox really. I've transferred the edits over. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your experience with the draft and the vandalism...
It would be nice, if editors on this page and the admins, who are maintaining this hopefully temporary solution, could comment here. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Selection
I remember being taught at university that sexual selection was a different evolutionary force than natural selection yet I see here that it has been catagorised as a particular type of natural selection. Doesn't sexual selection in fact often oppose natural selection by favouring traits which decrease the probability of survival? It may be that my University education is now out of date. Is there a widely accepted definition of natural selection that enconpasses sexual selection? Rosalspot (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Broadly speaking sexual selection is just the expression of mating choice - that is, who do I want to reproduce with? This hopefully manifests as a measure of overall fitness. E.g. there are many factors that might predispose you to having skin problems. But if your skin is relatively smooth and clear, it suggests you don't have any of them, ergo, your overall fitness is higher. That is, you lack deleterious variation. Expressing mating preference thus improves the overall fitness of the population by selecting against individuals with a relatively high load of bad alleles.
 * On the other hand there is the idea that traits that impose a high fitness burden may be cues for overall fitness. E.g. I am such an ass-kicker that even with these three hundred pound antlers on my head I can still walk around. This might result in Fisher's "runaway" selection. Whether this can result in fitness decreases I'm not sure. Graft | talk 18:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, sorry, had to leave this comment mid-stream. Anyway, the point I was trying to make was: sexual selection is qualitatively different from most forms of selection in that you're not selecting for better fitness for a specific trait, you're selecting for a generally higher level of fitness. (This is arguably a crucial contributor to the fitness of populations - fighting against our genetic load is an important battle for sexually-reproducing organisms to wage, and by some models completely random mating would result in an inordinate mutation burden.) In that sense it is very different from the traditional kind of selection we tend to think of associated with Darwin's finches, peppered moths, etc. Right now the article does at least indicate the special nature of sexual selection, although maybe it needs to be rewritten a little more broadly (since now it seems to be restricted to only certain kinds of sexual selection). Anyway, I'm certainly not an expert here - is there an in-house sexual selection technician? Graft | talk 20:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Rosalspot here. The first book I pull off the shelf (4th ed of Krebs & Davies Behavioural Ecology has in the first paragraph of Mike Ryan's chapter on "Sexual selection and mate choice" a sentence which reads"'Darwin was convinced that natural selection alone could not bring about such differences, but instead posed an alternative selection force, which[...] (emphasis added - PLH)"It's long been my sense that this is how it is thought of, as an "alternative".  I've said this before, see my comments at Talk:Selection.  Here on Wikipedia these's an alternate classification, shown at Selection that I've never seen elsewhere, and remains unsupported by references...  I would also point out that there is more to sexual selection than mate choice, male-male combat forms the other half (I note that recent edits to sexual selection hold that "biologists today" divide sexual selection into intersexual competition (aka female choice), intrasexual competition (aka male-male combat) and a third category "sexual conflict" which is a new one on me and this statement is also unsupported by references). Thanks to Graft for the prod, there's my 2c. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm having a flash-back to some debates (with User:Marcosantezana on talk:Natural selection?) about sources listing sexual selection in the wild as a subset of natural selection... If I remember correctly, Endler's Natural selection in the wild and Andersson's Sexual selection books don't come down emphatically on the "they're different" side. I leave the details to others, but still think Rosalspot's memory serves him well... Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Explaining Genetic drift
There seem to two distinct "explanations" in this article as to what drives genetic drift:

1. From the Introduction section:
 * "Genetic drift results from the role chance plays in whether a given individual will survive and reproduce."

2. From the Genetic drift section:
 * "Genetic drift is the change in allele frequency from one generation to the next that occurs because alleles in offspring are a random sample of those in the parents."

Process 2. is the better explanation, and ought to replace Process 1. in the introduction, in my opinion. Process 1., after all, need not even occur for genetic drift to take place (consider a hypothetical situation where every individual in the population always survives to produce exactly two viable offspring, every generation: genetic drift will still occur in this population...).

Process 2. is driven by the truly "random" assortment of chromosomes (ie. "allele-sets") during meiosis, which always occurs, and occurs not rarely but at every single reproductive event!

Process 2., then, is both a necessary and a sufficient cause of genetic drift, whereas Process 1. is not necessary, and is only mildly "sufficient" by comparison.


 * — Wi ki sc ie nt  — 19:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Meiosis does not occur in prokaryotes. That is a very limited case. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. Well, in that case, I guess you ought to change the explanation given in the Genetic drift section, then, huh?!
 * (Which is a shame, since the drift caused by meiosis is so much more robust, and easier to see...) —  Wi ki sc ie nt  — 20:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A few months back whats-her-face and I went back and forth arguing about this issue, with her maintaining that drift was based on random mating (1), and myself maintaining that drift was based on random assortment (2). Both are correct. Either process causes drift. Any process contributing to random variation in reproduction will cause drift. Graft | talk 20:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even in multicellular organisms producing very few offspring, the number of meiotic events is very large and there is an enormous chance element in which gametes / spores etc. are ultimately successful and which aren't. For example, consider a tree producing trillions and trillions of pollen grains over its lifetime. So many that the overall frequency of each allele is going to be very close to the expected value of 0.5 (assuming unbiased meiosis). On the other hand, very few of those pollen grains will actually result in seeds, and fewer still in seeds that germinate, survive and reproduce (single digits, possibly). The role of meiosis in genetic drift, therefore, seems minimal compared to the role of chance survival of gametes and offspring. --Graminophile (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes. I meant meiosis is when the randomization of chromosomes occurs; it is then the recombination of those haploid gametes resulting in a diploidal "viable offspring" that I am saying "happens every time" and is therefore a far more robust driver of genetic drift than "a-rock-falls-on-you" events...
 * — Wi ki sc ie nt  — 20:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a statistical fallacy to me - I can roll the dice hundreds of times and get close to a perfect uniform distribution of rolls, but a single event still has a huge amount of variance. So, yes, I have produced billions of sperm in my life, but only three or four of them will ever produce offspring (if I meet the right girl) - and the variance for those three or four meiotic events is very large. So, in our case meiosis IS contributing a lot to drift. This may not SEEM to be the case for clownfish, which produce hundreds of offspring, but even in that case I think assortment plays a role. The early-generation situation (hundreds of babies) is less important for assessing drift compared to the differences in the parental generations (a few dozen surviving reproducers). That is, variance still comes from the fact that my reproducing offspring only received half of my chromosomes. Compare to, for example, everyone reproducing by cloning themselves, and drift arising from random variation in the number of clones we happen to grow up. Graft | talk 20:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "the role that chance plays in determining whether a given individual will survive and reproduce" seems to suggest that the survival of organisms needs to be governed by random events in order to allow drift. It does not - it can be entirely driven by selection and we would still have drift. Selection produces variance in the number of offspring reaching the next generation, and it is JUST variance in the number of offspring that is necessary for drift to happen. I.e., say you have 100 individuals. 40 of them contain neutral allele A1, and 60 contain neutral allele A2. Of the former, 21 contain (unlinked) beneficial allele B1, and 19 contain deleterious allele B2. Of the latter, 29 and 31 respectively. Now, selection acts to increase B1 and decrease B2, and just due to the fact that there was some non-uniformity in the random distribution of these alleles, we get drift in the frequency of A1/A2. The same situation would arise, of course, if we simply assumed that # of offspring has some probabilistic distribution. But the sentence above only implies the latter. I suggest:
 * Graft | talk 21:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Graft | talk 21:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "...just due to the fact that there was some non-uniformity in the random distribution of these alleles..."
 * Well, you've built that into your example; how would such a situation arise? Especially if there is no linkage between 'A' alleles and 'B' alleles?  It seems to me that such a pre-existing distribution is, itself, in effect, "linkage".
 * The point about genetic drift is that it is that change in allele frequency which is not accounted for by selection pressure.
 * I do see your point though; the distinction I'm making is subtle, and admittedly perhaps less rigorously "true". Nevertheless, for the purpose of maximizing clarity in an already over-complicated issue, I'd go with   Tim Vickers' proposed wording...
 * — Wi ki sc ie nt  — 21:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The situation of a pre-existing distribution arises due to stochastic variance, and nothing else. You can easily verify this with some dice and some spare time. What the example demonstrates is that the pre-existing variance is exacerbated (that is, allele frequencies change) due entirely to the effect of selection on individuals, NOT due to random variance in their survival. In the subsequent generation there is no particular reason why the pre-existing distribution (number of A1s that are B1s, etc.) would resemble this generation; but it would still result in drift. Graft | talk 21:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As for clarity, what we should try to get across is not that drift is the process that occurs outside of or in the absence of selection (which is wrong), but that drift is a process orthogonal to selection and occurs right alongside it. I agree the point is subtle, but the more we can get people away from the idea that drift is the product of volcanoes or rocks falling on people, the better. Graft | talk 21:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But, drift still occurs even if offspring contain the exact same alleles as their parents, so long as there is variation within the parental generation. What matters is the subsequent random survival of the offspring (ignoring the effects of selection on other genes, as in Graft's example). For example:
 * (A) 1 plant containing alleles A1 & A2 produces pollen/eggs with either allele A1 or A2. Following self-pollination, seeds are produced with approximately even numbers having genotype A1A1 and A2A2 (plus 50% with A1A2).
 * (B) 2 plants with genotypes A1A1 and A2A2. Clonal seeds are produced by apomixis, either A1A1 or A2A2.
 * Drift can occur equally in both cases due to random survival of the seeds. The lack of meiosis in (B) actually increases the rate of drift between A1 and A2, because there are no seeds with A1A2 genotypes (which keep the original 1:1 ratio of A1:A2).--Graminophile (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The error in (A) is "approximately". In a finite population, variation in this process will still result in drift. (B) is correct, except that I'm not sure drift will occur faster. If we have 40 such plants and each one of them faithfully produces a single copy in the next generation, no drift will occur. Anywho, see above - the point is both of these processes contribute to drift. Either is sufficient; neither is necessary. Graft | talk 23:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, approximately is not an error. My point wasn't that the random allocation of alleles at meiosis doesn't cause drift, but that the effect at the time of meiosis is (much) smaller than the subsequent random survival of the gametes/offspring. E.g. the plant in (A) produces 1000 seeds and only two survive, both of which happen to be A1A1. Sexual reproduction was necessary for producing the different genotypes A1A1, A1A2 and A2A2, but the ultimate change in gene frequency was everything to do with random survival and very little to do with any imbalance in the ratio of A1:A2 at the time of meiosis.
 * In (B), who said the plants were producing one seed each? Clearly each will produce a large number, but only a few will survive--Graminophile (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Meiosis isn't responsible for less drift than survival, as I explained above. The point is that any process that results in alleles being a random sample of the parental generation - either differential survival or meiosis - suffices to cause drift. There is no "less or more". There is just drift. The amount of drift depends on the sample size, that is it. I seriously suggest you make a toy model and play with some examples. Graft | talk 14:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The larger the population, the smaller the effect of drift. I think it helps to remember that drift is a statistical phenomenon and we can illustrate it with empirical examples but those examples remain illustrations of a statistical phenomenon. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this the encyclopedia that anybody can edit?
What is going on? I just watched an excellent documentary tonight, just got back, and I wanted to insert some information that was presented in this film. But low and behold, the article is locked down. It's like the Berlin Wall. The documentary must be true. Please unlock this article and allow academic freedom.
 * One can only assume you are talking about Expelled and any viewpoints expressed in that "film" have no place in this article, per WP:UNDUE. However, if you would like to edit this article, please go to the draft article listed at the top of the page.  Baegis (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Draft it first? Is your suggestion JIMBO approved?  Yhvh777 (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's approved through the consensus of the editors of this article and per WP:IAR. There has been a historic amount of vandalism on this article and it has to be stymied using previously untried methods.  Baegis (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignore all rules?  You've got to be kidding me.  Were you in the documentary?  Yhvh777 (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The existing rule structure provided no resolution to our problem. We devised an alternative. We need no justification, because that's not the way Wikipedia works, and it never has been. We're here to make an encyclopedia, that's all.
 * If you have difficulties with the current setup, I'm sure we all agree - we're discussing ways to fix it. See here. Also, feel free to edit the draft article if you have something constructive to add.Graft | talk 04:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's save the current article to the draft article, and let new users edit the article. We don't need Berlin Walls on Wikipedia.  JIMBO will not approve, but he may be asked in an interview.  Yhvh777 (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt he'd be asked in an interview. Anyway, do I give a shit? I'm not editing this encyclopedia for Jimbo, and neither is anyone else. Let him answer his own questions. As to needing Berlin Walls, the edit history of the article will demonstrate how bad the vandalism on it has been recently. And the current article should be up-to-date with the draft article - if not, you can easily change it yourself, anyone can edit the draft article. There's no gateway, here, we're just attempting to defuse vandalism. Graft | talk 04:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with this method of edit, it's a great way to filter out vandalism to attempts of constructive edits. If you feel your edits are indeed constructive to the article, then edit the draft and let the process carry on. --BirdKr (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is not new users versus established users, the issue is POV-pushers advocating pseudoscience versus people who are serious, have done research, and want to make this a better encyclopedia. If an anonymous user has a great suggestion to improve the article and the page is still under some level of protextion from vandals that make it impossible for her to edit it, I assure you if she proposed her edit here, I or any of several other editors would make the change to the article.  Yhvh777 however is not making a constructive well-informed suggestion.  This only appears to be a matter of process, it is really a dispute over content and the content Yhvh777 is pushing can be discussed in several other articles in this encyclopedia, but will never be in this one. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion, there could be a section called "Controversies" or something, explaining how evolution isn't absolute truth and the alternative beliefs. Mentalhead (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a page called Evolution controversy. Redrocket (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody believes in an "absolute truth" except for religious fundamentalists, so what is the point? Where in the article does it claim anything is "absolute truth?"  besides, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.  About your final discussion, "alternative beliefs," I am puzzled.  Evolution itself is not a belief it is an observable fact in nature that would exist even if you or I were dead, let alone changed our beliefs. And the theory of evolution is not a belief, it is a scientific theory.  I believe pizza is the best food on earth.  This is clearly a belief, and it is different from the theory of evolution, is this what you mean by "alternative beliefs?"  I don't see any point to adding it to the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to the admins
Not many users are saying this, but me and my research team greatly appreciate the maintenance of these extremely well established yet somehow "Contraversial" evolution articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.112 (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, but this is only temporary until Flagged revisions/Sighted versions is activated, which should happen this month. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets hope it can be activated on this before something gets deleted :(

Field guide to genetic programming


This was added as a reference, but since it is self-published by Lulu.com I removed it. As this section already has a reference for this statement, we don't need to include this book as an additinal reference, but do people think it should be added as an external link? On the plus side, it is free-access and has expert authors, but on the minus side it is self-published and might create an problematic precedent on the quality of our sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting discussion comments!
I would just like to voice my opinion that comments on the talk page should not be deleted, but responded to.

Are you worried that my lack of faith in evolution could stop others believing? If this is how insecure believers of this theory are, it doesnt give a very good advertisement.

No where in this article can I find that evolution is unproven. This should be at the top of the page in a prominent position to emphasise that the entries are only based on a theory.

And yes I did know that some aspects are controlled by dominant alleles and therefore exist more often. - your blue eyes statement. (to which i could have responded had you not deleted it). Microsoft Encarta stipulates that it is only a theory in its opening paragraphs, why can we not have that here?

Also, this article, and no other article on wikipedia should be fully protected in this way. It goes against the whole idea of wikipedia, where anybody is free to make a contribution. - maybe impartial moderators should just look at this page more often. Evolution is a hot topic for debate and always will be. It is unlike an encyclopaedia not to put forward both points of view. Whilst the article should be about what evolution is, at the present time it could be mistakenly believed to be fact. Matty2002 (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comments have not been deleted but archived (see above). This is an attempt to focus the discussion on the article, rather than having this conversation wind off into a unproductive debate on the topic in general. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you refer to Evolution as fact and theory, which addresses these issues. Snalwibma (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In good faith, we appreciate your interest in improving the article's neutrality. However, your comment reflects a misunderstanding of scientific method. This is understandable, as the terms involved (e.g., "proof", "theory") have different meanings in colloquial contexts. Please review Talk:Evolution/FAQ and Talk:Evolution/FAQ. In science, something does not stop being a theory once it is "proven"&mdash;in fact, it would be more accurate to say that a theory is a "proven hypothesis", depending on how you define "proof". Additionally, this article is actually about the fact/process of evolutionary change, not directly or exclusively about the theory of evolution: the latter topic is more of a historical and metascientific nature than of a directly biological nature, and is covered at modern evolutionary synthesis.
 * You also seem to misunderstand Wikipedia policy on science articles. An encyclopedia's job is not to report on every point of view in its science articles (else we'd have to give Flat Earth and Round Earth theories equal time on Earth); rather, it is to report on every established scientific point of view in its science articles, which means only reporting on views which have significant representation in peer-reviewed scientific publications. If you wish to insert alternatives to evolution here, you must provide peer-reviewed literature (e.g., a Nature article) to substantiate that view. -Silence (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what Matty2000 means by "both points of view." In science as in most fields there are many, hundreds, of points of view.  If the question though is simply, is evolution a fact or is it not a fact, there is only one notable view, that held by all scientists who are not beholden to any other dogma, and that view is that evolution is a fact.  This is not a matter of opinion, and there is no meaningful scientific argument about it. Now, there may be debates among theologians, but those debates and the various views belong in a different article, not this one. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe is probably referring to his prior talk page comment and my subsequent removal. Perhaps I was a bit brusque, but I felt that the comment was largely a misinformed soapboxing that offered minimal value towards the goal of this talkpage (improving the article) because it presented the classic "it's only a theory" canard that is dealt with in other articles, the FAQ, and past discussions ad nauseum. The point about the current status of article protection may warrant clarification (in the talk page header?), though. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Folks, I realize this sort of engagement is entertaining and provides a healthy dose of self-gratification, and I readily acknowledge that I have been a prime offender in this regard in the past, but frankly, it just encourages 'em. Keep it short and simple: a single line, a FAQ link, and that's all. That's why the FAQ is there, after all, to keep this page clean. Graft | talk 21:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, not to gainsay Scientizzle's point about the protection status - that is definitely an important debate we need to keep going. Graft | talk 21:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It would probably have been better to archive it than delete it. thx1138 (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, I agree. I'll be sure to do that in the future.
 * To Matty2002: Feel free to come by my talkpage if you have further questions regarding the points made in this thread, the linked articles, and the FAQ. Let's end this thread and let MiszaBot put it to bed. &mdash; Scientizzle 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it to me, I am after all only here to help contribute my (minimal) knowledge to improve the encyclopaedia, just like everybody else. Not sure where Graft is coming from "just encourages 'em" - I was only putting forward a point of view to be discussed - which the majority on here have allowed.

Thanks again for the explanation,

Matty2002 (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

But...how can something be theory and fact? if indeed a fact is a proven theory, then it would no longer be a theory? 4-25-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Many people are confused about that, but that's only because they don't know the scientific definition of "fact". Look through Evolution as fact and theory, it specifically addresses this common mistake. In a nutshell, evolution is a fact because it can be seen to happen and to have been happening. Evolution is also the theory describing how science has gathered these observable facts to be working. A proven theory is still a theory, and facts are always facts. Whether or not the fact is different from the theory isn't really relevant. They are in fact completely interdependent: it's not viable to propose a theory of intelligent design to explain the fact of evolution, because there is no fact of intelligent design, only beliefs of intelligent design.--AkselGerner (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference number 4
Hi, I have been translating this article into the portuguese Wikipedia, and I am having a little problem with the references that use the wikiref template, because this template does not exist over there. Could someone tell me what is the Gould 2002 reference, please? GoEThe (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Gould, S.J. (2002). "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory." Cambridge: Belknap Press (Harvard University Press). ISBN 0-674-00613-5. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! GoEThe (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is a theory
Why is it represented in this entire article as if it is fact? I am also offended by this section:

"Although many religions and denominations have reconciled their beliefs with evolution through various concepts of theistic evolution, there are many creationists who believe that evolution is contradicted by the creation myths found in their respective religions."

It should definitely not say "myths", which usually means something that is not true. Whether you believe in evolution or not, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, which should consider all views and not say one is more right than another. Mentalhead (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, frankly, one is MUCH more correct than the other, if by correct you mean evidence wise. One has been tested and proven over and over again while the other cannot be tested at all.  Anyway, this is not a forum for you to discuss why you think the theory/fact (read this article) is wrong or if it offends you.  Creation myths are common to every culture and religion.  Unless you plan on standing up for terming the Ancient Greek myth of creation as an insult (and all others), please do not selectively mention that you are offended.  This talk page is meant to improve the article.  If you would like to contribute to the article, please read the FAQ and proceed from there.  Baegis (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is an observed fact, much like gravity, observations such as evolution and gravity are explained by theories. Please read Evolution as theory and fact. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, you should also check out Talk:Evolution/FAQ. &mdash; Scientizzle 02:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to previously posted coments and holding that this is all just commentary i believe it should be noted that: Regardless of whether or not you agree with creationists, respect should be shown to all beliefs. Evolution doesn't have enough proof to make it anymore credible than any creation story, regardless of how many billion people agree with any specific creation belief. Your view on the subject and the evidence you choose to look at can make it go either way. And if you really want to leave in the part about the creation "myth", prove the evolution "myth", beyond a shadow of a doubt, first. you could start by coming up with a better solution for the origin of life :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.62.101.10 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually evolution can't come up with a "better" solution for the origin of life, because it doesn't come up with ANY. That's a different theory, called abiogenesis. You seem to lack basic knowledge of the subject you are trying to change. 99.246.109.131 (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, your personal ignorance of the evidence for evolution (or the evidence that has disproved its most notorious rival, Biblical creationism) doesn't mean that such evidence doesn't exist. Similarly, creationist claims of "no transitional fossils" won't make the billions of transitional fossils go away, and the creationist claim that "mutations cannot create information" won't stop mutations continuing to create information.  Regardless: as per WP:UNDUE, this article must reflect the mainstream scientific position.  We already have other articles on creationism. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The word myth does not necessarily imply that something is untrue. See Christian mythology for a much more detailed discussion of this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The most relevant point to make here is that Evolution really is " just a theory"! That's what makes it  scientific!

Specifically, the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable: ie., it could be "wrong," and more importantly it could be "wrong" in testable ways.

And it is precisely this lack of falsifiability (or "testability") that makes Creationism a non-scientific "myth"! (Well, that's just one of several reasons for that, actually...)
 * — Wi ki sc ie nt  — 20:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since we are discussing opinion, I have one to share. I am a long-time science educator and I'm tired of the government, churches, "social reformers" and various other folks with philosophical, ideological or religious axes to grind butting into my classroom (or choosing my textbook for me).  The previous entry claims that creationism is not falsifiable and I wholeheartedly concur on that point; however, they go on to state that evolution IS falsifiable.  I'm sorry, but I have seen a variety of very compelling evidence explained away using weak and arcane arguments.  I have professionally compared evolution with the once dominant theory of an electromagnetic medium called The Ether.  Fifty years after there was plentiful evidence to demolish it, that theory persisted.  Consider the history of handwashing.  Why was it's first vocal advocate, Semmelweis, basically drummed out of the medical community?  Because he had the audacity to suggest that doctors might be the problem (by spreading pathogenic factors from cadavers to newborns and their mothers).  Both are cases of sound, ethical scientists standing against humanist forms of faith with no place in science.  Such faith is FAR more insidious than deistic faith.  Deistic faith is rooted in the presumed Truth of certain (perhaps debatable) historical events.  Erudite fealty (which I believe we find in almost all scholarly circles) is based on a combination of individual arrogance and a misguided notion that democratic processes drive factuality.  If 5,999,999,999 people are mistaken and one person has a superior model, the one is scientifically superior (albeit sans Nobel prize, and often without a grant, license, Ph.D. or mandate for continuing their work...at least for a while).  The fact of this can be verified by a historical survey of most mature fields; the cliché of pearls of brilliance published before their is a cliché with good reason.  My sense is that any data, finding or analyses which actually refute evolution--no matter how robust, compelling or unassailable that information may be--will never be allowed to stand.  It will be explained away, buried or ignored en masse while its advocate is professionally destroyed.  Sure, evolution may be "theoretically falsifiable," but I feel that Evolution as it is presently entrenched (legally as well as idealogically) is utterly irrefutable.  I must stress that I have never supported the teaching of deistic origin theories in a science classroom; however, obscure and flimsy notions of the origin of life also have no ethical place in any but the most advanced settings else they confuse students about the real business of science: observation, hypothesis, experimentation, analysis and modeling.  I tried to raise these issues under the polticization of science and my contribution was deleted.  I wonder if someone has the guts to actually address it here instead of just sweeping it (and me) under the rug with a simple undo. Saseigel (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Guts has nothing to do with it. The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not debating the merits of evolution as you seem to want to do. In fact nothing you wrote has anything to do with improving the article. This just isn't the place. Angry Christian (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Evolution is falsifiable in the abstract; that is to say, there is the POSSIBILITY of evidence which contradicts it, simply proof that life could not have evolved. The reality is, however, that -practically- it is non-falsifiable. The reason is that all the evidence points towards evolution having occurred, and there's nothing to point against it having happened; basically, it can't be falsified not because you cannot come up with a way to falsify it (there are many ways to do so) but rather because all the ways to falsify it all rather fail to do so. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well considering that this rant is confused, nonsensical and not particularly encyclopedic, do you have something suitable for inclusion?--Filll (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it may seem a rant, my bad. Is there a place to seriously discuss things that can't get a fair hearing within academia? What I wrote was principally intended to rebut the "evolution is falsifiable" assertion that came before. I only hope it causes people to think. As far as inclusion in the article, I tend to doubt that it's worthy as I have few sources (perhaps just Vine Deloria). On the occassions that I've attempted to advance this position professionally I discovered that I might as well be advancing any number of unpalatable heresies. Saseigel (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Evolution certainly is falsifiable. However, there are many independent lines of evidence justifying modern evolutionary theory, which makes it quite robust to being falsified. The kinds of events which would falsify it now amount to just-so stories. Consensus can be overturned, but it requires (a) large flaws and (b) a better alternative. Neither of these exist for evolution, as they did for your examples above. Graft | talk 21:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be misunderstanding the scientific meaning of falsifiability. Evolution is falsifiable in and of itself, this is a logical property of it's basis and nothing to do with the attitudes of the scientific community. Intelligent Design for example is blatantly non-falsifiable (and hence, not science) because it draws for it's explanation on something outside of what can be observed. The theory (but not the fact) of evolution is falsifiable because it draws only on observable sources, and treats thoses observable sources in an equal, open manner. If it is observed that a population living in natural surroundings develops contrary to principles of genetic drift and natural selection, or develop new genetic features without a reason (the population as a whole miraculously becoming resistant to something that they are not exposed to for example), then this would be problematic for the theory of evolution, and science would have to look into the matters either to a) discover a valid explanation for the observed facts that coincides with the theory of evolution, b) improve upon the theory of evolution to encompass the observed facts, or c) abandon the theory of evolution in favor of a new paradigm better suited at explaining both the observed facts upon which the theory of evolution was based, and the new facts that the theory of evolution was unable to address. Note however that basic principles of intellectual caution and prudence suggest going through these options in the order given. Ultimately your opinion of the science you are supposed to teach is irrelevant, you can't choose not to teach algebra if you don't like it, nor can you choose not to teach evolution because you fear the scientific community is somehow protecting it from falsification. You don't seem to realize that a true scientist has no greater hope, ambition or fantasy than to falsify a major theory, not only does such a falsification give enormous prestige (a bit like being the one to take down Billy the Kid) but also is a useful act to science itself as it paves the way for an even better and more powerful theory which might have whatever kinds of powerful predictions and useful spinoffs. So have no fear, there's no conspiracy, just honest, peer-reviewed science.--AkselGerner (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure where to add my additional findings on "Evolution". I hope someone put this in proper context. It is amazing to see how our founding fathers viewed the life evolution when we explore the puranas from "Bharat Continent" way back to BCE. In Bhagavath Purana, we read the ten incarnations of God. It is interesting to note that God (creator of "Jivi", living being) himself assumes the form of life, called Avatar to protect His own creation from the evil forces. More interesting observation is that those ten incarnations could represent yet another version of "Theory of Evolution" through transformations. The first Avatar is "Matsya (Fish)" showing that the life started entirely within water. The second Avatar is "Kurma (Tortoise)" that survives both in water and air. The third Avatar is “Varaha (Pig)” that lives completely outside water and still loves water in the form of wet mud. The fourth Avatar is “Narasimha (Half Lion and Half Man)”. The fifth Avatar is “Vamana (Short Man)”. The sixth Avatar is “ParasuRama (Angry Man with axe)”. The seventh Avatar is “Rama (Ideal Person)”. The eighth Avatar is “Krishna (Person with all senses). The ninth Avatar is “Buddha (Meditating Person)”. The tenth Avatar called “Kalki (CareTaker of the present world), yet to be identified. Though it did not map directly to Darwin theory of evolution, it shows the quest for exploration started in BCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisapatis (talk • contribs) 14:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with this article? Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Phenotypic plasticity
The main article is protected from editing, so I can only recommend to add Phenotypic plasticity to the section "Mechanisms and processes" of the "Part of the Biology series on Evolution" template Miguel de Servet (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You can add it to the draft article yourself if you want. thx1138 (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As a comment, since phenotypic plasticity does not, by definition, alter allele frequencies, we can't classify it as a mechanism of evolution. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with that comment Tim, but the literature is recognizing plasticity as an evolutionary agent for example:Otaki JM.Stress-induced color-pattern modifications and evolution of the Painted Lady butterflies Vanessa cardui and Vanessa kershawi.Zoolog Sci. 2007 Aug;24(8):811-9. Badyaev AV, Oh KP. Environmental induction and phenotypic retention of adaptive maternal effects.BMC Evol Biol. 2008 Jan 9;8:3. However I don't think this material would apply in an encyclopedia. Regards to all the progess being made here. GetAgrippa (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's certainly part of the nature/nurture process, but it doesn't change what alleles are there in the first place, or cause the frequencies of alleles to change over time. I suppose we could in theory put it in the genetics section, but it doesn't seem to me to be important enough warrant the attention. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree Tim, but one idea is these epigenetic phenotypes maintained by the environment can later be fixed by an allele shift (interesting backwards way of looking at things)and also there are reports of epimutations and epialleles. Still hypothetical and not suitable for an encyclopedia. The epigenetic world is a layer of regulation that just doesn't paint a clear picture yet, but it's significance in germ line and development in general gives me a sense of its potential. It does bring up the subject of what we measure as evolution-shifts in gene alleles with what evolution has historically been associated-the phenotype. Studies of clonal bacteria,etc. demonstrate genetically identical cells will produce different phenotypes from environmental cues. I think there are a number of varieties of turkey but one species in particular (I recollect) turned out to be a phenotypic variant because it was genotypically identical to another species but the influence of the environment created the illusion. Anyways interesting stuff. I at one time entertained writing a "NeoLamarckism" article to address some of the novel ideas. There are a handful of authors (Jablonka, West-Eberhard,etc.), a number of books, and a growing literature.It is really a misnomer of a title and more a symbolic gesture to Lamarck but it would make an interesting little article.GetAgrippa (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

evolution of life
In the Evolution section it says: "Soon after the emergence of these first multicellular organisms, a remarkable amount of biological diversity appeared over approximately 10 million years, in an event called the Cambrian explosion." But the Cambrian explosion article describes it as lasting 70-80 million years: "In the following 70 million to 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude, and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s." Can somebody explain the discrepancy?Archer3 (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the references it uses. This isn't the helpdesk.--Otterathome (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, relax. No need to get snotty. I'll check the references.Archer3 (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You might not be able to access the full text of the reference, so I'll paste the relevant piece here:


 * However, as I remember, there is some debate about exactly how long this process took, so different sources might take different viewpoints on this. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at some more papers, there is clear agreement that the cambrian explosion is when most of the animal phyla appeared in the fossil record, but there is disagreement over if this was when they first evolved (since some phylogenetic studies indicate earlier divergence times). I've therefore tweaked the article a little to say that most animals appeared in the fossil record during the cambrian explosion. As the saying puts it, "It is better to be vague than wrong." Tim Vickers (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics
This article is currently protected because of an edit war. It is supposedly part of Wikipedia's Evolution Project, and I suspect that the term does have meaning and value in population genetics or evolutionary theory ... maybe not. Anyway, the talk page is in serious need of well-informed comment. As someone else noted, the editors most active on this page have created one of Wikipedia's finest articles. I urge - beg - you to take fifteen or twenty minutes to look at the particle and the past week's talk, and comment. Does this word merit an encyclopedia article (Wikipedia is not a dictionary)? If it is to be an encyclopedia article, is it best thought of as an article about a concept in fringe science (like "irreducible complexity")? Or is this an article on a scientific topic, like the Evolution article - if so, you guys are the ones best suited to advise what shape such an article should have and have the knowledge and experience to make constructive interventions in the conflict. Please? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Presented as Fact?
Why is evolution presented as fact here, when we all know it is nothing more than a theory, if it even qualifies as that?
 * Link here to understand what a scientific theory is. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And here. And let's face it: the only other theory being put forth is 'A giant invisible man in the sky did it'. HalfShadow (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He is not a man, he is a hermaphrodite. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just restored talk page comments but it might be a good idea to keep posts here inoffensive. --Sting au  Buzz Me...   10:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Some readers still seem to be having difficulty distinguishing between the fact that evolution happens, and the theory used to explain why it happens. How do people think we could modify the article to make this vital distinction clearer? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I propose right in the first sentence - say evolution as an observable fact encompasses changes in gene frequencies in populations as well as the formation of new species; as a theory it provides a model (... some more detail ... ) about how these changes occurs, and that generates new questions that guide current biological research. Or something like that.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been pondering this since I have written Evolution as theory and fact over a year ago, and then watched the debate ensue around that article. I have been slowly working on a revised version in the sandbox for the last few months, gathering new references and information. Clearly, people are confused.

I am thinking about giving a list of examples of "scientific facts" that are associated with evolution, such as:
 * observations of where a dinosaur bone was dug up, and what shape it was
 * genetic markers in human DNA showing the results of endogenous retroviruses
 * the observation that humans and other primates have opposable thumbs
 * the fraction of people in the population that are colorblind
 * observation of a teleomere in the middle of human chromosome number 2
 * observation that the species of plants on different sides of the Great Wall of China are different
 * discovery of nylon eating organisms
 * laboratory observations of fruit fly population changes over time
 * observation of the species of mosquitos that live only in the London Underground

Then I thought about also giving a very simple example of evolution, something like:

Then introducing the idea that a Theory of Evolution is an explanation for these facts. And Darwin's Theory of Evolution was one of these theories. And the most accepted Theory of Evolution now is a modified form of Darwin's theory. Comments?--Filll (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just as a side comment, this example seems to confuse phenotype and genotype, so it's probably not useful. Blue eyes are not one allele; the gene that causes blue eyes is an allele that must be present in duplicate for the blue eyes phenotype to become manifest; while the gene that causes brown eyes is an allele for which even one copy suffices to manifest the phenotype. And assortment of alleles between parents and child in a manner predicted by Mendelian genetics isn't evolution - and the numbers given don't rule that out, as we don't know the gene frequency in the parents (or, for that matter, the children). - Nunh-huh 05:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Makes perfect sense to me. We should be careful not to overwhelm readers with too many detailed facts, however. The simpler, the better. -Silence (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to tweak the current text to make it more clear, rather than add more material to solve a problem caused by the current text not being clear enough. How about:

Tim Vickers (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Regarding the final paragraph here, I think that we need to a) avoid mutation here, and b) introduce random survival (= genetic drift) first.  How's about ...
 * Although I seem to have completely omitted mentioning that genetic drift works best on neutral traits, while natural section can't work at all on these. Maybe not then ...  Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I seem to have completely omitted mentioning that genetic drift works best on neutral traits, while natural section can't work at all on these. Maybe not then ...  Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with FILL's suggestion, or any of the modifications proposed - I once added material on the hawthorne flie as an example of speciation resulting from natural selection being observed directly in nature. But with respect I do not think it will effectively handle the problem; I think we need a first sentence that makes it clear from the start that evolution is both a fact and theory, though the word refers to different things in each case. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've changed the lead as above, and moved the new sentence to the second sentence, to try to deal with your point, Slrubenstein. Comments? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm apparently coming in on this a bit late - I frankly dislike the inclusion of this distinction in such a prominent place. The fact is that this is NOT central to a discussion of evolution - the article was, in my opinion, more or less fine as it was, and the fact that some people like to make hay of the word "theory" doesn't mean we need to shoehorn a defense against that claim into the first paragraph, never mind the second sentence. The purpose of the article should be explaining the actual biology, not answering the arguments of people who can't even be arsed to read the article in the first place. Graft | talk 21:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I really do not understand your objection. Evolution really does refer to different things and we ought to make that clear in the lead; the theory/fact distinction is indeed important to evolutionary scientists, implicitly, and enough of a source of confusion to many readers that we ought to make it explicit.

I do not take any strong objection to Tim's tweaking my tweaking, and I won't make further edits, but i do want to say this: I think it is a mistake to delete the part about theories generating questions. I think one reason that so many non-scientists do not understand what we mean by theory and moreover misunderstand it in a very peculiar way i.e. confusing it with "opinion," is because they do underestand that theory has something to do with answers ... and they do not understand that theories are important because they generate questions. If they did, they would not think theory = opinion. Not only is this an important aspect of all scientific theories, it is one very BIG reason why Darwin's theory, and subsequent refinements, are so powerful and compelling to scientists, because the theory continues to gnerate questions and direct research in productive ways. I think this is important enough that it be signalled in the lead. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that so many people are misinformed abut the difference between the facts that the theories explain, and the facts themselves, is a reason to make this distinction in a prominent place. I was trying to deal with that in a very condensed form with "develops and tests", but my wording is still provisional, I'm sure there is a better way of putting it. Go ahead and change it. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We've discussed this before in other contexts. We're writing an encyclopedia entry on Evolution, not an article meant to dissuade deluded creationists. Their frequent attacks on this page does not make them our audience. I think this is a valid point to raise in the article, but it is not so central to the subject that it should be prominent in the lead. Compare gravity, where the issue is much more fundamental to the subject, since there are a number of well-known theories of gravitation; even there the distinction between theory and subject is clarified only after the subject has been clearly introduced. By contrast there is only one widely-favored theory of evolution. The article discusses evolution in the context of that theory, just as Gravity discusses gravity in the context of various gravitational theories. We may clarify that this is what we are doing somewhere in the lead, but I do not view this as a primary aspect of the article - if anything it is a footnote describing our authorial intent. Graft | talk 05:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Writers should always consider the audience. This does not mean that we should dumb down or distort anything because of our audience.  But texts, whether books or encyclopedia articles, do not exist in a vacuum, they are not Platonic ideals.  They are communications aimed at an audience.  The audience for the gravity article is obviously different from the audience for the evolution article, you can tell that from the talk page.  Therefore the way the evolution article is written ought to be different from the way the gravity article is written.  This is not some abstract hypothetical point I am making, it is based on empirical data.  If enough talk at the gravity page accumulated that revealed that its audience misunderstands the way fact and theory are used in the context of gravity - if we had real empirical evidence that its audience were confused about this - I would argue for a comparable change to the gravity page.  But we do not have that evidence about that page's audience.  We do have empirical evidence about this page's audience.  As I said, if the edit under discussion in any way distorted things, I would oppose it regardless of the audience.  But it does not distort, it clarifies.  It is one or two sentences.  I would not make it a footnote, I think it really improves the lead.


 * You know what, Graft? I bet people with PhD.s in biology or anthropology or other adjunct fields, or even graduate students, do not need this distinction spelled out for them.  But I also doubt that any of them are reading the Wikipedia article on evolution to learn what evolution is. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought Tim and I were working towards a good solution to a persistent problem here. Silence deleted our changes, ith no explanation or discussion on the talk page.  And his edit summary, that the fact/theory distinction is a dab matter and that this article focuses on evolution as fact, is wrong.  This article addresses both the fact and theory of evolution - it is a general introduction to the subject and covers a variety of issues.  If Silence thinks we should have an article solely on the "fact" of evolution I am all for that but such an article would cover a lot of the material FILL lays out for us, above .. it wouldn't be the same as this article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Tim, I like the changes you just made, I think the intro now is very, very strong. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm not opposing introducing changes to the intro, but the prominence of the new text is in my view unwarranted and panders to a small minority's vociferousness. In addition it's a complete non-sequitur and breaks the flow of the text, which goes from talking about inherited changes to fact vs. theory back to inherited changes. Can we, perhaps, move discussion of this a bit further down, perhaps after the biology is introduced? Will it only work for you if this is mentioned in the second sentence of the article? Graft | talk 14:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is an important point to make in the introduction. I take your point though that it may not be in the best place yet. An alternative would be as the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, which would then read
 * Do you think that would that be better, Graft? It would then directly introduce the development of the theory. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is an important enough point to make in the first paragraph, although if Tim and others prefer moving it to the fourth paragraph I won't object. However, I have to say I do not read the first paragraph the same way Graft does, I see no non-sequitor. The subject of the first sentence is not inherited traits (that is in the predicate) and the subject of the second sentence is not fact versus theory (which again is in the predicate. The subject of the first sentence is "evolution" and the predicate provides a definition.  The subject of the second sentence is evolutionary biology - the field of academe that makes the study of evolution its object, and the source of just about all the contents of the article.  The third sentence goes on to tell us about what we learn from evolutionary biology.  This progression (define a subject, explain who studies/has expertise in it, then elaborate on this field of study) makes perfect sense to me. I don't mean to prolong any argument with Graft, but I just don't see this degrading the quality of the article or its educational value to a general readership. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As a compromise alternative, how about moving the current second sentence of the first paragraph, to be the new first sentence of the second paragraph? Since the second sentence is about the explanation for evolution, that follows nicely from a sentence that ends with the point that the theory of evolution explains the facts. If we read the first paragraph as a whole as an elaborate definition of evolution, it makes sense for the second paragraph to start by introducing the field that studies this subject. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's give that a try. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks ok to me, the idea of elevating the historical paragraph to the start was not a good proposal. In a related point, the second sentence of paragraph 2 reads "There are two major mechanisms driving evolution" which seems a bit too teleological – would "There are two major mechanisms which result in evolution" convey the non-intentional process better? .. dave souza, talk 17:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer Tim's placement in front of the fourth paragraph - I'm not trying to relegate the sentence to some ghetto, but it just seems to fit beautifully there. In its current location it still seems out of place to me - the remainder of the paragraph is about mechanistics, not the study of evolution. The fourth paragraph is exactly about the latter and seems to be the ideal place for this sentence. Graft | talk 01:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do quite like this as an introduction to the section explaining how the theories developed. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If Graft and Tim both prefer to place it in the fourth paragraph rather than second, I won't object. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As Wikipedia uses the terms: Evolution itself is a fact/process. The theory of evolution is a theory.
Thus, this is a definitional issue. Wikipedia is treating the use of "evolution" as shorthand for "theory of evolution" as a nonstandard or colloquial usage, and consequently one to be avoided where possible, if only for reasons of clarity.

"And his edit summary, that the fact/theory distinction is a dab matter and that this article focuses on evolution as fact, is wrong. This article addresses both the fact and theory of evolution" - This article addresses both. This article is fundamentally about only one of the two. It is about the fact/process of evolutionary change. To demonstrate this, compare these three possible first sentences:


 * Evolution is the process of the inherited traits of a population of organisms changing from one generation to the next.
 * Evolution is the accepted scientific explanation for how the inherited traits of a population of organisms change from one generation to the next.
 * Evolution is the process of the inherited traits of a population of organisms changing from one generation to the next, and the accepted scientific explanation for how this change occurs.

The first sentence is appropriate to introduce an article about the fact of evolution. The second sentence is appropriate to introduce an article about the theory of evolution. The third sentence is appropriate to introduce an article about "evolution" both as fact and as theory. You'll notice that the current (and long-standing) lead sentence of "Evolution" corresponds to the first example, not to the second or third. This in itself proves that this article is about evolution as fact, not as theory (or as "fact-and-theory," the most confusing of the three options).

Certainly theory is discussed aplenty in the article&mdash;indeed, modern evolutionary theory serves as the backbone for the entire article, as the underlying system which explains the otherwise-disparate facts which are classified as "evolution." But the fact that we discuss evolutionary theory heavily in the Evolution article does not mean that we are defining the word "evolution" as "evolutionary theory" anywhere at all within that article. We consistently define "evolution" in the Evolution article as a fact/process, not as a scientific model/theory. The only reason we discuss theory is because it's impossible to understand the fact of evolution without extensively covering the theory: we do not discuss the theory because we mean "theory of evolution" when we say "evolution," anymore than we discuss quantum theory in our article on "quantum" because "quantum" means "quantum theory" (rather, as is the case for evolution, we discuss theory in quantum because theory is essential to understand quanta, even more so than it is essential to understand evolution).

Slrubenstein brings up the question of what an article about the "fact of evolution" would look like. I would suggest that such an article would look exactly like Evolution looks today. An article about the "fact of evolution" is not an article that excludes any discussion of theory; it's simply an article that discusses theory as a means to the end of providing a better understanding of the fact/process of evolution, rather than as an end in itself. An article about X does not necessarily preclude a discussion of Y, if understanding Y is necessary to fully understand X. But to concede that point is not to concede that X=Y. Evolution, at least as Wikipedia uses that word, is not a theory; theories are ideas, and evolution is not an idea, but rather a physical process.

If we genuinely believe that it is crucially important to explain to all readers, right off the bat, that Evolution is being defined as fact and not as theory here, then we should use the dab to do so, not the first paragraph: dabs exist to combat exactly this sort of ambiguity of definition, precisely in order that the article itself doesn't need to get bogged down in such definitional issues, and can instead focus on the substance of the process of evolution. If, on the other hand, we don't think this is important enough to necessitate discussion at the very top of the article, then equally we should not be wasting time digressing in the first paragraph of the lead by explaining the fact/theory distinction. Instead, that information can be saved for later in the article. What makes no sense is to consider this information important enough for the lead, but not important enough for a dab line above the lead, where the information can be provided just as readily without interrupting the otherwise-cohesive overview of how evolution actually occurs in the first paragraph. -Silence (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is simpler than that. A fact is something that can either be logically proved or scientifically observed.  If anyone has an account of the process of evolution actually being observed please share.  4-25-08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just looking in yeast, you might read and, for in vitro directed evolution, , ,  and  for adaptation, and  and  for speciation. There are a lot of studies you will need to look at. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. Granted a species can breed and "pile up" so many adaptations that it can quite litteraly be described as a new species.  Domestic dogs, for example, are the descendants of wild dogs domesticated and bred by man so much that they are a seperate species from wild dog, and couldn't even breed with their predescessors.  The same can be said of certain kinds of pigeons. But, the changes in the DNA, are they to be attributed to the species itself, or to environmental factors, i.e. man-controlled breeding or climate change,?  4-25-08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All the links I provided above deal with evolution observed under controlled laboratory conditions, so climate change isn't really relevant. Hopefully this article makes it clear that it is the interaction between random genetic changes in the genomes of a group of organisms, and the environment of these organisms that produces evolution (changes in the genetics of a species over time). Are there any parts of the article that you find unclear? Tim Vickers (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the links. Quite interesting.  Does anyone think that the article could use a section outlining the difference between micro and macro evolution?  4-25-08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See the second paragraph of Evolution. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure where to add my additional findings on "Evolution". I hope someone put this in proper context. It is amazing to see how our founding fathers viewed the life evolution when we explore the puranas from "Bharat Continent" way back to BCE. In Bhagavath Purana, we read the ten incarnations of God. It is interesting to note that God (creator of "Jivi", living being) himself assumes the form of life, called Avatar to protect His own creation from the evil forces. More interesting observation is that those ten incarnations could represent yet another version of "Theory of Evolution" through transformations. The first Avatar is "Matsya (Fish)" showing that the life started entirely within water. The second Avatar is "Kurma (Tortoise)" that survives both in water and air. The third Avatar is “Varaha (Pig)” that lives completely outside water and still loves water in the form of wet mud. The fourth Avatar is “Narasimha (Half Lion and Half Man)”. The fifth Avatar is “Vamana (Short Man)”. The sixth Avatar is “ParasuRama (Angry Man with axe)”. The seventh Avatar is “Rama (Ideal Person)”. The eighth Avatar is “Krishna (Person with all senses). The ninth Avatar is “Buddha (Meditating Person)”. The tenth Avatar called “Kalki (CareTaker of the present world), yet to be identified. Though it did not map directly to Darwin theory of evolution, it shows the quest for exploration started in BCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisapatis (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Far out, man! Angry Christian (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Two things, first, what is Pisipitus talking about??  Second, does microevolution really lead to macroevolution? I mean since an organism can only adapt so far within its own DNA?  And since most mutations outside of DNA adaptations are typically harmful?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He's talking about the ten earthly incarnations of Vishnu, which have a clear developmental progression to them from "primitive" to "advanced", reminiscent of evolution. It's only suggestive of it, however, and I've never read any good exegesis showing that it was meant to imply evolution. It might be appropriate in History of evolutionary thought.
 * As for macroevolution, see here. Graft | talk 19:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just for my own personal knowledge, does anyone have an account of macroevolution happening?  I know that microevolution has occurred, like the finches on Galapagos, but has there ever been an instance where, for example, a finch stopped being a finch?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that those interested in continuing this general discussion of the topic do so at talk.origins Tim Vickers (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not intellectually honest to say, in explaining why contrasting theories are not included in the Evolution article, that "an encyclopedia's job is not to report on every point of view in its science articles (else we'd have to give Flat Earth and Round Earth theories equal time on Earth)." This is a very bad analolgy, as the Flat Earth theory was disproved eons ago (and easily proven to be false); whereas the theory of Intelligent Design, for example, has not been disproved. At any rate, to be fair and honest, this article should include a section called "Competing Theories" or some such thing. Also, it should be pointed out that although this article mentions cross-species evolution as fact, there is no evidence in the fossil record that this has EVER happened, to my knowledge (nor is any evidence of this offered in the article itself). It is therefore biased to include cross-species evolution in this article without including a discussion about the overwhelming lack of evidence therein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmommy2 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The "theory" of Intelligent Design has not been disproved because no theory has been offered. Currently, there are no competing theories to evolution, so such a section is not warrented. There is an abundance of fossil evidence for speciation so mentioning a lack of fossils would be inaccurate. thx1138 (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Change in a species over time"
This seems a bit vague to me, is this really a common way of describing evolution? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It does seem vague and seems to equate the misnomer that evolution is speciation. There are known examples of phenotypic species (some heritable epigenetic)that are not true evolution-no shift in gene alleles but just environment and epigenetic regulation of expression. Speciation is a byproduct of evolution so evolution occurs and "may" led to speciation. So a change in a species over time maynot be evolution if it is just a heritable epigenetic trait and evolution can proceed without speciation. A species of bacteria may evolve a new trait like eating nylon without becoming a new species. I understand the drift of the statement but it does seem misleading. Sorry I'm rambling-need coffee!!!!GetAgrippa (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed, but it sounds unusual to me. I think population geneticists define evolution as changes in allele frequencies in a population and of course the distinction between population and species is very important.  And of course it need not lead to speciation.  Population geneticists also often do distinguish between micro- and macro-evolution.  The difference between creationists and such population geneticists is that creationists think microevolution and macroevolution are distinct processes, whereas population geneticists see them as different effects of the eact same processes (macroevolution describing the threshold that is crossed when speciation has occured .... this distinction is what is at issue when lumper and splitter paleontologists and paleoanthropologists debate how to classify fossil evidence).  But others in the natural or life sciences may routinely use other definitions. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps make some mention of phenotypic-genotypic maps being used by population geneticist to quantify evolution, and attempts at modeling to explain and make predictions about evolution. That way the emphasis is on phenotypes-traits and genotypes-gene alleles. The distinction between population and species by Slrubenstien is a good one. Even a definition for species is problematic. GetAgrippa (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm wrong but couldn't macroevolution be bumped up to the changing of "kinds" instead of species? I mean, many many organisms can have random minute changes in structure, appearance...etc., that pile up to the extent that they become a new species altogether, but I have two points: should changes like I just mentioned be considered evolution since they weren't self-actuated, and, should some more study be made in the transition from one kind to another?  5-4-08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, macroevolution cannot be "bumped up" to "kinds" for the simple reason that "kind" is not a a term in Biological nomenclature. Coffeeassured (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Change in a species over time" rings of a common colloquial simplification--it's probably how most folks without university-level biology training would describe ToE. While I believe this addition is erroneous (for the reasons stated above), I think it could be useful as a springboard from which we can craft wording to more successfully span the gap from common (mis)understanding to the more esoteric definitions used by biologists... &mdash; Scientizzle 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've removed this for now. Let's redraft it here. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

For our use, there are some Google hits for "Change in a species over time". Included are some apparent educational sources: I think a bridge between this simplification and the more technically correct (and nuanced) definition may even be extractable from the Glossary Definitions of "Evolution" link above...Introduction to evolution simply states: "Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations". &mdash; Scientizzle 18:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Evolution is commonly defined as the biological change in a species over time as a result of natural selection. A more concise definition would be "the successive changes in allele or gene frequency in a population as regulated by mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and selection pressure."
 * Evolution - change in a species over time
 * Glossary Definitions of "Evolution"
 * 

Article no longer protected?
I see the lock on the page, but there is IP vandalism in the recent history. WTF? --Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The page was no longer locked - Tim set it to expire on May 6. Let's see if it works out okay. I locked it for moves only. Graft | talk 17:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that the flagged revisions function would be active by now. However the community seem to be moving at a glacial pace. Let's keep at semi for now, that's what it was before. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And the vandalism is back again, only two days after the protection was dropped (probably just waiting for the new accounts to mature). *sigh* --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have restored full protection after a recent flood of vandalism. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Polyploidy
What is the following sentence from the section on gene flow trying to say?: "Polyploidy is important in hybrids as it allows reproduction, with the two different sets of chromosomes each being able to pair with an identical partner during meiosis." No it doesn't. Haploids and diploids are perfectly capable of reproducing. Facilitation of reproduction is not what it is about, finding identical partners during meiosis has nothing to do with it, and the assumption of TWO sets of chromosomes is incorrect. Everything about this sentence is wrong and out of place, and I strongly recommend it is deleted. Plantsurfer (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

From. This certainly isn't well-phrased, but it appears to be accurate. I think the idea is that in a diploid hybrid formed from AA and aa parents you have Aa cells trying to go through meiosis and being unable to pair the differing chromosomes. However in a AAaa tetraploid, this isn't a problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Christ, looks like my view of this is very simplistic, I'm reading through but despairing of understanding all the detail. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

evolution
Evidently, evolution appears to be thought of as a sort of religion. really, who cares to believe that people and animals spontaneously appeared out of mud? I, for one, think that the whole THEORY, thought up by a succession of "learned" scientists, may not be exactly true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.203.35 (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But, obviously, you don't know anything about it. Especially "spontaneously appeared out of mud", which sounds like a distorted view of Biblical creation (God making humans from dirt). --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:FORUM. This is not the place for such discussions. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

just a quick question
how do you know that we humans came from apes? fish? monkeys? frogs? or what! what fossile evidence do you have that supports youre therories? do other cultures like aztec, incan, myan, etc. support your therories? what about flood legonds througout the world that are part of cultre belifes? the aztec, incan, and myan societies all had flood legonds. so how do you know that your theories have sufficiant back-up to keep them alive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkey131 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, there's this great web site I've heard of called Wikipedia, where experts on a variety of subjects go to contribute their knowledge in a dynamic fashon, and it's all free too. Maybe if you read their article on evolution, you'll find an answer to your question. --Julian Grybowski (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also a great article on mythical floods as well called Deluge_%28mythology%29.Coffeeassured (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish people would stop being insulting and picking fights. Whether you are evolutionist or creationist it still makes you look like a jackass.  5-16-08

No offense, but this page is not here for debates, or to answer these kinds of questions. This page is to improve the article.--Filll (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture of male lion
Male lions dont leave the pride when they are born.....--203.192.91.4 (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say when they are born, it says WHERE. GoEThe (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Information
The article states, "Debate has centered on the philosophical, social and religious implications of evolution, not on the science itself; the proposition that biological evolution occurs through the mechanism of natural selection is standard in the scientific literature.[181]" This fails to respect the full range of scientific views that exist.  There are scientists (many of whom are not especially religious) who recognize shortcomings with evolutionary theory which we view as reminiscent of the ancient Greek philosophy of a geocentric universe. Let us be clear that we understand "biological evolution occurs through the mechanism of natural selection" to mean speciation as best demonstrated by reproductive isolation--as opposed to adaptation not resulting in reproductively isolated organisms.

I wish I could offer a vast assemblage of contemporary references. The hard fact that I face is that dissent on this topic has been forced out of the mainstream of scientific publications on ideological (rather than methodological or intellectual) grounds. As a Wikipedian, this leaves me few options--and none that I can really pursue. First, I must refuse to use "creation science" or "intelligent design" research since it is presumptively biased. On the other hand, I can't simply endorse the editorial boards of scientific journals knowing that renowned faculties everywhere (and therefore everyone on those boards) are also either personally biased or else so legitimately frightened as to be unwilling to express counter-evolutionary viewpoints.

Below are my purely scientific and/or methodological criticisms of evolution offered from a strictly non-theistic perspective:

1) The theory makes no tight quantitative predictions. Contrast this with theories like cell theory, Q.E.D. in physics, extreme value theory in statistics, the fundamental theorem of calculus or circuit theory in E.E..

2) According to a recent Scientific American special issue on robots, meaningful self-replication has proven un-reproducible (so far). Even though we can almost completely describe living systems that do it, we can't manage to initiate this process.  We're missing something fundamental and significant.  Perhaps solving this is 200 or 500 years ahead of us, but the issue is something of a showstopper for me personally.  Does it prove that God exists?  No, but it does prove that we don't know nearly as much as we pretend to know K-12 classrooms!

3) Evolution as a scientific theory is defined very loosely. It is often confused with the similar but distinct constructs of 1) philosophical evolutionism with a Greek origin, having evolved into both Darwin's theory and a central pillar of humanism, as well as 2) the broad semantic usage of the term evolution which is used synonymously with words such as "change, development, adaptation, progress and modification," but is almost never used in place of words such as "invention, novelty, innovation or imagination."  Which is to say, the scientific theory itself is continually being modified at every level to adapt to changing information.  At the same time the social (mis-) understanding of the term induces great confusion by blending the distinct scientific, philosophical and semantic understandings to arrive at something even more amorphous than the highly mutable theory that it is. This would be less of a problem if certain central features never shifted, but the theory has undergone significant revision in the last 10% of existence--Eldredge's and Gould's punctuated equilibrium being the greatest case in point. Such revisions are consistent with the process of framing a hypotheses and the rudimentary modeling that often accompnaies it. Is it reasonable to call such an unstructured paradigm "fundamental science" or to instill it repeatedly within pre-collegiate education? Lest evolution itself be perceived as a cult or religion, it's critical that scientists not treat evolution's critics within the scientific establishment as heretics, never belittling them or labeling them as religious fanatics (regardless of their religious or philosophical background). Instead science must be ready to answer the criticisms it can answer, to honestly admit that there are things we don't yet understand, and to go farther in asserting that there exist moral and epistemological matters that empirical science may never credibly answer.

4) After 150 years of observational and experimental science intended to demonstrate real-time speciation, none have succeeded to the best of my knowledge. While Darwin's finches are an interesting possible case of this, has anyone performed a trial along the lines of transplanting a finch population into a new and moderately distinct niche (for which they are sufficiently less fit that they would be forced to adapt and truly speciate in order to thrive)?   BTW, I believe that it's silly to think anyone could actually publish such a question in a peer-reviewed journal, but such topics routinely come up around the water cooler...and in the lecture hall.

5) Antiquated evidence (fossils and other unobserved processes of the past) is useful to corroborate real-time observations, but like detectives trying to solve a murder, they require interpretation and synthesis. Unlike detectives dealing with a crime, we have no witnesses, no suspected actors and no probable cause.  We only have a vast-yet-incomplete body of evidence.  Again, this doesn't point to some outside intelligence since such reasoning merely removes the problem by an additional degree of abstraction.  But it does seem to raise difficult and unanswered questions.

The much maligned KS Board of Education only asserted that fair and scientific criticism should be permissible as noted by the following quote from their chairman, Dr. Steve E. Abrams, "We have explicitly stated that the standards must be based on scientific evidence, what is observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable." Being unwilling to tolerate debate and dissent is not a hallmark of good science, but of social indoctrination. Karl Popper says one cannot regard a proposition or theory as scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false. Silencing social critics (by legal, economic, administrative or coercive means) and denying scientific critics a voice weakens rather than strengthens evolution's actual position as science--even as it outwardly increases its social penetration and general acceptance. Saseigel (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Changes and additions to this article must be based on reliable sources, not original research, and this talkpage is for the purpose of discussing specific improvements to the article, not general discussions on the topic of the article. I suggest you move your post to one of the many web forums that discuss and debate this topic, such as talk.origins. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

FA status Portuguese
Could someone please add the FA status for the portuguese (pt) version of this article? GoEThe (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hut 8.5 20:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Two major mechanisms
The second paragraph now reads: There are two major mechanisms driving evolution. The first is natural selection, which is a process causing heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction become more common in a population, and harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce successfully, so that more individuals in the next generation inherit these traits.[1][2] Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment.[3] In contrast, genetic drift produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift results from the role chance plays in whether a given individual will survive and reproduce. Though the changes produced in any one generation by drift and selection are small, differences accumulate with each subsequent generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms. I am not sure this is entirely clear. How do these mechanisms drive evolution? Arguably random mutation, procreation and environmental duress would be forces driving evolution. Now natural selection is definitely a mechanism, and it gives direction to evolution, so the statement is true in the "steering" meaning of the "drive" verb, but usually the "drive" verb is used in this kind of context as in "the current of the river drives the water mill wheel", so it might be misunderstood. Is genetic drift really a mechanism? Isn't it more of an observable result, a trend or emergent pattern rather than a predictable and/or formalizable mechanism? Genetic drift of course can be said to be an emergent force driving (=causing to move/function, rather than the "steering" meaning) evolution as it allows for accelerated gene-pool change, but then the verb "drive" is used at the same time for two different subjects with two different meanings, which might be a problem. I have studied biochemisty but it's been a while and I haven't dealt with that field for a while so please enlighten me on the specifics if I'm completely off-target. I realize that mechanism might be a conventional term for genetic drift, if so, no problem. I only nit-pick at this because the potential ambiguity offers a point of attack for those who would want to make a mountain out of an anthill.--AkselGerner (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say that since genetic drift is a process like natural selection that alters allele frequencies over time, then it is a mechanism of evolution. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, it's just that it's so entropic, I guess it just bugged me that it's not a usual kind of mechanism. It's tricky to do that paragraph better... the drive-verbs semantics I still think is slightly problematic, but it's not major and it's hard to see what would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AkselGerner (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that (at least how it is described here) the evolution theory is a tautology: look at: "natural selection, which is a process causing heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction become more common in a population, and harmful traits to become more rare" It says that natural selection cause helpful traits (defined as the one who help for reproduction and survival) to survive :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonanSandford (talk • contribs) 04:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Natural selection" is just the word given to the process, so the fact that the word does indeed accurately describe the process shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody. See also this article for further discussion of the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Theory of evolution is a tautology like F=ma is one. It does not make theory of evolution infalsifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.182.138 (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mechanisms of reproductive isolation
I've not been happy with this section for a while, so I've been bold and removed it diff. Firstly, it isn't very well written and is just a list. Secondly, what precisely does this have to do with evolution? The evolution of mechanisms of reproductive isolation are important in speciation, but this seems to be too distant from the speciation event itself for this much detail. These are proximal reasons why speciation occurs, just as the aerodynamics of feathers are proximal reasons why wings evolved. The ultimate reasons are surely the ones that we need to focus on here? Does this make any sense to anybody else, or have I failed entirely to explain what I mean? Tim Vickers (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it should be added to the article on speciation as a separate section? Are the mechanisms of reproductive isolation covered anywhere else? Esseh (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, on a quick search, there is an article on reproductive isolation. Perhaps there? Esseh (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk about DNA
The second paragraph explains in some detail the structure and function of DNA. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to talk about Mendel here?Sikkema (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This section is really about genes, which are critical to evolution. Mendel is just a historical note is a much less important part of the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Heredity
The section on heredity is pure definition cruft. The words "evolution", "evolve" or even "selection" are not mentioned in all 3 paragraphs. The term "heredity" isn't even used elsewhere in the article, and "inheritance" isn't mentioned again until the section on the "History of evolutionary thought". Even the concept of a "trait" that it goes to pains to explain isn't brought back until the reader's seen 6 more headings. Please explain to the reader of the article (not to me) why he or she is subjected to a screen full of definition on heredity when they want to read about evolution -- preferably in the opening sentence of the "heredity" section.

And if you'd like a way to improve this article further, do the same after each and every heading in the article. —Pengo 23:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The link was made in the introduction, I've also added this to the first sentence of this section. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing I did notice from Pengo's posits is that the Heredity section needs to emphasize that the mutation has to be in the germ line and not somatic mutations in sexual reproducing organisms (perhaps mention asexual organisms appear to use gene or genome duplication then mutation). We wouldn't want to give the impression that somatic mutations an organisms gains in life are passed on in sex rep. organisms-only mutations in the germ line are significant. It does say "Heritable traits are propagated between generations via DNA" but I don't know that a layperson would associate that to meaning germ line in sexual reproducing organisms. Just a thought! GetAgrippa (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversies
If nobody has any objections, I'll add, "and controversies", to the "Social and cultural views", as I don't feel that the title rely suggests as much as it should about the section's content. I would, however, be grateful were somebody to come up with a better title, to avoid one quite so clumsily phrased.--THobern 14:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. "Controversies" is a dangerous word to use in evolution articles, since it may give the appearance of acceding ground to the likes of creationists, who love to generate the impression of controversy.  I would agree that "views" is somewhat anodyne in this context, but perhaps something better than "controversies" can be found.  What about more neutral terms like "reactions", "responses" or "reception"?  Still, I suppose that "controversies", since it would be pre-fixed with "social and cultural", is clearly not scientific controversy.  Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What about "effects"? (Note our article is at Social effect of evolutionary theory.) Hut 8.5 15:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As always, I think we should be guided by policies like NOR and V. We should not add new sections just because they sound nice or because we personally are interested in them.  We should add sections that cover significant areas of research or debates, found in reliable sources.  So my question is, what is the body of literature (the reliable sources and the notable views they contain) you propose to draw on in this new section? once we have a clearer idea of what line of investigation or debate you think the article fails to, but ought to, cover, then it will be easier to discuss an appropriate name for it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The section is already here, at Evolution - the proposal is just to retitle it. --Hut 8.5 15:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with "responses", since this section does describe how other groups have responded to the findings of evolutionary biologists. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree that the current titles are awkward. Responses is fine.  How about "reception?" Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Eugenics isn't really a "reception", it's picking up the findings of science and running off with them in the direction your prejudices suggest. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The best title might be longer to be more inclusive: "Reception, responses, applications and appropriations" or something like that but I have no problem with someone picking one word. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm for "responses". It wasn't my favourite when I suggested it above, but Tim's reasoning is sound.  Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As a spin-off, the simplistic idea that eugenics=bad evolution is inaccurate. The ideas of Darwin and Galton were to do with heredity rather than evolution, though related, and they were both convinced that it could only be voluntary. There is still "good" voluntary eugenics. Compulory eugenics coincided with the "eclipse of Darwinism" by Mendelian evolution, and developed in the US for various reasons. All rather complex, but commonly misunderstood. . . dave souza, talk 20:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is, it is equally as POV to use euphemisms. "Controversy" really is the fairest way of describing the content of the section. I would agree with you, Tim, that it would normally be a misrepresentation, but this is the social and cultural section, not the scientific.--THobern 07:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Plumbago, who are you talking to?--THobern 07:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi THobern. I was originally talking to you, but my second remark was just to confirm that I agree with Tim Vickers' suggestion to alter the "views" in the section heading to "responses".  Hope that clears things up.  Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would also be a good idea for someone to re-word some of the sentences in this section to make them less offensive to religious readers. Using phrases like "creation myths" sounds very closed minded and intolerant of other's beliefs. Let's face it, creation beliefs are based on the supernatural, and therefore do not need science to back them up, so they cannot actually be disproven by science. I think it is only fair and reasonably tolerant to use wording that allows people to choose what to believe for themselves without being judged. If nothing else this encourages people who hold religious beliefs to read further and learn more about evolution without feeling offended. Phantom Overflow (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article isn't judging anyone, and certainly isn't arguing for or against any particular creation myth (or all of them). It's a generic term, and I'm sure the rest of the section is written neutrally (but if you have any other problems, feel free to bring them up). The creation myth page has some more details on the terminology too if you're interested. Ben (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I primarily just don't like the use of the term "myth". If you don't know the definition of the term, you should look it up, but to sum it up, a "myth" is a false belief, or an invented, fictional story that isn't true (it is not a neutral term), so it's use here seems inappropriate to me, because anyone who believes in a creation story and reads this article is being told be this article that their belief is false and merely a piece of fiction, which would certainly be found offensive by anyone. My suggestion is simply to change the word "myth" to something more neutral, like story or belief, that will allow people who do not hold the beliefs contained in this article to read it without feeling as if it is telling them that their beliefs are wrong. Phantom Overflow (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is not what a myth is. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on! Are we going to let the facts stand in the way of political correctness?--THobern 05:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

THobern, would you like to elaborate on what "facts" exactly you are refering to? Phantom Overflow (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're complaint is based on a false definition, and "I don't like it" is hardly a compelling reason for change. Did you even read the creation myth page? Ben (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the last comment I am going to make on the subject: I will admit that the word myth has several definitions, but one of them, according to the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary "http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth", (please note definitions 2b and 3), indicates that use of the word myth implies that the story is false and/or made up. My point is simply this: This page can be used simply as a sort of rallying point for people who already embrace the evolution theory as the origin of life, or it can serve to teach people who do not hold this set of beliefs more about the evolution theory and how it works. If you would like to see people who believe in one of the "creation myths" actually read your article and consider what it has to say, it is a good idea that you write the article in a manner that is least likely to offend or upset those people, but if it is more important that you emphasize the fallacy of those peoples' beliefs than help them understand your own, then by all means leave this article alone. I realize that you may not see this article as being offensive to religious readers, but I'm am simply noting that it does seem that way to me, and if you do not agree, that is fine and I understand. Thank you,Phantom Overflow (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are suggesting that the wording be changed to "the Biblical account of creation" I would have no objection myself. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would. The section was written to be as general as possible, and since there are many creation myths (and many variations of particular myths), the general link should stay. Ben (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also don't see a need to change. if we are choosing to quote Merriam-Webster as an authority here ( not my first choice but I will run with it) then looking at the first placed definition 1 a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b: PARABLE, ALLEGORY. this would support the use of the word myth in this article. Its commonplace for words to have diverse meaning and used therefore in distinctly different contexts. Not only that but Wikipedia provides the casual reader with a complete article on what creation myth is. I don't see WP contributors' role as taking a position on rallying one or other cause etc nor a position that is least likely to offend. Not trying to be pompous here just saying that editors working in collaborative mode are not only not motivated like that but work hard to avoid this Tmol42 (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion is getting off topic. This is probably not the best place to discuss the correct usage of the word "myth" on wikipedia. The guidelines for the correct use of the word myth is found here and if you have problems with it you might be better off discussing it on the talk page for the guidelines rather than here. Coffeeassured (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this is one of these words that in certain circles has negative connotations, like "evolutionists", so changing "creation myths" to "creation beliefs" works for me. By the way, I know how sensitive use of "evolutionists" can be, and was amused to see Ruse using it and "Darwinism" in an article the other day. . . dave souza, talk 10:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That might be so but that is not the how word is used on wikipedia. The word "myth" is the correct technical term for what is being described and is consistent with the rest of wikipedia. I believe removing "creation myth" because it may offend a small minority of people because they misunderstand the term would violate wikipedia's policy against censorship. Coffeeassured (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ... and equivalent to not using the word theory in this article because in certain circles can give the impression of a lack credibility. Ben (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, Coffee, Creationists are not a small minority.Prussian725 (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)