Talk:Evolution/Archive 61

Compromise
In an attempt to bring us together, I have taken the strong points in Joannamasel's proposal and incorporate this with my proposal:


 * To clarify my position. Apology accepted, but the gender thing is really not a deal for me. The condescending tone ("Nothing personal, but clearly you do not understand what an adaptation is and yet you want to write and argue a lead to this article on evolution? In all kindness (I would advise the same to my students), I suggest you spend a bit of time learning about adaptation and I will refrain from providing modern literature citations for this point and will leave it to you to find your way.") is objectionable, but is not my reason for leaving.
 * What is a deal is the endless citations of marginal relevance and/or out of context. To pick only a single example, I used the word "adaptation" while citing the definition of "adaptation" as process given and referenced in the main article.

"# Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats. "


 * Thompsa cited back the quite distinct definition of "adaptive traits" as though that were the one I had cited, and said that that my posts were "inconsistent with and cannot be backed up by the facts (as I've demonstrated in several 'check-mate' posts above)." I have no interest in spending huge amounts of time verifying each and every citation when most of them are out of context and/or of peripheral relevance to the point at hand. With this volume-based method of discussion, the "winner" is the one willing to spend the largest amount of time. I am not willing to do so. Verifiability should involve the selection of highly relevant sources to the precise point under discussion, not a torrent of peripheral material. I have spent quite enough time checking out citations, only to find them completely irrelevant to the point under discussion.


 * The inconsistent component was in reference to natural selection that was being defined as a numerical superiority of traits. I got frustrated by statements that had me running in circles: Joannamasel states: 1) "The sentence actually explains natural selection in full", 2) "The sentence is not a definition." No apology for the confusion this generated? This was followed by comments such as: "It says that "Darwin realized that..." followed by a logically necessary truth. It makes no causal statement about what is being selected for. Such causal statements are philosophically problematic". First, the sentence is not logical (as claviclehorn has agreed above) and then after making a statement on logic this follows with your claim that causal statements are philosophically problematic. The foundation of science, including Darwinian evolution, is built on causal relations - they are not philosophically problematic at all, but the very things scientists strive to identify. Natural selection describes not just the correlation or covariance between trait selection and adaptation, but a causal relation between the two.
 * Now you provide the citation to Dobzhansky - which would have been helpful, but it still contradicts how you have defined (explained, or alluded to) adaptation. Your sentence says that "Natural selection can cause adaptation of a population to its environment", which is not what Dobzhansky says. Dobzhansky's definition talks about an organism - not a population - your version is inconsistent with the cited material. danielkueh gave a citation from Futuyma that seems to support your definition, but upon further investigation into his textbook it seems unlikely - Futuyma states equivocally that the evolution of adaptations can only be generated by selection acting on organisms (see above). A definition for population level adaptation would be highly unusual and is an advanced level concept. It would require that you maintain a consistent reference to the same level. Your sentence states that adaptation for a population (singular form) through the evolution of traits (plural). Hence, the sentence claims a population level adaptation through the selection of traits within that population. However, multilevel adaptation would require multiple populations with population level traits - your definition is 'sorta' presenting what has been termed naive group selection (of a distorted kind).
 * You claim that I am providing "a torrent of peripheral material". The material I cite conforms with SOURCE. In the section on "Another attempt" I give four citations - one to Gould and Vrba's (1982) paper on exaptation (one of the most highly cited papers on adaptation), one to Kevin Padian's paper on teaching evolution, a third to a paper by Dobzhansky on adaptive traits, and a fourth on the development of butterfly spots that discusses the modularity of traits. I refer to Futuyma's textbook - but to follow up on comments by danielkueh. Is this what you call peripheral? Non-peer reviewed web sites, blogs, and obscure news articles are peripheral, not the content I provide above. Moreover, you are not required to read it if you don't want.Thompsma (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If I continue to spend time on wikipedia, I can make more of a difference with my limited time on other articles. Since I started editing evolution, I have almost entirely stopped editing anything else. I may or may not continue to watch this page, but from this point I will largely just vote support or oppose to various changes, and briefly give my reasons if necessary. If those reasons are not addressed, I will not add further to the commentary, just stick to my vote.
 * As for the proposed compromise text given below, I oppose. I support my own last proposal as ready to go as-is. My reasons for opposition, are as follows, some of which I have stated before, but have not, despite a seemingly endless stream of posts, been answered yet.
 * "I support my own last proposal" - unwilling to compromise or follow up on the honest and substantiated objections I have raised?Thompsma (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no transition from evolution in general to evolution by natural selection as a special case. For a naive reader starting from the top, the flow makes it sound, at that point in the passage, like all evolution is by natural selection.
 * I am fine with moving sentences about to address this, but the paragraph clearly states that "Heritable traits can change within populations through mechanisms other than natural selection,"Thompsma (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't like the word "recurrent", to "recur" is usually to appear, to leave and to come back.
 * OK - remove it.Thompsma (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Natural selection is formulated on" is awkward grammatically, and not correct: the 3 premises lead to evolution by natural selection, not natural selection in isolation.
 * I'm OK with this change, but think the reasoning for rejection is flawed.


 * As mentioned already, "adaptations" should read "adaptive traits" for consistency with the definitions used in the main article.
 * OK.Thompsma (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The link to fitness (biology) implies a numeric definition for the term, which is not compatible with the meaning of the text.
 * My understanding is that fitness has multiple meanings in biology, the one I used on terms of the heritable phenotype seemingly fitted for survival and the other in terms of differential rates of survival and reproduction. However, the fitness (biology) article only provides the numeric definition - so ok.Thompsma (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Compete and cooperate" is unnecessary and also incorrect as a non-exclusive list.
 * Other than adding "compete and cooperate", the last sentence is redundant and should be removed on those grounds.
 * I am fine with a rewrite of these last two sentences to describe fitness and adaptations. This is where the main component of our dispute rests.Thompsma (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am out of here. The existing lead is adequate if too long, so if there is no agreement for change, I don't care all that much anyway. Joannamasel (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The existing lead is not adequate - we have already been down that road and multiple contributors have agreed that this is so.Thompsma (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is my last ditch attempt to take into consideration all of Joannamasel's concerns. I will also take a break from this article to let things settle down for a while.Thompsma (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think Joanna's version was much better, would support that version. I echo her claim about peripheral references. The fact that a reference fulfills the criteria for wikipedia does not make it a useful reference for the topic. For topics that have been discussed as much as evolution, you can pretty much always find at least some sources for any possible aspect of the idea. The main problem with topics like this finding the general gist from the whole of the literature. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't support any changes to the version that achieved broad consensus above. I think the discussion should now proceed to discuss how to improve the content of the article. Since the lead has to summarize the article it makes little sense to try to construct a lead without taking into account what we want the article to look like. It makes less sense to me to try to inflate the definitory paragraph we agreed on into a full lead. If we do that that would mean that the article should only include the topics mentioned in that paragraph. You are going about this in an odd manner I feel.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I second Maunus's suggestion. If we are to retain the FA status of this article, we have to comply with WP:MOS and WP:LEAD. danielkueh (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Here is what I see:
 * Joanna's version was not much better - it contained several errors. I think ·ʍaunus prefers style over content, I prefer content over style.
 * There is a lot of tension in here and I think it is partly due to the length of Thompsma's posts, which does not bother me, but distresses others.
 * I reject the version that achieved broad consensus above for the reasons that Thompsma outlined - it equated natural selection with numerical superiority. That is a fatal flaw and it must be rejected on those grounds alone.
 * I disagree with Kim van der Linde and Joannamasel's comments about "peripheral references" - it is an unsubstantiated claim. Thompsma's references are not peripheral - if Thompsma were citing stuff from newspapers, or ID propaganda - I would agree with that critique. This critique seems more spiteful than impartial.
 * Thompsma is correct about Joanna's error on adaptation - a population level adaptation is not in line with the generally accepted definition, the sentence was worded oddly, and I think Thompsma is correct about the multi-level perspective.
 * I notice in Joanna's version the following sentence: "Heritable traits change within populations due to mechanisms such as mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection." - contains a link to microevolution, but where is the link to macroevolution? It seems to me that Thompsma tried to separate natural selection from this because he wanted to balance micro- from macro-evolution and this is apparently what he has done in this latest proposal with the following: including - but not limited to.
 * There is a lot of blame to go around here for the failure I see with this article. It is an article about evolution and very little of that actually seems to be going on here. I spent a while reading through the history of debate in here and it seems that Thompsma has been trying for a long time to correct the gene-centered focus that has ratcheted itself throughout the article. Others agreed with this sentiment and they left because they could not cross this hurdle. Thompsma has been persistent and I commend that effort.
 * The reason Thompsma's posts don't bother me is because I think that the broad opposition in here is part of the problem that has lead to Thompsma's frustration. Many continue to suggests that the current lead is sufficient, while a few others have disagreed with this and dropped out because their ideas were neglected. I see a pattern of an up hill battle and Thompsma has been on the losing side, despite the merit in his proposals. This article is missing the key themes in evolution and I think the proposal covers them adequately. This article does not sufficiently describe geology, evolutionary trees, homology, and many other key evolutionary concepts. Hence, I disagree with ·ʍaunus's post below that the lead is supposed to give a broad overview of the article - this is a chicken and egg problem. Which comes first? Thompsma is starting with the lead and why not? This article is currently about molecular evolution, it is not about evolution in the broad sense. I suggest that others reconsider this proposal and put aside your prejudice. Thompsma addressed each of Joannamasel's concerns in this proposal - so I don't see what the problem is?Claviclehorn (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would make two slight changes:


 * 1) "Evolutionary biologists identify multiple natural causes for the changes observed over time in heritable traits within populations over time, including - but not limited to - mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection."
 * 2) From: The theory of evolution by means of natural selection was first proposed by Charles Darwin. To: "Charles Darwin was among the first to propose a theory of evolution by means of natural selection."
 * The 2nd change may help to further address one of Joanna's valid points on the "transition from evolution in general to evolution by natural selection as a special case". - Otherwise this is a great lead proposal!!Claviclehorn (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - in line with the Claviclehorn's suggestions, plus one minor change from adaptations of traits, to adaptive traits as per Joanna's suggestion.Thompsma (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead proposal straw poll
I think we should end this debate. I therefore propose we replace the lead with the following proposal:


 * Evolution is any change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. The evolutionary process gives rise to diversity at every level of organization, including molecules, cells, organisms and species.


 * Heritable traits change within populations due to mechanisms such as mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection. The theory of evolution by means of natural selection was first proposed by Charles Darwin. Evolution by natural selection is a consequence of three widely accepted premises: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) traits are heritable. Heritability is a measure of how reliably a trait is transmitted or correlated from parent to offspring. Natural selection can cause adaptation of a population to its environment, through the evolution of traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform. 


 * Populations can split into two or more subpopulations and then evolve in divergent directions, and this can lead to speciation. The repeated process of speciation is the process by which all known life forms have evolved from a common ancestor.


 * Since Darwin, the theory of evolution has been expanded, refined and rigorously tested, and scientists today overwhelmingly accept evolution as a fact. Understanding the patterns and processes of evolution are active areas of current research in evolutionary biology.

Support

 * 1) Support, with caveat for individual. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I would probably also suggest some tweaks, but I like the idea of a shorter lead. I do not really follow the appeal to MOS. MOS does not say exactly anything on this but if you look around WP the lead of this article is unusually long and detailed. A shorter version would not be demanded by MOS in my opinion. I also do not see much reason to appeal to FA or GA standards as a separate thing to normal standards, ever, because if these are in conflict with other standards then what is the point of them to begin with? OTOH I never noticed that FA articles have incredibly long ledes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be unfamiliar with the WP:MOS and WP:LEAD and the FA and GA criteria. All FA's have leads of a length proportionate to the length of the article body, and they adequately summarise the article. Examples: Charles Darwin, Homo Floresiensis, Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. Leads of shorter articles such as Blue whale have shorter leads, but they still summarise the article or they woulnd't be an FA. FA and GA standards never conflict with "normal standards" they simply require a higher degree of compliance with the standards than an article that is not being peer-reviewed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not want to make a big point out of this, but just for completeness sake I register that I have read the response and still think my post above represents my considered opinion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * oppose. This does not work as a lead per WP:LEAD. It is basically an inflated version of the proposal for the first efinitory paragraph that achieved wide consensus. If this goes up the article will be instantly demoted to B-class (even GA class requires compliance with WP:LEAD)and it will likely get a tag noting that the lead is to short and does not adequately summarize the article. We need to go back to the proposal for the definitory paragraph and then work out the rest of the lead based on the contents of the article which it must summarise.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For the same reasons provided by Maunus. danielkueh (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article is already a problem, so ·ʍaunus's concern about demotion is kinda mute. My reason for opposition is that this lead reads like a laundry list and looks like a bare skeleton.Claviclehorn (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason for rewriting the lead was an attempt to allow it to maintain FA status. Adopting a lead that is not in line with the criteria seems counterproductive to that objective so no I don't think the point is moot. I agree that it also doesn't work as a lead on account of its skeletal prose. The lead needs much more flesh, the basics of WP:LEAD is that it should be able to stand a lone as a summary of the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * However, this article is about molecular evolution, we need a summary of an article on evolution. Where is that article? Why not start with the lead and then write an article about evolution?Claviclehorn (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That can be done as well, but the result is the same: We need to start by finding out what we want to include in that article, because that is what should be summarised in the lead.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this not what Thompsma's version achieves above? We had have broad consensus on the topics, the wording was the issue. The wording issues were addressed.Claviclehorn (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I think the best proposal so far is Thompsma's propsal in the section "Moving along" It includes the definitory paragraph and then goes into greater detail about the process of macro evolution and the history of evolutionary thought. Perhaps by adding a section describing the microevolutionary perspective in some more detail introducing some of the interesting concepts from evo-devo and epigenetics etc would be what is required for it to be a full summarry of the lead.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. For reason of "skeletal prose".Thompsma (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I will work harder to refrain from posting too much information in here and will take longer breaks. However, in fairness the poll should be on the two competing proposals as follows:

Support for proposal on the left

 * Support.Thompsma (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support.Claviclehorn (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. 1) Why make Darwin "among the first" rather than simply "first"? If the issue is Wallace, either name him, or say that Darwin was the first to "formulate" or "realize" rather than "propose", if propose means publication. 2) The sentence "Natural selection can..." is extremely long and grammatically awkward. 3) Fitness in the sense implied by the link is not a "measure", it is a propensity, so that sentence is incorrect. Propensities cannot be definitively measured. 4) Also fitness, especially if estimated through measurements, tends to apply only to the next generation, as future generations after that become increasingly intractable. 5) "Evolutionary biology" is the science not simply "evolution", this error occurs 3 times. 6) "The means to test" seems to suggest, incorrectly, Popper-like falsification, which is extraordinarily difficult to apply to evolutionary biology, which is better thought of as a research programme. 7) We do not have a "comprehensive explanation for the existence of all biological phenomena", this is unsupported hubris.Joannamasel (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose This proposal replaces the proposal that garnered broad support for a version that looks suspiciously like one of Thompsma's earlier versions that was criticized on several accounts. It doesn't constitute a proper summary of the article. Thompsma's version in the section "Moving along" is much better as a Lead, but also requires more collaborative work before it can be acccepted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be suspicious - I wrote it, it has my name on top of it, and so of course it looks like one that I provided earlier with adjustments to accommodate criticisms raised by others. I added clavicalhorn's name to the top - because she assisted in the changes and supported it.Thompsma (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In sequential response to Joannamasel's list above:


 * 1) Why make Darwin "among the first" rather than simply "first"?" - not a critical issue, I'm ok with formulate. changed
 * Once you have "formulate" then Darwin is first not among the first. Joannamasel (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Easily fixed: "Natural selection is formulated on the consequence of three premises of biological populations, including 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) traits are heritable. Natural selection can lead to adaptive traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform." changed
 * This should read "evolution by natural selection". "Natural selection" alone is 2) only.Joannamasel (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Natural selection is 1-3 - that is the definition! The definition linked to prior was from Richard Lewontin - where it states: "Darwin's scheme embodies three principles...These three principles embody the principle of evolution by natural selection." It does not say, natural selection is only item 2. This is also what Gould has called the "syllogistic core" of natural selection - it has three parts (see footnote on page 125).Claviclehorn (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You confuse the process of natural selection (stage 2) with evolution by means of natural selection (stages 1 to 3). Natural selection always occurs, whether the traits are heritable or not and whether it has an effect in the next generation or not. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so Kim. Here is another example from "Natural selection in the wild" By John A. Endler - who defines natural selection as a process (so Claviclehorn is not confused at all) and states that all three conditions (same as those outlined herein) "are necessary and sufficient for the process of natural selection to occur". Mayr, states that natural selection is a 2-part process that requires "both": 1) production of variation and 2) non-random elimination of heritable phenotypes. Hence, natural selection is not just stage 2 according to Mayr, Gould, and Endler.Thompsma (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously, you are confused as well. Yes, it will be easy enough to find 100's of articles who use Natural Selection as a convenient short-cut to mean Evolution by Means of Natural Selection. It is an often made error by many. You are not alone. And no, it is NOT the same. Check the work of Russell Lande for some good stuff, and I think futuyma makes the same point. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying Mayr, Gould, Endler, claviclehorn, and I are confused or that we are not reading the text correctly? Here are two quotes, the first from George Simpson, the second from Lande:


 * "The actual selection-that is, the determination of which individuals have more or fewer offspring that survive to breed in their turn-is an interaction between environment in the broadest sense, and the population, in all its individuals throughout their complete ontogenies."(GG Simpson, 1964)
 * "Natural selection acts on phenotypes, regardless of their genetic basis, and produces immediate phenotypic effects within a generation that can be measured without recourse to principles of heredity or evolution. In contrast, evolutionary repsonse to selection, the genetic change that occurs from one generation to the next, does depend on genetic variation." (Lande & Anrold, 1983)
 * You claim that the process of NS means only: 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction. This contradicts some very prominent authors (I'm not providing 100's of articles by the way, Endler, Mahr, and Gould are some of the top picks on this topic). Endler, in particular, explicitly states that all three conditions embody natural selection. Simpson's definition pivots on "determination" through interaction and that is not captured in item 2. Lande (your choice) has an explicit statement "without recourse to principles of heredity or evolution" - so he is talking about phenotypic plasticity or 'reaction norm'. However, once again - the author you have selected says that natural selection acts on phenotypes, this is not the variation component as listed in 2, it has more to do with item 1 - the survival bit where the phenotypes are being acted upon. The third part excluding heritability is debatable (e.g., ). There is no confusion here - perhaps a few different interpretations, but broadly the consensus from the specific literature from notable evolutionary biologists seems to suggest that all three components do embody natural selection. Natural selection is a difference in rates of survival or reproduction, but in order for that to happen you need heritability and superfecundity. We have all agreed that "Evolution is any change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations" - natural selection (three parts) is the mechanism (remove one part and it fails) that causes evolution.Thompsma (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but your interpretation of Lande is incorrect. He explicitly separates the process of natural selection from the evolutionary effects of natural selection. He first states: "Natural selection acts on phenotypes, regardless of their genetic basis,". That cannot be read anything else than that genetics are unimportant for natural selection as a process. Futuyma discusses this in more detail at page 251 (first edition), where he starts with Endler's definition, but ends with:
 * "We will adopt the position taken by those (e.g Lande & Arnold, 1983) who define selection among individual organisms as a consistent difference in fitness among phenotypes. Whether or not this variation in fitness alters the frequencies of genotypes in subsequent generations depends on whether and how the phenotypes are inherited-but that determines the response to selection, not the process of selection itself." (emphasis in original)
 * The difference that you see is between people studying the results of the response to selection who will use natural selection as a shortcut (like Gould and Endler) versus people studying the process itself (like Lande and others), who will carefully distinguish between the process and the response. Futuyma makes this explicit in the sentence following the previous quite:
 * "Although we adopt the phenotypic perspective, we will almost always discuss natural selection among heritable phenotypes because selection seldom has a lasting evolutionary effect unless there is inheritance."
 * He then adds:
 * "Notice, finally, that according to our definition, natural selection exists whenever there is variation in fitness."
 * Here again, he makes the same case. Not all fitness differences are heritable, but he makes explicit that natural selection always occurs when there are fitness differences. The key here is that he separates the process of natural selection from the response to natural selection. And as I said above, many scientists, including people like Gould and Endler will use the convenient shortcut when they talk about natural selection, and that leads to confusion with people. But we are trying to be correct here, and separating the two is the proper way to address the issue. Wiping up references that use the convenient shortcut does not make it right. If you want to argue that Lande and others are wrong, you have to show an article that explicitly states that separating the process from the response is incorrect. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kim van der Linde - your explanation helped and I read through it quite carefully. I have never suggested that Lande and others were wrong, to be clear. You make some valid points, but I wouldn't call Gould or Endler's notion of natural selection a short cut version. You have given me some stuff to think about here and so I'll ponder on it for a while. I think the controversy is also contained in the abstract of the paper I gave above - the idea of genetic draft. Once again, it is not confusion - but a recognition that these are still areas that are being sorted out and tested.Thompsma (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I did not say that you said that lande was wroing, I said that you misinterpreted him. That happened when you said: "Lande (your choice) has an explicit statement "without recourse to principles of heredity or evolution" - so he is talking about phenotypic plasticity or 'reaction norm'.". Lande is not talking about reaction norms of phenotypiuc plasticity. The Schwander and Leimar paper is irrelevant for this discussion because that is about whether you first get a plastic response that is later solidified or not. Plastic responses (phenotypic plasticity and reaction norms) do have a genetic basis and are heritable traits. What I am saying about Gould, Ednler and most other researchers is not that they take a short cut with the theory, but that they use the term "Natural selection" as a convenient short cut to mean "Evolution by means of Natural Selection". -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Your critique does not correspond with material quoted in SOURCES (Hedrick, 2011 - in particular is a notable geneticist in this regard, I can provide other citations that give similar definitions using trait instead of allele): "Fitness is a measure of reproductive success through variation in survival, fecundity, mating ability, and other factors that ultimately determine whether the alleles of a particular individual will be passed on to future generations (Hedrick 2011)."Cumulative fitness is a measure of reproductive output" "The overall effect of these factors is termed the relative fitness of different individuals in the population and can be simply defined as the relative ability of different genotypes to pass on their alleles to future generations."(Hedrick, 2011, ) "Dobzhansky (1970) points out further that Darwinian fitness is a measure of the reproductive success of the carriers of a given genotype in relation to that of the carriers of other genotypes." "The Darwinian fitness is a measure of the genetic contribution of the carriers of a genotype to the next generation." stay
 * In keeping with an emphasis on relevant sources rather than peripheral ones, I will cite Sober, the philosopher who has arguably thought the hardest about the definition of fitness. http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/167win10/Sober%20-%20two%20faces%20of%20fitness.pdf In italics on page 2 is the main message "Fitness is both an ecological descriptor and a mathematical predictor." The word has two meanings, and one is not wrong, but each usage should of course be clear in context. In this context, we have the mathematical predictor. Another philosopher of fitness, Beatty, http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/teaching/philbio/readings/beatty.chanceandnaturalselection.1984.pdf, makes it very clear that if one takes the actual measured number of offspring, rather than a propensity, then there is no longer a distinction between natural selection and drift. This undesirable corrolory (with citation) is the reason for my objection. Also, you have ignored the "future generations" portion of my criticism, putting that in gets into very complicated territory best avoided in the lead, as detailed in the Sober article.Joannamasel (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Easily fixed - replace evolution with evolutionary biology. changed
 * As I said, the mistake was in 3 places. You fixed only one. Joannamasel (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooops, I thought I had changed it in all three places, a typo - fixed it now.Thompsma (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) You've never heard of testing evolutionary theories? Try looking at phylogenetic comparative methods, for one example. Your critique goes against a HUGE body of literature in evolutionary biology that contradicts what you have written. My thesis specialization was in systematic zoology which is governed exactly on the principle of testing evolutionary hypothesis. This deserves a list of citations - even if you oppose the idea: e.g.,, , , , and so on! The theory of island biogeography is another example - Robert MaCarthur wrote on the whole philosohpy of natural experimentation in biology: "Because the face of the earth offers a wide variety of conditions, the population biologist can find his experiment already performed for him somewhere." - This is a shocking statement, leaves me speechless. stay
 * These are all part of the evolutionary biology research programme. You are testing specific evolutionary hypothesis. You are not testing whether "evolution" is true. The grammar of the current sentence is ambiguous about "the means to test" ...what exactly? This is a language issue, not a content issue, so please do not cite me reference on content, cite only references regarding language. Better still, edit to make the language less ambiguous. Joannamasel (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So, lets see. You start with confusing testing hypothesis within evolutionary context (your focus in the response above) with testing evolution itself (suggestion arising from the proposed text). If you want to test evolution itself, you have to devise an set of hypotheses that are mutually exclusive and of which one of them would be a direct refutation of evolution itself. Most hypothesis testing is of the first kind, different hypotheses about HOW evolution has occurred, not about whether or not it has occurred. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Kim, why don't you offer some helpful suggestions instead of finding ways to knock me down on a personal level? Keep it civil. I'm doing my best to work with everyone in here to improve on the sentences. The sentence stated that evolution provided the means to test biological phenomena, it did not say that it provided the means to test if evolution is itself true. I have admitted that existence was the wrong choice of word and we are working to fix this. You have made some great contributions, but now things are getting uncivil, which leads to unproductive bickering. I want to get along in here - so let's put our differences aside and work toward a common goal. We are both interested in evolution and obviously care about the way it is being conveyed to the general public. Start on that common ground and use our respective skill sets. I have read and admire some of your work on Drosophila and I am particularly excited about your work on allometry - something this article does not even come close to addressing. I worked in a paleontology lab for many years where we researched allometry and functional morphology. Fascinating stuff!! If I have offended you in the past - I offer my deepest and sincere apologies and really want to get along. We are both smart people - so lets work together, I truly believe that two brains are better than one - prosocial evolution at its best!Thompsma (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) "We do not have a "comprehensive..." - the sentence does not say this, it says that it has provided a comprehensive explanation for all biological phenomena. Contrast this against, Dobzhansky's statement: "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Please look up the definition of comprehensive . I prefer claviclehorn's suggested change below. changedThompsma (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My beef is more with word "existence" than with "comprehensive". Existence is a somewhat, um, existential question that I don't think we want to go into here. Joannamasel (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a valid point Joannamasel - as I read over that sentence again it is a little odd. How about: "Throughout its history as a discipline it has maintained an extended synthesis, the means to test, and the most comprehensive explanation to date on the history and origins of all biological phenomena." (I can provide a citation if you would like?)Thompsma (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This would actually be a good sentence for Maunus to help on - to bring in some of his effective skill of prose.Thompsma (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest something like: " Through its synthesis with advances in other sciences such as genetics, geology, biology and chemistry evolutionary theory has become the sole foundation of scientific approaches to the study of life. Hundreds of hypotheses based on evolutionary theory have been tested and scientists today overwhelmingly accept evolution as a fact."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support. On the condition that 1) more editing be done to improve the wording, pacing, and organization of lead and 2) that a clear "road map" be laid out as to what the end product of this entire article should be. Both proposals are quite similar. I chose this only because it is a little more comprehensive and has promise for more adjustments. danielkueh (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to suggest streamlining the proposal by Thompsma and Claviclehorn as follows:
 * Evolution is any change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Observed changes in heritable traits over time within populations can be traced to different evolutionary processes such as mutation, genetic drift and natural selection, with natural selection being the principal mechanism of evolutionary change. For evolution by natural selection to occur, there has to be heritable variations that are transmitted from parent to offspring. Offspring born with heritable variations that are adaptive are more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby having their traits appear in future generations. Over time, natural selection can result in adaptive traits becoming seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform. The fitness of an adaptive trait is a measure of its survival and reproduction rates into future generations. Given that the evolutionary processes occurs at every level of organization, they have given rise to a large diverse groups of molecules, cells, organisms and species.


 * Since Darwin, evolutionary biology has revealed that the repeated process of speciation has given rise to many different species over time. These different species are actually descendents of a common ancestor and are therefore related to each other. Speciation can occur when populations become geographically separated into two or more subpopulations and then evolve in divergent directions, giving to rise to what Darwin called, "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful".


 * The science of evolutionary biology has continued to be expanded, refined and rigorously tested. Throughout its history as a discipline it has maintained an extended synthesis as well as provided the means to test and explained the existence of all biological phenomena. From carefully controlled laboratory experiments to the fossil record, evolution is now considered both theory and fact. Since evolutionary biology is an interdisciplinary science, it has applied and theoretical implications for natural resource management, humanities, medicine, social sciences, computation and philosophy in general.
 * danielkueh (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Support for proposal on the right

 * Support. It summarises the most important points of the main article. A detailed summary of everything in the main article is approximately what we have in the current lead. We moved away from that, as I understand things, because it is simply too much for the average lead-only reader to take in. I think this lead serves that kind of reader better. But if a detailed summary of the main article is what people want, we should take the current lead as our scaffold, and make improvements to that. Joannamasel (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose This proposal also replaces the proposal that garnered broad support for a nonfunctional version of the lead. It doesn't constitute a proper summary of the article. Thompsma's version in the section "Moving along" is much better as a Lead, but also requires more collaborative work before it can be acccepted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will re-post Futuyma (2009) - which is the only place I can find a definition (actually danielkueh found it) remotely similar to the way that you have defined (or described) adaptation:


 * "All biologists agree that an adaptive trait is one that enhances fitness compared with at least some alternative traits. However, some authors include a historical perspective in their definition of adaptations, and others do not...We have already stressed that the probability of extinction of a population or species does not in itself constitute selection on individual organisms, and so cannot cause the evolution of adaptations.":264
 * This contradicts your proposed statement:


 * "Natural selection can cause adaptation of a population to its environment, through the evolution of traits" - who has the traits? Is it a population level trait that is the adaptation, or is it the traits within the population that make the population adapted to the environment? Is it the population that is adapted, or is it the individuals in the population that are adapted to the environment? In either case - it is a peculiar sentence.Thompsma (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The introduction is fine, as a person who did not study science this intro is clear, concise and understandable. If there was a summary of everything in the main article the intro would get to long.Millertime246 (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per my previous stated objections. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * These comments do not address the concerns that were raised. Addressing the concerns would be helpful instead of random rejection. Now we have a random beer person without an account Millertime246 - has (conveniently) repeated a position that that Kim van der Linde has given prior. The 2nd critique suggests that a summary of everything would get too long, but neither proposal does this - so I don't understand how this is for or against either proposal?Thompsma (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarified.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - this proposal contains factual errors. I also oppose Joannamasel's proposal to re-write the existing lead, which is about molecular evolution not that it is "too much for the average lead-only reader to take in".Claviclehorn (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments
We do have options. This option: Help:Consensus, seems justified in this circumstance.Claviclehorn (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While I maintain support for the proposal on the left, I think the last paragraph needs a bit of tweaking. The theme that Thompsma seems to be going for is Dobzhansky's "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". I would like to offer the following adjustments or hybridization between the two proposals above:

''Since Darwin, evolution has been expanded, refined and rigorously tested. Evolution is both theory and fact. Throughout its history as a discipline it has maintained an extended synthesis, the means to test, and the most comprehensive explanation to date for the existence of all biological phenomena. Evolution is also an interdisciplinary science with applied and theoretical implications for natural resource management, humanities, medicine, psychology, computation, and philosophy in general.''Claviclehorn (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Frustration
I am feeling very frustrated about the way that this is being handled. This entire rewriting process started because some people didn't feel the article lived up to its FA status. Now those same editors are writing an article that from the outset does not comply with those criteria. Secondly the only succesful collaboration that I have seen in this process was the one that led to the carefully crafted version of the first paragraph of the lead that garnered broad support. Following this success unexplainably several of the editors who had supported that version started proposing version of the entire lead that for some reason didn't include the only paragraph about which there was broad consensus. This seems to me like a really strange and unproductive way of collaborating. For me it is frustrating to be a part of. People need to slow down and communicate and then stand by the decisions made by consensus, so that we can progress instead of go in circles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been following this from a distance and would have to agree with Maunus. I think more input from editors like dave souza and Angrew Lancaster woud be useful. Mathsci (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I second Maunus's sentiment. I thought about participating in the straw poll above but was left feeling dissatisfied with both versions. I really think we need to think this through. It is no longer a question of just substituting one lead with another. This has implications for the FA status of this article, the content and organization of the entire article, and the immense of amount of "follow up work" that must inevitably follow with any lead substitution. I think we must come to a consensus first as to what exactly needs to be changed (e.g., status of article, content, organization, lead, etc), in what order, and what the end-point should look like. danielkueh (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes...having some other assistance in here would be useful. People are talking past one another. The paragraph that garnered broad support was later identified to hold a flaw in the way it described natural selection as "survival of the fittest" in the sense that the fittest meant numerical superiority. Clearly, that is not how natural selection works. Second, the issue hinges on adaptation and the proposal by Joannasmel gives an unusual definition of this, but neither she nor Kim (who seem to support this) are addressing the legitimate concerns raised - hence talking past one another. I'm surprised that people are not liking either of these versions, because they are very similar to the one that had broad consensus with only minor adjustments to address concerns that people had (the one on the right simply cut things down to a bare skeleton, the one on the left took on the issues and re-worded to address concerns that were raised). We should all really take a step back and look at what we have accomplished and not vent our frustration. We have actually accomplished a lot here - even though it seems like we are going backward. People need to communicate more effectively instead of becoming entrenched - speak to the issues and reason them out. I personally like the proposal on the left - but have already made this clear. I just wish everyone could work on the problem in a collaborative way - instead of speaking past each other. Claviclehorn (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am giving an honest attempt to address each and every concern that is being raised. How else can this be handled? The reason why I backtracked on the proposal that previously had broad consensus is that I recognized the flaw that User:Claviclehorn re-iterates - i.e., "survival of the numerically fittest". Once I saw that error, it meant that other adjustments had to be made. The adjustments were my honest attempt to fix the flaws. Some editors in here have become entrenched and are not addressing the issues, they are simply stating that they are opposed. That is not a productive way forward. We need a collaborative spirit and I commend danielkueh, ·ʍaunus, and talk for your efforts in this regard!! How can we bring people together?Thompsma (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to see, for a lack of better word, a "road map" as to what the end product of this entire article should like and what we are willing to do to achieve it. I am for change. I have always said that. But I don't like the uncertainty of not knowing where this is heading. Quite a bit is at stake here. The article's FA status being one of them. danielkueh (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am frustrated as well. I outlined them above. Yes, I have stopped addressing objections, because the only thing I will get back is a large number of links to peripheral sources. Swiping out a bunch of sources is really not hard for a discipline that has produced so many articles like this one. But heck, it works to impress impressible minds. Pounding on your chest that you taught evolution is really not hard. I teach it too, and ecology, and brain and behavior. But when someone does that, I generally know what I am dealing with and that is someone who needs to win. The same with being condescending to people. It really does not help, and it helps even less to reiterate it after it has been pointed out to you. But it is about winning. I can be condescending too if you like, but I don't because it does not help. Anyway, the article as it is currently is biased because a group of people focussed on aspects of the whole concept, namely genes and how they are affected through evolution. We can repeat that issue. We make it all about lineages for example. Anyway, you are not alone in your frustration. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Kim this kind of rant is not going to win over the hearts and minds of others. Thompsma has put out an olive branch asking how people can get along, he has sent out a kind apology to you, and this is your response (obviously directed at him)? Focus on the article and put the ego aside. Nobody is beating their chest in here but you - your profile is a homage to yourself and all your publications and you are now saying that you teach as well. Grow up! It has become obvious that you are just rejecting things not on the basis of impartial or objective analysis, but because you are angry.Claviclehorn (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So, obviously my user page was taken wrong, so I have restored the older version. Yes, I wrote about what frustrated me, and if that is perceived as a rant, so be it. And no, I am not rejecting things because I am angry, I am angry because some people keep insisting on faulty definitions, keep confusing things even after it has been pointed out to them. And quite frankly, your selective criticizing of people is making the situation worse, not better. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Kim - think positive thoughts. Your posts are very negative. We need positive interaction in here if we are going to collaborate. Still you try to deflect the issue back onto others - it is surprising behaviour. It isn't selective criticism - it is directed criticism toward a negative rant and apparently the point is still not getting across. There is no reason to be angry - we are working on problems with diverse views, debates are to be expected and that is a normal part of the process. There are far more grave things to be angry about in the world than people: "insisting on faulty definitions, keep confusing things even after it has been pointed out to them" - it isn't confusion, you have to dig deep to truly understand where people are coming from. Perhaps they are not confused, but hold some line of knowledge that gives them a different view - and that is a good thing. All I'm asking is for a more positive tone to assist with the productivity on a common cause that we share. Thanks.Claviclehorn (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And I will repeat that I really do not appreciate when people are selective in who they criticize. If you are so brandished to change the atmosphere here, I suggest you take a more even approach than what you are currently doing. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Adaptation
I thought the "adaptation" discussion could perhaps do with its own section. Rather than more peripheral references, here is a paper devoted to the understanding of adaptation, rather than one that mentions adaptation in passing en route to something else: http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v6/n2/pdf/nrg1523.pdf. From his introduction ''As Ronald A. Fisher emphasized in 1930, adaptation is characterized by the movement of a population towards a phenotype that best fits the present environment. The result is an often astonishingly precise match between an organism and the world in which it lives.'' This is adaptation as process, and is the sense in which I have been using it. Incidentally, the same paper defines fitness in its glossary as "A quantity that is proportional to the mean number of viable, fertile progeny produced by a genotype." This is the numeric definition of fitness, as per Sober http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/167win10/Sober%20-%20two%20faces%20of%20fitness.pdf "Fitness is both an ecological descriptor and a mathematical predictor." Orr and many others deal with this 2-meanings confusion by using "fitness" for the strictly propensity-numeric definition, and "adaptive" for the match between trait and environment. I think we should follow Orr's example, rather than use one word to mean multiple things. Natural selection simultaneously implies both fitness and adaptiveness, i.e. both meanings. And following the Dobzhansky references in the main text, lets stick to adaptation = the process, while a "matched" trait is described using the word adaptive. Joannamasel (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I cited papers that were devoted to adaptation as well, so I think we can drop the 'peripheral reference' issue - people are free to cite papers from journals if they so choose. Moreover, this is the second or third paper you have said you were using for your sense of adaptation - originally it was Dobzhansky, now it is Orr - both legit references, but it would save time if you would simply add the citation when you first raise your point so that we can collaborate. Note that the Orr paper talks about a match between an organism and the world and not the population, the emphasis is on the organism. Your sentence is worded in such a way that it is the population: "Natural selection can cause adaptation of a population to its environment," - this is not in agreement with the Orr paper. He talks about the movement of the population, which implies that the members of the organisms population are being selected and not the population as a whole.Thompsma (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * members of the organisms, I thought organisms were individuals? This is why I oppose organisms, because it term is fussy. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a typo - members of the population.Thompsma (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to avoid talking about adaptation of an organism. The reason is that many people who are naive about evolution wrongly think that a single individual can evolve within their lifetime. If adaptation=process (and please, please, please, can we agree on definitions now, to save a lot of time later?), then adaptation of an organism is a no-no. I guess a better phrasing is therefore "Over time, natural selection replaces dying members of a population with new members that are better adapted to their environment." Joannamasel (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your proposed rephrasing is better. It wasn't about talking about adaptation of an organism, but it is the organism that becomes adapted - not the population, unless you are talking about population level selection and that is a different story.Thompsma (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed my proposal accordingly, because I think it clarifies things better that way for the naive reader. But the Orr definition, which I quoted in full just above, says that "adaptation is characterized by the movement of a population". So it is perfectly consistent with my ref to speak of the adaptation of a population. Can we please keep issues of emphasis distinct from issues of definition? And when citing definitions, please stick to the sentence in the passage that contains the definition, do not quote out of context from other sentences. My primary complaint about "peripheral" citations is their out of context nature. Joannamasel (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already requested kindly that you drop the "peripheral citation" issue - you are flogging a dead horse. Your sentence says something different than what Orr says - period. It was corrected, I am fine with this. Matter resolved.Thompsma (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify the context of the remarks above, some editors were asking why we don't refer back to the version that once garnered broad support. Other editors (Thompsa and Claviclehorn) stated that they no longer supported that version because they find natural selection="individuals that produce the largest number of surviving offspring are more likely to have their heritable traits appear in future generations" to be an unacceptably numeric definition. Following my comments above, natural selection is the correlation between numeric/propensity superior on the one hand, and a trait that matches the environment on the other. The text in question clearly refers to both, and to their correlation. I do not see what grounds Thompsa and Claviclehorn have for claiming that the text refers only to the numerics. Comments about "survival of the fittest" are unhelpful, given that those words did not appear in the text. Let's discuss the text itself, and why it implies numerics-only, and not talk about the point we all agree on, namely that numerics-only is an incorrect definition of "natural selection".


 * Here is the sentence: "individuals that produce the largest number of surviving offspring are more likely to have their heritable traits appear in future generations" - Joannamasel states: "clearly refers to both" "numeric/propensity superior" and "a trait" - yes it refers to both, but that is not the point of contention - it is the way that the words are put together that is the problem. Focus on more likely and where it is placed in the sentence. The sentence has three parts: 1) individuals that produce the largest number of offspring 2) are more likely 3) to have their heritable traits appear in future generations - it hinges on item 2 and this is incorrect. It is not the individuals that produce the largest number of offspring that are more likely to have their heritable traits appear in future generations. Using Gould and Vrba's (1982) definition of adaptation "An adaptation is any feature that promotes fitness and was built by selection for its current role." Natural selection acts on the traits (features) - those that are more likely to have their traits appear in future generations are those that have the traits that  promote fitness. The sentence is saying that natural selection is not about the traits, but nothing more than a numerical advantage. I raised the point about "survival of the fittest" - because this is a classical error that has been raised by others in the tautology that this creates (Douglass Futuyma talks about this in an educational book on "How Evolution Works". It is a common mistake.Thompsma (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not say that "natural selection is not about the traits": instead, it refers to heritable traits! In context, this sentence was a statement not a definition. Are you saying that "individuals that produce the largest number of surviving offspring are more likely to have their heritable traits appear in future generations" is a FALSE statement? "Survival of the fitness" is tautological today, because fitness is most commonly defined numerically in terms of survival. Where is the tautology is the statement in the text at hand? What in the statement is equivalent to what? And please, again, do not cite a definition of adaptation with regard to a sentence that doesn't even have the word adaptation in it, this usage of the citation is peripheral. Briefly, I had thought we were getting somewhere re communication. I was wrong. I am signing out again, at least for a few more days.Joannamasel (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already requested kindly that you drop the "peripheral citation" issue - you are flogging a dead horse.Thompsma (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree - it is time to drop the peripheral citation rant. Thompsma is free to provide reference material. This is a talk page and we are entitled to direct people to resources, actually - I would hope that this behaviour is encouraged. Joannamasel states: "And please, again, do not cite a definition of adaptation with regard to a sentence that doesn't even have the word adaptation in it, this usage of the citation is peripheral." - Ah...perhaps you are reading a different sentence. Thompsma links to the Gould and Vrba paper, which is a paper about adaptation, it is a highly notable paper on that topic, and the sentence has the word adaptation in it. Once again Joannamasel - I think you should drop the peripheral citation remarks, they are ill founded and only serving to inflame the situation.Claviclehorn (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not explicitly say that natural is not about traits - but read the sentence! Of course it refers to heritable traits - I can say heritable traits over and over again, but the meaning of a sentence is not the words that go into it, but the way those words are put together. The way that the words are put together in that sentence, when read literally, says that the reason that traits are more likely to appear in future generations is due to individuals that produce the largest number of offspring and not due to the traits of those individuals. That is the error. The chapter I linked to by Futuyma on "survival of the fittest" raises this classical error: "Third, this slogan (survival of the fittest) has been used to claim, falsely, that natural selection is an empty tautology. (Which type is the fittest? Answer: Why, the one that survives.) But this claim of tautology is false for two reasons..."(see text for the reasons)." The proposed sentence is saying the same thing - it is saying that the individuals that produce the largest numbers are the ones that survive, but that is not natural selection. Natural selection acts on the traits and the differential survival is due to the slight advantage that one may have over another.Thompsma (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how Thompsma could explain it any more clearly. The error is very plain to see. Here is another example: "The theory of natural selection—the ‘survival of the fittest’—is regularly accused of being an empty tautology. The argument is that, if an organism's Darwinian fitness is defined as its ability to ‘survive’ (and reproduce), then the concept of natural selection is circular and has no empirical value. The error here is to suppose that Darwinism is simply a theory of evolutionary dynamics, and the apparent tautology vanishes when one understands that Darwinism is really a theory of organismal design." The sentence in question says nothing about organismal design, it is defining natural selection as a theory of evolutionary dynamics or numbers - it is the traits that are being selected for, not the individuals that produce the largest number of offspring. I absolutely agree that the mistake is there.Claviclehorn (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The numerical vs adaptive fitness issue could have been solved with a single tweak to the proposed text. There was no need for reintroducing your previously rejected version almost whole sale. When we have a version with broad support then that has to be the default that we go back to since no other version can be introduced that does not have equal or more support than that one. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You would think so - I tried to do this, but as you can see from the debate that has ensured - it is a little more complicated to put the wording together to convey the proper meaning.Thompsma (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, I think the clearest definitions, following the work of philosophers and others that I have cited who have worked exactly on this question, is to use "fitness" for survival and reproduction propensity, "adaptive" for a match between trait and environment, "natural selection" for the correlation between the two, and "adaptation" for the process by which natural selection gives rise to adaptive traits. This is, conveniently, broadly consistent with the main evolution text and the references already cited therein. If other editors have an alternative proposal, grounded in the work of philosophers of evolution, to distinguish these meanings in a different way, please put it forward. I am not wedded to this particular proposed set of definitions, so much as to clarity itself. Arguing one definition at a time is probably unhelpful, what is most important is distinguishing terms from one another.Joannamasel (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this would help move the discussion along, but here is a definition of natural selection from Futuyma (1998):
 * Natural selection: The differential survival and/or reproduction of classes of entities that differ in one or more adaptive characteristics; the difference in survival and/or reproduction is not due to chance, and it must have the potential consequence of altering proportions of different entities, to constitute natural selection. Thus natural selection is also definable as a partly or wholly deterministic difference in the contribution of different classes of entities to subsequent generations. Usually the differences are inherited. The entities may be alleles, genotypes, or subsets of genotypes, populations, or in the broadest sense, species. A complex concept; see Chapter 12. See also genic selection, individual selection, kin selection, group selection.
 * danielkueh (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It does help, because it states that the entities have adaptive characteristics - which is the vital part that is missing in the sentence in question. The "survival and/or reproduction is not due to chance" - i.e., it isn't just about "individuals that produce the largest number of surviving offspring", which would leave things up to chance. Those that survive "are more likely to have their heritable traits appear in future generations" not because of numerical chance, but because they had ("must have") the adaptive characteristics to alter the proportions.Claviclehorn (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Backtracking
Evolution is any change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. The evolutionary process gives rise to diversity at every level of organization, including molecules, cells, organisms and species. Mechanisms such as mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection cause frequencies of heritable traits to change within populations.

The theory of evolution by means of natural selection was first proposed by Charles Darwin. Natural selection operates when variation in heritable traits within a population gives certain individuals an advantage in the competition for survival and reproduction in a given environment, causing the frequency of the advantageous trait to rise. Populations may split and then evolve in divergent directions, for example through occupation of different ecological niches, sometimes leading to speciation. The process of speciation followed by subsequent divergence is the process by which all known life forms have evolved from a common ancestor.

From the time of Darwin's original proposal and up to present times, the theory of evolution has had a significant societal and cultural impact. This has given occasion to public controversies regarding the compatibility of the Evolutionary account with religious doctrines, and over the possible implications of evolutionary theory on social policies. Through its synthesis with advances in other sciences such as genetics, geology, biology and chemistry evolutionary theory has become the sole foundation of scientific approaches to the study of life. Hundreds of hypotheses based on evolutionary theory have been tested and scientists today overwhelmingly accept evolution as a fact. Understanding the patterns and processes of evolution are active areas of current research in evolutionary biology. Current debates in evolutionary science concern the relative contributions of adaptation and genetic drift.


 * This a version based on one of the older versions that I have tried to expand into a full lead incorporating as many additional concerns as I was able to. It differs by not having the list of premises (variation/advantage/heritability/) as a numbered list but as a prose sentence. It also has extra information about the societal impact of evolutionary theory - I realize that this is controversial but I think the lead is incomplete without it. Certainly a significant portion of our readership will be interested in this information, by mentioning it in the lead with links we can send them along. There is currently no link for "soft darwinism" I wonder if there is a better more accurate term for the Gould-type viewpoint. I would also like to include a sentence about epigeneitcs and evo-devo, but do not feel confident adding it. This is not a definitive proposal, but one that I think could serve as a basis for collaboratively writing a full lead.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be OK with this one if the last sentence were deleted. First, there are many current debates, I don't think we can justify pulling out a single one in the lead. If I am massively outvoted on this, then please avoid the very problematic term "genetic drift". Just say "non-adaptive processes" or something, since it is really a question of adaptation vs. everything else, not vs. something narrow like many drift definitions. Joannamasel (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That may be a very reasonable point, I picked this one because it seems sort of foundational. I would be OK with leaving the phrase out altogether.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are some strengths to the third and fourth sentences in the second paragraph to this proposal. Here are some concerns I have with the rest of this proposal. The first sentence, 2nd paragraph is weak in prose - just a matter of style, not an outright rejection. Heredity is nowhere defined, which I think is kinda vital. "The repeated cycle" - needs to go. It is an antiquated call back to the cycle of life. Life is not a cycle, it is sometimes chaotic and so this is not an apt descriptor. The third paragraph is a tragedy. Too much emphasis on religious backlash. Only the fourth sentence works for me - I would delete the rest (sorry).Claviclehorn (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you opposed to any mention of the societal impact of evolutionary theory? Or just this particular way of mentioning it? The reason I removed the definition of heredity is because there is a link included. We shouldn't give definitions of concepts other than the topic in the lead, those who wish to know more about heredity can follow the link. Instead of a definition we could give a description of what heredity is if that would be useful - personally I think that the genetics related sentences do give the reader enough knowledge about the kind of heredity we are talking about.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've played around with the organizatin and wordings a bit to try to accomodate some of these concerns.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to any mention of societal impact - one sentence will probably suffice. However, do we really need a sentence on religious objections? Is that really so important for the lead? Moreover, I don't agree with dropping the work we've collaborated on above for another whole new proposal. I think your third and fourth sentences could be integrated into the Thompsma proposal above to get rid of the list for natural selection.Claviclehorn (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There has been more than hundreds of hypothesis, more like hundreds of thousands, possibly in the millions? I am also not a fan of adding the religious controversies into the lead, because it can also be stated that some religious organizations see no controversy. The Big Bang, for example, also stirs theological questions, but the lead in that article has not gone this route and I think I prefer it this way.Thompsma (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Overview of progress
I thought I would distil our progress into one big comparative table. We have actually made some great progress here - despite the frustration. This is to be expected. Instead of one person adding a proposal to the bottom to stir new discussion, I think we should continue to inherit the previous work and bring it down. Hence, I think we are close to a finale here. I took the liberty of taking ·ʍaunus's latest proposal to create a new merger with the Thompsma/Claviclehorn proposal above. I carried Kim van der Linde/Joannamasel's proposed version down as well and added the current lead so that we could see how far we have come and compare the lengths of the different proposals. I think it is better to have options than none. Hope this will help.Thompsma (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
I notice that Daniel has also offered a new version. I'm not a fan of this version (sorry Daniel!) - because it takes away from the parts where we had achieved consensus. I would not recommend breaking our consensus - otherwise we will be going on this forever (already has been too much!!!). The previous versions all had the same first paragraph and we had all agreed that this worked - so let's keep the parts that worked, don't fix what isn't broken. Moreover, I don't agree with many of its parts, including "with natural selection being the principal mechanism of evolutionary change." - Nope - I think most evolutionary biologists agree that the main change occurs there is a tremendous amount of turnover at the genetic level (upward causation) and slows down (evolutionary constraint) as you move up the hierarchy (downward causation), but this does not mean that downward causation or upper-level variation is unimportant. Hence, this sentence is debatable and complex in context of tempo and mode across the hierarchies. This new version will spawn on a whole new set of debates - the other versions tweak at the periphery of debatable components and that seems a little more productive in my mind Although, I always appreciate the great work that Daniel brings in here.Thompsma (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Daniel's version also gets rid of the hierarchical component that spurred on much of this discussion in the first place - it brings us back to the start. "The existence of such a hierarchical trend has been widely acknowledged (e.g. Spencer, 1900, 1904; Needham, 1943; Stebbins, 1969; Wimsatt, 1976, 1994; Corning, 1983; Salthe, 1985, 1993; Buss, 1987; Bonner, 1988; Maynard Smith, 1988; Swenson & Turvey, 1991; Maynard Smith & SzathmaÂ ry, 1995, 1999; SzathmaÂ ry & Maynard Smith, 1995; McShea, 1996a; Pettersson, 1996; Heylighen, 1999; Stewart, 2000; Wright, 2000; Knoll & Bambach, 2000). It is also "to my knowledge" unchallenged." - That's a very powerful component to evolutionary theory to leave out.Thompsma (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't get rid of anything. I just moved it down to the last sentence of the first paragraph. The contents of my proposal are similar to the rest. The main difference being the arrangement of those contents. danielkueh (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooops, yes I see it now. I missed it. So much text. I'll take another closer look. However, I do see a couple of errors that have been introduced - the other versions have already gone through repeated revisions addressing concerns of others. It may take a while to address your version and so I'm not sure if this is the right way to move ahead.Thompsma (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I like this part: "From carefully controlled laboratory experiments to fossil records" - so hope you don't mind that I integrated into the 2nd version. Like metapopulations, we can use horizontal transmission amongst versions to adapt the lead to something that works for the community.Thompsma (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do as you please. The main purpose of my proposal is to start a discussion on the need to write the lead "like a story." With the exception of Maunus's proposal, the other two proposals (original ones above) read like a list of bullet point statements stitched together, with few transitions from one phrase to the next. We have much of the content down. I think we should spend some time working on the organization and delivery. danielkueh (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This looks impressive. It is good to see that all the newly proposed versions are shorter than the existing lead - so all are of an acceptable length. Here are my thoughts on each version:
 * 1) Strength: It has a nice narrative and maintains the core parts where we had a consensus. This sentence: "From the time of Darwin's original proposal and up to present times, the theory of evolution has had a significant societal and cultural impact." - is good. Weakness: The religious controversy stuff at the end isn't well synthesized, "hundreds of hypothesis" is unsubstantiated, "Populations may split" - split is not the right word, "in the competition for survival" - refrain from competition in light of cooperative nature that is now highly prominent.
 * 2) Strength: This is my favorite. It has components of a narrative, it borrows the strengths of the other proposals, and it has a nice closing paragraph. Weakness: It is the longest of the proposals, but acceptable. This sentence: "The fitness of an adaptive trait is a measure of its survival and reproduction rates into future generations." is hanging on like a dangling thread at the end and could be integrated a bit better.
 * 3) Strength: Short and to the point, has most of the parts where there was a consensus. I like this new sentence: "Over time, natural selection replaces dying members of a population with new members that are better adapted to their environment." - this could be integrated into the 2nd version. Weakness: It fails to integrate some of the areas where concerns were raised. Macroevolution is still linked with priority, no balance to microevolution. It is too skeletal and lacks narrative. The last paragraph lacks punch, prose, and is missing something.
 * Could you please repeat what those remaining concerns are? The text has been edited quite a lot since specific concerns were last described. Are you saying there is too much macroevolution or too much microevolution in this version? Would an option be to use this text with a different last paragraph? Joannamasel (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Strength: It maintains the core parts of our consensus. It has a narrative. Weakness: I agree with some of the points Thompsma raises above, some of the sentences are problematic from a conceptual or interpretative standpoint.
 * 2) The existing lead is about molecular evolution - it is the wrong lead for this topic. Too long and biased.Claviclehorn (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great feedback Claviclehorn!! I'll see if I can integrate that hanging sentence a bit better.Thompsma (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem with any version that gives molecules as the first specific example of evolution. Even if technically correct, it just raises questions -- and because it is not the most familiar way in which I think about evolution becomes a stumbling block. It is too easy to overlook that the intention is to refer only to molecules with heritable characteristics, and on first reading I immediately started thinking about how the introduction of some new molecules by a comet crashing to Earth could bring about an increase or decrease in the absolute number of molecules of a certain type - thinking entirely in terms of non-organic molecules. Essentially, it becomes a distraction to reading the rest of the paragraph. --JimWae (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That sentence introduces the integrative hierarchy that many in here have agreed to bring to the fore of this article. It is the most familiar way in which most people (i.e., universally recognized) think about evolution:

"It is universally recognized that molecules of biological importance may evolve-that is, they may change in the course of time as have the organisms in which they occur. Some molecules, like adenosine triphosphate, are so nearly universal and invariable as to suggest no evolutionary sequence, but many others surely have evolved, notably groups of proteins and, obviously, DNA." (George Gaylord Simpson, 1964)Thompsma (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * However, when I first linked that word this criticism crept into my mind as well - it doesn't really take the reader to an appropriate wiki page. I'll change the link to go to molecular evolution instead of molecule. Thompsma (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not saying it is wrong - just that it was quite a distraction for me & I suspect, for most people, will raise more questions than the rest of the lede answers - and most readers should not need to go to links to understand the first paragraph. It is especially a problem being the FIRST specific example. It would not be as much of an issue if the hierarchy were presented in reverse order--JimWae (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the reverse order. Anyone else object? We should consult others before making the change - because that sentence had reached broad consensus. Thompsma (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Without having read the whole discussion I would like to point out that most people think of the evolution of organisms before the evolution of molecules. Even though I'm a biochemist I think of Darwin and not DNA sequences, if I hear the word evolution. Those are my 2 cents.Carstensen (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I support reversing the order, and linking molecules to molecular evolution in all of the various versions. Cells should be either deleted from the list or linked to something evolutionary, all I can find is somatic evolution in cancer. In the same vein, perhaps species should be linked to biodiversity.
 * Try Evolution of cells - cells should not be removed.Thompsma (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Evolution of cells is about the evolutionary origin of the first cell, not about the ongoing evolution of cells today, so I do not believe that the link is suitable.Joannamasel (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the long-term E. coli experiments by Richard Lenski would be a better example. danielkueh (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Except those already come under the "organism" category too, so "cells" is redundant for describing them when an organism = a cell. Joannamasel (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If we are going to use the biological organization, then cells =/= organisms. They clearly mean two different things. To equate them would be to introduce confusion. danielkueh (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I oppose any version that does not correctly distinguish between "natural selection" and "evolution by natural selection", as discussed extensively in another thread above. I do not understand why this should be controversial. Thompsa, if you feel that the two terms are exactly equivalent, then why are you are unwilling to humor Kim and me by making the changes? If you feel that the two terms are not equivalent, you have not made a case that your usage is superior. Instead, you have provided links consistent with the fact that some authors sometimes use "natural selection" as a shorthand for "evolution by natural selection".
 * I'm fine with either - just didn't get around to making that change. Please remember to Assume good faith.Thompsma (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * All proposals should be edited so that Darwin is the first to "formulate" rather than the first to "propose". Otherwise we need to discuss Wallace in the lead too.
 * I actually made that change once before - it got changed back through a cut-and-paste error.Thompsma (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should add extinction to the lead?
 * I would be okay with this. Could be elaborated on in this sentence: "The process of natural selection replaces dying members of a population with..."
 * I don't think so. That sentence is about within-population evolution, extinction applies to entire species, putting them in the same sentence would probably be confusing.Joannamasel (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Manaus version: variation should link to genetic diversity. I support the social stuff, it is relevant to the average lead-reader. Given the difficulty of documenting how many hypotheses have been testing, we need an alternative wording.
 * Thompsa/Claviclehorn version: unnecessarily wordy in many places, and contains numerous places where wording creates problems of accuracy. Given the history of argumentation each time a change has been proposed, I do not see a path towards editing this one to a point where I could support it. I will give as one example only the first to appear: "changes observed over time" is problematic when most evolutionary biology observes only the final outcome, with longitudinal studies being much rarer.
 * Minor point as far as I can tell. I think changes have been over time in geological strata - for example. Evolutionary trees also show transformations over time - there are several dimensions to a phylogenetic tree illustrated including divergence, time, and transformation. I've also been involved in studies where we have re-sampled the same amphibian populations since the 1970's and studied the changes in genetic diversity over time. Other studies have looked at viral lineages over time.Thompsma (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, what are we going to do? We seem to be at opposite poles.


 * My/Kim's version: support subject to the changes I have listed above, and have now made.
 * Oppose - it remains too skeletal of prose and reads like a list. How do these two sentences link together, for example: "Heritable traits change within populations due to mechanisms such as mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection. The theory of evolution by means of natural selection was first formulated by Charles Darwin." - There is no connectivity. Why did you drop mutation and genetic drift and pick up with natural selection? It just jumps to the next item without an explanation. The "wordy" components to the other version help to soften and ease the transition so that the sentences appear more connected and keeps the flow moving along.Thompsma (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your constructive criticism. I have edited my version to remove this problem and get rid of this difficult transition. Do you have any other specific criticisms of my proposal? Joannamasel (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Daniel's version: More minor version of the same problem with "observed changes in heritable traits". Plus no such change has ever been linked to genetic drift. Will Provine has offered a prize to anyone who can do so, nobody has won it. This version needs grammar cleanup and links, could be OK after that, except for the last paragraph, which has many problems.
 * I'm sorry to have to ask you to repeat yourself, could tell me specifically which part of the last paragraph in my proposal would you like to see changed or revised? My proposal was after all, a modified form of Thompsma/Claviclehorn's version. Also, I have tried to clean up any glaring grammatical errors. Are there any more that stands out? danielkueh (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your changes help. I suspect you need to link from adaptive to adaptation and/or teleonomy at some point, the word "adaptive" is not self-explanatory in your version for the average lead-reader. Unless you want to go further and explain what an adaptive trait is without confounding it with fitness in a tautology...
 * "Speciation has brought about many different species" seems too empty of content. I would remove the word "actually" as unnecessary.
 * As for the last paragraph, hypotheses are tested but not the science of evolutionary biology itself, nor "phenomena", the latter are typically described not tested. The "extended synthesis" is posited to be a new and ongoing phenomenon, and should not go with "throughout history". The first 3 sentences just strike me as grammatically clumsy: I think scrapping them is actually easier than rewriting them. In the last sentence, it seems strange to link to humanities and social sciences, but to shy away from the more obvious impact of evolutionary though on society, as per Manaus's last paragraph. The link is just weaker in the cases listed here. Also, the implications are there, but not because evolution is an interdisciplinary science, as the grammar suggests.Joannamasel (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback! I made more refinements. Let me know what you think. danielkueh (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better, but I am afraid I still have lots of issues with the text. "has to be variations" doesn't agree. The disambiguation of "adaptive" comes too late after the first use of the word. "appear to be seemingly fitted" is confusingly redundant. By the time you define "fitness", it no longer seems necessary, especially as it is defined only with regards to traits, not at other levels such as genotypes or alleles. One can argue that "evolutionary processes" occur only at the level of individuals dying, and reproducing with varying heritability. Of course evolutionary consequences occur at all levels, but that is subtly different. Darwin already posited speciation of sorts, he just had neither modern species concepts nor speciation mechanisms. First 2 sentences on speciation are too repetitive. "has continued to be active areas": agreement. I can't parse the relationship between the two parts of the sentence "From carefully controlled laboratory experiments to fossil records, evolution is now considered both theory and fact." Last sentence is a big improvement! Joannamasel (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! I made more refinements. Keep them coming! danielkueh (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Current lead: I still do not agree with accusation that it is all about molecular evolution. Although since no details whatsoever about molecules are given in the lead, I think what is meant here is actually classical population genetics, and we should discuss the issue as such. Material concerning molecular evolution / population genetics appears only in the first of four paragraphs. I still find the current lead acceptable, although I wonder if some of the most consensus-generating material in the various new proposed leads could usefully be grafted in as a way forward. If people are really so intent on expunging population genetics from the lead, which is the reason that Thompsa initiated this lead-rewriting process, then I wonder if the first paragraph could be edited in line with one of the current proposed alternatives' treatment of the same material, to solve that perceived problem. There is a long but nevertheless unfounded tradition of denying the centrality of pop gen to evolutionary biology, and I have no doubt that Thompsa can provide (and already has) pages worth of references to that tradition to support the denialist position that he shares with many professional scientists. For a professional historian's appraisal of the substance of all those denials, see Provine WB. 1978. The role of mathematical population geneticists in the evolutionary synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s. Studies of the History of Biology 2:167-92. Unfortunately I don't think the article is available online, but I will happily email a pdf to anyone who wants a copy. I have heard a second historian, Michael Ruse, give much the same defense of the centrality of pop gen in a recent talk, but I'm afraid I don't have a good reference for him. He did give an Oxbridge analogy along the lines that paleontology has now earned a seat at High Table, but population genetics is still in the Master of the College chair.Joannamasel (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have an even stronger objection to molecules than before. Text such as: "diversity at every level of organization, including molecules, cells, organisms and species" would seem to clearly include inorganic molecules (since they can be seen as a level of organization) no matter whether the hierarchy is reversed or not. Linking molecule to molecular evolution - without changing the text itself - does not solve the problem. --JimWae (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. I changed mine to biomolecules. Work better? danielkueh (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I like biomolecule, but the distinction between organic and inorganic is not very clear cut. I would argue that inorganic molecules evolve as well - such as the structure and form of a termites nest. Let's be clear Joannamasel - I did not want to expunge population genetics from the lead at all. That is absolutely false and suggests that you are reading past my posts. I have repeated this many times over - I am a fan of population genetics and think it is invaluable to evolution. The neutral theory of molecular evolution has been one of the most invaluable insights into evolutionary theory since Darwin. It has revolutionized our ability to test phylogenetic relations by means of the coalescent, for example, or for placing a statistical model on rates of change for molecular clock calibration. The point is that it is written in a way that neither accommodates nor allows for the hierarchical view of evolution to be included. This not only my view - it has been shared by others. The current lead reads as though it has been written by a bunch of gene jockeys and that trend follows through on the rest of the article. I do note from your website Joannamasel that you are a self described "theoretical or mathematical biologist" and I wonder (not in any way offensive), but honestly curious if that is why you are partial to a gene centered / reductionist based evolutionary presentation? Have you ever worked or collaborated in a morphology lab, or with paleontologists, taxonomists, or developmental biologists? The broader perspective and experience in those kinds of research environments brings about a wider view on evolutionary thought. The hierarchical view is integral to describing evolution in a way that umbrella's the narrative of the discipline as a whole and they way it developed over time, the current lead does not cut it. You will not get my support to retain that lead. We've come this far - what a waste of time this whole effort would have been!! What is wrong with the lead proposals above?Thompsma (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * May I note that the neutral theory of evolution is mentioned in none of the leads, including the old one? If you are such a big fan, do you support putting it into the lead?
 * Absolutely not - if neutral theory can be integrated in an effective way with the rest of the text I would fully support its inclusion. How about a sentence on null models?Thompsma (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we please get beyond assertions and focus on specific passages in the text. Can you find a single pop gen / molecular evolution reference outside the first paragraph of the current lead?
 * My own credentials should not be the point here. To back up my point, I am not citing the assertions of any scientists, including those of my own field (although I certainly could, eg Mike Lynch is very quotable), to support statements about the relative importance of different fields of evolutionary biology. I think all scientists, including myself, are subject to POV issues on this point. I believe that the best NPOV sources for that are professional historians and philosophers (i.e. Ernst Mayr doesn't count), and that is who we should be citing with regard to the relative importance of different approaches to evolutionary biology. But to answer your curiosity, I collaborate with Mark Siegal, a developmental biologist whose work includes morphometrics. I have also collaborated with a wide range of other experimental biologists, from biochemistry to experimental evolution to animal behavior.
 * Good to hear. Perhaps you could ask one of your colleagues to spend five minutes reading the current lead and ask what their opinion is? I have done this for at least five colleagues (professors in evolutionary fields, three were paleontologists, two study molecular ecology) to read the current lead and all given feedback saying it is a peculiar overview and too gene centric.Thompsma (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Following up on your request and the general idea of soliciting outside feedback, I asked the faculty member who teaches our undergraduate-level Evolution class. I emailed him without telling him which points were contentious, he took a look at the table, and gave the following reply:
 * So far I like (3rd): Kim van der Linde / Joannamasel summary in the table the best because of the focus on natural selection, the lead-in to Darwin's theory, and the necessary and sufficient premises listed early on, without it being a laundry list of things, which just confuses people (drift, mutation, etc. should not be introduced right away, soon, but not right away, after an intro).
 * I found the word 'dying' to be awkward and I am uncertain of what that means, all organisms are dying, right?:
 * "replaces dying members of a population with new members that are better adapted to their environment." 
 * OH--I also like that yours EXPLICITLY addresses the issue of 'design' and allows us to OWN the notion that organisms really do seem to fit their environment--hopefully down below this you address that upon closer examination these 'designs' are often shown to be actually driven by a blind watchmaker and the solutions are typically completely constrained by evolutionary legacy, etc. Joannamasel (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great to hear - I wonder if you would have had the same feedback using a blind?Thompsma (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I support changing the lead on different grounds. The old one is too long, introduces too many concepts that the average reader won't get, and as a consequence not focused enough on the topics of greatest interest to the average reader. I defend the centrality of population genetics here, not in order to retain it in the lead, but to preempt an attack on it in the main article. I just want to point out that all of the proposed leads have eliminated the majority of the population genetics material, as was your stated aim at the outset, but that I will not support that approach in the main article. Joannamasel (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "the proposed leads have eliminated the majority of the population genetics material, as was your stated aim at the outset" - This is spreading misinformation about my motives and what I have stated. I have NEVER stated my aim was to eliminate the majority of population genetic material!! I quoted from a recent textbook on evolution that states: "population genetics does not provide a complete theory of evolution". Reading the current lead and this article gives a very different impression. My aim was and always has been to create an article about evolution that is more inclusive of the discipline as a whole. To achieve this I have always felt that a "tree-thinking" approach would assist greatly for the introductory reader. Moreover, an integrative hierarchical overview is the only account that can give an inclusive overview of views that have been expressed by some (a majority) of prominent evolutionary biologists. It is also notable that multiple peer-reviewed authors have stated that the gene centric view of evolution creeps into centre stage to their concern.Thompsma (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

some comments on some small differences between proposals
Going down from top to bottom:- (I think I prefer the version of Maunus, number 1.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All the new proposals open by removing the words "over time". I believe the words are logically necessary. Differences between populations separated over space are not evolution.
 * 1, 2 and 3 all use the sentence about "levels of organization" so this has some support. However I believe that these words are potentially confusing because a cell or animal is not typically called a "level of organization", whereas the term "level of organization" has very obvious and common other uses. Can this be also perhaps fixed by adding some words for clarity? For example "levels of organization of life"?
 * Version 3 jumps from here to directly start talking about natural selection, rather than first talking more generally. I think it is logically and stylistically better not to jump in this way.
 * Andrew, what about #4? :D danielkueh (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed over time because change necessarily happens over time, differences between populations are not change just difference. I would like the "all levels of organization" to be "all levels of biological organization".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now changed my proposal to "biological organisation" and to "over time". I discuss natural selection first in my version, before listing other causes, partly to address a criticism by Thompsa given above that I should not just "drop mutation and genetic drift and pick up with natural selection". This is of course what the other 3 proposals do, but Thompsa claimed that including more words softened the logically identical transition to make it palatable. I could restore the earlier version of my proposal, but actually I think there are other advantages to listing the non-adaptive mechanisms later. By listing them after adaptation has been described, the other non-adaptive mechanisms can be contrasted with the adaptive nature of natural selection, creating more meaning to the text. Since evolution by natural selection is both the centrepiece of modern evolutionary thinking, and what the naive reader is already most familiar with, I think it is reasonable to start there, rather than start with a list. Readers not yet familiar with natural selection will get nothing out of putting the list of other mechanisms so early. Joannamasel (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One important point that keeps coming up is that editors are stating that they like one version over another. Unfortunately, the science of this is not a popularity contest - we can have a preferred style, but this cannot be done at the expense of the content. The lead must be selected according to the accuracy of the information that is being presented first and the style in which that is presented second. I would accept Joannamasel's proposal if the following concerns were addressed:


 * "Over time, natural selection replaces dying members of a population with new members that are better adapted to their environment." - Does natural selection "replace" members? Are the new members "better adapted" to their environment? Those that were selected against may not have had an advantage in the past environment. Those that were selected for may have had the advantage in the past environment. The current environment is a new game, however, and "better" hints at orthogenesis. This is why I carefully worded this part as "Varieties that survive to pass on their traits into future generations leads to individuals with a tendency to be better adapted to function within their environment." - it may address this concern?
 * This sentence also came in for criticism by the outside expert I asked (whose comments are in the section above). I have now reworded this sentence. Joannamasel (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Populations can split into two or more subpopulations..." to "Populations can become geographically or ecologically isolated into two or more subpopulations..." - Or "reproductively isolated", something other than "split" would be an improvement.
 * "Reproductively isolated" excludes all asexual organisms, and is therefore not an acceptable option. Joannamasel (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point! Doh! Should have caught that myself. I am not entirely opposed to "split" - this is actually a minor point and I might be quibbling over nothing, but it seems a little too vague. "Popluations can become isolated.." - "Populations can become subdivided by various isolating mechanisms..." - there is also budding or phyletic transformation (the latter does not involve splitting at all). What about, "Various mechanisms can lead to the divergence of populations, such as becoming separated into two or more subpopulations that speciate in isolation."Thompsma (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift." - Some mutations are adapative (e.g., ). Another example that has been argued by Marion Lamb and Eva Jablonka: "Macroevolution may be the result of specific, stress-induced mechanisms that lead to a re-patterning of the genome - to systemic mutations." - Of course I am familiar with the work of Michael Lynch (e.g., ) to the contrary - but is it correct to have an exclusive statement? Can this be worded better?
 * Some mutations are adaptive, but most are not: in aggregate, mutation is not a cause of adaptation. The citation makes no statement to the contrary.Joannamasel (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Repeated speciation and divergence are the processes by..." - This is where extinction could be introduced, because it fits in that mix.
 * That is why I put extinction in that paragraph, but I am not clear how it could go in a sentence that is about common descent.Joannamasel (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that extinction should go into that sentence, but the topic seemed appropriate for that paragraph. At the time I read it - I don't think the final sentence had been added on extinction. I support the sentence that has been added - but it could afford a bit of elaboration, perhaps: "Most species eventually go extinct, which is a cornerstone of evolutionary theory as the loss of historical varieties gives way to new forms."Thompsma (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Since Darwin, the theory of evolution has been expanded, refined and rigorously tested, and scientists today overwhelmingly accept evolution as a fact." - This sentence does not work. It does not work because it is clearly a form of special pleading to the opposition. Without elaboration on fact v. theory - the sentence will be misconstrued to read as "scientists are saying evolution is fact, so you better believe it", so it fails on its objective. There are much better ways to get this point across in our favor.
 * I am happy to mix and match, using my text as the base for the first 3 paragraphs, and a different text as the base for the last paragraph.Joannamasel (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay!! Great to see the new effort. I think the way to get this point across is to point to the overwhelming amount of evidence - which Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins have used for terminology in their public discourse. This is why version 2 points to "many discoveries and vast amounts of evidence from genetics, paleontology, developmental biology, and systematics into a scientific synthesis." - it seems from earlier debates that the point of controversy was the part in the next sentence "comprehensive explanation for the history and origins of all biological phenomena." Can we find a way to integrate these ideas into a new sentence that is more agreeable to all?Thompsma (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not a fan of ·ʍaunus's final paragraph for several reasons. The first sentence is okay. The second sentence is not needed in my opinion - evolution has been controversial in general, not just in religious terms. I would hardly call the eugenics program (stemming from social Darwinism) a public controversy and it was based on misappropriation of Darwin's theory. Saying less is better on the controversy component. The next sentence: "evolutionary theory has become the sole foundation of scientific approaches to the study of life." - I would disagree, physics, chemistry, and other approaches have created foundations alongside evolution. Evolutionary theory is the core explanation for the processes and diversity of life, but it is not the exclusive scientific foundation for the study of life. The next sentence claims "hundreds" of hypotheses - I dispute that figure, countless perhaps, but hundreds cannot be supported. I also do not support this sentence for reasons outlined above - it is a bully of a sentence, evolution is a fact and so you should believe it. The readers should be able to read the sentence and come away with a strong impression that evolution is a fact without the sentence telling the reader that evolution is a fact. Let people make up their own minds according to the evidence that is presented. The science can rest assured on the evidence. The last sentence is a tautology.
 * I support Daniel's last paragraph. One minor suggestion - "(e.g., psychology and anthropology)" - psychology can be viewed as a natural science and so can anthropology. I would use other terms.Thompsma (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hence, I support (after much careful thought) the first three paragraphs of Joannamasel and Kim's proposal and would support either the final paragraph of the (2nd): Thompsma/Claviclehorn or the (4th): Daniel to be added onto the end.Thompsma (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thompsma, these are very reasonable suggestions. I second them. danielkueh (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I support this too with regard to Daniel's 4th paragraph, especially with the wording change that Daniel just made. How about also linking to evolutionary psychology and evolutionary anthropology instead of psychology and anthropology? Joannamasel (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. That sounds reasonable. danielkueh (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This proposal has three paragraphs - room for a fourth? The final paragraph has room to be expanded for improvement. A fourth paragraph could introduce the link between population genetics, molecular phylogenetics, and tree-based methods in general - from genes to morphological characters.Thompsma (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This proposal has 4 paragraphs.Joannamasel (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops...visual mix up with Daniels proposal as I counted. However, you did mention raising the point of introducing more population genetics - so wondering if you think this could be expanded somewhere in your proposal or if you are satisfied with the existing content in this regard?Thompsma (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Return cells to the hierarchy - it is too important a level to exclude as this paper argues. Plus, most of life is cellular not multi-cellular (See also,, , for notable papers supporting this line).Thompsma (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That cellular most-of-life is already included under "organism". Unless the category of "cell" contains only entities distinct from "organism", then the sentence doesn't work. Joannamasel (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Valid point. I think that cells could be simply inserted in the hierarchy without undue harm and it is more in line with the general way that the levels of biological organization are presented. A new wikipedia page that addresses cellular evolution may be needed?Thompsma (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

clavicle's try at a lead
I was about to quit, but then returned to see that people are collaborating in here. Reading through the revisions and concerns that were addressed, I too support the new proposal. I thought I would take the initiative and put the proposal out for everyone to see. I notice that Thompsma offered a few minor tweaks and so I took those suggestions and tweaked the merger to see if we can reach a consensus here. I support either version - great work everyone!!!Claviclehorn (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. Although I like the second one best, I am ok with either version. danielkueh (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I support only the first version, not the second. The word "isolated" is still problematic. It could mean reproductive isolation, which is not OK, or geographic isolation, which is not OK either, and I am not sure what else it could mean. Would be OK with expanding to "The fossil record reveals that most species eventually go extinct." but am not OK with second half of that proposed sentence. "Varieties" is an ambiguous term. New species assemblages can be formed by migration alone, with no speciation or extinction.Joannamasel (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of these two I also prefer the first version.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. Like danielkueh - I prefer the second, but I am OK with Joannamasel's revision on the fossil record. Post-glacial admixtures is an example where migration has lead to new species assemblages as many phylogeographic studies have revealed. When I initially proposed to insert reproductive isolation I went to Jerry Coyne and followed up on the issue of speciation in TREE and noted that the glossary in that issue defines Speciation: "the establishment of reproductive isolation between two or more previously interbreeding populations." This threw me off, because (of course!), this misses asexual lineages - although horizontal gene transfer plays into this as well. Hence, we can elaborate: ''Various mechanisms can lead to speciation is sexually reproducing organism, whereby populations become isolated into two or more subpopulations that can diverge and then split into new species. However, the process and taxonomy of speciation in asexual organisms, such as bacterial lineages, is an active area of research that has been greatly augmented by advancements in genetic sequencing technologies."'' or we can remain vague as in the first version. I am fine with whatever way this moves forward, because my main concerns have been addressed in both these versions. I am looking forward to seeing the new lead pasted into the article - if we have the full support of others (hopefully!!).Thompsma (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the differing paragraph can be looked at separately, and improved with ideas from both.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support - I also like the recent changes to the second - symbiogenesis is a neat addition! However, at this point I am very open to either edition with a preference for the second.Claviclehorn (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * support I like the second one as well, it reads well and the bolded section is a nice addition.Meatsgains (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The second version is now improved, but I still strongly prefer the first, and cannot support the second in its current form. Divergence and isolation can come in either order during speciation: the second text ambiguously and potentially inaccurately mandates isolation (geographic? reproductive?), then divergence, then "splitting" as a distinct and ambiguous third step. In version 1, "splitting", applying to asexuals too, has an obvious lineage interpretation. The next sentence about asexuals has awkward grammar, and I would prefer to stick to what is known about evolution in the lead, not to single out some areas of current research over others, otherwise there will likely be a clamor to keep adding more current research topics. Plus the current main article says almost nothing about asexual speciation, so giving it a whole sentence in a short lead is not representative.Joannamasel (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * comment: I have prose concerns (you never saw that coming!). The numbered list still doesn't work well. The definition of heritability breaks the prose - it is basically a side remark that should go in a foot note in a paper text but can be fully substitued by a wikilink in hypertext. In the second version the description of speciation is syntactically awkward "various mechanisms can lead to speciation in sexually reproducing mechanisms whereby..." . I also think it goes into undue detail - especially the note about "area of research ... greatly augmented" is unnecessary, and I am unconvinced that we need to introduce the distinction between sexual and asexual reproducing organisms in the lead. I also think that the extinction theme can be more elegantly integrated in to the paragraph - now it stands as an unrelated afterthought. The concept of modern synthessis and evo-devo are presented with not explanation - I think it is alot more relevant to explain these concepts in a short phrase than to define heritability. The synthesis is a major part of the development of the theoretical paradigm, evo-devo is a hint towards the next. This is really important for understanding the way that evolutionary theory has progressed since Darwin - it deserves to be explained I think. Also at least write out evolutionary developmental biology, instead of using the cutesy abbreviation. I don't think the link to EP is justified, link to psychology, and the link to anthropology should go first as this is a much more well established field of evolutionary enquiry into behavior. I support none of the two at present.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am fine with deleting the heritability sentence, so long as we replace the current link to heredity with one to heritability. The numbered list is a common device, going back to Darwin, who did it without the numbers. I think it is harder to parse without the numbers than with. In an earlier prose version "individuals that produce the largest number of surviving offspring are more likely to have their heritable traits appear in future generations." I had a formulation that avoided the problem, but that got vetoed because some editors did not agree that a statement that A makes B more likely could be treated as equivalent to a statement that B makes A more likely. I agree about the speciation material. As for the last paragraph, how about using the following material from the current lead as a starting point "In the early 20th century, Darwinian theories of evolution were combined with genetics, palaeontology and systematics, which culminated into a union of ideas known as the modern evolutionary synthesis. The synthesis became a major principle of biology as it provided a coherent and unifying explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth.  " This could segue into "Since then, evolutionary biologists have continued to expand, refine and rigorously test...". Joannamasel (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As a version of the synthesis more informed by Provine's historical research, I would prefer the alternative as a 1st sentence of the 4th paragraph: In the early 20th century, Darwinian theories of evolution were combined with genetics, and all other branches of biology were made compatible with the resulting synthesis, and purged of notions of "progress".  This could segue into "Since then, evolutionary biologists have continued to expand..." Joannamasel (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think all of those ideas are alright - except I would link "progress" to something else, because with that link it almost seems to reify the idea of teleological evolution rather than debunk it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am also fine with the numbered list. Several of us tried to change it, but it seems that the numbered list is what works best and I agree with Joannamasel that the numbered list is a common device. I have felt the same way about the heritability bit. I just moved it in the tweaking version on the right and think it fits better.Thompsma (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I spent a bit of time this evening to read Joannamasel's post more carefully. I am fine with the modern synthesis addition to the end of that paragraph. ·ʍaunus's suggestion is fine also. I made these changes with a few minor tweaks of my own. I also made changes to the third paragraph to address earlier concerns that were raised by Joannamasel. To follow up on your comment Joannamasel about "A and B, B and A" above - I sought independent feedback on the line of reasoning that claviclehorn and I had used to reject that statement from a former thesis supervisor of mine. He agreed that it read as though the numerically superior were those that would succeed and also felt that the statement was incorrect. You should ask your colleague to see what he/she says on the matter.Thompsma (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added a third proposed version, addressing some of Manaus's concerns, forgot to log in while doing so. I also followed Thompsa's lead in inserting something about phylogenetics. Manaus, I think the Largest-scale trends in evolution page does debunk not reify progress. If you prefer, we can link to Evolution of biological complexity, but the first page is a bit more general.Joannamasel (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. As I compare the two latest tweaks, I still prefer the second version. The third version is ok with the exception of the first sentence of the last paragraph. This sentence casts too wide a net as it tries to convey a couple of points. After reading it several times, I am still not quite sure "where it is going." Plus, it does not transition well to the next sentence. If the last paragraph from the second version replaces the last paragraph of the third version, I would be ok with the third version. My two cents. danielkueh (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Version 2 has not been edited to address various concerns raised by both Manaus and myself. Until it is, I cannot support it.
 * In the absence of such changes, the question is then about the beginning of paragraph 4. My support for version 3 over version 2 is based on the accuracy of the material, and the appropriateness of the cited sources. I have tried to reword version 3 to make it clearer, eg by splitting into two sentences. In both versions, the material treated is the history and philosophy of evolutionary biology. Provine argues that the synthesis was NOT a "coherent and unifying" explanation as version 2 states, and I am aware of no similarly-credential historian of the period of philosopher of evolutionary biology who has made a case to the contrary, so I think version 2 fails on accuracy right now. Joannamasel (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then strike out the second sentence from the last paragraph of version 2.
 * The latest edits to the last paragraph of version 3 are improvements. "Purge" is a strong term. Does the source specifically use that term? danielkueh (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Provine does use strong language, including renaming the synthesis"the "evolutionary constriction", saying it "routed earlier theories of the mechanism of evolution", calling it a "vast cut-down of variables" that "drove from evolutionary biology all of the purposive theories of evolution that had been so common and popular before 1930". Other words used in this context include "eliminated" and "withered". I couldn't find "purged" specifically in the source, but I think the meaning is clear enough. Do you want to replace "purged" with "eliminated", which is in the source?Joannamasel (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer language that is a little more conservative such as "fail from favor" or "no longer prevails." How about:
 * "In the early 20th century, the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection was combined with genetics, forming a modern evolutionary synthesis. Other branches of biology were made compatible with this synthesis while previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress", were made obsolete."
 * Something along these lines would work. danielkueh (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed it along those lines.Joannamasel (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Works! I support version 3. danielkueh (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One more suggestion. The last sentence ends with "...and psychology) and on society as well." "On society" is a little vague. I wonder if it would be better to say "...and psychology) and on the traditional beliefs of society as well." danielkueh (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I am awed by the work done here. Still, a critical comment. In the first sentence, it is emphasized that evolution "happens" to populations and not to individuals. Wikipedia does not provide an easily accessible explanation of what a population is. Especially, that article does not. Population genetics says A population is a set of organisms in which any pair of members can breed together. (I probably wrote that myself. I would of course welcome improvements in population and Population genetics.) If that is what you have in mind, I would like to point out that such a restriction would exclude some parts of evolution, for example the evolution of Bdelloidea. --Ettrig (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I edited population to restrict that wording to sexuals. It is extraordinarily hard to define asexual species, let alone populations. Joannamasel (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I support version 3 as well, but prefer the third paragraph in version 2. Could we swap that paragraph into version 3? I don't think danielkueh's suggestion "the traditional beliefs of society as well." works. Perhaps, "..and on society at large."?? Otherwise, I support the insertion of version 3 into the article as it currently stands. Great job everyone!!Thompsma (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "society at large" works too and I agree that version 3 is ready to go. danielkueh (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But wait, I believe relevant and key references need to be inserted into version 3 before it replaces the current lead. danielkueh (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I support version 3 as well, subject to reference insertions, but als see below.Claviclehorn (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Third paragraph
Like Thompsma I prefer the third paragraph in version 2. I will re-post them below for comparison in the hope that we can find the common elements that will make this work. I prefer the version on the left for a several reasons. First, I like that it gives a time frame, which is kinda critical and a prelude to the geological ties to evolution and dating of the Earth, etc. The second version introduces homology too abruptly and the phrase "Evolutionary histories" does not fit properly into the third sentence - not clear if that should be singular or plural? Homology is a very complex term to be thrown in like this, whereas Thompsma's version introduces it in layman's terms. Building on the phylogenetic paragraph that Thompsma offered a while back, I offer a few tweaks on the far right. My version is longer, but I have extended this out to open it up for discussion.Claviclehorn (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Version 3 has some nice features BUT... I don't like the word "imprint", its scientific meaning is ambiguous. As I have posted earlier, it makes no sense in a multistep process to first split and then to bifurcate: these refer to the same thing. The lineages that result may still interact and therefore not evolve independently. Systematic and phylogenetic methods are used for classifying species, not for determining the MECHANISMS of speciation, which are usually studied via hybridization experiments. These issues of accurate language would need to be fixed before I could support the paragraph. I also think version 3 could be made a little shorter while containing the same material. Joannamasel (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I like where Claviclehorn is going and I partly agree with Joannamasel's comments. I didn't have a chance to address your "bifurcation" & "split" comments earlier and hope that my most recent revisions will satisfy your concerns? However, I have seen imprint used quite regularly in the literature (for e.g., - co-authored with Futuyma). According to the definition of the term I think it works as a diaphoric metaphor, which is legitimate prose commonly encountered in scientific lit. However, the point is mute, because I just reworked/trimmed the proposal that removed this. Claviclehorn's proposal does not say that phylogenetic trees are used to determine the mechanisms of speciation, but states that they reveal various mechanism and this is true, because you cannot study the mechanisms of speciation until you know the history of transformation. A phylogenetic tree maps out the character state distributions from which the mechanisms of speciation can be inferred and tested.Thompsma (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some good changes, but not enough. I don't like "structure and pattern of biological relations", "relations" is very ambiguous. What is really specified is history, which is already stated in the previous sentence, so I think that sentence could go. The text still does not recognise that speciation is ALSO a microevolutionary process. "Various mechanisms that can cause speciation" should not link to macroevolution, nor are phylogenetic approaches the primary methodology to "reveal" them. "Ecologically separated" should not link to vicariance, which is geographic only. Genetic divergence always happens, so "may" is inappropriate. "Bifurcate" means two, and conflicts with the "two or more", something needs to change. The grammar of the last sentence is awkward. Joannamasel (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking your comments into consideration I made some further modifications.Thompsma (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thompsma's revisions seem okay. I tweaked the grammar of the last sentence to address Joannamasel's final concern.Claviclehorn (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I added "(or phylogenetic network's)" (in my earlier posts and transferred into this proposal) as a hint toward horizontal transfer, graph theory, or coalescent networks in contrast to the branching tree. However, for the lead I think it is sufficient to cut this part out to shorten this further and in the body of the text to have the phylogenetics section describe phylogenetic branching versus networking.Thompsma (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I still can't support this paragraph as it stands. I edited it some more as an alternative that I would be OK with. Talking about the mechanism rather than the fact of speciation seems to make things difficult, given the current limited state of knowledge about speciation mechanisms, together with the asexual vs. sexual issue. I think the most appropriate thing to do in the lead is just to take speciation mechanisms out, and deal with them in the main text. Joannamasel (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your revised version Joannamasel - is stupendous! :) Support.Thompsma (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as well. danielkueh (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Final paragraph trimming
I took a look at the final paragraph and found a way to make it shorter while saying essentially the same thing.Thompsma (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Good effort. But I still prefer the untrimmed version because it does not feel rushed. Nevertheless, I agree that "society as well" should be changed to "society at large." danielkueh (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Although, Thompsma does capture some good points here. The following sentences:


 * "Since then, evolutionary biologists have continued to expand, refine and rigorously test questions and hypotheses pertaining to evolution."
 * "The understanding of patterns and processes of evolution has continued to be an active area of research in evolutionary biology."
 * Are kinda redundant. This sentence:


 * "From carefully controlled laboratory experiments to fossil records, evolutionary biologists have accumulated sufficient evidence to demonstrate that evolution is both theory and fact."
 * Is in error. First, I don't like "sufficient" - that is too qualitative. Plus, it is not the accumulation of evidence that "demonstrates evolution as theory", which is how this reads. Evolutionary theory provides the mechanism that is used to explain the facts. "Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts." (Gould, 1981 ) Hence, the version that Thompsma offers provides a corrected version on the fact of evolution "according to the evidence" and the theory of evolution "the scientific way that it is investigated".Claviclehorn (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I concede that the second sentence on "...understanding of patterns and processes...." may be redundant.
 * I agree that a scientific theory explains a set of facts. That of course is not the issue. The issue is when to call a scientific statement a theory and not a hypothesis. For a statement to be called a scientific theory, it has to be supported by evidence. Otherwise, it is just a hypothesis. So I don't agree that the statement is an error in that regard. As for the term "sufficient," it is a fairly standard and mundane term. Many scientific agreements and conventions come from consensus within the scientific community, which changes over time. There is no sure way to quantify such a consensus. What may be considered sufficient two decades ago would be called preliminary now. So although the term, sufficient, may be qualitative, it is at this point, sufficient for our purpose. danielkueh (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Claviclehorn - you were able to read into the underlying reasons for my suggested changes, but I agree with danielkueh that sufficient is fine. A theory differs from a hypothesis in several ways - not just because it is supported by the evidence. A hypothesis is a carefully worded statement or proposition that can be subject to testing and falsifiability, whereas a theory is a universal statement or a group of propositions that may or may not be supported by the evidence, although it is regarded as a correct explanation for the facts at hand. "Theories are nets cast to catch what we call the "world": to rationalize, to explain, and to master it." (Karl Popper, 1959 ) Hence, the sentence is in error in the way that it addresses theory.Thompsma (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This paper can help on the concept of theory: "Contrary to what once I thought, scientific progress did not consist simply in observing, in accumulating experimental facts and drawing up a theory from them." Edward Wilson defines theory in Conscilience in a way that can help to explain what I mean by "may or may not be supported by the evidence". Theories can be quite deceptive, which is why they necessarily spawn hypotheses. Theory is a product of informed imagination, it is partial, and provisional - Darwin's pangenesis, for example, versus Mendelian inheritance. Both are theories and may or may not be supported by the evidence. It may sound unusual to say that Mendelian inheritance may not be supported by the evidence, but it was probably unusual to discover that Ptolemy's theory was wrong because the math was able to predict the movement of various celestial bodies. Ptolemy's theory was wrong, yet it was supported by the predictive evidence. Theories are empirical creatures, "funeral by funeral, theory advances."
 * With all this in mind, I am asking the following question: is the following statement consistent with theory?:


 * "accumulated sufficient evidence to demonstrate that evolution is theory"
 * I think this is false. Theory is not about accumulated evidence and this is not what demonstrates that evolution is theory. Evolution is a theory because it originates in the informed imagination to provide a network of ideas into a scheme that helps to construct testable hypothesis. The empirical or accumulated evidence part you are alluding too is the kind of theory that continues to generate new and productive hypotheses with explanatory power. It is true that the evidence helps a theory survive, but it is not a necessary precondition of a scientific theory. Hence, "for a statement to be called a scientific theory, it has to be supported by evidence" - is rejected on these grounds. Hope this helps.Thompsma (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the most common criticisms made by creationist is that evolution is "just a theory." Why do you think they always make this argument? Because they obviously mean to say that "evolution is just a hypothesis." Dawkins devotes the entire first chapter of his book, The Greatest Show on Earth  to this issue. In fact, Dawkins went further by saying that Darwin used the word "theory" in a laymen's sense. Also, many introductory biology textbooks also take some time to explain the difference between the layman's definition of theory and the scientific definition of theory. In fact, here is a definition from Hillis et al. (2012), in they described "a theory a body of scientific work in which rigorously tested and well-established facts and principles are used to make predictions about the natural world." So for a statement to be considered a theory, it has to be supported by evidence. Otherwise, what is the fundamental difference between a theory and a hypothesis? It is certainly not just because one is "more universal" than the other.
 * The quote that you gave from that paper by Ayala (2009) is taken out of context. You forgot the first sentence of that paragraph when Ayala was quoting Nobel Prize winner, Francois Jacob, as saying that, "research in the lab as an interplay between imagination (hypothesis formulation) and experiment," which was the point of that paragraph and which I'm not disputing. As for E.O. Wilson and Karl Popper, I will have to look through my copies of their books to see what they said as it has been a while. So far, your quotes do not at all contradict what I just said. Your example of Ptolemy's theories doesn't contradict what I said as well. All it means is that Ptolemy's theories are now obsolete. Your description of theories as "informed imagination to provide a network of ideas into a scheme that ...." is correct. But then again, which scientific statement isn't an "informed imagination?" Science is after all a product of the human brain. The question at the end of the day is whether evolution is a theory or a hypothesis? Both statements can explain. But what is the difference? Well, one has been rigorously tested and consistent with the evidence and the other one isn't. It's that simple. danielkueh (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I am well familiar with the statement "It's only a theory", but this does not give us cause to redefine theory in an effort to further differentiate it from hypothesis. An "obsolete scientific theory" is a theory nonetheless, and, furthermore, the boundary between "obsolete" and "disputed" is not clear-cut. Nothing you have provided supports the following:


 * "accumulated sufficient evidence to demonstrate that evolution is theory"
 * Theory is neither demonstrated nor is it demonstrated on the premise of sufficient evidence. That is not what theory is. Proof is in the demonstration (i.e., publicly verifiable experimentation) and the combination (experimentation + evidence) makes it factual. Theory is something different. The Hillis quote also states that theory is "used to make predictions about the natural world", it does not say that a theory is demonstrated on the grounds of accumulated evidence. It is true that evolution is "a body of scientific work" and it is also true that it requires experimentation on "rigorously tested and well-established facts and principles", but the sentence we are debating does not express this.Thompsma (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken on the problematic use of the term "demonstrated." That statement that sufficient evidence --> demonstrates a theory is of course not the point I am trying to make. So how about if we rephrase that sentence as follows:


 * "From carefully controlled laboratory experiments to fossil records, evolutionary biologists have accumulated sufficient evidence":
 * 1) "that are consistent with the theory and fact of evolution."
 * or


 * 1) "that allow them to describe evolution as both theory and fact."
 * or


 * 1) "that allow them to establish that evolution is both theory and fact."
 * I would like to maintain the "active voice" of the sentence. danielkueh (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great - it is good that we have come to a mutual understanding. I revised your proposal so that we can see the alternative options a bit more clearly. I prefer the first option - Consistency is what we are after.Thompsma (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Synthesized lead with support thus far
I have picked-up on our discussed and so far agreed upon changes and integrated the changes into this consolidated proposal:

If this has broad support, we can move onto the citations and entry into the main article. Please fix if I have made any errors in the copy and pasting - or if I have mis-interpreted any entries that were supported or remain to be discussed.Thompsma (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support or oppose lead synthesis

 * Support Thompsma (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support danielkueh (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support after the grammar is fixed in "sufficient evidence that are consistent". Evidence is singular, and I am not sure what "sufficient" means with regard to consistency. Joannamasel (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Question on the change in grammar: "From carefully controlled laboratory experiments to fossil records, evolutionary biologists have found numerous results that are consistent with the theory and fact of evolution." On the contrary, have any results (not numerous) ever been found that are not consistent with the theory and fact of evolution and wouldn't that kinda destroy the premise? How about: "From carefully controlled laboratory experiments to fossil records, the results are empirically consistent with the theory and fact of evolution."Thompsma (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing last night. I thought about "made significant findings that contributed to the growing theory and fact of evolution." danielkueh (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * comment The prose is not better than when I mentioned this before. The middle section is staccato with short sentences with a funny repetitive chaining of concepts - the latter sections put many different concepts in to single chain sentences without adequately describing what they are and how they are important. (how many times is "(theory of evolution by) natural selection" written out?) - "replacements are not the offspring of random parents" is a very convoluted way to describe the process - and I think previous versions had much better descriptions than this. I also don't like the phase "from carefully controlled experiments to fossil records" I think it makes more sense to actually describe how experiments and fossil records support the theory. Similarly the "evidence of common ancestry, speciation and divergence..." sentence fails to describe or explain those three concepts and the way they work (which previous versions also did). I realize by now I will probably be brushed of as a pedant, and that you don't need my approval of the prose for posting the lead if there is a general consensus, but I want to note it anyway.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maunus, I agree that the prose is critically important. Especially if we would intend to make the lead informative to a general audience. Perhaps this is what we should be focusing on right now that we have all the content issues settled. danielkueh (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose just scrapping the problematic sentence starting with "From carefully controlled laboratory experiments...". I don't think it adds much to the lead anyway, and the emphasis of the article, rightly, is not on presenting evidence for evolution to skeptics. Likewise "Evidence of common ancestry..." should simply read "Common ancestry...". Joannamasel (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Works. danielkueh (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that will solve the general prose problems I see. If people think it would be beneficial I could give my attempt at making the above proposal more readable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Give it a try. No harm, no foul. danielkueh (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the changes that Joannamasel made to the third paragraph, it makes it flow nicer and gets rid of the bracket explanation for homology. I am fine with getting rid of the fact and theory of evolution bit - but others may not be comfortable with this. It think that issue is better left to be addressed in the body of the article, because it requires more contextual information for the reader to really understand it. ·ʍaunus - I would discourage a significant re-write of this, because we have sorted through many of the conceptual issues and have arrived at something that is quite agreeable beyond a more "likeable" prose. Moreover, I think the writing is crisp, clear, and prose worthy. Perhaps the recent tweaks by Joannamasel fixed some of your concerns? My concern is with the trend that keeps us in a rut. The more scientifically orientated writers land on something that we generally agree upon and then those more interested in the presentation style interject, do a re-write, and then the whole cycle starts up again: we start to scrutinize the interpretation and argue the meaning of the terms. Is there a way that you can make mild tweaks to address your concerns so that we don't go so far off track?Thompsma (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If Maunus makes an attempt and it is not good, then we can all say it is not good. So why not have a go at making the prose better?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not saying not to make a go of it. I am saying that we need find a way out of this rut and previous attempts to making it "better" has resulted in a quagmire. The current prose is already excellent and the information is agreeable for its reliability content. I am suggesting that we maintain the information content that many of us have generally agreed acceptable. Previous attempts involved a re-write where the content lost its original or intended meaning. If Maunus wants to make an attempt, of course I support this initiative - but I'm skeptical from previous posts that a re-write for the sake of "prose" will generate the support we need unless the information content is maintained. To achieve this, I would suggest that only minor changes ("tweaks") be made. I agree with Maunus, for example, that the following sentence: "The replacements are not the offspring of random parents, but instead of parents who were, on average, better adapted to the environment in which natural selection took place." is a slightly cumbersome - but clear nonetheless. Perhaps: "Offspring that survive into the next generation are not of random parents, but from the parents who were, on average, better adapted to the environment in which natural selection took place."??Thompsma (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - The prose reads fine to me, it seems like a good compromise has been made. The suggested change: "Offspring that survive into the next generation are not of random parents, but from the parents who were, on average, better adapted to the environment in which natural selection took place." - also works for me.Claviclehorn (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The proposed wording changes may have better syntax, but unfortunately change the meaning. If the reference is to the parents' adaptedness, then it must also be to the survival and fertility of the parents, not of the survival of the offspring. Joannamasel (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to cover this. Obviously the offspring survived through the survival of their parents, otherwise this would not work. The topic still points to the parents -> "not of random parents". It is clear that the reference is to the parents' adaptedness and not the offspring. I don't see how the meaning was changed?Claviclehorn (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Once the citations are in, I have no further comment. Whenever you guys are ready. Great job everyone. Now for a break. :D danielkueh (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Joannamasel, would you have the sentence say: "Offspring that survive into the next generation are not of random parents, but from the parents who survived and were, on average, better adapted to the environment in which natural selection took place." ->This seems self-evident and redundant. If a parent survives and gives birth to offspring that immediately dies, then there is no replacement. By proxy, the offspring must survive into the next generation, which is the replacement part that you wrote in your original.Claviclehorn (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am OK with "Offspring who are born into the next generation are not descended from random parents, but from parents who were, on average, better adapted to the environment in which natural selection took place." Joannamasel (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They both say the same thing -> so either form is okay with me.Claviclehorn (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Joannamasel's suggestion works for me - made the changes above to both tweaking and cited version. I added the Futuyma (1999) citation that Claviclehorn recommended toward the end. It covers the social aspects very well.Thompsma (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Manaus?? Do the recent changes address your concerns?: Is this satisfactory?Thompsma (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The middle section is staccato with short sentences with a funny repetitive chaining of concepts - addressed
 * The latter sections put many different concepts in to single chain sentences without adequately describing what they are and how they are important. - addressed??
 * (how many times is "(theory of evolution by) natural selection" written out?) - appears once, addressed
 * "replacements are not the offspring of random parents" is a very convoluted way to describe the process. - addressed
 * I also don't like the phase "from carefully controlled experiments to fossil records".- addressed
 * Similarly the "evidence of common ancestry, speciation and divergence..." - addressed
 * Small suggestion for prose in this part: "Life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago. Common ancestry, repeated speciation, and divergence can be traced through shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences." Where is the transition? Recommend: "Life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago. The common ancestry, repeated speciation, and divergence of life can be traced through shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences."Claviclehorn (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am okay with Claviclehorn's changes.Thompsma (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This sentence: "These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct the evolutionary history of life, using both existing species and the fossil record." can also be shortened to: "These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct the evolutionary histories of life, using both existing species and the fossil record."Claviclehorn (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

-- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for several reasons:
 * I do not like the change in focus towards natural selection. It is just one way evolution takes place, and I think the article about evolution should start with a broader view and work towards a more narrow aspects. Genetic drift is very important as well (phylogenetics is based on the premise, the biggest nightmare is convergent evolution in sequences in response to natural selection), and without mutations, natural selection would immediately converge to a permanent stable solution with no hope for change. The focus on adaptation logically also arises from this focus on NS. Aka, the lead is far to adaptionist oriented.
 * It is true that more words are dedicated to adaptation than non-adaptive evolution, but I think this is because adaptation takes a minimum number of words to explain properly. I do not think there is anything incorrect in there. That NS is only "one of the causes of evolution" is repeated at the beginning and the end of paragraph 2, bracketing the adaptation content, and mutation and drift are mentioned. Describing them properly is just too hard. Plus there is no evidence that genetic drift is important (Will Provine has an unclaimed prize offering on this topic). Mutation is undeniably important, but I think that is clear enough. Joannamasel (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Joanna, I can explain mutation and genetic drift in far less words than Evolution by means of natural selection. Yes, positive evidence for drift is notoriously difficult, because you have to exclude all possible alternatives. At the same time, Kimura neutral theory is fully based on this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To add, I think the Berkeley evolution website is one of the best examples out there to explain evolution to lay people, and they start with Mutation, then Migration, followed by genetic drift and finally NS. The fact that Will Provine has an unclaimed price for a complete positive example for genetic drift does not make it something that does not happen. Methodologically, proving genetic drift as the only source for a observed pattern is extremely difficult by virtue that you have to be able to exclude all possible alternatives, as genetic drift is so basic that it does not have an easy positive signature that can be traced in populations. So, I am not surprised that the price is not claimed yet, although I think it would not be to difficult to do this experimentally using an artificial population with multiple mutations under balancing natural selection in one half of the populations and with random computer generated mortality imposed on the other half of the populations. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Genetic drift does indeed predict neutral theory. And neutral theory is not a good fit to genomic data. For example, allelic diversity not only does not correlate well with census population sizes (the "paradox of variation") but does correlate extremely well with local recombination rates along that portion of the chromosome. This implies that the primary, nonadaptive stochastic force acting on alleles is not the accumulation of accidents of sampling (which is how we define genetic drift in this article), but selection at linked sites, even in many or most sexual organisms, let alone asexual ones. And if selection at linked sites is the important stochastic factor, of course one needs to explain selection first. Genetic drift by means of sampling errors is of course a logical necessity, but that doesn't make it important in evolution. If genetic drift were important, one does derive concrete predictions, but those predictions have not held up well. Apologies for the self-cite here, but take a look at http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2811%2900882-7 and the Hahn article cited therein. Joannamasel (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC)Proposal for the second paragraph. Replace the two sentences at the end for these sentences at the beginning to make a better connection with the previous paragraph.
 * "Evolution is the result of several processes: mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection. The first three processes lead to random changes, while natural selection has a non-random effect. Mutations leads to an increase in the genetic variation through changes in the genetic material, while migration can introduce new genetic variation into an existing population. Genetic drift occurs when some individuals are excluded from reproducing by change alone, eliminating their genetic material from being transfered to the next generation."
 * followed by the natural selection part.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose this change. "Random" vs. "non-random" change is highly ambiguous. Mutations are considered "random" with respect to which selective environment they occur in, but they have highly non-random characteristics in other ways, eg a bias towards loss of function rather than gain of function. Haldane, Fisher and Wright all classified recurrent mutation as a directional change, in addition to its role in increasing variation. Similarly, migration can be highly non-random. The true distinction here is not random vs. non-random, but adaptive vs. non-adaptive. For this reason it should be introduced only after adaptation is explained. Also, if we are going to include a long or even ostensibly complete list of all nonadaptive processes, I will not support it unless selection at linked sites is included. Joannamasel (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was just a first start. In one of my earlier versions, I had included hitchhicking ebcause it is so important, and I like to have it back. As for random versus non-random, I think we can drop that without loosing clarity. So, lets tweak this:
 * "Evolution is the result of several processes: mutation, migration, genetic drift, genetic hitchhiking and natural selection. Mutations leads to an increase in the genetic variation through changes in the genetic material, while migration can introduce new genetic variation into an existing population. Genetic drift occurs when some individuals are excluded from reproducing by change alone, eliminating their genetic material from being transfered to the next generation."
 * I would then add at the end the following sentence. Selection on specific genes generally also affect the nearby sites through genetic hitchhiking.. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't like it. This much longer treatment gives the reader the impression of being comprehensive. But it's not. It doesn't mention that mutation is directional force as well as a source of variation. Similarly, migration appears only as a source of variation, and not as a profound influence of breeding structure on inbreeding depression, background selection etc. Also, we have defined genetic drift in this article strictly as sampling error. Your definition of drift as "chance alone" includes genetic hitchhiking. Many people do define drift this way, but I think in the article we need to stick to one clear definition and stick to it, and I think the sampling error one is the clearest.Joannamasel (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago." This sentence is most likely unclear for lay people. I would split this in a abiogenesis aspect and the decent from there.
 * Could you please clarify? The proposed sentence is very clear - even to a lay reader, I had my husband read it and he fully understood. In contrast, however, I have no idea what you are talking about in your last sentence and I'm not a lay person.Claviclehorn (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "Life on Earth originated and then evolved from..."?Joannamasel (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Joanna, I think something like this would be far clearer: "The diversity of life on earth evolved over the past 3.7 billion years from the earliest life forms." The earliest origins of life are murky, and debate is ongoing whether those origins are based on a reticulate network origin versus a single origin. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your suggestion is a little too wordy Kim van der Linde and so it misses the clarity sought after. It repeats itself in the sense that you have diversity of life on earth (subject) evolving (predicate) and earliest life forms (subset of the subject) all contained in a single clause. I prefer Joannamasel's version.Claviclehorn (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current version isn't great: it is ambiguous whether it was the origin of life or LUCA that was 3.7 billion years ago. Can somebody more knowledgeable than me clear up those dates? But I think we should have some abiogenesis link and at least an implicit mention, given likely interest from readers. How about "All known species evolved over the past 3.7 billion years from a common ancestor whose origin is unknown." Joannamasel (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool with me. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction." This sentence is far to narrow focused on beta diversity. Alpha and gamma diversity are completely missing, despite that they are equally important (if not more), and the result of evolution.
 * You have taken that sentence out of context from the paragraph in which it was contained. The sentence is not exclusive and instead of saying what is wrong with it, which is simple to do, why don't you offer an alternative that we can work with?Claviclehorn (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Common ancestry, repeated speciation, and divergence can be traced through shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences." Speciation IS one cause of divergence, and leads to the principle of common ancestry. As such, it contains redundancy and is confusing.
 * Incorrect. This sentence is about cladogenesis (speciation) v. anagenesis (divergence). It is neither redundant, nor confusing.Claviclehorn (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How about replacing this with simply: "Repeated speciation and divergence can be traced through..." to eliminated the implicit redundancy in common ancestry. Speciation may be a cause of divergence, but it is not divergence itself, so those two are not redundant with each other. Joannamasel (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is fine, and I agree, speciation and divergence are not redundant. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection was combined with genetics" I would suggest to use the word integrated, and reverse the order as genetics was integrated into EbmNS. EbmNS depends on a rudimentary idea of what the heritable component is, and some aspects of genetics were already present in the theory before genetics was integrated into it.
 * This is fine.
 * homologous needs to be disambiguated.
 * Fixed.Claviclehorn (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement "scientists today overwhelmingly accept evolution as a fact." needs to readded in the lead, as it is a crucial aspect of the topic.
 * We debated this already. If you want this information to be inserted, I suggest you revisit the discussion we had on this and see if you can pick up from where this component was removed. This can be included in the main article, there is no "rule" saying that this MUST be in the lead.Claviclehorn (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Earlier, I proposed the following sentence: "From carefully controlled laboratory experiments to fossil records, the results are empirically consistent with the theory and fact of evolution." - would this be satisfactory and would anybody else care to comment?Thompsma (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It goes some way, but it is not enough because it does not include the fact that tis is supported by many scientists. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * epigenetics and evo-devo are missing, despite that they have made a substantial impact on the ideas surrounding evolution.
 * I can agree with this. Perhaps, a sentence can be added around "Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction." - this could be elaborated to include the importance of evo-devo and epigenetic inheritance.Claviclehorn (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The jury is still out on the eventual impact of these fields on evolution as a whole, there is no consensus on this. The main finding of evo-devo, of conserved homologous mechanisms of morphogenesis, can be compared to the earlier parallel finding of conserved homologous mechanisms of transcription, translation etc., which was unexpected to many (eg Mayr). In that sense it is not fundamentally new to evolution. It is fundamentally new to the understanding of morphology, but this article is on evolution. I do not feel that these topics are a "must" for the lead, although if there is a good proposal that fits in well I will not oppose it. Joannamasel (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be that the consensus is still lacking, but that does not negate that this are important areas of study currently. I try to think about a good sentence. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I still have an issue with the organisms versus individuals, especially in the light of Lewontin's seminal work on Unit of Selection that is rightfully used as a citation He talks about individual selection as contrast to species, cell, organelle, gene etc.
 * I think you are completely off base on this issue and a majority of editors already voted on this. Repeating this over and over again does not make it right. There are thousands of articles that have written about individual species, individual cells, individual organelles - yet we can all agree (save 1) that organism is the level that is the most general term that adds the least amount of confusion. Individual is too confusing because it applies to all the levels in that hierarchy that are introduced.
 * It is nice of you to rejoin us Kim van der Linde with the opposition after everyone came together, collaborated and worked together to create a new lead. I am of the opinion that we have an excellent proposal and I don't know what the rules are on seeking 100% consensus to make a change to the main article. At this rate - we will never make a change to the lead of this article. The focus is on natural selection, because it is the only way to introduce adaptation. The other topics are not ignored, they are INTRODUCED. This is an introductory lead that can be expanded upon in the main article. Natural selection is the topic that is obviously the most logical place to start, because it is where Darwin began, it explains the design of organisms, and it requires a fair amount of description to explain it properly and in a way that the common person can understand it. Hence, I don't agree with your concern that this is too focused on a topic that is so obviously central to evolution.Claviclehorn (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the organism issue has already been debated and a consensus was reached. The Lewontin (1970) paper is dated for this topic, it was 1974 when Ghislen published on the "Radical solution to the species problem" where the notion of individuality was addressed and later picked up by MANY others. The Lewontin paper even touches on this where he states: "For example, if we replace the term individual with the term population and interpret phenotype to mean the distribution of phenotype in a population, then Principles 1, 2, and 3 describe a process by which one population may increase its proportional representation in the species relative to  other populations. Similar reinterpretations of these principles could be made for species rather than populations and even communities rather than species." In a subsequent paragraph he states: "Such differential reproductive rates of individual chromosomes are very powerful forces in changing gene frequency, but they are stabilized in populations  by the opposing force  of selection at the organismic level..." - Hence, the Lewontin citation does not seem to support your emphasis on individual. Too many citations are at complete odds with your stance on this Kim, sorry - but the literature and the pool of editors in here seem to disagree. If you want to take another poll - I suggest starting a new section, but otherwise I agree with Claviclehorn that repeating this issue does not fix the problem. It needs to be addressed using appropriate literature, reason, and a sound argument that can convince us otherwise.Thompsma (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is fine if others want to keep on the organisms issue, I disagree and my disagreement remains. Lewontins has the header called "Individual selection", what else do you need? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW I wont respond to claviclehorn for obvious reasons. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what those obvious reason's are Kim van der Linde beyond the fact that I have called attention to the impartiality of some of your posts that sometimes lack objectivity due to your admitted anger. An academic posting in anger is not going to gain support nor does it contribute clarity to the discussion. I am willing to be part of a dialogue and will honor my part of the bargain not to judge your posts against your person, but on the objective merit of the posts as I see them. You have made some great contributions, but the stuff you are posting in anger is an unfortunate distraction because I do believe that you have some great knowledge to contribute. Academic leadership and discourse requires a certain degree of humility, deference, and I believe that the Socratic method is certainly a noble guide "to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas." Those who follow these methods gain my respect. Your anger issues are distraction from what could be more productively realized and it loses my respect. It is unfortunate that you are not finding a more effective maturity to share your knowledge and let bygones be bygones.Claviclehorn (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Lewontins (sic) has the header called "Individual selection", what else do you need?" - Well you need to carefully read what he wrote under that heading and what he and others have said since 1970. Not responding to people you disagree with will get you nowhere. People are free to disagree. Claviclehorn has been a contributor and has been a part of the discussion, so that's good enough for me.Thompsma (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, organism is used as a quite imprecise unit as I have already shown, which is reflected in for example dictionary definitions:
 * The American Heritage® Science Dictionary: organism = An individual form of life that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing. Organisms can be unicellular or multicellular. They are scientifically divided into five different groups (called kingdoms) that include prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, and animals, and that are further subdivided based on common ancestry and homology of anatomic and molecular structures.
 * Their medical version reads as follows: An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.
 * They also provide examples like:
 * Examples are trials with genetically modified organism, radioactive substances or involving medical devices.
 * Organisms on the planet.
 * They don't mean individuals, but species.
 * In 1998 the nematode became the first multicellular organism to have its genome sequenced.
 * We mean the single individual? It probably was DNA of a inbred line of many individuals.
 * During this testing, the concentrate was inoculated with 30 known spoilage organisms and bacteria.
 * 30 individuals? Serious? No, species!
 * Once the causative organism is known, treatment should be modified accordingly.
 * A single individual bacteria?
 * The largest legendary sort of fierce sea monsters down to the smallest marine organism, all made in one day.
 * Anyway, we can remove this impreciseness by using individual, but if the majority wants to use a confusing term, so be it. Just look through how actual recent articles use it If individual is just an synonym for organism, than you should be able to substitute those words. Lets try this out with the first three hits I get in the link to scholar:
 * "Rapid transcriptome characterization for a nonmodel organism using 454 pyrosequencing" would become "Rapid transcriptome characterization for a nonmodel individual using 454 pyrosequencing"
 * "Efficient control of population structure in model organism association mapping" would become "Efficient control of population structure in model individual association mapping"
 * "The Zebrafish Information Network: the zebrafish model organism database provides expanded support for genotypes and phenotypes" would become "The Zebrafish Information Network: the zebrafish model individual database provides expanded support for genotypes and phenotypes"
 * We are here to write an encyclopedia and using unambiguous language is crucial. That you can wipe up a bunch of citations about a philosophical debate among some biologists, I believe that, but that is not why we are here. The focus has to be what is clear, and organism is anything but clear what is meant exactly.
 * As for Claviclehorn, she can apologize for her selective berating before I will respond to her. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC)To add, when you check out Lewontin's article, he starts with netural selectiopn ala Darwin, stating: "1. Different individuals within the population....." (first page, line 6 or so) he then goes on to say: "If we replace the term individual with the term population....." (first page end), and so on.
 * Or lets take Fuytuma: Page 251 (Natural selection chapter) where he talks about individual selection. In the glossary he says about organism: "Usually used in this book to refer to an individual member of the species", which does not mean always. Just additional arguments on why I think we better eliminate the confusion surrounding this term. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK Kim, you have convinced me. I had no idea that the word organism was misused that often. The better definitions do use individual to disambiguate, so I now change my vote from organism to individual.Joannamasel (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced in the least. Kim van der Linde has used some isolated referencing here that generates a red herring. I suggest we widen the scope a bit and look at the evolutionary literature that has addressed this very issue. David Hull, for example:


 * "The preceding claims sound more extreme than they are because of a systematic ambiguity in the term "individual." It is used sometimes in a narrow sense to mean "organism," sometimes in a broader sense to denote any spatiotemporally localized and well-integrated entity, such as a gene or a cell...Individuals are spatiotemporally localized entities that have reasonably sharp beginnings and endings in time...The living world is traditionally divided into a hierarchy of organizational levels: genes, cells, organisms, colonies, populations, species, and ecosystems or communities."
 * There is a long history in this debate (but not in the way that Kim has framed it WP:OR) that is not going to be settled here. However, it is abundantly clear in the evolutionary literature at large on the issue of individuality that entities in the hierarchy are classified as individuals and distinct from organisms. In contrast, there has been much discussion on an organism concept in biology (e.g., ). The debate in the literature has not been about the ambiguity of the term organism, but how to define an organism given the fuzzy boundaries that exist in nature.


 * "The modern answer to this problem is: natural selection leads to organisms that appear designed for a single purpose, that purpose being maximization of their inclusive ﬁtness."
 * An organism concept is of central importance in evolution and while it may be an "imprecise" term, this does not mean that it should be abandoned, rather it's "fuzziness" is a truer reflection of life itself. In a colloquial sense, the term organism is easily understood as:


 * 1) a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.
 * 2) a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran.
 * The problem with using individuality in the hierarchical list is that it creates a logical paradox: integrated entities are individuals, but not all integrated entities are organisms. Of course there are different definitions of organism, operational and conceptual. The hierarchy is itself an oversimplification. Organism, however, is the correct term to use because it is not a gene, it is not a cell, and it is not a species. Moreover, even if organism is an imprecise continuum of functional integration - this is precisely what makes it the apt term for a hierarchical context. Organisms exists somewhere along the continuum whereas individuality spans the continuum. "Rather than arguing over which definitions to use and how to apply them, it would be more productive to focus on the phenomenon of organismality as a topic worthy of research and explanation." Moreover,


 * "Following this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, positive feedback between natural selection and functional integration is implicated in the origin of organisms within lineages, including ‘‘transitions in individuality’’, in which a collection of existing organism-like entities are assembled and integrated into a new kind of organism. As a corollary, we should expect groups that are undergoing a transition in individuality to meet some but not all of the criteria of paradigm organism. The obverse of this argument is that when we observe an extant group whose members meet some but not all of these criteria, we should consider the possibility that the group is partway through a transition in individuality."
 * Contrary to Kim's argument, individual is no less confusing than organism and vice versa. Both terms have general use definitions and a broad scan of the literature suggests that organism is the correct term for the hierarchical context that is being introduced in the lead. Compare David Hull (an evolutionary philosopher who has devoted his entire career on the concept of individuality) who states: "a systematic ambiguity in the term "individual."" in contrast to Kim's argument that individual should be used because "organism is used as a quite imprecise unit". One is a peer-reviewed statement, the other is opinion that I'm inclined to disagree with.Thompsma (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How about we settle this with a nice compromise by using the term "individual organism"? Joannamasel (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I second that. danielkueh (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary and it adds semantic clutter, but you won't find me objecting if this is what it takes to reach a consensus.Thompsma (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not doing original research but I am addressing the existing ambiguity with regard for this term in general use. You are trying to frame this in the narrow use within the phylosophical realms of biology, but I am looking at the field as a whole. I just used the first three references in the google scholar link but call your number of references that use the concept as if it is a species and I will provide you with it. Will twenty five do? A hundred?
 * The use of individual to mean individual genes, and other entities is equally the realm of a narrow subfield and not the field as a whole. Contrary to your assertion, cells are frequently called microorganisms or unicellular organisms. The use of individual in the wider literature is far more precise than the use of organism.
 * As for Joanna idea, it is fine with me as it is often used in the literature to be precise. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As for more examples, just doa search on "Model Organisms", and you end up at sites like NIH model organisms, science articles stating "Model organisms such as the yeast, worm, and fruit fly", and websites like the welcome trust stating "A model organism is a species that has been widely studied". When we write for an encyclopedia, we have to keep in mind the general public, and people are far more likely to have encountered these websites than the philosophical articles about individuality. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations added
As everyone can see - I added some citations and put this version to the far right. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions on the cited material?Thompsma (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally we discourage the use of use citations in the lead, since all the material in the lead has to be cited in the body of the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is discouraged, but is there an outright ban on citations in the lead? My understanding is that a few key citations are usually included. In the interim, here is a list in order that has been included:Thompsma (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No there's no direct ban. Sometimes we include them for statements that are likely to be challenged. Im just saying we have have to consider whether it is necessary in this case.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Lead_section says that inline citations should be used for the "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" - I think it is fair to say that much of the material in this lead was challenged and that it is likely to be challenged. I think it would be prudent to give a few citations - definitely not as many as the current lead has.Thompsma (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)



I would recommend the following citation to the very end: The last section is not only about creationism, it is how evolution applies more generally and that is what Wilson's book is about.Claviclehorn (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This document may also be an appropriate entry.Claviclehorn (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the second citation you include is a very apt citation at the very end to cover the evolution and society component, this will also be a good citation to return too for the body of the article when we start to fix that up. To keep this brief I think we can leave Wilson's "Evolution for Everyone" out, the Futuyma (1999) citation is sufficient in that it covers everything that was introduced in that sentence. I am a little hesitant about leaving the Futuyma (2005) texbook cited at the forefront of the lead, because he defines evolution in the glossary according to the "standard genetic definition", whereas the Strickberger's Evolution (2008) textbook addresses the hierarchical definition we included in the lead. Would anyone be opposed to removing the Futuyma (2005) textbook and just sticking with Strickberger's Evolution (2008)? We could use any number of citations in that spot, so I think we should settle on one instead of adding a bunch of clutter to the lead as the current version has.Thompsma (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I chose the Avise and Ayala (2007) paper for the place where it is cited - even though the title only mentions "adaptation and complexity", the contents talk about microevolutionary dynamics that "remain governed by the forces of mutation, gene flow, natural selection, recombination, and random genetic drift." This corresponds with the information content of that sentence and the rest of that paper is a prelude to a whole series on evolution by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.Thompsma (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This all seems totally reasonable. Are we ready to go forward with this now?Claviclehorn (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think so. But for large changes like this, I think it is good to give it one more day for the peanut gallery to look and comment. danielkueh (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Avise and Ayala is appropriate for the place that it is cited. The piece is mostly about adaptation, not nonadaptive forces. The passage you quote is a brief counterpoint, summarising Michael Lynch's contribution to the symposium. The logical thing to do would be to cite the Lynch piece instead, but I am afraid that that piece is perhaps too polemical and controversial to be a good source. Joannamasel (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree Joannamasel - but I am unsure of what to do about this. I wouldn't cite the Michael Lynch paper for the reasons that you have outlined - polemical and controversial. We could cite a textbook, like Futuyma (2005), Arthur (2011), or even Gould's (2002) Structure of Evolutionary Theory, or some other book (e.g.,, ) - all that discuss this. Alternatively, that statement is not controversial - so we could just leave it without a citation.Thompsma (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What about citing Kimura? Or a review thereof.Joannamasel (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking the exact same thing!! Which book? The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution Kimura, or Population genetics, molecular evolution, and the neutral theory: selected papers? We could also couple this to the classical King and Jukes (1969) paper.Thompsma (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: As I read the latest tweaked version, I was quite impressed by how well it reads. It is indeed superior to the current lead. danielkueh (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree danielkueh - it is a great job and we definitely owe much thanks to Joannamasel!!!Thompsma (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I second this - we have created a great lead that is FAR superior to the existing lead. Unfortunately, I doubt it will ever see the light of day because we are in a perpetual lock. The current lead is a problem, I think we should put this lead in and iron out the controversy afterward.Claviclehorn (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)