Talk:Charles Darwin and Quinton Jackson: Difference between pages

Revision as of 08:26, 28 March 2006

Revision as of 04:38, 6 June 2007

Line 1:

{{MMAstatsbox|name=Quinton Jackson

{{GA}}

|[[image=Quinton Rampage Jackson-Cryogel.jpg]]

{{facfailed}}

|nick=Rampage

{{HistSci}}

|height=6 ft 1 in (185 cm)

|weight=205 lb (93 kg)

|birthdate={{birth date and age|year=1978|month=6|day=20}}

|died=

|nationality={{flagicon|USA}} American

|fightingfrom=[[Irvine, California]]

|hometown=[[Memphis, Tennessee]]

|fightstyle=[[Submission Wrestling]], [[Boxing]]

|wins=27

|losses=6

|draws=0

|nocontest=

|ko=12

|submissions=7

|}}

'''Quinton Ramone "Rampage" Jackson''' (born [[June 20]] [[1978]]) is an [[United States|American]] professional [[mixed martial arts]] fighter who rose to prominence with his fights in [[Japan]]'s [[PRIDE Fighting Championships]]. He is currently the [[Light Heavyweight (MMA)|light heavyweight]] champion of the [[Ultimate Fighting Championship]]. He has a professional record of 27 wins with 6 losses, and has often been seen with his trademark "Rumble Chain" around his neck ringside and before fights. MMAWeekly.com currently has Rampage as the number 2 ranked Light Heavyweight in the world. He is known for both his trademark slams and powerful overhand strikes, as well as for his colorful personality.<ref>In the commentary for [[UFC 71]], e.g., [[Joe Rogan]] agrees with commentators [[Mike Goldberg]] and [[Randy Couture]], stating of Jackson "He's the funniest guy in MMA."</ref>

==Mixed martial arts career==

'''Archives'''

===Amateur and early professional career===

* [[/Lincoln]] - Should Darwin and Lincoln sharing a date of birth be included?

Jackson had his first taste of combat sport as a wrestler for Raleigh Egypt High School where his successful career was punctuated by All-State honors, as Jackson finished 5th at the Tennessee State tournament at 189 lbs as a High School Senior. Originally, Jackson had intended on pursuing a career in professional wrestling upon finishing high school, but ultimately ended up extending his amateur career in junior college before discovering [[mixed martial arts]]. Impressed by the success of other wrestlers in MMA, Jackson decided to try his own hand at the budding sport. Jackson built up a record of 11 wins and 1 loss fighting for a variety of smaller scale American promotions, including [[King of the Cage]], Gladiator Challenge, and Dangerzone.

'''[[Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive01]]'''

===PRIDE Fighting Championships===

It was not upon native soil, but rather in Japan's [[PRIDE Fighting Championships]] in which he rose to fame in the world of mixed martial arts. Coming into the Japanese promotion as a previously unknown fighter, Jackson was matched at [[PRIDE 15]] against fellow wrestler [[Kazushi Sakuraba]], who was at that time Pride's most prominent domestic fighter. Though taken down repeatedly by the smaller Sakuraba, once on the canvas Jackson refused to be controlled, using his wrestling ability and raw strength to fight off numerous joint-locks and choke attempts from Sakuraba. Repeatedly he elevated Sakuraba off the mat and slammed him down in order to break free from submission holds. An exhausted Jackson eventually succumbed to a [[rear naked choke]] from Sakuraba, but his performance opened the eyes of PRIDE's fan base and its executive office both.

== Descent with modification ==

I cannot believe that ''Descent with modification'' is never mentioned, that it what Darwin had stated which later on became known has '''evolution'''. The phrase ''Descent with modification'' truely deserves some mention. (SND)

After besting pro-wrestler [[Alexander Otsuka]] in a fight for the [[Battlarts]] promotion, he was invited back for [[PRIDE 17]] where Jackson scored a [[KO]] victory over Otsuka’s stable mate, [[Yuki Ishikawa]]. Jackson was then disqualified for an accidental low blow in his next PRIDE appearance against [[Daijiro Matsui]]. After this unfortunate result, Jackson rose to prominence as the possible number one contender to [[Wanderlei Silva]]'s PRIDE Middlweight Belt with consecutive wins over [[Masaaki Satake]], [[Igor Vovchanchyn]], [[Kevin Randleman]] and Mikhail Illoukhine. Tension between Jackson and Silva heightened after Jackson's KO of Randleman. Immediately following the referee stoppage, Jackson pointed at Silva, who was sitting ringside, and told the champion once on the microphone that he was after his belt. Wanderlei Silva then jumped into the ring and pushed Jackson, saying "it's my belt!", which caused a commotion in the ring, as referees and cornerman held back Jackson and Silva to prevent a brawl. In the opening round of the PRIDE 2003 Middleweigh Grand Prix, Jackson won a split decision over Murilo Bustamante in a lackluster performance. However, Jackson would once again return to dominate, this time at [[PRIDE Final Conflict 2003]], in the semi-finals with a win over [[UFC]] fighter [[Chuck Liddell]]. Liddell was coming off a KO win against [[Alistair Overeem]] in the opening round, but Rampage dominated Liddell standing, eventually making his corner throw in the towel after repeated ground and pound by Jackson. This took him all the way to the finals of the 2003 PRIDE Middleweight Grand Prix later that night.

I agree completely. According to my science textbook, Darwin didn't even use the term evolution until the very end of The Origin of Species. Throughout the whole book, Darwin used the term "descent with modification." [[User:TheDapperDan|TheDapperDan]] 12:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There, Jackson fought for the championship against Brazilian rival [[Wanderlei Silva]] in what was called fight of the year by various MMA media. However, after taking Silva down and bloodying him with in the ensuing [[ground and pound]] assault, a stand-up was called by the referee and Jackson was subsequently TKO'd with a series of knees to the head.

[[Image:Jackson slams Arona montage.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Jackson famously slamming [[Ricardo Arona]] for the KO in [[PRIDE Critical Countdown 2004]].]]

Jackson went on to defeat [[Ikuhisa Minowa]] and [[Ricardo Arona]], the latter being bout notable both for the fight-ending slam by which Jackson rendered Arona unconscious and some controversy preceding the finish, wherein Arona argued to the referee in-charge that he had rendered Jackson unconscious with up-kicks. The bout also served as an eliminator to determine the top challenger to Wanderlei Silva.

Prior to rematching Silva, Jackson made some headlines with the public announcement of his conversion to [[born again Christianity]]. In the fight itself, Jackson floored Wanderlei in the opening round and later scored a takedown which led to a series of knees and elbows which seemed primed to usher in a referee stoppage when the bell signaled the end of the opening stanza. Jackson scored another takedown in the second, but Wanderlei escaped to his feet and proceeded to finish Jackson with knees for the second time. Jackson's next two bouts would be against stable mates of Wanderlei's, first posting a decision win over [[Murilo Rua]] then falling to his younger brother [[Mauricio "Shogun" Rua]] via TKO. Rampage bounced back with wins over [[Hirotaka Yokoi]] and world-class judoka [[Yoon Dong-Sik]] before leaving the organization amid turmoil with its upper management.

Sorry, I don't yet know how to make this it's own section...

The article states under EARLY LIFE: When exams began to loom Darwin focused more on his studies and received private tuition from Henslow.

===After PRIDE===

Did he receive private lessons? I doubt he received tuition..but I might be wrong. Anyone?

On [[May 16]] [[2006]], the [[World Fighting Alliance]] announced it had signed Jackson to a multi-fight deal. He defeated [[Matt Lindland]] by split decision at ''WFA: King of the Streets'' on [[July 22]], [[2006]]. "He is a good fighter," Rampage said. "I trained hard. He is an Olympic silver medalist. So much respect to him. I knew I had to bring it." The match turned out to be a tough one for the Memphis, Tenn., native who got caught in a choke hold twice. Rampage managed to get out both times and slammed Lindland a few times before cutting the bridge of his nose with ground and pound on his way to the win.

===UFC RECENT CHANGES career===

On [[December 11]] [[2006]], Zuffa, the parent company of the [[UFC]], announced it had acquired select assets from the World Fighting Alliance, which will cease operations as a part of their sale agreement. UFC President [[Dana White]] has told [[The Fight Network]] that Jackson's contract is one of the assets they have acquired.<ref>{{cite news

|first=Loretta

|last=Hunt

|work=TheFightNetwork.com

|url=http://www.thefightnetwork.com/news_detail.php?nid=2832

|title=UFC ON A “RAMPAGE,” ACQUIRES WFA CONTRACTS, TRADEMARK ASSETS

|date=[[2006-12-11]]

|accessdate=2006-12-11

}}</ref> In an interview on the UFC show '''''Inside the UFC''''' Jackson said it was time for him to enter the UFC, and he hadn't before because of his friendship with [[Tito Ortiz]]. Jackson said that because Ortiz was the head fighter in the UFC, he didn't want to ruin that. Jackson made his UFC debut at ''[[UFC 67]]'', when he beat [[Marvin Eastman]] in a rematch.

[[Image:Jackson KOs Liddell UFC71.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Jackson lands a right hook that drops [[Chuck Liddell]] in [[UFC 71]], winning the Light-Heavyweight title.]]

To get this up to featured-article standard, which requires 'brilliant' prose, will require substantial work. I'm going through it, making numerous edits; these include changes to the paragraphing. Unfortunately, where this occurs, the track changes don't work, which means that my edits will need to be compared line-by-line with the previous version.

At [[UFC 71]], May 26, 2007, Quinton "Rampage" Jackson once again defeated "Iceman" [[Chuck Liddell]] via TKO (Strikes) in Round 1 after one minute and fifty-three seconds to become [[UFC]] [[Light Heavyweight (MMA)|Light Heavyweight]] champion.

He will make his first title defense against [[Dan Henderson]], PRIDE Welterweight (183 pounds) and Middleweight (205 pounds) Champion.

May I put in a plea that the low-value links to years be left unlinked for readability, and to avoid diluting the high-value, topic-focused links? If people feel strongly about leaving them linked, please try the unlinked version for a while; I'll relink if there's overwhelming support for it. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 05:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

===Kickboxing career===

:My preference has been for linking all dates, probably having been chased for not doing that at one time, but checking [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]] note that it says "unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it", so it comes down to preference, I personally don't find it adversely affecting readability, and tend to notice unlinked years more, but YMMV. Sometimes it's useful to see what else was going on during the relevant year, but this isn't something I do often, so am willing to try it your way....[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 21:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

{{Unreferenced|date=June 2007}}

In 2002, when [[PRIDE Fighting Championships]] and [[K-1]] were exchanging talent, Jackson was sent to fight kickboxer [[Cyril Abidi]] under K-1 rules. The first kickboxing bout between Abidi and Jackson was on July 14, 2002. Many expected Jackson's wild style of striking would not translate into the K-1 ring, thinking he would be outclassed by such a schooled and disciplined striker as Abidi. Instead, Jackson overwhelmed Abidi from the opening bell, and knocked him down less than a minute into the bout. Jackson then scored a hard underhand right to the chin of Abidi, knocking him out only 1:55 into the very first round.

Later in the year, Abidi wanted to prove his loss to the undisciplined Jackson was nothing more than a fluke, and faced him on the New Year's Eve Inoki Bom-Ba-Ye card, again in a K-1 rules bout. Jackson laid a lot of criticism to rest by once again defeating Abidi, this time not by early knockout, but via a clear decision. It would be Jackson's last foray with K-1, as he returned to full-time MMA competition after his second win over Abidi.

Dave, have a look at [[Australia]] and the [[United States]], both of which are still quite densely linked after the low-value years were delinked. Much nicer, IMHO. I want to direct readers to high-value links; when there's a sea of them, they'll tend to ignore them. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 01:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

== MMA Record ==

The main reason for linking dates is so that preferences will work 11 September 2005; September 11, 2005; 2005 September 11 - this applies also when no year is present, but linking years alone (or year and month) is of little value.--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 02:03, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

{{start box}}

|-

|style="text-align: center" colspan=8|'''27 Wins''' (13 KO's, 7 submissions, 7 decisions), '''6 Losses''' (3 TKO, 1 submission, 1 decision)- '''0 Draws'''.

|-

| align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #f0f0f0"|'''Result'''

| align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background:#f0f0f0"|'''Opponent'''

| align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #f0f0f0"|'''Method'''

| align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #f0f0f0"|'''Event'''

| align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #f0f0f0"|'''Date''' -

| align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #f0f0f0"|'''Round''' -

| align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #f0f0f0"|'''Time'''

| align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #f0f0f0"|'''Notes'''

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Chuck Liddell]]|| TKO (Strikes) || [[UFC 71|UFC 71: Liddell vs. Jackson]] ||5/26/2007 || 1|| 1:53 || Won UFC Light Heavyweight Title

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Marvin Eastman]]|| TKO (Punches) || [[UFC 67|UFC 67: All or Nothing]] ||2/3/2007 || 2|| 3:49 ||

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Matt Lindland]]|| Decision (Split) || [[WFA King of the Streets]] ||7/22/2006 || 3|| 5:00 ||

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Dong Sik Yoon]]|| Decision|| [[PRIDE 31]]||2/26/2006|| 3|| 5:00 ||

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Hirotaka Yokoi]]|| TKO|| [[PRIDE 30]] ||10/23/2005|| 1|| 4:05 ||

|-

|{{no2}}Loss|| [[Mauricio Rua]]|| TKO || [[PRIDE Total Elimination 2005]]||4/23/2005|| 1|| 4:47 ||

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Murilo Rua]]|| Decision|| [[PRIDE 29]]-Fists of Fire 2005||2/20/2005|| 3|| 5:00 ||

|-

|{{no2}}Loss|| [[Wanderlei Silva]]|| KO|| [[PRIDE 28]]-High Octane||10/31/2004|| 2|| 3:26 ||Middleweight Title Match

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Ricardo Arona]]|| KO (Power Bomb) || [[PRIDE Critical Countdown 2004]]||6/20/2004|| 1|| 7:32||

|-

|{{yes2}}Win || [[Ikuhisa Minowa]]|| TKO|| [[PRIDE Shockwave 2003]]||12/31/2003|| 2|| 1:05 ||

|-

|{{no2}}Loss|| [[Wanderlei Silva]]|| TKO || [[PRIDE Final Conflict 2003]] ||11/9/2003 ||1 || 6:28 ||Middleweight Grand Prix Final

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Chuck Liddell]]|| TKO (Corner Stoppage)|| [[PRIDE Final Conflict 2003]]||11/9/2003|| 2|| 3:10||Middleweight Grand Prix Semifinal

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Murilo Bustamante]]|| Decision|| [[PRIDE Total Elimination 2003]] ||8/10/2003|| 3|| 5:00 ||Middleweight Grand Prix Quarterfinal

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Mikhail Illoukhine]]|| Submission (strikes)|| [[PRIDE 26]]-Body Blow||6/8/2003|| 1|| 6:26||

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Kevin Randleman]]|| TKO|| [[PRIDE 25]]-Body Blow||3/16/2003|| 1|| 6:58 ||

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Igor Vovchanchyn]]|| Submission (injury) || [[PRIDE 22]]-Beasts from the East 2||9/29/2002|| 1|| 7:17 || Middleweight Grand Prix Final

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Sean Grey]]|| TKO || [[KOTC 13]] Revolution ||5/17/2002|| 3|| 0:37 || Middleweight Grand Prix Semifinal

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Masaaki Satake]]|| TKO || [[PRIDE 20]]-Armed and Ready||4/28/2002|| 1|| 7:07 || Middleweight Grand Prix Quarterfinal

|-

|{{no2}}Loss|| [[Daijiro Matsui]]|| DQ || [[PRIDE 18]] - Cold Fury 2||12/23/2001|| 1 || 0:14

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Yuki Ishikawa]]|| KO (Strikes)|| [[PRIDE 17]] Championship Chaos||11/3/2001|| 1|| 1:52 ||

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Alexander Otsuka]]|| TKO || [[BattlArts]] ||10/14/2001|| 2|| 5:00 ||

|-

|{{no2}}Loss|| [[Kazushi Sakuraba]]|| Submission|| [[PRIDE 15]]-Raging Rumble||7/29/2001|| 1|| 4:51 ||

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Kenneth Williams]]|| Submission|| [[Gladiator Challenge]]||6/17/2001|| 1|| 4:40 ||

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Bryson Howvreck]]|| Submission || [[KOTC 8]] ||4/29/2001|| 1|| 1:48 ||

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Rocko Henderson]]|| Submission || [[Gladiator Challenge]] ||4/7/2001|| 2 || 1:15 ||

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Dave Taylor (mixed martial artist)|Dave Taylor]]|| TKO || [[Gladiator Challenge]] ||2/18/2001|| 1|| 5:00 ||

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Charlie West]] ||Decision || [[Gladiator Challenge]]|| 12/9/2000||3 ||5:00 ||

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Rob Smith]]|| Decision || [[KOTC 6]] ||11/29/2000|| 3|| 5:00 ||

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Warren Owsley]]|| Submission || [[Dangerzone]] || 10/28/2000|| 1|| 6:04 ||

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Ron Rumpf]]|| TKO || [[CFA]] 2 ||7/19/2000|| 1|| 1:18 ||

|-

|{{no2}}Loss|| [[Marvin Eastman]]|| Decision|| [[KOTC]]||6/24/2000|| 2|| 5:00 ||

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Marco Bermudaz]]|| Submission|| [[HBUP]]-HB Underground Pancrase||5/13/2000|| 2|| N/A ||

|-

|{{yes2}}Win|| [[Mike Pyle (fighter)|Mike Pyle]]|| Decision|| ISCF ||11/13/1999|| 3||N/A ||

{{end box}}

==Beard?Personal life==

Outside of the ring, Quinton Jackson enjoys playing [[video game]]s and listening to [[music]]; Quinton recorded some [[hip hop music|rap]] songs before his conversion to Christianity (see below), but he has since expressed interest in redoing the tracks before releasing them, as the original recordings have [[profanity|explicit language]] that Jackson no longer wishes to be associated with.

Shouldn't a pic of Darwin with a beard be in the lead, since that's his most famous image? [[User:Borisblue|Borisblue]] 01:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[[Image:Quinton Jackson with kids (All Access).jpg|thumb|right|250px|Jackson with his two oldest children in an episode of UFC:All Access (2007).]]

:Improvement?...[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 14:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Also well known is Quinton's change to [[born again|born-again Christianity]]. This apparently occurred sometime after his successful fight with [[Ricardo Arona]] (September, [[2004]]). An article written by [[Sherdog]]'s Josh Gross describes Jackson's experience: "In the middle of a late-summer night Jackson and his kindergarten-age son D’Angelo woke up to separate, though eerily similar dreams. Both were shaken, so much so that at 4 a.m. they had to get out of their apartment. To Jackson, it was a sign. 'You know how girls cry when they’re happy?' he said. 'That’s how I was. I think I felt Jesus' love. I don’t know. I automatically knew everything after I was born again.'"[http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles.asp?n_id=2448]

Jackson resides in [[Irvine, California|Irvine, CA]] with four children, Diangelo and Raja, and Elijah and Naname Nakia Jackson. All three boys have the middle name "Rampage" while Naname has just 'Page. Jackson's wife Yuki separated from him in 2006 after a blood test proved that he had fathered a child, Raja, with another woman in 2000.<ref>Lance Pugmire, "A UFC debut for 'Rampage' Jackson," LA Times, February 2, 2007. "Yuki separated from "Rampage" last year, he said, soon after an April blood test confirmed he had fathered a 6-year-old son with a woman in Kentucky."</ref>

== Opening sentence - Sexual selection ==

==References and notes==

The first sentence states "[Darwin].... who achieved lasting fame as originator of the theory of evolution through natural and sexual selection."

{{Reflist}}

However sexual selection is a subset of [[natural selection]] as it states in that article: ''"Natural selection can be subdivided into two types: (i) ecological selection, ... and (ii) sexual selection"''

==External links==

*[http://www.allrampage.com/ Official Site]

*[http://www.allrampage.com/FrontEnd/News/tabid/62/Default.aspx Quinton Rampage Jackson in the news]

*[http://www.myspace.com/rampagejackson Offical MySpace Page of Quinton "Rampage" Jackson]

*{{sherdog|id=348}}

*[http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=fighter.detail&PID=516 UFC.com Profile]

*[http://www.pridefc.com/pride2005/index.php?mainpage=fighters&fID=90 PRIDE Profile]

{{Championshiptitle|8th|[[Ultimate Fighting Championship|UFC]]|[[Light Heavyweight (MMA)|Light Heavyweight]]| Chuck Liddell| Current|[[May 26]], [[2007]] - Present}}

I cannot see how this can stand, and the only options to solve this problem would be to either,

*change sentence to ".... through ecological and sexual selection."'' or

*drop the sexual selection

{{DEFAULTSORT:Jackson, Quinton}}

I would strongly support the latter option. [[User:Majts|Majts]] 23:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[[Category:American Christians]]

[[Category:American mixed martial artists]]

[[Category:Living people]]

[[Category:UFC Light Heavyweight Champions]]

[[fr:Quinton Jackson]]

*There's two ways to look at this: one is through contemporary eyes, which sees sexual selection as a subset of natural selection and not as big as natural selection. The other way is through Darwin's eyes: he saw sexual selection as explicitly different than natural selection and a great achievement in its own right. I'm not sure Darwin himself ever thought of "ecological selection" as explicitly as it is attributed to him here. Anyway, that's just some food for thought. I'm not sure it's right to put sexual and natural selection together as being the things he achieved fame for -- he achieved a disproportionate amount of fame from natural selection in comparison to sexual selection, even though he himself thought they were on the same level of importance. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 00:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[[ja:クイントン・ジャクソン]]

::I fail to see the relevance of whether Darwin may have used the terms differently. Surely contemporary meanings take precedence in an encyclopedia, otherwise we would be writing Darwin's article strictly in 19th Century prose. It can be stated later in the article about how meanings have changed if necessary. [[User:Majts|Majts]] 01:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

:::What I am saying is that it depends on how one wants to phrase it. If we are talking about what Darwin "achieved lasting fame for", there's no need to even mention sexual selection, because it's not the source of his lasting fame. If we are talking about what Darwin originated, in his own terms, we'd want to talk about sexual selection not as something subserviant to natural selection. It depends on our intentions. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 01:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

:::I'm not necessarily saying it needs to be one way or another. I'm just trying to give the proper context for it. I don't really care on this point. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 12:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

As there have been no further commments I am removing "sexual selection" from the opening sentence. [[User:Majts|Majts]] 05:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

==Neutral wording in image captions==

I was very tempted to add an "NPOV" notice to the top of this page after briefly skimming through it, but then I saw that the main issues were just with the image captions; the actual article text is quite good. My problem is that a lot of the image text is worded is unencyclopedically redundant or poetic. "a year before the sudden, tragic loss of his mother." would make just as much sense without "tragic" (it would be tragic in any situation, so stating so is redundant and comes across as telling readers how to feel about X event). "The devoted father Charles Darwin" is, again, a bit too fluffy for my taste; aren't most fathers devoted? Not being devoted to your children is more noteworthy, I'd think. If there's a source stating that he was a devoted father (or better yet, detailing some event that would ''show'' he's a devoted father to most readers: it's always better to show or demonstrate a judgment call than to just state it), it would make a better addition to the rather short and list-ish "Marriage and children" section. "an eminent sage" also seems a bit much, especially since "eminent" and "pre-eminent" are repeated six times in the article, including thrice in image captions. Also, captions like "Charles Darwin was revered by many as a great thinker" are both POVed and too generic; information about specific ways he influenced later thought would be more useful and informative. Hitler's been revered by many as a great thinker, too; things need to be in their proper context to avoid confusion. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 07:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

: Excellent points - So be bold and make the appropriate edits, you will have my full support --[[User:Majts|Majts]] 19:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

::Good work on improvements, many thanks and some comments: CD was noted as an unusually devoted father for the Victorian period, but the simpler caption probably works better. Re the image of Darwin looking confused, gloomy and horror-struck for the Religion section being subtly POV, the pic was at the head of the article but following the comment "Beard?" above, a (more positive) bearded image was substituted. The date of the gloomy pic suited his loss of faith in kindly providence, though his disbelief in the Bible (Old Testament) went back at least as far as his Beagle days. Feel free to delete the pic from the religion section if you prefer. By the way, saying "The His Majesty's Ship X" is frowned on grammatically, so I've tried to work round that.....[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 20:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

:::"CD was noted as an unusually devoted father for the Victorian period" - That makes much more sense and is a lot clearer, and I fully endorse adding that information (especially if there's a source for it) to the article text, where there's sufficient room to properly explain it; image captions are necessarily too short for such information.

:::"The date of the gloomy pic suited his loss of faith in kindly providence," - Speaking of which, nothing in the article text mentioned "providence" in any way, shape or form. All it stated was that he was agnostic rather than atheist, and doubted the Bible's divinity (especially the Old Testament). That's why I changed the image caption there, even though I don't like my version of the caption either. Could we get some details, or at least a brief mentioning, on this apparent period of loss of faith in God within that section?

:::"Feel free to delete the pic from the religion section if you prefer." - Certainly not. It's a great pic, and ''is'' quite appropriate to the section. I'm not one to try to remove the souls from articles to conform strictly to NPOV. But I felt the issue should be mentioned, since some atheists and agnostics may find the implication that Darwin's beliefs directly (rather than indirectly, through societal pressure) led to his haunted, world-weary appearance in that photo offensive. But I can't think of a better place to put that image&mdash;I'd consider moving it to "Illness", except that the section's so short we'd have to switch the image to the opposite side of the page, and that would upset my delicate aesthetic page-layout sensibilities by overweighting the right side, and all the other images already work great in their positions&mdash;and I certainly can't think of a better image to put in that place, so I'll leave it be.

:::"By the way, saying "The His Majesty's Ship X" is frowned on grammatically, so I've tried to work round that" - But we aren't saying that, we're saying "The Aych Em Ess X" :) But I see your point. I'd probably have left it be, except that I noticed there were already a couple of instances of "The HMS Beagle" on the Charles Darwin page (consistency!), plus it's confirmed by websites like [http://www.asap.unimelb.edu.au/bsparcs/covingto/contents.htm], and if you do a Google search for HMS Beagle, you'll find that a huge number of sites use "The HMS Beagle" (52,300 come up searching for the "The HMS Beagle" in quotes, though I can't compare that to the article-less version). But I have absolutely no preference either way; as long as we're consistent one way or the other on Wikipedia, I'll gladly help enforce that wording. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 20:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

:CD as devoted daddy: from memory that's strongly emphasised in Desmond and Moore's ''Darwin'', but I'll have to get it out of the library again to check. The loss of faith section could do with a review, will have a go at that and reconsider the caption. From a theism free viewpoint, I felt the pic was more of a POV problem at the lead in: Desmond and Moore indicate that CD was deeply troubled by worries about religious persecution, illness and overwhelmingly the death of his daughter, but it's perhaps just an unflattering photo. < blush > embarrassing about HMS ''Inconsistency'', but having used search it seems OK now. A vague memory surfaces, check: the point is made at the bottom of the [[Ship prefix]] page....[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 18:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

*I think the 1850s "lost faith" image is inappropriate. It is just a portrait, it is not illustrative of his loss of faith. I also might say that I think the image chosen as the primary one is really quite awful. It is either an awful scan or an awful original -- it does not look like a photograph at all but a not very good painting. Even [[:Image:Charles Darwin 1880.jpg|this one]] is a better portrait. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 19:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

::I definitely agree with Dave that the image is ''absolutely'' inappropriate for the top of the page; else I'd have recommended that as a possible alternative. And if it's not illustrative of his loss of faith, then what image ''would'' be? I think it's much closer than just about any other image we could think of for that section. But, as long as we think of alternative positions and don't just delete it altogether, I'm fine with making some changes.

::We may also want to ''seriously'' consider changing the organization of the page in reference to the "related topics" section; shouldn't "illness" be mentioned within the article itself in the appropriately chronological section, wouldn't "views on religion" belong better in a section about his various beliefs, and don't "Eugenics" and "Social Darwinism" belong under "Legacy" along with all a numer of other movements and beliefs or fields of study directly or indirectly inspired by his discoveries and theories? "Related topics" is just such a hideously generic and unhelpful way to categorize things. Perhaps when those sections are reorganized we'll find a much easier solution to the image problem, like simply placing the distraught-looking photo into the newly-expanded 1850s passage somewhere? Or go with my above idea and move it to the newly-repositioned "Illness" (and possibly expanded) paragraph.

::"I also might say that I think the image chosen as the primary one is really quite awful." - It's a photo according to its detail (I also found a very nice [http://perso.wanadoo.es/acpm/imagenes/darwin4.jpg colorized version].). Remember that most photos from that time were not of a very good quality; see all the other photos on the page, they tend to be rather blurred, undetailed, etc. and have faded with time. Also, I disagree; it could perhaps be improved (personally I've always thought of Darwin as being younger, more like his middle-aged pics, although it's not always a bad thing to defy immediate expectations), but it's also a pretty good image and certainly works at the top. It also could worsen the article if we moved it down without replacing it with another "older" image, because we already have enough images of him later in life lower down in the article. It's well-balanced as is. Which isn't to say that it can't be improved; try some alternate solutions and we'll see how it looks (though I'd discourage the removal of any of the photos currently on the page), but I also think the image distribution is quite good currently. It gives the passages a nice flow and none of the accompaniments are inappropriate (with the possible exception of the religion one). The top image is neither excellent nor terrible; it's just good. I agree that the 1880 one is more interesting; switch them if you want, but you should probably find a larger version of the 1880 one first, since it's obviously too small right now to be the top image. Looking at Google, I found a larger (and more interesting) version of the same image [http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/mletters_images/darwin1.jpg here], though it would definitely need to be lightened up. There are also some other good Darwin images [http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/images.html on that page]. Ah, [http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/evolk12/posse/1881chaz.jpg here's a pretty good version]. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 21:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

*My suggestion for the "loss of faith" image is the one we have of [[:Image:Annie_Darwin.jpg|Anne Darwin]], his daughter whose death supposedly strongly pushed him towards his loss of faith. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 22:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

::Superbly done. That will certainly do. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 23:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

*Also, I still heavily doubt that either the main image or the "colorized" version is a photograph. They look like paintings to me, when you compare them to the other photographs of his time (most of which are daguerrotypes in all perfectionism). (In fact I think it is a painting by [[John Maler Collier]]) I prefer the middle-age pictures though I understand if people want "old man" Darwin pictures because they conjure up the common idea of Darwin. I'll poke around for some better pictures or maybe scan in a few. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 22:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

::I also prefer the middle-aged pictures, but only because ''I'm'' much more used to seeing him that way in a variety of references; having almost never seen photos of Darwin as an old man, I'm surprised that that's the "common idea" of him, though if I'm mistaken I won't let my personal experiences affect my preference of images. I still don't have any problem with the current top image, ''even if'' it's a painting (which someone should probably check up on, if only because it claims to be a photo on the image page; it shouldn't be hard, it's a fairly common image), and I also won't object to your moving it to a lower portion of the article if you (A) find a suitable replacement, and (B) find a good way to incorporate it elsewhere in the article, since it's a good image. Probably the easiest way to do this would be putting it where the "sage" image is now, and putting a better version of that image on the top, since we agree that it's pretty good. But I won't necessarily object if you think some other image would be more suitable on the top. Doesn't hurt to experiment a bit, anything can be reverted. And I'm sure there are images of Darwin that are much better than any we currently have on the page. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 23:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

:Oops, that does indeed look like a painting, though not credited in the book I scanned it from: my error, now corrected in picture info. The beard image may be familiar as it's the one promoted on the banknote. Other pictures much better now..[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 00:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

==Theory==

I too almost removed the link when I first saw it, but after reconsidering it, I actually think that linking to [[theory]] is a pretty damned good idea. One of the most common arguments against the theory of evolution is that "it's just a theory", which shows that a ''huge'' number of laypeople have no understanding at all of what the word "theory" means in science. A ''lot'' of confusion can be avoided by linking to a page which makes it ''very'' clear what a "theory" is, especially since most of the rest of the article, and of the entire Darwin series of articles, discusses his discoveries using the exact word "theory"; "development of theory", "inception of theory", "publication of theory", etc. I'm opposed to excessive linking (as can be seen by my unlinking a number of redundant or unnecessary links in my edits, and clarifying others), but we must also remember to [[Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#State the obvious|state the obvious]] sometimes. Or in this case, link the obvious&mdash;even better because it requires no extra text! -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 00:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

:The problem is that it places the emphasis on the wrong word. But thinking more about it, and particularly with regards to stating the obvious, you may be right. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 11:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

::Agree. BTW I've revamped the religion bit using Desmond's essay on Darwin, Charles from Britannica 04 for into, and removed the inline comment...[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 13:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

== Religious views ==

While the whole passage about Old Testament inaccuracies is excellent, it's already quoted in full in [[Charles Darwin's views on religion]] with some explanation. A brief statement would be more appropriate here, so I've tried to summarise the main points. Regarding rephrasing of the first paragraph, Desmond states that "on calm days Darwin's plankton-filled tow-net left him wondering why beautiful creatures teemed in the ocean's vastness, where no human could appreciate them." and "But nature had its own evils, and Darwin always remembered with a shudder the parasitic ichneumon wasp, which stored caterpillars to be eaten alive by its grubs. He would later consider this evidence against the beneficent design of nature.", but doesn't relate the first point to Paley's optimistic views. (Brittanica, there's more detail in Desmond and Moore's book). Another point to think about is the '''Later life and death''' heading for the earlier section: there's a tendency to dismiss his post-''Origin'' work which this hints at, and something like '''Further work''' could put the period more positively...[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 23:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

==C. Darwin, F. Dawrwin Plant Auxin Research==

I think it is very notable that Darwin and his son Francis are credited with the discovery of plant auxins (plant growth hormones). Would there be interest in adding this to the article? -[[User:LouieS|LouieS]] 05:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

:I believe what they actually discovered was that the phototropic stimulus is detected at the tip of the plant. Boysen-Jensen discovered that the signal for phototropism was a chemical passing down from the tip of the coleoptile. It was F. W. Went who first isolated plant auxins. - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 06:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC) (Actually, Darwin's exact conclusion was "when seedlings are freely exposed to unilateral light, some influence is transmitted from the upper to the lower part, causing the latter to bend".) - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 06:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

==Nov 24, 2005 changes==

I have tried to improve this article. I hope it will soon be good enough to be featured. Please will other Wikipedians go through my attempted improvements carefully. I'm only human. [[User:Barbara Shack|Barbara Shack]] 19:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

:Excellent work to smooth the language (i.e., to put it in English). One problem is the almost hourly vandlism of this page. Can you please:

:*1. Recast my recent redundant edits about the fact that 1802 is the date for Erasmus death, not for Charles.

:*2. Add more quotes validating the statements in the links to the "murphy law" page. Perhaps you can find original Darwin's quotes. Have you looked into the British Library website on Darwin?

: [[User:Jclerman|Jclerman]] 20:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

:Two of the "Murphy Law" pages were easy to deal with. The one citing Humboldt was irrelevant -- all biographies have that information. The quotation relating to Malthus was easy to find -- it was from ''Descent of Man''. I cannot, however, find any reference to the hunting of aborigines for sport. There is a long section on Tasmania in Ch. 19 of ''Voyage of the Beagle'', which certainly describes other unpleasant practices, but never once alludes to that. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 20:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

::I did find something that seems to validate the Tasmania events but not Darwin's mention of them.

::It seems that when Darwin visited Tasmania the aborigines where near extintion caused by, according to social historian Clive Turnbull: <<...the activities of these criminals would soon include the "shooting, bashing out brains, burning alive, and slaughter of Aborigines for dogs' meat." >>

::See: The Destruction Of The Tasmanian Aborigines by Runoko Rashidi, historian ([e-mail]) at:

::http://www.africawithin.com/rashidi/destruction_aborigines.htm

::[[User:Jclerman|Jclerman]] 22:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

==Sub-pages==

When this article is nominated for Featured Article status, I highly suspect that the main problem that people will use to justify "object" votes will be deficiencies in Charles Darwin's sub-articles. A Featured Article is expected to not only be high-quality in its own writing, but also to be at least be good-quality in ''all'' of the text of its series of pages, not just the text on the main page. This article's come a long way, but I think we should start to seriously focus (not that some haven't already "seriously focused", there's been some great work put into the sub-articles too) on the sub-pages to bring them closer to the quality of [[Charles Darwin]] itself. Comments, agreements, disagreements? -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 22:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

== Removed "Vandalism" ==

I stated that Darwin was a blasphemer, and to the definition, would that not be correct?

No, because there are many Christians who believe that Darwin's evolution theory is merely an extension of "God's will". Also your labeling of him as a blasphemer is a POV. [[User:Olorin28|Olorin28]] 03:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"No, you are wrong. If you take a poll right now randomly in the world, i doubt that even 5 percent support what you are saying. Your 65 percent is completely made up and false"

"...i doubt that even 5 percent support what you are saying."

Isn't that your OWN view that only 5% support my view? You can't use that against the fact that 65% of the world is a religion that DOES believe in creation.

"...If you take a poll right now randomly in the world..."

go ahead, make sure you get EVERYONE.

*A subjective description like "blasphemer" can only be used when attributed ("Pope So-and-so called Darwin a blasphemer"), and in order to get into this article it has to be attributed to a fairly notable person (a pope would do). --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 03:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

*Jesus Christ called Darwin a blasphemer.

I also emailed the whitehouse, so if they reply, that would be a pretty notable person.

What? Jesus Christ called Darwin a blasphemer? Darwin wasn't even born when Jesus Christ died.

By the way, I am pretty sure that the White House won't reply. It is NOT a religious institute anyway, and it will cause a political furor. [[User:Olorin28|Olorin28]] 13:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

:An interesting point, in that Darwin was rightly terrified of being accused of blasphemy because that was a criminal offence in England at the time. He was not officially accused let alone convicted, so the evidence is that he wasn't a blasphemer. A fascinating topic which you'll find out more about if you read the biographical sub-articles. As for world opinion, not everyone lives in the southern states of the U.S.A. ....[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 01:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

::It still is, fwiw: [[Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom]]. [[User:66.92.237.111|66.92.237.111]] 20:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Good link: evidently a lot less in force now than it was in Darwin's England. If I recall correctly, then it resulted in jail and loss of copyright...[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 21:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

==Very Nice Article==

I congradulate everyone for contributing, very good. By the way Darwin lived over 1,800 years after Christ, I think the person meant to say "the bible" refers to Darwin as being a blasphemer.

:If so, "the Bible" was shockingly prescient. - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 02:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

::1 Corinthians 2:11 - "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 07:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

==Stick with Darwin==

I wouldn't say he was a ‘douche bag’ in fact he was a man with a realistic vision, away from religion which has such primitive beliefs. I would say that in humanity religion has gotten mankind nowhere only to be constantly (if not subconsciously) afraid of going to hell. There is such thing as having personal spirituality like Buddhism, mastering Yoga ect. The problem is that religion is nothing more than a group organization telling you what to believe. We are in the 21st century and despite computers, modern buildings, advanced technology (ie. NASA) about 80% of the world still needs to believe in something neither physically explained nor proven fact.

As to evolution most outsiders to science ignore physical evidence staring them in the face such as how man obviously evolved from lesser forms of animals. Despite Darwin's critics he said that he didn't care if he evolved from apes, he liked all forms of life connected as a whole. I think people are afraid of the idea that animals change and so does man (physically and technologically). Darwin is not to be confused with Albert Einstein, he was simply a man with a sense of exploration.--[[User:King of the Dancehall|King of the Dancehall]] 17:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

::Wait, were you actually responding to my blatant satire of religious nutjobs as though I was seriously calling Charles Darwin a douchebag? That couldn't be further from the case, I have a deep respect for Darwin and his contributions to our modern understanding of the world, and more than anything his life makes me very sad, knowing how much unnecessary hardship he had to suffer. Very unfortunate.

::Also, your definition of religion as "organized religion" conflicts with the [[religion|more common definition]], which [[Buddhism]], and possibly even [[Unitarian Universalism]], qualify for. Additionally, to say that "religion h as gotten mankind nowhere only to be constantly afraid of going to hell" is an obvious overgeneralization based on an Islamo-Christian-centric understanding of the history of world religions, and even when only considering those religions fails to acknowledge any of the possible benefits of religion for various past rulers (much-needed stability through ensuring that all people in the area share a certain ideology, an easy rewards/punishment system to ensure that laws are obeyed, not needing to justify morality to expect people to obey it) and past individuals (emotional support and guidance, ability to deal with a flawed world by focusing on an imaginary world, preservation of hope for a future, "after-life" of happiness for the manyn people who have very little happiness available to them in this life at all).

::Religion/spirituality is more of an ''outdated'' idea than anything; it doesn't mesh well with globalization, humanism, the scientific revolution, etc., so it's certainly a dying beast now, though still a fascinating one that plays a huge role in our culture and mythology. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 18:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

== social darwinism (once and for all) ==

The expansion of Darwinism to social Darwinism was invented through the works of Herbert Spencer. Herbert Spencer’s “understanding included the Lamarckian theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics and emphasized the direct influence of external agencies on the organism’s development. He denied (as Darwin had argued) that evolution was based on the characteristics and development of the organism itself and on a simple principle of natural selection.”(http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/spencer.htm) Spencer, not Darwin, emphasized the competitive nature of a species and coined the term ‘survival of the fittest.’ Furthermore, Spencer extended his theory into human social behavior and that “specialization led to self-sufficiency and individuation”(http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/spencer.htm) His principles were further mangled to justify to the Nazi ‘breeding program’ and other eugenic forms of oppression. Spencer, not Darwin, defined society as “an aggregate of individuals, and change in society could take place only once individual members of that society had changed and developed. Individuals are ‘primary,’ individual development was ‘egotistic,’ and associations with others largely instrumental and contractual. ” (http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/spencer.htm#H5)

: Apart from the point that the term seems to date from 1944 and the American historian Richard Hofstadter, is there any conflict between the above points and the brief description in the article? The comment and references could always be added to [[Social Darwinism]]....[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 20:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

== Evolution is a fact and a theory ==

I've edited the article to remove references to evolution as a "theory." Evolution is not a theory - it is an observation (true or false) that, if true, must somehow be explained. That is, evolution (in Darwin's sense of 'descent with modification') is an explanandum (something that needs to be explained), it is not itself an explanation (an explanans). See Gould's essay "Evolution as fact and theory" at http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html. NOTE: creationists and those who believe in intelligent design (ID) and whatnot should not be upset with this change. ID is a theory (just like it's rival, natural selection) meant to explain evolution.[[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikkerpikker]] 21:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Excerpt from Gould's essay:

"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? ... Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikkerpikker]] 21:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

: From Gould's article ,"Well, evolution ''is'' a theory. (emphasis Gould's). I understand what you are trying to accomplish, but it seems you are confusing evolution with '''biodiversity''', which is caused by more things than just natural and sexual selection. [[Genetic drift]] and [[gene flow]] are large contributors to allele frequency change, which is really all evolution is. Evolution is most certainly a theory that explains the biodiversity of life on Earth. I won't revert again until other contributors can have a say. --[[User:Jason Potter|JPotter]] 01:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

:: I also saw that part and I acknowledge it is awkward for what I'm arguing, but it seems Gould means this: 'evolution' in its vernacular usage refers to two different issues, (1) the observation [either inferential via the fossil record or direct with viruses in the lab etc.] that organisms change over time to adapt to their environment which can lead to [[transmutation of species]], and (2) the theory of natural selection which explains why (1) happens. Now, you can believe in (1) without accepting (2) [e.g. some forms of intelligent design & Lamarkianism] and so I think it is vital to distinguish between these two uses. Failure to make the distinction causes much confusion; maybe this slight tangent will help explain what I'm trying to do: a similar problem with fact/theory bedevils the [[global warming]] debate. People often fail to realise that the world's average temperature rising is an observation (i.e. a fact) whilst the green house effect is the theory that attempts to account for WHY global warming is occurring. Most people called 'global warming denialists' (e.g. Robert Bailey of Reason.com), however, are no such thing - they accept the fact of global warming but deny green house gases are the (or the sole) cause. (Some prefer the alternative theory that says the sun's output has changed and this causes the temperature rise). It seems to me that once we distinguish between fact and theory we can see why people are so confused - making the distinction allows far more sophisticated discussion. (There are of course people who deny the observation that organisms adapt over time and that the world's average temperature is rising, but they are marginal, most disputes concern theory). [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikkerpikker]] 15:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

::In the introduction to Carl Zimmer's book ''Evolution: The Triumpg of an Idea'', Gould writes: “In discussing the truth of evolution, we should make a distinction, as Darwin explicitly did, between the simple fact of evolution – defined as the geneological connection among all earthly organisms, based on their descent from a common ancestor, and the history of any lineage as a process of descent with modification – and theories (like Darwinian natural selection) that have been proposed to explain the causes of evolutionary change.” [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikkerpikker]] 14:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats to [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikkerpikker]] on a job well done. The difference between the useage of the word "evolution" to mean the fact and its useage to mean the theory is subtle but important. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 09:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

::A very good point and I've modified the intro to try to emphasise this distinction. Thanks for the Gould link. ...[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 11:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Nice job on intro, it reads much better that way [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikkerpikker]] 15:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Evolution is a theory just as gravity is a theory

== His Idea ==

Do you think we are originally from primates?

:Doesn't seem extraordinarily unlikely, considering that [[human|we're primates now]]. It's not like they're suggesting that we descended from penguins. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 02:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

:: Don't feed the trolls ;-) The OP puts such stupid question on Talk pages regularly. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 03:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

== External links in Works ==

This is minor but is there any specific reason why there are external links under "Works"? Wouldn't it make more sense to list Darwin's publications under Works and then put the external links to electronic copies of these under "External links"?? No big deal, just wondering... [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikkerpikker]] 15:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

:Since there's an electronic link for almost every one of the works, that would mean duplicating the list. Someone's reformatted it so that the links are after the title, rather than linking the title, which probably is easier to read, and certainly avoids confusion with the internally linked works. Works ok for me. ...[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

:: ah, ok... that makes sense. Never mind then, let's leave it be [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikkerpikker]] 10:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

== Theory vs Fact ==

I have to agree with what JPotter said in his point that evolution is most certainly a theory and not a fact. To call something a Fact it must be 100% true, and in the case of Science, able to make accuate predictions. This is not the case with Evolution, for we cannot be sure that it describes accurately the natural history of this planet.

The introduction should be changed from Fact to Theory

*The difference between a "theory" and a "fact" has nothing to do with it being true or false. Please read our article on [[scientific theory]]. Or alternatively read Stephen J. Gould's nice piece, "[http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html Evolution as Fact and Theory]". Thanks. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:Gould has misused/reinterpreted the plain word '''fact'''. Saying that "evolution is a fact" misleads the reader, who understands the word "fact" according to it's common dictionary meaning. [[User:Rossnixon|RossNixon]] 11:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

:Definitions from WordWeb 4.0

A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred. A statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened. An event known to have happened or something known to have existed. A concept whose truth can be proved. And it also says that "scientific hypotheses are not facts" [[User:Rossnixon|RossNixon]] 06:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Science cannot verify information in the Popperian sense. It can only falsify. Thus in science fact refers to something with widespread empirical support, which has survived all meaningful critiques. Indeed, by the wordweb definition there is no such thing as a 'fact' as we know it, since we can only falsify rather then prove. If you feel that science itself cannot prove facts then that is a legitimate epistemological position, but this page is not the place to start such an interpretation. I'd suggest discussing the matter on the science portral to see what they think if you feel strongly about it. --[[User:Davril2020|Davril2020]] 10:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

:That would be fine if evolution did have empirical support. It hasn't. Also, unless Wikipedia is a strictly Scientific Reference, then the word "fact" should be used with it's plain meaning. [[User:Rossnixon|RossNixon]] 01:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

::Ross, you can't just keep stomping your foot down by asserting 'evolution isn't a fact' but then providing no [[evidence]]. (otherwise we end up with a bit of a problem don't we? U'll say 'tisn't we'll say 'tis!, u'll say 'tisn't!, we'll say 'tis! etc ''ad infinitum''). I honestly don't want to insult you, but you're very seriously misinformed if you believe evolution has no empirical support. A good intro to this is Carl Zimmer's ''Evolution: the triumph of an idea''. [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikkerpikker]] 02:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

==Earlier proposed theories of evolution==

Clearly [[Lord Monboddo]] stated the principles of evolution 75 years earlier. is there any knowledge that darwin read monboddo's work? they both lived in edinburgh for significant lengths of time. [[User:Anlace|Anlace]] 21:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:There's a difference between "stating the principles" in a vague conjecture, or even a more developed [[hypothesis]], and originating and developing a scientific theory. After publication of ''The Origin'' Darwin learnt of two other earlier but obscure statements of the principle of [[natural selection]] and acknowledged their precedence as undeveloped ideas: see [[History of evolutionary thought]] - you might care to add a paragraph on Monboddo's statements to that article. I've added an acknowledgement of these earlier ideas to the ''Legacy'' section.

:I've a vague memory of seeing a web page expounding the idea that Darwin had secretly cribbed the idea from Monboddo or someone, but given his open acceptance of the precedence of the other publications and the amount known from his correspondence and writings this seems unlikely. While at Edinburgh he was exposed to the latest ideas in the developing field of [[Transmutation of species]], and attended the lecture on the ''"Origin of the Species of Animals"'' by Professor [[Robert Jameson]] who is credited with first using the word "evolution" in its modern sense, but the idea that Monboddo's writings were still secretly influential seems improbable. ...[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 22:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

*We should really have an article on [[scientific priority]]. With every big theory there are a thousand claims that someone else predated it who nobody read and nobody cares about. We can't fill up every Wikipedia article with such things unless they are actually major issues in the historiography of a person (for example, the Newton-Leibniz dispute over who invented the calculus). A wonderful quote on this trend is from Peter Bowler's book:

::"Such efforts to denigrate Darwin misunderstand the whole point of the history of science: [[Patrick Matthew|Matthew]] did suggest a basic idea of selection, but he did nothing to develop it; and he published it in the appendix to a book on the raising of trees for shipbuilding. No one took him seriously, and he played no role in the emergence of Darwism. Simple priority is not enough to earn a thinker a place in the history of science: one has to develop the idea and convince others of its value to make a real contribution. Darwin's notebooks confirm that he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any of the other alleged precursors." (from Peter Bowler, ''Evolution: The History of an Idea'', 3rd. revised edn. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003): p. 158.)

*I suspect the same thing can be said about this Lord Monboddo, who I have never heard of before in all of my readings on the history of Darwin. He's not taken seriously by Darwin historians as a real claim to priority, for whatever reason, and shouldn't be placed prominently here. Perhaps a note in the [[history of evolutionary thought]] article, at most, if that. The page on him says nothing that sounds like he even had a remotely similar idea to natural selection. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 01:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

*i think dave souza's points are excellent and accept the movement of monboddo citation to LEGACY section. as far as fashfission, if you would go to the trouble to read monboddo's works or his biography you would see that he did much more than state the principles of evolution. He applied them to analyze the origin of language among other things. i think his inclusion as a citation is mandatory. further the use of the word 'alleged' is not only not NPOV but is wrong.[[User:Anlace|Anlace]] 03:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

**If you'd like this to be taken more seriously, then first edit the Monboddo page so that it more clearly reflects his views, and put some real citations in there from multiple sources which show that it is really something worth taking into consideration. The current Monboddo page says:

:::''In his books Burnett wrote about his philosophical views. His main writings include ''The Origin and Progress of Language'' that argues that mankind had shed their primeval [[tail]]s and is related to [[orangutan]]s. In ''Antient Metaphysics'', Burnett claimed that man is gradually elevating himself from the animal condition to a state in which mind acts independently of the body. He also professed a belief that human babies are born with tails and that [[midwife|midwives]] cut them off at birth. Contemporary opinion considered his views strange but later commentators have seen him preceding the [[evolution]]ary theories of [[Charles Darwin]].''

**Men are related to apes is basic evolutionism, ''not'' natural selection. Really, if you know so much about the guy, just feel free to explain it to me and point me somewhere where I can see more than one responsible scholar giving him enough credit to be worth our time here. (Also, I don't see why "alleged" isn't completely NPOV. It remains ambivalent. Would you prefer "putative"? "So-called"?) --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

::Googling around a bit, everything I am able to find on Monboddo on the internet suggests that the "big idea" he had which makes him a "predecessor" is that orangutangs were actually men without language, and thus men were related to apes, and in fact men actually had tails. Now even if we charitably ignore every way in which he ''differs radically'' from Darwin here, the best we have in terms of relation to Darwin's thoughts is that men and apes are related. But this was not Darwin's starting point -- it was his ending point after postulating natural selection. To say Darwin's theory is simply that men and apes are related as much misses the point as saying that Freud's theory of dreams was that they had meaning.

::I see no evidence that Monboddo had anything like natural selection proposed. Simply observing that humans and apes are morphologically similar does not make one a predecessor to Darwin. Furthermore the fact that he postulated such a different relation between apes and men than Darwin seems to make it extremely unlikely he deserves any real credit along these lines. But I allow you the chance to convince me otherwise. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Gravity is a theory too...

==Sigh, the fist sentence==

Currently the first sentence reads:

<blockquote>'''Charles Robert Darwin''' ([[February 12]], [[1809]] &ndash; [[April 19]], [[1882]]) was a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[natural history|naturalist]] who achieved lasting fame by establishing the fact of [[evolution]] and proposing the [[scientific theory]] that this could be explained through [[natural selection|natural]] and [[sexual selection]].</blockquote>

I honestly quite like it the way it is and think it is perfecly NPOV but I have a feeling keeping it this way will result in a perpetual edit war with the [[The Great Unwashed|Great Unwashed]] who do not understand evolution. Perhaps we can soften the "establishing the fact of [[evolution]]" part to avoid this? Suggestion:

<blockquote>'''Charles Robert Darwin''' ([[February 12]], [[1809]] &ndash; [[April 19]], [[1882]]) was a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[natural history|naturalist]] who achieved lasting fame by providing the first detailed evidence for the fact of [[evolution]] and proposing the [[scientific theory]] that this could be explained through [[natural selection|natural]] and [[sexual selection]].</blockquote>

Please let me know what you think of this suggestion... [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikkerpikker]] 20:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

:Upon reflection, I realised my proposed change would not satisfy people like [[User:82.36.166.26]] so '''if''' we agree a change is needed to avoid a perpetual edit war (and I acknowledge a strong argument exists for the status quo sentence) perhaps the following will do the trick (I've bolded the change):

<blockquote>'''Charles Robert Darwin''' ([[February 12]], [[1809]] &ndash; [[April 19]], [[1882]]) was a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[natural history|naturalist]] who achieved lasting fame by providing the first detailed evidence for the '''occurrence''' of [[evolution]] and proposing the [[scientific theory]] that this could be explained through [[natural selection|natural]] and [[sexual selection]].</blockquote>

[[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikkerpikker]] 22:42, 13 Janu»ary 2006 (UTC)

: How about "who achieved lasting fame by providing the first detailed evidence for [[evolution]] ..." ?? Seems to tell the same story but more concisely. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

::I think a key point about Darwin is that he made '''2''' important contributions to biology: (1) he convinced many biologists of evolution in the descriptive sense, i.e. he showed 'evolution happens' and (2) he came up with the only viable scientific theory for '''why''' evolution happens (viz. natural selection). (Which is why, incidentally, we remember Darwin above Wallace - Wallace did only 2 not 1). I think it is important therefore to mention these two contributions in the intro, your formulation leaves out his theory contribution.... [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikkerpikker]] 23:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I do prefer the suggestion of jackofoz. Anythings better than saying he "established the fact of evolution" or using the word fact anywhere in the intro. Sounds a bit unpro - A. Simms

:A refinement would be to replace "establishing the fact of [[evolution]]" with "convincing the [[scientific community]] of the existence of [[evolution]]"

:In some ways "fact" is better than "existence", but this compromise might reduce antagonism. My understanding is that he was certainly not the first to provide detailed evidence, but was the first to assemble a coherent package that convinced the scientific establishment that evolution was indeed a fact. However, he had much more difficulty in persuading even his close friends of [[natural selection]]. JackofOz is right in that Darwin was the first to provide an overwhelming mass of detailed evidence, but the wording seems to me to be open to misunderstandings.

:Oddly enough, a significant proportion of Creationists and all the IDers I've read accept "microevolution", though most refuse to accept that this can extend to what they term "macroevolution" of "created kinds" - but they're still accepting evolution up to a point. ....[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 10:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC) amended [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 10:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

:: I never thought my modest idea would be so controversial. However since it has been debated, let me add my 2 cents worth. Referring to "the fact of evolution" or "the occurrence of evolution" presupposes that it is established as fact. I don't know enough about the subject to know either way, but from what I read above, it seems to still be debated. However, there is evidence that suggests it is the case, and Darwin gets much of the credit for coming up with that evidence. My form of words neither presupposes it is a fact, not does it say this evidence proves it to be true. It simply says there is evidence. That is a factual statement. Whether it is the whole truth is another matter. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 11:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

:::My understanding is that biological evolution is considered to be a fact by the scientific community, but is debated by religious movements in certain countries. It is not the whole truth in the same way that science is not the whole truth. ....[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 11:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

::: Those that actually understand what they're talking about (i.e. the biologists) don't consider it even worthy of debate with the religious mindset - evolution is established, it is a fact, and evidence over the past 200 years has concreted its position even further. However, certain religious groups use pseudo-evidence from holy books, or sources that predate science and are therfore not reliable as sources of factual scientific information, to go against what they call the 'theory' of evolution. Scientists try not to give these people the attention that they crave, and therefore try not to enter into debate with them Evolution is a fact. [[User:Saccerzd|Saccerzd]] 14:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Just because there is a debate (i.e. some ppl disagreeing) does not mean the truth of evolution in the descriptive sense is doubtful (in the sense of "reasonable" not "hyperbolic"). The [[Flat Earth Society]] disputes the shape of the earth but that doesn't mean we can't describe the earth being an approximate sphere as a 'fact'. On my understanding, one cannot '''reasonably''' disagree with evolution in the descriptive sense (even if, like, say, [[Michael Behe]] you dispute the ability of [[natural selection]] to explain the facts of the natural world). Most mainstream [[intelligent design|ID]] folk do not dispute evolution in the descriptive sense, they just want 'the hand of God' to play a role in explaining adaption (which - in my opinion - is wrong, but by no means stupid. The same can't be said for those who deny evolution as fact)... [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikkerpikker]] 14:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

:So what about:

<blockquote>'''Charles Robert Darwin''' ([[February 12]], [[1809]] &ndash; [[April 19]], [[1882]]) was a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[natural history|naturalist]] who achieved lasting fame by '''convincing the [[scientific community]] of the occurrence(/existence) of evolution''' and proposing the '''[[scientific theory|theory]]''' that this could be explained through [[natural selection|natural]] and [[sexual selection]].</blockquote> ?? [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikkerpikker]] 14:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

::Instead of '''convincing''', how about '''beguiling'''? (Def: Highly attractive and able to arouse hope or desire). :-) [[User:Rossnixon|RossNixon]] 01:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

* The proposed first sentence doesn't work, its misleading at best. Darwin certainly formulated and and proposed the theory, but it took a long while for even the scientific community to be convinced, largely based on the efforts of [[Thomas Huxley]] and other proponents. [[User:Fawcett5|Fawcett5]] 14:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

**There are two issues here. One is "Did evolution occur?" In this Darwin convinced most naturalistic scientists with his work.Then there is "How did evolution occur?" Here Darwin proposed natural selection, but was not at all successful in convincing people that this was the cause of speciation (full convinction of Darwinism would not come around until the 20th century, new evolutionary synthesis, etc.). So it is correct to say that he did convince scientists that evolution of some sort did occur. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 15:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps, but for a long time before Darwin there were many convinced Lamarckians ''etc.'' that did not doubt some form of evolution. [[User:Fawcett5|Fawcett5]] 18:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

:While Lamarckism was relatively respectable in France, in the UK (and U.S.A.) the scientific establishment was strongly opposed to these ideas which were associated with [[Radicalism#Popular agitation]] and attacks on the social order: see [[Development of Darwin's theory#Vestiges published]] as well as ''British Association: Vestiges and Wilberforce'' further down that page. Darwin's achievement was to convince the establishment that evolution occurred, but he struggled to persuade them of natural selection. ...[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

::Ok, so maybe "convinced" is too strong then - what do you suggest?? (removing "fact" has, however, decreased edits by the great unwashed so I think we should keep it that way... [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikkerpikker]] [[User talk:Mikkerpikker|...]] 14:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*the real issues here are of philosophy and metaphysics...the article has not properly addressed these concepts. scientists certainly have little to debate regarding the mechanical concepts of evolution; however no one who has edited this article has addressed the metaphysical arguments of Aristotle, Monboddo or Einstein. Aristotle has established the prime mover concept which endured in western philosophy for over 19 centuries, Monboddo has furhtered these arguments; Einstein has stated that "God does not play dice with the universe" when asked how to explain how the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal could be justified. ID has become a straw man overlooking the more fundamental question of how to resolve God and evolution. ps im a physicist and not a religious zealot :} [[User:Anlace|Anlace]] 21:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

**I'm fairly sure that none of the above has to do with Charles Darwin's life in any tangible form. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 21:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

==Historical Context==

I added a section to the [[Talk:Intelligent_design#Pre-Darwinian_Ripostes | talk page]] for "Intelligent Design" that provides some historical context that might be relevant here. (There the title is "Pre-Darwinian Ripostes," althought it could easily be adapted to help lay the foundations for a section that goes into greater detail as to why Darwin's ideas fit the demands of the time.) We're currently debating what to do with it. If you feel strongly, please add your comments. --[[User:JTBurman|JTBurman]] 00:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

*i feel the darwin article needs a brief synopsis ....more than is there currently which cites Lamarck, monboddo and others who advanced the concepts of evolution...clearly darwin did the work to establish the principles of natural selection. good idea JT to have this as a talk topic here...hope to have you and others weigh in. [[User:Anlace|Anlace]] 21:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

**There is already a pretty good synopsis in the [[Charles_Darwin#Development_of_theory]] section which covers the big influences at the time, and an entire [[Development of Darwin's theory]] subarticle. We also have a [[History of evolutionary thought]] page which is where more detailed things should go. In either case I'm not sure Monboddo really makes it into the top ten; he doesn't seem to have been very influential in this subject. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 21:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

== FA? ==

I think this an excellent article and it seems to me the only thing preventing it from being [[WP:FA|featured]] is lack of references (see [[WP:WIAFA]] & [[WP:V]]). Is it possible for those who wrote the article or know where to info comes from to add refs? [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikkerpikker]] [[User talk:Mikkerpikker|...]] 11:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

== New image suggestion ==

How about replacing the first image ([[:Image:Charles_Darwin_1881.jpg]]) with [[:Image:Charles Darwin by Julia Margaret Cameron.jpg]] from commons? Reasons:

#It's prettier :)

#It has more color

#Darwin doesn't look so old and weak

#We have very similar pics in the article already ([[:Image:Charles Darwin 1880.jpg]]; [[:Image:Darwin-Charles-LOC.jpg]]).

Comments welcome! [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikkerpikker]] [[User talk:Mikkerpikker|...]] 18:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

*I don't mind the other one though that particular scan of it is very pixellated. Maybe we can find a better copy of it somewhere? --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 20:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

*OK, I was able to get a slightly better version. Not as large but much more clear. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 21:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

::great, thanks! Will you/have you uploaded it? [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mikkerpikker]] [[User talk:Mikkerpikker|...]] 21:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Yes, I just uploaded it right over the other file, since it was the same image. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 19:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

:::: No, The [[:image:Charles Darwin 1854.jpg]] is best because it goes against the [[stereotype]] of Darwin as an old man. When he did his most important work, he was in his forties, and had no beard. That is the photo that should be displayed. &mdash; [[user:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|&#9786;]] 21:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::Ok, but don't you think the canonical image of Darwin is him w/ a beard? Shouldn't the 1st image be one of the best known ones? [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mi<font color="darkred">kk</font>er]] [[User talk:Mikkerpikker|^...]] 21:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

We discussed this before, and that particular picture which is already used under Evolution by natural selection has a worried look that fits well with the caption "fearing both religious and scientific criticism". In my opinion a bearded picture at the top is fine, but if we must promote one of these beardless pictures to the top, my preference is for [[:Image:Charles Darwin by G. Richmond.jpg]] which shows him at the time he was first putting together his theory. Please continue the search for a better picture. ...[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

: The other reason why I don't like the bearded Darwin is that it has religious overtones; Darwin the replacement for God; one "old man with a beard" supplants another. The man himself didn't want that tag, and he wasn't an old man with a beard when he was doing his chief work. &mdash; [[user:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|&#9786;]] 22:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

==Intro again, if we dare==

I'm probably walking into a landmine on this but here's my proposed introduction:

*'''Charles Robert Darwin''' ([[12 February]] [[1809]] – [[19 April]] [[1882]]) was a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[natural history|naturalist]] who achieved lasting fame by presenting compelling evidence for the occurrence of [[evolution]], and proposing the [[scientific theory|theory]] of [[natural selection]] to explain the mechanism of evolution.

What I've done: 1. De-emphasize sexual selection. I know, Darwin loved it like a baby, but it's not what gave him lasting fame -- almost all of his contemporaries dismissed it outright without much consideration. 2. He didn't really "convince" the entire community outright, but he did marshall compelling evidence for it and really move it into the realm of serious discussion. This is pretty significant and deserves being mentioned but "convinced" is just historically inaccurate. 3. Removed the "central explanatory paradigm" stuff. I don't think the sentence is necessary and I think that the connection between the modern evolutionary synthesis and the theories Darwin proposed is still a little too far removed to simply say that his theory is now the central paradigm in biology. But I'm completely willing to defer to a biologist on this issue (less so on the others, which are historical issues).

Now, let's try to do this without some big discussion about creationism, eh? ;-) I'm perfectly happy with alternative wordings (I am not much of a wordsmith) but the two things I am trying in particular to correct is 1. too much success/fame being attributed to sexual selection (just not true, in his time; even today it is not taken nearly as seriously as natural/ecological selection) and 2. try to avoid overstating the effect on the community. In fact, the part in the intro in which it says his book established natural selection as the most common scientific explanation is probably the closest to the truth -- which is not the same thing as convincing the scientific community, which implies a somewhat higher degree of effect to my ears. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 04:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

:Well done. You seem to have defused and successfully resolved that long-running debate about theory/fact. :) --[[User:Sammysam|Sammysam]] 00:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Looks good to me. ..[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 03:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

:I have to disagree with the proposed change unfortunately. My thoughts:

:1. Though I agree with FF that sexual selection did not bring Darwin lasting fame, shouldn't we present Darwin's thought and his theories rather than emphasise how current science weighs the relative importance of his theories? Since presumably no one here disputes the fact that Darwin proposed the theory that evolution is to be explained with reference to natural selection ''and'' sexual selection, I think both should be presented even if the latter is not as important to modern understandings of evolution. In other words, I completely agree the [[evolution]] article should perhaps de-emphasise sexual selection but I don't think we should alter the Darwin article. That said, I don't feel that strongly about this particular issue so I'm completely willing to go with the flow if the other editors of this article think the proposed change is a good one.

:2. Though I think FF's change from "convince" to "provide compelling evidence" makes some sense, I have two issues. Firsly, won't this re-ignite the edit war? When I first started out at Wikipedia creationists (and their fellow travellers) were always messing with the first sentence, resulting in a near constant need for reversion. If I remember correctly, I proposed the "convince" terminology for exactly this reason: to avoid conflict. My worry is that those who (however unreasonably) '''don't''' think Darwin provided "compelling evidence" will again start an edit war. That said, I have no problem with changing the text as an experiment to see whether my prediction is bourn out by the evidence. Secondly, Darwin made two important contributions: he provided evidence that evolution ''happened'' and proposed an explanation for ''why'' it happened. I think both should be mentioned.

:3. I think the "central explanatory paradigm" sentence should stay, though perhaps it should be re-worded. The point of the sentence is to emphasise that [[Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution]]; which is both true and important with respect to judging Darwin. Lastly, (and to be pedantic) I don't think we should have "proposing the [[scientific theory|theory]] of [[natural selection]] to explain the mechanism of evolution." Natural selection '''is''' the mechanism of evolution, not the explanation of the mechanism of evolution. We should therefore either have "proposing the [[scientific theory|theory]] that [[natural selection]] is the mechanism which causes evolution", or "proposing the [[scientific theory|theory]] of [[natural selection]] to explain the mechanism of evolution.

[[User:Mikkerpikker|Mi<font color="darkred">kk</font>er]] [[User talk:Mikkerpikker|^...]] 21:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

::1. OK, but we shouldn't say lasting fame then. We'd need some other way to describe what he came up with, because "lasting fame" doesn't actually properly characterize how sexual selection was or is received. We'd have to word it in a way that did not imply that it was convincing or made him famous, because it wasn't either. 2. Yeah, I'm not completely happy with the "compelling evidence" line. I'm looking for something which sums up the fact that he provided enough evidence that the scientific community was compelled to discuss evolution as a serious scientific theory, not necessarily that he convinced them. 3. I still think the jump from Darwin to the modern synthesis is somewhat of a jump, scientifically and historically speaking (I think the "central explanatory paradigm" bit makes it sound like the transition between Darwin and mod syn was smooth, which it wasn't at all). In any case, good comments, and I will think about it a bit more and try to refine it further so it really captures the historical truth of it. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 23:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

:::(1) Good point... I've been trying to think of alternative wordings, will let you know if I come up with anything. (2) On my interpretation of the history, Darwin did convince the scientific community (or at least biologists/naturalists) of the ''occurrence'' of evolution, though he wasn't as successful in convincing them of his theory of natural/sexual/artificial selection. How to explain this in 3 sentences? :) (3) How about "This theory now forms the core of the [[modern synthesis]] which is considered the central explanatory paradigm in biology"? (That's not ''quite'' right, but best I can think of.) [[User:Mikkerpikker|Mi<font color="darkred">kk</font>er]] [[User talk:Mikkerpikker|^...]] 14:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)