Talk:Evolution/Archive 59

Merger of Evolution and Evolutionary Biology
Based on the consensus on the Talk page of Evolutionary Biology, I made that page a redirect to evolution. Joanna in turn inserted material from that article into this article. Following WP:BRD, I reverted the edit as 1) I think it is too long and 2) I'm not sure if it should be a subsection of the history section. While there is consensus for the redirect, it is not clear if there is consensus for the material to be merged into this article. I was wondering if anyone else has thoughts about this. danielkueh (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The consensus was for a merger. A simple redirect from evolutionary biology, in the absence of changes to the evolution page, is a deletion not a merger. There was no consensus for a deletion, although there was some support for it.


 * The evolutionary biology page contained some now hopefully redundant history, and some lists (eg of evolutionary biologists and lists) that are at least partly redundant with list-specific pages that I am OK with deleting. It also had a section on "current research in evolutionary biology", merged in from a once-separate page of that name. This material is not covered by the current evolution page, nor elsewhere. I inserted it in to history section, it could also go elsewhere, but I see no reason to delete it. In order to improve it prior to merging it in, I am putting the text below for editing as a draft. The options I see are 1) shorten it and insert; 2) improve it but find that its its length is necessary and insert anyway; 3) restore it as a standalone article, and link to it from the evolution page. I think the material is important, and is not found on another page.Joannamasel (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * With respect to the consensus on moving its contents, I will list five of the seven editors who supported the merger but expressed reservations about moving its contents into this article and/or wouldn't mind deleting its contents entirely.
 * Thompsma "Instead of a merger with the evolutionary biology article - that article should just be deleted." 3 August 2011
 * AnneD "Doesn't require a separate article... "merge" or "delete" would be equally good solutions to me, .." 29 April 2011
 * OrangeMarlin (I'm not sure if he will be able to respond) "Just a small issue however, I don't think there's much here that would enhance the Evolution article, but you could try. Evolution is a completely biological process, so evolutionary biology doesn't make sense." 16:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ettrig "Yes, merge. But we have a problem in that evolution is already too long." 29 April 2011
 * danielkueh "It seems that the ideal solution would be to make this page a redirect to evolution." 9 August 2011
 * If there is a consensus to merge the contents into this article, then the question of course would be where to position it. danielkueh (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Guettarda supported including text in some form on "how evolution is studied" that remained distinct from "what is evolution". I supported merging but not deleting. Ettrig's position on deletion as opposed to merging was ambiguous as best I can ascertain from the evolutionary biology talk page. Thompsa seems to support the coverage of evolutionary biology within the evolution page in some form, leaving aside for now any disagreements as to what exactly should be covered and how that coverage should proceed. So I don't think a consensus on deletion of evolutionary biology is at all clear from that talk page, although a consensus on merging is there. Although John Baez opposed both merging and deleting.Joannamasel (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind I used the article "and/or" when listing editors. I was going off of the comment made by Thompsma above when he said "Instead of a merger with the evolutionary biology article - that article should just be deleted." He may have changed his mind. We'll have to wait for his response. Ettrig expressed reservations when he said "a problem in that evolution is already too long." He too might have changed his mind but he was clearly voicing a concern about the length of this article. You are right of course on the positions of Guettarda and John Baez. But those two are quite besides the point. The point is that there is an overwhelming majority of editors (you included) who supported the merger, but there is a sizeable number of them who are not clear or fully on-board with merging the content itself. It is not as unambiguous as it seems. Plus, this is a featured article and so any inclusion of new material must be done with care. danielkueh (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I included the quotes from 5 of the eight editors who voted but expressed reservations so that we are both on the same page. danielkueh (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As I count things, we have 3 editors (me, Guettarda, John Baez) who want evolutionary biology to be clearly covered in its own right in some form (including, eg, preserving old article, merging content into evolution, or restoring current research in evolutionary biology as an article). We have 3 (AnneD, OrangeMarlin, danielkueh) supporting simple deletion of evolutionary biology. And we have 2 whose position is a little ambiguous, Ettrig supporting a merge (not explicitly a deletion) but worried about length, and Thompsa seems keen to incorporate evolutionary biology into the evolution article, but takes a substantially different view regarding what that evolutionary biology content should be. This doesn't sound like a consensus to me at this stage. Joannamasel (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Thompsma's statement above is very clear and unambigious. I'm not sure I follow when you say he is "keen on incorporating" the text. If so, which text? You could ask him on his talk page.
 * I never claimed Ettrig supported a deletion (once again, please see my use of the article and/or). He has expressed reservations, which means he is not fully on board. This is not ambiguous at all. The quotes by the editors above speak for themselves.
 * With respect to the other two editors that you mentioned, John Baez opposed while Guettarda said "I'm not sure". If you are going to count editors from other discussion threads, then I would have to include Tom and Pasado to the list of editors who wish to merge the article. Quoting Tom, "I therefore fail to see how the the Evolutionary biology article differs."
 * John Baez and Guettarda never explicitly support retaining the content that you want to see inserted into this article. In fact, Guettarda states that he would like to see ""how is evolution studied, with more emphasis on the history of the academic discipline, major researchers, research centres, professional societies...," which is consistent with my suggestions below. Thus, the only person I'm aware of who is interested in preserving the current research section is you. I can only quote you when you say "...I have a vested interested here: I wrote the "Current Research" section. It is based on a graduate lecture I gave that was surprising hard to formulate. " Since I've experienced having many of my texts deleted, I understand your attachment. But that is not a reason to keep them. I agree with Slrubenstein that we should not use Wikipedia as a "means to self-publish."
 * Even if there is agreement for merging the contents from the two articles. It is presumptuous to assume that the content that should be merged is the section that you wrote. Moreover, the proposed content is poorly written and it may endanger the FA status of this article. I (and I suspect others as well) am completely opposed to its inclusion until it is written right. We already have enough disputes over poorly written texts (see above on History section). We don't need another one.
 * If you wish to have a WP article that focuses on current research, then you should create an article entitled "Unsolved problems in evolutionary biology" or "current research in evolutionary biology." These is a similar type of WP article entitled "Unsolved_problems_in_neuroscience."
 * Bottom-line, there is no consensus yet to insert the text that you wrote but there's agreement that evolutionary biology should be merged with evolution, and a redirect is a natural consequence of merging two articles (WP:merge). danielkueh (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thompsa is of course welcome to jump in and correct me here, but seems to have been keen on inserting OTHER text regarding current trends in evolutionary biology research into evolution. I never claimed that he supported inserting this text, but that is a somewhat separate question from whether evolution should cover current research in some form. Addressing Tom here, the text in question clearly does differ from the evolution page in this respect.


 * Counting consensus is tricky when there are so many options, including 1) deleting (what has now been done), 2) a true merge, 3) alternative text on evolutionary biology, 4) leaving evolutionary biology mostly intact, 5) partitioning up the material differently again. Statements need to be taken in context. Eg, there is the question of whether the distinction between evolution and evolutionary biology needs to be made clear (in my opinion not well achieved by the current evolution page, despite many votes in favor of making this clear), and then there are opinions as to the best way to achieve this (adding up votes on any particular option here will always yield a smaller number). "Merging" as opposed to deleting presumably implies that we preserve SOME content from the daughter article. This is not currently the case, so an otherwise unspecified vote for a merge, for example, is ambiguous with regard to consensus to the current state. To date, nobody else has championed any other text from the old evolutionary biology article, but if so, that other text should of course also be discussed.


 * One of the options I listed was moving it back to a separate current research in evolutionary biology page, where it used to be. When I first saw that page, it was a bit of a mess for the reasons you indicate, i.e. lots of pet theories. I extensively rewrote it to give a more balanced overview of the kind of mainstream research done today, trying to avoid an overemphasis of fringe work. The page then remained completely stable until it was merged into evolutionary biology by Ettrig Feb 12 this year. The text then remained stable there. I suggest that we restore it to its original current research in evolutionary biology. If it improves there to the point of incorporation into evolution, we move it then. I would love to add a secondary source that gives an overview of all of evolutionary biology, but to the best of my knowledge no such source exists. Meantime, this text is decently referenced with appropriate sources, i.e. including many articles reviewing subfields, rather than relying solely on primary research. If it improves further on another page, it may be suitable for moving later.


 * Yes, I have openly admitted to attachment to not having my text deleted. On the other hand, the only criticisms made of the text so far are either about style, or concern speculations regarding future stability, or are specific to the fact that evolution is FA and/or too long already. The text has a history of stability on a different page, and I see no reason put forward so far why its existence there is a net negative for wikipedia. Joannamasel (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you wish to restore the current research in evolutionary biology page, I am certainly very supportive of it. The proposed text is simply too narrow and technical for an evolutionary biology/evolution page but focused enough for a page such as Current Research in Evolutionary Biology. In fact, I recommend that the article be called "Research in Evolutionary Biology." That way you can give it more context and include past research as well. Otherwise, the article might just be a stub.
 * If you wish to make a distinction between evolution and evolutionary biology, the last sentence of the current lede would be the place to do it.
 * The current state is not permanent and I'm not arguing for it to be. But before large changes are made, I am recommending that there be substantial discussions first, especially when it concerns an established article such as this one.
 * Merging of course entails preserving some content if there is no duplicacy. There clearly is.
 * I won't comment further on what the other editors have already said. I will leave it to them to jump in. I think I have said all I need to say about their comments.
 * I suspect there are two possible reasons why the text might have a history of stability in the other page. 1) No one visits the original evolutionary biology or know of its existence and/or 2) The text is way over their heads. So if it was inserted into this page, it will receive more attention. The explosion of discussion over it today is proof of that. Also, think back to when you first started editing this page. How it looked then is certainly quite different from how it looks now.
 * I have also argued against some of the contents and the organization of the proposed text (see below). There is a lot in there. If you're hoping that I would comb through it line by line, I regret to say that I just do not have the time to do that at the moment. As you know, summer is about to end and the new semester is about to begin. Plus, I'm already helping with the task (see above) of editing the history section. So I'm hoping other editors could weigh in. When the proposed section gets closer to a "finished product" and has received more enthusiasm than it does now, I will take a very close look at it. danielkueh (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Text is now restored at current research in evolutionary biology, I kept the same name as the original page for continuity. If you look at the history of that page, you will see that traffic was low but nevertheless there. I don't think that "way over their heads" is an automatic killer: the page needs to be written at the lowest level appropriate to the content it covers. I will try to look over the evolution article soon with regard to making sure the distinction with evolutionary biology is clear. Joannamasel (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good. :) danielkueh (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with this move. However, we need clear guidelines of what constitutes current research in evolutionary biology, which needs a lot of work.Thompsma (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Draft text
Current research in evolutionary biology covers diverse topics, as should be expected given the centrality of evolution to understanding biology. Modern evolutionary biology incorporates ideas from diverse areas of science, such as molecular genetics and even computer science.

First, some fields of evolutionary research try to explain phenomena that were poorly accounted for by the work of the modern evolutionary synthesis. These phenomena include speciation, the evolution of sexual reproduction , the evolution of cooperation, the evolution of ageing, and evolvability.

Second, biologists ask the most straightforward evolutionary question: "what happened and when?". This includes fields such as paleobiology, as well as systematics and phylogenetics.

Third, the modern evolutionary synthesis was devised at a time when nobody understood the molecular basis of genes. Today, evolutionary biologists try to determine the genetic architecture of interesting evolutionary phenomena such as adaptation and speciation. They seek answers to questions such as how many genes are involved, how large are the effects of each gene, to what extent are the effects of different genes interdependent, what sort of function do the genes involved tend to have, and what sort of changes tend to happen to them (e.g. point mutations vs. gene duplication or even genome duplication). Evolutionary biologists try to reconcile the high heritability seen in twin studies with the difficulty in finding which genes are responsible for this heritability using genome-wide association studies.

One challenge in studying genetic architecture is that the classical population genetics that catalyzed the modern evolutionary synthesis needs to be updated to take into account modern molecular knowledge. This requires a great deal of mathematical development, in order to relate DNA sequence data to evolutionary theory as part of a theory of molecular evolution. For example, biologists try to infer which genes have been under strong selection by detecting selective sweeps.

Fourth, the modern evolutionary synthesis involved agreement about which forces contribute to evolution, but not about their relative importance. Current research seeks to determine this. Evolutionary forces include natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, genetic draft, developmental constraints, mutation bias and biogeography.

An evolutionary approach is also key to much current research in biology that does not set out to study evolution per se, especially in organismal biology and ecology. For example, evolutionary thinking is key to life history theory. Annotation of genes and their function relies heavily on comparative, i.e. evolutionary, approaches. The field of evo-devo investigates how developmental processes work by using the comparative method to determine how they evolved.


 * This draft reads more like a "current topics or issues investigated by evolutionary biologists." I wonder if it would not be better to describe, emphasize, or list the approaches taken by evolutionary biologists to study evolution rather than list the topics themselves. As far as style, it also reads more like a classroom lecture than an encyclopedia text. The text is also heavy, making it beyond the reach of most nonspecialist readers. danielkueh (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the style needs an overhaul, and we can work on that here once we decide if and where to insert it. But I think the content is broadly fine. It doesn't matter which approach is used, if the topic of study is evolution, then the scientist is doing evolutionary biology. And many approaches used in evolutionary biology are shared or indeed dominated by non-evolutionary disciplines. This is why I think organization by topic makes more sense than organization by approach. Joannamasel (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with listing specific and current topics is stability. Once you start to list them, I foresee in the future that this section will become unstable as topics come and go and new editors will come in and insert their pet or favorite topics. Thus, I'm opposed to a list. Right now, there is only 4. Soon, there will be 5, 6, etc. Besides, many of the content are already in the article.
 * So I suggest emphasizing the approach such as the use of mathematics, statistics, field work, molecular biology, etc, 2) emerging fields (e.g., evo-devo), and 3) "type of questions (instead specific questions)" asked by evolutionary biologists. One or two examples of specifics would be ok. But we must emphasize the general over the specific. I am saying this because 1) these tools/approaches will last for quite some time, 2) it emphasizes the interdisciplinary nature of the field, 3) it would be more interesting and easily accessible to nonspecialist readers, 4) minimize the possibility of WP:NOR as current topics are often found mainly in the primarily literature, and 5) there will be more stability in this section. danielkueh (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The introductory paragraph can be deleted or changed. While there are now 4+1 in the list, each of them is actually a broad category of things, encompassing a large field of research. It is really a list of lists, or in other words, the structure is already one concerning types of questions rather than specific questions, as you advocate in 3). I see no intrinsic reason why the meta-list should be unstable. I agree that people will likely add to it, but in most cases what they add will belong to one of the existing categories, and if valid and noteworthy can be merged into an existing paragraph, preserving something close to the 4+1 structure. Pet topics are certainly a problem, but they get inserted anyway, and avoiding the topic of current research altogether is a slightly strange way to avoid this problem. On that note, I think getting into which fields are "emerging" is likely to be dangerous. We should stick to fields/questions that exist.


 * An alternative is to keep the material in a separate article, where it will be less of a target than if it is part of the main evolution article. Unwillingness to include in the main evolution page due to length or likelihood of being a target is a bad reason to delete the material on other pages.Joannamasel (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several points that you made. I will try my best to respond to them.
 * These so called categories appear arbitrary and stitched together. They do not even appear to be organized in any particularly logical sequence. I am not aware of any secondary sources that list them that way. This brings up a problem of WP:NOR.
 * Whether you see no intrinsic reason that it should remain unstable is quite besides the point. The point is that it will get longer and unwieldy because these lists, aside from being arbitrary, will change over time and editors will invariable add to them. Topics come and go. There is precedence for this in many Wikipedia article (e.g., neuroscience).
 * I think you are quibbling over the word "emerging." Evo-devo is after all in the last paragraph of your draft.
 * Your last point about not including a text as a bad reason for deleting it is a non sequitur. You are conflating two separate issues. There was support for merging the two articles. A redirect is a consequence of merging. "Merging" does not mean that we have to preserve all the content in the daughter article. The issue at hand is whether the content that you wrote is worth inserting into this article. So far, there is no strong consensus for it. If there is, this discussion will be different. Even if there is, it is not ready to be inserted yet as its present state is simply unacceptable.
 * danielkueh (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review
I have suggested this in passing in the past, but I'm going to suggest it again. I believe that evolution is in need of a shake-up and a new review to maintain is FA status. This is one of the most difficult pages to work on in Wikipedia and I am of the opinion that it does not hold up to scrutiny for the status that it holds. I believe that we are doing a disservice to the community at large by maintaining this article with a FA status when it falls far short of that kind of recognition. First, standards have changed since this article received its FA status. Second, I believe that the review process looked more at formatting issues rather than the actual content. It was a gargantuan effort just to get the history of evolution section modified - we have made progress, but issues remain. I proposed earlier that the entire article needs an overhaul - some agree, others disagree. There is much continuing debate in here and we have split off articles such as current research in evolutionary biology, which is only a partial solution. This page hardly addresses evolution proper and I have mentioned this numerous times that the focus is on genes and branches off into a bunch of directions. Evolution is synthesized primarily through an understanding of homology and how this relates to genealogy - tree like thinking. There is no discussion of this at all and this should be at the forefront of this article. Homology should be introduced from both a morphological and genetic level so that people can make the connections. Why can an evolutionary biologist build a phylogenetic tree using either genes or morphology? The answer is found in homology. I posted a scaffold structure to revise this article and some people supported the idea. However, the exercise that we just completed with the history section was so difficult that I'm running out of steam to go ahead with any other section. Hence, I think that delisting this as a FA may give incentive for some of the editors in here to work toward a common goal. I proposed this before and some have suggested that the FA status is more of a formality and we should just try to work to improve the article and not bother with the delisting. I disagree - the FA review process is there to help us gain an outside perspective from impartial reviewers. The process at the Featured article review page suggests that we have to raise the issues here first. Here are the list of issues I can see:


 * LOTS of continuing heated debate and unstable text.
 * The article is missing numerous keystone concepts, details, and facts and the concepts that are being discussed are too lengthy and filled with irrelevant information that goes off topic.
 * The synthesis of the article is off track - it is a genetics article moreso than evolution.
 * The formatting is not up to FA status - citations are in shambles and the wikilinks need repair, some are duplicated and some are linked below when they are introduced above.
 * The prose and writing style is not up to a professional standard. The first sentence under cooperation speaks for itself: "However, not all interactions between species involve conflict." - What does this relate too? The section just before that is on coevolution!! It does not make sense.
 * Some of the topics are not presented in a neutral fashion - people lean toward reductionism and tend to ignore the hierarchical synthesis. For example, "During adaptation, some structures may lose their original function and become vestigial structures." - Can someone please explain to me what during adaptation means in this sentence?? During adaptation to what??
 * I fixed the text to address the two instances above.Joannamasel (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Too many citations. For example, "Examples of vestigial structures in humans include wisdom teeth,[184] the coccyx,[180] the vermiform appendix,[180] and other behavioural vestiges such as goose bumps[185] and primitive reflexes.[186][187][188][189]" Do we really need eight citations for that single sentence?
 * The lead is short, but it has too many citations per WP:LEAD, it is not the most engaging text, and it keeps reverting back to statements that cannot be supported - for example: "The major sources of such inherited variants are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow." - This cannot be quantifiably stated as fact. Foremost, this issue is still hotly debated. One of the most highly read articles in Trends in Ecology and Evolution is: Uller, T., and Helanterä, H. (2011). When are genes ‘leaders’ or ‘followers’ in evolution? TREE, 26(9) 435-436. This article states: "Assessing the role of developmental plasticity in evolution – and whether genes are leaders or followers in this sense – requires studies that investigate whether the evolution of complex phenotypes is better explained by a sequence that begins with environmental induction followed by genetic accommodation or by successive bouts of selection on standing genetic variation or novel mutations alone. This is an outstanding empirical challenge, and progress is likely to be facilitated by focusing on recent events where the origin and evolution of adaptive phenotypes can be studied directly." - Hence, we have a very strong statement in the lead that (once again) claims that variation results from genetic mutations but completely ignores the concept of phenotyptic plasticity, which is a central debate in evolutionary theory ever since Darwin. It is extremely misleading and this trend continues throughout the article. These kinds of statements appear in here because the authors are not synthesizing the material properly - you must have a hierarchical perspective if you are describing evolution, it is the only way to present this topic. Evolution is hierarchical - period.
 * I fixed this in the lead, too.Joannamasel (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The structure is not appropriate. The headings make very little sense, they are jumbled, and many of the concepts are repeated in sub-sections. People pick a section and argue it, but the whole article needs to be integrated and to flow properly.
 * From a media perspective - I don't think the images are up to par for FA status. File:Sexual cycle.svg, for example, isn't particularly appealing to the eye and it is confusing in an abstract way. An illustration of a life cycle would be helpful here. Seeing life cycles in soils, plants, and animals separating the soma from the germ line is what is needed to clarify the concept. This image is about meiosis and it doesn't do a very good job of it. The only 'phylogentic tree' that appears on this page is File:CollapsedtreeLabels-simplified.svg - it is shown at the lead and later in the article. That image is okay, but it is hardly representative of the kinds of trees we see in evolutionary articles. It is of a radial format and as such it does little to illustrate the branching patterns that would help people to understand how characters are positioned along branches and transition in context. In other words, this tree does little to serve for illustrating the concept of tree thinking in evolutionary biology.Thompsma (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly recommend reading as an important note of caution regarding the goal of expounding a synthesis in this article. We cannot expect on wikipedia to achieve a consensus synthesis that goes beyond that achieved in the research field itself, and we should not judge the article harshly if it does not achieve this. We can merely hope to cover as many significant expert perspectives as possible while avoiding an overriding POV. The end product may indeed seem to lack coherence. Please do read the Provine article for an analysis of this issue if you are not already familiar with that article, it analyzes the forces that create inevitable limits to this article.
 * Obviously, it is good to bring format and writing style up to standard, to improve content wherever possible, and to ensure that citations are relevant. I am not familiar enough with the FA standards and processes to have a strong opinion about how a reassessment might assist those goals. While the article can still be improved, I do feel however that it is already extremely good. The subject matter is intrinsically difficult to synthesize in an article like this.Joannamasel (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Joannamasel - I have actually read that book by Provine, but will recheck the section you mention to see if it brings anything new to light. Re: " While the article can still be improved, I do feel however that it is already extremely good." - This is where we differ in opinion and I have given ample evidence to suggest otherwise. If I'm going to be honest - I am going to state unequivocally that this article is a DISASTER. I'm sure this will offend some people, but this is not my intent - it isn't personal, it is my evaluation of the content as an informed individual who is passionate about this topic. I keep reading this article and wonder when it will actually give an overview on evolution - it isn't here. People are mistaken to believe that this article is about evolution, because it isn't. It hints at the topic, it covers some peripheral points, but it surprisingly misses evolution. If you want to discuss evolution you have to begin with the units of evolution - i.e., the hierarchy and what level you are dealing with. When you read Willi Hennig's classical book on phylogenetic systematics (for example) he goes into great length at the beginning to discuss the ontogeny of organisms so that the researcher can appropriately understand where characters and their states rest accordingly. This article gives no guidelines into the ontogeny of organisms and how you can understand the bridge between genes and morphology. Where is the life cycle? If I am studying a salamander and have a character state of balancers on the larval form, how does this compare to the character states observed in the adult form? How does this compare with the genes? Ontogeny and phylogeny are intertwined and this understanding is a cornerstone of the comparative method that brings the evidence to light. This article is impoverished in this context - it gives no overview on the ontogeny of organisms, how this relates to homology and transition of character states (monophyly, paraphyly, or polyphyly), and how evolutionary biologists use this information to build, read, and test their inferences on phylogenetic trees. Instead, this article goes off on a tangent with a gene centred focus and diverges off from the main thread of core evolutionary topics. The hierarchical ontological view is necessary to link genetics to morphology and to understand phylogenetic trees in transition from the paleontological record to modern organisms. This is just the beginning. I have mentioned before that there are MAJOR concepts missing throughout here and I listed these problems previously . Hence, I am confused and frustrated when I read comments by people that are seemingly informed, yet they continue to give this page a good review. This article is a terrible failure and it needs a shake up.Thompsma (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly support adding coverage to this article of "how evolutionary biologists... build, read, and test their inferences on phylogenetic trees." Could this be a new section, perhaps under "Evolutionary history of life"? With some very simple illustrative examples, of the sort found in https://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5750/979? Joannamasel (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that you support that idea and I support it. I have hundreds of phylogenetic tree illustrations that I can supply from real work that was done in paleontology and genetics labs - building phylogenetic trees has been my job for the past 15 years. However, I would like to strongly encourage you and others in here to support a thorough overhaul of the article. Every time this idea is brought up - the editors want to fix a piece here and a piece there. This approach will not do. We have to look at the article as a whole as well as its parts. There are sections in this article that do not belong here or they are not threaded into the content properly. I am unable to find a preview of Peter Raven's Biology of Plants - but in the chapters of that book there are illustrations showing the life cycles of plants from volvox and ferns through to the angiosperms. Those illustrations helped me to see the connections among the different plants and animals and it also helped me to understand how it applies to evolutionary phylogenetics. The article on biological life cycle has a few images in this regard, but they are not that great. I'm not the best illustrator, but I've been doing some illustrations for kids books and can give a crack at this. It would be helpful to show a life cycle for volvox or fern, for a flowering plant, for an insect (Holometabolism) and for an amphibian in panels - this would help to show the parallels of ontogeny across the tree of life. Building on this the article could then illustrate characters (traits in the antiquated use of the term), their states, and how they transition in an evolutionary tree. Moreover, I want to re-iterate the purpose of this thread - that is to put this article up for a featured article review. I think the FA status is inhibiting - people are afraid to make changes and want to hold onto the old because they think it is good. I strongly encourage others to follow suit and support this action.Thompsma (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

comment on the problems of this article
Thanks to Thompsma for bringing this challenge up. I want to list some challenges which this challenge faces, grouping the list of Thompsma into related sets... I believe that to some extent these are intrinsic problems with this type of article. This article is very well known, putting aside all the vandals and just considering the good faith editors, everyone wants to get their favorite things into it. This forces the text into strange shapes and people are then pushed to keep adding more citations. And, as I keep saying, this article keeps getting too long and filling up with obvious digressions. It will take a lot of discipline to get around this. Even people who have a long history of watching this article are not adverse to suddenly wanting to add large blocks of digression. Everyone has to be careful before nominating something as "essential".
 * First: Unstable, and too many cites, digressions etc.
 * LOTS of continuing heated debate and unstable text.
 * Too many citations.
 * The lead is short, but it has too many citations per WP:LEAD.
 * The article is missing numerous keystone concepts, details, and facts and the concepts that are being discussed are too lengthy and filled with irrelevant information that goes off topic.
 * The synthesis of the article is off track - it is a genetics article moreso than evolution.
 * Some of the topics are not presented in a neutral fashion - people lean toward reductionism and tend to ignore the hierarchical synthesis.
 * The structure is not appropriate.

One concern I want to mention is that it is precisely crusades to make this article contain someone's idea of essential missing parts which always increases all of the problems mentioned above, often with piecemeal changes to structure and citations then ensuing. I am not saying that people should therefore NOT keep trying to put in missing essential things, but please do it carefully.

These points require no comment, and are just up to someone to spend time on them, for ever and ever:-
 * The formatting is not up to FA status - citations are in shambles and the wikilinks need repair, some are duplicated and some are linked below when they are introduced above.
 * The prose and writing style is not up to a professional standard.
 * From a media perspective - I don't think the images are up to par for FA status.

Regards--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Andrew...I disagree that the problems I raised are necessarily intrinsic to this kind of article. There is some great literature out there that can present on the topic of evolution in an effective way - this article is not one of them. If there are no holes in the argument and presentation, this will lead to stability. The problem may stem from the notion that everyone wants to put their favourite things in here - but this is certainly not my objective. I want too see an article on evolution without gaping holes in it. There is no mention in this article on the geological record and whatever mention there is on the fossil record is horrendous. There is no mention of radiometric dating and how this is used in conjunction with the strata of fossils - in fact, the search on geological or geology is empty. I understand that fossils are not the only line of evidence for evolution, but paleontology is certainly a cornerstone of evolution and you need this kind of information to put the pieces of the time puzzle together. Coupled with evolutionary trees this can be very insightful and presents the evidence of evolution in a coherent fashion. The reader is not introduced to the age of the universe or the Earth for a yardstick measure of how life has transitioned through time. The one section that tries to do this is off by grand orders of magnitude - "Amphibians first appeared around 300 million years ago, followed by early amniotes, then mammals around 200 million years ago and birds around 100 million years ago (both from "reptile"-like lineages)." Amphibians evolved 365 million years ago - HUGE gap in time here. Mammals have a maximum of 129 million years and a minimum of 78 million years for their origins. Birds are placed at 155 million years ago. This article is filled with errors of this magnitude that gloss over the science. It is not only the errors that are problematic, it is the synthesis of the article. It goes into depth on weird trajectories - which contributes to the length problem. This article needs a re-write from scratch.Thompsma (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I remain perplexed by the complete lack of description of homology in this article. Homology should be synthesized throughout - this is how evolutionary biologists are able to present their hierarchical view of evolution into phylogenetic trees that make sense. The following articles by David Wake, this review article (http://web.mac.com/redifiori/Russell_Di_Fiori/_Animal_Macroevolution_files/Deep%20Homology.pdf), and many, many others all integrate evolution with homology. To understand homology you must have an understanding of phylogenetic tress, character state transition, and a scale of time. This is the kind of stuff that threads evolution into a synthesized science. This article completely ignores this centralizing theme in evolutionary biology - "Homology is at the foundation of comparative studies in biology at all levels from genes to phenotypes.". "[h]omology is the central concept for all of biology." (David Wake 1994) "all useful comparisons in biology depend on the relation of homology." (Collin Patterson, 1987). The section on variation in this article should be trashed. It presents a gene-centred myth about evolution and it is too long. The first section after the history of evolution should give an overview of the geological record so that the reader can have a time scale to put things into perspective. A phylogenetic tree can be placed along side the geological scale showing the origins of some of the major lineages that can be later introduced in the article. Along side the phylogenetic tree a description of homology and how it relates to characters, descent with modification, and the method of testing evolutionary hypotheses can open the article in a way that the reader can follow through on the topic line. Evolution is based on lineages and phylogenetic trees provide the scaffold for understanding the transitions through time. I imagine that some editor is going to read my previous post and see that the time lines for the origins of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are off and will spent time tweaking the dates so that the correct information is given. Following this small correction I expect the editor will then say - I fixed that mistake and I reject that this article needs a re-write. This is not how an article should be written and it is not how you correct an article - piece by piece, you need to write an article with a whole plan in mind. I will ask again for editors to list their support for a FA review of this article to get it delisted. As a reviewer and as someone who is a qualified expert in this topic I wouldn't give this article a Good Article status. This reads like something that a high school student whipped together for a project. Let's organize and fix this and get serious about evolution. Stop messing around.Thompsma (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thompsma I think you have missed my point. You are right that there is great material out there. It is not the subject which causes the problems, or at least not directly. Wikipedia editing is a social activity, and social issues, or let's call it "psychology", is something you have to keep in mind also when you look at the problems we have on some articles. If everyone is driven to add stuff to evolution, then the article will look like - well - how it looks. This is important to recognize for practical reasons. If we aim primarily at adding stuff, I think problems will increase and not decrease. I think adding stuff should be something we do carefully, because most of the problems you mentioned are caused by the drive so many people have to add stuff to this article. I am all for careful discussion about how the structure can be changed to make it more logical and so on. But unfortunately many discussions which set out in that good direction end up creating only long new digressive sections that do not fit into the current structure, are difficult to read, unstable, etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew...thought I should clarify as well. The 'stop messing around' was not directed at you - it was a general comment. Working on the history of evolution section was such a huge effort - people are so unwilling to change this article around. This is the thrust of my critique here. There is no way that I am willing to tweak or work on the other sections of this article in the way that we worked on the history section. Tweaking sections is not the problem here. If we tweak each section separately it will be long, argumentative, and in the end we will still have a major structural problem missing the point of the article (i.e., "evolution"). I'm not advocating that we add stuff to this article - I'm advocating that we delete much of what is here and start writing about evolution. This article is collage of unrelated bits that have little to do with evolution proper. This jumbled mess needs to be ripped apart and re-written.Thompsma (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I would tend to be more supportive a drive to whittle the article down a bit, than any drive to increase what it covers. On the other hand, I do not want to sound negative but we also should always remember to sometimes take a step back and remember that WP will never be "finished". If the aim of raising FA status for discussion is to try to have a "clean up to end all clean ups" it is sure to be disappointed. I have a bit of scepticism about the way FA and GA status get used by Wikipedians to push each other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Variation section
While I would not support Thompsa's suggestion to completely delete the "variation" section, I would support a drastic reduction in its length. I would keep the current lead, and delete most of the 3 subsections (mutation, sex and gene flow). Small amounts from each of those subsections could be incorporated into the existing lead, the rest of those subsections may be too specialised for an article that is already too long. At minimum, the subsections could be significantly shorter. The focus should be squarely on the causes of variation, not a general review of all aspects of mutation, sex and gene flow. Joannamasel (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not just state to delete the variation section - I suggested a re-write of this and other sections that would essentially amount to a deletion of the side issues that are currently being passed for a discussion about evolution. This section (as it currently stands) does not help the reader understand how evolution works in context of the fossil record, developmental biology, morphology, biogeography, and it does a very poor job of explaining variation at the molecular level - it is filled with mistakes. Here we are facing the resistance to make a change - yet again. Why are so many in here wanting to hold onto such a terrible piece? Read it again with an objective lens - it really is atrocious. Variation explained without the context of homology, common ancestry, and character state transitions is like trying to explain math without use of an equation. A section that properly introduces homology in context of evolutionary trees will fix the content on variation.Thompsma (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again - I will repeat - the heading of this thread is featured article review. I will keep repeating this, because people are not responding to this issue - which is the point of this thread. Please state if you support a new review to assess the featured status of this article. I am of the opinion that a new review will assist us in identifying the problems and it will loosen some of the restrictions in here. Too many people are unwilling to make changes (previous post is a case in point) and I wonder if it is because this has a FA status. Either way, I am not happy with this article having a FA status because it gives a horrible overview on evolution and a disservice to the science. In a world where evolution is being questioned so fiercely we need to get this right. This article fails in this regard and is hardly deserving of a GA status. Please respond to the main argument of the thread. I am pointing out the deficiencies in support of my argument. These deficiencies are real and they are problematic.Thompsma (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I already answered the main thread: since I have no experience of FA reviews, or indeed with other FAs, I abstain. However, I do think that the article is of a very high quality. While it has issues, I do not think that the issues exceed those in most textbooks. The subject matter is intrinsically hard to summarise and synthesize. Hence, while I formally abstain, I lean against a FA review. I think we should just work on improving the article, and am trying to respond constructively as to how to address your valid criticisms of the current article.
 * I support a new section on building, reading and making inference on trees in the evolutionary history section. The variation section has no mandate to cover "how evolution works in context of the fossil record", as you are asking it to. The fossil record is not informative about variation within a population. Variation within a population is nevertheless crucial to evolution by natural selection, and therefore a key topic for this article. Both microevolution and macroevolution should be covered in this article. They are not synthesized: that is the simple historical fact, and I can only refer you again to Provine on this point. They and many other approaches were made mutually compatible during the modern synthesis/purging, which is not the same a true synthesis. Attempting to construct synthesis, in this article or elsewhere, when none exists at the scientific field at large generally means neglecting whatever doesn't fit well. Instead, I think each point should be well described within its own appropriate section, with the understanding that synthesis does not exist. So I think we should go back to the hard work of individual sections or groups of sections, and improving them. Joannamasel (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback Joannamasel, but I respectfully disagree. If you want to distil evolution down to variation within a population - then write an article on that. This is an article about evolution, which is much more than this. Of course, population genetics and variation within populations is important to evolution, but it does not tell the whole story of evolution. As Robert Carroll wrote "

New concepts and information from molecular developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species" This is a very strong statement - you cannot understand these phenomena based on the extrapolation that you are supporting. This article is about evolution and it must be broad enough to encapsulate that topic. I am not making an argument on a pin head about micro- vs. macro-evolution - I am stating that this article does not cover the topic properly without an introduction to homology and how this relates to character states in general. This article jumps straight into a topic on variation at the genetic level - which is a foolish venture. We need to back up and explain what a character is from a genetic and a morphological context and how it fits into the context of ancestry using homology as our guidepost. This will provide the means to introduce evolution proper using a tree-based approach. No evolutionary textbook is complete without discussion of homology and phylogenetic trees showing the transition state changes of characters and the resultant variation. You have abstained from a FA review and you state that you have no experience with such reviews and that you lean against such a review. Hence, you are giving a position without giving one - which is not very helpful. Either vote 'support' or 'oppose' and I would also ask that you familiarize yourself with the process because an uninformed vote is not useful in my mind. A FA review is like any other review. We post this article onto the review listing page and someone volunteers to review the page. I do not know why you would not want to seek external assistance, but you may have your reasons. As mentioned previously - I have already read the book you listed with the chapter by Provine, but it does not change my mind about the fundamental nature of this article. I am not trying to re-create a modern synthesis nor am I trying to extend it - so you are missing my point by pointing me to Provine (I am well aware of the history on the topic of the synthesis). I'm trying to get the basics into this article that are missing. It is quite unreasonable to suggest that this article is "a very high quality" when it doesn't even contain the most basic information that is needed to understand evolution proper. The synthesis I am talking about is homology - because it is the "foundation of comparative studies in biology at all levels from genes to phenotypes" as I quoted from David Wake earlier. This means with a proper introduction into the concept of homology that the reader will have the necessary foundations to understand variation at all levels - not just genes. In this way we can discuss characters (traits) in context and illustrate how they are arranged onto phylogenies and used to test various evolutionary hypotheses. This puts evolution on a scientific foothold and it is the common language that evolutionists use to discuss the topic. Once again - I will continue to argue as strongly as I can that retaining the current article and just fixing each section separately is not an acceptable way forward. If we go that direction - I maintain that we will be left with the disaster that we are currently left with. This is truly a sad state of affairs. I just finished reading Robert Carroll's "Rise of the Amphibians" - a beautiful book and very inspiring. I use this book as an example because there is so much beautiful literature out in the world on the topic of evolution, yet this article falls so far short of what it could be. Most literature on evolution contains comparative and transferable knowledge precisely because the authors present their information using phylogenetic trees showing the homology and relation among the characters and their states. This article does not present the information in a way that can be transferable as such - it is mostly about genes with a few odds and ends thrown in to spice it up. What you get is the gobbly gook we have - it lacks a coherent synthesis (not to be confused with modern synthesis).Thompsma (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment on suggestion to review FA status
Oppose. It is not necessary and premature. Plus, there is no strong consensus for it. danielkueh (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Plus, there is no strong consensus for it." - a self fulfilling prophesy and so far we have only two or three people giving feedback, so I think your conclusion is premature. I strongly urge others to support this motion. This article is severely lacking and is riddled with error precisely because editors are opposed to the kind of change that is needed. How could anyone oppose a review when this article on evolution lacks any description on homology and how this integrates the concepts? I'm dumbfounded and frustrated at the resistance.Thompsma (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If there was consensus, we would have done it a long time ago. I doubt there was and I doubt there will be. I may be wrong. But hey, you asked for comment and feedback and there you have it. danielkueh (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks danielkueh - not trying to be offensive and I know how my posts can sometimes be taken this way. It just seemed clear to me that few people have commented on this - there are only a few people that regularly post on this article so it is difficult to say if we have a strong consensus and I've noticed in the history of threads as soon as someone suggests something as such - then it acts like a band wagon. People will reject the proposal because they believe that there isn't a strong consensus. I would say that we have a tally of two votes and comments by Andrew Lancaster. One vote is 'kinda' opposed and yours is - so I wouldn't call that a strong consensus.Thompsma (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this discussion, but do not have the time nor expertise to undertake a thorough assessment of the article's structure. I am not sure why there would be resistance to another FA review. It is too easy for an article on a comprehensive, highly visible topic to take on, over time, features of design by committee, and quite difficult to pull it back onto a unified track. The few times I've done a systemic overhaul of an established article, I took it on as a solo job. Given the scope of this subject, and the contentious nature of some of its facets, it does not look like a job for a single editor.
 * I've no real help to offer at the moment, but wanted you to know that there are other eyes watching. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary entropy
I'm logging off and just saw this created...It may be worth some broader attention. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Exclusion of material and original research
There is a resistance in here to do any major restructuring of this article and this is a disappointment. More than a disappointment, I will argue that this resistance is resulting in the complicit support of original research. This article is not about evolution in the broad sense and it should be retitled or merged with evolutionary genetics because it misses the core synthesis of evolution proper. I've outlined some of the problems previously (and above). Here are some other MAJOR issues with this article. Foremost, this article only gives an opening to the concept of evolution through the lens of genes or a genes eye perspective. Of course it gives some information on evolution at different levels - but the scaffold of this article is about evolutionary genetics. This creates a serious barrier for editors like me who would like to write about evolution in a broader context. How can I include a section on evolutionary trees using morphological character states? The reader will be totally confused and I imagine any reader will be totally confused about evolution reading this article anyway. This article makes ZERO mention of geology - search "geol" and it comes up empty. There is no mention of plate tectonics, uniformitarianism, radiometric dating, strata, taphonomy, or the age of the earth. These geological issues are relevant to evolution - in fact as shocking as it is that this article does not explain homology or evolutionary trees, it is equally shocking that there is no section on geology. Imagine an article on evolution without reference to geology!!! I'm raising this point to give as an example how misguided this article is. Earlier I posted the error in this sentence:

"Amphibians first appeared around 300 million years ago, followed by early amniotes, then mammals around 200 million years ago and birds around 100 million years ago (both from "reptile"-like lineages). However, despite the evolution of these large animals, smaller organisms similar to the types that evolved early in this process continue to be highly successful and dominate the Earth, with the majority of both biomass and species being prokaryotes. "

The time line is completely wrong - probably because there is no guideline to the geological record in this article with a phylogenetic tree showing the branches, which would provide exactly the kind of yardstick and information that is used to relate these concepts by every other evolutionary biologist on this planet - but this article is 'special' somehow. It takes only a few minutes to search those dates to discover that they each are off by 50 million years or more. Moreover, the citation at the end "Schloss" ("Status of the microbial census". Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 68 (4): 686–91.) has nothing to do with that sentence!! Someone can go ahead and fix that mistake, but the problem is much larger than this throughout this article and I submit that it suffers because it presents an original research position on evolution that is inconsistent with the literature at large. In refusing to accept a major structural change the editors in here are being complicit in accepting an original research position, namely that evolution is about evolutionary genetics and the hierarchical perspective cannot be integrated. This excludes a great amount of evolutionary literature, including the positions first forwarded by Darwin. The start of this article jumps into a section on variation without any mention of phenotypic plasticity and how that might relate to the patterns we observe. In fact phenotypic plasticity isn't mentioned anywhere!!

This is like visiting the tea party in Alice in Wonderland - yet we have a fleet of editors that insist this is a good article and it is well written. I'm calling it out for what it is. If you want to present on the topic of evolution - like any good author you first have to introduce the setting. Before you introduce your cast of characters in a play - you open the curtains and reveal the backdrop and introduce the time, place, and conditions. The same is true of the evolutionary theatre - yet this article gives no indication that organisms even live in a geological setting and you cannot possibly piece together a time line - it is all jumbled up. The use of phylogenetic trees is a historical practice that goes back to Darwin - his only figure in the origin was a phylogenetic tree. Evolutionists communicate using phylogenetic trees. This is how the science is done - yet this article misses this completely. So we have no way to know where or how things are taking place geologically speaking, we have no idea what time line we are dealing with, and we have no idea how the character states transition in different lineages relative to the time line as phylogenetic trees would illustrate. In summary, we have an article that is entitled evolution - yet it might as well be written in Greek, because no evolutionary biologist could follow through on this. This article presents an original research perspective on evolution as a whole as it implies that evolution is about variation of genes in populations and anything other than this should be thrown into another article on current research in evolution!? Come on guys - stop with this censorship and get serious. I provided a quote earlier that stated: "New concepts and information from molecular developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species" - This quote states unequivocally that you CANNOT understand large-scale evolutionary phenomena unless you present the evidence on mol-dev-biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record; I can find other references to back up this claim. This article completely misses the subject matter from all those fields. Now there are some editors that say the article is already too long and we can't add anything new. This is hogwash. The article is too long because it is a contrivance of what evolution is. Evolutionary biologists use tools like phylogenetic trees to summarize the information. If you introduce the concept of homology in relation to genotype, phenotype, and character state transition on evolutionary trees at the onset - there would be no need for the superfluous sections that go off on tangents in this article. I will ask once again of the editors in here to stop with the censorship and to clean-up the gene centred WP:OR perspective that is being bullied into here.Thompsma (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the other editors are opposed to more editing and restructuring so long as they lead to improvements. I just think they are just not sold on 1) your opinion of this article being a "disaster," 2) the huge amount of work needed to rewrite this article from scratch and 3) the revisiting of the FA status of this article. My personal advice is that you take the lead and prepare of a rough draft of an alternative article that you have in mind. Post a link to it here and make an RfC request. If it works, I'm sure it will receive a lot of support. Otherwise, more frustrations. danielkueh (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's summarize and look at this objectively. We have an article on evolution that 1) censors the information that would explain larger-scale evolutionary phenomena, 2) does not explain geology, 3) does not explain development or ontogeny, 5) makes no mention of phenotypic plasticity, 6) gives no explanation on homology, 7) contains only one kind of tree without an explanation of how it works, 8) presents a biassed gene-based view on evolution that is inconsistent with the broader literature, and 9) it includes a host of factual errors in each section that I keep finding every time I follow through. All those statements are true. Now, you state: "they are just not sold on 1) your opinion of this article being a "disaster" - OK, so it isn't a disaster, somehow it misses these critical topics on evolution and yet it is just fine. This is the problem here, you guys are not looking at this with an objective lens. I'm sorry, but I'm a scientist and I stick to the evidence. The evidence is clearly available - this article IS a disaster and that is a fact. It is factual because I have provided the evidence to support my claim. If it was a good article, then you would be able to find information in here on evolutionary trees, for example. Here is the only paragraph on palaeontology:

"Past species have also left records of their evolutionary history. Fossils, along with the comparative anatomy of present-day organisms, constitute the morphological, or anatomical, record.[255] By comparing the anatomies of both modern and extinct species, paleontologists can infer the lineages of those species. However, this approach is most successful for organisms that had hard body parts, such as shells, bones or teeth. Further, as prokaryotes such as bacteria and archaea share a limited set of common morphologies, their fossils do not provide information on their ancestry."
 * Terrible, a disgrace!! We truly have gone down the rabbit hole - this is for editors in wonderland. Your second part: "the huge amount of work needed to rewrite this article from scratch" - of course it will be a lot of work, but that is the art of writing featured articles. A featured article is hard work and if people are rejecting this proposal because it is going to be difficult - I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but it is going to be MUCH, MUCH more difficult to fix this article by tweaking it a bit here and there. Are people afraid of an FA review? I suspect that this article would be degraded below a GA status if it were reviewed and I think that would be a good thing. We have an article that is being presented to the world with a FA status that is incapable of its objective - introducing and providing an encyclopaedic access to evolution.Thompsma (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, no one is disagreeing with you that it could be improved. And if there are factual errors, well..., we'll just fix them. The inertia comes from what you are asking, which is to rewrite an entire article from scratch. It is just not an attractive proposition because the current article at least, appears to serve its purpose. As Kuhn would say, we don't just throw out existing paradigm because of flaws. We throw them out if we are given a credible and better alternative. Likewise, I don't think the editors are prepared to throw out the existing article or to undo the hard work by previous editors by revisiting its FA status UNLESS there is a credible alternative. Hence, my suggestion that you get a rough draft ready, so that a convincing alternative is provided. Until then, I'm sorry. I'm not sure you are going to get much support. I'll be interested to see what the rest have to say. danielkueh (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not willing to argue out each section piece by piece and to go through and correct the countless factual errors bit by bit. It isn't just the little factual errors, it is the one big error that is threaded into the architecture of this article. The architecture contains no ledges to place the material that would explain many of the most important aspects to evolution. The only ledges it offers are based on genetic reductionism in populations. I've contributed some text that diverges from this theme - but the ideas are floating out there in an odd way because no sane reader could put the information together without the correct footing. I'll just work on the re-write on my own and when it is completed I'll present it. I had hoped to garner support for a collaborative effort in the true spirit of wikipedia. The fact of the matter is that this article does need a re-write from scratch despite the three (possibly four) people who object to this. I fear that my efforts on a re-write will be wasted - because most people in here are of the opinion that this horrendous disgrace is a good article. This article is a disgrace to all the heroes who have worked so hard to offer us one of the most beautiful scientific theories of all time. Thousands of high school kids and other people interested in evolution on wikipedia are going to read this article - see that is featured and leave with a distortion on what evolution is about. A real shame.Thompsma (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself. Consistent with what I said before. If your rough draft turns out to be a better alternative than the present article, I promise that I will help work on it and advocate for it. danielkueh (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks danielkueh - I will put in the effort. It may be better if I put a comprehensive proposal together instead of trying to fight this barrier. My main goal in this round was to get this article assessed - because I am distressed that this has FA status. I care about and realize the importance of science. If someone would fix the dates on the origins of different lineages - that would be one small step. Amphibians 364 million years ago, mammals a maximum of 129 million year a minimum of 78 million years, birds can be put at 155 million years.Thompsma (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thompsa, taking your objections one by one, you say that the current article:

1) censors the information that would explain larger-scale evolutionary phenomena


 * I see no evidence of "censorship". I am actively encouraging you to write a draft section on building, reading and making inferences on trees, so we can work collectively on it and then add it to the evolutionary history of life section. I do not support a rewrite from scratch, but this is not the same as censorship. I would like to see this material covered, and would like to see a draft to get the ball rolling. Please write one and help us improve the article. Plus, writing a draft of this new section seems like a more manageable chunk than rewriting the entire article from scratch.


 * Thanks Joannamasel - what I am referring too in terms of "censorship" is the general resistance to any suggestion that this article needs to be revamped on a larger scale. Most editors in here are completely comfortable with revisions on a sentence by sentence basis. They seem fine with the approach of having each little modification scrutinized, debated, revised, and inserted into its original position within the article. However, this is done under the caveat that the revisions are only accepted and they are less debated only when they are in tune with the genetic reductionist view.Thompsma (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

2) does not explain geology,


 * Please work geology into the new tree section.


 * I'm working on this - I was doing the research last night. I pulled out my classical Holmes on Geology and coupling this with Carroll's new book on the rise of the amphibians, which gives an overview from the Big Bang, through to the cooling of the Earth, the first stromatolites, the first skewed carbon isotope going back 3.7 billion years, and onto the origins of multicellular life and the first fossils. Fascinating stuff and I look forward to writing about this time-line, the evidence for it, and how it fits in line with phylogenetic trees and the fossil record. A critical piece of the puzzle that is missing in here.Thompsma (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

3) does not explain development or ontogeny,


 * Please work these into the new tree section, as appropriate. Also see 5) below.

(4) seems to be missing) 5) makes no mention of phenotypic plasticity


 * West-Eberhard is in fact cited in the lead. Whatever term is used, it is still phenotypic plasticity. I will try at some point to rewrite the mutation bias section to incorporate the phenotype-first view / hierarchical view of the effects of mutations into that properly.


 * That reference to West-Eberhard was inserted just a couple of days ago and does not explain phenotypic plasticity in terms of the norm of reaction that we see across ecological gradients.Thompsma (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

6) gives no explanation on homology


 * This is simply not true. Homology is currently discussed in the common descent section. I am very open to improvements to this section, but you can't just deny that the section exists.


 * It is absolutely true that this article does not explain homology. The section on common descent has a link to homology after the title in common descent, but there is no description or explanation of homology. There is another link earlier in the article on deep homology, but it is out of place and no reader could understand what it means in that context. There are fleets of textbooks written on homology and this article contains two links without a definition nor its historical context. Homology in the historical context (going back to Georges Cuvier and even earlier) is defined as the same organ located in the same place with the same function in different lineages with the similarities being attributed to common ancestry. That concept extends to genetics - a string of DNA sequences with alignment position setting the position of inferred homology and varied nucleotide substitutions representing the character state changes. Extending from this concept we also have to contend with serial homology, paralogy, and orthology in relation to gene duplication and other morphological character states - such as repeated hair follicles (serial homology). Homology relates to phylogenetic methods as each character inferred homologous sets the stage for comparative tree based methods testing the transition states as monophyletic, paraphyletic, or polyphyletic in relation to each other and other lineages.Thompsma (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

7) contains only one kind of tree without an explanation of how it works


 * This would be fixed by a new section on trees.
 * Agreed.Thompsma (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

8) presents a biassed gene-based view on evolution that is inconsistent with the broader literature


 * You cannot leave the population genetics view of evolution out of this article. You will get no support from me on this one, such a position is completely inconsistent with the literature. But I do support, as I already said, reducing the length and focusing the relevance of the variation section.


 * Never have I, nor would I suggested that a genetics view of evolution be excluded. It is absolutely critical that genes be included - it is one of the centralizing themes in evolution. However, you cannot present a gene only view describing evolution as a simple sorting of genetic traits among populations and expect to properly understand how this relates to the rest of the biological hierarchy and many critical aspects to evolution.Thompsma (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

9) it includes a host of factual errors in each section that I keep finding every time I follow through.


 * You should simply fix these, one by one, as you find them, with appropriate citations. That's how WP works. We all do the same. If we started from scratch, I have no doubt that we introduce new errors, things that are correct in the current article, perhaps due to the work of long-absent editors from the distant past. Starting from scratch is not the best solution for this.Joannamasel (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this sentiment and conclusion. The mistakes can be attributed to a lack of cohesion in the article. Moreover, there are local and global mistakes in this article. The point I'm making is that we can fidget with all these little mistakes and debate them endlessly, or we can create a larger scaffold that will provide a setting to insert the text that can be more easily corrected. I used the time line in the origins of life section as an example. If this article were put on a proper foothold with phylogenetic trees at the start and a time scale where the authors could see when and where things transitioned, I suspect that this kind of error would not have crept in. Providing the proper guidelines - the proper environment - can help the writer the envision the text and context a lot better and to minimize the errors. Plus, I am trying to fix a larger error that has weaved its way throughout this article that does not permit or allow the means to describe some of the larger scale phenomena without having sit out on a limb that isn't attached to a main branch of thought and reason - these kinds of ideas hang out in the open suspended by nothing.Thompsma (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually this provides the perfect example of what I have been trying to get across. Exactly as I predicted, I see that the text has been changed:

"Amphibians first appeared around 364 million years ago, followed by early amniotes, then birds around 155 million years ago (both from "reptile"-like lineages) and mammals around 129 million years ago[273][274][275]."
 * Now all seems well, right? Not so. This will serve as an example of the mistake of making little tweaks like this. Is this really how things happened? No it is not. This reads like a progressionist view of evolution. First you have simple primitive organisms, then more complex, followed by...etc -> this is not how evolutionary biologist explain the ancestry of relations and it is boring to read text like this. Where is the meat? Where is the exciting stuff? There were radiations, different branches, and layers of history that have had to be sorted, tested, and analyzed bone by bone, feather by feather, gene by gene. The quoted sentence with 'repairs' is empty in meaning. It contains gaping holes in the description of what is known from the geological record, how these times were tested using geological strata and by use of the the molecular clock. Phylogenetic trees will go a long way in helping this along.Thompsma (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Vote on request to revisit FA status of article
To all editors, please take a few moments to read the following quote by Thompsma and vote accordingly. For details, please read the thread above. I reposted my vote (with minor editions) below. Thank you. danielkueh (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Please state if you support a new review to assess the featured status of this article. I am of the opinion that a new review will assist us in identifying the problems and it will loosen some of the restrictions in here. Too many people are unwilling to make changes (previous post is a case in point) and I wonder if it is because this has a FA status. Either way, I am not happy with this article having a FA status because it gives a horrible overview on evolution and a disservice to the science. In a world where evolution is being questioned so fiercely we need to get this right. This article fails in this regard and is hardly deserving of a GA status. Please respond to the main argument of the thread. I am pointing out the deficiencies in support of my argument. These deficiencies are real and they are problematic. Thompsma (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)"


 * Oppose. It is not necessary and premature. Plus, there is no does not appear to be strong consensus for it. danielkueh (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Slight support. I am not confident about whether this will have a negative or positive effect, but I would hope not negative.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Slight oppose. I have yet to hear an argument as to how a FA review would catalyse greater improvements to the article than could happen anyway in the absence of a review. If divisive, a review risks simply turning editors off working on the article altogether, a thought that I am starting to have myself.Joannamasel (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Slight oppose-But also support to a degree. I am shocked the article has drifted losing some of the concerns mentioned-at one time some of these points were addressed. I know at one time several evolutionary biologist like Graft and Margarette-or something like that (one of Gould's students) made significant improvements. This issue of creep or drift is a real problem because it creates knee-jerk reactions of resistance all the while editors recognize there are problems with the article. I understand the resistance to change because all the drift but the piece-meal effort has drawbacks too. I support much of Thompsma's suggestions I just don't know the best way to address the issue. It is so difficult to get a consenus here and the issue of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I would like to allow Thompsma a shot at Outlining another approach in a Draft document (it can't hurt) and such an effort may convince myself and others of a beter way to improve the article. I've always liked to address the fact of evolution with Mayr's observations and inference, discuss how the phenotype and genotype relate,and use Hardy-Weinberg points of a non-evolving population. Evolution should be obvious. We can discuss the evidence that supports evolution like the near universal genetic code, endosymbiosis, morphological and genetic homologies (sequence and synteny), phylogeny-taxonomy-cladistics, fossil record-geology-biogeography, etc. Then discuss mechanisms of evolution and outcomes of evolution. I agree with Thompsma we should include genes and memes, and address heirachial points much like Gould. More and more the direct influence of environment and epigentics has to be addressed in development and in populations. So I support the rally for change. I just don't the best way to implement the needed changes. It would be nice to have a central theme or concept we can always reference to tie everything together. My two cents, although admittedly ambiguous. So I equally slightly support. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly support-Of course everyone already knew this, but I thought I would put in one last pitch for this and to answer some of the questions. First, to Joannamasel - please stay on board. I realize that I have been blunt in my assessment and may have offended some of you in my approach. I apologize if I have done so. My passion gets me into trouble, but I have felt the need to be blunt because undoubtedly there is a culture of resistance to change in here. We have a good team and Joannamasel in particular you have a very level headed approach in your feedback. There are a few questions I see popping up: 1) How would a FA review catalyse greater improvement? - First, I would like each person to seriously ask if this article in its current state truly deserves a FA status. If not, then why would we want to misrepresent this topic that we all care about? When I first came here I was very timid and hesitant to make changes or suggestions because I saw the FA status and the semi-protection. I was inhibited and I wonder if there are other potential contributors out there who feel the same. I argue that the loss of the FA status would indeed catalyse greater improvement because it is a rallying point - a goal. This is how human behaviour works - if we have a common goal we can organize and work toward that goal. Foremost, however, I find it disconcerting that this article has its FA status in its current state of disrepair. It is a distraction and I believe it better to be honest and to give true representation to the article and the ideas we present. If evolution is true, so should the way we represent it. 2) Will this have a positive effect? - I think it will. If I can garner enough support here - and I realize I am losing, but if we do - we could write in the review proposal that we are seeking a reviewer that can give us a critical eye and direction to solve some of the issues that this article suffers from. GetAgrippa has mentioned the problem of drift. I think a scaffold will help. If we break the sections into smaller parts and tighten the text it will be more difficult for a person to come in here and alter the structure. We are seeking stability and we can use evolutionary principles to achieve this goal. A reviewer could give us some feedback on how to do this properly. We have had the same group here working on this together over the year, we are getting to know each other - we all know that I'm blunt, long-winded, and come across as offensive - but now that you know this about me, I'm sure we can work together pool our individual skills and get this article up to its true potential.Thompsma (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose per Joanmasel Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Not needed. FA reviews don't improve articles, it just forces it to conform to a set of formal criteria. The problem here is not formatting but content, that is solved best in discussion among as many editors as possible with as many good secondary sources as possible. I am embarrased, I thought we were discussing nominating the article for its first FA review - I didn't realize that the article is an FA already! I certainly think that it could be a good idea to FA review it in that case -there are several problems with the article, contentwise that makes me doubt that it deserves the status currently.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "FA reviews don't improve articles" - For obvious reasons I disagree with that sentiment. Why have reviewers anyway? "The problem here is not formatting but content..." - Reviewers don't just look at formatting and the formatting in here is certainly a problem. If the problems were to be solved in the way you have described ·ʍaunus - then we should have a stellar article on evolution. Instead, we have a hodgepodge of ideas scattered all over the place and a peculiar position on evolution that is threaded throughout this article. It seems obvious that I'm not going to win on this one - so we will just have to live with a false representation of this article, which I think is morally reprehensible that we have editors in here that want to hide behind a false status.Thompsma (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are arguing for an FA review on moral grounds?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have outlined my reasons clearly, most were not based on moral grounds. However, I think that it certainly has a factor to play in here. I don't believe in misrepresentation of the science and that is precisely what that FA status does. It suggests to the reader that this is a page that can be trusted and that it is reliable. I think it is immoral to have this kind of recognition when it isn't deserved.Thompsma (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Thompsma - I didn't get when you were talking about "misrepresenting", but yes I think the article can be better. Stripping it of FA status might provide extra motivation for fruitful discussion among editors here on the talkpage. I don't think its immoral - but it also makes no sense to have FA's that don't deserve it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Shorten the variation section
I think the variation section should be purged of material only peripherally related to the broader theme of evolution. Below is an edited version of the current variation text. I intended to be radical in cutting, but the content was better than I first thought, and in the end I didn't cut much. Comments / changes? Anyone want to go more radical, and if so, what should go and why? I think the genetic hitchhiking paragraph could be moved to a new section in mechanisms, combining with some of the current genetic drift material, rather than stay under variation, is there support for this? Joannamasel (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

An individual organism's phenotype results from both its genotype and the influence from the environment it has lived in. A substantial part of the variation in phenotypes in a population is caused by the differences between their genotypes. The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation. The frequency of one particular allele will become more or less prevalent relative to other forms of that gene. Variation disappears when a new allele reaches the point of fixation — when it either disappears from the population or replaces the ancestral allele entirely.

Natural selection will only cause evolution if there is enough genetic variation in a population. Before the discovery of Mendelian genetics, one common hypothesis was blending inheritance. But with blending inheritance, genetic variance would be rapidly lost, making evolution by natural selection implausible. The Hardy-Weinberg principle provides the solution to how variation is maintained in a population with Mendelian inheritance. According to this principle, the frequencies of alleles (variations in a gene) in a sufficiently large population will remain constant if the only forces acting on that population are the random reshuffling of alleles during the formation of the sperm or egg and the random combination of the alleles in these sex cells during fertilisation.

Variation comes from mutations in genetic material, reshuffling of genes through sexual reproduction and migration between populations or species (gene flow). Variation also comes from exchanges of genes between different species; for example, through horizontal gene transfer in bacteria and hybridisation in plants. Despite the constant introduction of new variation through mutation and gene flow these processes, most of the genome of a species is identical in all individuals of that species. However, even relatively small differences in genotype can lead to dramatic differences in phenotype: for example, chimpanzees and humans differ in only about 5% of their genomes.

Mutation
Random mutations constantly occur in the genomes of organisms, which produces genetic variation in a population. Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome, which can be caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication. When mutations occur, they can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning. Based on studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster, it has been suggested that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70% of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.

Mutations can involve large sections of a chromosome becoming duplicated (usually by genetic recombination), which can introduce extra copies of a gene into a genome. Extra copies of genes are a major source of the raw material needed for new genes to evolve. This is important because most new genes evolve within gene families from pre-existing genes that share common ancestors. For example, the human eye uses four genes to make structures that sense light: three for colour vision and one for night vision; all four are descended from a single ancestral gene.

New genes can be created from an ancestral gene when a duplicate copy mutates and acquires a new function. This process is easier once a gene has been duplicated because it increases the redundancy of the system; one gene in the pair can acquire a new function while the other copy continues to perform its original function. Other types of mutations can even create entirely new genes from previously noncoding DNA.

The creation of new genes can also involve small parts of several genes being duplicated, with these fragments then recombining to form new combinations with new functions. When new genes are assembled from shuffling pre-existing parts, domains act as modules with simple independent functions, which can be mixed together creating new combinations with new and complex functions. For example, polyketide synthases are large enzymes that make antibiotics; they contain up to one hundred independent domains that each catalyze one step in the overall process, like a step in an assembly line.

Sex and recombination
In asexual organisms, genes are inherited together, or linked, as they cannot mix with genes of other organisms during reproduction. In contrast, the offspring of sexual organisms contain random mixtures of their parents' chromosomes that are produced through independent assortment. In a related process called homologous recombination, sexual organisms exchange DNA between two matching chromosomes. Recombination and reassortment do not alter allele frequencies, but instead change which alleles are associated with each other, producing offspring with new combinations of alleles. Sex usually increases genetic variation and may increase the rate of evolution. However, asexuality is advantageous in some environments as it can evolve in previously sexual animals. Here, asexuality might allow the two sets of alleles in their genome to diverge and gain different functions.

Recombination allows even alleles that are close together in a strand of DNA to become separated. However, the rate of recombination is low (approximately two events per chromosome per generation). As a result, genes close together on a chromosome may not always be shuffled away from each other and genes that are close together tend to be inherited together, a phenomenon known as linkage. This tendency is measured by finding how often two alleles occur together on a single chromosome, which is called their linkage disequilibrium. A set of alleles that is usually inherited in a group is called a haplotype. This can be important when one allele in a particular haplotype is strongly beneficial: natural selection can drive a selective sweep that will also cause the other alleles in the haplotype to become more common in the population; this effect is called genetic hitchhiking.

When alleles cannot be separated by recombination – such as in mammalian Y-chromosomes, which pass intact from fathers to sons – harmful mutations accumulate. By breaking up allele combinations, sexual reproduction allows the removal of harmful mutations and the retention of beneficial mutations. In addition, recombination and reassortment can produce individuals with new and advantageous gene combinations. These positive effects are balanced by the fact that sex reduces an organism's reproductive rate, can cause mutations and may separate beneficial combinations of genes. The reasons for the evolution of sexual reproduction are therefore unclear and this question is still an active area of research in evolutionary biology, that has prompted ideas such as the Red Queen hypothesis.

Gene flow
Gene flow is the exchange of genes between populations and between species. It can therefore be a source of variation that is new to a population or to a species.

Gene flow can be caused by the movement of individuals between separate populations of organisms, as might be caused by the movement of mice between inland and coastal populations, or the movement of pollen between heavy metal tolerant and heavy metal sensitive populations of grasses.

Gene transfer between species includes the formation of hybrid organisms and horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal gene transfer is the transfer of genetic material from one organism to another organism that is not its offspring; this is most common among bacteria. In medicine, this contributes to the spread of antibiotic resistance, as when one bacteria acquires resistance genes it can rapidly transfer them to other species. Horizontal transfer of genes from bacteria to eukaryotes such as the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and the adzuki bean beetle Callosobruchus chinensis has occurred. An example of larger-scale transfers are the eukaryotic bdelloid rotifers, which have received a range of genes from bacteria, fungi and plants. Viruses can also carry DNA between organisms, allowing transfer of genes even across biological domains.

Large-scale gene transfer has also occurred between the ancestors of eukaryotic cells and bacteria, during the acquisition of chloroplasts and mitochondria. It is possible that eukaryotes themselves originated from horizontal gene transfers between bacteria and archaea.


 * Joanna, I support your suggested edits/deletions. In fact, I would go even further and suggest that we should collapse all three subsections of the variation section. There are daughter articles that provide sufficient detail. I am making this suggestion only because there is a push (a valid one) to include other contents that Thompsma suggested such as phylogenetics. I am not opposed to including more interesting material provided that it is balanced by the removal of existing material that are best covered in daughter articles. danielkueh (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Next deletions

 * Done. Next, how about deleting the life cycle figure in the sex section? I am not sure how it really illustrates the concept of variation. I also propose deleting the second paragraph in the current sex section, which is really about the benefits of sex evolution of sex more generally, rather than how sex produces heritable variation.Joannamasel (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. danielkueh (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

An image for Geological time
I drew the following image this evening for a section on geology and evolution I am working on. I thought I would post the image for feedback. I will also be uploading citations for the listed chronology of evolutionary events.Thompsma (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that some of the labels are not lined up well - I fixed this in my main file. I think the text on the right could be enlarged.Thompsma (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It has the virtue of packing a lot of information into a small illustration, which is not an easy thing to do! I have three immediate comments.  First, I think it needs to be clear when the scale is billions of years ago or millions of years ago.  Second, I can see why there is value to indicating when the different kingdoms, phyla, and classes evolved ... but then, why specify dinosaurs?  I would rather see when all phyla evolved, and if we can fit it, all classes, but I would hesitate to go down any further in level unless we also include the following - Third suggestion, include major extinction events.  This would justify including dinosaurs but there are other major extinction events. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Slrubenstein - I had similar ideas about adding in the major extinctions. I specified dinosaurs because they certainly are captivating to the imagination. More than the captivation - the age of the dinosaurs was extensive, there is much that can be said about their evolution, and I am thinking of creating an accompanying figure similar to the one that Paul Sereno published in this Science article (Fig 5):. It does pack a lot of information into one figure and so I am trying to think of ways to simplify. I have the file saved with each item isolated into separate layers that can easily be switched on and off. My plan is to use this figure in a lead section on geological time and to then move into a section describing phylogenetic trees that would accompany this figure so that the reader can understand the scale of time in relation to divergence, evolutionary transitions, and common ancestry.Thompsma (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The phylogenetic figure would address the evolution of the major phyla. This figure (EvolutionaryTimeLine.jpg) actually already indicates when some of the major phyla came about: 1) Primordial origins / stromatalites =prokaryotes, 2) great oxidation event=anoxic photosynthesis primitive cyanobacteria, 3) primary endosymbiosis=eukaryotic cells, 4) Plants start to diversify=hard to set a time on the origins of plants proper (plant megafossils are in the Silurian (423.0–419.0 MYA) which coincides with the insect transition to land, angiosperms/insect co-evolution come into play in the Jurassic), 5) Cambrian explosion =this covers a lot of divergence, 6) I give dates for fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and even Homo sp. A figure covering all the major phyla would be a huge undertaking, which is why a phylogenetic tree is more appropriate for that kind of task.Thompsma (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My point about phyla or classes was meant only to provide a consistent guiding principle, so that what we include (or exclude) can be viewed as neither arbitrary nor violating NOR (I do not mean to sound defensive, I just want to make the rationale clear). If there are too many phyla (or classes) then perhaps the more informative thing to do would, for each era or period, provide the current estimate of how many new phyla or classes evolved during that era or class.  I think this would communicate better what is really most significant about each period but that's just my opinion.
 * I understand your intention and appreciate the difficulty of the job. Frankly, when I first saw this I thought that it would best work if instead of being in any one section ran the length of the article from top to bottom/beginning to present along one margin.  This would also allow us to be clearer about the major geological events, given that this is a geological timeline and presumably the point is that there is an important correspondence between geological changes and biological evolution. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Slrubenstein - if I understand what you are proposing, that would be a huge undertaking and I think I could get a PhD putting such a figure together! Having an image sprawl down the side of the evolution article wouldn't make sense - the purpose of this image is just to assist and introduce the reader to the geological time line. They have an example of what you are talking about in geologic time scale.Thompsma (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thompsma. Well, I am in no position to do it myself, so I am in no position to insist.  But I didn't mean you should do it all by yourself.  So far no one else has joined this discussion and maybe everyone else is completely satisfied with what you posted.  However, if there is room for improvement I would not consider it reasonable to expect you to make all the improvements - ideally other editors could share in the research.  Also, since we cannot violate NOR we need to add information that is in published sources without making any novel claims, and being careful not to re-present information in such a way as to propose a novel claim.  When I suggested adding for each period or era an approximation of the number of classes or phyla that evolved, I did not mean for anyone to troll all the journals to calculate this number themselves (or, yourself) - as you say, that is PhD level research and by definition that kind of research violates NOR.  I was hoping that these estimates are already published.  Perhaps not in one source, but I was thinking that one might have to consult half a dozen review articles or textbooks to pull that information together.  If it required work on a different order, it would be inappropriate for WP for several reasons!  From your answer I infer that in fact this kind of information is not readily available in review articles or textbooks, but maybe other editors who are familiar with other sources could check.  But if it is not already published in a verifiable source, thn of course we just can't do it.  Best, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kindly consider the following to be suggestions, not demands:
 * The image should be in SVG form, not JPG. I can help with that.
 * It will be useful to show, in graphic form, the arising of various taxa, perhaps as a bundle of labeled strands in an "avenue" of (increasing?) width. Origins and extinctions could be shown. A tenuously relevant example is found here, with the obvious difference that Napoleon's army suffered attrition instead of elaboration. Obviously there needs to be some generalization in the presentation. I can offer only limited help in making an appropriate list of taxa to show.
 * To be most useful, the image will be large, but should also read well as a thumbnail. The overall picture needs to be visible at a glance, so a long narrow presentation does not seem like the way to go.
 * If different time scales apply to different segments, that needs to be made graphically obvious. Easy stuff.
 * It looks like a fun project, but I can mostly only help with the graphic stuff. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All critiques and suggestions are completely welcome and appreciated. I was happy to hear your feedback Slrubenstein and think I understand what kind of information you are after. "I was hoping that these estimates are already published." - I haven't come across such a figure. There are some fossils lines where estimates of biodiversity abundance at various levels in the hierarchy (e.g., phylum, genus) for particular and restricted clades are given. The resolution depends, of course, on the quality of the record - some lineages are better preserved in conformity. Fossil sea shells are often used for these kinds things. I'm keeping my eyes open and flipping through my library for examples.
 * To Just plain Bill - I am using artweaver to illustrate this and it does not have an svg option. Why is svg recommended - curious to know? If you can convert the image - this would be appreciated.
 * I've uploaded a newer version with extinction events added and a few other tweaks in an effort to improve the image. If anyone would like a copy e-mailed to adjust the graphics, just let me know.Thompsma (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For diagrams such as this, the advantages of svg include crisper rendering at large zooms, file size an order of magnitude smaller than jpg, and ease of editing individual objects in the diagram without the need for a complicated photo tool. A quick Inkscape mockup of the diagram takes less than 30 KB of storage. When I have something worth showing, I will upload it, say in a day or two. __Just plain Bill (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to inkscape - wasn't familiar with that program. I've downloaded it and started working with it. I'm working on the phylogenetic images and text to accompany. I'm reluctant to participate in the debate on the variation section below, because I believe that a section on phylogenetic trees will assist and iron out a lot of the issues that are being raised. I think that the article will change considerably and become more streamlined when the comparative language of evolution is properly introduced.Thompsma (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I will let you run with it. Happy to discuss Inkscape learning curve on my talk page. I will urge you to consider what it is you want to say with the colors you are using, and with the various weights of black line in and around some of the shapes. You may want to have a look at the page on chartjunk. Please do not take that unfortunate nomenclature to heart; all I mean to say is that just because a tool allows you to pull out a lot of stops when drawing something, it doesn't mean you should draw it that way. More people should keep Edward Tufte's books on their coffee tables, in my considered opinion.
 * Phylogenetic trees could add a lot of clarity. Let me know if I can help with the presentation in any way. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback...the chartjunk page is helpful. I hope that my use of color is appropriate and does not step into the direction of chartjunk? It is a tough visual call - I want to visually separate out the different time lines and might be able to accomplish this with a simple black and white. Do you have any input in this respect? Should I tone down the color? I'll certainly give it some consideration. I'm finding Inkscape intuitive and simple to use - I'm familiar with quite a few raster and vector graphic editors.Thompsma (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the rainbow of the Proterozoic is doing subsequent to a long stretch of oranges, more importantly not sure how that connects to the colors of the bars of more recent epochs. The pink and green of the right-hand keys are puzzling to me as well. If different colors have meaning (complexity of top life-forms, mix of kingdoms, diversity of clades, march of time, or what you will) then it makes sense to show a key somewhere off to the side, analogous to the elevation colors on some maps.
 * Make sure you check the svg file with an image viewer other than inkscape-- while "tracing" your diagram I got some spontaneous black rectangles, seemingly related to flowed text (more likely a result of my fat fingers,) that only showed up when I looked at the image with evince. Made me grumpy for a while, until I just went into the XML with a text editor and took out the offending bits. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The colors were used to distinguish eras and periods. The Ectasian is a period as is the Devonian. In the Precambrian I give the eon, era, & period - because this scale spans billions of years. Whereas, in the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic I give only the period - because these scales span millions of years. The Archaan lacks periods - I took the color initiative from here:. The color was added so that the reader could visually distinguish the different time scales. The keys were put in different colors to segregate them. Perhaps not the best decision - I'll think it through.Thompsma (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Might consider using different shades of one color for the periods of the Proterozoic, and shades of a slightly different color for the periods of the Paleozoic, and so forth. I found it confusing that e.g. the Devonian and Carboniferous were the same color, but the Precambrian periods were different colors. Thanks for your efforts here! __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, thank you for your input. It is difficult doing this kind of stuff by myself without another critical eye. The color was thrown in for aesthetic purposes - not meant to serve as an indicator of anything. You can notice in the Geological Society of American time scale that the colors are the same in the later part of the Proterozoic, Devonian, and in the Paleogene, and the Cambrian matches the Mississippian and the colors at the top are just random. Hence, the GSA also used the color for aesthetic reasons - just to visually contrast and interrupt the chronology. I would use different colors - but the visual pallet is limited. The colors used in my illustration actually are slightly different - they human eye just can't discern the difference. However, I can use a yellow Cenozoic. At first I left color out of the boxes on the right, but then the image looked unbalanced. I've tried going black and white - but then the image looks visually confusing.Thompsma (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Could consider letting the key boxes on the right side be white, and using lighter tints (possibly a bit less saturated as well) for the time bars. That might help the visual balance. (The colors in that Geological Society of America pdf are somewhat harmonious, but still a bit overdone in my view.)

If the aim is to show more than just a time line, I think the milestones and extinctions would be better presented graphically; the letters and numbers are not easy for me to get in a glance. As time allows, I'll see if I can upload a few ideas. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * All this sounds good, but actually doing it is another thing altogether. I would be interested in seeing how you could graphically incorporate the extinction information into one figure. I don't think it could be done without creating too much clutter. My plan at this point is just to tweak the colors as you suggested and possibly find a way to highlight the extinction events a little better. However, beyond this I'm not a graphic artist. I'll do my best to simplify the image to convey the information and will move onto a section on phylogenetics. My thought is that this image (tweaked a bit) coupled with informative text will serve its purpose. If someone can do a better job of illustrating the geological time line in context of keystone events scaled in evolutionary time, this would be welcomed. I felt a section on geological time scale was necessary to set the context for evolution - we need a beginning, a middle, and an ending to tell the story. A main image that can serve as a yardstick of time through the article can serve its function in phylogenetic trees (for example). Many phylogenetic trees usually have a time scale on the sidebar to illustrate when the divergence and diversification took place. Having a key reference to put the scale into context of the age of the Earth can help the reader to piece together the geochronology of these events. This is my goal.Thompsma (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No kidding. It is a big job. It will be a visually busy diagram, given the length of the time scale and what I assume is the desired level of detail.
 * I've had a look around the web; searching for images of "geological time scale" turns up quite a few. I like the spiral renderings such as this one, but drawing that would be much more laborious than box-and-label diagrams. Here is a more or less straight time line that shows the hierarchy of eons, eras, and so forth. Still thinking about this... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bill...I've looked at those images before and also like the spiral. It might be an interesting project to draw one up in time. For now, I'd like to work on the text. I've been doing the research, taking notes, and getting things in order. I used an image from a copy of my book "Rise of the Amphibians" - Carroll uses a straight black and white image with key side labels.Thompsma (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sentence 5: Evolution may also proceed "phenotype-first" with genetic accommodation following afterwards
The above sentence has footnotes and I am sure if I read them and think about them I will work out what the sentence means. Note that I know what all the words mean, but just don't see what the sentence is trying to do or say in the lead. For now, the sentence is "out of the blue" and will mean nothing to any normal reader, including reasonably well educated ones. In my opinion that means it has to go, or be replaced? Just saying.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I put that sentence in, in response to a criticism of Thompsa that the previous sentence is not strictly accurate as it stands. I am happy to explain the concept further here if you like, but yes, I agree that the issue is too complex for the lead. I also put a reference to these ideas under the biased mutation subsection. I'm happy to just delete it from the lead.Joannamasel (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would hate to remove this recognition of epigenetics in the article-it has taken too long to get here. Why not add "epigenetic influences" to mutation, genetic recombination, and gene flow ? Epigenetic changes (epimutations) are heritable for several generations if not permanently. It is a source of heritable variation. Seems pretty neutral and plenty of literature to support it as a source of variation and likely a mechanism of evolution too as Jablonka and others have touted-recognize influence of environment on gene function too like vernalization in flowering plants. GetAgrippa (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, how about we delete the phenotype-first sentence, but edit the preceding sentence to read "The major sources of such inherited variants are mutation, epimutation, genetic recombination and gene flow."Joannamasel (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a wording question. I am not saying anything about what should be in there, but only that what is there now does not really inform clearly either way. Concerning the new proposal it has the merit of being a simpler sentence, but perhaps a couple of extra words will allow more people to understand without clicking so many links: "The major sources of such inherited variants are DNA mutation, epimutation (mutation which does not change the underlying DNA sequence), genetic recombination and gene flow." --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for compromise. I also like the rewrite below-very concise but also explanatory. GetAgrippa (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like the brief definition of epimutation, as it stands it is a contradiction in terms. Instead, how about "(a change inherited in some way other than through the sequence of nucleotides in DNA)"Joannamasel (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we change "epimutation" to "epigenetics?" The latter is the more common term (54,500 vs. 1680 in Google Scholar). Plus, the title of the linked article is "Transgenerational epigenetics" (On a side note, why not just link it to Epigenetics instead?). danielkueh (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The definitions of "epigenetics" in the literature are a mess. Most of those hits link to uses that are inconsistent with what is meant here. The word epigenetics is widely used for any chromatin marks that are stable in mitosis, and I have even seen it used for those that are not. In our usage, the inheritance mechanism could as easily be culture as chromatin marks, so long as it is inherited across generations, hence the link to a less ambiguous page and the use of a more specific term whose meaning cannot be so easily mistaken. Joannamasel (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Point taken. danielkueh (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure I understand, I think discussion of the intentions of this sentence are now folded into the discussion below about the "two lists". Correct?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we reached a consensus in this subsection, that is now incorporated into the draft text in the next.Joannamasel (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

lists in the lead: structure needed
There is a list of three sources of variation in the first paragraph. Then there is, after some other stuff, a list of four "mechanisms" of evolution in the next paragraph. 1 and 3 in the first list have the same names as 3 and 4 in the second. I am not saying it is wrong as such, but this has to be seen as unnecessarily likely to cause confusion for readers coming to this article for the basics? (And annoyingly cumbersome for those coming for something more.) Can the two lists be united into one paragraph for example? Our Vulcan readers, who we must always consider, will note that number 2 in list one (genetic recombination) must correspond to the source of variation needed for 1 and 2 in list two (selection and drift).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There are two options here. One is to reorganise a substantial portion of the article, which is currently structured as introduction of variation vs. mechanism of systematic changes to that variation. The other is to rewrite the lead to make this is a little less painful, even as the issue remains. Can you perhaps come up with a draft text?Joannamasel (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I think a change to the lead might be enough. Not sure if I am the right person to do this one. Maybe, just to get something out there for discussion: "New variants of inherited traits can enter a population from outside populations, and this is referred to as 'gene flow'. Or else new variants can come into being from within a population in at least three ways: mutation of DNA, epimutation (mutation which does not change the underlying DNA sequence), and genetic recombination. Several 'mechanisms' by which such new variants become common in a population are also distinguished. The first mechanism is 'natural selection', where different inherited traits cause different rates of survival and reproduction. Such selection can act at multiple levels, for example with respect to the survival of organisms, populations, or gene variants. A second mechanism is 'genetic drift', a process in which 'random' changes (changes which do not directly change rates of survival or reproductive success) make some inherited traits more or less common within a population. (Genetic hitchhiking is one way in which drift can occur within a population.) A third mechanism is biased mutation, which can affect phenotypes expressed across multiple levels of organisation." I am personally not confiden that genetic hitchiking and biased mutation need to be mentioned in the lead, because in a way they come under the other categories. So I would propose to remove the last two sentences and have marked them that way. The above means we also need to decide what to do with the following sentences which were in the middle of the raw materials of the above proposal: "Evolution may also proceed 'phenotype-first' with genetic accommodation following afterwards.[6][7] Evolution has led to the diversification of all living organisms from a common ancestor, which are described by Charles Darwin as 'endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful'.[8]" I have raised these for discussion in two separate sub-sections.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There are serious issues with inconsistent implicit and explicit uses of the term genetic drift in the literature. Explicitly, in most textbooks today it is defined as variance stemming from gamete sampling. Wright 1955 very explicitly denounced this narrow term, and defined it as the expectation of the variance of the change in allele frequency, to which genetic hitchhiking also makes a contribution, although the contributions of hitchhiking, unlikely those of drift, are autocorrelated over time and hence very different mathematically. In definition #3, more "one-off" forms of stochasticity are included too, such as the order that rare mutations appear in. And in definition #4, always implicitly as best I can see, a contrast between selection and drift lumps all non-adaptive processes, including recurrent biased mutation as "drift". I think only definitions #1 and #2 are really defensible, and of those, #1 is much more common today and I think we should use that. That is what the genetic drift page does. By setting up a separate section on hitchhiking, I was trying to back off from definition #2, which the article used to lean towards (implicitly) in its older versions. The proposed definition is not an option as written, because however you define drift, it needs to apply to sites under selection as well as to neutral sites. I think what you were stabbing at is definition #2. Taking all that into account, I strongly oppose listing only selection and drift as mechanisms in the lead, as it is suggestive of definition #4. Plus, there is no evidence whatsoever that drift definition #1 is important in evolution: I have a review paper on this coming out in Current Biology next month, we can cite it if need be soon but not quite yet. On the other hand, there IS evidence for the importance of the other 3 mechanisms of evolution of hitchhiking, biased mutation and structured populations. Apart from that, I like your proposed reorganisation, if it is extended to list more mechanisms. How about

"New variants of inherited traits can enter a population from outside populations, and this is referred to as "gene flow". Or else new variants can come into being from within a population in at least three ways: mutation of DNA, epimutation (a change inherited in some way other than through the sequence of nucleotides in DNA), and genetic recombination. Several "mechanisms" by which such new variants become common in a population are also distinguished. The first mechanism is "natural selection", where different inherited traits cause different rates of survival and reproduction. Such selection can act at multiple levels, for example with respect to the survival of organisms, populations, or gene variants. Selection influences the frequency of a trait in a particular direction. Recurrent biased mutation is a second mechanism, although usually weaker than selection, of directional change in a trait, favoring loss of function over gain of function. Two other mechanisms of evolution, genetic drift and genetic hitchhiking, are equally likely to cause an increase as a decrease in trait frequency. A final factor, the geographical structure of a population and the amount of gene flow within it, is key to the reproductive isolation necessary for speciation." Joannamasel (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * First, just some explanation. In the draft, I tried to analyse the logic of what was there before and just write it more clearly. So if it is wrong now, it was wrong before - I hope.
 * The point about not calling drift a "mechanism of evolution" is that it is already listed as "cause of new variations". I saw that it was logical to separate causes of new variations from the causes of those new variations actually becoming common, and I built from that distinction. I see how you've tried to handle this with the last sentence and perhaps it is better to ask others to comment on this.
 * As always when writing about this type of thing there is a danger, I think, of using too many metaphors which compare the workings of nature with human activity. (We are of course stuck with "selection".) This is why I've tried to avoid anything like "particular direction". It is not clear to me what a direction means in this context.
 * Would there be a consensus that genetic drift and genetic hitchhiking are two different things?
 * How do we verify that genetic drift and genetic hitchhiking "are equally likely"? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * By "direction", I meant whether the allele or trait frequency increases or decreases. "Equally likely" was supposed to refer to this increase vs. decrease, not to genetic drift vs. genetic hitchhiking. Looks like the text needs more polishing for lack of ambiguity. I would say consensus that drift and hitchhiking are different exists among those few scientists who know what they both are. For a clear but highly technical citation supporting their fundamental differences, we have ref 127 by Neher & Shraiman. For a highly accessible version, in about a month my review paper will come out.
 * Not sure I understand your second point. Drift was not listed as a source of variation.Joannamasel (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Andrew, here are the definitions for Genetic drift and hitchhiking taken from Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology:
 * Genetic drift: Random changes in the frequencies of two or more alleles or genotypes within a population.
 * Hitchhiking: Change in the frequency of an allele due to linkage with a selected allele at another locus. See also species hitchiking.

Joanna, with respect to your counterdraft, the last sentence reads as though it is another mechanism of evolution such as natural selection and genetic drift. I'm sure that is not what you meant, but stylistically, it appears to read that way. danielkueh (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Freeman and Herron explicitly limit drift to #1: "Change in the frequencies of alleles in a population resulting from sampling error in drawing gametes from the gene pool to make zygotes and from chance variation in the survival and reproductive success of individuals; results in non-adaptive evolution. (Glossary p.801)", although they are then inconsistent about using this narrow definition when they discuss the evolution of sex.
 * I know this isn't a verifiable source, but I asked Futuyma point-blank which of the definitions on my list he uses, and he said #1. Strange then that explicitly, he gives #2, which page was that? On p297-303, the only mechanism of drift he lists is sampling error. On p303, where he discusses Ne, he doesn't list hitchhiking at all. On p303 his formulae for drift are based strictly on sampling error. And on p.304, he says "Genetic drift is random change in the frequencies of alleles or haplotypes due to accidents of sampling..." The formal definition you cite is so broad as to include fluctuating selection, which I suspect nobody would consider drift if pressed. I think on balance, Futuyma needs to be counted as supporting definition #1, but is inconsistent in his usage.
 * Barton et al. p.413 is careful to distinguish between drift and other forms of randomness. He defines "random" carefully at least. His presentation of drift itslef reads as a sophisticated and studied ambiguity between #1 and #2. He treats hitchhiking in a different chapter, not in the drift chapter (p485, also see p.676-679).
 * As to my last sentence, I was trying to summarise the subsection of Mechanisms/Gene Flow, so that the lead matches the main article. Indeed, it is not the same sort of "mechanism" defined as change in allele frequency. I was trying to get away from that implication, in fact, obviously unsuccessfully. Suggestions? Joannamasel (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Joanna, I got those definitions from the glossary of Futuyma's book. Unfortunately there is no page numbers listed at the bottom/top. :( danielkueh (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is another definition. This one is taken from an undergraduate genetics text by Hartwell et al. (2008) Genetics: From Genes to Genomes.
 * Genetic drift: unpredictable, chance fluctuations in allele frequencies that have a neutral effect on fitness of a population.
 * The problem in the last sentence appears to be "geographical structure of a population." The problem is not the concept itself but how it is abruptly introduced that might lead to confusion. I suggest one additional sentence describing the importance of geographical structures or isolation to evolution/speciation/divergence, and then finish off the with that last sentence. However, I would replace "A final factor,..." with "Taken together, ...." in the last sentence. That would clarify it. danielkueh (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the definition taken from p. 297 (Chapter 11) of Futuyma (1998), "In finite populations, allele frequencies can fluctuate by chance, a process called random genetic drift. Random fluctuations can result in the replacement of old alleles by new ones, resulting in non-adaptive evolution. Genetic drift and naturals selection are the two important potential causes of allele substitution,-- that, of evolution within populations" danielkueh (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Re Hartwell: ouch! "Fitness of a population" means that selection on an allele that affects only relative and not absolute fitness is now also "drift"! I taught from Hartwell once, the quantitative content is appalling. Eg, there is total confusion in the quantitative genetics chapter between correlation and regression. The following year, I taught from Pierce, which I recommend highly.
 * I think all of this backs up my main point: definitions of genetic drift are a complete mess in the literature. But I think it would be too much of a digression in this article to cover the complexities of that mess. The genetic drift page does this to some extent, although it starts off with definition #1, and then points out exceptions from it. I think we are also best off picking one definition and being consistent in its use. I favor definition #1 in my list, but do not rule out #2, with a citation of Wright. However, #2 is far more technical to explain: essentially it is the second term in a diffusion equation. Random sampling isn't easy either, but it's easier than that. As for sources, especially given that they contradict not only each other but also themselves, how about we follow the principle that since this is a question of theoretical population genetics, we should give precedence to authors who are theoretical population genetics? Eg, Barton gets precedence on this point over Futuyma? Joannamasel (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Joanna, I am ok with that rationale (theoretical population genetics). At this point, it is a coin toss for me. I do concede definition #1 is much clearer. I suspect definition #2 is widely used because it is the easiest to understand. I don't think many biologists, let alone the lay reader, really understand "sampling error" in the statistical sense. In any event, as long as there are numerous and reputable secondary sources that we can draw from to support either definition, it should be ok. Remind me again, what was Wright's definition? danielkueh (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wright's (1955) definition was #2. More precisely, he defined "genetic drift" as any change in allele frequency! He then distinguished between i) "steady genetic drift" = the first term in the diffusion equation, i.e. directional change in allele frequency, including selection and recurrent biased mutation, and ii) "random genetic drift" = the second term in the diffusion equation, including but not limited to sampling error. Wright's "random genetic drift" morphed into just "drift", incidentally making it inconsistent with usage in math and physics, where it usually refers to directional change.
 * I agree that many imprecise verbal definitions correspond better to #2 than #1, and it is easily possible that imprecise verbal definitions make up the majority, but I don't think those are the ones we should follow. Of those sources that define drift more carefully and formally, my feeling is that most use sampling error, i.e. #1, just as Futuyma does when he gives a more formal treatment with some equations. But I won't deny that there are theoretical population geneticists who go with Wright and #2. Joe Felsenstein and Mike Lynch, for example. John Gillespie, like most researchers who work directly on this issue, keeps drift and hitchhiking distinct. I think #1 is easier (but not easy) to explain, clearer, and consistent with the genetic drift page too.Joannamasel (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Joanna, I support the use of def #1 provided that it is as concise as the definition in WP's genetic drift page. danielkueh (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's basically what we currently have as sentence 1 of the genetic drift subsection. Do you want a definition given in the lead too? Joannamasel (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For the sake of consistency, yes. But then, we would have to do the same for hitchhiking, which would be make the lede long. danielkueh (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not having studied these definitions at all, which might be an advantage in terms of finding a simple wording, can you please check my understanding? Is this basically right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that genetic drift is a term which was invented mainly to clarify that there is genetic change which is not natural selection. In other words, it does not directly cause more success in survival and reproduction. (Leaning upon the word random seems poor communication to me because it implies a contrast to "planned".)
 * I understand that genetic hitch-hiking is at least in a sense, a form of genetic drift where the drift, even though it does not directly cause an improved success, happens because of a physical linkage between the DNA which does not improve success, with another bit of DNA which does. So some drifting DNA is drifting under the influence of some selected DNA.


 * Andrew, historically, genetic drift was championed by Sewall Wright as an essential component to his shifting balance theory, which held out promise of explaining both speciation and adaptation on rugged landscapes. It has not lived up to that promise. The term was popularised in part by Dobzhansky, and it became used in the new sense you give to clarify that not all change is selection. However, this usage is confused, since it is so much broader than any rigorous mathematical definition of drift that can be found.
 * Within some definitions of drift, eg that of Michael Lynch, your understanding of genetic hitch-hiking is correct. However, the proposal is not to use that definition of drift, because it is hardly to explain in a way that is both rigorous and accessible.Joannamasel (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, what is starting to worry me is that many of these terms seem to be used in different ways by different authors. They are not giving us an anchor but in fact giving us more to fit in. And I am noticing that your version relies extremely heavily on those terrible anthropmorphisms biologists often use - random, direction, sampling. A lot of people coming here will be non biologists wanting to think about the argument between science and Intelligent Design. Each of these words are non-obvious in meaning and intention and this thing is going to get bigger and bigger before it makes sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here goes with new text, without all links in place. It is also now 3 short paragraphs rather than one long one.

"New variants of inherited traits can enter a population from outside populations, and this is referred to as "gene flow". Or else new variants can come into being from within a population in at least three ways: mutation of DNA, epimutation (a change inherited in some way other than through the sequence of nucleotides in DNA), and genetic recombination.

Several "mechanisms" by which such new variants become common in a population are also distinguished. The first mechanism is "natural selection", where different inherited traits cause different rates of survival and reproduction. Such selection can act at multiple levels, for example with respect to the survival of organisms, populations, or gene variants. Selection influences the frequency of a trait in a particular direction. If an allele at one locus is linked to a selected gene at another locus, then evolution by genetic hitchhiking can occur. Recurrent biased mutation is a second third mechanism, although usually weaker than selection, of directional change in a trait, favoring loss of function over gain of function. With two other mechanisms of evolution Finally, allele frequencies are equally likely, at random, to go up or down due to random sampling, a process known as genetic drift. Genetic drift is a change in frequency due to random sampling. Genetic hitchhiking is a change in allele frequency at one locus because it is linked to a second gene locus that is under selection.

Evolution may in the long run lead to speciation, whereby a single ancestral species splits into two or more different species. Speciation occurs most readily when there is reproductive isolation between two populations, e.g. due to geographical structure. For this reason, the presence or absence of gene flow is an important evolutionary mechanism affecting local adaptation and speciation." Evidence of speciation can be traced to anatomical, genetic and other similarities between groups of organisms, geographical distribution of related species, the fossil record and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations. Common descent stretches back over 3.5 billion years during which life has existed on earth.[12][13][14][15] Both evolution within populations and speciation between them are thought to occur in multiple ways such as slowly, steadily and gradually over time or rapidly from one long static state to another. Joannamasel (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My suggested edits above. danielkueh (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's now ambiguous whether biased mutation is the third mechanism or the third directional mechanism. How about "If an allele at one locus is linked to a selected gene at another locus, then the first locus may evolve by genetic hitchhiking." That sentence is clearer about which loci is evolving and how, and also uses the active voice. And for drift, if it is not grouped with hitchhiking I would prefer the simpler "Finally, allele frequencies may change due to random sampling, a process known as genetic drift"Joannamasel (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. danielkueh (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder. We are talking about a quick discussion in the lead, that will be discussed AGAIN later in the article. If we need to expand on each term, and you keep bringing in new terms which need new explanation, then there is no real reason that we need any of this in the lead. Am I wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Understand. I think Joanna's version is shorter than the present version. Could it be shorter? Sure. I am certainly not opposed to shortening it. But I suspect that the main savings will not come from shortening the lead but from shortening the the rest of the article. danielkueh (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have laid it out below so you can clearly see it is longer than the current version. Furthermore, I do not think we can use it unless it would be bigger still, because it is now very far from what a well educated layman can follow, and assumes too much knowledge of jargon (which may in fact not be easy to define with any consensus even for experts).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just noticed it is longer partly because Joannamasel has included the next sentences. I'll remove them from the comparison table so we can deal with that separately. My basic point remains the same which is that this discussion would need to be made longer if we want to fit it all in and I am not sure it needs to be in the lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * New proposal after break.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Listing sources of variation is quick. Introducing the mechanisms is the long part, because none of the mechanisms are especially easy to understand. I am OK with the longer lead along the lines of the current draft, since I think the mechanisms of evolution is important. But if we want to go radically shorter, I suggest we introduce selection, plus point out that there are also "non-adaptive" mechanisms. We should also list them, with no explanation added: this will help with stability against people reinserting something about drift. What I oppose is singling out drift for special treatment relative to the others, since that contributes to the common but incorrect assumption that drift is THE non-adaptive mechanism of evolution. Joannamasel (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Would I be right in saying that the dilemma is (a) "natural selection" should be in the lead but (b) this singles out one cause of evolution whereas the field likes to refer to other ways? If this is the definition of our challenge why not say something to the effect "there are also other ways" and then handle those other ways in a sub-section. If this still dumbs thing down too much we could further de-emphasize natural selection by saying something like "Natural selection is one of the most well-known ways, but...". Not sure if this works.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tried it immediately below... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

random break: more on those lists
I have attempted to remove anything which can better be explained in a section, and to try to stick to straightforward and consistent words for the lead. Everytime we use a biological "trade" anthropomorphism, there will be a temptation to keep adding more and more explanation about it. I still wonder if this whole bit should be in the lead at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am fine with draft 3 if we also give a simple list of the mechanisms that the main article covers, adding the sentence "These mechanisms include genetic hitchhiking, genetic drift, and recurrent biased mutation or migration." to the end. Joannamasel (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I second Joanna's suggestion. danielkueh (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems fine to me at least.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, the quotation marks are a little distracting. As I am reading it, I am subconsciously making the quotation signs with my fingers, with gives me the impression that there is some doubt as to whether those terms are true/accurate/reliable, etc. Bottom-line, do we need them? danielkueh (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, the quotation marks should go.Joannamasel (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead is still very long but I have to say that after these changes it is easier to read because this was a tricky bit. I am always impressed with the cooperation and rationality of editors on this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I think you guys are still too focused on genes as the source of variation and missing the hierarchical context. This misses some of the important aspects to pleiotropy and how integrative developmental programs contribute to character variation and constraints on what can occur. This presents a very simplistic version of how variation is introduced into populations - variation is not only under the purview of genes. Here are some example review papers on this topic:, , . Sorry to rain in on this thread with a criticism, but this theme keeps coming up again and again in this article. Evolution is not just about genes flowing through populations and neither is variation. It is an integrative system that builds on hierarchical foundations, which is what eco-evo-devo is all about.Thompsma (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I am not sure if this can all fit in the lead. There is always this tendency for people to want to push everything closer and closer to the first sentence, but by definition we can not fit it all?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The main point is to put some kind of emphasis on the hierarchical view - not to push everything in the first sentence. Here is a quote from a recent textbook on evolution:

"Population genetics does not provide a complete theory of evolution, however. Evolution is now recognized as hierarchical: genes, structures, populations, species and ecosystems all evolve. To a considerable extent hierarchical evolution is a reflection of the hierarchical organization of life itself..."
 * This should be emphasized, because it will allow the reader and authors to discuss and introduce evolution at any level in the hierarchy. I think this is essential for a proper understanding of evolution.Thompsma (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not quite follow what you are suggesting in practice. But if you are talking about a change which is not concerning the lead perhaps a new talkpage section should be opened. All in all I think discussing concrete wording changes is much easier than talking about whether you think other editors get something or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Andrew Lancaster - this is a point of discussion that has been raised before concerning the lead. I am not "talking about whether you think other editors get something or not" - you are taking the wrong message from my critique here. Variation can arise in a number of ways. It is important to remember that the genes that are flowing among populations are not working in isolation, nor are they simple passive entities that flow here and there. They are integrated into cellular networks burdened by functions they serve in the physiology and development of the organisms that carry them. What role do the genes play in the phenotype of the traits that vary? Are they regulatory, pleiotropic, or non-coding? There are different constraints placed on genes in context of developmental variation. Hence, I think it is an error to count the number of ways. This again relates back to the ecological context and phenotypic plasticity. I think the lead is improving with your assistance. The reference to epimutation helps, but I see an error in the statement that "new variants can come into being from within a population in at least three ways: mutation of DNA, epimutation (a change inherited in some way other than through the sequence of nucleotides in DNA), and genetic recombination." - because it is my understanding that feedback from the environment also has a role in what variants exist. Moreover, what is the genetic basis for barriers to gene flow between closely related species? This too is cause for variation at a phylogeographic scale - the isolation and differentiation of sundered populations. I would also remove the quotes around mechanisms and natural selection - they are a distraction.Thompsma (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking the sentence you quote in context, it is unambiguous that the "new variants" means "new inherited variants". I think it would be tiresome to insert the word inherited yet again to clarify this sentence too. The environmental feedbacks that you bring up, if and only if they are inherited, fall within the definition of epimutation already given. Joannamasel (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback Joannamasel. The first sentence in the proposal: "New variants of inherited traits can enter a population from outside populations, and this is referred to as "gene flow"" - essentially equates genes with new variants of inherited traits; also, quotes should not go around gene flow. If gene flow is being introduced, should dispersal, immigration, and emigration be used? Gene flow and dispersal are not the same thing. Hence, new variants of inherited traits can enter a population by means of dispersal and this may result in gene flow. The sentence should also clarify that this is an intraspecific phenomenon that is being discussed - I can think of examples of species colonizing an area and creating a niche construction effect that would not be equated with the traditional notion of gene flow (e.g., ), yet would be consistent with new variants of inherited traits entering a population from outside populations.
 * Look more at the complete context. There is a clear definition: "Inherited traits are distinguishing characteristics, for example anatomical, biochemical or behavioural, that are passed on from one generation to the next". This definition is certainly not gene-centric. As for "gene flow", that is the standard technical term used, I don't see how we could use something else. In the interest of keeping the lead short, how about drafting new text for the gene flow subsection instead? In any case if a species colonizes an area in which it was not previously present, then this is gene flow for that species, and an environmental change for other species affected. I don't see how this invalidates what is written. Joannamasel (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I helped work on that sentence about traits and you are correct that it is not gene-centric. I agree, however, that it is important to look at the complete context. I will piece the sentences together and you can clearly see evolutionary genetics lurking behind the traits:

"Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals.[1] Inherited traits are distinguishing characteristics, for example anatomical, biochemical or behavioural, that are passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution requires variation of inherited traits within a population. New variants of inherited traits can enter a population from outside populations, and this is referred to as gene flow.
 * The first sentence is clearly a reference to the "beanbag genetic" concept of evolution, which has received a lot of critique and debate over the years (e.g.,, , ). It is a recasting of it adding 'trait' instead of gene. So the next sentence goes on to define a trait in orderly fashion. However, there is still a 1 to 1 linkage here, instead of genes bouncing around by chance we have traits randomly bouncing about without the details of development or the larger environment they are contained within and the only reference to the lineage or history is 'from one generation to the next'. Now I'm familiar enough with population genetics to know how the statistical models are run from one generation to the next. The thread of population genetics continues without any reference to lineages that pass through deeper time and no reference to cellular lineages making their way through the somatic lines. The concept of variation cannot be properly understood without the foundations of developmental biology, burden, constraints, plasticity, and ecology - all concepts that should come in the body of the text, but hardly explained by population genetics. The rest of the paragraph is all about evolutionary genetics and it is a very clear bias and reference to the classical models of population genetics with a few token gestures toward the larger context of evolution that are never given due explanation.Thompsma (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Criticisms of "beanbag genetics" are not criticisms of population genetics per se. They are criticisms of a gene pool concept within population genetics, a concept that neglects both epistasis and linkage. Population genetics is central to post-modern synthesis evolution, and you will not get any support for me for changing the article's reflection of that fact, although I am happy to continue to make the population genetics coverage more sophisticated and integrative. I just removed one reference to "gene pool" from the article. There is only one left now, under "common descent". As for more sophisticated views of variation, again, I suggest you suggest improvement here to the variation section rather than the lead. Joannamasel (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I take no issue with the fact that population genetics is central to 'post-modern synthesis evolution', but so is the science of building evolutionary trees, taking measure of characters, recording their states, inferring phylogenies, and reconstructing lineages in dimensions other than genes - like organisms containing a nested hierarchy of mitochondrial lineages (for exampleYou are missing my point. I am not critiquing population genetics, I am saying that it does not explain the whole of evolution and so I don't know why you would insist on trying to pigeon hole the larger topic of evolution into one focus area? The lead should open the topic as a whole, not put its 'supposed' best batter up to the plate - you have to introduce the entire team - and that includes lineages other than just gene lineages in populations. We need a way of introducing evolution as it applies to development, to paleontology, and to ecology - otherwise it gives an incomplete overview.[[User:Thompsma|Thompsma] (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The prescriptive nature of the proposed sentence stating "in at least three ways" - might be improved with the following change: "Heritable variation can originate within a population by:...". This reduces the sentence size and it gets rid of the numbered lists that constrain the world of possibilities. What about cases of habitat shift? Or competition?
 * I think the "at least" makes the current formulation LESS prescriptive than the grammar you propose. As for the alternative ways, again, I think they should be added to the relevant section of the main article (in this case Variation), before they are considered for the lead.Joannamasel (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I find the numbering prescriptive - perhaps it is my bias, a matter of style preference.
 * Is this about variation in genes or variation in gene expression? The distinction is important, which is why I think it would be easier to first introduce the hierarchical context - the source of my original concern. The current lead sentence: "Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals." - is a definition of evolutionary genetics without introducing the notion of common ancestry. Unfortunately, this is not an article about evolutionary genetics. I argued previously that the last word in that sentence should be about individuals, instead of organisms. In this way it is consistent with individuality in the expanded context (individual genes, individual cells, organisms, species, etc..) - Gould, Lloyd, Eldridge, Mayr, Ereshefsky, and David Hull have reviewed this extensively (e.g.,, ). However, we return to the second sentence introducing gene flow - which kinda strengthens the genetical view (i.e., evolutionary genetics again) steering away from the "proper", and by proper I mean that evolution needs to umbrella the full hierarchical context. Is there a way that we could simplify this and introduce the concept of a lineage? For example, "Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change that occurs over time in lineages that compete for existence, reproduce, and preserve heritable traits through their descendants." The following sentences could then introduce the reader to the concept of genetic, cellular, and species lineages across the hierarchy. An introduction to tree thinking could simplify things (it would be nice to replace the ugly tree in the lead with something more common and illustrative of the concept for this purpose). Moreover, this kind of sentence also contains a first approximation of natural selection. I realize that this is an upward battle, but it avoids the trap of describing evolutionary genetics instead of evolution as tends to occur.


 * I disagree that your criticism can be applied to the current text. The first sentence refers to inherited traits, which are explicitly NOT defined as genes.Joannamasel (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I address this issue above. It is beanbag genetics - all that has been done is that gene has been replaced with trait - a simple case of the 'ol switcharoo. This is not satisfactory and does not addresses the concerns that many researchers have been drawing attention too in context of the larger issues in evolution. This point has been raised in textbooks on evolution as well as the literature in reputable evolutionary journals - including articles in science and nature. I have very few problems with beanbag genetics - I am a big fan of evolutionary genetics. However, until the lead is fixed it is going to be very difficult if not prohibitive toward other editors who are interested in introducing broader concepts about evolution in the main text. The reader will be confused. My proposed sentence: "Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change that occurs over time in lineages that compete for existence, reproduce, and preserve heritable traits through their descendants." - offers editors a broader base to build upon so that the larger dimension (i.e., eco-evo-devo + population genetics) of evolution can be discussed. Beanbag genetics is a two dimensional playing field modelling evolution from one generation to the next instead of extending the scope of lineages through the developmental spectrum and into depths of the fossil record where many discoveries have been made. I've argued this point many times over and will leave it at this. I'm working on a new draft of the main body of the text anyway that will incorporate sections on phylogenetic trees and systematics describing the nature of character states (traits) and how tree-based thinking applies to the hierarchy of life, from gene to cell lineages to the evolution of dinosaurs. Evolution unifies all of biology, not just population genetics - even though that method of inquiry is completely valid and fascinating in its own right. It is amazing that this debate continues to rage on in all corners of biological academia. I had the great opportunity to work in a paleontological morphological systematics lab for a number of years and for the past eight years I've been working as a geneticist. The first experience was a real eye opener where we regularly discussed these issues. If you talk to evo-developmental biologists, such as Brian Hall ( - I held lengthy discussions with Dr. Hall and many paleontolgists on this very topic) they repeatedly express the sentiment that population genetics does not provide a complete explanation for evolution. I've put out some requests and I'm trying to encourage a few of my paleontological colleagues to contribute to this venture and have procured some excellent images of dinosaur CT scans that can be used as an example of how the study of morphological characters are integrated on a larger scale. I think it is too simple a view to think that a simple switch of gene for trait somehow addresses the complexity of the issues that these evolutionary experts have been raising in the peer-reviewed literature.Thompsma (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The current first sentence privileges selection within lineages. Your proposed alternative privileges selection between them. While both occur, a first sentence that includes both would unfortunately be too cumbersome. The current version is the more mainstream position, and should be retained. Not everything can make it into the first sentence. Also, I'm afraid I am going to have to sign off this discussion for now. I have a grant due soon, and then I travel. Will return to more regular wikipedia contact in a few weeks. Joannamasel (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "The current version is the more mainstream position" for evolutionary geneticists, not evolution as a whole - let's be clear and honest about this, because even textbooks on evolution (a clear place to locate the mainstream view) do not concur with your statement. "Not everything can make it into the first sentence." - a straw man argument - I've never suggested anything like this. "a first sentence that includes both would unfortunately be too cumbersome." - according to whom? I am very confident that you are incorrect on this point Joannamasel and we may have to agree to disagree. However, I can provide a long and extensive list of peer-reviewed literature (WP:RS) in support support my position. Darwin did not discover evolution by thinking about little bits bouncing around in populations, he saw and wrote on the importance of morphology, development, and the integrated systems of life. Starting with Brian Hall's statement in his mainstream textbook on evolution - "Population genetics does not provide a complete theory of evolution," I provide a list of citations that supports this notion:


 * "Recent developmental studies of gene function provide a new way of conceptualizing and studying variation that contrasts with the traditional genetic view that was incorporated into neoDarwinian theory and population genetics."
 * "Neo-Darwinian explanations are too narrow, both in the levels (of genotypes and phenotypes) and in the directive process (selection) which are stressed. The acknowledgment of additional, hierarchical phenomena does not usually extend beyond lip service. We urge that interlevel causation should feature centrally in explanatory hypotheses of evolution."
 * "The origin of morphological and ecological novelties is a long-standing problem in evolutionary biology. Understanding these processes requires investigation from both the development and evolution standpoints, which promotes a new research field called “evolutionary developmental biology” (evo-devo)."
 * "Lewontin presents the arguments that genes do not determine organisms and that the phenotype is not a one-to-one readout of the genotype."
 * "There are at least three groups who would like to see genes play a less important role in evolutionary biology. The ﬁrst is a group of developmental biologists who are interested in generic control mechanisms that may have preceded genetic control mechanisms in the evolution of development...The second group...sees various modular entities as mediating the actions of genes on development and evolution. Thus, genes are critically important for development and evolution, but since phenotypes do not reduce directly to genotypes, and since modular organization allows for heterochony, allometry, co-option, and divergence, these intermediate modules (such as morphogenetic ﬁelds) must also be considered units of evolution....The third group of people who would like to see less importance given to genes in evolutionary biology are those people constituting a ﬁeld of the philosophy of science called developmental systems theory (DST)."
 * "Studying this question requires a systems approach [1] that synthesizes knowledge from various biological levels, including gene structure and function, development, evolutionary and phylogenetic relationships, and ecology"
 * "Clearly, the importance of characters also extends beyond systematics, being central in evolutionary process studies (cf. Gould and Lewontin, 1979), physiology, and any branch of biology that is concerned with the attributes of organisms. Therefore, it is important that an internally consistent, nonarbitrary, yet flexible way of viewing characters be available that can accommodate any type of organismal aspect."
 * "In the new population genetics, there will be a shift in focus from single genes to gene networks, from gene-structure to gene-regulation, from additivity to epistasis, and from simple phenotypes to gene-interaction networks and the evolution of complex and modular system."
 * "Population genetics and development must be considered simultaneously to make sense of the data...By fusing developmental and evolutionary genetics, evolutionary biologists may be able to predict, in a probabilistic sense, the mutations underlying phenotypic evolution."
 * "Charles Darwin considered morphology the 'very soul' of natural history which to him was the basis of evolutionary biology. Today, molecular evolution has become a prominent field. Nonetheless, we also want to know how whole organisms and populations of organisms evolved. Since morphology is an important aspect of whole organisms, it continues to play a major role in evolutionary biology."
 * "The origin of evolutionary novelty involves changes across the biological hierarchy: from genes and cells to whole organisms and ecosystems. Understanding the mechanisms behind the establishment of new designs involves integrating scientific disciplines that use different data and, often, different means of testing hypotheses."
 * "The evolution of organisms is systemic transformation of their development, which cannot be described on the reductionist basis, i.e., expressed as a sum of the effects of independent initial factors. This explantation of biological phenomena, traditional for the natural science of the past, was underlain by recognition of universal linear determinism in the physical world. It remains dominating in genetics and genetic evolutionary theory considering the organism as a result of action of mosaic hereditary units, and this has its own causes."
 * "Evolutionary change in morphological features must depend on architectural reorganization of developmental gene regulatory networks (GRNs), just as true conservation of morphological features must imply retention of ancestral developmental GRN features."
 * You cannot deny that the lead is just a description of evolutionary genetics - that is exactly what it describes. Previous editors have suggested that I go work and improve evolutionary developmental biology, but I can make the same argument for evolutionary genetics, which is in worse shape. Both these branches are covered broadly under evolution. You cannot describe evolution in its entirety through sole reference to population genetics using a simple switch from 'gene' to 'trait' giving mild lip service to concepts that operate above the gene. Your argument that the current lead sentence is more 'mainstream' is weak, because there is much supportive literature that disagrees with that notion including mainstream textbooks on evolution. This so called 'mainstream' sentence is exclusionary, whereas I'm proposing something that is more accommodating to the broader picture of evolution, which is what this article is about and more in line with the purpose of Wikipedia. There is an unfortunate monopoly on evolutionary genetics in this article and I'm going to continue in my efforts to improve on the content and correct this mistake.Thompsma (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Gould might have expressed this best: "Only rarely, however, do professions get sidetracked by pursuing an extensive and longlasting program of research initiated by an error in reasoning rather than an inadequacy of empirical knowledge. Yet I think that the gene-centered approach to natural selection-based on the central contention that genes, as persistent and faithful replicators, must be fundamental (or even exclusive) units of selection-represents a purely conceptual error of this unusual kind...As I have emphasized throughout this section, gene selectionism can't be made to work as a general philsophy. The logic of the theory does not cohere, and the system cannot attain consistent completion."Thompsma (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here a quote that captures in almost full essence the problem with the lead in this article (just replace genes with the word traits and you will see that this lead is doing the same thing):

"Instead, evolutionary theory took a positivistic turn with the creation of population genetics (Provine, 1971). Fitness becomes simply a measure of competitive success, the tendency of an organism to increase the representation of its genes in successive generations. (This insistence on considering only the outputs of complex functionality has a parallel in behaviorism in psychology, which was a major trend around the same time that classical population genetics arose.) Population genetics is a mathematical theory with considerable predictive power; however, debate continues (Rosenberg & Bouchard, 2009) about its meaning and whether it does encompass all of the phenomena that should be of interest to an evolutionary biologist. It is often accused of being tautological; furthermore, from the symbiotic point of view a major weakness is that it implicitly takes competition to be the only strategy that could explain survival. An extreme version of this interpretation is Richard Dawkins’ ‘‘selfish gene’’ theory (1976), which treats the gene essentially as a virus (Peacock, 2010)." (Peacock, 2011: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42 (2011) 99–105)
 * Moreover, Collin Patterson - a prolific writer in evolution - is quoted as saying: "To retrieve the history of life, to reconstruct the evolutionary tree, is still the central aim of evolutionary biology." - The current lead completely misses the evolutionary tree of life. It is all about genetics from one generation to the next and does not introduce the huge amount of evolutionary literature that explores evolutionary lineages in cells, populations, species, fossils, and taxa spanning the hierarchy. The current lead misses the central aim of evolutionary biology and that is a serious flaw. Thompsma (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a larger canvas than the lead to this article would have us believe. Thinking this through further I might add to my suggested lead sentence: "Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change that occurs over time in lineages that compete for existence, reproduce with their own kind, and cooperatively preserve heritable traits through the survival of their descendants."Thompsma (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Kind suggestions: The sentences continue to incorporate a prescriptive tone, for example, 1) "Several "mechanisms" by which such new variants become common in a population are also distinguished." - Get rid of 'several', 'also', and 'by which such'. 2) "The most well-known mechanism is..." - awkward and prescriptive. 3) "Apart from selection, several more mechanisms..." - remove several again and avoid the prescriptive tone. A quote from Richard Lewontin speaks to this matter: "What is already known about evolution shows us that there are no universal rulesand even what appear t o be regularities have many informative exceptions. Evolution is a loose and complex process, the result of a number of interacting, individually weak forces with many alternative outcomes, and at all times contingent on previous history."Thompsma (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are looking at the most recent version of the text. I removed all instances of "several" about 7-8 hours, before you made this criticism.`Joannamasel (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Joannamasel - thanks again for your feedback and the work you are doing here. Your ideas are clear, you are correct about epimutation being mentioned and (yes) this does cover a broad area beyond genes. However, I think the area is too broad not to at least be introduced. We need a clear distinction between evolution in the broader sense that unites biology (i.e., eco-evo-devo lineages) and evolutionary genetics in the narrower sense (gene lineages), which you (and Andrew Lancaster!) are doing an excellent job of describing.Thompsma (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And concerning the next paragraph:
Comments? As usual my first question is that, if we need to make it longer to make it right, whether we need this all in the lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's stick to the current short version.Joannamasel (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

last sentence of first paragraph: "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful"
I personally like this sentence and want it kept. (I did not have the honour of putting it in.) But I think it is in the wrong place and should be either right near the beginning and [edit:]or right near the end of the lead. The first option is probably impossible because in this article there is a superfluity of ideas about what to put first. Do others agree?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that it should be close towards the end. danielkueh (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone else mind this being moved to the end of the lead?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Let's see what other say. Some may find it a "hanging" sentence. I like the effect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that strongly, but I don't think it is optimal right now either. The way I read it, the current lead has 3 paragraphs about evolution, then 2 paragraphs about evolutionary biology, then the hanging sentence, which is about evolution. I think it goes better at the end of paragraph 3, making it the last sentence about evolution proper.Joannamasel (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

the history paragraph in the lead
We have a long history paragraph in the lead, but I suppose it is not strictly necessary. We also have a very detailed sub-section on this. Should it be deleted?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no subsection. danielkueh (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean "History of evolutionary thought", the first sub-section of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean deleting the entire history section? That is a very bold proposal. I'm not sure there will be much support for it. I personally like having a history section. I admit the present section could be shorter. danielkueh (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure we are on the same wavelength. I am proposing deleting the potted history section in the lead. What does it add? We have too many things in the lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I see what you're saying. I agree the history bit could be shortened. I guess what it adds is that the scientific development of evolution continues to progress and with the modern synthesis, we have since moved on beyond Darwin. I think readers might find that bit interesting. danielkueh (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes no doubt about that. It is the bit I've worked on the most! But actually the more time people spend in the very long and intense lead, the less likely they'll ever get to the section where it is discussed in more detail. Anyway, which bits do you think should stay in the lead?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If I have to shorten that paragraph, I would find a way to link the first 9 words of the first sentence to Charles Darwin and Wallace. Something along the lines of "the scientific study of evolution took off when Darwin and Wallace independently discovered..." Something like that. More elegant of course. You get what I mean. danielkueh (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That is likely to lead to expansion, not compression. I am not going to push this further for now unless someone else sees a better way. Anyway, I thought the question worth raising.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, what I meant was we can cut the the following information out:
 * "...when research into the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species evolve.[16] The mechanisms driving these changes remained unclear until..." danielkueh (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

seems wrong
"Evolution occurs when there is variation of inherited traits within a population over time" I'm not quite sure what the sentence is intended to say. Variation in inherited traits, i.e. genetic variation, is evidence of mutation not evolution. Unless variation can include prevalence, in which case the sentence is just wrong. Noloop (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ouch! Indeed, very wrong. I fixed it.Joannamasel (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"Creation Myth"
"Creation Myths" are also often called "Creation Stories" (I didn't make this up - look at the article itself) - which is patently the more neutral term - to call them "myths" in this context IS pejorative - or is likely to hit someone not of a scientific bent as pejorative, which comes to the same thing. The article itself (linked at this point) IS called "Creation myths" - and in this (very different) context the title IS the technical term, and is NOT pejorative at all. I think what the original reverter of my edit did was nothing more than confusing these two contexts.

We might (very justifiably) want to leap to the defence of science as opposed to the superstitious crap (sorry for prejudiced language - just making my own sympathies plain) that would vaunt what is in an ancient religious text (or an ancient scientific text for that matter) over what we now know (insofar as it is knowable at all) to actually be the case. Our defence of rational scientific thought will however be all the more effective if we follow the guidelines on neutral language. Getting misguided people's backs up with this sort of thing is the last thing that is going to persuade them that they are wrong - rather it will confirm their own ideas that scientific people have it in for them personally. Or whatever they might think. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that avoiding the word myth is a better way to avoid a potential distraction.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely disagree, call it for what it is. Myth is the appropriate term, in all of it's meanings. This page is about science, therefore the terms need to be interpreted from a academic point, not a colloquial point. We're not here to placate people who still cling to bronze age belief systems. — raeky  t  11:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think two questions are being combined into one. One question is whether the word myth is ONE word which could be considered correct here. I definitely agree that it is. But there are also many correct words and there is certainly nothing especially correct about this choice. It is not our aim to placate maybe, but it is also not our aim to do the opposite, surely. I for one do not want this talkpage wasting much time on such subjects, because it has a lot of work to do. But that is unfortunately what will happen if people push for such positions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In the scholarly study of religions the word "myth" is the technical term for those narratives that are foundational to a religion - there is a specific relation between the concepts of myth and ritual. "creation stories" is not a technical term, and while it may look more "neutral" to a layperson, it is just fluffy speech that makes wikipedia look unprofessional. The phrasing "scriptural writings" was even worse - it is redundant - scripture means writing, and it restricts the scope of the meaning to not include those religions that are not based on scriptures, but which still have creation myths. Probably the majority of the world's religions. I did not change this to vindicate the science of biology over religion - but to vindicate the scientific study of religion over fluffy layperson language.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a matter of "placating" anyone - nor is the term "fluffy" - its meaning is utterly plain - just a little less "loaded". Wiki policy is very simply that we use neutral language. Put it another way, using emotive and highly provocative language and clearly pejorative terms just to have a swipe at people we think are idiots does not strengthen any argument, and it very certainly has no connection with "professionalism" (just the reverse in fact). This may be a "scientific article, but this section is NOT actually scientific - it simply gives a load of antiscientific drivel about the attention it deserves. To put it yet another way, there is utterly no need to descend to the level of some "creationists" by getting all hot under the collar - best to leave this sort of nonsense to them, I think. Note that the wikilink on the term still goes directly to the (correctly) named article on the subject, which DOES include the word "myth". I've no real objection to changing the bit about "scriptural writings" back - the point is that practically all religious objection to evolution comes from fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, and Hindus - all of whom base their objection on what the regard as infallible "scripture". Most minor religions seem to have more sense - or perhaps it's just that they're not worshipping some old book...?--Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No "story" is not fluffy. Everyone knows what it means, and it is even used by academics writing about myths. If you want a more jargony word, although I do not see why, then "account" might be very typical here. Jargon on the other hand can be very fluffy, i.e. unclear, when a word with multiple meanings and cultural implications is adopted, and that is the case here with "myth". Myth is a word not just used in jargon, but also in other ways. What's more even in the jargony sense it always implies that something is false, and this aspect of the word is not needed, because we are saying already that the theory of evolution disagrees with this account or story. We should not be aiming to choose language which has multiple interpretations. Concerning "scriptures" that is another issue and reference to written accounts can maybe simply be removed. Overall, this article simply should not be spending too much time on this. How about as follows: --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Some corrections. The socalled Maunus is the older version I reverted a change inserted by Soundofmusicals. And yes story is fluffy it has no precise meaning, it is just something someone happened to say some day, and it is not used in scholarship about religion. "Traditional accounts" is even fluffier and the following sentence "about different types of living things" pushes it over the edge of fluffiness into the space where everybody would be able to see that it is a clumsy circumlocution. The article we link to is called, Creation Myths - people can click on that link and find out the exact technical sense in which the word is used. Writing any of the other wordings just make it clear to people who know about religion that the article is written by people who don't. I am not going to argue this further, do as you can build consensus to do.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to see what others think. I believe this has been discussed many times on this talk page. To me the position being put forward looks like jargon for jargon's sake, with just a tinge of deliberate insult. Jargon is sometimes unavoidable, because "layperson's language" does not have the vocab. But to me, it should be avoided if at all possible because it is almost always going to be unclear in any case where "layperson's language" can also be used. I think what I am saying is also the more common approach on Wikipedia and indeed amongst many editors including academic ones.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, the meaning "just something someone happened to say some day" is exactly want we want (I think) because it is neutral. The only qualification we want is that this is a traditional story. Then we have covered all options. The word "myth" is not neutral the way most people will understand it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral? You mean according to WP:NPOV where we side with published peer reviewed science and religion is WP:FRINGE? In that case, ANYTHING but myth is AGAINST WP:NPOV I think. — raeky  t  12:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to replace technical terminology by baby-speak to appease a few people who believe in an unreasonably literal reading of their religion's sacred book. Creation myth, not creation story, is the correct technical term used by the relevant scholarly community including theologians. Hans Adler 12:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Raeky, Maunus and Hans Adler. There is no good reason to dumb-down the language of the article just to spare the sensitivities of religious adherents. The term "myth" is precisely the word that fits the present meaning, and is used as such by academic experts in the field. In fact, it is used in the title of WPs own article on the topic: Creation myth. The fact that some less well-informed readers may not like the term because of the connotations the word holds for them is immaterial. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally do not understand how a plain clear English word like "story" is "baby speak", nor do I see how "the" right technical word can be defined here. More generally I am not sure why the word is so important to people. The main concern I have with "myth" is practical, i.e. that it is a magnet for wastes of time whenever it has been the word in this article? As a technical term it is not great to begin with in this context because this article, unlike the creation myth article, is comparing two different accounts about the origins of species, the old and the new, and not specifically talking about religions. Anyway, whatever the majority thinks will fine by me in the end. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term is potentially confusing and extremely offensive to people who happen to be religious. Personally, it is not a term that I would employ, especially if I hope to persuade people of the scientific merits of evolution as an explanation of the diversity of life on this planet. It is not a question of dumbing down" or selling out. It is question of being effective in communicating ideas on evolution to the general public. Moreover, if "creation myth" is a "technical term (this is news to me)," all the more to avoid it and other terms such as "creation stories" by just phrasing the sentence in a simple way. Why not state the sentence as follows: "..who believe that evolution is contradicted by explanations and stories found in their respective scriptural writings and..." My two cents. danielkueh (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And what exactly is a "scriptural writing"? Something written in a script as opposed to something written without a script? A scripture that is written down, as opposed to unwritten scriptures?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added my attempt at a compromise wording.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I support "new idea 3." It is the most simple and straightforward. danielkueh (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps indeed "explanations" will not be so quickly accused of being baby speak. I was thinking we should prefer "traditional" over "religious" because the first one covers more?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maunus, the "scriptural writing" bit is already in the text. Not my idea. I agree it could be improved or simplified. danielkueh (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I am ok with either. The term "religious" would be understood by readers to mean "creationism." danielkueh (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The "scriptural writing" phrase was introduced by soundofmusical when he also introduced "creation stories". I think tradition says less because it covers more. Do we know of anyone who has objected to evolution because it is in conflict with a secular tradition?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maunus, I agree. How about this:
 * "While various religions and denominations have reconciled their beliefs with evolution through concepts such as theistic evolution, there are creationists who still believe evolution is contradicted by the stories and explanations found in their religious texts."
 * danielkueh (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that is too narrow since it only includes texts (which I guess can include oral texts if one is sufficiently postmodern about it).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maunus, I think the answer is yes. There are people who argue against evolution in terms of Aristotle and Plato rather than the Bible. (The Socratics invented the argument from design which the ID people still use.) And in reality many people who argue in terms of the Bible are arguing in terms of what they think is "common sense" rather than the Bible as such.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is some merit to using "traditional accounts/explanations" to include the common sense type arguments as well as religious ones.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

To stick my oar back in for a moment - the idea that "creation myth" is a serious, widely accepted "scientific" term - like (say) "oxidisation" is simply not so. The humanities are much fuzzier than the physical sciences, and many of the terms used have perfectly respectable synonyms. "Creation story" is in fact very widely used as a synonym to "creation myth" in serious works on comparative religion. Anyone who thinks I just made this up please "look it up" (as I did)! Having said that - "traditional accounts of the creation" or something to that general effect would at least be an improvement on "myth" - which in this context is really very heavily loaded. Andrew has hit on a valid point that the rest of us had overlooked here, I think. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hans Adler, Maunus and others. First, "story" is just as controversial as "myth" since the term "story" contrasts with "history."  Stories are entertainments we tell children or friends for entertainment.  Creationists believe Genesis 1 - 2 to be a historically reliable account, or simply, history.  If we do not call it that, we are going to displease a lot of creationists, if any of you care about that.  Second, "myth" conveys important information.  A myth is a story that is told because of its social or political functions.  The classification of Genesis as "myth" - which virtually all historians of religion agree on (and it is no more fuzzy than quantum mechanics) is making a positive claim about why this "story" is so important, what makes it meaningful ... it is not just a "story," a fiction or imaginative work or form of entertainment, it manifests a philosophy (within a discourse that works analogically rather than logically e.g. through metaphor and through structured contrasts rather than syllogisms.  I think many people who are ignorant of the humanities make a simple mistake in thinking that the claims of myth are more akin to what used to be called natural philosophy - what would later be called physics and biology - when in fact it is more akin to what used to be called moral philosophy).  For scholars who make such texts their objects of study, "myth" is a far more dignifying term than "story," that is one reason.  The other reason is that the term "myth" conveys more information about why the text is so important, than the term "story." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Myth" only seems perjorative to those people who don't understand what the word "myth" means. I see no reason to placate such people. thx1138 (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. "Myth" is the correct terminology.--Charles (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Like the song says, "you know sometimes words have two meanings." I think just saying other people are ignorant is an unconvincing argument in this case?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to encourage editors to seriously consider avoiding these terms altogether: creation myths, creation stories, etc. First, the point of contention is not whether creation myth is a correct term. It clearly is. The point of contention is whether this term is necessary or effective in communicating ideas from this page. Unfortunately, these terms are unnecessarily offensive. The fact that creation myth may be a technical term used by academics does not detract from that fact. Second, the term specifically targets religious people in Western cultures, particularly monotheists. Unfortunately, there are many skeptics of evolution from around the world and in different cultures, who may or may not be creationists. So the term itself is not broad enough. Third, may I remind editors this is the page of evolution and the focus should be on evolution. I have no problems with people who wish to be blunt with those who don't accept evolution as a fact, but I wonder if this is the avenue for that. Judging by the comments above and the history of it on this talk page, I am skeptical when fellow editors claim that their primary motive for retaining the term "creation myth" is purely for academic reasons. If the term detracts from the "educational function" of this page and turns off naive readers while only appealing to the converted, then what would be the point of working on this article? Finally, I prefer the third definition idea proposed by Maunus above or a variant of it (current term in page). I think it is simple and straightforward. It does not compromise the fact that evolution is a fact and that there will be people who reject it because of their religious beliefs. danielkueh (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Even if the term "creation myth" is "technical" in some social sciences, it is not at all clear that this article is being written in the register of those social sciences, and it is also not clear that it needs special words to get accross the very simple point we are making which is that old ideas had to change when this theory came along. Whether they were written down, religious, or whatever, is not the point. We are not doing a social study of religions or texts?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone who takes offense at "myth" is unlikely to be reading with clear eyes anyway, so there is little point in sweetening the article for their benefit. Encyclopedia articles are meant to be descriptive, not persuasive. I do not see "explanations" as being an adequate substitute for "creation myths." The function of a mythos is not really to explain, nor to offer handy tips about coming to grips with the material world. That is science's job.
 * I do see this (expunging "creation myth") as a dumbing-down of the "Social and cultural responses" section, one small step in the direction of sacrificing accuracy in the hope of making our text palatable to a segment of the audience who is unlikely to be satisfied with anything but major denial of the overall topic. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree "creation myth" should be used in favor of "creation story" for accuracy and precision's sake--the fact that "it could be offensive" should not matter. However, I actually like the current revision better than the previous as far as sentence structure is concerned, and is a good compromise to avoid using either term.  My only addition would be to link the word "explanations" to the creation myth article. Mildly MadTC 14:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I argue that the term creation myth is too specific of a term to capture the wide range of people who dispute evolution. Some people just don't accept evolution for whatever reasons (religious or not), and those reasons, even religious ones, are not necessarily creationist. Creationism, especially in this context and in the Wikipedia article, is specific to the monotheistic religions and other traditional beliefs in Western culture. So I am arguing that the term itself unnecessarily focuses on a belief system of a particular group. danielkueh (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) I am in favour of "creation myth". It is standard usage as Maunus says and, having decided on the title of the eponymous wikipedia article, there is really no need to repeat the discussion here that resulted in the title chosen for that article. Because creation myths can be handed down orally, religion seems a better choice of words than scriptures or scriptural writings. I do however quite like Andrew Lancaster's use of the word "tradition". Perhaps that could be worked in somehow. There are editors from both the sciences and the humanities commenting here (for example I believe Slrubenstein has participated in various "myth" articles on WikiProject Religion) and there can be tecnhical language on both sides, even more so possibly on the science side. In this case I think the language proposed by Maunus is accurate, neutral and comprehensible, without any negative connotations. To some readers it might be unfamiliar, but they can click on the link to read more. That is surely how wikipedia is supposed to work.  Mathsci (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Just to make it clear, I do not think anyone  in this discussion claims to be offended by the wording. It just  is not necessary. The point in context  is just that people ideas had to change. We want  to keep  the flow of  discussion simple and straightforward. Editors who  do not come here may often should take note  of the problems this article has with  the constant demand  for digressions  and complications to  be added - many of which have good justifications, but many of which are just because someone  is interested in something.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If the term creation myth is to be inserted, I would like to suggest that at the very least, it be inserted as an example. Here is what I'm thinking:
 * "......as they believe evolution is contradicted by the explanations (e.g., creation myth) found in their respective religious traditions."
 * danielkueh (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why not "....as they believe evolution is contradicted by older explanations such as traditional creation myths."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Danielkueh makes many reasonable points. Nevertheless - for what it is worth - upon further reflection I am sticking with my view.  Some scholars have called attention to a gulf between the natural sciences and the human sciences, a gulf of ignorance in which experts in one academic field do not know of or understand the findings of another academic field.  This is typically presented as a bad thing and I do not think we should contribute to it.  There are philosophers, historians, sociologists, and others who in their work have referred to Darwin, evolution, or biology.  I am sure that everyone here would agree that in Wikipedia's articles on those scholars, or their books, or fields of study, we should make sure that we present any any generic claims about evolution or the natural world (as distinguished, for example, from Friedrick Nietzche's views of evolution, or Herbert Spencer's views of evolution) in terms that evolutionary biologists consider accurate.  Well, I just think we should follow the same principle here.  I think this is in the spirit of MathSci's comments.  When the relevant experts call various creation myths (and they do not have to be labeled "religious" and they certainly are not limited to Muslims, Christians and Jews) "creation myths" they are doing so because in their analysis these myths were first composed and then circulated not in order to explain (in terms of cause and effect) how the cosmos or world came to be.  There are many college-educated people who still believe that creation myths from Native Americans or Australians are simply "bad" or "primitive" science, i.e. that the people who authored these myths were trying to do the same thing that Darwin and perhaps even Danielkueh do, explain something about the natural world, but, lacking modern scientific methods, their explanation just happens to be wrong.  Anthropologists, historians of religion, and researchers in adjunct fields have accumulated a considerable body of work over the past hundred years showing that this view of creation accounts is wrong.


 * Danielkueh is right that this is an article on evolution and not on creation myths, so I do not think this is the place to review any of that vast body of research. But for me the bottom line is, we should be careful to refer to these creation accounts in an encyclopedic fashion; we should use language that reflects the mainstream findings of academics who study these accounts and definitely should be careful not to contradict the mainstream view.  Whatever language we use, it must be clear that these accounts are not - in the view of scholars - comparable to evolution in the sense of being competing descriptions of natural history or competing theories of the mechanisms at work in natural history.  They are of an altogether different nature.  Calling them "myths" is simply the most parsimonious way to communicate that. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Andrew, that is a reasonable proposition as well. The only problem I see is that people would quibble over whether traditional creation myths are different from modern creation myths. danielkueh (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, those points are very reasonable indeed and I second the sentiment in your last paragraph. danielkueh (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that there is a strong consensus to retain creation myth, while also recognizing the need to be accurate, neutral, etc, here is a suggested revision that I would like to propose:
 * "......as they believe evolution is contradicted by explanations (e.g., creation myth) found in their religious or traditional beliefs or traditional practices ."
 * I would hope that whatever words we come up with, they cover all old fashioned thinking which saw the theory as controversial, and they do not cover MORE. In my opinion, "creation myth" is not a technical term for anything which overlaps very well with this. Creation myths sometimes contain comments relevant to species, but not often very specific enough to say anything about whether they are fixed. For example, the elephant in the room here is obviously the Old Testament, which is what many people nominally believe in, that don't like the theory. But it is not the Old Testament which is the source of arguments. Much more important were the Greek philosophers who invented the explications of nature which had become traditional amongst well educated people. Of course their nominal religion had quite a bit of metamorphosis. (It was their word. See Ovid.) Once gain, my biggest about this article generally is that is full of digressions which come from people's pet interests. On any normal article such things can be redeeming features, but on this article it creates terrible congestion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to remind that there is a long run concern amongst editors of this article to try to avoid the common mixing up of the concepts of abiogenesis and evolution.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I agree that it is a digression, which is why I propose that it be no more than an example. I also modified the proposal to include traditional beliefs as opposed to traditional practices. danielkueh (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "creation myth" is not found in any of the three references (Scott and Matzke 2007; Ross 2005; Salman 2008) cited in that sentence. If this term is to be kept, there has to be at least one reference for it, preferably from a secondary source that is peer-reviewed (e.g., review article). Editors who wish to retain this term should find a notable secondary source that explicitly uses the term "creation myth" in the context of creationists rejecting evolution. As obvious as it may be, it still needs to be verified (WP:V). This is important given that one of the reasons provided for retaining the term "creation myth" is that it is a technical term. Otherwise, the use of this term in the current context qualifies as WP:OR. danielkueh (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of trying to resolve this, I did a quick google scholar search for "creation myth" AND evolution as well as "creation story" AND evolution. I found that the latter term (creation story) provided more hits (6600 vs. 5220), which makes "creation story" slightly more prevalent than "creation myth." I then started to look for specific peer-reviewed references that use the term "creation myth" or "creation story" in the context of affecting an individual's attitude (e.g., rejecting evolution) towards evolution. Here are two promising references. These references are primary because I had trouble finding good and relevant secondary references in journal articles on this topic. Others might have better luck.
 * Effect of a curriculum containing creation stories on attitudes about evolution (primary) (Uses mainly creation story)
 * The Effect of Engaging Prior Learning on Student Attitudes toward Creationism and Evolution (primary) (Uses creation myth and creation story)
 * Based on these two references as well as the hits from Google scholar, "creation story" is an acceptable and commonly used description. It is certainly not "baby speak." As Sounfofmusical correctly pointed out, "creation story" also has one critical advantage. It is not as incendiary of a term as "creation myth."
 * I wish to emphasize the point, that regardless of which term or description is adopted, this article is still about evolution and that evolution is a scientific fact. Softening or hardening a description of a myth that has nothing to do with evolution doesn't change that. danielkueh (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How many of those sources are written by authors who specialize in the study of religion?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * None, they are biology professors. That should not be an issue. danielkueh (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it is an issue. The question is about using academically correct nomenclature in an encyclopedia that is aimed at representing the knowledge of all fields, not just natural sciences. In anycayse your statistical evidence is irrelevant since the frequencies are fairly close there is no statistical reason to use either of the two - the decision has to be made by consensus here, and not by reference to google frequencies. Consensus seems fairly clear at the moment. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Cambridge Dictionary of Human Biology and Evolution has an entry for "Creation Myth", it does not have an entry for "Creation story".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't been following this discussion closely, but I wanted to dispute the assertion that creation myth is incendiary. Jeremiah Curtin was not being incendiary with the title of his book Native American Creation Myths, I would argue. Also, the political myth article (which I created) defines the term as "an ideological explanation for a political phenomenon that is believed by a social group". Jesanj (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maunus, the Oxford English Dictionary does, so what's your point? Look, the point of contention here is not which term is correct. Both are correct (that was the point of the Google stats). The question here is which term is least offensive. That was the reason why this discussion started.
 * At the end of the day, if people really really want this term in, then fine. I'm not going to get in the way. But at the very least, could you or someone please insert an appropriate reference that explicitly uses the term "creation myth" in this particular context. Especially for a topic that is likely to be challenged again and again WP:V#Anything_challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged. In fact, any of the two references I found would do. danielkueh (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason that I cited "The Cambridge Dictionary of Human Biology and Evolution" was to show that the term also has currency in the context of biology and evolutionary theory.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maunus, but I'm not disputing that it does. danielkueh (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And by extension that it is not considered incendiary or pejorative...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maunus, I have already added the reference, which means I am quite satisfied with the outcome. Anyway, when you say that that a word is not considered pejorative or incendiary simply because it is in official usage, that is a non sequitur. The people who are going to be offended are obviously not the ones using it. danielkueh (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes the burden of evidence quite peculiar in a no-true scotsman kind of way. If I show that someone uses the word in a non-pejorative way that is because they are not offended and therefore not representative for the group of people who are offended... Then how are we to determine whether the term is offensive or not... that would rely on negative evidence and the assumption that everybody who do not use it are offended by it. Talk about non-sequiturs.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maunus, come on. You know that the point of contention here is not the intention of the speaker, but the perception of receiver. Suppose I were to demonstrate that a group of people use the term, "colored" to describe people of non-European or mixed ancestry (like they do in South Africa), in a non-pejorative manner, does that mean we should encourage or legitimize the use of this term? Is this the best term to use? Of course not. This is a question of being sensitive. I am sure you are familiar with the APA publication manual. If you have one by your desk, I recommend looking at the section "Guideline 2: Be sensitive to labels." I think that section provides some good advice. I'm just trying to encourage editors to communicate ideas effectively. The term "myth" as it is used in this context to describe a belief system, is not effective precisely because it has negative connotations. And I know you know this. danielkueh (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is easy to find academic publications by established scientists or historians of science which use this terminology in exactly this context. Here for example is a publication from Oxford University Press entitled "Evolution and Religious Creation Myths" by the geneticist Paul Lurquin and the anthropologist Linda Stone. Here's another book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" by the geologist Donald Prothero from Columbia University Press which has a whole chapter on creation myths. Or this book "Evolution: the history of an idea" by the historian of science Peter Bowler published by the University of California Press which uses the same terminology. Mathsci (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mathsci. Again, no one is disputing the accuracy of this term or whether it has been used by academics. For example, the word, "idiot" was used at one time to describe people with severe mental retardation. Does that mean that this is the best term to use? Are there no better substitutes? That is the issue.
 * In any event, I encourage you to insert those references that you found into this article or maybe perhaps replace the one I inserted. danielkueh (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ! I can't believe that this discussion is still going on with you guys making a bloody mountain out of the "myth" molehill! Seriously, dudes, consult the Oxford Dictionaries when in doubt about the meaning of the term | myth: noun 1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events: ancient Celtic myths; (mass noun) the heroes of Greek myth. 2. a widely held but false belief or idea: the belief that evening primrose oil helps to cure eczema is a myth, according to dermatologists. • a fictitious or imaginary person or thing: nobody had ever heard of Simon’s mysterious friend – Anna said he was a myth. • an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing: the book is a scholarly study of the Churchill myth.

Therefore, according to those definitions, there is nothing pejorative about the term "myth", so let's stop this silliness already! — IVAN3MAN (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ivan3man, you must not be reading sense definition 2. If you did, you would see that is says "a widely held but false belief or idea." If that doesn't offend creationists, then I don't know what does. Anyway, the issue right now is inserting an appropriate reference. danielkueh (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it (WP:V#Anything_challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged) applies. We are editors. We summarize secondary sources. We can use English language to its fullest capacity. We don't need specific sources to apply specific words as long as the meaning (material) doesn't change. Jesanj (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Creation myth is asserted to be a technical term and is therefore not supposed to be incendiary. You would agree that it is not used as just any other word. One reference would not hurt. Besides, it is in line with WP:OR and WP:NPOV. danielkueh (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I am perplexed that of all the topics on an evolution page that gets the attention of multiple editors at any one time, it is a term that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Strange. danielkueh (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article has more important issues than this particular word choice. Sequelae of the Genesis creation myth such as baraminology are used to provide "scientific" opposition to evolution, so there is a connection, if a tenuous one. __ 68.116.168.154 (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Danielkueh: "If that doesn't offend creationists, then I don't know what does."
 * So what? Unless those creationists can provide concrete evidence to support their beliefs, then it is "a widely held but false belief or idea" – call a spade a bloody shovel! Furthermore, Wikipedia is read by adults, not by two-year-old toddlers who throw a tantrum when older siblings tell them that there is no such thing as Father Christmas. — IVAN3MAN (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect your last statement on "two-year-old toddlers" is representative of the motives of many of the editors who feel strongly for "creation myth" to be used. In that regard, it proves a concern that I raised earlier whether we are here to write an informative piece that has educational value or are we just here to "stick it to them." Sigh. danielkueh (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to give it a rest, you've already very likely violated WP:3RR and might be facing a ban, consensus is PRETTY DAMN CLEAR that the ORIGINAL wording is where people want it. So lets just make this damn conversation end and jump to a simple damn straw poll to see where everyone is at.
 * Raeky, what are you blabbering about? The matter is closed. The term is already in the article. There is a even a reference for it now. Besides, I haven't exceeded the 3 Rs. danielkueh (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is about to be banned, or even blocked here. Daniel did revert, but he probably didn't realize that his progressive changes were in fact reversions. I am pleased to assumed good faith here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Three recent edit summaries were marked as "undid revision" and appear to have been made with the "undo" button. Mathsci (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to make my opinions on this sound too serious, but honestly there is a lot of hyperbole in the case being made for the TWO words creation and myth. I would like to request that we avoid trying to imply that the concerns with these words are just ignorance or irrational political correctness? "Creation myth" has a meaning, yes. This does not need proving, so people should stop posting proofs. The term refers to myths about CREATION. This article is about EVOLUTION, not abiogenesis. Religion (pre-Darwin at least) had very little to say concerning whether species were fixed. It was Platonic-Aristotelian philosophy, assimilated into the education of Christian Europe, which contained the old model of fixed species that went out the door. I do not think fixed species are mentioned in any religion as such. All we need this article to say is that people were upset by the new idea because it was in conflict with what they had learned. If we are forced to insert the "creation myth" wording it will be in my opinion a deliberate effort to say more than that. It will obviously be intended to imply that Christianity and Science are incompatible. That may be so, but this article does not need extra digressions. So my concern is purely practical, as an editor that has been spending time trying to handle all the pet digressions of this article lately. It is not political correctness, and not ignorance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the main contributors to this article. Tim Vickers, has become less active lately and that might be a contributing factor to the recent instability of the article, which must be disconcerting and exasperating for regular editors. The rewriting of the history section was successful and involved far more than the phrasing of just part of one sentence. I would agree that the edit-warring/debate over this particular point has become a storm in a teacup about a minor issue of terminology. Mathsci (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I have said all I need to say about this issue and I suspect I might have offended a great many of my fellow editors in the process. For that, I apologize.
 * Speaking candidly, I suspect the main reason underlying many of the passions for the term "creation myth" has little to do with the term being accurate or technical. Instead, I suspect it has more to do with the fear that if we changed a word for the sake of politeness, political correctness, or effectiveness in communicating ideas, it might be seen as "capitulating" to the "other side" or perhaps setting a dangerous precedent that could potentially compromise the integrity of this entire article in the future. I want to reassure all editors that such concerns are misplaced and that I am on your side when it comes to protecting this article from creationist propaganda. That said, my concern is primarily on the educational utility of this article. When we used terms such as "myth," it does affect the credibility of this page. Just take a look at the page ratings at the bottom of this article. It does poorly on "trustworthy" and "objective." Granted, this may not be the best assessment tool, but the point is that we are not doing a good job communicating the ideas of this page effectively. In fact, we may potentially be alienating "naive readers (people who have yet to make up their minds)" instead of informing them. As a scientist, I consider such as an effect to be disastrous. Especially on a topic as important as evolution.
 * So even though I accept the current consensus, I hope editors will at least be cognizant that the main focus of this article is not the culture wars, but evolution. danielkueh (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Straw Poll
Do you support restoration of the original language as found in edit? " there are creationists who believe that evolution is contradicted by the creation myths found in their religions and who raise various objections to evolution."
 * Support — raeky  t  02:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -  He  iro  02:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Jesanj (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Mathsci (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * support ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support IVAN3MAN (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support --Charles (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is just using the evolution article to make a point which has nothing to do with science. The theory of evolution is not about creation, and creation myths are not about the origin of species. Confusing of abiogenesis with evolution is actually a common deliberate strategy of the ID movement, and so quite obviously not something we can argue to help clarity. The evolution article has a more general problem, and needs less quirky point making. Editors droping by to argue for more emphasis of one isolated thing they are interested in should be looking at the article as a whole.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that creationists do not object to evolution because it conflicts with their creation myths? Are you suggesting that the creation myth of the Bible does not attempt to explain speciation? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. And I also claim this article should not be a place to summarize the pros and cons of that position. But where does the Bible reflect upon whether species are fixed? It is at least good to see you admit that what we are really talking about is the Bible, and not creation myths in general. If we are going to say the controversy was about conflict between the theory and standard Christian beliefs (which included a Platonic-Aristotelian idea about fixed species) then that would be more accurate than what is being proposed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is arguing that the article should summarise pro and cons? Are you suggesting that the social consequences should not mention religious objections at all? I think you are arguing something that nobody else is even talking about.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, "religious objections" would be more accurate because a religion is more than its myths. Please read the post you just replied to. This is just a question of best wording, and I just wanted to explain my position, because it is apparently misunderstood.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which creation myths do not describe how various species came into being? The myths often also mention for what purpose certain species arose, or were given to humanity. In many common English translations of the book of Genesis, the phrase "according to its own kind" appears several times, with reference to how species came to be. It is not necessary for the myth to mention immutable species, for the myth to be relevant in opposition to a scientific view of speciation. Also see baraminology as mentioned above.
 * The abiogenesis/evolution confusion is only peripheral to this discussion, in my view. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The question of how species as such originally came into being is not the question of evolution. Just to point to the obvious once more, the above post, mentions "the myths" but is clearly referring specifically to Christianity as it has been interpreted in recent centuries (arguably the words fit nothing else at all). A point is being made by using words other than the ones between the lines. This article does not need that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, but in the context of "Social and cultural responses" the question is very much about species coming into being according to literal interpretations of a creation myth, and how that stands in opposition to evolutionary views of speciation. The account found in Genesis happens to be the myth that stands behind the noisiest response to evolution today. Building the web calls for giving creation myth a link here. It does make sense to mention it in passing, and let the interested reader visit the other links in the section hatnote. Simple exposition and linking, no need to read between any lines. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just want to support a point Just Plain Bill made above: creation myths are not (well, none of the ones I know of through the academic literature) generally about the creation of life. They are largely accounts of how the current order came to be.  Genesis is about the differentiation of the universe into, among other things, birds (living things in the atmosphere), plants and animals (living things on the lithosphere) and fish (living things in the hydrosphere.  Amerindian creation myths are often accounts of the origins of specific species of animals, explanations of their distinctive traits, how they relate to one another etc. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)@Just plain Bill: I think the culture wars have also created a lot of myths, and I am not sure we should be propagating them in this way of assuming them between the lines without attribution or comment. If someone would openly argue that we should write directly into the article that (a) the Bible says something clear about evolution, (b) that evolution is about "creation", (c) that all creation myths "describe how species came into being", I bet none of these proposals would get consensus, because if we were to really deal with the "social science" being implied here, this is at the very least a much bigger question and way off track for this article. What people are voting for here is to score a quiet point in the culture wars between the lines of Wikipedia. I'd rather score points in the open. The theory of evolution does not need this help.
 * @Slrubenstein. Evolution is not about what started the ball rolling, but about how it rolls. Many myths contain stories where the species metamorphize, and are related to each other by blood. I know of no creation myth which says that creation set species which are fixed? I know of only one occasion this idea came into being, and it was in Greek philosophy. This was integrated into the religion of the educated in Europe, but calling it religious in any simple sense, as per a "creation myth", is a whole can of worms.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So you retract your objection on the grounds that evolution is not about abiogenisis. I am glad to see you recognize that creation myths are not about abiogenisis. Now that you have retracted your point, I guess we are in agreement. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but I hope so. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any relevance of straw men (a), (b), or (c) to this discussion. In particular, the relevant section here makes no claims about all myths. It does say "there are creationists who raise various objections to evolution as they believe evolution is contradicted by explanations (e.g., creation myths) found in their religious beliefs."
 * One such objection comes straight from the Kitzmiller ruling:
 * Phillip Johnson [Developer of ID's "Wedge Strategy"] states that the “Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end."
 * The Genesis creation narrative is one of many creation myths. Snide accusations of culture warring aside, it happens to be the myth that applies here. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Just plain Bill. Sorry if I sounded snide. That was no my intention. I see being influenced by modern culture wars as no insult. We all are, and it is always tricky to avoid anachronisms. As mentioned below, this job is especially difficult because part of the priority is to not digress too much. Second point: the christian religion, or some factions, has some complex and changing issues with evolution. Personally I think saying it is all about the Genesis narrative is not really capturing what actually happened. A religion is more than a sacred book. Fact is that in early modern times scientists were coming up with what they thought of as scientific explanations of the Bible as history, and the border between these and faith is hard to point to. What you are arguing is that bibilical literalism was the main issue. I think this is debatable, and if something is debatable we do not normally just assume it is certain. OTOH, I am not sure we need to fit discussion of such a debate into this article.
 * BTW, you are quoting from the wrong edit. The one being proposed, and which you voted for, is a bit different. But your point about it being couched in words to make it less problematic is also not wrong, and the edit is acceptable. I have just wanted to make sure the concerns are clear to editors who came here to vote on this issue.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I did grab the current revision, which is not too far from the one being voted on (although I still think "explanations" is suboptimal.) Finding a compact accurate synopsis, particularly one that is verifiable, will not be easy. The other facets of the social and cultural response, as mentioned below, do need better representation in this section, even as the trimming and expansion continues. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Hans Adler 12:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; Scientizzle 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Doc  Tropics  16:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * weak support Mostly supporting this because the most applicable link on wikipedia is creation myth. I feel as though the tone of the sentence that creates is perhaps a little off from what would be ideal.  i kan reed (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * support - Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Undecided - I would like to point debaters to the following review article Pennock, R. T. (2003). Creationism and intelligent design. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 4:143–163 - the author refers to "religion’s creation story". These papers,, on intelligent design in "Trends in Ecology and Evolution" could aid this debate. Perhaps this section could be improved through larger reference to scientific beliefs? For example, the following articles , and content within the talk by Neil Tyson  could add to the context of this section. There was a difference between the Scope's trial and the McLean creation-science trial in the way that the arguments were presented. In the Scopes trial the argument was made that science and religion were distinct forms of knowledge, but they were complimentary, whereas the McLean trial sought monopoly over scientific knowledge. The relationship between science and religion has been argued in different ways. I think there is a bigger story here and we shouldn't focus heavily on the tension around Christian theology. In ecology, for example, there is wider recognition of traditional ecological knowledge (e.g., ). Evolution is a bit different, because we don't have the same kind of traditional reference to the community of knowledge that you might expect in reference to ecological matters. There are some papers that discuss indigenous developments in evolutionary thought (e.g., ). John Avise discusses pre-literate people of oral traditions that can distinguish species with vernacular names that closely match the phylogenetic nomenclature of western trained taxonomists. David Sloan Wilson's book Darwin's Cathedral looks at religion as a well-source of information on evolution as providing a social advantage to church members and evolves as the sects of yesterday became the religions of today. The evolution of religion and culture is in itself a social and cultural response. The title of this section is "Social and cultural responses" - not "Evolution v. religion" as it seems to be doing. If it is about social and cultural responses - why not discuss other issues, such as Darwin's sacred cause and the argument that he wanted to abolish slavery? Expanding the context (not the length!) and brining in new sources of information might help to calm the tension on this matter.Thompsma (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * These are great points. I agree completely that the section should do a better job of showing the variety of effects that the evolution has had in culture and society: It should basically treat the question of how has society tried to integrate evolutionary theory into its own ways of working (e.g. social darwinism, scientific racism, ) and how have people (at diffeent places and times not just the american midwest between 1960 and now) accomodated (or not) existing beliefs to the theory of evolution (e.g. Henri Bergson's theological darwinism, intelligent design, soviet Lysenkoism, etc.).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes...I too was thinking of Lysenkoism and the eugenics programs as well. This section should either be renamed to Creationists objections, which seems unimportant in my mind - or move onto the actual topic of the heading "Social and cultural response". I think this may be the source of Andrew Lancaster's concerns.Thompsma (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This article "Mind the gap: did Darwin avoid publishing his theory for many years?" by historian John van Wyhe raises some important context on this matter as well. It has long been suggested that Darwin hesitated and deferred on publishing the Origin because he feared the social and religious backlash. van Wyhe provides a very strong argument suggesting that this has been over hyped. Kevin Padian (who appeared as a witness paleontologist in the Dover school board trial that ruled against Behe's ID efforts ) agrees with this conclusion and reveals other myths about Darwin ; since we are on the topic about myth. However, Darwin states in the Descent of Man that he never intended to publish the Origin was waiting for the right climate.. This ties into the social and cultural responses debate. I wonder if this myth about Darwin fearing religious backlash has landed a false ear to this topic? Myths continue serve an important function in the evolution of human psychology and social evolution. They are in our cognitive system of belief - Jung called it the collective unconscious, and it is certainly woven into and regularly extracted out of the collective scientific enterprise with reason, logic, and evidence to the contrary.Thompsma (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually my biggest concern is that nearly every subject that gets discussed on this talk page turns into a proposal for expansions and digressions. The article is already too big, and has too many digressions. I would not mind a proper discussion of the complex social reaction to evolution, but honestly I think it has to be pushed out to the specialist articles. Remember, this article has a tonne of daughter articles. So the challenge, SHOULD be to find a FEW words which cover a lot, but do not send readers into a biased direction.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Thompsma makes great points, and i appreciate his calling attention to other current research. I think the general spirit - if I understand it correctly - of moving this article (or at least, elements of it) away from being the result of negotiations among the diverse views of editors, to the result of research on a more diverse and inclusive body of current scholarly literature, is important.  In that spirit I'd like to mention Atran, Scott and D. Medin's (2008) The Native Mind and the Cultural Construction of Nature,  Cambridge: MIT Press. which argues that the average non-literate forest-dweller not only knows more species of plants and animals in her environment than the average university educated American, she has higher quality knowledge (N.B. this is a comparison of cultures, and by implication of contrasting systems of education, not a comparison of "indigenous knowledge" and "Western knowledge").


 * But I appreciate Andrew Lancaster's point. SO: (1) As a straw poll on the original question, which is about the wording of one sentence, I stand by my initial position.  I also think that we pretty much have consensus on the wording of this sentence and can move on.  (2) And I do think we should start another thread to discuss Thompsma's suggestions for reframing and reorienting the sections of our article that deal with either contrasting or competing representations of nature.  (3) I would suggest that instead of a generic section on the clash between evolution and creationism, we have a section that limits itself to major court cases and legislative battles - this would give the section clear limits; it would be clear what the relevant reliable sources would be; and there is no question as to the significance.  (4) Finally - I would recommend a general strategy I and others have used in these situations: work on a linked article (one that would draw on the sources Thompsma mentions, whatever the article be called) until it is relatively stable first, and then figure out how to summarize it in a small section of this article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We obviously have our winning sentence for now. Several editors have expressed interest in looking at the history section overall, which is presumably something we can do in a new section. As always, I'd remind everyone we want to be careful about digressions and expansions. I know, that is difficult!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion
So with the above consensus, can someone make this reversion back to the original language? I'd perfer not to do it myself after a near-edit war to restore it before the poll based on the consensus... — raeky  t  07:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought the whole point of a "straw poll" is precisely not to do anything. danielkueh (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Straw Polls are "non-binding", but that is not synonymous with "no action". In this case the results of the poll were clear and the appropriate action was obvious, so I've restored the long-standing version that we had when this discussion started; that was the whole point of the straw poll. Doc  Tropics  14:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to propose that we change it to a wording that includes both religious and non-religious traditional explanations and the word creation myths.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can your suggestion be incorporated into the new section below? Doc  Tropics  15:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)