Talk:Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection

Should the entry mark the fact that Theorem is a misnomer ?
There is a well-defined use of the word theorem in mathematics, which is linked to in the article. Describing something as a Theorem carries a strong implication of certainty, which is inappropriate for an idea which is either a statement of faith, a definition, or a first draft of a hypothesis, and where the terms used are so poorly defined that they have caused decades of controversy. Using the word may have been a shrewd move by Fisher in the war for recognition. An encyclopedia should perhaps be a little distanced from such a claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fentlehan (talk • contribs) 09:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fisher's original statement was a theorem. It is not usually stated as such, but Fisher proved it as a theorem.  The article should reflect this, rather than discounting the idea as not a theorem (i.e. referring to it as a "so-called theorem").Trashbird1240 (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edwards' genetics paper out of scope
In the list of references, Edwards' 2000 paper in Genetics is listed. This paper is a historical review with anecdotes of things that have happened in the population genetics community, and only shortly mentions the fundamental theorem. I think it is out of scope for this wikipedia entry, so it could be deleted because of lack of relevance. Anyone who thinks otherwise? --Anthony Liekens 00:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quote
Why is the Edward's quote in the introduction? It is not really more modern terminology, and there is confusion about gene frequency (should be allele frequency) and genic variation. What does the Edwards' quote give us? Ted 15:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Edward's quote but the main description of Fisher's theorm should be fixed to so that it says "additive genetic variance" instead of "genetic variance" because only when there is additive genetic variance in a population can a population evolve or increase it's fitness. This is because genetic variance (VG) can be divided into three parts additive variance (VA), dominance variance (VD) and epistatic variance (VI). Dominance and epistatic variance are not passed on to the offspring only additive variance is; thus only additive variance can cause evolution to occur. NightAngel1384 (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If it is a quote you can't change it to anything else than what Fisher wrote. You can find another quote or you can add information about the different types of genetic variance but don't change the wording of that quote.Sjö (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What about Gaussian adaptation?
Fisher's theorem is based on a model of evolution selecting genes. Gaussian adaptation and the theorem of Gaussian adaptation is based on a model selecting individuals. Unfortunately, the theorems differ from each other. In Fisher’s theorem a maximal mean fitness means zero variances, while Gaussian adaptation carries out a simultaneous maximization of mean fitness and variances (average information) according to the entropy law. But, the scientific community has not yet accepted Gaussian adaptation. Would it not be possible to temporarily accept Gaussian adaptation as a possible alternative until the discrepancies has been fully understood?--Kjells 09:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that talk pages are for discussions aabout improving the article at hand, not for soapboxing your pet theories.Sjö 19:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Would the following contribution be interpreted as an improvement?
 * == Some criticism ==
 * As a random process one would expect evolution to increase the phenotypic variances (average information) according to the second law of thermodynamics (entropy law) dependent on the mutation rate. But unfortunately, Fisher’s fundamental theorem tells us nothing about this. So, a possible impact of the entropy law seems to be missing. If this impact is taken into consideration, it may as well happen that evolution maximizes the average information keeping the mean fitness constant; or something between the extremes.--Kjells 09:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not correct. Fisher's theorem is talking about a population undergoing directional selection, which leads to a narrowing of phenotypic space. Natural selection does not lead to a increase in phenotypic divergence under most circumstances (excluding density dependent selection).
 * Yes, but it is missleading in the sense that a maximum in mean fitness can only be reached when variances are = 0. But in reality and in a state of selective equilibrium mean fitness may be constant with variances greater than 0. In addition evolution is a random process and such processes produce disorder according to the entropy law. As a "fundamental" theorem it should not ignore the impact of the entropy law.
 * In Gaussian adaptation the gradient of mean fitness is
 * dP(m)/dm = M-1 P (m* – m), where M is the moment matrix, P is the mean fitness, m is the centre of gravity of phenotyhpes before selection and m* is centre of gravity after selection. The gradient also gives the direction in phenotypic space.--Kjells 06:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed on the thread
 * http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=163730&page=5&highlight=rogerg
 * --Kjells 07:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the fundamental theorem of Gaussian adaptation taking also the entropy law into consideration. In this case selection takes place on the individual level (not the genetic dito). As can be seen P may be maximal when m = m*, even though the variance is not = 0.--Kjells 08:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no conflict of interest. My interest was to find out why there is a paradox here. I now see why the theorem of Fisher differs from the theorem of Gaussian adaptation (GA), in which only one definition of mean fitness is used. But, in Fisher's theorem two different definitions are used: 1 the mean fitness of offspring (before selection) and 2 the mean fitness of the parents to offspring in the next generation (after selection). Thus far I have always used the same definition of a mathematical entity when trying to investigate its increase. Therefore the theorem tells me nothing about the increase in the mean fitness of offspring from one generation to the next (my main concern) or likewise for the parents. The entropy law is ignored and without entropy there will be no evolution. GA will also be unable to work properly without a suitable increase in entropy. I look forward to see a new Fisher-theorem considering also the entropy law.--Kjells 18:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is ok, but Wikipedia is not the place to develop new ideas or conduct additional research, and then publish instructional data. See - no original research, wikipedia is not a textbook 130.216.191.182 01:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But, in order to avoid misunderstanding for readers who are not biologists by profession I suggest that at least some lines in the article should point to the fact that the Fisher theorem is not about the increase in mean fitness of the offspring from one generation to the offspring in the next (what the layman may think) but only from offspring to parents in the same generation.--Kjells 12:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A closer look at Fisher's theorem
I have now been able to get a closer look on the proof of Fisher’s fundamental theorem.

Following Maynard Smith (see reference page 117), we may let the frequency of genotypes g = (g1, g2, …, gn) before selection be   p = (p1, p2, …, pn) And their fitness w = (w1, w2, …, wn). Then the mean fitness, W, becomes (summation is over the set of indices i)  W = Σ piwi);         (1) After selection has operated, the frequency_after_selection of gi becomes   pi* = piwi/W;               (2)               and hence the mean fitness of of the selected parents W* is   W* = Σ piwi2/W; Hence the selection differential on fitness is   S = W* – W = variance in fitness before selection / mean_fitness

Equation (2) is perfect as long as selection takes place on the level of individuals where w describes the fitness of the individuals. But Maynard Smith defines fitness as a property, not of an individual, but of a class of individuals - - (page 38). Suppose for instance that selection is triangular in a phenotypic 2-dimensional space (x,y) according to the figure below, and that the digits in x and y represent genotypes. The probability of selection for green points may be = 1 and for red points = 0. But this seems impossible if individuals have no fitness. http://www.evolution-in-a-nutshell.se/select_triangle.gif

In order to secure the correctness, the fitness of genotypes must always - in accordance to equation (2) - be proportional to  wi = W * frequency_after_selection / pi. (3) Philosophically and numerically this seems tricky because W requires pi and wi given beforehand according to (1), while wi requires frequency_after_selection and W given according to (3). I don’t know how to put it in English; Fisher’s theorem is formally correct, but the proof seems to go in a circle. What happens in the phenotypic space is not correctly dealt with.

On the other hand, Gaussian adaptation (GA) – using selection of individuals - gives the gradient (the steepest direction) of W with respect to changes in m (the centre of gravity of Gaussian distributed phenotypes). The variance or variability of interest here is represented by M; the moment matrix of the Gaussian. gradient_of_mean_fitness = dW/dm = W M-1(m* – m) where M is the moment matrix of the Gaussian and m* is the centre of gravity of phenotypes after selection. A possible correspondence to Fisher’s increase in W is  S = (dW/dx)*Δx + (dW/dy)Δy = W(m* - m)’M-1(m* – m) In this case the increase in W is from the offspring in one generation to the offspring in the next. It is assumed that the mutation rate is adapted such that M is fairly constant from generation to generation.

Simulations gave the results: Selection_differential = 0.0116     using the GA-gradient at black m                           = 0.0112      by moving the Gaussian to dark-green m_aft = 0.1295     According to Fisher. It seems to me that the GA-model gives about the same result if the gradient is used for estimation, or if the Gaussian is moved to m*. But the small figures are uncertain and mean results of a hundred simulations have been used.

Thus, Fishers model gives a seemingly fast increase in W because the mutation rate and the offspring in the next generation is not considered. GA shows a very slow increase in this case because the triangle is thin. But both evolution and GA may adapt M to become more proportional to M*, which may speed up the process considerably. Therefore, I think that GA may contribute (a little) to the theory of evolution.

When GA is used for optimization the gradient will suffice.

Reference: Maynard Smith, J. Evolutionary Genetics. Oxford University Press, 1998. --Kjells 09:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Changed --Kjells 17:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Changed --Kjells 15:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Kjells (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Maynard Smith presents a simplified version of Fisher's theorem, and his definition of fitness is not the same as Fisher's, so I am not sure your criticisms are relevant. For Fisher the relevant concept of fitness is the relative rate of increase or decrease of the groups of individuals bearing particular gene variants (alleles).  I don't think it is now disputed that his theorem is mathematically valid, given his definitions.  It remains disputed whether it is as important as he thought. He certainly never claimed that there would be a rapid increase in fitness, or indeed that *absolute* fitness (measured simply by the number of surviving offspring), would necessarily  increase at all.  He recognized explicitly that the 'environment' - including the biotic environment - might be deteriorating at a rate sufficient to offset the increase in relative genetic fitness.86.183.203.119 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Creationists have reason to doubt the classical theoy of evolution
A discussion about Fisher's fundamental theorem has recently been held at ScienceBlog, where I have been encouraged to publish some new paper about it. Here is my blog:

Submitted by kjellstrom on Sat, 2008-01-12 03:04. bioscience and medicine Creationists have reason to doubt the theory based on Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection published in 1930. It relies on the assumption that a gene (allele) may have a fitness of its own being a unit of selection. Historically this way of thinking has also influenced our view of egoism as the most important force in evolution; see for instance Hamilton about kin selection, 1963, or Dawkins about the selfish gene, 1976 in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_adaptation#References

On the other hand, if the selection of individuals rules the enrichment of genes, then Gaussian adaptation will perhaps give a more reliable view of evolution (see the blog “Gaussian adaptation as a model of evolution”).

In modern terminology (see Wikipedia) Fisher’s theorem has been stated as: “The rate of increase in the mean fitness of any organism at any time ascribable to natural selection acting through changes in gene frequencies is exactly equal to its genic variance in fitness at that time”. (A.W.F. Edwards, 1994).

A proof as given by Maynard Smith, 1998, shows the theorem to be formally correct. Its formal validity may even be extended to the mean fitness and variance of individual fitness or the fitness of digits in real numbers representing the quantitative traits.

But, if the selection of individuals rules the enrichment of genes, I am afraid there might be a risk that the theory becomes nonsense, and that this is not very well known among biologists.

A drawback is that it does not tell us the increase in mean fitness (see my blog “The definition of fitness of a DNA- or signal message”) from the offspring in one generation to the offspring in the next (which would be expected), but only from offspring to parents in the same generation. Another drawback is that the variance is a genic variance in fitness and not a variance in phenotypes. Therefore, the structure of a phenotypic landscape – which is of considerable importance to a possible increase in mean fitness - can’t be considered. So, it can’t tell us anything about what happens in phenotypic space.

The image shows two different cases (upper and lower) of individual selection, where the green points with fitness = 1 - between the two lines - will be selected, while the red points outside with fitness = 0 will not. The centre of gravity, m, of the offspring is heavy black and ditto of the parents and offspring in the new generation, m* (according to the Hardy-Weinberg law), is heavy red.



Because the fraction of green feasible points is the same in both cases, Fisher’s theorem states that the increase in mean fitness is equal in both upper and lower case. But the phenotypic variance (not considered by Fisher) in the horizontal direction is larger in the lower case, causing m* to considerably move away from the point of intersection of the lines. Thus, if the lines are pushed towards each other (due to arms races between different species), the risk of getting stuck decreases. This represents a considerable increase in mean fitness (assuming phenotypic variances almost constant). Because this gives room for more phenotypic disorder/entropy/diversity, we may expect diversity to increase according to the entropy law, provided that the mutation is sufficiently high.

So, Fisher’s theorem, the Hardy-Weinberg law or the entropy law does not prove that evolution maximizes mean fitness. On the other hand, Gaussian adaptation obeying the Hardy-Weinberg and entropy laws may perhaps serve as a complement to the classical theory, because it states that evolution may maximize two important collective parameters, namely mean fitness and diversity in parallel (at least with respect to all Gaussian distributed quantitative traits). This may hopefully show that egoism is not the only important force driving evolution, because any trait beneficial to the collective may evolve by natural selection of individuals.

Gkm

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/creationists-have-reason-doubt-classical-theory-evolution-15214.html

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/kjellstrom

--Kjells (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't add links to your own texts. As I understand it, talk pages aren't indexed by search engines, so the link here and on Talk:Gaussian adaptation won't increase the rating anyway.Sjö (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. --Kjells (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Genetic diversity?
During discussions, I recently discovered something that is perhaps "well known", but is not covered here: it would seem that Fisher unintentionally conflated two ideas: "variance of the fitness of a population" with the "genetic diversity of the population". Based on practical experience with machine learning, its clear that these two concepts are distinct. I've noticed that the rate of improvement in fitness is related to the genetic diversity of the population, and NOT to the variance of the fitness of the population. That is, one can have algos that (unintentionally) generate a very homogeneous population, that has a large variation in fitness. In such a situation, the algo grinds to a halt, and rate at which fitness improves becomes very slow. The rate of improvement can be improved by increasing the diversity of the population!!

This, in a certain sense, I discovered that "Fisher was wrong", and that the correct statement should be: "The rate at which a population improves in fitness is proportional to the variance of the genetic diversity of the population". (and that one should not confused "variance of the fitness" with "diversity", which are naively similar but in fact are quite unrelated).

Surely, I am not the first to observe this: but who is, and how can the article be amended to reflect this? (p.s. this seems related to the phenomenon discussed in the post immediately above.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040918165349/http://stevefrank.org/reprints-choice/97Evol-Causal-R.html to http://stevefrank.org/reprints-choice/97Evol-Causal-R.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Journal of Mathematical Biology
I just noticed a relevant paper. Are there any suggestions as to how this could be incorporated and used as a reference?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300A:1624:CA00:A88C:2C6D:FD32:F0D4 (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting paper. While certainly an extension to mutating populations is desired, the authors also say:

At the heart of Fisher’s conception was his famous fundamental theorem of natural selection (Fisher’s Theorem). Fisher’s Theorem, published in his text The Genetical Theory of Evolution (Fisher 1930), showed that given a population with pre-existing genetic variants (i.e., Mendelian alleles) the population’s mean fitness will increase. Not only will mean fitness increase, the rate of increase will be proportional to the genetic variance for fitness within the population at any given time.
 * I've added emphasis in the text. I do not know what that last sentence means . What is the "genetic variance for fitness within the population" as a mathematical expression? The primary page has the same problem.


 * It does appear to be a standard statement and argument, although lecture notes illustrations are much belabored. Professor John Baez has recently tried to clarify a bunch of this via explicit quantification of fitness and via the Lotka–Volterra equations.

22:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * bayesianlogic.1@gmail.com

Revert by ThomHimself
Undid the revert by ThomHimself who undid my edits with no explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanbei85 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Basener & Sanford
User:Hob_Gadling alleged that I have misrepresented Basener & Sanford's research here, but that would need to be demonstrated. The quote Gadling is trying to remove comes directly from their paper. What is the point of this? User:Arjayay reverted it again, falsely marking it as a minor edit and giving no reason for the revert. --Kanbei85 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your wording "George R. Price contended that Fisher's theorem was correct" instead of "showed" is a distortion. Fisher's theorem is correct, and Price reformulated it. "Contention" means there are misgivings. So, who has them?
 * Your wording "challenges the biological validity of Fisher’s central thesis (that fitness always increases)", though lifted from the source almost word for word, is a distortion. Fisher's theorem does not say that "fitness always increases". As Basener and Sanford say:
 * "Fisher did not include mutations in his model, but believed that mutations would provide a continual supply of variance resulting in perpetual increase in mean fitness, thus providing a foundation for neo-Darwinian theory"
 * No mutations in his theorem. The perpetual increase Fisher believed in was based on mutations, but it was not part of his theorem. Just writing "More recent work challenges the biological validity" confuses the reader and makes him think that it is Fisher's theorem that has been questioned, when it is just what Basener and Sanford call his "Corollary".
 * Your removal of the parts "builds on Price's understanding in two ways. One aims to improve the theorem by completing it" and "The other argues that the partial [..]" is a distortion. It makes the reader think that Fisher tried to model evolution, and Basener and Sanford shot it down. Reality vs. Theory of Evolution 1:0. But actually, they improved on Fisher: Reality vs. Theory of Evolution 0:2.
 * Your wording "challenged Fisher’s model" is a distortion. They did not claim to have found any mistakes in Fisher's model, and they did not say there were any. All they did was adding another factor, making it more applicable. Sort of like what Einstein did to Newton. Newton's mechanics is still applied because it is still applicable in most circumstances. Fisher's model still works, there is nothing wrong with it. This is how science works.
 * Your wording "[Basener and Sanford] show that natural populations can either increase or decrease in fitness, depending on many variables, but only a narrow range of parameters can actually prevent fitness decline.", though again containing text lifted word by word from the source, is a distortion. Basener and Sanford actually write:
 * "Not only do other finite mathematical population models show that fitness can decrease—they often show that only a narrow range of parameters can actually prevent fitness decline."
 * So, not Basener and Sanford show (in the sense of prove) that fitness decline is the norm, other finite mathematical population models show that (possibly in the sense of display).
 * All your wordings move the text away from the source and toward an attitude of "that evolution stuff is all just theory, it does not hold water". --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I would support changing the word 'theorem' to 'corollary' to more accurately represent Basener's and Sanford's paper. The statement that only a narrow range of parameters can prevent fitness decline should remain, and that is a major contribution by this paper to the topic. The previous wording had no reference to this and made it seem as if Basener and Sanford were fully supporting Fisher's theorem and its broad application / corollary. Sanford himself is a critic of evolution, so if his findings cast some doubt then it is not a result of any misrepresentation on my part. --Kanbei85 (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You made a creationist edit, turning the article into a bit of pseudoscientific propaganda, and now you think cosmetic changes will make all that bunch of bullshit acceptable?
 * Previously, I wanted to be generous, so I did not mention that Sanford et al. is a primary source and thus less desirable. (Fisher and Kimura are also used as primary sources, but they are world famous, and their achievements are known anyway.) Now you say Sanford is a crackpot, I see that I was wrong to be generous. Is it John C. Sanford? I only read his piece cursorily - that was enough to refute your distortions.
 * By the way, you are still under a misapprehension that pseudoscience should get equal footing in WP. See WP:Lunatic charlatans and WP:FRINGE. But you will probably WP:IDHT again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How, again, is it 'undesirable' to quote from a primary source? And yet.. of course we can make exceptions if the person is "world famous". Well, if you want to be open about your double standards, that's fine with me. I am not responsible for quoting Basener and Sanford here, and if you attempt to censor the stable, long-standing content, it will amount to edit warring. Consensus was already established on this article. There is no propaganda here except your own statements. Basener and Sanford's article touches Fisher's Theorem directly and is published in a peer-reviewed, "reputable" scientific journal.--Kanbei85 (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:SECONDARY: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources" and WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
 * What Fisher found, and what Kimura found, is easily gathered by consulting almost any biology book. We can use any reliable source, even the primary one, because they all say the same regarding the straightforward fact of their actual findings. Sanford is different. Is there any reliable secondary source that quotes his work? If no, it is obviously not important enough, so why should we?
 * "Censor" is empty rhetoric. Wikipedia articles obviously cannot contain every tidbit that is related to the subject of the article. We have to choose what is important and what is not.
 * "stable, long-standing content" is irrelevant. Text does not become sacrosanct by being there for a long time. If it is not up the scratch, it can go.
 * So, all your reasoning is bad, and you do not know the first thing about using sources in Wikipedia. Still, I will not revert your edit because I am not an edit warrior like you. Someone else, someone who has been convinced by this discussion that your edit has no merit, can do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Is there any reliable secondary source that quotes his work? If no, it is obviously not important enough, so why should we?"
 * What an amazing assumption. Apparently if a brand new piece of research is has not (yet) been quoted in secondary sources, it must be irrelevant / unimportant? I think not. Just another self-reinforcing mechanism to stack the deck against any challenges to the mainstream consensus, especially if they happen to come from a 'taboo' individual. This is the modern-day iron curtain in full display. Hopefully your desire to censor Basener and Sanford's work on ideological grounds will not win the day here.--Kanbei85 (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If something is new, we do not know whether it is important yet. So we wait until it gets enough feedback to tell it is. Then we add it. Just another self-reinforcing mechanism to stack the deck against any flashes in the pan.
 * Again, your empty rhetoric impresses nobody. The outcome is predictable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where WP standards discourage editors from making reference to any research papers which are recently published (you know, just to avoid any 'flashes in the pan')?--Kanbei85 (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See No original research and Neutral point of view." --tronvillain (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * tronvillain, please look more carefully at the conversation in the thread prior to your copy/pasting that. That is not showing what I asked for / what Hob Gadling was claiming. It is understood that secondary sources are better when possible, but as Gadling already admitted, that is not always possible and this article does not by any means rely solely on secondary sources. Gadling is trying to create a double-standard whereby he allows primary sources he personally likes while disallowing other sources he wants to suppress (like Basener and Sanford's research).--Kanbei85 (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kindly refrain from claiming I "admitted" something. That makes it sound as if I said you were right about something we disagreed upon. You weren't, and I didn't. (Creationists often try to have those pretend victories.)
 * WP:RS AGE says: "Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate), and primary sources which purport to debunk a long-standing consensus or introduce a new discovery (in which case awaiting studies that attempt to replicate the discovery might be a good idea, or reviews that validate the methods used to make the discovery)."
 * "Purport to debunk a long-standing consensus". That is exactly what Sanford did.
 * "he allows primary sources he personally likes" You were always not exactly what I would call honest, but with this, you crossed over into the territory of actual lies. I explained to you why the primary sources used in the article are acceptable. You ignored that explanation and made up another one.
 * Look here. Wikipedia is an environment where you need to have good reasons for your edits. You also need to be reasonable in discussions. Defending ideas that have not a single good reason on their side, such as creationism, obviously requires the use of bad reasoning or even lying. And edit wars, of course. You tried all that, and it did not work.
 * I am in favor of deleting the Sanford source until it has been critically evaluated. Good thing you tried to boost it, otherwise it would have taken a long time until somebody noticed it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Gadling, this is just another excuse to apply a biased double standard whenever it suits. That 'guideline' is full of subjective language. Ex: "Sometimes," "might," "too new" (who decides 'too'?). It can sometimes take years for scientists to get around to replicating, or failing to replicate, a piece of research. On the Higgs Boson page, for example, there is research mentioned from this year (2018). I wonder, why is that 'guideline' not being applied there? As you can see this is all a subjective and arbitrarily-applied 'standard'. If you have an actual problem with Basener and Sanford's paper, then make your case [but even then, it would not merit deletion since it is not up to Wikipedians to attempt to interpret primary sources for themselves!]. So far you have had nothing to say except to try to poison the well with ideological considerations which are beyond the scope of this article and irrelevant to the research.--Kanbei85 (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * (I will ignore your usual bluffing and blustering.) If it takes years, then it takes years. We are gathering the knowledge of humankind. If some paper nobody in the field noticed enough to quote it, is not mentioned, that is not a problem.
 * If you think that guideline is bad, you can discuss it on the guideline's Talk page. After you succeed to change it by convincing other editors, we can take up this case again. Until then, this receptionless 2017 paper does not belong here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you know as well as I do that one lone editor like myself is not going to prevail against the Echo Chamber of editors such as yourself who like to have a good excuse to censor things at will from the pages of Wikipedia. I have shown that that guideline is subjective an arbitrary, and even given a prominent example of it not being applied. You even "read" the paper yourself and had no problem with its inclusion here until you found out that Sanford is a critic of evolution. This shows this is about your ideological axe to grind, not about the Wikipedia guidelines. --Kanbei85 (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking over Higgs boson, I can't find any research cited that was actually published in 2018. There are a couple "As of 2018" statements, but those are just of the "As of 2018, it still looks like the Standard Model Higgs" nature (and they're actually uncited). So, no, it's not an example of new research being promoted before it has been critically evaluated. And even if it were, that would just mean that policy was not being followed elsewhere, which is not an excuse to dodge it here. I agree with Hob Gadling: the paragraph about Basener and Sanford should be deleted. Spending words on a paper that has attracted zero attention in the academic community violates WP:UNDUE. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Another aspect: If critical examination or even endorsement of Sanford's writings is to be expected, there is no problem with waiting that short while. Only if one expects silence and wants to smuggle the paper into the article, now is the time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, right: Playing the "I am being suppressed" card never helps. We hear the same from every other pseudoscience promoter. You lose because your reasoning is bad and your edits contradict policy, not because you are in the minority. Even if a huge mob of creationists started to edit here, they could only achieve what they want by acting against the rules. It's the same thing as within science: creationists lost, in the nineteenth century, when they were in the majority, because they just did not have the facts to back their worldview up. Evolution has won because it did have the facts. And evolution wins in Wikipedia for the same reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know Wikipedia is an echo chamber of anti-creationist bigotry, where Talk Origins is actually considered a reliable source. That doesn't need repeating. Nor is this the appropriate place to debate creationism. I did that on your talk page, Hob Gadling, and you proved that you aren't interested in the facts in the least, but merely clinging to your "Big Science says it, I believe it, that settles it!" mentality. None of that is relevant here. Basener and Sanford's paper is about Fisher's Theorem, not creationism. It is relevant to the topic and peer reviewed. To remove it would be nothing other than pure censorship, plain and simple. The Higgs Boson page does include references to recent work, and I'm sure if you went looking you could find other such recent references scattered all over Wikipedia. You'll need a better reason than "it's new" to attempt to remove the paper.--Kanbei85 (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * " Wikipedia is an echo chamber of anti-creationist bigotry" - Bullshit. Wikpedia cares about truth, and creationist sources don't, which is why they are not considered reliable sources.
 * "you proved that you aren't interested in the facts in the least" - Bullshit. I caught you trying to source claims to webpages that did not say what you claimed they said, and you fled when I called your bluff.
 * Try "it's new, has not been quoted by reliable sources yet, and is not expected to be (favorably)", that is closer to the truth. As soon as Sanford's paper gets quoted by RS, there will be no reason not to include it. Why do you need to quote it earlier than that? Why the hurry? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources" is a loaded term. What one considers reliable is dependent on your worldview. You dismiss all creationist sources out of hand because you're biased. I have not fled, in fact I have responded to your false claims. I cannot go back and forth forever, though, with someone who does not care to understand or really read the sources he's given. As far as why the "hurry"? Well, you'd have to ask the person who added the paper. I am merely arguing that it should not be removed. You argue creationist sources "don't care about truth", but that is just begging the question and again displaying your bias. Why you think someone who is devoted to the God of the Bible, who commands us to be truthful, would "not care about truth" is a bit of a mystery. On the contrary, it is evolution that cares nothing about "truth". The only thing that matters in evolution is what works for reproduction, not necessarily what is "true".--Kanbei85 (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the empty rhetoric again. (Though the authors of WP:RS will be interested to hear that reliability is a matter of taste. Only someone who does not care about truth would say that. Actually, checking reliability is a pretty straightforward task, though it may be a lot of work.)
 * "you'd have to ask the person who added the paper" - This is disingenuous. You are in favor of keeping it, and you argue in favor of keeping it, so you are in favor of hurrying. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kanbei85, if you don't like the Wikipedia policies of WP:RS and WP:V, I suggest that you find some website that doesn't follow those policies. I believe that http://creationwiki.org/ would welcome your edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"The Higgs Boson page does include references to recent work" &mdash; so, now we're moving the goalposts from "2018" to "recent". I see. "I'm sure if you went looking you could find other such recent references scattered all over Wikipedia" &mdash; first, "recent" is not the same as "unexamined". Sometimes the scientific community can provide commentary, feedback and critique rather quickly, particularly when the area is highly trafficked like particle physics is. Second, again, just because research that has had no impact among scientists might be cited elsewhere around Wikipedia is not an excuse to do so here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Kanbei85 for the next shocking twist of the story. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the whole paragraph. It was introduced in 2018 by someone who did almost nothing else, it says Grafen "reviewed" something, but does not say what that something actually is, and that something was written not by a biologist but a data scientist. Not a reliable source, but does not inspire confidence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * R. A. Fischer.jpg