Talk:Teleology in biology/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs) 11:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead
OK ✅

1 Context
✅ all subsections check out OK.

1.1 Natural theology
✅

1.2 Goal-directed evolution
✅

1.3 Natural selection
✅ I would consider sexual selection as just an aspect of natural selection, but that is my opinion, others may differ. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed.

1.4 Adaptation
✅

1.5 Teleology

 * Would this section not be more appropriate at an earlier point in the article? Possibly 1.1? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Done.


 * Is "final cause" the best expression to explain the concept? I would prefer to see a term that is less likely to be a bit vague in the mind of the average reader. Maybe purpose? Open to discussion on this. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I blame Aristotle... perhaps the gloss "(purpose)" will help; on its own, it'd be a bit obscure too. See what you think.
 * Aristotle was doing pretty well considering where he started, and perhaps some of the blame should go to the translators. Your solution is good for me.

✅

2 Status in evolutionary biology
✅

2.1 Reasons for discomfort

 * How does the concept of adaptation imply that biologists agree that every trait is perfectly suited to its functions?
 * Gould and Lewontin's argument is that the idea "adapted [to its environment]" carries with it the cultural implication "perfectly fitted to its environment", even though as they (and the article) correctly say, Darwinism doesn't actually require any such perfection. These things are reliably cited, and FWIW I'd say it's a plausible case for a bit of discomfort.
 * I think they overreach a bit in that generalisation, but that is their prerogative. I accept that it is their opinion, but we should not assume it is universally accepted without further evidence. I am not aware of a definition for adaptation that implies it must be perfect.
 * OK, said "can be taken to imply", i.e. we don't have to share their view to think it worth reporting.


 * I could not find support for Such creationism, along with a vitalist life-force and directed orthogenetic evolution, has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of biologists. in the reference given. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The source says "Teleological notions were commonly associated with the pre-Darwinian view that the biological realm provides evidence of conscious design by a supernatural creator. Even after creationist viewpoints were rejected by most biologists ..." I've changed "overwhelming majority" to "most".
 * OK

✅

2.2 Removable teleological shorthand
✅

2.3 Irreducible teleology

 * I am slightly uncomfortable with this being the final section, but that may reflect my personal bias, as I don't agree that it is unavoidable, just slightly inconvenient because of habits of thinking. Would you consider the possible advantages in swapping this for the preceding section? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it makes more sense in the current order, ie what's the problem, can you remove it, no some people think you can't. Not sure it works the other way.
 * Apparently some people (Ernst Mayr, for example) think you can and should. See (Ribeiro, Manuel Gustavo Leitao; et al. 2015), but I'm not going to make an issue of it.
 * I've already hinted that Mayr was a bit of an old woman about it all (hope that's a PC remark), being more than a bit precious from his lofty seat at Evolution. He may have made quite a fuss, but as Mandy Rice-Davies remarked in quite another context, "Well he would, wouldn't he".
 * OK.

✅

3 See also
✅

4 Notes
✅

5 References
✅

Conclusion
✅ The article passes all requirements by my assessment. I will do the formalities later tonight. Well done for a fine article and one important to the understanding of the evolutionary process. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)