Talk:Evolution/Archive 50

Macroevolution
We need more eyes on Macroevolution. Spotfixer (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Addressed in the Talk:Evolution/FAQ Raeky (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Uniformitarianism_(science)
And here's another science article under attack: Uniformitarianism_(science). Spotfixer (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

and now for something completely different: ecosystem
I'd like to kind of break with the recent trend and use this talk page actually to talk about a potential improvement to the article, rather than creationist polemics. I know the article has been relatively stable for quite some time and Wikipedia should be very proud of it, but I have been mulling this over for a while and thought it was worth putting out there for discussion. This article has many subsections that link to many other much longer articles. I think it may be worth adding one more such subsection: on some core concepts in ecology, especially "niche." The latter word does not even appear in the article. I know that studies of ecologies as such constitute its own considerable specialization and body of knowledge but it seems to me that concepts from ecology are essential to understanding the power of the modern synthesis. I suspect many editors who are well-versed in biology just take this stuff so for granted that they saw no need to explain it in this article. But I think the vast majority of our readers do not share this understanding and actually need to be told a bit. I can see a discussion of ecology and niche fitting in to the section on variation (because it explains the reason why variation is good: old niches close and new ones open up all the time; variation creates a reservoir of features pre-adapted to new niches) or in the section on natural selection (because the "nature" that selects is not some Platonic ideal of nature, or Mother Nature, or some amorphous and general notion of "nature," it is a particular ecosystem). Some sort of explanation of ecosystems and niches is essential for people to understand the examples we provide here and elsewhere of speciation, why new species of bacteria evolve, why the peppered moth evolved. "Niche" seems to me to be an essential concept connecting "adaptation" to "environment." "Ecosystem" seems to me to be the unspoken concept linking "natural" to "selection" - it is because nature is an dynamic ecosystem of mutually dependent niches that selection occurs.

I am sure that what I said is incomplete and perhaps sloppy - I am no expert in this and what few books I own on behavioral ecology and evolution, I do not have access to at the moment (and thus don't trust myself to write something up). I hope a couple of people out there get the idea and can propose something good. I am not thinking of anything more than a paragraph long with good links, but I think it will help uneducated but open-minded readers get a lot more out of this article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Very good point. I'd favor introducing the idea with a brief paragraph in the natural selection section and expanding on it in the Adaptation section, explaining that organisms adapt to their niche. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! But the last time I read a scholarly book or article on ecology or ecosystems in an evolutionary context was my first year of graduate school ... I am not the right person to write this, I hope you or others active here can. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. You are right, niche is not mentioned. Strange, but like you said maybe that's taken for granted. I agree, something should be mentioned on how niches can be 'emptied', 'filled' and 'created' and how evolution is closely tied with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrinkshooter (talk • contribs) 01:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made a start at Evolution. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I like what you did. I just added a clause to your work, and a whole paragraph to the section on Natural selection.  I am sure they can be improved upon! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Done some tweaking, moved the Natural Selection paragraph to after the part that explains the basic concept. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Characterization of variation
The article implies that variation is only caused by effects arising from either random variation or systemic effects of the way inheritance works. If Darwin claimed that I'd like to see his exact quote. I always though he proposed natural selection and we've added the limitation on variation because of a scientific bias. I'm not preaching creationism by any means. But there is for example a lot of research in the last ten years to the effect that (1) DNA is only a small part off the genetic blueprint and (2) that the organism can willfully adapt during its lifetime in ways that are passed on genetically through the non-DNA part of the genetic blueprint. These cracks in the random mechanics of DNA systems are a major opening for us to understand how "designed" structures can evolve from practically nothing. The science of evolution is not as closed to design as this article would have us believe. If we can't scientifically say that God has designed the life forms we may be close to saying we've designed them ourselves. IThis is a hot emerging topic yet I see nothing in the article about it. Can someone fill this in -- I'm a reader of pop science and I don't have the citations. But they're out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.5.35 (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What "non-dna" parts are you proposing makes up the bulk of the genetic material passed on to offspring? Unless theres been some ghastly large changes in our understanding of genetics since I was in school, I believe your mistaken in your assertion that "DNA is only a small part off (sic) the genetic blueprint." Raeky (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the article discusses sources of variation without discussing the historical aspect, Darwin's views on these sources, so why do you introduce a request for a quotation from Darwin? I'd also point out that "(2) that the organism can willfully adapt during its lifetime in ways that are passed on genetically.." looks very like Lamarckism, and in "If we can't scientifically say that God has designed the life forms" the "if" is redundant – "Any explanation that involves God as a direct actor (“God makes the planets go around the Sun”) cannot be tested: any result of an experiment is compatible with the hypothesis that an omnipotent God was responsible. So scientists restrict themselves to explanation through natural causes regardless of whether or not they are people of faith." Verification is required of your extraordinary claims. . dave souza, talk 11:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "passed on genetically" means passed on through genes, and genes are sequences of DNA, so I find this comment literally non-sensical. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well Mitochondrial DNA is passed on (but is still DNA, just not Chromosomes), and in bacteria you have Plasmids, which I don't think is more then the DNA of the bacteria in quantity of genes, but bacteria is a bit different in that respect of transferring genetic material. You got RNA that could tag along on the ride, but thats generally accepted to mostly be copies of DNA genes. You got viruses that are entirely RNA. But really in eukaryotic organisms DNA is king. Raeky (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite right, but the contradiction within 67's comment remains a contradiction. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Cancer

 * Here, somatic cells respond to specific signals that instruct them to either grow or kill themselves. If cells ignore these signals and attempt to multiply inappropriately, their uncontrolled growth causes cancer

This section implies that any cell can become a cancer cell, even fully differentiated cells which don't grow. That's controversial (i e the answer is not known). Narayanese (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The mutations to cause uncontrolled cell division (cancer) hardly qualify as Evolution, since such a mutation is disadvantageous. Raeky (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Evolution is non-teleological. In a narrow sense evolution means the evolution of species, but that is only one meaning. This article provides a broader definition in the introduction.  I think it is important to note that not all mutations lead to new species. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The concept of evolution is beneficial mutations that propagate through the population through natural selection. A disadvantageous mutation that leads to death is not relevant to an article on Evolution. I don't think the article would benefit from a section on fatal mutations, that should be out of scope. Raeky (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's rather more broad than that. See e g ref 2 in Somatic evolution in cancer. Narayanese (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence is correct if we say "whether to grow, remain as they are, or kill themselves. If cells ignore these signals and multiply inappropriately," The second part is then fine, since if the two conditions are met 1) Cell ignores apoptosis/growth signals 2) cell multiplies inappropriately then you have cancer. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's more elegant than the change I tried in the draft version of the article. I'll change the artice to your wording. Narayanese (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Evolution is heritable mutations or epimutations within the germ line. Cancer isn't a genetic disease just spontaneous mutations affecting normal genes (can be somatic or germ line like testicular cancer) but certain genetic alleles, like BRCA with ovarian-breast cancer, are associated with an increased risk of cancer (but it doesn't cause it). Nearly 50% of all cancers have alterations in p53 but that just means it is a prone spot for transformations and is not heritable mutations or evolution. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was using the set of somatic cells that make up an animal as an example of a cooperating population. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think cancer isn't heritable and therefore not within the overall scope of the general Evolution article. Raeky (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that you think this, but you're mistaken. This has been demonstrated through articles such as somatic evolution in cancer. Spotfixer (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In passing ... Don't forget the Tasmanian Devil. That species presents a rather interesting and unusual example of "inheritable" cancer.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  13:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So do dogs, but the transmission is a non-viral transmittable parasitic cancer not heritable. Raeky (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are of course germline cancer syndromes but it isn't a simple cause and effect-most have an increased risk and it is also dependent on alleles affected (Knudson two hits). There are heritable mutations in p53 and there are heritable epimutations influencing genes but it still isn't evolution-creates a conundrum because these mutant alleles would be selected against wouldn't they? GetAgrippa (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The genes that promote cellular cooperation in tissues and suppress cancer are inherited, therefore the state of "tissue formation" is an inherited characteristic and can be selected for and anti-cooperative behaviour such as cancer selected against. If you see an animal body as an aggregation of cooperating agents, most of which are sterile, then the comparison becomes more clear. A body is rather like a ant colony from this viewpoint. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dang I haven't kept up with cancer research (I've misspoke)in a few years and boy have things changed with being bolder to say "heritable breast or ovarian cancer". Use to be just the emphasis on "increased risks". Monitoring human sperm for mutations in p53 and KRAS demonstrated 73% of those sampled displayed significant mutations but it was reasoned that a selection bias at the level of sperm viability, conception, early cleavage, implantation, and/or embryogenesis operates to exclude the majority of these TP53 mutations and all of the activating KRAS mutations. Natural selection at the level of the gametes-hee,hee. Numerous studies implicating epimutations and many of these are also heritable. Reminds me of an anectdotal brief in Science about a experiment where they isolated mouse cancer cells (I can't remember if fresh tumor or cultured)and then cloned the cancer cells and implanted them and they gave rise to healthy offspring (I find that unbelievable with chromosomal, genetic, etc abnormalities)but they all developed cancer by maturity. Anectdotal but interesting and weird. I like the ant colony analogy. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My guess would be, the cancer required specific conditions to manifest (some growth factor being expressed, etc.) that weren't present in the germline, but were present in some obscure tissue set at some obscure condition, allowing normal development until that tissue started doing its thing. Then, cancer. As for selection at the level of gametes, see sperm competition. Graft | talk 00:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally cancer is a mutation that occurs in genes that control cell division, thus the enzymes that stop the cell from dividing won't function so it divides uncontrollably and each cell has the same mutation from the "mother" cell. I personally don't think this is "evidence" for any type of evolution since this mutation is generally fatal to the organism. I also don't think you can boil down an entire organism into individual cells and compare it to say an ant colony. Seems a bit of a stretch to me, theres plenty of other good evidence for evolution that can be made instead of pulling this one out of the hat. Raeky (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh. Cancer is weird. See the above examples of parasitic, transmittable tumors in dogs for a great example. It's arguable those tumors have transcended a speciation boundary. A similar argument is often made for HeLa cells, which WERE human cells at one point, but now have an existence all of their own. Graft | talk 07:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My memory sucks! I misspoke the cancer cells were cloned into mice that didn't develop cancer although they contained the mutated genes. It is believed epigenetic alterations from environmental influences initiate the cancer process and not just a mutation associated with cancer. GetAgrippa (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Experimental evolution reveals natural selection on standing genetic variation
What looks like a very important paper came out today. Link. I think this has to go into the article in some form. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To bad we can't read it without paying money. Anymore sources? Raeky (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's typical for scientific papers (depending on the field). The link to the abstract, which can be read for free, is . If you want someone else's analysis/paraphrasing, this blog post has it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, or you could read the copy at your local library. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 03:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Or Nature could switch to open publishing. PNAS does it. Graft | talk 07:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Or subscribe to the journal. I use to get Science, Nature, and some more specialty journals but now I just get Science. I am not a working scientist anymore so I dropped most and debated whether to keep Science of Nature. I've been getting Science since 79' so I kept it. Everyone should subscribe to at least Science or Nature just to keep up with the world. I'd be willing to share Science articles (maybe translate into PDF) on-line and maybe someone else will share Nature. GetAgrippa (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not if you're going to link from here, please. I've got access to several journals as a University student right now, it's pretty convenient. 24.76.160.236 (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What is interesting about the fruit fly experiment is that once the naturally selected populations were re-introduced back into parent conditions they shifted back to parent phenotype but shifting alleles varied and at different rates. Some flies looked phenotypically similar to wild type although genotypically distinct. It really highlights how cloudy "species" really is as phenotype, econiche, reproductively isolated, genetic identity, or cladistic distinctions. Powerful example of natural selection but it raises many questions about neutral molecular evolution, convergent and parallel evolution, the why and how of trait malleability. I love this strategy as a model. GetAgrippa (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, history matters - you might run a selection and get two populations with the same phenotype, but they will almost certainly have different genotypes. The point that even a large change in phenotype may be due to changes in allele frequency, rather than the introduction of new alleles is interesting too. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution
In the Introduction to evolution article, some recent changes have (it is claimed) removed errors from the lead. I'm concerned that the changes reduce the clarity of the lead for general readers, and would appreciate some opinions from specialists (did the original text need correction?). Please comment at Talk:Introduction to evolution. --Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a more accurate assessment, the previous version was generalized a bit to much imho. Not sure I'm qualified to judge how difficult it is for a novice to understand though, since it all makes sense to me already. Someone with more experience in writing for/teaching these concepts to children would be more qualified to assess the opening section. — raeky ( talk 08:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"'The field of' evolutionary biology"
My addition of the words "The field of" at the beginning of what is now the fourth paragraph of the introduction of this article has been reverted without comment. I thought the change was mostly harmless and helpful to the reader. Can someone explain to me why the phrase is problematic? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I felt it was unnecessary to append it with "field of" at that point. — raeky ( talk 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if "necessary" is the standard then I would agree with you. However, I think the unnecessary explanatory phrase is helpful to the reader. Are you saying that it isn't? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Theres no need to add fluff and extra unnecessary words to an already large document. I feel stating it's a field of science in this context isn't necessary or helpful for the reader of this document. Ideally you'd want to get the article as small as possible and still be fully understandable and complete. Article's are not novels, IMHO. Maybe someone else can chip in and give another opinion? — raeky ( talk 21:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Raeky; it is unnecessary, and thus renders the paragraph unnecessarily wordy. By "unnecessary" I mean that it is not necessary to help the reader; it does not provide readers with any help.  "Evolutionary biology" is a nominal phrase. Whether one thinks of it as a field, discipline, subdiscipline, profession, occupation, or discourse is irrelevant to the point.  Those who wish to learn more can click on the link (ah the wonders of hypertext!!); adding a modifying noun communicates to readers nothing of value, it just clutters up their reading.  In fact, far from helping readers it will hinder them. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that the phrase would hinder a reader. But I will accept that at least two folks disagree with my conclusion that it helps and leave it at that. Thanks for providing your analysis. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This article on evolution
...reads as if it is titled biological evolution! If it is an article on evolution, it cannot be restricted to biological evolution!  Supriya  14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Evolution (disambiguation). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Bold hatnote
I really don't think the bold is necessary or helpful in the hatnote/dablink at the top of the article, it is just distracting. Like I said in my edit summary, 99% of users adding irrelevant sections/links are intentionally ignoring that this article is about biology, so the bold wouldn't help in that case. I don't think we need to overemphasis something for a small group of editors that are in all likelyhood semi-vandalizing. Does anyone else have an opinion? LonelyMarble (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect that most of the folks are aware that the article is about biology but don't understand that it is not the only article about "evolution" because they jump into the text without noticing the hatnote/dablink. See Hanlon's razor. The best way to test your theory and mine is to put the hatnote/dablink in bold and see whether there is a drop in the number of incidents of folks trying to "fix" the article. Any reason why we should not conduct such an experiment? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One reason not to is because that experiment wouldn't really prove anything. If there are none or few edits of this kind while bolded it could be attributed to the bolding. But, if there are none or few edits it could simply be because this is really not that big of a problem and only happens infrequently anyway, which would support the notion the bolding is unnecessary. I see that a user recently added an irrelevant section, but this was quickly reverted without much hassle. Hatnotes are for navigational purposes only, they aren't for deterring edit conflicts and vandalism. If you really think this is a big problem you could perhaps add an invisible comment to the article, that's usually what's used to deter edit conflicts. But this doesn't seem like a big problem to me, I don't think it's necessary to make the hatnote stick out so much (which in my opinion is not aesthetically pleasing) to cater to a small number of editors who infrequently try to fix the article/make a point, whether in good faith or not. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have some thoughts in response but will hold them to give others a chance to chime in. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem we have with this article is some muppet who repeatedly replaces the entire thing with the text of Genesis. Compared to that guy everything else is quite minor. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I never complain about that, it gets me caught up on my religious studies. :)   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your patience and virtue are an example to us all. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Awww shucks, thanks. :)   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a virtue of patience. And to think I thought it was PTSD from wiki wars. Forgive me Orange all the battle scars I noted made me think PTSD. Hey you could change your moniker to "AgentOrange" . Maybe "ClockworkOrange" would be more appropriate.LOL. I am changing mine to "LostMyGrip". Sweet.GetAgrippa (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I do like the extra indent better than the bold. I generally like having things be consistent unless there's a very good reason not to, but the indent looks okay so I won't complain. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for humoring me. I just hope that Orangemarlin doesn't fall behind in religious studies as a result. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the extra indent too - I think it works quite well. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Another attempt to head 'em off at the pass
I've am giving the Important Notice box its own section to set it off from the noise of the other boxes. Put it back if you think I am out of order. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better like this IMO.-- Patton t / c 18:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we really need to yell with all caps or have an opening that sounds like an infomercial? I'd prefer to keep it as professional looking as possible. There was no reason to think the previous version wasn't working - there are very few threads about neutrality these days - so I'd rather keep the older version. Cheers, Ben (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No sentence should ever be in block capitals, under any circumstances. Algebraist 15:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There seem to be two issues:
 * First, Ben Tillman doesn't like bold and Algebraist doesn't like all caps. If we make them both happy then we have no eye-catching headline. If our goal is to only warn careul readers then we might as well eliminate the entire box because those folks probably don't need any warning. Otherwise, we should use caps or bold. What is your preference?
 * Second, what to say in the headline. I am not married to the "infomercial" text, but Some common points of argument doesn’t tell the reader anything at all. How about something like:


 * Issues such as neutral point of view and whether evolution is a fact have been discussed on this page in the past. Before adding a post raising these sorts of issues please review Evolution FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. Note that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about evolution. If you are interested in discussing or debating evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins.


 * No doubt this language can be improved. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We do need something, but I don't think we need anything fancy and there is no reason to think the old version wasn't doing anything. I'm not opposed to change for changes sake, but I would like to keep this page a little professional looking. There is a good reason for this. Bold text, caps text, defensive language, etc. makes it look like the page is involved in some sort of 'war', and will likely entice people to want to get in on it (sticking it to the man, so to speak). On the other hand, if this page looks professional, free of defensive messages, and full of courteous discussion, I think people mostly won't bother complaining on an 'angry' or 'war type' level. Essentially, I don't want something that sticks out, which seems to be what you're looking for, for purely psychological reasons. Tranquil baby, tranquil. Cheers, Ben (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for agreeing that we need "something." What do you propose? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what is wrong the current "something". More generally, so long as it doesn't involve "Bold text, caps text, defensive language, etc." and it makes sense, then I can't say I really mind. As far as I understand it, the point of the notice isn't to take a defensive position or to shut people down, it's just a polite "hi, maybe your concern has already been addressed here". Cheers, Ben (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it does have bold text, doesn't it? (I.e., Important notice:) So I gather you are not entirely opposed to bold text. Please let me know if I err in reaching this conclusion.
 * With regard to content: I join in seeking to achieve the goal of a polite "maybe your concern has already been addressed here." On the other hand, one doesn't want to be so polite that the message is lost in the process. Thus, while the phrase "Some common points of argument ..." is very diplomatic, it doesn't give the reader a clue regarding which concerns have already been addressed. Wouldn't it make sense, as a courtesy to the reader, to use more informative language? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can ever be too polite, it's a delicate situation for some people and I don't think we should be coming across as combative from the beginning. I also don't think we need to give a table of contents of the FAQ on this page. If people aren't patient enough to check the FAQ before posting their concerns, then it's unlikely they'll read the message at all. Sorry if I'm coming across as so obstructive, it's not my intention. It's just that this talk page is really clean compared to earlier times. Perhaps that is due to Tim's and others' excellent rewrite of the article, perhaps it was a clean up of the talk page, perhaps people are generally a little more tolerant of the concept of evolution, I don't know. I just feel taking a more combative approach when things are calm is unnecessary. Cheers, Ben (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Latest Science Evolution Treat
I was just reading my latest Science and there are several excellent articles. The one that captivates me most is about my long assertion that, while I agree with Kimura's neutral theory, mutations occur in hotspots and not all of a genome is susciptible (some 100% conservation)AND this makes genetic evolutin somewhat pedictable: Is genetic evolution predictable?Stern DL, Orgogozo V.Science. 2009 Feb 6;323(5915):746-51.Is genetic evolution predictable? "Ever since the integration of Mendelian genetics into evolutionary biology in the early 20th century, evolutionary geneticists have for the most part treated genes and mutations as generic entities. However, recent observations indicate that all genes are not equal in the eyes of evolution. Evolutionarily relevant mutations tend to accumulate in hotspot genes and at specific positions within genes. Genetic evolution is constrained by gene function, the structure of genetic networks, and population biology. The genetic basis of evolution may be predictable to some extent, and further understanding of this predictability requires incorporation of the specific functions and characteristics of genes into evolutionary theory." TimVickers there is a bacterial species article you would find of interest. The Synthesis continues. GetAgrippa (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I get it - the constraints are a result of selection. Widespread negative selection is perfectly compatible with Kimura's neutral theory. If we understood gene function and structure better, it would be helpful, but how exactly are we supposed to do that without reaching around and pinching our own noses? Constraint is one of our major weapons. Isn't this more or less the point of genetics, anyway? Understanding the specific functions and characteristics of genes? Graft | talk 02:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I gather your argument. The constraints are usually the results of selection on the phenotype-that is the statistical correlating parameters. Near-neutral molecular evolution addresses pop size and generation times with the rate of molecular evolution. Of course that is the debate still ongoing. The fly experiment mentioned earlier in this thread highlights this. The wild type phenotype changed into new phenotypes because of changes in environment then changes in genetic shifts in alleles monitored (new mutations weren't responsible). Once these altered phenotypes returned to their parent pop environment the trend was a return to the parent phenotype, however the genotype didn't return to the parent pop. genotype. Phenotypically the flies were similar but genetically different, the small pop size hints genetic drift produced the shift in alleles as protein molecular evolution is mostly independent of short generation times of the flies. The constraint variables is the environment as it correlates with the phenotypic changes but the molecular evolution was mostly independent of this constraint-otherwise it would have re-selected or drifted towards the parent genotype. Really we should be talking about gene networks and not just genes,and gene regulation. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you mean. The fly experiment demonstrates all traits aren't equal in the eyes of evolution, that new mutations aren't necessary-just shift in standing variation of alleles can do it, and the environment acted on the phenotype and the genotype was mostly independent of environment. This recent Science paper further supports that all traits aren't equal in the eyes of evolution, that "significant" mutations are non-random, that gene networks and interactions determine whether mutations will contribute to phenotypic evolution, and this tendency is important in how we model evolution or generate computer algorithms as the paper mentioned. The paper also mentions that scientist may have been biased in examining the distribution of mutations and correlating them with biological diversity. GetAgrippa (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nat sel & drift
I suggest the prominent place given to drift in the introduction (where it gets equal status with natural selection) is a misjudgement, for two reasons. First, it is not an accurate representation of the general view of evolutionary biologists. The Modern evolutionary synthesis says (quite accurately I think):


 * "Selection is overwhelmingly the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment. The role of genetic drift is equivocal; though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained... The strength of natural selection in the wild is greater than was expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important." &c. (refs are given)

Secondly, drift is by definition non-directional with respect to the environment. Therefore it cannot be a major factor driving evolution. It is absolutely basic population genetics that drift is only significant for very small populations. The whole issue is gone over in William Provine's wonderful account Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology, 1986, ISBN 0-226-68473-3. Compare Dobzhansky's 1937 first edition (where he promoted drift) with his 1951 third edition (after he and E.B. Ford had done their respective studies on real populations) and you will see the difference. Dobzhansky T. 1951. Genetics and the Origin of Species. 3rd ed, Columbia University Press N.Y. and Ford E.B. 1964, 4th edn 1975. Ecological genetics. Chapman and Hall, London. Endler J.A. 1986. Natural selection in the wild. Princeton.

I should have made this comment long ago, but have been engaged elsewhere.. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what you say about drift, but disagree for two reasons. First, I am not sure that mentioning the two in the lead means they are "equal."  They are different, qualitatively different, I am not sure I would measure their importance in quantitative terms.  Moreover, the fact that drift is non-directional does not mean itr is not important in evolution, which is also non-directional.  I would venture to say that natural selection has not been a major force driving changes in gene-frequencies among humans for the past 10,000 years, but that drift has been. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just have to say how nice it is to see evolutionary biology being discussed on this talkpage! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the new reviews I've been adding to the article states in its conclusion:


 * I'd personally say that selection has to be most important in adaptation, but drift may be just as important in speciation. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried tweaking the drift section a bit, to make the distinction between the neutral and nearly-neutral theories. Is this an improvement? Tim Vickers (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking for input from others.
Above please find a dialogue regarding the "important notice" directing folks to the FAQ page. In that dialogue I take the position that the text of that notice can be improved by giving readers a hint regarding the content of the FAQ page. The person I have been discussing this issue with believes that the language is fine "as is." What do others think? Does "Some common points of argument" have any meaning to someone reading the phrase for the first time? If not, should we work together to come up with more informative language? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sympathetic to your attempt, but it's ultimately a waste of time because most people won't notice the FAQ notice, and most of the "evolution is just a theory" posters won't care. Putting the FAQ in its own box was good, but tweaking the wording any further won't help. I don't think the phrase "common points of argument" adds sufficient clarity to justify the extra words. --Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, "common points of argument" is the current wording. Does that mean that you agree with me that the phrase is less than clear (and can be improved)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Really I don't think it matters what you do, even if you made it 100 point font blinking in red. The people that don't believe in evolution do so not because they don't understand the theory or science (which most don't) but because they believe that if they don't believe in "God" or "Jesus" or some other magical deity that their "eternal soul" will be lost or "burn in hellfire for eternity." Your not going to convince such people that their deity didn't magic life and them into existence as their magic books say, they simply CAN'T believe in evolution or they will "burn in hellfire for eternity" so by coming here to argue the point or deface the page they're trying to "save" other peoples (us) "wicked" souls from that hellfire. For the rare instance of a school kid coming here to better understand evolution the questions on the FAQ are not really geared to them, but to the first group I described, which again I think is pointless. In theory theres brainwashed kids coming here that don't believe in the ever powerful magical deity wanting to punish them that are here to learn more but they're going to likely read carefully and just having it there above the article is enough for them I think to point the way. No need to make it stand out TOO much. — raeky ( talk 05:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point I'm not asking out whether and, if so, what to bold. Instead, I'm asking about the phrase "common points of argument." Do you think that the phrase is sufficient to alert the theoretical uninformed kid what information can be found on the FAQ page? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I think the way the top is now is perfectly fine. The general 'uninformed' reader isn't presumed blind so you don't need neon lights pointing them to the help. It clearly says at the top that if they want a more easier version to read to read the intro to evolution page, which should do the job of helping someone understand the very basics. This page is a bit more science technobabble. I'm not sure what you mean about the FAQ page. The FAQ page for the talk is simply to defuse some of the creationist's points before they can even ask and if they do allows us to just point to it and move on. Anyway I'm happy with how the top of the page is in it's current form now... — raeky ( talk 14:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm dense and not sure what I'm even commenting on when I started commenting on this topic (apologize in advance because thats probably the case.. lol) but I'm now assuming you mean the FAQ notice box at the top of THIS talk page about the talk FAQ. It's small yes, I'd vote it be moved more to the top of the boxes. I'd personally put it at the very top of the page, and make "Important notice:" part in red. Doing so would make it so that if a creationist does post something silly on here then we can be equally mean about them not reading the FAQ because they clearly are blind since it's obvious at that point. But then I'll default back to my original statement that they're not here thinking they're in the wrong, we're in the wrong in their eyes. They're trying to "save" our "souls" and others that may read this. So if that's their mission (which I get the impression it is for any that come here and deface or ideally actually try to rationalize their position in the correct way with posts) then having it in neon lights or not it won't deter them. — raeky ( talk 14:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you and I agree regarding placement and headlining. But that is not the subject of this section. The subject of this section is the Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Evolution FAQ text. Do you believe that language is fine "as is" or that it can (and should) be improved? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ohh my we agree on something... world must be ending. :P I think that the FAQ addresses the common Creationist's arguments against evolution, ergo any creationist that comes here isn't going to want to read, or if they do wouldn't agree with, those answers. IMO the sole purpose of the FAQ page is just so when they post here there argument (which is likely addressed already in the FAQ) we don't have to do any work, just point to the FAQ and wash our hands of it. The work is already done for us. So in that respect I think the wording your referring to makes little difference since it's target audience isn't going to read or if they do isn't going to listen to it anyway. It's probably a moot point. — raeky ( talk 17:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I happen to agre with Raeky, but even if I didn't i'd say th wording is fine as is. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hanksname's edit to remove reference as 'spam'

 * Everything you wanted to know about evolution by New Scientist

This edit by User:Hanksname doesn't appear to me to be a spam, Newscientist is an established published magazine. Am I wrong that it should be kept or should it go? — raeky ( talk 07:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are correct and I put the link back. --Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Draft article necessary?
Now that the article is only semi-protected, I'm wondering if the draft article is necessary? Looking over the edits to it over the last few months, I think I only see one helpful edit. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I vote for deleting the draft article. (I have no opinion regarding whether to add the Species versus population text to the main article.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, delete the draft. It was useful when we had to have the article full-protected for extended periods of time, but that hasn't been needed for a while now. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ..I can't delete it :) I can nominate it if you like. Cheers, Ben (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, could we at least delete the info box at the top of this page? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Box gone, draft deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Add new section re species vs. population?
I think we need to add something like the section, below - Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't propose adding it "as is," I am sure it could benefit from edits, but the shift from thinking of species as things to species as statistical phenomena seems to me to be an essential part of the theory. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I really like this possible addition. It can kill two birds with one stone too as many laypersons equate speciation with evolution whereas speciation is just a by product of evolution. I would mention specifically the notion of species-phenotypically, ecologically, cladistically,reproductively, etc to give an idea of the various connotations. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * GetAgrippa, thanks - but could you go ahead and make those edits you think necessary, the ones you specify and also highlighting that speciation is a byproduct of evolution ... and perhaps suggest where in the article it would best fit? Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Tim, it has been a five days and no one has voiced any opposition. Where do you think in the article the below section belongs? Unless you are opposed, would you put it into the appropriate place? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Go ahead, my Wiki-time is very limited at the moment - too much writing to do in real life! Tim Vickers (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think bacteria should be handled separately, because the issues they raise are different, and because the average reader will need teaching about their fundamental biology. And on eukaryote species, I would suggest checking with Mayr Growth of Biol Thought, 1981, p251 to 300, for other angles. For example, the term species is used most times in taxonomy and palaeontology when there is no hope of getting DNA data (beetles are being discovered much faster than entomologists can classify them). Such a central article must keep to the established literature: Menand is not an authority on this topic, even though much of what he writes seems sound. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Menand is an intellectual historian, which makes him an authority, just a different kind of authority. I am in no position to address your concerns about eukaryotes - I copied material from the article on Species, it sounds like you think that article could use some work.  If you have a source supporting the claim that "species" is uese more in paleontology, that would be valuable and I hope you would add it, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement "Prior to the theory of evolution, people considered species to be immutable." is problematic, as "the theory" implies Charles Darwin's theory, but the possibilities of transmutation of species were hotly debated for around seventy years before he published. Here's a suggested revision based on Bowler's Evolution: the history of an idea pp. 42, 49–50


 * Hope that helps to clarify things. The taxonomists referred to are Ray and Linnaeus, and Lamarck is cited as retaining some of the ideas of a ladder of pigeonholed types. . . dave souza, talk 22:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But Dave, the issue is not mutability as such, the issue hee is statistical rather than categorical. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was trying to improve on a draft that seemed to me to be more about immutability, this is more relevant to an expanded version in a more detailed article. . dave souza, talk 18:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, this new section does not fit in this article. It is a featured article. It appeared on the first page 2005. It has been tweaked and debated to an enormous extent. The reason this section was "missing" is not that it was forgotten. The reason is that this is peripheral stuff in this article. The most obvious observation is that this is not about a current problem. It belongs in history of science or history of ideas. I chose the species problem. That is probably not ideal either. But a section about the history seems at least reasonable in the article about the species problem. This is the major problem, too much detail about a very minor aspect. An intermediate solution to consider is history of evolutionary thought, also a featured article. In my opinion this is too much detail even there. Featured articles are the top quality work in Wikipedia. We must be careful not to dilute or distort these qualities. --Ettrig (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ettrig here, the history of how we now define species isn't directly relevant to Evolution. It is a given that the theory of evolution changed how naturalists of Darwin's time interpreted the world, specifically how species would be defined. All major theory's about the natural world would "shake up" the current understandings in the scientific community, from flat earth theories or earth centric ones. Such information should only be relevant to articles directly dealing with the history of the definition of a species, imho. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 12:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, according to a notable intellectual historian, it is essential to the theory of evolution - the point is not "species" the point is the shift from categorial to statistical thinking. This is something that most biologists take for granted, and I would assume most biologists would consider this material banal or tangential.  But guess what, Wikipedia articles are not just to educate people with advanced training in biology, it is to educate a broad audience.  If people do not get this basic idea, the rest of the article is a waste of time as they will not get most of it.  An encyclopedia has an educational value.  Now, I understand that other editors in good faith may feel that the topic is not important enough to merit a disproportionate amount of space.  Fine, I cut the section I added by about a third or more; I do not think it is disproportionate now.  The content is accurate, it is a significant view from a notable reliable source, hence, policy compliant.  We have a separate article in gene yet an section here on genes - we do not expect readers just to follow the link to the gene article.  I have no objection to a far more detailed and lengthy article on species or the species problem, but this article needs a section on the change from categorical to statistical conceptualization. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a featured article, we need to be careful about expanding it's scope! Adding some trivial tid-bit about the historical implications of how species was defined 150 years ago I think is beyond the scope of the article. Theres probably better, more specialized, articles that this information would be more relevant for. You are correct the primary purpose of wikipedia is for education, but you need to keep in mind the scope of articles. The article is already fairly lenghty and additional sections need to be CAREFULLY considered to not diminish the quality of the article (currently featured). — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 23:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a featured article. We just made what I think was an essential improvement.  I certainly would never add a trivial tid-bit, I add only vitally important material.  Most students I have had in the US and UK claim to believe in evolution, but think of species categorically.  This always becomes a major stumbling block when we get into the details of evolutionary theory.  The article is better off addressing it.  After another editor objected I deleted a good deal of the material because I am used to making compromises at Wikipedia, although I will never compromise on quality and the need to educate our readers (rather than just talk to ourselves).  I hope you value compromise as well. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree that this is something that should be added to an existing featured article, I also do not agree that it should be the FIRST section in the article. It belongs more in the section History of evolutionary thought or as a subsection of it. This is afterall talking about the reclassification of a species that was tackled a century ago, currently scientists are not divided on the definitions of a species. And along those lines of giving weight to it based on the academic communities acceptance of the definition of a species should mean this wouldn't get this much "face time" in the main Evolution article. I think it would be best if boiled down to a single paragraph (at most two) and put down with the History section. I'm pretty sure there isn't a consensus to even having this in the main article yet, so it SHOULD probably be removed until more discussion? — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 00:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You wrote, "currently scientists are not divided." Are you saying scientists are divided about variation and mutation, which are currently up top?  I thought the importance of these were settled well over fifty years ago.  Are you proposing to put them in the "history" section?  Isn't what is important the importance of the idea to the theory, rather than when it was established? But if you are saying that scientists are divided about the importance of variation, by all means, please explian to us the debate. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that how the definition of species changed 100 years ago shouldn't be the FIRST section in the article, none of those sections are discussing the historical meanings and changes they went through, they just express current scientific definitions for them. Anything that is discussing the historical impact to scientific concepts that was modified after Darwin's theories should be at BEST discussed in the historical part of the article and should be given VERY LITTLE weight and space. In-depth discussion of them should be carried out in articles specific to the history of that theory, not in the general evolution article. This section about the history of the definition of species is CLEARLY out of scope for the general evolution article is my position. Compromise on my part would AT BEST to parry down that section to a single paragraph and merge that into the History of evolutionary thought section. As the section stands I don't believe we're going to arrive at a consensus. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 02:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What my issue with this section as it stands is that it's not worded like all the other sections, in so much as it deals with the history of how evolution changed it's definition, not how it is currently defined. If you want to address the history of the scientific understanding of a species then that would be at best discussed in the history section of the article (and this is where my concern that it's not even relevant for the article). If you want a section that elaborates the CURRENT definition of a species then I would suggest it being a subsection of 'Speciation' and still be small, one or two paragraphs with a link to the main article. Personally I don't think even that is particularly relevant for the general evolution article. To simplify my position, I have less of a problem with a SMALL section/subsection dealing with the current definition of a species with no mention on it's historical meanings/changes. I do have a problem with a section that is multiple paragraphs with a single source (and long quotes from) from a non-scientist's opinion on it in the general evolution article. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I have no axe to grind about the content of those sections (which make some good points), save that they are essay-like and unencyclopedic (but that can be fixed). They are just in the wrong place here, and need to go to their natural homes. If this article (which is about evolution, and not about species or the biological species concept) has to start expanding each aqnd every point of its underlying assumptions or science philosophy in extenso then the focus on evolution will be lost. That is why we Wikilink. Plantsurfer (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Where you meaning to put this reply in the above Add new section re species vs. population? section? It doesn't seem to make sense here in this discussion. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 13:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I was talking at cross purposes. My point relates to your deletion of the Species section, not to FAQs. Plantsurfer (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem (Although I'm not sure if your supporting the deletion of the section or not. I'm also moving this to the section that the species section is being discussed in, as opposed to opening a new section like you did. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 14:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, to be clear, I am supporting your deletion of the section. Plantsurfer (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried condensing this down to a single paragraph at the start of the speciation section. Please feel free to revert if you think this isn't an improvement. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your condensation of the subject, I've been saying that it shouldn't occupy so much space. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 17:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I was slightly puzzled by a couple of points. Is the "classes of organisms" definition still in use? If not, the past tense seems appropriate. Reading the abstract to the cited source, "Alternative species concepts agree in treating existence as a separately evolving metapopulation lineage as the primary defining property of the species category, ..." so "often" isn't needed for this primary definition, and to me "separately evolving" is much clearer than "a separate evolutionary history". My summary of the rest of this abstract as "and other defining properties are treated as supporting evidence for this separation" seemed to me useful in helping my understanding as a layman. Here are the relevant sentences with suggested deletions struck through, and proposed additions in italic.
 * This view is counterintuitive since species are have been commonly seen as classes of organisms, exemplified by an "type specimen" that bears all the traits shared by the species. Instead, modern biologists often define a species as a separately evolving lineage that has a separate evolutionary history from its close relatives and forms a single gene pool, and other defining properties are treated as supporting evidence for this separation, but this definition has fuzzy boundaries.
 * Hope that's useful, thanks for the basic clarification. . . dave souza, talk 18:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The modern definition of evolution is a gene-centric one with population genetics providing the models needed to establish and test any good theory. Archaic DNA progess is dealing with this issue of "no DNA" with cave bears, penquins, neanderthal, etc. The species concept is ambiguous so it needs to be addressed as it is the most noted outcome often measured as evolution. The recent Science I mentioned above also addresses speciation in bacteria by genetic means. I strongly support some address of this issue in modern terms and not necessarily a historical review-rather than leaving it nebulous or just referring to a Mayrian definition. The notion of a species phenotypical-taxonomically, by cladistics, by ecological niche, by reproductive isolation, a genetic entity, etc. must be addressed. Even evolution text books speak of this issue so it would be remiss just to ignore it. Further a number of books are written on the subject as this Science article book review relating the issue: Science 15 February 2002:Vol. 295. no. 5558, pp. 1238 - 1239.EVOLUTION:Do We Need Species Concepts?A review by Kerry L. Shaw*.As an example take character displacement and how it influence species traits and speciation,instances of both reproductive character displacement and ecological character displacement driven by competition exist. I would agree a lengthy discussion would be more appropriate for the Species article but the subject should be addressed. Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that it should be addressed, but I think it should be brief with reference to the species article and it should deal with modern views on it only. The proposed paragraph that has been whittled down to a small addition to speciation section I opposed in it's long sense, and most definitely against it's initial first section of the article placement. I agree the concept of what defines a species is one area of biology that the theory of evolution hit hard, so it should be addressed. But not in a historical sense in the main evolution article, and it should be backed up with credible references, not a lengthy non-scientist's quote on it. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 23:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, did you just say that a scholar who is not a biologist is not "credible?" Believe it or not, science itself is an objct of study, by historians, sociologists, and anthropologists and they have views of scientific theories that are notable and significant. Please refresh your reading of WP:NPOV - all significant views shoul be represented in an article, not just the ones you like. The views of intellectual historians as to the essential elements of evolutionary science may be different from those of biologists, but they are just as credible. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Scholar or not he's not a scientist within the field, so I'm stating that a quote from him is probably not the best choice for the small section on the evolution article. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 00:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, "within the field?" Which field? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Science, biology....... — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 03:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then your comment is, with all due respect, irrelevant. Biologists study living beings; intellectual historians study ideas and sociologists of science study scientists.  Since "evolution" is not just a "fact" but also a "theory" meaning a set of ideas held by scientists, intellectual historians and sociologists of science are the proper experts on the topic.  This does not mean that the views of biologists should be excluded or even minimized from this article - I think their views should be prominent.  But the views of intellectual historians and sociologists of science are not only credible, they are of great significance to this article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the quote in question about the historical changes to the definition, and has nothing to do with the current scientific use? — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 14:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, again with respect, perhaps your not being a historian explains a misunderstanding in what historians mean. History is not "the past" in the sense that it is behind us.  It can be the temporal dimension in which aspects of the present emerge.  The concept of "natural selection" was proposed in "the past" but we do not put it into the historical section because it is still operative.  Menand's point is that all that is operative in evolutionary science today depends on statistics and viewing certain phenomena not as "real" but as statistical artefacts.  That this view emerged around the same time as "natural selection" does not mean that it should go in the history section anymore than "natural selection" schould go in the history section.  Ditto the concept "gene" which developed in the past - we don't put that in the history section.  Menand's argument is that many people who do not understand evolutionary theory today misunderstand it because they do not understand what it means to look at things statistically, and that this view of species, populations, genes, is essential to evolutionary science yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  As a social historian he has a larger argument of course which is that this view is the most radical idea of evolutionary science and the one that forces people most to change their view of the world ... and for that reason an idea people resist the most (he may not say it, but I think he would suppose that even if a creationist for the sake of argument were willing to entertain the possibility that an organ could evolve, that person would still refuse to abandon the idea that there is a real "species" out there called H. sapiens, and it is possible to envision an "ideal" human and someone with a congenital birth defect - e.g. someone with Down syndrome - is a poor speciman of H. sapiens because the individual does not have all the traits (or only those traits) that "define" H. sapiens.  (Whereas for an evolutionary scientist someone with Down syndrom is a deviant only in the sense that the person's genetic makeup deviates from a statistical norm). And the bigger point - which was in the passage I quoted, and I absolutely believe is central to evolutionary science today and not understood by most people, is that in terms of evolutionary theory it is all the individuals that deviate (statistically) from the norem that revela the workings of evolution (and make further evolution possible) and not the existence of some "ideal" specimin.  It is because this is essential to evolutionary science today that I think it belongs in the article.  This is an idea that overlaps with the section on species and the section on variation.  The problem with the layout of this article is by putting those int wo different sections we give the impression that there is some order to concepts or that we are talking about categories that are more or less inclusive.  The point of looking at species as statistical artefacts is, once you accept this, all those boundaries blur. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good posits Slrubenstein! I especially like "Menand's point is that all that is operative in evolutionary science today depends on statistics and viewing certain phenomena not as "real" but as statistical artefacts". Much as the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) is a hypothetical gene pool or organism(s)not a real entity. Like Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium isn't a real situation and is basically impossible in nature but is a neccessity for population geneticists and models. Note the Species article relates "Biologists view species as statistical phenomena and not as categories or types". Seems to be consistent with that article we should address this issue as Slrubenstein suggests. Evolution is fact but the theory has to have models with predictive ability least it is a pitiful theory. That said pop. geneticist use statistics and models to address this issue so the pudding is in the power of statistics. GetAgrippa (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is going to be the consensus be careful to give it due weight for the scope of the article. Remember it's a featured article. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 17:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and "featured article" should be a standard above that of your average encyclopedia. This article can be concise, cogent, and expansive by wikilink, but you need to address all the issues. The posits made by Slrubenstein are not superfluous but germane to the "meat" of evolution. I wish a paragraph was dedicated to the phenotype as the measured outcome by Darwin and the modern gene-centric population genetics view from the Modern synthesis. Futher also discuss how now we examine phenotypes and genotypes and how they connect, the power of statistics (algorithms), understanding genomes and how they relate to common ancestors. I may have a evodevo bias but noting how the genes that regulate eye development are about the same in jelly fish, insect, humans, etc. is a powerful argument for evolution. Ectodysplasin genes in regulating lateral plates and jaw structure in stickleback fish in benthic or limnetic or salt or fresh water populations makes powerful links with "gene alleles shifting within a pop. with time" and these genes can be manipulated in the lab testing the genetic basis model and "recreating" evolution in a test tube. GetAgrippa (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
One side of the discussion above is pointing in two ways. On one hand it weakens the concept of species. On the other hand it wants to give species a pivotal role in the article. My view is that (1) the primary evolving objects are genes and populations, species being a special case of population. (2) Evolution is primarily a process and secondarily the thinking, theories, about evolution. Given this, the primary concern for the evolution article is two describe how populations and genes change. Maybe this needs to start with clarifications of those two concepts. --Ettrig (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I made clear from the start, the name of the section (if indeed it is to be its own section - it does not have to be) and the wording of any passage can be changed. The point is not "species," the point is statistical rather than categorical thinking.  This is obvious when it comes to genes and populations because these technical terms were introduced as meaningful in statistical contexts/as concepts in statistical studies.  It is different with "species" because people use the concept or surrogates (whether golden retreiver, dog, or mammal) all the time and they do not think of "golden retreiver" as a statistical population, they think of it as a class and imagine the perfect golden retreiver as what that class represents, and mangy mangled mutant retreivers as decadent or deviant poor substitutes for retreivers.  The point here is to explain clearly to a general audience (this is Wikipedia, remember) just why this way of thining is alien to evolutionary theory and in fact evolutionary theory shows us that it is much better to look at the world statistically rather than in terms of ideal types.  I do not think that taking one sentence or one paragraph to do this is giving too much weight to "species," it is giving appropriate qeight to a key concept. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we are talking past each other because it sounds like we are in agreement in many ways with the emphasis on populations and genes. This is a great point to emphasize as most laypersons are stuck on Darwin (which is wonderful and I too celebrate his 200th birthday and 150 years since his seminal work) but few even know of Wright, Fisher, Dobzhansky, etc and the gene-centric and population genetics view. Slrubenstein wants to highlight the category of "species" that most think of taxonomically or categorically isn't the evolutionary biologists statistical concept of a population-like race isn't a taxonomic entity but more clinal gradation of a population (humans). An effort is made to distinquish "theory" from "scientific theory" so it would seem a worth endeavor and contribution to distinquish populations from species. Further many laypersons think speciation is synonymous with evolutiono and correcting this misconception would also be included. GetAgrippa (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * These are really good points and I appreciate the work you're doing in trying to get us laymen (and women!) to appreciate the population view. From what little I know, Darwin was at the forefront of trying to get away from the idea of species as an ideal type, and did a lot of work to emphasise the vague distinction between species and varieties, blurring the "boundaries". Of course it took the integration with genetics and a statistical view to make his prime idea of natural selection really viable, hence the eclipse of what came to be defined in the early 29th century as Darwinism. (Confusingly, as Darwinism had already been used for a range of competing ideas). Anyway, the opening paragraph to Speciation seemed good to me, does that need expanded, and should we mention this issue in the lead and elsewhere? . . dave souza, talk 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This article breaks Wikipedia's policy?
Wikipedia says that all articles must have a Neutral point of view. This article makes evolution look like a fact, and there is no 100% proven scientific fact for evolution, so stating it is a fact is definitely not a Neutral point of view. It is an evolutionist point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.27.145 (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at the FAQ where it explains that no policies are broken. It can be difficult to read all the details about evolution in a short time, however if you read the first couple of paragraphs at Introduction to evolution you will see that the basic idea is easy to understand. --Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution merely proposes the processes by which the fact propogates.  Only those who adhere to Creationist philosophy erroneously determine that Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are one and the same and use that as a basis to attempt to undermine the fact of Evolution.  --JohnArmagh (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a creationist troll to me. By his logic, the Wikipedia page on chemistry is breaking policy because chemistry isn't 100% fact (no science is). 24.136.77.239 (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, absolutely. Let's start marking all the articles on science for speedy deletion. Or at least mark them all with gigantic disclaimers. (Disclaimer: Don't actually do this, lest you violate WP:POINT). Kingoomieiii (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Evolution is a real process backed by numerous observational studies in zoology, paelentology, genetics, etc, and as such is as factual as the plant & animal species currently occupying & functioning. Science endeavours to determine fact - it is just that there is a lot of debate about new science, and debate as some people come to terms with new (and old) information and knowledge, particularly if they don't reflect on the nuances. Craigmac41 (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a theory
Darwin extended Mendels work on plants to animals. He was not so bold as to apply it to humans, and admitted his theory was incomplete. So darwin himself did not present evolution theory as a replacement to human creationism. Darwin was not as bold, as the Eugenical christians of the 1920's who practiced forced sterilization on the native americians, because they were ruthless saveges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OverTippedWaiter (talk • contribs) 23:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Evolution/FAQ — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 23:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see Charles Darwin which covers most of the other misconceptions here. . . dave souza, talk 23:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the article should be more clear to distinguish Darwinian evolution theory as it does not defy creationism as it is only applied to animals and Eugenic evolution theory, as it does defy creationism but was promoted by all major churches during the eugenic movement. I would also like to ask, if you are not following the evolution theory stated by Charles Darwin, what evolution thought(theory) are you following? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OverTippedWaiter (talk • contribs) 02:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're using terms that don't exist in science, but only used by creationists. Evolution applies to all life, humans included. Evolution isn't a religion, and people who believe it to be true are not "Darwinists" or "Creationists" those terms are only used by creationists. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 03:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the article and FAQs before posting here. You have basic misconceptions and ideas which are incorrect. For instance, "Darwin extended Mendel's work on plants and animals". When Darwin wrote his work on evolution he had no idea of the mechanism of heredity or the work of Mendel. Also, Mendel worked (as far as I know) solely on plants.

The statement, "Darwinian evolution theory as it does not defy creationism as it is only applied to animals and Eugenic evolution theory". Is also incorrect. I don't know how you have arrived at this gross misconception. --Candy (talk) 06:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Darwinian evolution theory as stated by Charles Darwin, as charles darwin, did not use his evolution theory on humans. It was only an extension of Mendels work on plants and applied to animals and 'not' on humans. Human creationism as it is in the bible, is not in conflict with Charles Darwins evolution theory. What is in conflict with creationism, is the eugenics movement, which is seperate from Charles darwins evolution theory. This eugenics movement was backed by most major braches of the christian religeon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.203.25.2 (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

To compare eugenics to evolution is ignorant, eugenics is about artificial selection, like breeding dogs, "the controlled breeding of humans in order to achieve desirable traits in future generations." That is NOT evolution, plain and simple. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 07:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Darwin extended Mendal's work: Origins was published in 1859, Mendal's paper was published in 1865 and he started his work in 1856, I don't see how Darwin would of known what Mendal would only discover years after Origin's was published!
 * 2) Darwin never applied origins to humans: I think you're ignoring The Descent of Man Published in 1871, theres plenty of references on his belief's about the origins of humans.
 * 3) Darwin's Evolution not in conflict with Creationism: I think there is MANY in the church and the churches of his day that would GREATLY disagree with that statement.
 * Just to quibble, creationism covers a wide spectrum of beliefs, including beliefs not in conflict with evolution, though the term has been hijacked by proselytisers of anti-evolution. The ancient art of animal husbandry is evolution through artificial selection, and the same applies to eugenics which of course goes back in principle if not in name at least as far back as Sparta. . . dave souza, talk 08:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also the current hype by Stine in his current "movie" to try to make evolution's natural conclusion nazi genocide. So yes, artificial selection is a component to evolution, but it's not natural. And to equate evolution to nazisim, is evil. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 08:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we archieve this section as it's clearly not improving the article and just continuing the never ending "it's just a theory" soapbox? Shot info (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about a nice new hat? Ben (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A clarification
I am sorry, when I said darwins thoery of evolution did not look at human creationism, i was refering to darwins Origin of species. In this work where he introduces the theory of evolution, he does not make a comparison to humans. His work on man, is a eugenical work, and i must ask, if the churches of the world objected to it so much, why were there so many eugenical sermons in the in the begining of the 20th century? The theory of evolution, as stated in orgin of species does not make a comparison to man. The theory of eugenics(genetics) does and that is against the bible, but then most churches supported that, so that is what i am questioning and that is my point. OverTippedWaiter (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Scientific consensus"
From Appeal to authority:


 * Thinking something must be true only because there is a scientific consensus or a majority agreement on it. This is closely related to the bandwagon fallacy.

Therefore, the claim that evolution is true solely because of scientific consensus is invalid. --Latiosoital (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't claim evolution is true. Wikipedia doesn't claim anything, that would violate our neutral point of view. Scientists are as sure as they can be that it is true, and we say that here. Again, we do not say that it is true.-- Patton t / c 18:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policy is to give "due weight" since the overwhelming majority of the scientific community supports evolution we reflect that here in our articles. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 18:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Therefore, the claim that evolution is true solely because of scientific consensus is invalid. - (A) Wikipedia is not making this claim. Wikipedia is accurately reporting that all but a few scientists believe in evolution, including all the reputable ones. (B) Nobody else is making this claim either. Scientists believe in evolution not because it is some article of faith, but because of the mountains of evidence supporting it, and the complete lack of evidence falsifying it. Raul654 (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We also have a great list of logical fallacies as well as examples in each of the articles. Plus, most experienced editors tend to have disproportionately greater experience in spotting faulty arguments due to the fact that so many people try to use them.
 * Some of the other fallacies that are frequently brought up:
 * Argument from fallacy when someone assumes that if one argument about the merits of evolution or creationism is false, then the entire conclusion must be false.
 * Incomplete comparison when a comparison between creationist speculation and extensive scientific research is made.
 * Argument from ignorance by claiming that since creationism can't be fully disproved, it must be true.
 * Historian's fallacy when referencing the writers of the bible as having the same perspective and ability nearly 2000 years ago as we have today.
 * False attribution when citing non-peer-reviewed or misleading sources and claiming them as unbiased.
 * Moving the goalpost to repeatedly require even more evidence (despite overwhelming evidence already).
 * Regression fallacy in assuming everything must have a cause.
 * Reification in making literal from the metaphorical that which there is no evidence to support as literal.
 * Appeal to authority where something must be true if one's pastor/teacher/president says it's true.
 * So, in the sea of logic fallacies, by default we fall back on our policies and guidelines for the encyclopedia, and we hope that you do so as well. Alternatively, Conservapedia is a great place to go to add content that is free from the ravages of scientific consensus.
 * -- slakr \ talk / 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, you forgot quote mining! Also, if my amateur perception is correct, scientific truth is not the same as religious truth. Science is always provisional, and can be overturned by new evidence, while religious truth is a preconceived belief. So it goes. . dave souza, talk 20:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The more I've learned about biology (yes, I actually researched this stuff), the more certain I've become that creationism is correct. And before you claim that my textbook was biased, the textbook I've studied is Prentice Hall Biology by Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine. The more I've learned about the complexity of even the simplest organism, the less certain I've become that it could arise by chance. Yes, I know that natural selection is not random. However, natural selection requires random mutations to cause any change. For example, say an organism needs a single nucleotide to change to be much more able to survive. If that random mutation occurs, natural selection would ensure that all future organisms of that species have the beneficial gene. However, that requires the mutation to occur. If that mutation doesn't occur, the organism will become extinct. Therefore, while natural selection isn't random, mutation is. Since even one part of evolution is random, the entire process is random. This means that there would be an incredibly small chance of even a few beneficial mutations occurring, and an even smaller chance of the number of necessary mutations to get from a simple one-celled organism to a human. Therefore, the probability of humans evolving completely through chance is near 0, so there are two possibilities:
 * 1) God created humans exactly how we are sometime in the past 10,000 years. (creationism)
 * 2) God caused some, if not all, of the mutations necessary for human evolution. (God-guided evolution) --Latiosoital (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're logic is flawed, you should read: Objections_to_evolution — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 02:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You may not have noticed this text buried in the prose in the "Important Notice" box at the top of this page: 'Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article'' about evolution. If you are interested in discussing or debating evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins.''' Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur, this should probably be archived. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 02:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This article doesn't say God doesn't exist.-- Patton t / c 20:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I just ran checkuser on Latiosoital on the suspicion that he was a Kdbuffalo sockpuppet. I was right that he was a sockpuppet -- of Oboeboy. One of many, apparently. Please be watchful for these kinds of returning bad guys. Raul654 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this a valid probability example for evolution?
"Imagine flipping a coin over and over. For each toss, the odds are fifty-fifty that it will come up heads (a one-in-two chance). The odds of getting two heads in a row is a one-in-two-to-the-power-of-two chance, or one-in-four. Five heads in a row is 1:2^5, or one-in-thirty-two. A hundred heads? 1:2^100, or roughly one in 1.3 trillion trillion trillion. Some would claim that all the lucky chances that evolution requires is like getting not one, not five, but millions upon millions of heads in a row.

But evolution ISN'T random. It's selected. You can't really blame people for missing this fact...Darwin cleverly concealed it from view by calling his theory 'natural selection.' Let's return to our coin-tossing example, this time including the principle of selection. What if, after every toss, we had the option of not counting it? What if we were allowed to simply discard every toss that came up tails? Now, given the ability to select, how long would it take to rack up a hundred heads in a row? About two hundred throws.

Once you understand the concept of selection, and how it applies to evolution, you realize that what was thought to be vanishingly unlikely actually becomes virtually inevitable."

- Steve Vanden-Eyke

Pasado (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a valid example of selection, and the power it has to reduce incredibly unlikely scenarios into a series of likely steps. But it's not evolution, and certainly not something that would add to this article. -- Ec5618 (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, some people will see this quote and immediately think God is doing the selecting. Far too many people discount the fact that creatures born with crippling (or negative) mutations often die (or are killed by predators) before they can pass those genes on- removing coin tosses. Kingoomieiii (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If God does the selecting them it would be SuperNatural Selection.Pasado (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Evolution introduction more succinct & salient
Rather than suggesting evolution is a fast-happening event and just as a result of genetics ie. "evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.""

It seems better to say some thing like 'Evolution is change in traits of a population of organisms over time.'

Darwins classic study of finches found changes in the finch population(s) quite quickly as a result of changes in seed type/size, and these were population changes were not just due to genetics, they were due to starvation of finches with small beaks.

Thus, the following is too specific and too cumbersome for an introductory paragraph:

"" These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection. Genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. These traits vary within populations, with organisms showing heritable differences in their traits. When organisms reproduce, their offspring may have new or altered traits. These new traits arise in two main ways: either from mutations in genes, or from the transfer of genes between populations and between species. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are also produced by genetic recombination, which can increase variation between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population. ""

Most changes are slower and less dramatic than what Darwin saw with the finches, so the reference to time ought to be more general. eg changes documented and proposed with the great apes and humanoids and humans.

The next sections seem fine: Two major mechanisms drive evolution. The first is natural selection, .....

The second major mechanism driving evolution is genetic drift, ......

I would refer to evolutionary biology rather than evoultionary biologists, and indeed the link is to the former, and get away from the somewhat facetious term "the fact of evolution"

The study of Evolutionary Biology documents evolution as a real process, and also develop and test theories that further explain its causes. The study of evolutionary biology began in ....

The mechanism driving these changes were illuminated by the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, detailing the theory of evolution by natural selection.[

Craigmac41 (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I can see some of your concern, would it be a good idea to have a brief introductory paragraph before the detail? Suggestion: a one sentence paragraph at the start:
 * In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. making small changes which can accumulate with each subsequent generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population of organisms.
 * The next sentence would then start a new paragraph with "These changes are caused by a combination of .... " But a word of caution, I'm no expert. I would just point out that Darwin's finches were studied by the Grants, not by Darwin who merely collected what he thought were different species altogether, then identified by Gould as all being species of "finches", at which point Darwin tried to find which island his badly labelled specimens came from, partly by guesswork. . . dave souza, talk 23:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest: In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Small changes which accumulate with each subsequent generations will, over time, cause substantial changes in the population of organisms. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

'''Evolution is change in traits of a population of organisms over time. These changes may be due to a number of mechanisms and processes... '' Currently, after the intro sentence (which I don't like) there is then talk of three processes, then the next paragraph starts with reference to two mechanisms: all too overwhelming for an intro. Moreover, I would simplify Heredity and Variation; and, in the sub-section title Variation, I would put sex and recombination before mutation, and more simply explain recombination (it probably involves meiosis)  Craigmac41 (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the sub-section title Mechanisms about half-way down talks about three mechanisms - some consistency & continuity would be best Craigmac41 (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

We have an intro to evolution which goes a little easier on the terms. This is a featured article, it needs to be concise and complete. It's not written from a standpoint of introducing someone to science and evolution who's never studied it before. It's more technical. Your proposed sentence I don't like, it doesn't accurately represent evolution as well as the other suggestions. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Raeky that this article must be accurate. I oppose any sentence that is inaccurate, any paragraph that is inaccurate.  That said, a featured article must be accessibl to a generl audience.  That does NOT mean that it should be dumbed down (we have a simple Wikipedia for that).  I am convinced that science can be presented clearly and accurately to a general audience.  Anyone who thinks that an article that is accessible to a generl audience cannot be accurate is wrong.  We should inroduce technical terms (like drift or species) and explain how scientists use them, clearly. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, evolution is changes in gene frequencies from one generation to the next. There is nothing unclear about this, I do not see how the current first accurate statement makes it hard for general readers. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that sentences & paragraphs must be accurate, and that science can be presented clearly and accurately to a general audience. Moreover, the sentences & paragraphs in the article should be in context. To say evolution is changes in gene frequencies from one generation to the next implies there is constant change every generation and this is highly unlikely in any population, let alone all. The introduction to this article is misleading and cumbersome.

''Evolution (in Biology) is change in traits of a population of organisms over time. These changes may be due to a number of mechanisms and processes.

Population genetic mechanisms include: Natural selection · Genetic drift · Gene flow · Mutation*

Processes of evolution include: Adaptation · Macroevolution · Microevolution · Speciation
 * possibly substitute with Variation (chromosome recombination and mutation),

The study of Evolutionary Biology documents evolution as a real process, and also develop and test theories that further explain its causes. The study of evolutionary biology began in the mid-nineteenth century, when studies of the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species changed over time.[5][6]

The mechanism driving these changes were illuminated by the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, detailing the theory of evolution by natural selection.[7] Darwin's work soon led to overwhelming acceptance of evolution among scientists.[8][9][10][11] In the 1930s, Darwinian ideas were combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,[12] which connected the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). This powerful explanatory and predictive concept has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.[9][10][13]. New information has constantly raised new questions, so inititaing new research for further explanations and further questions.'' Craigmac41 (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Explain your reasoning for adding this unsourced statement: New information has constantly raised new questions, so inititaing new research for further explanations and further questions. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 00:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a re-work of the unsourced statement in the current text: This powerful explanatory and predictive theory directs research by constantly raising new questions, and ...  i think it is misleading to still call it a theory, and it is not the theory that directs research or raises question - and, to say the theory (of evolution) raises questions is to invite crticism and empower the doubters.

I still find the whole intro messy, and I think those who have never studied evolution before might start here. Perhaps do the links better - have then as subsections as links rahter than:

This article is about evolution in biology. For other uses, see Evolution (disambiguation). "Theory of evolution" redirects here [No Redirect here]. For more on how evolution is defined, see Evolution as theory and fact. For a generally accessible and less technical introduction to the topic, see Introduction to evolution.

... and have the box to the right up more or more promenent. Craigmac41 (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, "Theory of evolution" redirects to here - another reason to have a better intro or better links to Introduction to Evolution. Craigmac41 (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The "unsourced statement" comes from expert on evolution Philip Kirtcher:
 * Fecundity: "A great scientific theory, like Newton's, opens up new areas of research…. Because a theory presents a new way of looking at the world, it can lead us to ask new questions, and so to embark on new and fruitful lines of inquiry…. Typically, a flourishing science is incomplete. At any time, it raises more questions than it can currently answer. But incompleteness is not vice. On the contrary, incompleteness is the mother of fecundity…. A good theory should be productive; it should raise new questions and presume those questions can be answered without giving up its problem-solving strategies" (1982: 47–48).
 * He is specifically consideing the theory of evolution. The citation must have dropped out at some point during other edits. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Good quote that embodies the shifting sands and necessary re-workings of science.

Now, what about this claim:

To say evolution is changes in gene frequencies from one generation to the next implies there is constant change every generation and this is highly unlikely in any population, let alone all?

Evolution may be due to a number of mechanisms and processes.

Population genetic mechanisms include: Natural selection Genetic drift Gene flow Mutation*


 * possibly substitute with Variation (chromosome recombination and mutation),

Processes of evolution include: Adaptation · Macroevolution · Microevolution · Speciation

Craigmac41 (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't realy matter what seems likely or not ... does it seem likely that an ape will turn into a man? This is the definition of evolution.  We are not going to change a scientific definition because it stretches your imagination. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also there is no distinction between micro and macro in the scientific community they're all the same thing, evolution, just on different time scales. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 14:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sirubenstein, " does it seem likely that an ape will turn into a man? This is the definition of evolution. " Sorry, completely lost me there? Humans are apes. Apes didn't "turn into humans". Is it likely that an ape will turn into a man. The answer is 0%. What is the likelihood that humans are apes? 100%.

--Candy (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I was responding to Craig. Sorry you can't follow the conversation, or simple English. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * While there are populations that don't evolve at all from one generation to the next (because they are genetically uniform), these are exceedingly rare cases, usually controlled by humans. In the wild such populations are about to become extinct. Any normal population WILL evolve every generation without question. Nothing stays the same from generation to generation. Sometimes the changes are too minute to be easily observed, but they nevertheless exist. Graft | talk 01:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Graft is correct. Even clonal analysis from single bacteria indicates variation is inevitable through time. Sexual organisms produce variation in their gametes during genetic recombination and then again with the contribution of each parent. Every generation does produce variation and that is where natural selection can shift alleles within the pop. through time. The genome of a species doesn't address the diversity and polymorphisms within the population where generally there is lots of variation when you compare individuals (our uniqueness). Anyways I agree with Graft-well said. GetAgrippa (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually there are populations which, even with the presence of varying genetic characteristics, don't show evolutionary changes over numerous generations, and this is not such a rarity as might be assumed. All populations will either reach a stable genetic equilibruim or become extinct and/or be supplanted by a genetic strain of the population.  If an organism develops a phenotype which takes advantage of the equilibrium to exploit the mainstream characteristics then this will cause a disruption of the equilibrium and cause it to shift back and forth as each type takes advantage of the presence of the new phenotype.  Eventually equilibrium is regained, though the genetic attributes of the equilibrium may be different from the former state, depending on the sustainability of the emerging new strains.   --JohnArmagh (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

New Section Suggestion: Observation
This article should mention that no new species have been observed to come into existence through darwinism/evolution. Mostly do to the large amount of time required. We should also mention that the wollemi and malaria examples of the subsequent sections as examples of life that no longer evolves. Also there have been studies that suggest that humans are no longer evolving. It would be academically dishonest to neglect this important information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.167.250 (talk • contribs)


 * Cite reliable references in peer reviewed journals about how this affects the theory of evolution and it maybe can be worked into the article. Just because an organism dosn't change much over time compared to others doesn't mean evolution isn't true. You can't look at one example that helps your "God made everything" theory and ignore the thousands of other facts that doesn't help your cause. This article is about the scientific community's consensus on the current theory of evolution, if there is any change to that the article would reflect it. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 19:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See Darwin's finches. This shows where speciation has been observed.-- Patton t / c 19:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have any reliable sources that suggest anything along the lines of "no new species have been observed," or "life that no longer evolves," or "humans are no longer evolving" please bring it here. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 19:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For inclusion here it would have to be from a peer reviewed journal, and it if it refutes any part of evolution there would need to be SIGNIFICANT coverage within the scientific community. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 20:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you take the time to read the article, several examples of speciation are discussed in that section. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know I shouldn't even answer this, or waste my time, but I couldn't resist. I think that you (mysterious IP poster) just agreed on the theory of evolution, and unintentionally rejected your own statements and conclusion, in just one paragraph, because you said that ...
 * a) "Humans are no longer evolving". Which means that humans have evolved, so you agree with evolution as a fact.
 * b) "large amount of time required [To evolve]". Which is true, in most cases.


 * but...you claim that
 * c) "no new species have been observed to come into existence"
 * d) "wollemi and malaria [are] examples of life that no longer evolves"
 * e) "Humans are no longer evolving"...again


 * but, if a) and b) are true, a) proves evolution, and b) cancels c), d) and e), because it recognizes that we can not observe evolution due to the "large amount of time required".


 * Well, I don't agree with your statements, they are partially true, at best, the funny part, is that your statements do not support your own conclusion. Cheers. Hugo cantu (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Evolution/FAQ.Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wollemi Pines and Malaria
200million year old Fossils of Wollemi plans have been found that are identical with plants found today. This article should mention that speed of evolution is too slow, or non-existent in some observed instances. Possibly with the mention of the Cambrian explosion when all complex life suddenly appeared. Also, Michael Behe's book "The Edge of Evolution" should be mentioned for similar studys with mutations in malaria. Even in a rapidly mutating virus, no significant leaps have been observed. The only observable changes such as darwin's finches have been due to breeding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.167.250 (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The speed of evolution is what is is, it doesn't have to be fast or slow. Darwin himself pointed to examples of stasis. LOL at Behe, whose trashy book was demolished by ERV. . dave souza, talk 22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ERV for the uninitiated. See also. Wonder if the IP editor really believes that malaria was divinely created, in the Creator's infinite mercy and wisdom, to kill little children? Oh, and breeding is evolution. . . dave souza, talk 22:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking structurally similar or the same doesn't mean it hasn't evolved in other ways-physiologically or metabolically. Horseshoe crabs are considered living fossils and the fossil record indicates close similarities. However modern populations live exclusively in marine environments (whereas fossil lived marine and fresh), there is lesser segmentation of the opisthosoma, and they are larger than fossil critters. If there was archaic DNA to compare modern and fossil organisms I would wager differences indicative of changes in size, segmentation, and environment. Just because Wollemia looks the same or similar doesn't mean it hasn't evolved. Wollemia does display little variation and little evidence of diversity, but it doesn't mean it didn't evolve or hasn't since fossil record. Genomic analysis would give insights to the issue. What is the argument with Malaria and evolution? It certainly has evolved with at least five species some infecting hominids and others rodents so it would be a ridiculous argument to indicate it hasn't evolved and still evolving likely, since the disease is returning with a vengence of late so this maybe due to our immunity or the plasmodium pathogenicity or both. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, a relative of Araucaria, got one of those in the garden but no local dinosaurs cabable of chewing it. Anyway, Darwin wrote about long lasting species in 1859: "Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms.... The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus; whereas most of the other Silurian Molluscs and all the Crustaceans have changed greatly.... Whether.. variability be taken advantage of by natural selection... depends on many complex contingencies... Hence it is by no means surprising that one species should retain the same identical form much longer than others". From our article, Lingula is among the few brachiopods surviving today but also known from fossils over 500 million years old. Beats these trees by about 300 million years. Of course from a modern perspective there would be likely to be evolution in the DNA, even though the form appeared the same. As for Michael Behe's nonsense about malaria in his book The Edge of Evolution, his ID creationism has evolved the claim that there's an "edge" of complexity beyond which natural selection can't evolve organisms, so divine intervention was needed to "create" malaria. Hence the theological problem for believers in a benificent god, and the scientific issue that a graduate student can ably point out that Behe is making claims contradicted by published research, as shown at the ERV links. . . dave souza, talk 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember reading a couple of Science articles related to "are humans still evolving" the last couple of years? Is there a list of living fossils or animals living in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (seems impossible)? Different traits evolve at different rates and different animals evolve at different rates and then there is this subject of "evolvability" but I can't imagine any sexual reproducing animal not evolving even if no diversity. Animals evolve and continue to evolve and this process can lead to speciation but speciation isn't the endpoint of evolution. 80% of the worlds population of drosophila are now resistant to artificial insecticides because within the last 200 years an 80K year old (or 40K) transposon related to cytochrome P450 function has gained reproductive success with a shift in gene alleles within the population-no speciation has ocurred but they surely have gained a survival and reproductive advantage from this metabolic trend advantage. Fruit flies have looked the same for millions of years so you can't argue they haven't evolved despite no physical trait differences. I guess adaptive evolution is considered to arise from natural selection but genetic drift, gene flow, etc still yields evolution. GetAgrippa (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

'''Please see Talk:Evolution/FAQ and Talk:Evolution/FAQ. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)