Talk:Evolution/Archive 49

Grammatical error in number
"where long segments of the DNA within chromosomes breaks and then rearranges." "long segments" don't "breaks" and "rearranges". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.233.30 (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not just alleles, but alleles for 2 different loci
"This tendency is measured by finding how often two alleles occur together, which is called their linkage disequilibrium." The phrase "two alleles" by itself suggests 2 alternate forms of a single gene. But what should be mentioned is how often alleles of two different loci occur together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.233.30 (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarified. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nucletides, not nucleic acids
"For example, all living cells use the same nucleic acids and amino acids" Amino acids are monomers of the polmers called proteins: nucleotides are monomers of the polymers called nucleic acids. Maintaining parallelism would indicate the sentence should say, "For example, all living cells use the same nucleotides and amino acids". Besides, saying that all cells use the same nucleic acids is problematic (it could be taken to be similar to saying that all cells use the same proteins).
 * Changed to "same basic set of nucleotides and amino acids", to deal with your point and also cover the few unusual ones such as pyrrolysine and ß-D-glucosylhydroxymethyluracil in T. brucei. Thank you very much for your corrections. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

place for debate
Where can I go to debate about evolution and creationism. I know here is not the place but talk.origins does not really have anything like Wikipedia.98.196.76.228 (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Google Evowiki and that will give you Evolution and Creation dedicated wikis. But Evowiki appears to be down for the moment. - RoyBoy 02:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ironically, said debate will evolve. Kevin Baastalk 13:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow!!! There really is an Evowiki. Would it be fair or ethical to go there and replace articles with excerpts from Fisher's, Darwin's, Gould's, or Mayr's manuscripts?? Just kidding!!!
 * But I must admit the thought passed my mind given the relentless attacks on this article and the present manner of editing. GetAgrippa (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of fun debates on various such topics at Pharyngula and The Panda's Thumb. Caution: the former may contain scenes of irreligious violence to a cracker, the Koran and The God Delusion. Read at your own risk. . dave souza, talk 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Migration
Migration in the lead links to a disambiguation page, please link to the relevant article.--Otterathome (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Evolution as entropy
In a study titled “Natural selection for least action” published in the Proceedings of The Royal Society A., Ville Kaila and Arto Annila of the University of Helsinki describe how the second law of thermodynamics can be written as an equation of motion to describe evolution, showing how natural selection and the principle of least action can be connected by expressing natural selection in terms of chemical thermodynamics. In this view, evolution explores possible paths to level differences in energy densities and so increase entropy most rapidly. Thus, an organism serves as an energy transfer mechanism, and beneficial mutations allow successive organisms to transfer more energy within their environment. Citation:. I've added this info to entopy, it could be useful to add the same point to an evolution related article. . . dave souza, talk 14:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * AAaaaaaaaaarrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhh. Entropy DOES NOT enter into the equation.  Period.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dave, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not have any relationship to Evolution. Unless, in addition to genetic drift and natural selection, we need to add physics.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, evolution is a spontaneous process - like all of biology and biochemistry, so in the widest sense it is governed by the laws of thermodynamics. However, I don;t think we need mention this in the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, the source appears to me to have a really sensible approach to the issue, but it's peripheral to explanation of evolution and more relevant to the entropy article where I've added it. Just thought it worth noting here in case there's a sub article where it would be appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 21:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Entropy DOES NOT enter into the equation." - is that a joke? :) Tim Vickers (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Entropy is certainly relevant to evolution: random mutation increases entropy, natural selection decreases it.  I've never seen any thermodynamic treatment of this, though, and it's hard to make any sense of the Zyga article.  It looks like gibberish, but you wouldn't expect to see gibberish published in Proc Roy Soc A. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read the article, and I think I understand what they are saying. The idea is that you can use the 2nd law to predict general trends in evolution by thinking about overall energy transfer. This makes sense and is highly distinct from the standard claims made about the 2nd law and evolution. It is interesting as an idea and clearly merits attention and consideration. However, it seems at this point to be too minor a matter to be in the main article on evolution. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it really any different from the myriad other situations (Photosynthesis, ADP>>ATP etc) where biological systems appear to move energy uphill?? These are not perpetual motion machines, and neither are evolving systems. They all need an external energy source Plantsurfer (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system, as it recieves most of its energy from the Sun.67.183.123.19 (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting talk here and 67.183.123.19 hits part of it on its head. Having tried to read the article and make sense of it (being both a biologist and physicist) I have to assume that the article was written by someone who doesn't really understand biology and assumes that biologists don't understand physics. I also have to conclude that the writer can't really explain physics either.
 * Quote, "And since these energy flows themselves yield and affect energy transfer mechanisms that, in turn, alter the flows, it’s virtually impossible to predict evolution’s next move." Well wouldn't you know it!
 * Thermodynamics and biological systems were resolved decades ago. The laws perfectly describe biological systems (including evolution) and there is no conflict. --Candy (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Species versus population
Some time ago I proposed new material, which was placed in the draft here. It may still need work, although I have done all I can. I think it adds a critical point not just about "species" but about Darwinian (including MS) theory itself. Can others look at it and see how it can be polished and made ready for incorporation into the main aticle? Or, are there any major objections? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm really not sure at all what you are getting at. A population is a set of individuals within the same species that have genetic exchange. The species concept is, and has always been our way of trying to define what we see. The classical species concept, is completely irrelevant for a lot of species, especially when it comes to bacteria. Most leopards in the world can mate and get fertile offspring, but we still consider the snowleopard in asia to be a different species compared to the leopard in Tanzania. When populations get segregated they can eventually adapt to different conditions, and establish characteristics that prevent the to populations from becoming one species even if they unite. European Bisons and cows are closely related, and they can get offspring which are on display in the Białowieża Forest in Poland. However the offspring has severely decreased fertility. I'm not sure I answered your question. I do not think the above paragraph should be included in the article about Evolution yet.I don't see how it would add anything. Feel free to disagree.

--Ekologkonsult (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Some people believe that the shift from viewing specdies as ideal types or ontological categories to statistical artefacts is a major change in how people view the world that happened because of the theory of evolution. I do not understand what your objection is to this view.  You are not sure what i am getting at?  i thought I was clear above, but at the risk of repeating myself, this is a notable view that should be included.  I am not sure what your objection is to adding a notable view to the article.  So, no, you haven't answered my question. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean with viewing soecies as statistical artefacts. You are referring to a Harvard law school graduate, who has taught English. I think we are getting of the topic of the article if you would include this in the article about evolution. I think your information more belongs in the article about the author himself.

Perhaps mayby an article about cultural impacts of evolution. or the theory of evolutions impact on society. As you probably understand this is more a topic that relates to the social sciences, and it makes better sense to have it there. --Ekologkonsult (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If your point is simply that the point of view of intellectual historians is not permitted in an article on a topic studied by intellectual historians, - if you are saying that research on scientists and scientific theories by other scholars are not allowed in articles on scientific topics, then you simply are advocating the violation of NPOV. But our NPOV policy is non-negotiable and if a sociologist of science or philosopher of science or historian of science has different views of biology than a biologist, those views are still notable and relevant and should be included.  As for viewing species as statistical phenomena, this is how Darwin and many evolutionary scientists actually do view species and certainly this belongs in the article.  Creationists believe that species are "real" in a way that evolutionary scientists do not, and sadly, many people who have not studied evolutionary theory and who claim not to be creationists still view species more the way creationists do than the way real scientists do.  That is because much about modern science is counter-intuitive, and the Darwinian/neo-Darwinian view of species doesn't correspond with the lay person's "common-sense" view of the world.  Which is precisely why an encyclopedia article (by definition, meant to educate and inform) on Evolution ought to say something about this most important and revolutionary advance by Evolutionary theory. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On the basis that the draft is the section, there are good ideas in there but ideally it'd be shrunk to a paragraph, leaving the quotes out. That maybe could be split into a new article for this to summarise. One thing to consider – when naturalists viewed species as ideal or general types [or divine archetypes, in Owen's case] they also seem to have viewed variation as degeneration from this ideal form. At the same time transmutationists following from Lamarck's ideas seem to have seen species as an unfolding of progress, improvement through innate will or self-help, so it's perhaps a bit complex. Anyway, Darwin spent a lot of time arguing that species was a way of categorising sections of a continuum, and a blurred matter of opinion which differed from expert to expert, rather than the rigid on/off innate property most people still intuitively think of. Having said that, I'm rather overwhelmed elswhere just now, so won't be able to work on it this year. Hope these ramblings help... dave souza, talk 20:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally, I do not like quotes, but these two are so articulate and clear it is hard for me to figure out how to paraphrase them well. Also, it does seem to me that this covers an absolutely core premise of evolutionary theory.  Anyway, I did some rewriting of the following paragraphs - it seemed to me that the connection between the ideas in the first half were not clearly expressed in the second half.  I rearranged the explanation of how evolutionary scientists define species and added a little which I hope makes it much clearer. Dave, I think you capture the "naturalists" way of looking at species quite well and in my experience most people - at least in the US and UK - actually still think of things in the 19th century naturalist way, even when they say they believe in education (which means that whenever we have a long conversation about evolution, they get confused very quickly).  That's why I think it is especially important that this article explain the matter clearly. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems many are naive to the controversy about the issue of species, and just accepts Mayr's definition of a biological species. In  Coyne, J.A.; Orr, H.A. Sinauer Associates; Sunderland, MA: 2004. Speciation  the author describes nine different species concepts. A more recent abstract and article further highlights issues of interest by Mallet (http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/e746161834058h6j/) who adopts a more Darinian view once again. This article (free online) discusses the issues and is a good read: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008 Sep 27;363(1506):2965-9. Introduction. Speciation in plants and animals: pattern and process.Abbott RJ, Ritchie MG, Hollingsworth PM. I would also note that the text book by Ridley mentioned below also talks about different defintions of species phenotypic, cladistic, ecological, etc. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All of this in detail belongs in the article on species. I think this article just needs to explain why it is that evolutionary scientists either cannot agree on a definition of species, or how these definitions are not describing objective phenomena but are heuristic tools. What I wrote was an attempt (using a notable source) to explain why and how radical this is. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that this more belongs in an article about species, or social aspects of evolution. And please bespare me the fire speach regarding POV, becuase this has nothng to do about that. I understand you like your piece, and it is well written. However, it should be under another article.--Ekologkonsult (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My point was that not the material was needed for this article but that the issue should be addressed in this article given a controversy exists. Seems Slrubenstein is attempting to do so, and the point should be mentioned in a few sentences or paragraphs with references or link to Species article which I hope addresses it. GetAgrippa (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This point does not have to do with the "social aspects" of evolution, it has to do with the theory of evolution. POV forks are not permitted. Content forks are - and I certainly agree that a more detailed explanation belongs in the article on Species but the article on evolution should explain clearly how the theory of evolution views the concept of species. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

FAQ
One of the lines in the third FAQ ("It depends on what is meant by "evolution", "theory", and "fact") sound eerily reminiscent of Clinton's "It all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Evolution is meant by evolution, the scientific meaning of theory is meant by theory in this science-related article, and fact is mean by fact. There is not use dodging it. Granted, the scientific meaning of theory differs in this case from the standard use, but that can be explained without using such a strange sentence. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 20:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe it also refers to Evolution as theory and fact article. A link might do nicely. Defining terms is still important though, since there's a base for misunderstanding there. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No evidence against Evolution in the FAQ? Give me a break, any sensible scientist realises that the "theory" is very, very far from flawless, especially the bits about transitional fossils that are disputed and the 2nd Law of Therodynamics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.153.104 (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First, no theory is perfect. But no existing evidence goes against the theory.  Theories get revised when new evidence is presented.  So evidence against evolution would have to be evidence that suggests that the entire theory should simply be thrown out.  No such evidence exists.  And the 2nd law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution because the Earth is not a closed system (which is a requirement for the second law to appy)Farsight001 (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This point about transitional fossils seems to be a shibboleth for people coming from a creationist view-point. While a scientist would see the lack of transition fossils as an indication of the speed of certain stages of evolution in relation to mutations a creationist will approach it as evidence that evolution doesn't exist. Whenever someone mentions transition fossils I think it probable that they are trying to find holes that allows them to tear into the fabric of our understanding of evolution. Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Aye, creationists assume that every organism has been fossilized of course and because paleantologists can't find them all then they don't exist. Let's keep things simple. Scientific Theory = fact. If in dispute with this, try connecting yourself to the mains supply directly or jumping off a tall building. Of course the Theory of Electricity and the Theory of Gravity are of course not facts either then!!! (Disclaimer: Anyone stupid enough to do this will most likely kill themselves or at least cause severe permanent damage to their body and mind. I am not advocating it as a wholesome option.) As to whether the theories are flawless that is a totally different point. --Candy (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I hate to say this, actually I don't, but you are wrong.Prussian725 (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Prussian, as articulated elsewhere, feel free to offer alternatives to the article that you think are incorrect or could be improved. Make sure you include in references from verifiable and reliable sources.  Shot info (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary perspective needed
Would someone be so kind as to inject some evolutionary views into this debate? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

quick question
Real quick: how does evolution account for the difference in the # of chromosomes in different organisms?Prussian725 (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No simple answer I'm afraid, there is no obvious reason why some ferns have thousands of chromosomes and we have just 23. See C-value enigma for more on genome size. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the number of chromosomes does not indicate anything about an organism. Obviously, more chromosomes doesn't make the organism smarter, faster, stronger, or anything.  Of course, ferns have lasted hundreds of millions of years, so maybe it does!!!!   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 03:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose chromosome fusions and inversions are useful as phylogenetic markers (reviewed for humans and other apes in ) but this is just a way of tracing ancestry, not any insight into mechanism. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Could there be some resistance to mutation advantage? I keep going back to the fern...it arose in the Carboniferous, probably one of the first land plants.  Maybe there's a reason for thousands of chromosomes?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, polypoloidy confers genetic redundancy, but that's a separate question from the number of chromosomes and is already discussed in this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would think that would depend on the pressures for fusion, loss, or further duplication. But those pressures differ for the various kingdoms?  Polyploidy seems to happen more often for plants?  Anyway, I just wanted to throw in a couple recent articles for your amusement.  Multiple duplicated genes, but only the "well located" one matters? The really good ale strain might actually be two strains 'fused'?  Bacterial chromosomes are loops (except when they aren't. (Is a loop more resistant to splits?)  And finally, no, it's not your genes, it's when your mother ate that food? (Oh, yeah, and they checked the genes, but did they check the non-coding regulatory sections (that they don't know about yet?) for epigenetic changes?)
 * Anyway, this stuff is _much_ better than soap operas. There's a new twist every week! :-) Shenme (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason why some species have different number of cromosomes is that fusions have happened during evolution. The chromosomes is a vehicle for packing genes. You can think of it as different piles, and then the genes are the clothes in the piles. You can have 20 piles, and then reduce them to 10 piles by adding to together until there are 10 piles left.--Ekologkonsult (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But don't most organisms have systems in place that keep changes in genetics, like DNA, from happeneing? I mean, without such a system, wouldn't an army of mutations deform a creature beyond recognition and basically make it die?Prussian725 (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well spotted! The system is called death, or in relation to evolution, natural selection. If changes deform an organism to its disadvantage in terms of living and leaving offspring, then that inherited trait will be less likely to be passed on. If heritable changes deform an organism in a way that suits its circumstances and helps it to survive and breed, more offspring will inherit that change and, lo and behold, you have evolution! Simple, eh? . . dave souza, talk 22:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, but can't organisms traits go so far before they reach the "limits" of their DNA or genes?Prussian725 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Gene duplication is one way in which evolution is furnished with new material to work with. With two copies of a gene (or chromosome; c.f. polyploidy), an organism can retain the original function of a gene but have a second copy for evolution to play with.  Other mechanisms by which an organism can increase its gene count include horizontal gene transfer and the activity of retroviruses.  Hope this helps.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  16:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The only limits to life are the laws of physics and chemistry. We know we can push organisms a long way through selective breeding and genetic engineering, so if there are limits we have not found them yet. For example, the fact that exactly the same enzyme can perform the same function in organisms as diverse as bacteria, yeast or humans means that there is no essential difference in how different organisms are made and operate, this is why genetic engineering works - you can move parts of organisms around like you were building something from Lego. This flexibility is due to the fact that organisms are made of cells, which are modular structures that are remarkably similar between even widely-different organisms. In terms of basic biochemistry, mice and people are almost identical, the differences we see are due to different arrangements of the same basic units. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How does Evolutionary biology document the fact that evolution occurs? Where is the evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stogie22 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First, this is for improvement of the article only. Second, if you read the article, you will see a lot of this evidence.  Also check out info on nylon eating bacteria, fruit flys, and the fossil record. Farsight001 (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * See Evidence of common descent. siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 03:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also have a read of the Scientific literature article to see how the process of documenting facts and theories works in science.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection of this page
I recently unprotected this page because it had been protected for several months. When I see them I usually unprotect pages that have been protected so long that they may have been forgotten; I like to try to preserve the open nature of Wikipedia, and I want to avoid a situation where any page experiencing vandalism is indefintely semi-protected and then forogtten about, to stay semi-protected forever. However, I understand that semi-protection is a useful tool to fight vandalism in high-profile articles, and in cases where vandalism is perisitent over long periods of time (months or years), indefinite protection may be necessary and proper.

With that in mind, the history of this article combined with the edits that followed my unprotection make clear that semi-protection is still required to maintain the integrity of this article. I am restoring semi-protection for the duration of 3 months, and I apologize for any disruption this may have caused.

--causa sui talk 18:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Variation rather than mutation?
Reading John van Wyhe's review here, I noticed the point that evolution is commonly misunderstood to equate to mutation, when in Darwin's terms the significant factor is variation which arises through a number of mechanisms. At present the lead states:

To avoid the misunerstanding, perhaps this could be reconsidered on these lines:

This change in emphasis ties in better with the layout of the article, where Variation is a main section heading. . . dave souza, talk 10:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I understand the proposed section as it it is currently written. Variation doesn't really produce new traits, new traits result in variation. After all, if no differences in traits existed, all organisms would be identical. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's a good point and your proposal above reads better. Perhaps "individual organisms" would be better than "different organisms". . . dave souza, talk 17:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, simplifying it by omitting "different" as you've done works as well. . dave souza, talk 21:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Having read mutationism, this came to mind as a possible area of confusion. Any objection to implementing the above proposal? . . dave souza, talk 08:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * None myself. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, implemented. I left migration unlinked as that's a disambiguation page. It seems to me that "as in migration" isn't terribly clear – would "as can occur during migration" be better? . . dave souza, talk 08:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Another disambiguation to resolve – heritable differences is piped to Genetic variation, which redirects to Genetic diversity. Presumably that's the right term rather than genetic variability, but I'll leave that until confirmed. . . dave souza, talk 09:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed two sentences that cannot be verified
Diff. Essentially, the problem is that racism, discrimination, and eugenics were formed out of Social Darwinism and not out of evolution. While it is true that social darwinism has cultural and philosophical antecedents in evolutionary theories (including now-discredited Lamarckism as well) of the 19th Century, it is not true to say that evolution was used to promote these ideas. In fact, the references given attribute the promotion of Galton's ideas to social darwinism -- not evolution. Please do not confuse the two. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Have tweaked your revision to make it clear that "social Darwinism" is a misnomer (from anti-capitalist rhetoric of the 1940s) and that ideas associated with it contradict Darwin's own views. . . dave souza, talk 22:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Proof?
So can anyone actually prove that evolution is how it all happened? It should not be treated as fact unless someone proves it so.

Fwooper (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.200.126 (talk)
 * Duplicate, answered below. .. dave souza, talk 15:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Natural realm?
This edit introduced "It is important to note that biological evolution is a physical process occurring in the natural realm. The mechanisms that drive evolution also control it." as a new paragraph in the lead section. While I can see where this is coming from, we don't have disclaimers that gravity isn't supernatural in physics articles, and it seems a bit too defensive as well as possibly running into difficulties with some versions of theistic evolution. . . dave souza, talk 08:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We explain this by explaining the processes involved so it was redundant and I removed it. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi.I saved the page you just erased....! I do not think this is of any

legal interest for you ! This is a discussion page...! Otherwise it is not a balanced Encyclopedia..........! (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I ADVISE WIKIPEDIA.ORG TO BE A BALANCED ENCYCLOPEDIA OR CLEARLY STATE WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU STAND FOR ON YOUR FIRST PAGES

Now. Please all EVOLUTIONISTS defend your beliefs here, or at this link at comments at: .......(GeorgeFThomson (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC))..............!

George F Thompson, be warned. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

..Hi Dave souza.....Can we entail in some Evolution discussion here or do you want to join another blog ? GeorgeFThomson (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)]
 * We discuss improvements to the article here, plenty of blogs about if you're that way inclined. dave souza, talk 17:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it seems you are very sure of what you write here....! You might "learn"

something blogging with me ! He who declines does show a mistrust in himself ! (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC))


 * EVOLUTIONIST PLEASE DEFEND YOURSELVES WITH ME. I like ridiculing !!!

If you are interested I am blogging at comments at: ........(GeorgeFThomson (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)).

CAN ANYBODY THINK SOMEBODY WOULD WANT A DEGREE IN EVOLUTION You would have to be the most ignorant person on EARTH.......! (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC))......


 * George: this isn't a place to advertise your blog. Please focus on improvements to the article.  Best regards, --P LUMBAGO  18:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Bettering the "Article"
Moderators. Where can it be stated, but not under creationists ideas, timetable methods for Biological Evolution to occur, and if it only is based on "fossils" ? Would this better the "article" or forgive my ignorance, as to where this is ? It probably is in the geological eras "article". Thanks. The article on Evolution, is lacking in more important details, or ignored, or probably on other links, that could be mentioned ! (Tathers (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC))


 * FOR EXAMPLE: where it says = "...Despite the uncertainty on how life began, it is clear that prokaryotes were the first organisms to inhabit Earth,[163] approximately 3–4 billion years ago.[164] ..." . I reccomend as Evolution being only a theory and not a "LAW", that it be used

"it is asumed...or some other word...that prokaryotes....!, etc."(forgive my spelling). So that anybody with any sense of what is Science theory does not think evolution to be a Science "LAW", even though the article clearly states the references as to why evol"u"tion is fact ! ....(24.86.41.111 (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)).


 * WELL simply because, a good evolutionists once told me: Science is not biased, and if

the theory of Evolution is ever disproven, then it would only become a belief or idea...! So as Evolution is opened to being disproven, it is not consequent to be accepted as a Mathematical exact LAW....!....(Thank-you for your understanding...!)....So being a theory it should not use statements of certainty or exactness...!(Tathers (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)).


 * Yes, I agree with you that the phrase 'it is clear that prokaryotes were the first organisms to inhabit Earth' is rather overstating matters. Having just read the reference the word 'clear' doesn't exactly leap out at you (and I'd advise against reading that reference if you are prone to headaches..). I've changed it from 'clear' to 'generally accepted'...to match the prokaryote page.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tried to reword this to remove reference to the "first organisms". Presumably there were (now extinct) precursors to (at least modern-looking) prokaryotes that we would tag as "organisms" were they still around.  I've reworded to just stick to the 3-4 billion years ago portion.  I think that helps.  YMMV.  --P LUMBAGO  15:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking, that not that anything I analyze be 99.99% original. But because I do work with exact things in mathematics, and not so exact in building. It is time for Evolutionists, to be more exact in their "terminology and the definitions of certainty, exactness, etc.; as also what degree of certainty and what degree of exactness, to not fall in any ill use of probabilities ...! In a weeks time after m"u"ch reading and interpretation of your "article", I might suggest something else, that might be a bit more elaborate. (Tathers (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)).


 * Meanwhile as to time and Evolution. I would suggest, they state as fact, what might be

proven, in 50,000-100,000-1,000,000years. If they are able to keep all records until then and if there are any fossils left, if they dig them all up, and newer fossils, be not readilly available, for the new life forms and humans to deliberate on...! It seems that fossils and "modern beings" are the finished product to me and pure logic...! ....Many thank s for yor insight and scientific understanding....! (Tathers (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC))


 * The terminology's of "finished product", "`degree` of certainty", "`degree` of exactness", implying also the contrary, and thus "percentage (%) of error", can be used by all Science to better define what Evolution really is, as a theory. As all other terminology I have used, is mine in my book of pure logic. Thank-you...! Do not think I am religious in any way. I am just establishing "firm gro"u"nd of reason" so that Science can progress....! (Tathers (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)).

Possible Problem with FAQ section
The FAQ section does not have its own talk page so I'm using this one: one of the references to observed speciation may be out of date - there is a citation of this article http://www.jstor.org/pss/2467513 from 1909, which says Oenothera lamarckiana and O.gigas are separate species, the one evolving from the other. However, I have seen some claims that the new 'species' is in fact just mutated, and the mutation is not then passed onto the next offspring. Is anyone qualified able to decide which of the two claims is true? Hadrian89 (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Draft section
Draft paragraph, please edit

Discussion of draft
I think that somewhere in the opening paragraphs is a good place to state evolution is a product of three necessary component processes: reproduction, variation, and selection. -- Another Stickler (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the second paragraph in the lead already covers this pretty well, and it additionally includes reference to the selection-free evolution of neutral traits. YMMV.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  08:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers back. The second paragraph in the opening summary does not describe the three component processes. It describes only the third process, selection, and lists two types of selection. It does not use the term "neutral traits" (although you are right to bring up neutral traits, as they should be included in any discussion of genetic drift). It does not use the phrase "selection-free". I think you might be misunderstanding something if you think genetic drift is selection free. See this sentence from the second paragraph: "Genetic drift results from the role probability plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals survive and reproduce." Genetic drift is selection by stochastic, accidental, probabilistic, or random processes. Genetic drift is random selection. Genetic drift is selection. Selection alone does not produce evolution; reproduction and variation are also needed. -- Another Stickler (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see merit in mentioning reproduction and variation, though I tend to agree with Plumbago on this. I am opposed to adding more technical terms like neutral traits and such that would require more nuanced explanation.  The purpose of an introduction is to introduce the article as a whole, not to be an executive summary that covers all the essentials.  We lay out the basics about evolution and people go and read the article and get all the details, nuance, and complexity. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What about this? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"When organisms reproduce, their offspring may have new or altered traits. These changes arise in two main ways: either from mutations in genes, or from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are also produced by genetic recombination, which can increase the variation in traits between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population."
 * Pretty good! Reads well, but dense. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, there's definitely "merit" in mentioning reproduction and variation--evolution can't happen without them! I disagree with you that the summary shouldn't cover the essentials. I agree that it doesn't have to detail them. I agree that neutral traits are not essential (to the summary). I don't think genetic drift is essential either, being better moved to a section on selection.


 * TimVickers, your rewrite of the first paragraph only briefly mentions reproduction, gives too much detail about variation, and leaves out selection entirely.


 * Here's a draft for the first two sentences. (I used 'heritable differences' rather than 'traits' to allow for unexpressed genes, and to disallow traits passed down by learning.)




 * It would go on from there, but should stay short. -- Another Stickler (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "breeding populations?" Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Our indentations seem to be getting pretty messy. I will indent my responses under what I'm responding to, rather than putting them all at the end. Maybe I should change "breeding populations" to "interbreeding populations". Maybe it should be "intrabreeding populations", since intra- means within rather than between, or simply "inbreeding populations" which sounds unhealthy but leaves no doubt as to who is breeding with whom. Can you suggest a better term? I meant to name the smallest unit capable of evolving--a group of individuals actually breeding among themselves. This is drawn from the concepts of Ernst Mayr whose biological species definition (not yet directly quoted in his article) speaks of populations, potential interbreeding, actual interbreeding, and reproductive isolation. I didn't use "species" because evolution happens on a smaller scale than species. If it didn't, (co-temporal) speciation could never occur. Right? Populations within species, potentially capable of interbreeding with other populations in the same species, but not actually interbreeding with other populations due to geography or some other recent isolator, are the populations that may eventually lose the ability to interbreed and become separate species--precisely because they evolve separately from other groups in the same species. -- Another Stickler (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * All you need are imperfect replicators, so bacteria are just as capable of evolving as are plants or animals. This is why the article says "reproduction" rather than "breeding". Tim Vickers (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Tim anticipates my point - I think of breeding as word applied to sexually reproducing organisms. Was Mayr using it to refer to asexually reproducing organisms as well?  Our explanation of evolution must apply equally to both forms of reproduction.  I have no problem bringing "reproduction" in, but I do have this doubt about "breeding populations." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, good point. Using "breeding" forgets to cover asexual reproduction, but the draft doesn't use reproducing or breeding, it just uses population, which is a little ambiguous. There has to be an optimal phrase for this that is not OR. (Incidentally, bacteria do sometimes have "sex" in that they can pass each other genetic material.) Do we want to include Dawkins' term "replicators"? I like it, but its implications are that evolution is not limited to biology and this article, as it is, is limited to biology. -- Another Stickler (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It does say "from one generation to the next", which I think makes the same point and covers all forms of sexual and asexual reproduction. I'd avoid "replicators" myself since although it is a good word, it isn't commonly-used and is therefore a bit inaccessible to a general audience. This article uses a lot of technical terms already, so adding more isn't my preferred option. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tim, please keep my original order: reproduction, variation, selection. I ordered them so with good reason. Notice the dependencies. Each depends upon the one(s) to its left and not on the one(s) to its right. In other words, you can have reproduction without variation, but not variation without reproduction, etc. -- Another Stickler (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Variation does not depend on reproduction - a population of sterile organisms will still vary from each other. Similarly, selection can happen without reproduction, through differential survival. The order here is arbitrary. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's illogical. Having a population implies that they have already reproduced whether they vary or not or survive or not. My order is not arbitrary. Please don't change it just because you can. -- Another Stickler (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Reproduction is implied by the fact that we are discussing organisms, but there is no necessary logical or mechanistic connection between selection and reproduction. If organisms did not reproduce, they could still vary. Similarly, if organisms did not vary, they could still reproduce. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're getting away from yourself there Tim. You say reproduction is implied by organisms but then hypothesize "if organisms did not reproduce". The fact is you can't have variation without a population to be varied, and a population happens because of reproduction. It is possible to have reproducing clones but not possible to have variation of a population that did not reproduce because they wouldn't exist in the first place to be varied! How do you think your hypothetical population of varied individuals got there? I'm the author of the phrase. I have a good reason for it. Leave it alone. -- Another Stickler (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Your argument goes


 * Premise - Organisms exist
 * Premise - Organisms reproduce
 * Premise - Organisms vary


 * Conclusion - Variation depends on reproduction.

However, the structure of your argument would work equally well with the premises


 * Premise - Organisms exist
 * Premise - Organisms have metabolism
 * Premise - Organisms vary


 * Conclusion - Variation depends on metabolism.

The fact that all organisms have several characteristics in common, (such as growth, reproduction, variation, cellular structure or metabolism) does not establish that there is a necessary link between any two of these characteristics. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not my reasoning. Things that don't exist cannot be different from each other. I tire of this. I didn't come here to interact with you. I came here to correct the information. You can edit this locked article. That doesn't make you right. You said you believe the order is arbitrary. If you truly believe that, then change it back to the order of the original author out of politeness if nothing else. Don't abuse your wiki-access. -- Another Stickler (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Many things are necessary for organisms to exist, examples include carbon, energy and water, however the question of whether or not something is required for organisms to exist is separate from the question of whether or not variation and reproduction depend on each other. If you are saying that variation "depends" on reproduction in the same way as variation "depends" on energy - ie organisms couldn't exist without both energy and reproduction, then you are right, but the statement is so general as to be meaningless. The list is presently in the same order as the concepts in the introduction, which seems most logical to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "...which seems most logical to me" and there we have it--abuse of editing power. You made a change to a semiprotected article that was not in the discussed draft, and refuse to change it back to the drafted wording because in your own opinion it's better. -- Another Stickler (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do indeed think it is better and have explained why I disagree with your idea that these conditions depend on each other, but you think it is worse and continue to argue that variation and reproduction are necessarily related. We meed a third opinion. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's my opinion: I agree with Tim; the traditional "three requirements" (mentioned later in the article) emphasize, rather than reproduction, the fact that organisms produce more offspring than can survive, implying a "struggle" for survival. I'm not necessarily fond of that formulation, but it's vastly preferable to merely stating that organisms reproduce, which is true, but not exactly germane. Reproduction by itself seems too general a statement. Graft | talk 09:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Graft, the issue is that Tim changed the article without discussing the change first. This is a semi-protected article. Changes are to be discussed first. Tim's behavior is out of order with the convention. If he would undo his premature action, then discussion about the merit of his proposed change could take place. His standing action incites an edit war that I refuse to participate in. -- Another Stickler (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tim's version as well. I do not think Tim is abusing editorial powers, I think his bias is conservative and to make changes in ways that conform to existing consensus.  So far, Another Stickler, no one has expressed support for your view concerning order, therefore, there is no new consensus. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. I proposed the text in a particular order in the draft. Nobody objected to my order at that time. Remember, until I proposed the text, these important terms were missing. I deserve some stylistic license as to the phrase I prefer unless someone can prove there is a better phrase. TimVickiers decided prematurely to copy the draft into the article while discussion was still going on. AT THAT TIME he made changes to the draft. That was wrong. He is not the arbiter of what goes into the article. He needs to undo that and propose his change to my order and offer support for why his order is better than my order in the talk area. When discussion is complete, and the draft is ready, then and only then is it right to copy the draft into the article, and it must be the same text, not modified on-the-fly. -- Another Stickler (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. All editors should be bold.  Tim made an edit he believed in.  if I thought he was wrong, nothing in the world prevents me from changing his edit.  All articls are works in progres,, any article can be edited at any time, no one editor has the last word.  So why not be bold?  Why not go ahead and make whateve edit you want?  if people think ou are wong they will just go ahead and edit your edit.  if they think you are right 9as in Tim's case) they will accept the edit.  There is simply no need for an editor to ask permission to makie a change when any editor can undo it at will. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 02:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you missed the huge banner? Quote: "All readers are free to edit Talk:Evolution/draft article, and constructive edits will be transferred to the main article." -- Another Stickler (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you guys stop having stupid process arguments? This is not a courtroom. The edit doesn't seem to have consensus support behind it, end of story. There's nothing else left to debate, is there? Let's move on to making more constructive edits. Graft | talk 21:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would welcome feedback from other people about this. If you feel I have misused my admin powers in any way, please post a concise description of the problem at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, so other people can review my actions. The relevant policy is the Protection policy. Here (link) is a diff of the edit in question. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It makes a lot more sense to associate variation with reproduction than metabolism, because the variations occur in the offspring, which are produced by reproduction. So there is a connection between reproduction and variation that you don't have with metabolism, and so while the two arguments you gave do follow the same structure, there is more to an argument than its structure. 80.235.57.239 (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence names "inherited traits". Unless I'm wrong, traits are phenotypical features. This ignores unexpressed genes and junk DNA. I suggest "heritable differences". -- Another Stickler (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would change it to "gene frequencies." Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While this is technically more correct, and the lead sentence in the past read this way, I think the general feeling was that this was a bit too abstruse to start off with. While personally I think understanding the concept of neutral variation and evolution is very important, I tend to agree that the intro language should present as low a barrier as possible to reading further. Which is why I kind of like inherited traits - it's not strictly correct, but it's "good enough". "Heritable differences" is already getting a bit jargony - "gene frequencies" might as well be Martian. Graft | talk 17:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I prefer "gene frequencies" over "heritable differences." But I agree with Graft about the value of the current wording.  The introduction should be as accessible as possible, so we can use the body to explain technical details as fully as necessary for a popular audience.  I share Graft's general principle. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Genetic drift classification

 * I'd disagree that genetic drift is a form of selection, since it is by definition unselective. I therefore don't think you can make that generalisation. Selection is left out of the first paragraph since that is the main topic of the second paragraph. I do agree though that a sentence giving an overview of the processes discussed in the lead after the first sentence defining the subject could be useful. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Drift has to fall under selection because drift describes a form of differential reproduction, and selection is just that. Selection is differential reproduction, no matter if caused by environmental pressures or randomness. Interesting that you say the second paragraph (that writes about drift) is about selection but drift is not selection!? Genes undergoing drift are not selected by the environment but they are selected never the less, otherwise the frequency would not change over time. Don't confuse selection with any sort of intention--don't think there has to be a reasoned selector. Selection is merely differential reproduction. [You forgot to sign your draft paragraph below; please sign it and delete this bracketed portion. It's getting hard to keep track of the flow here.] -- Another Stickler (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Drift can also be caused by differential survival. I've never seen drift classified as a form of selection in what I've read on evolution. Where did you first come across this classification? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Evolution is when ...." sounds awkward. Evolution isn't a process that happens only at certain times. How about "In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population ...." --FOo (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Also agreee with Tim that drift is not a form of selection - it sounds like Stickler is engaging in a kind of OR.  I'd be glad to be corrected but the textbooks I have read contrast "natural selection" and "genetic drift" as the two distinct and major forces or dynamics of evolution (which is not to say there aren't others). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, it's not OR (original research, frowned upon by wikipedia). Just because natural selection and genetic drift are described separately doesn't put them in different families. And they are not the two major processes. There are three. Selection alone does not produce evolution. You still need reproduction and variation. I'll try to find references. (The most obvious reference is this article itself which I quote again "Genetic drift results from the role probability plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals survive and reproduce." Specifically "...whether a trait will be passed on..." means selection. Right? Please also try to find any reference that says drift is not selection. -- Another Stickler (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Another Stickler, you are preaching to the choir about "reproduction" and "variation" since we are currently working on a revision that includes these two terms. As to drift being selection, you have not yet assuaged my OR concerns.  What is your reliable source for a significant view of an evolutionary scientist who identifies genetic drift as a form of selection?  I am not being sarcastic or asking a rhetorical question, I honestly do not know, and would like to know.  But all you have done so far is explain to me your own reasoning.  As long as it is your reasoning and not a notable source (e.g., "Dobzhanski argued," or "Wright argued" or whoever) it is a good example of OR; NOR prohibits us from introducing our own arguments or interpretations into articles. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to preach to the choir. We are all editing this at the same time. The article changed while I was responding. I now see the draft at the top. I think it's still too wordy, but let me go read Tim's links first. -- Another Stickler (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , all seem to make a distinction between selection and genetic drift. A free-access paper covering the topic is Detecting genetic drift versus selection in human evolution. Although I can see the argument that you could in theory classify drift as some form of "random selection", this just isn't how the sources deal with the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Tim, thanks for the links, but are they actually applicable? So many links, but you haven't quoted any relevant portions. Am I just supposed to read all of it looking to prove your point for you? I'm reading, but you sure made extra work for me. Be back later... -- Another Stickler (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to read everything, just skimming some of the abstracts should be enough. Genetic drift at expanding frontiers promotes gene segregation would also be good to read in full, since it goes into more detail. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm back from reading all your links and selected two quotes for us. Here's the phrase that most supports your view "...genetic drift can lead to substantial changes in protein functions that are not currently under selection..." and here's the one that best supports mine "...Random drift and natural selection are sibling processes: two forms of post-productional sorting among alternative developmental trajectories, the former random, the latter nonrandom.". Unfortunately, none of those writers are original coiners of the terms, and most of it is lazy-speak that assumes everyone knows natural selection is meant when the writer uses selection. We need to find something from Mayr, Futuyma, Gould, Dawkins, etc. -- Another Stickler (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(reset)Stickler, you still haven't replied to my comment of 19:50. If Tim's point is that the above sources do not identify drift as a form of selection, it would be impossible to single out any one place to find support. Another Stickler, you have claimed that genetic drift is a form of selection. So far you have provided only your own reasoning for making this claim. Two editors, Tim and myself, are having trouble recalling any verifiable source that classifies genetic drift as a form of selection. It is perfectly reasonable for us to ask you, whose view is it that genetic drift is a form of selection, and how significant is this view (to comply with NPOV) and what is the source in which you find this view, and how reliable is it (to comply with V and NOR). If you can provide the reliable source for a significant view, swell. But until you can do that, it is only reasonable for us to continue to treat drift as a fourth factor. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, actually I did respond to that 19:50 comment already, 12 minutes before you wrote that I hadn't replied. Our packets are passing each other. Please keep in mind this is not a war and let the discussion proceed at the pace dictated by the mechanics of the interface. Now, you should probably let Tim speak for himself, but if you're saying Tim's point of offering links is to show text that doesn't offer evidence, then I don't agree. I assumed that he offered links to support his view and so I took the time to read them. One of them actually supports my understanding. Now I have to go find some quotes to bring in, ideally from higher upstream. What is "to comply with V"? -- Another Stickler (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see a response to my 19:50 comment, until your 22:07 comment with which, by the way, I agree. V is verifiability.  The first quote does support Tim's position (and mine) but the second quote does not support yours since it does not use the word "selection."  I agree with you that we need to reexamine Mayr, Futuyma, Gould, and Dawkins.  Unfortunately I do not have any of them at hand. I will wait to see if either of you or someone else can provide the needed source. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * True, the author of doesn't use "selection", but you can still see the hierarchical form that supports my point. Instead of "selection" he uses the horribly long noun phrase "post-productional sorting among alternative developmental trajectories" for the category under which he classifies both "random drift" (an acceptable synonym for genetic drift or random genetic drift), and "natural selection" as "sibling processes". That hierarchical placement is what I'm getting at. They operate in the same area--the determination of which genes get to be passed down. I'm thinking this determination is called "selection" and that there are two types, "random selection" and "non-random selection", and that genetic drift is an example of random selection. I spent the rest of the day Friday googling various string combinations but didn't find any truly authoritative authors, just people writing papers and stuff. I don't think full text of important books is available online because of copyrights. Here are my general results for "random selection", which appears to be used in five ways. 1) Random selection of chromosomes and chromosomal portions during meiosis and crossover. (These microscopic processes are important to genetic drift, however I admit that in this context "random selection" is borrowed from statistics or probability as a synonym for random choosing, random picking, or random assortment, and not the category heading name I'm looking for.) 2) Random selection of mates for groups of test subjects made by experimenters used as a statistical baseline for comparison against results when other groups of subjects are allowed to choose their mates. (Again, similar to the mate restriction found in the founder effect, important to random drift, but not really used as a category name.) 3) Random selection used as a mathematical construct in formulas as a base for comparison to help identify and extract evidence for non-random selection forces from large empirical data sets. (Mathematically useful, but not meant to be a description of nature.) 4) In evolutionary algorithms or genetic algorithms, "random selection" is one possible method for determining which genotypes are used to create the next round of variations. This is very close to my meaning, and appears quite commonly in search results, unfortunately the context is artificial evolution, not biological evolution. 5) I did find various people on the web that equate "genetic drift" with "random selection" exactly as I did, but they were non-authoritative, writing in evolution forums. I don't want to rest on them. (END LIST.) It seems so obvious to me that there are two kinds of selection: random and non-random. I suppose I might have figured that out myself, but I believe I read it, I just don't know where. I'm starting to think it might have been from a larger sphere than pure biology, like a Douglas Hofstadter, or A.G. Cairns-Smith, or Gregory Bateson, or Rupert Sheldrake, or someone in computing. I will have to retrace my steps at the library and get some books out of storage. Until then, I suspend my effort to change the article to say genetic drift is random selection. I'm happy enough for now to see reproduction and variation mentioned in the opening summary, which was my original topic anyway. I suppose someone might as well archive this subsection now and close it. -- Another Stickler (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * They use the general term "selection" not out of laziness but to acknowledge that there are several different forms of selection. These sources are not intended to show who originally formed the term, but to show how it is classified at present. A good non-specialist article could be this from New Scientist. If you can find anything that does actually class genetic drift as a form of selection we can revisit this idea, but as you'll have seen that isn't how the scientific literature usually treats these processes, which is why Slrubenstein and I were so surprised when you classified them together. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

HW-equilibrium discussion

 * Evolution is a process that happens only at certain times, if a population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium it will not evolve. It's true that this situation is probably pretty rare in nature, but strictly speaking evolution only happens when certain conditions are met, it isn't a given. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the difference between FOo and Tim is that FOo is refering to evolution "the fact" and Tim to evolution "the theory." Still, Tim, is the view you are forwarding taken for granted by evolutionary biologists?  I am not questioning your point about HW, HW works because it presents a model at equilibrium.  But HW is only one component of evolutionary theory, natural selection and drift are also part of evolutionary theory and they are forces that act on an HW equilibrium, it seems to me that what you are saying is true about the HW principle, but ceases to be true once we add NS and GD to the model. Am I wrong? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm talking about the process. If a population is at HW-equilibrium then no change will occur in allele frequencies. This needs a very large population and no selection - NS and GD disturb a population from HW-equilibrium and thereby cause evolution. The only point I was trying to make is that evolution isn't a universal process like gravity, if the conditions aren't met it will not occur. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, got it. I would also imagine it would have to be an isolated population. But aren't you still excluding the inevitability of changes due to transcription error?  Or is your point that even that is a force acting on an equilibrium? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * True, mutation is inescapable, so in the real world populations will probably at best hover very close to equilibrium. Mutation is another force that acts on equilibrium. It's like Newton's first law - the allele frequencies remain "at rest" unless acted on by a force such as GD or NS. Anyway, we seem to have drifted away from talking about the text! Feel free to edit the draft above. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was an edifying discussion, thanks for indulging me. I have tweaked the beginning.  My main concern is that I think drift merits being included as a fourth process. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think drift is a fourth process, I mean it is, but it falls under the third category. We should describe evolution by unpacking the hierarchical categories under it like a Venn diagram (I don't mean visually), or folder structure, or outline structure, or concept tree, you get the idea, so that logical levels are consistently maintained and we don't describe any lower level until all higher levels are mentioned. If we talk about drift in the opening then we should talk about all the other ideas that are nested as deeply, or leave them all out including drift. Here's an organization of some of the concepts just to show the tree. The opening summary should only deal with the parent categories, leaving the daughter categories to later sections. I put in extra stuff just to show that the tree gets deep rapidly and to demonstrate the need to prune it to just the three main limbs for the intro, and is in no way complete in the smaller levels. (Forgive the ugly periods. The spaces were getting compressed.)
 * ...Evolution


 * ......Reproduction


 * .........Sexual Reproduction


 * .........Asexual reproduction


 * ............Plant propagules (parts that break off and root)


 * ............Parthenogenesis


 * ......Variation


 * .........Mutation


 * ............Transcription Errors


 * ............High energy quanta impact (radiation damage)


 * .........Sexual recombination


 * .........Infection of gametes followed by incorporation of viral DNA into the bloodline
 * .........Accidental Polyploidy


 * ......Selection


 * .........Natural Selection


 * ............Sexual Selection (ala Dawkins' peacocks)
 * .........Genetic Drift


 * .........Cosmic novelty (asteroid impacts)


 * .........Directed Selection


 * ............Ancient and modern agricultural selection of preferred individuals or strains


 * ...............Domestic animals
 * ...............Yeasts
 * ..................Bread
 * ..................Beer
 * ............Biomedical selection of strains with preferred traits


 * ...............bacterial "factories" for antibodies, etc.
 * -- Another Stickler (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You may believe genetic drift is a form of selection, but until you can respond to my requests, and Tim's, in the preceeding section, it still seems to me to violate NOR. As to your general plan, it is too detailed for an introduction, and while I find it intriquing and interesting we would need more discussion involving more people if you are proposing to reorganize the article as a whole.Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That plan is definitely too detailed for the intro. That was exactly my point. I'm glad you are intrigued by it and think it might be applicable to the article as a whole, but reorganizing the article is a daunting idea. If we can sustain cooperation, that might be a satisfying project later--although a difficult one with no credit or pay. -- Another Stickler (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been out of the loop for a few months (moved, been traveling), but I'll just add my $0.02 on Hardy-Weinberg. The important parameter for comparing HW and evolution is time. With a really randomly mating population, you can reach HW equilibrium in a single generation, whereas both drift and selection, even strong selection, take many generations to act. Seeing disruptions to HW equilibrium caused in a single generation requires very strong selection - it's possible, of course, but any traits that have such a strong effect shouldn't be expected to segregate in the population for very long, if at all. The thing that has the largest influence on Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is population structure - two sub-populations that are both in HW equilibrium might together comprise a larger population that is not in HW equilibrium - and usually this is what it's most capable of detecting. In the real world, there are no "ideal" HW populations, of course, so the major thing it tells us is that the population sample we're considering appears to be unstratified, at least as far as this simple test can demonstrate. Graft | talk 22:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenic effect
The following unsourced addition appears to be nothing more than a subset of eugenics or artificial selection –
 * The opposite of adaptation, dysgenics occurs when the individuals that are least adapted leave the most offspring. The mechanism of this unusual outcome is controversial.
 * The opposite of adaptation, dysgenics occurs when the individuals that are least adapted leave the most offspring. The mechanism of this unusual outcome is controversial.

No indication there that it's significant enough for a section, or even a mention. . dave souza, talk 18:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No sources were provided to establish that this idea is important enough to modern evolutionary biology to be mentioned in this article. Good call Dave. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The main issue that I think places dysgenics outside of the realm of biological evolution theory, is the suggestion that any particular trait should be measured to judge how well adapted a population is, rather than its numbers. In other words, to say "the least adapted leave the most offspring" is an oxymoron. In biological evolution, being able to survive and leave lots of offspring (that also survive and leave lots of offspring) means that a population is well adapted at least with respect to its immediate environment. -- Another Stickler (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's substituting some kind of value judgment for biology, similar to the discredited idea of "devolution". Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There was an argument some time ago to delete an article on "dysgenics" as fringe science; some editors may be trying to establish that it is mainstream science. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Those ideas might be more important in the history of science as related to scientific racism and eugenics, but it certainly isn't any part of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

pic in 'genetic drift' section
what is the rationale for having Image:Allele-frequency.png in here? Is this based on a verifiable source, or as the picture description reads 'made from scratch', i.e. without any scientific basis? Northfox (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "made from scratch" meaning "without any scientific basis" is not the issue. The concept of "drift" has a scientific basis.  The section on drift provides an account of what we mean by drift, and that has a scientific basis.  The only question is, does the illustration draw on actual research, or is it purely hypothetical?   I think that Graft does need to clarify this.  If it is purely hypothetical, I see no problem at all with the illustration.  It is merely meant to illustrate a concept.  Since the concept itself is abstract an illustration of the concept can be hypothetical.  What makes it scientific is not that it is based on an actual empirical sample but that it illustrates a scientific concept.  On the other hand, maybe it really is based on actul case-studies ... while I do not think this is necessary, there is nothing wrong with it.  If it is based on actual research, the only question is, whose research, and is it already published?  If so, Graft can add a citation.  If it is based on Graft's own unpublished research, then it violates NOR.  This is the only grounds by which one can criticize the image.  Graft us a very good editor and I am sure we can all wait a day or two for him to clarify this.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 06:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm unclear on what "without any scientific basis" would mean, and i'm not sure what constitutes OR in this context. I made it using a simple Fisher-Wright model of drift - I think I used Kimura's approximation of Wright-Fisher for simplicity's sake, though I don't exactly remember and my script is long gone. It's a purely mathematical model and doesn't reflect any real populations, if that's what's at issue. I don't remember my source - it's probably John Gillespie's "Population Genetics: A Concise Guide", which you can read here in part, although I think most of the relevant stuff on Wright-Fisher is omitted. If necessary I can recreate the code and post it with the image. As to whether it's original research, well, if you think plotting a graph of y=x^2 is original research, I'd put this in the same category.
 * The rationale for including it was simply to demonstrate that drift to fixation occurs faster in small populations, and so alleles are lost more quickly there, and more generally to show the stochastic process of alleles disappearing. I'm not sure how intelligible the figure is to non-specialists. I'll point out that I did not include it here, I made it originally for genetic drift, and it was put in here I suspect because it's a cool-looking figure. Graft | talk 06:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * May I suggest adding to the caption something like, "This chart is based on a purely mathematical model to illustrate the Wright-Fisher model of drift?" I could imagine a similar illustration for Hardy-Weinberg - I would not consider it original research nor would I consider it scientific.  Graft, you answered any questions I had, and I hope it was already clear from my comment above that i have no problem with what you did and in fact congratulate and thank you for the good work. But ... what do you think of my suggestion for the caption? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 06:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, i propose moving the moth illustration to the "mutation" section, and asking if Graft would create an illustration of Hardy Weinberg (with the caption, "This chart is a purely mathematical illustration of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium model" or something like that, to put in the "population genetics" section! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 06:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have mentioned in the past, I'm not exactly a fan of discussing Hardy-Weinberg in the context of evolution; it's mostly irrelevant. But - what sort of chart do you have in mind? As for the caption, I'd suggest adding it to the image page itself, for the curious, to prevent cluttering up this and other pages. Graft | talk 06:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The section mentions HW prominently already, nothing wrong with illustrating it. I was thinking of a chart of two parents each with a dominant and recessive allele for a trait, and four offspring showing the combinations. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

undent: I added a sentence below the graph to make it clear that this is not based on published data. One more thing: why stop at populations of 100? How many generations would it need for alleles to disappear in populations of 1000 or 10.000? Also, I beg to differ between a computer simulation (with lots of parameters, etc to change at will), which is OR and y=x^2, which is an exact calculation. Northfox (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Northfox, drift is a sampling error. The chances of any two illustrations of it being the same are remote.  It is the kind of thing that can be illustrated only by the kind of simulation Graft ran, that is the whole point.  It is not a matter of how many parameters there are, drift cannot be modeled by a mathematical formula. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * WTF? So, you decide to make an illustration of what a parabola looks like. You choose some arbitrary constants for the focus and the directrix - now you're doing original research? I heartily disagree. I'm not making any novel claims, here. I'm merely reproducing what others have done before me. As to why I stopped at populations of 100, for larger populations the simulation would take many more generations to be illustrative (average time to fixation is 4N generations, where N is population size). I don't think that any caveats are necessary in the article. I'll move it to the Image page... Graft | talk 03:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Graft, you wrote that he 'merely reproduced what other did'. Great! Thank you for investing your time to do that. But then, it would be helpful to know on what scientific basis you did that. From the graph and its description it could be that 'I just sat my 10 year old son in front of the computer and let him fill in the blanks in an excel spread sheet'. Of course you didn't do such a thing. But it is not clear what you did. Please be more specific on which grounds (scientific paper, or other published sources, or...) your modeling is based. You did that in your post here on the discussion page. Please add something along that line for the graph. You also said that it takes 4N generations. That is an important data, and I assume that this is from some paper. So, why not include it in the section, too? I am not an expert, so I am asking those questions here. Please assume that most people reading this article are not experts neither. So, we need you experts to make it as understandable as possible, with the least ambiguity, and without original research (as it stands your graph is OR, in my humble opinion, which was also voiced by Slrubenstein). And please no three letter acronyms. They do not contribute to a civil exchange of ideas. Northfox (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "OR" is a term that gets thrown around rather loosely on Wikipedia these days, and I'm afraid that's what you're doing here. I did not do any original research to make this figure. I looked it up in a book. I gave you the citation of a book you can look this information up in. Since this seems to be such a sticking point, I will post code, but I'm not sure it's going to contribute more than the existing information already has. Please clarify why you think this constitutes original research.
 * The point of the figure is not for you to understand how it was generated, the point is for you to understand what it is illustrating. I'm not sure on what basis the former is deemed necessary, and I'm not really sure how I can provide it to you. Graft | talk 19:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The figure cannot violate NOR, because the figure does not represent any research. It does not make any argument.  It is not an original synthesis of ideas.  It is as graft says an illustration of content in the article.  The only OR question is: is the content in the article in violation of NOR?  You have not suggested that any is, and I can't see it, so the illustration of the content cannot violate NOR. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But the illustration has to reflect the content in a correct way. With a graph made 'from scratch' without any details we do not know if it does. Seeing this graph makes me ask may questions. "Why do all the alleles start at the 50% point?" "It seems that once the frequency falls below 10 or 20%, there is a 'point of no return' after which the allele 'dies out'. Is this reasonable?", etc., etc., etc. A bit more background information on the graph is necessary. If not, I suggest to remove the graph. Northfox (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what "we" you're talking about, in "we do not know". I made the graph; I've been editing this page for many years now. I suggest if you're really that concerned, you do some due diligence and at least read the links I provided, and look up what a Wright-Fisher model of drift is. Have you done that much? Graft | talk 21:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I never had a problem with the original caption. It did say "simulation". However, in general, more information is better; the question is just where to put it. A caption should be short. An explanation of the algorithm or of drift or of graphics programming would belong elsewhere. I've done simulations like this myself, although not as pretty, just using numeric variables that get printed out. It stands to reason that if you want to test how long it takes to drift to 0% or 100%, you start as far away as possible, which is 50%. There's no point of no return other than 0% and 100%. Random choices don't depend on history, just like a string of 99 heads in a row has no effect on the 100th toss. -- Another Stickler (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not quibbling with the illustration, but for the record, the coin toss is a poor analogy because with drift history does matter. Why?  Although chance is acting on the population, how chance acts in one generation changes the population and thus the conditions in which chance acts on the next generation.  Drift is thus a cumulative effect of chance acting on gene frequencies over time. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 04:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think of drift as a random walk with absorbing boundaries (which is reasonable), then the analogy holds well; whether you walk up or down, and the size of your step, does not depend on your current state, and is purely a random variable depending only on the population size. Graft | talk 05:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is theory.
Evolution as a theory was developed by Darwin to explain how natural selection forces life to evolve past its current state. HOWEVER, if a set of genes somehow manages to increase the information that is stored within it (a PROVEN Bio-physical IMPOSSIBILITY), and produce the much-sought-after intermediary "missing link", then the mutant set of genes would by definition be eliminated by natural selection. This essentially is the crux of the argument as to why Darwin was so wrong (he even admitted himself that he may be living in a fantasy). There is so much more to the argument but this alone should be enough to make ignoramuses realise that evolution is a complete IMPOSSIBILITY, no matter how many "billions" of years you throw into the mix. Thank You.

P.S. To the idiot below, there is a present not one single piece of evidence to suggest that Evolution is fact, even avid evolutionists have admitted this. Prove me wrong. I dare you. IAMSka (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)IAMSka

All science is theory. If you're incapable of understanding that, I suggest you seek higher education. Practical application and evidence support Evolution as a fact. It is only written as theory because science is humble enough to accept the notion of an incomplete idea. I am not a scientist. I can identify it as fact, as should all educational systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.208.62 (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I know there are things that prove evolution is some ways, But in other ways, It is just a theory. I propose that we change this: In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next........

To this: In biology, evolution Is a theory of the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next......

I think this article is too much from a evolutionist point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstudios (talk • contribs) 01:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, evolution is both the observed process of change,and the theory that explains that change. And what is an "evolutionist"? --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * An evolutionist is someone who accepts scientific fact, which is what Wikipedia reports. Erik the Red  2    01:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but you are wrong. Evolution is not fact. It is simply a theory, and by scientific definition, a theory cannot be proved, only disproved. In science, there is no such thing as "fact"; there are only theory and law (direct observation). The word "evolutionist" means someone who believes the theory of evolution. If you insist that evolution is a fact, then prove it. It would be a huge breakthrough on your part (and you would be famous) because so far, no one has ever done that. Gefreiter (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Boy are you wrong, Gefreiter. As the article explains, quite clearly, evolution is both a fact (if by fact we mean things like "the earth rotates around the sun" or "Atoms can be described as being made of particles, among them protons and electrons") and it is also a theory.  Also, you are wrong to say that a theory cannot be proved, only disproved - the word "proof" pertains to math, but not to the sciences.  Theories are models which generate hypotheses.  Perhaps you were thinking of hypotheses, when you wrote theory.  But even then, we don't say hypotheses are disproven, they are falisified.  A bad theory is not a theory that generates hypotheses that are falsified, it is a theory that does not generate any hypotheses at all.  Even if some hypotheses are falisified, as long as a theory is able to generate hypotheses that can be tested and that scientists consider worth testing, and models the facts as we know them in an elegant or economical way, scientists will continue to find the theory of value.  And finally, as to your challenge to prove the that evolution is a fact, I would ask you to spend less time reading talk pages and more time reading actual encyclopedia articles, as that is where you will educate yourself.  Our article, and linked articles, go through several examples in which evolution is a demonstrated fact. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The word "theory" in science means a widely accepted conclusion drawn from extensive research and experimentation. So evolution is "just a theory", but that actually means that every mainstream scientist agrees with it. There is not use adding creationist weasel words here. Erik the Red  2
 * During World War II, "mainstream" scientists believed that Negroes were of a different, lesser, species of mankind. If you do not believe me, see the chart accompanying the article Paleontology of Man in the 1943 publication of Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. Scientific consensus proves nothing; if anything, it should draw such theories into speculation. Gefreiter (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate the word evolutionist. It's been stolen by creationists to imply a "belief" in evolution, rather than scientific reasoning that leads to acceptance of the theory.  Sigh.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Evolutionism is, by definition, the belief in the theory of evolution. It is a belief, simply because it cannot be, and has never been, proven. There is more evidence disproving evolution than there is supporting it, so it is technically a belief. Gefreiter (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence disproving evolution. If anyone has told you thins they are lying, or ignorant.  If yoiu want to know the truth, Wikipedia has articles goving over the various claims as to why evolution is wrong, and explains the mistakes in these claims - like I said, you should try reading actual articles! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Theory in science does not necessarily mean widely held conclusions. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. The fact is the observed processes of mutation, natural selecion, and speciation.Proxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0

The theory is a set of axioms and mathematical models that help us predict future events. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote: Rockstudios, "I think this article is too much from a evolutionist point of view." Well, I'm gobsmacked by that lol! --Candy (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We can only call evolution a theory with explanation of the scientific meaning of the word theory, which is impossible in the first sentence. In can be added later on with explanation of the meaning intended by the use of the word, but without explanation in the first sentence, it casts the impression that there is disagreement about the theory and that there is reason to believe that evolution is untrue, both of which are false. It would become a weasel sentence. Erik the Red  2    22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

We provide a link to the article on scientific theory, and explain what kind of a theory it is in the body. The article is about both the theory and the fact. One way to handle this - and I am sure there are others - is to begin the second paragraph by saying "According to neo-Darwinian theory," and link neo-Darwinian to the article on the modern synthesis, and theory to the article on theory. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We can have "theory" and the scientific meaning as well as further discussion about it being both theory and fact anywhere is the article- just not the lead, especially not the first sentence. Erik the Red  2    23:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that I alone can stand in the way of progress, but I really dislike using the word "Darwinian", which goes along with my reasoning for not liking evolutionist. Moreover, Darwin proposed the theory, but the backup data and "facts" have been developed more recently.  Why isn't it just evolution?  Maybe I'm confusing things around here.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Theory" is the highest status to which a scientific model may ascend. Most often assumed to be greater than theory, "laws" are typically simpler expressions and equally are models of reality. When first proposed, Darwin's concept of evolution by variation and natural selection might arguably have been called a hypothesis. That said, Darwin backed his model up with extensive observations. With a bulk of data and mass independent confirmation a hypothesis may become a theory. This is what happened to Darwin's model. "Just a theory" is becoming a very tired phrase in relation to evolution. DoktorDec (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tired phrase is right on. I hope you know that this isn't the only article where this POV stuff keeps showing up.  I think I just reverted some stuff at Human evolution, but I don't remember.  There are just so many articles, and so few hours in a day.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are arguing against Rockstudios, I am with you 100%. Now, what do people think of my proposal for the second paragraph? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it, but how 'bout saying, "According to modern scientific consensus on evolution" instead. Erik the Red  2    23:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the whole point is to explain what evolutionary theory is. I agree that we oughtn't to get bogged down about this in the first sentence or even the first paragraph but there is a thing called evolutionary theory and this article discuses it. Some people will think Eistein's theory of relativity is just an opinion - but they should not be writing encyclopedia articles. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you also heard of the other fascinating theory, the theory of gravity? Test it and return to report the results.--85.216.207.251 (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The writer of this article surely believed evolution as a fact because he defined it factually. He should have written, "Evolution is a theory..." As for the person who said that all science is theory, let him read what the definition of the word "theory" is and he'll see.Cypapaper (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Evolution has at least two meanings, see evolution as theory and fact. Unfortunately, which meaning is meant is not always explicitly stated and it's left up to the reader to figure it out by context. Both meanings are implied in different parts of this article. It could do with some more explicit language in spots just to prevent confusion, but it's not inconsistent if you understand each context. Also by the way, the article isn't written by just one person. -- Another Stickler (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The entire article presents evolution as fact, which is objectionable on philosophic grounds. I can see the two meanings, but the article, and the topic generally is about the origins of different species, and this is what Cyapaper seems to be getting at. Yes, you can observe changes within species, and call that evolution, but the Theory of Evolution - the explanation of how species arise, is absolutely NOT fact, in the scientific sense, because the theory is non-falsifiable - it is impossible to falsify the Theory of Evolution. You can neither prove it not falsify it - not actually or theoretically, and neither has ever been done. Any proposition which cannot be theoretically falsified is not even scientific, never mind scientific fact!


 * I would suggest that it does not help the Theory of Evolution to claim it is fact; it tends instead to imply a position of faith, because it asserts universal truth without proof.


 * And, I would like to add that the repeated reference to its virtually universal acceptance also does a disservice to science. Science does not work by democratic vote! There are many reasons why orthodoxy cleaves to a given position, and the history of science is replete with widely accepted "truths" which have been overturned by new evidence. So wide acceptance is not meaningful in the assertion of truth. 86.151.17.162 (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually it is easily falsifiable. If genetics showed different species did not have common inherited traits, that would disprove it. So would a fossil record that disagreed with inherited traits over time; as would fossils being out of sequence in the fossil record, as would any evidence suggesting the Universe/Earth is young, as would micro-evolution not working. (micro leads to macro-evolution -- speciation -- over time) - RoyBoy 22:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Evolution as theory and fact‎ article
FYI: somebody is edit-warring to include a set of tired old creationist fallacies in Evolution as theory and fact‎. I've reverted a couple of times, but don't want to get into an WP:EDITWAR. HrafnTalkStalk 07:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To arms, lads...Vunecal212 (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with this war is I feel less like a colonial militia and more like a Panzer tank division facing some guys with sticks. Graft | talk 21:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

WHY IS THIS HIDDEN? Why be afraid of the discussion? Obviously this article on the "theory of evolution" is written as if evolution were a fact. Eg, "... all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool ..." is stated as a 100% fact! We should admit our UNCERTAINTY and allow our assumptions to be questioned and challenged - may be there is a better explanation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.26.213 (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not hidden. It's right there.  Click on "show" and you can read it all you want.  It was simply marked irrelevant because this page is for improvement of the article only.  Nothing else.  Not personal opinion.  Not conspiracy theories.  Just improving the article.  Thus, if the post is not a suggestion on how to specifically improve the article, or a discussion about improving the article, we can "archive" it. Farsight001 (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

ARTICLE IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTION: Statements on the 'theory of evolution' should NOT be stated as facts, but be qualified as assumptions or theoretical implications, derivations or extrapolations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.26.213 (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you are referring to this article, not the other one. I think what you suggest is exactly what the article does. Facts (including the fact of evolution) are reported as facts. Theories (including the theory of evolution) are described as theories, suitably qualified where necessary. Can you point to any specific statements in the article that should be changed? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The distinction between the data (changes in organisms over time) and the theories that have been proposed as mechanisms generating these changes does seem to be a common source of confusion (judging from this talkpage). Presently this is addressed a bit obliquely in the lead with the sentence Evolutionary biology documents the fact that evolution occurs, and also develops and tests theories that explain its causes. Do people think we can can or should make this point more directly? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems a good idea, and "cause" is a bit of an awkward word as in terms of the Cosmological argument, or argument from first cause, we're talking about secondary causes here. On the basis of your words, a suggestion for discussion – "Evolutionary biology documents evolution as changes in organisms over time, and also develops and tests theories that explain the mechanisms of evolution". . dave souza, talk 19:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure. All "facts" are interpretations of data, the facts about gravity are interpretations of data, the fact that the earth orbits the sun is very much an interpretation of data, they are just low-order interpretations that have achieved such universal acceptance among scientists that the scientist that first proposed the interpretations never needs to be cited.  That speciation occurs through natural processes I think has achieved this level of fact.  I do not think any scientist, unless that scientist is biased by religious beliefs, certainly no biologist, questions this fact.  When was the last time a scientist published a peer-reviewed journal article the main argument of which was to prove that evolution occurs?  From what I know, not for at least fifty years.  That makes it a fact.  Scientists may still publish articles defending natural selection as a mechanism of evolution, but not the fact of evolution itself. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea to fiddle with that sentence, perhaps. Not so much because it isn't clear enough, but rather because it gives (IMHO) two slightly wrong impressions. (1) As Dave Souza says, "causes" is liable to send readers off in the wrong direction; (2) "documents the fact that evolution occurs" looks a bit defensive, as if demonstrating that it does so is still open to question. I like Dave Souza's rewording, but I would perhaps tweak it to something like Evolutionary biology documents evolution as it occurs (and has occurred), and also develops and tests theories that explain the mechanisms of evolution. Maybe the parenthesis there is too cumbersome. Going back to the original question from Tim Vickers - yes, perhaps it would be a good idea to build in a clearer statement that "evolution" stands both for the data and for the theoretical framework - or maybe a clearer, earlier, link to the article Evolution as theory and fact (which I think now states the point quite well in its opening paragraph. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with saying "Evolutionary biology documents evolution as it occurs." But I do not like "Evolution stands both for the data and the theoretical framework."  First, as I suggested above, I think "data" clouds the issue.  All physical, life, behavioral, and social scientists work from "data."  We may as well just say "Evolutionary biologists are scientists." That there is "data" is not the issue.  I would like to remind people that the principal reasoning behind the current wording was to make it explicit in the introduction that evolution is a fact, and that there is also a theory of evolution.  I am not opposed to changing the introduction, but any chance in my view should continue to make explicit that evolution is a fact, and that there is also a theory concerning that fact. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I wasn't clear enough. I did not intend to propose "Evolution stands both for the data and the theoretical framework" as wording that should go into the article - I was merely using it here as a (rather clumsy) way of referring to the dual fact/theory connotation of the word evolution. SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 12:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor's comments at the top of this discussion that the article does make clear the fact and theory balance is ridiculous. Anyone without scientific knowledge reading this article would immediatelty be of the belief that all of the THEORIES referred to here are instead FACT when we all know this is not the case - e.g. "The main mechanisms for producing evolutionary change are natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow." Each of the mechanisms referred to there is a THEORY but you can hardly say the sentence reflects that. The article is riddled with statements like that.

I would be grateful for other editors' opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.230.233 (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you don't seem to share the same viewpoint as we do, how would you rewrite the sentence Evolutionary biology documents the fact that evolution occurs, and also develops and tests theories that explain its causes. to make the distinction between the observation (evolution) and the mechanisms (eg natural selection and genetic drift)? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Timothy - I would argue that it is not a FACT that evolution occurs based on one of the definitions within the article that evolution can lead to the emergence of new species. If this is the case why does the article not provide any examples of this happening. It is my understanding that there have not been found any examples of intermediary forms. (Please do not cite any examples such as the horse since there have never been found any fossils that are not fully formed, i.e. withough all of it's organs, limbs and other features fully formed and operational - there have not been found any fossils with the beginning of a wing / tail etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.141.170 (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remember that this talk page is intended as a forum for discussing improvements to the article, not as a place to air your personal beliefs (see WP:TPG). Having said that, please refer to the section of the article entitled "Speciation", and to the article on Speciation, where you will find many examples of what you are looking for, with copious references. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 17:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Useful links?

 * What Genomes Can Tell Us About the Past - on-line lecture by Sydney Brenner
 * The Origin of Vertebrates - on-line lecture by Marc Kirschner

I'd like to add these to the external links section, any objections? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Added. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent Design
Why is there no reference or link to Intelligent Design anywhere in this article? Intelligent design is different than social or religious controversies. Even if wikipedia believes Intelligent design is wrong, it should at least link to it, to provide information on a well known topic. What evolutionary professor is unaware of Intelligent design and yet there is no mention of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.167.250 (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Evolution/FAQ OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The faq doesn't address Intelligent Design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.167.250 (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Evolution/FAQ. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 18:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

One reason why ID has nothing to do with evolution and science is because it's not science. Refer to: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Raeky (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hab template
I would strongly recommend using the Hcd template, rather than the Hab template. Trying to pre-archive discussion is not suitable for a Wiki-environment, and does not mitigate the behavior. - RoyBoy 02:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Activity on related article
Since one of the standard Creationist attacks against evolutionary biology is the claim that metaphysical naturalism is a religion, editors of this article may well be interested in the changes to metaphysical naturalism that are currently in dispute. Spotfixer (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)