User talk:Profarmadillo

Sorry I ahd to head for the doctor's for a tetanus shot and when I got back, I saw some typos which I correccted and then added revised version. I have since found out that the original I wrote had been removed to the talk page.

Didn't mean to keep posting it, if it needs to be discussed. I undertsnad that my psot is more verbose, but I believe the evidence for kin selection stronger than the original article suggests.


 * Profarmadillo - first, welcome to Wikipedia! This is a great place, and I hope that you're really going to enjoy here.  There are some kind of special rules about making posts that help keep this place special ...


 * One of the rules is called No Original Research (please click on that link to check it out) - which means that Wikipedia is supposed to be limited to being a "secondary source" or even "tertiary source" - that is, we can only include material if it's already been published somewhere else in a "reliable source" or better, if it's been referenced in an article which collects information.


 * What that also means is that our own personal views, opinions and theories (yours are quite interesting) are not be included in a Wikipedia article (unless they are part of an article published somewhere else). You are welcome to post your own personal views, opinions, and theories on the "discussion" page, and see if anyone knows of published sources for those views.


 * Another rule/guideline is called "encyclopedic tone" - which means that we use a tone, phrasing, and tenses which neutrally and objectively describe the findings and views of others, and do not advocate or try to persuade the reader regarding one particular view over another. The tone of your posting is great for an essay explaining why the reader should accept your point of view.  I do suggest that you visit these sites to get more information:
 * Your_first_article
 * Guide_to_writing_better_articles
 * How_to_write_a_great_article
 * Neutral point of view


 * You are obviously a gifted writer, with a lot of information, however, the sections that you have written sound more like an essay with a point of view about the topic, rather than an encyclopedia article which simply neutrally describes existing research (with footnotes please!).


 * While I understand that this is a bit much to absorb all at once, it will start to come naturally after a while!


 * I do want to encourage you to try to get input from other editors about turning your energy and thoughts into something that is closer in format to the Wikipedia norm!


 * Finally, within Wikipedia we have something known as the dreaded "three-revert rule" (again please click on that link). What the three-revert rule says is that if an editor makes "three reverts" to an article in a 24-hour period, they are likely to be "blocked" from editing for at least a while.  What that means in practice, is that where Editor A has posted material in a article, and Editor B moves it to the Discussion page for input from others, Editor A usually shouldn't move it back to the article page without getting input and (usually) making adjustments and changes.  So at this point, I would ask that you not move this material back to the main article without your reading a bit more about Wikipedia, and perhaps asking for input and suggestions from others about how to proceed!


 * So, again, please accept my heartiest welcome - your contributions are very much appreciated, and after getting past this first bump, I'm hoping that you make many, many contributions! GiveItSomeThought 01:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for that Biology article
Profarmadillo - I am re-posting here the suggestions that I made on the article's talk page. I really do want to encourage you to follow-up with this! These are a lot of good thoughts here, they just need to be stated in a Wikipedia-style" way.


 * This criticism is flawed. First off it assumes that the trait was selected for the current conditions. Most traits we have are the result of past selection. For example, we have many traits that allow us to easily gain weight and store fat. This is most likely the result of past selection for surviving famines. In today's society, packing on the fat may be maladaptive, but selective forces often play "catch up."


 * I am not sure what is being considered original research here. The first paragraph is commonly accepted. I will go to my office to get references if needed but it is hardly an original thought.


 * '''Profarmadillo, right now this first paragraph appears to advocate a point of view, and Wikipedia articles don't use the "you" and "we" format. If you'd like to see how I'd re-write this first paragraph, here's a sample:
 * "Some researchers in the field have criticized this point of view. (please add specific citations here to their published criticisms). These researchers point out that traits found in humans are selected at an earlier time in evolution, not for the present time. An example given by this line of criticism is that while the body's ability to store fat had evolutionary value in times of lean resources, that same ability can be counter-productive if it leads to excess weight in times of ample resources. (again, please add specific citations to where this criticism has been published)."'''


 * If there are times when resources are extremely limited (as has, not infrequently, been the case historically), then you can have situations where relatives are competing with each other for resources. This is particularly true if relatives live near each other. In such cases of limited resources and high competition, it can be adaptive for relatives to pool their resources. Your reproductive fitness is not increased simply by the number of offspring you have, but the number of related individuals, that survive, flourish, and have children of their own. If resources are high, you may be better off to have your own children, but if they are low then it would be best to pool resources.


 * The second paragraph deals with kin selection (which I already cited in the earlier paragraph)I was just explaining ki selection in more detail, but once again I can get references from my office. The third paragraph is speculative (and labeled as such) but it would seem to fall within the bounds of the speculation present in the whole article. The following paragraph that is currently considered acceptable has no citation or for it: "Some have suggested that homosexuality is adaptive in a non-obvious way. By way of analogy, the allele (a particular version of a gene) which causes sickle-cell anemia when two copies are present may also confer resistance to malaria with no anemia when one copy is present."


 * I agree that there are parts of this article that also need to be brought up to "more modern" Wikipedia standards (which have tightened over the years). However, just because some parts of the article are currently below standards does not allow new additions to also be below standards. We're all trying to upgrade the content here, by insisting on new material meeting the newer standards, and going back and upgrading the older material as we can.


 * Now this works well if the environment consistently has high or low resource levels, but what if it varies?


 * Ideally, a species would flourish if it can switch between the two options of raising ones own children and pooling resources. One solution fo this may be the evolution not of homosexuality, but of bisexuality. In the previous versions of this article, the writers appear to have fallen into the trap of assuming sexual orientation is dichotomous, despite evidence that it seems to exhibit a range of behavior. It may well be that, in a variable environment, bisexuality is more adaptive than either pure heterosexuality or pure homosexuality. A bisexual orientation would seem theoretically more capable of dealing with a variable environment such that one can shift strategies depending on resource availability. (Koneval, T. (2007) Speculation on my part based on evolutionary theory but without any experimental data to support it.)


 * The paragraph after that also hads no citation until I added the one on kin selection and yet it was seen as acceptable. I am unclear therefore why noting that bisexuality might allow one to adapt to changing evnvironment is considered less acceptable.


 * If this is referring to the "Koneval 2007" citation - the citation needs to be to a published "reliable source" (which this doesn't appear to be). If this is a reference to your own speculative thoughts, I'm afraid that doesn't count as a valid citation! Do you have a reference for this thought to an article/book that's been published in a "reliable source?"


 * One thing we need to keep in mind is that the sex drive can be a very powerful one. In resource-rich environments, this is an adaptive feature since it helps encourage reproduction,a nd in primates, social bonding which is important for raising children. If resources are limited (whether the resources be mates or food or shelter) then a strong sex drive might interfere with switching to a more cooperative environment. One way to avoid this is to re-direct the sex drive in such a way that you are not competing for resources. Homosexual activity would allow the sex drive to be satisfied while still allowing relatives to pool resources.


 * Likewise I do not see anything extraordinatry about reminding readers that the sex drive is strong or that homsexual activity might satisfy that drive.


 * Well, as noted above, what Wikipedia is looking for is a citation to this statement in an existing "reliably published" work.


 * Now one might object that these days we have plenty of resources, but, again, we need to keep in mind that we are the result of past selective regimes. Even though same-sex attraction may appear at first glance to be maladaptive, this is based on very simple models, models that have already been found to be incapable of explaining mroe advanced concepts scuch as altruism.


 * If given more direct feedback, I can provide the citations.

Please accept these thoughts as an aid towards including these thoughts in the article! GiveItSomeThought 15:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)