Talk:Evolution and Mo Rocca: Difference between pages

Revision as of 17:34, 31 January 2007

Revision as of 23:15, 8 July 2007

Line 1:

{{Infobox Comedian

{{FAR}}

| name = Mo Rocca

{{skiptotoctalk}}

| image = Moroccadailyshow.jpg

| imagesize = 200px

| caption = Mo Rocca on ''The Daily Show''

| pseudonym =

| birth_name = Maurice Alberto Rocca

| birth_date = {{birth date and age|1969|1|28}}

| birth_place = {{flagicon|USA}} [[Washington, DC]] [[USA]]

| death_date =

| death_place =

| medium = [[Television]], [[Radio]], [[Blog]]

| nationality =

| active = [[1995]] {{ndash}} Present

| genre = [[Political satire]]

| subject =

| influences =

| influenced =

| spouse =

| notable_work = Correspondent for ''[[The Daily Show]]''

| signature =

| website =

| footnotes =

| academyawards =

| emmyawards =

| goldenglobeawards =

| tonyawards =

| baftaawards =

| americancomedyawards =

| britishcomedyawards =

}}

'''Mo Rocca''' (born '''Maurice Alberto Rocca''' on [[January 28]], [[1969]] in [[Washington, DC]]) is an [[United States|American]] writer, comedian, and political satirist. Rocca is best known for his work as a correspondent from [[1998]] to [[2003]] on [[Comedy Central]]'s popular satirical news program, ''[[The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]''.

<font color="E32636"><big>'''IMPORTANT''' - If you wish to discuss or debate the ''validity'' of the theory of evolution please do so at [http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins talk.origins] or [http://wikireason.org/wiki/Evolution Wikireason]. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time. </big></font><font color="green"><big>'''''Read the [[Talk:Evolution/FAQ|FAQ]]'''''</big></font>

==Early life and work==

{| class="wikitable" cellpadding="3"

Rocca attended [[Georgetown Preparatory School]], the Jesuit boys school in [[North Bethesda, Maryland]] and later went on to graduate from [[Harvard University]] in [[1991]] with a [[B.A.]] in [[literature]]. He served as president of Harvard's [[Hasty Pudding Theatricals]]. Later, he worked as a writer and producer for the children's television series ''[[Wishbone (TV series)|Wishbone]]'' (1995), ''[[The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss]]'' (1996) and ''[[Pepper Ann]]'' (1997), and also as a consulting editor to the men's magazine ''[[Perfect 10]]''.

|-

!colspan="2" align="center"|'''''It's been said already'''''

|rowspan=3|

{| class="infobox" width="170px"

|-

!align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br/>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]

----

|- style="font-size: 90%"

|

# [[/Archive 1 | November 2001 – June 2004]]<!--, 153 kb-->

# [[/Archive 2 | June-September 2004]]<!--, 222 kb-->

# [[/Archive 3 | September-December 2004]]<!--, 98 kb-->

# [[/Archive 4 | January-March 2005]]<!--, 218 kb-->

# [[/Archive 5 | March-April 2005]]<!--, <32 kb-->

# [[/Archive 6 | March-April 2005]]<!--, 49 kb-->

# [[/Archive 7 | April-May 2005]]<!--, 52 kb-->

# [[/Archive 8 | May-September 2005]]<!--, 93 kb-->

# [[/Archive 9 | October-November 2005]]<!--, 139 kb-->

# [[/Archive 10 | November-December 2005]]<!--, 94 kb-->

# [[/Archive 11 | December 2005]]<!--, 109 kb-->

# [[/Archive 12 | January 2006]]<!--, 109 kb-->

# [[/Archive 13 | February 2006]]<!--, 117 kb-->

# [[/Archive 14 | March 2006]]<!--, 125 kb-->

# [[/Archive 15 | April]]<!--, 51 kb-->

# [[/Archive 16 | April-July 2006]]<!--, 294 kb-->

# [[/Archive 17 | Mid-August 2006]]<!--, '''318 kb''' (<-this must be a Wiki record?)-->

# [[/Archive 18 | Mid-August 2006]]<!--, 50 kb-->

# [[/Archive 19 | Mid-August-September 2006]]<!--, 194 kb-->

# [[/Archive 20 | October—November 2006]]<!--, 93 kb-->

# [[/Archive 21 | November 2006]]<!--,-->

# [[/Archive 22 | November—December 2006]]<!--,-->

# [[/Archive 23 | December 2006]]<!--, interim-->

# [[/Archive 24 | December 23 2006]] <!--,-->

# [[/Archive 25 | December 23-31 2006]] <!--,-->

==Career==

|}

Rocca is a regular panelist on [[NPR]]'s ''[[Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!]]'' and is a celebrity commentator on [[VH1]]'s ''[[I Love The|I Love The...]]'' shows: ''[[I Love the 80s]]'', ''[[I Love the 70s]]'', ''[[I Love the 70s Volume 2]]'', ''[[I Love the 80s Strikes Back]]'', ''[[I Love the 80s 3-D]]'', ''[[I Love the 90s]]'', ''[[I Love the 90s: Part Deux]]'', ''[[I Love Toys]]'', and ''[[I Love the Holidays]]''. The series officially stated his occupation as "media gadfly" for one of its incarnations, and noted his physical resemblance to the [[children's book]] character [[Where's Waldo?|Waldo]] in another. He was the host of ''Things I Hate About You'' on [[Bravo (television network)|Bravo]]. Rocca is also a regular correspondent for ''[[The Tonight Show with Jay Leno]]'' and has been a celebrity judge on the Food Network's ''[[Iron Chef America]]'' where he frequently tells jokes, such as claiming a dish is "McDelicious."

|-

|colspan="2" align="left"|Due to the enormous mainstream scientific consensus in support of evolution by natural selection, and pursuant to Wikipedia's [[WP:NPOV|Neutral point of view]] policy, this article references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth. There are many objections to this portrayal, but most of them have already been discussed on this talk page in detail. Please look over the archives (below) before bringing up any of the following objections again! Thank you.

----

|- style="font-size: 90%"

|'''The article is not neutral. It lacks criticisms of evolution.'''

*[[/Archive 003#NPOV disputed|NPOV disputed]]

*[[/Archive 004#Alternative Views|Alternative Views]]

*[[/Archive 010#Criticism section|Criticism section]]

*[[/Archive 010#Neutrality Dispute|Neutrality Dispute]]

*[[/Archive 014#NPOV Dispute|NPOV Dispute]]

*[[/Archive 014#Lack of Neutrality|Lack of Neutrality]]

*[[/Archive 015#Neutrality based on factualness of evolution|Neutrality on factualness of evolution]]

*[[/Archive 017#Heavy evolutionist bias|Accusations of bias]]

*[[/Archive 017#POV|POV]]

*[[/Archive 017#Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]]

*[[/Archive 018#Uhh… ok…|Uhh... ok...]]

*[[/Archive 020#Balance?|Balance?]]

*[[/Archive 020#Balancing point of view|Balancing point of view]]

*[[/Archive 020#POV Issue – I know it’s painful but…|POV Issue]]

|'''Evolution is just a theory'''

*[[/Archive 002#Fact_Vs_Theory|Fact vs. Theory]]

*[[/Archive 006#bickering|Bickering]]

*[[/Archive 007#Evolution as a fact|Evolution as fact]]

*[[/Archive 007#Fact Vs Theory|Fact vs. Theory]]

*[[/Archive 008#Evolution vs Theory of Evolution|Evolution vs. Theory of Evolution]]

*[[/Archive 009#Newton’s Theory|Newton's Theory]]

*[[/Archive 009#Fact versus Theory|Fact vs. Theory again]]

*[[/Archive 013#POV|POV]]

*[[/Archive 013#Theory|Just a Theory]]

Rocca was an on-the-floor correspondent for [[Larry King]] on [[CNN]] at the [[2004 Democratic National Convention]], which he called an "[[Barack Obama|Obamarama]]." Though occasionally making straight insights and political comments, Rocca's irrelevant and irreverent statements were a humorous contrast to King's more staid politician and pundit guests. Rocca characterized [[Teresa Heinz Kerry]] as the "Siren of the Serengeti," and expressed affinity with the statement by keynote speaker, [[Barack Obama]], about the pains of growing up as a skinny boy with a funny name. During his report to King from the convention floor alongside the [[Pennsylvania delegates]], he exclaimed "Everybody's talking Teresa, Teresa, Teresa!" Rocca spent a good deal of his time with the Convention delegates from [[American Samoa]]. He returned as a correspondent for the [[2004 Republican National Convention]].

'''A large number of scientists, and a lot of scientific evidence, oppose evolution.'''

*[[/Archive 008#Accuracy of Blanket Statement|Blanket Statement]]

*[[/Archive 013#Proposed insertion by user Axa497|Proposed insertions]]

*[[/Archive 020#Scientific Problems with Evolution|Scientific problems with Evolution]]

*[[/Archive 021#There is not overwhelming scientific consensus for evolutionary position|No overwhelming scientific consensus]]

Rocca is the author of the ''All the Presidents' Pets: The Inside Story of One Reporter Who Refused to Roll Over.''

'''Miscellaneous objections'''

*[[/Archive 004#”Matter cannot organize itself”|The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution]]

*[[/Archive 008#Macro/Micro|Microevolution but not Macroevolution]]

*[[/Archive 020#Call to trim article|The article is too long]]

|}

{{-}}

He was the host of ''Whoa! Sunday'' which premiered in 2005 on [[Animal Planet]].

{{talkheader}}

{{EvolWikiProject}}

{{Talk Spoken Wikipedia id|Evolution.ogg|12525237}}

{{featured}}

{{Mainpage date|March 18|2005}}

{{V0.5|class=FA|category=Natsci}}

{{WPCD}}

{| {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|class="messagebox small-talk"|class="messagebox standard-talk"}}

|-

|<center>This article was featured in the July 2006 edition of [[Discover (magazine)|''Discover'']]</center>

|}

He is a regular judge on the [[Food Network]]'s ''[[Iron Chef America]]''.

__TOC__

== Here is my suggestion for dealing with creationists ==

He has recently begun satirical commentary on ''[[CBS News Sunday Morning]]''.

A number of extended articles that address various creationist attacks be constructed, with themes such as

Rocca is a contributor to the [[Huffington Post]].

*evolution is science, not religion, but creationism is not science

*evolution is falsifiable, but creationism is not

*evolution is both a theory and a fact

*evolution is supported by the vast majority of scientists

*evolution has been observed

Rocca now hosts ''[[The Mo Rocca Show]]'' on [[Sirius Satellite Radio]].

and so on. These articles would be stuffed with references and links to relevant websites.

Rocca also contributes to AOL Newsbloggers<ref>[http://newsbloggers.aol.com/bloggers/mo-rocca '''Mo Rocca 180&deg;''': Only Half as Tedious as the Regular News]</ref>.

The evolution website include only a very small controversy/confusion/misconception/defense section with summary sentences of the main points, and links to the extended articles.

Starting April 17, Rocca will play the role of Vice Principal Douglas Panch in the [[Broadway theatre|Broadway]] production of ''[[The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee]]''.

An overarching article, maybe like the controversy article be produced to organize and present the material, as well as provide links to the extended articles.

==References==

Other articles such as "hypocrisy of creationists" (or "biblical errancy") are possible, demonstrating that literal belief in biblical accounts would require a stationary earth, a flat earth, a square earth, problems with tree rings and coral rings and layers of benthic sediments and dynamo theory and the value of pi and knowledge of teleomeres and optical refraction and Doppler shifts and a huge amount of other similar things. Basically, if one accepts the bible as literally true in all aspects, one has to deal with several hundred thousand documented mistakes and inconsistencies and then a huge volume of disagreements with scientific predictions, like the sphericity of the earth. Of course, what is common is that even biblical inerrancy advocates only believe PARTS of the bible are inerrant, and reject or interpret the parts they disagree with in whatever way they choose. This is what I call the hypocrisy. Either the bible is a scientific text, or it is not. You cannot claim that evolution is wrong but then ignore all the other conflicts with science in the bible or sweep them under the carpet.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 19:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

{{reflist}}

==External links==

:::and You cannot claim evolution is right but then ignore all the other conflicts with the science in other books or sweep them under the carpet. [[User:Ymous|Ymous]] 18:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

*{{imdb name|id=0733618|name=Mo Rocca}}

*{{tvtome person|id=117969|name=Mo Rocca}}

*[http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid285076654/bclid290736373/bctid307737243 Mo Rocca Interview on LX.TV]

*[http://www.theatermania.com/content/news.cfm/story/10342 TheaterMania.com article on Spelling Bee]

*[http://newsbloggers.aol.com/bloggers/mo-rocca/ Mo Rocca's Blog]

:The Bible is not a scientific text. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 19:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

{{The Daily Show correspondents}}

::It definitely is not. However, we have a very aggressive persistent group of people that believe it is, or want to treat it as though it were.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 19:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Rocca, Mo}}

:::Not wanting to learn seems true enough. Plenty of reference materials have been recommended, yet no one seems to read it. I see this in politics too-what I call agenda driven behavior. Any behavior is justified in meeting the needs of the agenda-no logic just a blind machine. I don't see any fruit to be gained by such agendas. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[[Category:1969 births]]

[[Category:Living people]]

[[User:Ymous|Ymous]] 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)You all have been reported for bias and personal attacks.

[[Category:American comedians]]

[[Category:American satirists]]

:Who are you ? And when did I attack you? I have no idea who you are. Are you a sockpuppet? --[[User:Filll|Filll]] 00:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[[Category:American television personalities]]

::Ymous has falsely accused me, and probably others. I have not deleted any part of the article or talk. I have not displayed bias against creationism or Christianity. No one is ever welcomed warmly in this article or talk. I don't like false accusations. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 02:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[[Category:Colombian-American actors]]

[[Category:Italian-American actors]]

:::The very fact that you do not allow scientific facts that poke holes in Evolution shows your bias. Wiki goes so far as to allow a entire section of Criticism of Creationism, but there's no room for Criticism of Evolution?[[User:Ymous|Ymous]] 21:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

::::The situation is not symmetric. Are you under the apprehension that these two are somehow on an equal footing? Well then my friend, you are sadly mistaken. Sorry. Why do you not write something as I suggested? --[[User:Filll|Filll]] 21:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

==Latitudinal diversity gradient==

We should add some mention of the cradle of biodiversity thought by Jablonski and others to originate from the tropics and latitudinal diversity gradients. It would probably fit in the History of Life section. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

== Frauds hoaxes in evolution ==

I noted that the article on [[Noah%27s_ark#The_search_for_Noah.27s_Ark|Noah's ark]] had a section on attempts to find Noah's Ark. Should Evolution also have a section on attempts to show "missing links" in misguided attempts of some scientists to validate evolutionary speciation, and various other evolutionary frauds and hoaxes? It sounds like an interesting article, I might take a cue from Fill and write one up. What do you think? [[User:65.73.80.45|65.73.80.45]] 02:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

:Frauds such as [[Piltdown Man]] already have their own articles. If you can find any that do not already have their own articles then by all means start them. You can start by looking at the category "Hoaxes in Science". However there is no need to add them here, as Evolution in no way relies on such hoaxes, and the article is already excessively long. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 02:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Should they be linked in a section on attempts to find a missing link? The reason I ask is that some of the editors of this article are also editors of the Noah's Ark article, and it got me thinking. I suppose if these false missing links were never very important in evolution, or the public perception of evolution, they should not be linked. But if they affected public opinion as some of the Noah's Ark found hoaxes, it might be worth including. [[User:65.73.80.45|65.73.80.45]] 03:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

:We don't have any information about these so called frauds and hoaxes at [[human evolution]] so I see no reason to add any information about Piltdown/Nebraska man here at the main article. [[User:Jason Potter|JPotter]] 02:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

::There are hoaxes on all sides of the controversy. You could probably find many creationist frauds as well. In fact, my suspicion is that you could find many more creationist frauds than frauds by scientists. If you made an article on ALL the frauds on all sides, it might be interesting.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 03:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I am sure. Maybe you want to include creationist hoaxes on the creationist page. Maybe even links to creation simulators. But with regard to my own question, and upon reflection, I think it depends on what effect these hoaxes had on evolution, the way it was taught, and/or the way it was perceived by the relevant scientists and/or the general public. [[User:65.73.80.45|65.73.80.45]] 03:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

::::Why I am feeding this sockpuppet is beyond me. Weren't you blocked VacuousPoet...several times? Anyways, Creationism, being just a myth and therefore not real, can't be hoaxed. Really, how can you hoax a myth?[[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 07:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:::{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|With regards to your comments on [[:{{{1}}}]]:&#32;}}Please see Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|no personal attacks]] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocks]] for disruption. Please [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot|stay cool]] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. <!-- Template:No personal attacks (npa2) -->[[User:Ymous|Ymous]] 18:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that there is room for it on the creationism page. Both the creationism page and the evolution page are pretty long. I would suggest a separate page on frauds of all kinds. I am not a big fan of trying to jam everything into one page. I think a frauds page would be interesting. I do not know much of the details. That is the fun of doing the research for an article. You have to dig into sources, read documents, books, other encyclopediae etc. It is tedious but rewarding when you get a good article. I think you should try it. I am sure others here will be willing to help you if you need help.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 03:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

::How about Frauds in Evolution? Or is that off topic? Will you delete this too?

:Fill is right about some editors research and efforts to create articles. Some of the best articles have been organized and mostly written by a novice. They took the time and effort to thoroughly research the subject and pay heed from experts to create an excellent article. I have been impressed, and sometimes think experts should only provide guidance rather than write.[[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Fraud is a problem in science past and present, but so it is in many aspects of life (Christianity past and present same ill fate). Do you throw out the baby with the wash basin? Only thirty percent of medical research withstands scrutiny and produces significant research (the majority is classified as false findings) according to JP Ioannidis. Does that mean that all medical research is a useless and fruitless effort? Humans are more intuitive than intelligent creatures and we tend to muck up a bit. However the sciences have provided a means and structure for us to overcome our muck and not repeat the same mistakes and eventually get it right. Look at the Noble Prizes in Medicine and Physiology the last hundred years and look at the significant work that warranted such accolade. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 03:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

== Evolution simulators ==

Is this vandalism? A joke? I am not sure that an evolutionary speciation simulator deserves a link from this article anymore than a magic bullet simulator should be linked from an article on the assassination of JFK. [[User:65.73.80.45|65.73.80.45]] 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Population genetics is the backbone of modern evolutionary studies. No hypotheses will stand scrutiny without modeling. Neuroscience does the same as other fields. Evolution modeling moves evolution into the realm of hard science. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 02:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

: Okay, well, I'll have to look into it. Maybe if I find a gravity simulator or something I'll understand. [[User:65.73.80.45|65.73.80.45]] 02:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

My understanding is that a big piece of the reasoning behind Intelligent Design is based on evolution simulations.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 03:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:Well, I looked, and to my surprise, there are a lot of gravity simulators available. None of them are linked from the gravity article, however. Anyway, clearly it is no vandalism nor is it a joke. Sorry. [[User:65.73.80.45|65.73.80.45]] 03:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

== First sentence again ==

Just wanted to bring up the first sentence again. I think it got lost, and don't want to be too bold. This is a style issue.

AS IT IS NOW: '''Evolution''' is the process in which some [[heritability|inherited]] traits in a population become more common relative to others through successive generations.

Alternatives:

:# '''Evolution''' is the [[process]] in which the [[Frequency_distribution|frequency distributions]] of [[heritability|inherited]] traits transform through successive generations.

:# '''Evolution''' is the [[process]] in which the [[Frequency_distribution|frequency distributions]] of [[heritability|inherited]] traits [[change]] through successive [[Generation|generations]].

:# '''Evolution''' is the [[process]] in which the [[Frequency_distribution|frequency distributions]] of [[heritability|inherited]] traits in a [[population]] transform through successive generations.

:# '''Evolution''' is the [[process]] in which the [[Frequency_distribution|frequency distributions]] of [[heritability|inherited]] traits in a [[population]] [[change]] through successive [[Generation|generations]]. [[User:65.73.80.45|65.73.80.45]] 05:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

:: I like alternative 4. [[User:65.73.80.45|65.73.80.45]] 06:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

:::The issue is that this article is already extremely technical; IMO the introduction of an article should try to be readable, and "frequency distribution" is far, far more complicated than what we have currently. If a change is necessary, 4 is fine, but I '''prefer the current intro'''. [[User:Titanium Dragon|Titanium Dragon]] 08:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Speaking as someone who had frequency distributions sprinkled liberally throughout his thesis, and works with them every day, I still prefer the current intro. Simpler is better. We do not want to drive readers away. This is an INTRO in an ENCYCLOPEDIA. We will have high school students reading it. People with minimal backgrounds. Remember that.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 15:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Simpler is better, but alternative 4 is more precise, no? E.g., "become more common" is not exactly correct. Maybe "become more or less common" is more correct, but is too wishy-washy, as are the words "some inhereted traits" (style/opinion). Also, the [[Frequency_distribution|frequency distributions]] has a link built in if the reader is unfamiliar with the term, and there is also a link to introduction to evolution elsewhere. I am not changing it, but am posing other thoughts for your consideration. [[User:65.73.80.45|65.73.80.45]] 17:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

:Okay, I really do want to precipitate a discussion on this, so I will be making the change sometime tonight because I think alternative 4 is more precise, barring an objections that the way it is now is better stylistically (I think most people like the present sentence for style) and precise enough in an encyclopedic sense. [[User:65.73.80.45|65.73.80.45]] 03:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

I think this is a bad idea.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 03:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks fill, is this in regard to the preciseness issue? [[User:65.73.80.45|65.73.80.45]] 03:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous poet

Well if you look at the history we have been fighting for months about the lead:

*several people (including me) want to make the lead simpler

*several people want to keep it the way it was

*several people want to make it more technical

and the fighting can be pretty nasty. And to be honest, not much progress happens over months and months. Just fighting.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 03:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well disagreement is hardly a reason to keep it the way it is. What is your proposal for making it simpler? [[User:65.73.80.45|65.73.80.45]] 04:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

== Halo 3 ==

It looks like somebody vandalized this page. Specifically, at the top, where it states, "To add a new discussion topic to this page, click here." Where the [ [here] ] links to halo 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Halo_3&action=edit&section=new <s>My guess is it was done with the possible strawman sockpuppet, possibly a by someobody in this disucssion who does not want to discuss problems with evolutionary speciation.</s> [[User:65.73.80.45|65.73.80.45]] 05:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

:I did some research, and it may have been done by David Fuchs. Here is the diff [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution&diff=96826045&oldid=96825891]], where he added "{ {User:David Fuchs/talkpage} }" without the spaces between the curly braces. I cannot fix it however. I'll leave that to an expert. [[User:65.73.80.45|65.73.80.45]] 05:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

:: There, I think I fixed it. [[User:65.73.80.45|65.73.80.45]] 06:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

:::Sorry about that, I added the link template I made and use for pages where people don't post at the bottom of the page with new topics, where 'yada yada' originally was. It was careless on my part that I didn't check the template and see I had made the link page-specific. It was unintentional vandalism on my part. <font color="#ff9900">[[User:David Fuchs|'''David Fuchs''']] </font>([[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/David Fuchs|contribs]]) 19:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

::::No problem, I realized it was unintentional when I identified the diff. [[User:65.73.80.45|65.73.80.45]] 05:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

==Just for Ymous==

Let's have your arguments and hard evidence against evolution [[Talk:Evolution/EvidenceAgainstEvolution|here]]. Thanks.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 20:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:You fight for Darwin nearly the same way I fight for my Lord.

:--You believe what he has written without question

::''Definitely not. It has had to be modified dozens of times since it was written almost 150 years ago. The Journals are full of articles that demonstrate various details Darwin never imagined. Just like this article does, if you read it. ''--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:--You quash any attempt to discredit him

::''Not at all. I am glad to bow to experts and authorities in evolution. I am physicist, not a biologist''--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:--Evolution is a 100% documented scientific truth, yet you try to spin it as such

::''That is nonsense. You obviously have not read the article or what I have written. Your reading comprehension in this matter appears to be abysmal. I will not repeat it for the zillionth time. Just in a word: '''NO''', you are wrong.''--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:--You have never met him, have never performed any studies yourself, but you take his word as law

::''I take the accumulated efforts of hundreds of thousands if not millions of scientists working for decades and decades with millions of pieces of evidence as something substantial that needs to be explained. And I take the current standard theory (Which is NOT the original Darwinism, since it has replaced it) as the best current explanation. I am positive this explanation will be modified in the future however, as all theories are.''--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:--You have never performed any double blind tests to show that evolution is fact

::''I rely on the publications and the expertise of scientists in that discipline. I do other kinds of science myself.''--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Double blind tests are used mostly in medical studies in treating various diseases to remove any possibility of influence of a physician. These type of studies can be controlled in that manner because you control both the hypothesis and the negative. You are missing what is science by a wide margin. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:--You refuse to acknowledge the cambrian explosion

::''I certainly have told you repeatedly that evolution is apparently not a constant process. You never heard of punctuated equilibria? Read up.''--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:--You refuse to acknowledge the lack of intermediary fossils

::''I have read many discussions of this by experts. I rely on their expertise. That is what we have to do in science.''--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:--You use semantics and false logic to say the second law of thermodyamics doesn't apply

::''Ever take a graduate course in thermodynamics? Do you know differential forms and differential geometry? Do you know information theory? Do you know anything? It appears not. Anyway, thermodynamic arguments just embarass creationists. Even many creationist websites admit this. Give it a rest please.''--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:--You refuse to acknowledge that gas doesn't clump in a vacuum, which means stars couldn't have formed in the vacuum of space, which means no life on earth

::''Gas does not clump in a vacuum? So where do Neutron stars and black holes come from? They are formed by gas clumping arent they? Seems like you have a bit of a lacuna somewhere. I will not say where. But it is clear.''--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Don't we also have gas planets? Why wouldn't gas molecules exert gravitational attraction to eachother in a vacuum? Perhaps an astronomer or physicist could explain this to us. [[User:71.232.156.2|71.232.156.2]] 17:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

:Sounds like quite a bit of religious zeal to me.

::''In the interests of comity, I will not say what your tirade sounds like to me. But trust me, it isnt good.''--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:::What frightens me is the gross misunderstanding of science here. What shocks me is that someone can come to a science page and have so little understanding of what they are writing. It's like me going to my car/auto mechanic and telling him he should be able to run on OJ rather than gasoline/petrol. When he picks himself up off the floor he informs me that it isn't possible with my car then I start to argue with him and tell him he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. I bring up the fact that there are both C and H in OJ and gas. When he tells me that I have to have a particular type of long hydrocarbon I tell him these very ones are available in OJ (even though they are not). I get some info that fruit contains starches which have carbon chains with hydrogen. Well that's close enough to a hydrocarbon isn't it? Fruit even ferments on trees and produces alcohols. Well science says that right? So scientists are telling me that OJ should contains hydrocarbons and other combustables. Now I can print out some web sites that support this. Some OJ producers in Florida are supporting me on this one too because they can see a bigger profit as a gas replacement. I've got a lot of consumer backing too because they see cheaper gas at the pumps. In fact I'm pretty well stocked up with clear, hard evidence and support.

:::The clear result to my mind is that I am right. The mechanic is clearly wrong. It doesn't matter about his knowledge, understanding, experience and skill. He simply won't fill his car with OJ. I don't have a car and no nothing about them but there are scientists and industry and a lot of the public that support me and all those web sites too! I might even consider taking this to court to force gas stations to sell OJ as well as benzine. And that mechanic! Well he needs to open his eyes to other possibilities and accept that there are alternatives.

:::Why oh why do I feel like that mechanic on these pages? Why do I feel that some people got their science from reading conflakes packets? /cry [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 21:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

::My heart is touched by your plight. Oh why can't these evolutionists accept that Darwin was wrong? ( at least when he wrote [http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/search-results?sort=date-ascending&pageno=0&pagesize=20&freetext=the+inherited+effects+of+compulsory+training+in+each+successive+generation&searchid=&name=&dateafter=&datebefore=&searchtitle=&description=&place=&publisher=&periodical= "the inherited effects of compulsory training in each successive generation"] :-) ... [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the cornflakes reference is particularly apt, since they were produced by Seventh Day Adventists, obsessed with colon cleansing, during a previous period of religious fervor in the US.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 21:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

==Why not a Critique?==

If [[User:Ymous|Ymous]](or any other user) can provide us with a critque that satisfies the following conditions why should't we allow him to add it?

Those conditions being(wikipedia policy):

*It contains proper [[WP:CITE|citation]] with [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. as per [[WP:V]]

*It conforms to a neutral point of view. as per [[WP:NPOV]]

*It does not containt [[WP:OR|original research]]... as per [[WP:OR]]

*...nor is it an [[WP:OR#SYNTHESIS|OR synthesis]]. as per [[WP:OR]]

--[[User:Wildnox|Wildnox]][[User talk:Wildnox|(talk)]] 22:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

: Provided those conditions are met, it could stay. However, from the get go, the inclusion would violate NPOV because such as small percentage of life and earth scientists reject evolution (0.14%) and probably reliable sources, since most sources critical of evolution are religious creation sciencce ministries. [[User:Jason Potter|JPotter]] 22:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

::No just because something is extremely unpopular does not mean it violates NPOV. Conforming to NPOV is usually achieved through careful choice of words. I do agree that finding reliable sources would be extremely difficult. --[[User:Wildnox|Wildnox]][[User talk:Wildnox|(talk)]] 22:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Unpopular is one thing. For example, when it was found that the K/T Extinction event might have been caused by a meteor crashing to earth, a lot of geologists disputed the evidence. The meteor theory was quite unpopular, but discussing it would be NPOV because there was evidence, albeit a bit sparse at first. Creationism (or, if you prefer, anti-Evolution) would be both unpopular and unsupportable with verifiable, peer-reviewed and reliable sources. That would make it POV even with Shakespeare parsing the words. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

::::POV has nothing to do with sources. What you just described would make it [[WP:V|unverifiable]] and [[WP:OR|original research]], not POV. --[[User:Wildnox|Wildnox]][[User talk:Wildnox|(talk)]] 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Then anyone who parsed words ever so carefully, change this article dramatically, and you would defend it as NPOV? Isn't nonverifiable just an opinion? I disagree with you wholeheartedly, but since we're on the same side of this discussion, it's probably just a semantic point. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 23:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::My point is just that it doesn't have to violate NPOV just because it isn't properly sourced. As for the opinion thing, just imagine if nobody had cited any sources for this article. Would that make it opinion? No, we just wouldn't have a way to verify any of the facts until somebody cited a source. I'm not saying it wouldn't end up being POV, since users who ignore one policy usually ignore them all, I'm just saying it doesn't have to just because he didn't cite a source. Yes, this is completely a semantic point, so it doesn't really matter in the end(I'm just bored and procrastinating on work). --[[User:Wildnox|Wildnox]][[User talk:Wildnox|(talk)]] 23:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::I run a company, and I'm totally bored, so that's why I'm here. The funny thing about opinion is that you form it based upon your observation of facts, or by influence. I swear I could do a better job at criticizing Evolution than these guys have, but it is my opinion that Evolution is a fact and verifiable, and lucky for me, there are numerous sources to back me up. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 00:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

: Sure they could do it, but I stand on firm ground by stating that it isn't going to be possible. There have been no reliable, verifiable and NPOV sources that can logically criticize the Fact of Evolution. In fact, you can read above, where we discussed one of the key tenants of verifiable, that is the Theory must be falsifiable. Evolution could be falsified, but there isn't one single piece of evidence that can falsify it. The only way to dispute the existence of Evolution is to believe in some supernatural force, such as a god of some sort--that is beyond the realm of science, but it is a matter of faith, which cannot be verified and is most certainly not NPOV. So, I think that everyone here would be happy to allow him to add it, if it met those conditions. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I invited him to place his critique at [[Talk:Evolution/EvidenceAgainstEvolution]] but so far he has not done so. He only appears to want to cause disruption instead.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't feed creationist trolls. Thank you. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 07:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

== Evolution article as a soap box ==

I am concerned that the evolution article might be viewed as a [[What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox|soapbox]] for a few vocal editors. Specifically, can you cite many any print encyclopedia that has sections or content like the following:

#Evidence of evolution

#Misunderstandings about modern evolution

#Comparisons of evolution to gravity

Of course, these might not be included in print encyclopedia for reasons other than not being encyclopediac. For example, space, profit, etc. But it might be interesting to note if they do, it would falsify, or at least be evidence against, the theory about the article being viewed as a soapbox.

Also, the article is currently at 14231 words and 97.9 kB, larger than recommended by [[Wikipedia:Article_size|Article Size]]. Which is another good reason to stick to evolution, and not to trying to proove that evolution is actually a science, a pursuit that might be better suited for a science blog. Before I remove or at least rework them, I am seeking comment on these concerns. Thanks. [[User:65.73.80.45|65.73.80.45]] 03:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

:Yea I'd noticed that the article was quite large. Maybe splitting into smaller articles would help? --[[User:Wildnox|Wildnox]][[User talk:Wildnox|(talk)]] 03:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

::The problem is a print encyclopedia is not subject to the random theories of any creationist who wanders by. The size of the article is a responce to the constant attacks the article experiences. A print encyclopedia article would be written by a biologist who would explain the science, and can safely ignore the rantings of religious fanatics. Please note there is also a shorter "introduction" article. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Is length the only recourse? Couldn't you just point them to an "evolution really is science" blog? [[User:65.73.80.45|65.73.80.45]] 04:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

::::Hee, hee. The article is evolving. At this rate it will be dominated by a defense posture to address creationism, rather than let the science demonstrate the fact and theory of evolution. There are already spinoff articles to address most sections. That offers an excellent chance to just highlight the main points and link article, or just refer to the article. This idea has come up before but has not gained any momentum. I would rather send a strong message of the scope of the hard science and facts. It is not some conjecture or mental masterbation-push the hard science. The easiest solution to shorten it would be to remove controvery and history, but I think many will be averse to this suggestion. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 05:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::I think the defense posture may be a self-ful''fill''ing prophesy. This could be avoided if some contributors would stop trying to bait newbies with accusations of being fundementalist christians hell bent on promoting God at the expense of science. The flame wars that errupt influence, I believe, sloppy mischaracterizations of religion in the article, and this is giving the benefit of the doubt. I agree, remove or greatly shorten controversy. I'll think about your suggestion regarding the history. 06:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

::::::The issue is that the article is about Evolution, and there is controversy of a small, vocal minority in one country (and arguably, the Middle East as well) griping about it. Creation-evolution controversy is given undue weight by the US media. The reason this article has so much about it is probably just creep. Chopping out a lot of the creationism related stuff would be good - just stick it mostly in a subarticle about criticisms of evolution or something. A lot of it is encyclopedic, but I agree that creationism-related stuff (including large responses to it, along with creationism itself) should be mostly taken out of the article. [[User:Titanium Dragon|Titanium Dragon]] 06:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Re-reading the article, actually, I think it isn't inappropriate at all. There's only three sections related to it, compared to dozens of sections which are NOT answering criticisms of evolution, and in reality, of the three sections, two of them are correcting -misconceptions- about evolution, which is obviously pertinant to this article. Only one section is actual refutation of creationism, and that seems appropriate - it is important, but not nearly as important as the rest of the article, and doesn't suffer from undue weight at all. Evolution IS a long article, but Evolution is a large field and this page gives a good explanation of it. [[User:Titanium Dragon|Titanium Dragon]] 07:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

GetAgrippa, I entirely agree with you. The whole 'misunderstandings' section should be a subarticle at best - preferably in the context of an article on 'public reactions to evolution' or somesuch (or perhaps in the history articles?). The table comparing evolution to gravity ought to be chucked entirely, as such things are marginally encyclopedic and best left to the professional evolution popularizers. As it is, substantial portions of this article read like anti-troll bulwarks, and you're right that extended defenses have the self-defeating effect of giving undue weight to the position they're defending against. (Also - this advice comes way too late to be of any use, but [[WP:DNFT]].) [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] 06:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::Not to dismiss your suggestion; but this concern has been addressed at length. See Archived: "This article is too long". If you read this (I hope you do) you will gain insight into the pro's and con's to the sections you propose to delete. Personally, I didn't like the idea of being archived as topics that have been beat to death. That is not in the "spirit" of Wikipedia; new readers, new ideas, new perspectives, and hopefully, improvement. So by all means, take up the torch for change; however, be aware that changes of the magnitude that you are suggesting will be met with strong resistance. As [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] states above, the contributors to this article have taken an "offensive" approach in addressing the challenges so frequently raised by creationist which I am sure comes across "offensive" to some of the readers. I am inclined to agree with you, the science behind evolution in itself, eliminates the need to "defend" it. The statement by [[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] made above: "biologist who would explain the science, and can safely ignore the rantings of religious fanatics." As I have stated in the past, articles written on astronomy topics do not feel compelled to address the misconceptions of those who still feel the earth is flat. I say let them rant and rave ... as long as the information in the article is accurate.. Who cares? A friendly suggestion: create an account; the IP address you are using diminishes your credibility; which makes the task of large scale editing even more formidable. --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] 06:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

:The article is '''not''' large given the scope of subject i.e. the science of evolution is the foundation to understanding all of modern biology and impacts nearly all religious dogma on creation: shift happens - live with it. Article size is not sufficient a reason given to do a [[Wikipedia:Content_Forking|content fork]] other than for [[WP:POINT]] on the part of IPs tagged with ''non de plume'' of a [[User_talk:VacuousPoet|banned editor]]. [[User:Ttiotsw|Ttiotsw]] 11:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

: The length-guideline is just that--a guideline. For a subject like Evolution, a longer article is perfectly reasonable. And answering some of the "criticisms" of evolution is well within the context of the article, and if you look at almost any textbook (I'm glancing at Campbell & Reece's <i>Biology</i> right now) you'll notice that the sections tend to include similar material. [[User:Tarinth|Tarinth]] 12:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with Ttiotsw. You are all dancing to the merry tune played by a banned editor, who posts here from multiple IP addresses to avoid the ban. This editor has only occassionally offered anything constructive. For the most part, this editor has attacked the article from a fundamentalist creationist viewpoint. I have made my own views on the length of the article abundently clear, but in case someone missed them, let me reiterate:

::* I believe the defensive material should be spun out to a separate article

::* I believe the history material should be in a separate article

::* I think that the previous strategy which was operating when I first came here months ago (delete all trolling on sight) should be reinstituted

::I apologize if my gravity and evolution table offends people. It was an attempt to simplify and shorten that defensive section, but my contribution was immediately attacked by two of the most venerable of the [[evolution]] editors who then turned that section into an incomprehensible nightmare, even worse than it was before. I was forced to make a defensive retreat while I worked on the principle spin-off article and built up references. I refuse to get into some sort of stupid edit war.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 14:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I appreciate your efforts Fill. I think you have addressed issues in a well written informative manner. I think coming from another field (physics and math I presume) is also helpful in "seeing" weaknesses in the article. I tend to ignore style issues and look for content. The article states repeatedly that this is not a soapbox for controversy, yet some see it as their obligation to ignore the warnings and advance an agenda. If evolution offends someone then ignore it. The same respect should be asked of those who disagree with Christianity. Science and faith are separate domains like oil and water. I don't think science or christianity will be advanced by the pursuit of this controversy. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 14:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

:''Two topics:'' (1)article Length, (2)See also: (list) to "Evolution of Earth (as earth science)", Evolution of Earth (as intermixed with Life&ndash;evolution)<br>In taking an [[Oceanography]] course I found (by a link to a subunit book-Professor required), that the Ocean trenches, through mantle recycling, removed [[Potassium|K (potassium)]] from our ocean and left ''Na''. I also know the oldest ''Sea Floor'' is young, only 200 million plus years. And that (surface-terrestrial)-life didn't become oxygen-breathing atmospheric, ...until our atmosphere evolved.

:So the length of this article may be too Long. And if it doesn't address: (1)the Timeperiods of: the Oxygen atmosphere (evolution), (2)and sea floor age (its evolution), and (3)(4). Also: (5)article: '' "Evolution of Life (timeframes)" '', then the "evolution" article hasn't accomplished its main goals. Plus since it is really ...'' "Evolution by natural selection" '' a cogent discussion of 'evolution by the alternatives' should be in here.... from the SonoranDeserts of Ariz. (I stated some of this in previous comments somewhere.)--[[User:Mmcannis|Mmcannis]] 20:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

:I am wondering if a re-write after a ''New Outline of Evolution Article''. plus I think a section or two that are overemphasized could then be reduced. A collaborative effort for a new ''Outline'' would be the first Agenda. from the-deserts --[[User:Mmcannis|Mmcannis]] 20:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

:OK, here's why these criticisms: (I can't get past the first sentence!)(I've read parts-previously): Quote: ''"In biology, '''evolution''' is the process in which some inherited traits in a population become more popular relative to others through successive generations.'' That sentence is only valid for an '''Article''' entitled: ''Biological evolution''&ndash;(alternative Title: ''''' "Evolution of Life" '''''). this article is about a process occuring in biology, geology, biochemistry of earth systems, [[Law of superposition]], [[Law of faunal succession]], evolution of cities, highway systems, how systems evolve. I think you get the idea. from the ArizonaDeserts --[[User:Mmcannis|Mmcannis]] 20:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

::Note that the following notice already appears at the top of the article: {{otheruses4|evolution in biology}}

::I think the current situation is entirely appropriate. For the layperson, "evolution" is synonymous with biological evolution. [[User:N6|N6]] 07:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

:: /agree. For thsoe who do not understand why say evolution is inappropriately applied when refering to technological developments go read the archived material before blundering in. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 07:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

==Summary style==

Reading the article at present, it has an appropriate and necessary set of sections covering the points required for the purposes of Wikipedia – as has been pointed out, explanations are needed here which might be left out of a print encylopedia. However some sections could benefit from further trimming in summary style, with the reader being expected to refer to the linked main articles for further detail. In my opinion, ''History of evolutionary thought'' could be severely cropped: if the main article is thought to give excessive detail, a simplified article would be more appropriate than going into detail on this page. The ''Misunderstandings about modern evolutionary biology'' subsections could usefully be framed to deal with misunderstandings rather than relating to the claims of critics, and it would be good if ''Distinctions between theory and fact'' and ''Evolution, complexity, and devolution'' could be put more concisely. In the former, the table certainly makes the point strongly: in this main article it may be sufficient to state that "evolution is a fact and a theory in the same way as gravity, as shown in [[Evolution as theory and fact]]." The ''Evolution, complexity, and devolution'' section is worthy but rather long, and could perhaps form a sub-article with a brief summary on this article. It's a fair point that the overall length of this article reflects the complexity of the subject, but a trimming to make it a more readable length would be desirable as long as nothing essential is lost. .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 17:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

: I completely agree. When I tried to replace the theory and fact section with a shorter section with simpler wording, I was attacked by a couple of editors fighting like rabid dogs. And no one here stood up to help me. So I backed off for time being. I personally believe that these sections really do not belong in this article. I would rather have an article with a simple introductory lead that people can read, and then trim off the history section and farm it out to another article (leaving maybe a short paragraph of maybe 5 or 10 sentences at most in this article) and then a very short section on controversies directing people elsewhere. But there are a lot of people who do not seem too amenable to that. And so...one has this long somewhat baggy article. Nothing essential would be lost as long as it was sent to other articles. Right? If I attempt to do any rearranging, I expect to be backed up by other editors and not let the "old hands" here like the editor who started this article kick the crap out of me. That was not the most fun I have ever had. It got pretty viscious. I will not edit like that unless there is a consensus here. Because otherwise, the editors that want the article left alone in its present incomprehesible state will win out every time.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 06:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

==Good Speciation Paper==

With all the talk of speciation the recent Science has an excellent article on hybridization in alpine butterflies. Homoploid Hybrid Speciation in an Extreme Habitat. The predictive power of evolution is demonstrated and hybridization produced a mosaic genome that generated adaptive traits that allowed the hybrid butterflies to survive in an extreme environment and become reproductively isolated. Plenty of studies just like this to support speciation and evolution. Let's see evolution support growing daily, support for any other notions zip. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 03:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

:I don't have the article handy, but I just read a BBC article about it.[[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4708459.stm]]. It states that speciation can occur when groups of organisms choose not to breed. This is interesting. I wonder if Norwegian and Swedes will eventually branch into different species if they no longer breed with each other. I suppose it is theoretically possible, if they keep telling those Sven and Ole jokes. One problem with the BBC article is, how do the Butterflies know what they look like, and therefore know to mate with the same "team" as the BBC article puts it. Did they go into this detail in the Science article?

[[User:StudyAndBeWise|StudyAndBeWise]] 05:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think coloration of the underside of wings and species recognition, and correlation with a specific host alpine plant (the eggs of hybrids don't glue on like parental species (glue on leaves and hatch) this was advantageous because the alpine plant would lose its leaves and the eggs would be scattered with little success to survive-the eggs fall elsewhere on the plant), and also a difference in genitalia was mentioned.

Most of the evidence was molecular that it wasn't branch speciation but hybridization that generated the variation. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 06:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

==Criticisms section==

Shouldnt there be a 'criticisms' section like i see in so many other articles?

[[User:Raspor|raspor]] 14:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

:where should there be a criticisms section?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 15:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

::There are verifiable criticisms of Evolution? Do tell. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 15:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

::: Yes, I was just wondering why they were not presented in the article [[User:Raspor|raspor]] 15:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In which article? This article? [[evolution]]? There is an objections section of course if you look. Or the speciation article they are discussing above?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 15:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

yes in evolution. many artciles i have seen have a critisims section. there is an objections section? [[User:Raspor|raspor]] 15:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

:Look in sections 7 and 8 of [[evolution]]. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Misunderstandings_about_modern_evolutionary_biology]

--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

::Raspor, verifiable is the key word. Give us one, just one, verified reference that criticizes Evolution, and we'll be sure to include it. The Institute for Creation Science is not verifiable. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 18:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you are very familiar with this. So you are saying there is not one person in the world who has any credibility that has any criticism of anything in Evolution?

[[User:Raspor|raspor]] 18:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

:Are there scientific disputes about details? Yes of course there are because it is an active area of research. Are the broad features in dispute at the moment? No they are not. The article makes clear what areas that are quite certain, and what areas are less certain because of new discoveries. However these new discoveries are about more minor details. Things like natural selection are pretty well accepted and established, for example.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 18:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes thats what I mean: the details. Of course natural selection happens. And genetics is a fact.

Are there any areas that do not have evidence? Or weak evidence? The cambrian is a mystery, correct? Are there not areas where this little evidence? [[User:Raspor|raspor]] 18:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

:A mystery is not a criticism, Raspor. The fact that biologists are not omniscient is not a weakness of evolutionary theory, it's a weakness of our limited methods. Should we include a "criticism" section in the [[physics]] article pointing out that physicists don't know everything yet? Of course not. Instead, we have a page called [[Unsolved problems in physics]]; you should be asking for something like that, not a "Criticisms" section, if all you want is for us to note areas of evolutionary biology that are still under scientific dispute. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 18:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I will ask for: "unsolved problems in evolution" who do I ask? what is the procedure?[[User:Raspor|raspor]] 18:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is very very technical, and if you cannot read them in this article now, then it is hopeless.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 19:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

:Well, I don't think this discussion section is for a procedure in uncovering the unsolved problems in evolution. If you are thinking about writing a section and need to discuss it, this is a place to start, certainly. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 19:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"This is very very technical, and if you cannot read them in this article now, then it is hopeless"

Fill, I dont get what you mean here. can you clarify?.

orange: i guess what i am getting at is that i have read the article here on evolution. but in my reading outside of here i have come across very interesting twists, mysteries, unfathomables, in evolutionary theory which are very inticing and never knew about them till recently. for instance i didnt realize until recently that there were only a handful of bones that showed us how evolution went from land animal to whale. and that the pictures we see are just guesses. i am not saying evolution did not happen. just would like to have a section on these enjoyable tid bits.

[[User:Raspor|raspor]] 20:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Raspor: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that '''anyone can edit.''' If you want an article called 'Unsolved Problems in Evolution' then all you need to do is enter that name, and start writing your article. Be sure to include references to verifiable, reliable sources or your article will probably end up getting deleted. And of course, others with information to contribute will also edit your article, including biologists who may wish to identify technical areas of interesting research that are still being evaluated in the field. [[User:Tarinth|Tarinth]] 21:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

:Raspor, someone is not going to write this for you. Get off your butt and write it yourself. Writing an article is hard work and people are busy writing their own articles.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 21:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

where is the critic section on this page, this article needs a POV notice can i add one?--[[User:Halaqah|HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ)]] 09:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:You can, but it will be removed. Common criticisms of evolution are mentioned in the "social and religious controversies" section and in other articles. If you mean scientific arguments that the facts of evolution are not real, there aren't any (and some of the ones there aren't are discussed anyway, in the 'misunderstandings' section.) [[User:Robin Johnson|Robin Johnson]] [[User_talk:Robin Johnson|(talk)]] 10:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

==Distinctions between theory and fact==

Rather than spend the time on neverending debating one-to-one with those ignorant of science, can I suggest the more productive pursuit of making some enhancements to this section (which will probably be seen by millions of people and perhaps will sway some people who still have an open mind?) The main problem with this section isn't the content itself, which I think is good (and I like the comparison to gravity), but it is entirely unsourced and is thus original research. I've added a bunch of <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> to this section because it makes a number of bold claims about certain theories being obsolete and/or being the most widely accepted. I think all the statements are true, but we need to come up with solid citations if this section is going to stay. [[User:Tarinth|Tarinth]] 14:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:I did try to rewrite that section and ran into a roadblock. I think you are quite correct, it needs to be drastically improved. I am working right now on rewriting the main "fact and theory" article to cover some of the confusion that I discovered when I first launched it. For example:

:*there is a lot of confusion about the distinctions between the two "evolutions":

:**the shorthand use to mean "theory of evolution"

:**the process of evolution

::I have noticed a lot of confusion about this, and so I have to make it more clear, but still succinct

:*disagreements about the multiple meanings of "theory" and "fact". I am working on sorting these out with many more sources

:*confusions about the two separate scientific meanings of the word "fact" that appear in the Gould article (which I now have documentation for and references for).

:If you can help find references I would be grateful. Also, when I have the draft of the main article on fact and theory in better shape, I would be glad to have you proofread it, edit it, give feedback, etc.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 14:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think the comparision to gravity is good? Evolution is a historical science as is archaelogy or economics. It really cannot be tested in the way gravity can. There is no way to have a control. We can easliy run an experiment to show the the force of gravity is exponential but we cannot run an experiment to show that whales came from land animals. I really dont like that comparision. To me it is misleading.

[[User:Raspor|raspor]] 14:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:Raspor, both evolution and gravity are both observational and experimental sciences. Both can be seen in the lab. Both can be observed in the field. Both currently and historically. So they are perfect analogies in that sense. However, just because a field of study is only observational does not mean it is not a science. For example, consider volcanology, oceanography, meteorology, seismology, geomagnetism, astronomy, etc. All observational only, and all sciences. And many with historical data only.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 14:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

there are far from perfect analogies. the main tenents of gravity can be tested in the lab but not so with evolutionary theory. very false analogy. evolution is more like economics

[[User:Raspor|raspor]] 18:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

::No Raspor. The fossil record is only a minute part of the evidence for evolution. It is an observational and experiemental science. My job is not to educate you here. Go do that yourself. Thanks [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 07:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Even things like astronomy are experimental in that they make predictions that can be tested. But back to my original comments: I think that defining both "Evolution" and the "Theory of Evolution" is probably suitable for something in the first couple of paragraphs of the article.[[User:Tarinth|Tarinth]] 14:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:''Yes that is true. We did try to get that into the lead, but it was a pretty viscious fight and I eventually gave up. And beat a retreat on the lead. I tried hard to get a clear succinct nontechnical lead, but there are editors here who are very opposed to that. So I decided to wait until adam had rewritten some sections to try again. I am thinking that for my separate "fact and theory" article that this should be made more explicit. I at least am allowed to edit that article since the fascistic editors who fought me so hard on the "fact and theory" section in this article have left me alone in the extended article.''--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 15:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As for refs for what's there already--I'm fairly sure I can find some good refs to a bunch of that section in either Dawkins or Sagan books, I'll look that up later. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I loaned out my copy of Sagan's Demon-haunted World which addresses a lot of this sort of thing. [[User:Tarinth|Tarinth]] 14:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:''Great. I really appreciate it.''--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 15:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't really have that many citations :) Check out [[Charles Darwin]], which has about 150. I'm not suggesting we aspire to that, but I think good referencing can only help people find more information on the subject. [[User:Tarinth|Tarinth]] 14:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

::To be clear, Charles Darwin has about 50 references, with many of the citations referring to specific pages in the references. There's an exceptional amount of info available about him. .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 08:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

==Introductory Paragraphs==

The intro paragraphs are good, but they could be a lot better. I think that right now there's too much of a technical sound to it, as opposed to something more educational and inviting to people trying to learn about the subject. I'd just like you to compare/contrast with the following paragraph, which is how evolution is introduced in a Bio101 textbook:

(Fair use excerpts follows: Campbell & Reece, Biology Sixth Edition)

''Evolution originated with Darwin's publication of the Origin of Species...He argued from evidence that the species of organisms inhabiting Earth today descended from ancestral species. Second, he proposed a mechanism for evolution which he termed natural selection, the idea that organisms can change over the generations if individuals having certain heritable traits leave more offspring than other individuals. ..In modern terms, we would say that the genetic composition of the population had changed over time, and that is one way of defining evolution. But we can also use the termin evolution on a much grander scale to mean all of the biological history, from the earliest microbes to the enormous diversity of modern organisms. An understanding of evolution informs every field of biology, and applications of evolutionary biology are transforming medicine, agriculture, biotechnology and conservation...Evolution integrates all of biology.''

(above is for example purposes only--we can't use this in the article.)

We can't use the above since it would be fair-use, but do you see what I mean about making the article more accessible?

Another thing I'd note about the above example is that it also makes Evolution sound more ''exciting''. Just because we are an encyclopedia doesn't mean we can't put the subject in the exciting, important context that it deserves.

We could use something closer to the above, and then dive into a description of how the Theory of Evolution (what you might call a description of the fact of evolution that's described above) has developed from Darwin's original theory to modern-day explanations (and at the same time state how the question of whether evolution occurs has been a relatively incontroversial fact amongst biologists for the better part of a century).

[[User:Tarinth|Tarinth]] 15:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

::You are quite right. And the current article introduction is confused, and dry and overly technical. I do not mind if the article is technical. But least lets have one or two introductory paragraphs that the average person can read and understand.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 15:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:With regards to your {{tl|fact}} tagging, references are not required for what may be considered "common knowledge" - a lot of what you tagged is common knowledge. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 15:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that a lot of it is common knowledge, but if we can find references for at least some of it, it would be very useful.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 15:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:: I think there's a big difference between what is common knowledge amongst scientists, versus what's considered common knowledge amongst the general public. In an area like this, I think it is important to illustrate that we're not making things up, even if it is something scientists wouldn't bat an eye at. (If you asked the general public what they felt was common knowledge about evolution, I would not be surprised if they told you they assume it is "just a theory" or something patently false such as "humans are descended from monkeys"). [[User:Tarinth|Tarinth]] 16:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree. A few centuries ago, it was "common knowledge" that the sun orbited the earth. And now it is semi common knowledge that it is the earth that orbits the sun (although both really go around the center of mass, at least approximately). Geocentrism was viewed for centuries as dangerous heresy that threatened Christiniaty; now such ideas seem quaint. But if we can get as many references as possible for this stuff, it will help considerably. Some we might have trouble with; that is ok, we can at least try.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 16:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

::Unfortunately, Tarinth, the quote above is not correct. Evolution did not originate (almost pun like isn't it) with Charles Darwin. Evolution was something that was widely recognised by many predecesors. Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather I recall) was a firm believer in it. Lemarck also etc etc etc. What is correct that Darwin and Wallace created the first mechanisms. However, this was before the science of genetics was created from Mendel's work in Brno so it was the foundation for the modern synthesis. Darwin's work is not a full explanation of the modern synthesis. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 07:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Minor point: as Darwin noted in the 6th edition of ''[[The Origin of Species]]'', he and Wallace were by no means the first to put forward natural selection as a mechanism, not so sure about sexual selection. Darwin's immediate impact was as an impeccably eminent scientist giving massively detailed credibility to the notion of evolution amongst a younger generation of scientists – wide popular interest had already been created by ''[[Vestiges of Creation]]''. .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 08:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

==Gravity vs. Evolution==

"All life is a result of such speciation events and thus all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor"

where is the experiment that proves the above? gravity's tenets can be proven experimental not evolution

economics tenets cannot be proven experimentally. evolution is more analogous to economics or athropology or archaeology

[[User:Raspor|raspor]] 18:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that insects gain immunity to particular insecticides through consecutive generations, or that staph bacteria are becoming more resistant to antibiotics, or that certain species of corals are adapting to higher levels of UV radiation while others perish--are all observable examples of evolution. I would suggest learning a bit more about Evolution and science in general, because I think it sounds like you share some misconceptions that are fairly common.

Suggested reading: Carl Sagan's ''The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark'' ISBN 0345409469.

yes of course i know that these adaptations occur. the point remains that the major tenets of evolution:

"All life is a result of such speciation events and thus all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor"

is not testable. anymore than many economic principles are not testable

try reading some economics theorists and some of your misconceptions might be cleared up

[[User:Raspor|raspor]] 18:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor": Every time we find a new organism we could find that it isn't based on DNA or that it has no genes even remotely like something we've seen before. Finding just one multicellular organism not based on DNA would be good evidence against common descent.

"All life is a result of such speciation events" (presumably meant to apply to the last couple of billion years): We could find some strange habitat on earth where new forms of life could be seen to be emerging from non life. That would show this to be false.

[[User:Barnaby dawson|Barnaby dawson]] 19:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this material to [[Talk:Evolution/Raspor's objections]]. I suggest we continue this there. I responded there.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 19:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

but we cannot experiment on the past. whale evolution. we cannot run the tape recorder. i am saying it is a bad analogy between gravity and evolution. better economics and evolution.

in evolution we use fossils as evidence. it is the major source of data. it is a historical science like economics or archaeology. not a physical science like chemistry of physics.

you reallyu dont see the diff?

[[User:Raspor|raspor]] 19:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to see my response, go to [[Talk:Evolution/Raspor's objections]].--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 19:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

==Facting it up==

I have reverted a string of imho overzealous citation requesting. It seemed inappropriate in an article considered controversial to a small but vocal group to undermine it in this way. For all those who feel that the section is under cited (obviously not myself) the sections deemed in need of citations were in [[evolution#Misunderstandings about modern evolutionary biology|this section]] in particular the distinctions between theory and fact subsection. [[User:Barnaby dawson|Barnaby dawson]] 18:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:I totally support your move. Attempts to disrupt and discredit articles by adding spurious fact and dispute tags arising out ideological ax-grinding are becoming far too common and tolerated. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 18:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

::* I am the one who added the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags and it is absurd to claim that I am attempting to disrupt and discredit the article. If anything I'm attempting to make it stronger. As stated in the comment, I agree with the content of the article but I don't see why you wouldn't want to support it with strong sourcing to deflect (in advance) potential criticism. [[User:Tarinth|Tarinth]] 18:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I think that an article can be over sourced. The list of citations at the end of this article is mammoth as it is. Too many citations and the important ones get drowned out by a sea of drivel. I would call for moderation in our citations in this article. [[User:Barnaby dawson|Barnaby dawson]] 19:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Indeed, take a look a [[intelligent design]]. In order to placate ax-grinders there we aceeded to every fact tag.

::::My apologies to Tarinth as well, who I did not know added the tags; I did not mean to imply you were one of the category I mention. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 19:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe tarinth was trying to disrupt the article, but to help. I am the author of a lot of the material that was tagged and I agree that we need to have some of these sections more heavily armored with citations to deflect attacks. The article can be oversourced, and I have suggested repeatedly that all these objections to evolution sections, as well as the history of evolution sections, be removed to separate articles.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 19:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

== Dealing with incessant objections ==

Per discussion that has taken place at [[Talk:Intelligent_design#Dealing_with_Raspor.27s_continued_objections]] and at [[Talk:Intelligent_design#Continuing_discussions_moved]] I suggest in order to clear the way for productive discussion here that any additional incessant and fruitless discussions from Raspor be userfied or moved to the subpage [[Talk:Evolution/Raspor%27s_objections]] in order to allow other, more fruitful discussions to take place. Any further discussions on these lines would then be moved there moving forward. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 18:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

== Predictions of Evolution ==

A common misconception about Evolution is that it is "just an idea or philosophy" that does not make testable predictions. Would it be helpful to list a number of the predictions made by Evolution? This would help people understand the ''benefit'' of understanding evolution, beyond simply a way of explaining life. [[User:Tarinth|Tarinth]] 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:Sounds like a good idea to me. [[User:Chickenflicker|Chickenflicker]]---[[User talk:Chickenflicker|♣]] 20:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

::Evolutionary theory doesn't predict. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 07:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Useful commentary here: [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/predict.html Evolution and Philosophy: Predictions and Explanations] ... [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 09:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

creationists and IDer believe in evolution. they do not believe that there was not a designer.

how can the knowledge that life was not seeded by aliens during the cambrian change what we know now. it would not matter. its just philosophy

[[User:Raspor|raspor]] 21:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You can see my response to raspor at [[Talk:Evolution/Raspor's objections]]--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 21:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Raspor -- please reserve this space for things regarding the scientific theory of evolution. Whether or not creationists and IDers believe in evolution (I think many would disagree with you) isn't relavent to the scientific predictions made by evolution. [[User:Tarinth|Tarinth]] 22:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

==Predictions of evolution==

Tarinth came up with a great idea. How many predictions of the Theory of evolution can we come up with? If I can get a bunch, I will use them to make another chart for another article (maybe this one but I doubt it since we dont have that much space here).--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Please, please, please, please, please ... Evolution does not predict in this way. It explains. Prediction in this scenario only gets to make it seem like there is some directional guide. There is not. The decreased effectiveness of antibiotics is not a prediction. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 07:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

:::The commentary linked here essentially agrees with Candy: [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/predict.html Evolution and Philosophy: Predictions and Explanations] ... [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 09:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::Nice link Dave. Was interesting to read. I thought a little about predictive power of evolution. There is a way in which it is predictive but so far the only case I can think of is when there is a lack of intermediate fossil ancestors but an early ancestor is known. Evolution can be very predictive if it is known which environmental changes took place to other organisms in the same geographical region. It can also be predictive when this is known ie this is what an intermediate should look like looks like ... do we find it? I have to confess I haven't studied this part of evolution at any depth so anyone with more understanding please feel free to point me to some readers.

::::However, to restate, my feeling this article needs to differentiate between to two. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]]

Here are some suggestions (from me, a nonbiologist, so please criticize away; citations welcome as well.):

* the creeping antibiotic resistance of many bacteria

* dangers of not taking antibiotics properly to breed new deadlier strains

* emergence of new viruses

* prediction of various transitional forms which were later found in the fossil record [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/defense_of_evolution.html]

* overuse of triclosan and other antibiotics creating resistant strains of bacteria

* prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains in hospitals

* predictions pre-Mendel of many features of inheritance and genetics

* prediction that no species would be found with features that were independent of those in other species (not sure I got that one correct; copying from tarinth).

:: I think what you're remembering is when I stated that Darwin predicted that no organism would ever be found that creates anything for the exclusive benefit of another organism. So far this has remained true (Darwin even claimed that it could falsify evolution). In other words: trees make nectar, which other organisms eat--but they don't make nectar -just- so that it can be consumed. They gain benefits from it (attracting pollenators). [[User:Tarinth|Tarinth]] 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:::This has more or less been discredited; a good example of something produced exclusively for the benefit of another organism is altruism (a behavior). The reason for this has been set out by Dawkins (though he was not the originator of it); basically, altruism can exist because close relatives have a lot of genes identical to yours, so by acting altruistically towards them you'll promote your own genes' survival, even if not your own survival. [[User:Titanium Dragon|Titanium Dragon]] 23:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:::: But then altruism benefits your genes. I think we're talking about a case where the altruism is incapable of providing the organism's gene with an advantage in natural selection. [[User:Tarinth|Tarinth]] 23:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::BTW. Altruism is a heck of a complex issue which has roots in society, government as well as science. This is a very interesting illumination on Altruism. It doesn't delve that heavily on the evolutionary aspects but as Dawkins is one of the talkers there is enough to whet one's whistle. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20061123.shtml] [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 14:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

* prediction of human ancestry in africa

* several more technical predictions at [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html]

* ability of chimps to engage in sign language and even typing on computers to communicate indicate that they are not so far removed from humans

* new research results indicating dogs have hundreds of unique vocalizations that can be communicated to dogs they have never met and communicate information, indicating dogs are not so far removed from humans

:: Sounds interesting but also sounds more like an observation than a prediction. [[User:Tarinth|Tarinth]] 22:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

*stratigraphic record shows a progression of species as predicted (no precambrian fuzzy bunnies)

*DNA similarity corresponds to phylogenic similarity [http://wilstar.com/evolution/predictions.html]

What else can we dig up?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Here are a couple good links to harvest from:

:: * http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html

:: * http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_doesn't_make_predictions

[[User:Tarinth|Tarinth]] 22:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

yes but you are missing the point. IDers believe in evolution. there is no conflict. this is all good stuff. how ever IDers believe that somewhere along the line between bacteria and us there was an intelligent intervention. all the above would be true if we were seeded by aliens during the cambrian or if God helped arrange the DNA for the eye

[[User:Raspor|raspor]] 21:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:: I'm clueless to what you're debating. I don't think anyone here is really interested in including a critique of ID or panspermia in an article on Evolution. Evolution has nothing to say about those subjects. [[User:Tarinth|Tarinth]] 22:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

==Do I have permission to move raspor's posts to his own special page?==

This has been done in the past for similar editors. --[[User:Filll|Filll]] 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

sure just say you moved them and that i made a response

thanks

[[User:Raspor|raspor]] 21:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

dave, please stop the personal attacks and follow wiki guidelines. i am not 'deluded'

[[User:Raspor|raspor]] 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

::Who said you were? If you associate yourself with those poor deluded folk who ignore Filll's useful information, so be it. Evidently it's a good time to move things to a subpage before paranoia gets out of hand. .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

== weight of earth ==

You're claiming that Fill doesn't know scientific history and that the Greeks calculated the weight of Earth? I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader as to what is wrong with that.-Psychohistorian 18:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do I have permission to move raspor's posts to his own special page?

are you saying the greeks did not calculate the weight and volume of the earth?

isnt this comment off subject? could it be considered trolling?

[[User:Raspor|raspor]] 18:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

::It is not trolling. It is off topic, but you brought it up and I wanted to make sure that noone misunderstood.

Weight is the gravitational force one object exerts on another. Typically, because we are most concerned with how much things weigh on Earth, weight is the gravitational force Earth exerts on another object. Weight is dependent on the mass of the object which is exerting the force on the object whose weight we want to know. So, what does "the weight of the Earth" mean? The gravitational force it exerts on itself? You did NOT say "the weight of some part of the Earth on some other part". "Does the weight of the Earth" refer to the gravitational force the Sun exerts on the Earth? The moon? "The weight of the Earth" is a phrase which has no meaning - its just babbling. In the future, when you feel the urge to criticize someone (such as your insinuation that Fill is not up to speed on the history of science) take care that you are not, in the same post, showing your ignorance.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 18:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea if any Greek ever came up with a figure for the weight of the earth. I do not know that the artistotlean notions of gravity were very different from our own. I do know what [[Erastosthenes]] did to measure the size of the earth, assuming a spherical shape. There might have been others who did it before Erastosthenes, but he is the first recorded instance of this that we know of, over 2000 years ago.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we know what people mean as the 'weight' of something: hint take the diameter of the earth and calculate the volume and then pick a probable density and then multiply. thats what they did in ancient greece.

please stop trolling

I have no idea if any Greek ever came up with a figure for the weight of the earth. I do not know that the artistotlean notions of gravity were very different from our own. I do know what [[Erastosthenes]] did to measure the size of the earth, assuming a spherical shape. There might have been others who did it before Erastosthenes, but he is the first recorded instance of this that we know of, over 2000 years ago.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

yes they came up with a figure for the weight (mass) of the earth. they were quite a bit off i think like 70% but thats not bad.

why do you keep bringing this up? this is very off subject.

we should concentrate on improving this horribly biased article

[[User:Raspor|raspor]] 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please move discussions regarding the mass Earth to [[Earth]]. It has even less to do with Evolution than [[exogenesis]] does.

[[User:Tarinth|Tarinth]] 20:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

==An anonymous coincidence==

At 04:32 on 2 January 2007. 74.33.109.35 ''"Restructured and added evolutionary related articles to See Also list"''. By a remarkable coincidence the links I've looked at relate to creationist claims. The list appears to be excessively long anyway: surely it should be confined to major topics? . ... [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 05:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

== recent edits by {{user|68.201.144.11}} ==

There's some good work being done here, but this editor seems to have a penchant for adding parenthetical (and non-parenthetical) notes that are either extraneous or dubiously NPOV/verifiable. I don't have time at present to comb through all these edits and clean them up, but somebody ought to. [[User:N6|N6]] 10:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

: I am not a biologist, but as an outsider and glancing at it quickly, I do not think he has necessarily damaged the article. There might need to be some more references for this material. The English might need to be cleaned up. But it is not as obviously POV as some of the edits, that is for sure.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 15:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

::One of the sections I removed was a parenthetical definition of artificial selection right after a wikilink to [[Artificial selection]]. Another section was an unverified, weasel-wordy (and, frankly, unnecessary) comment about eugenics. There's damage to the article, and to the article's clarity, that can be done without adding creationist propaganda. [[User:N6|N6]] 17:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well these edits need to be checked very carefully then.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 17:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I (68.201.144.11) now have an account: DNAunion.

I have a BS in Biology and wanted to correct a few minor 'issues', but didn't know about the rules for editing or that what I was doing was questionable. I don't want to mess up again, so here are some things I'd like to add or change.

1) For the edit I made dealing with macromutations where I added the material about internal selection and internal coadaptation, the general reference (I could find a page number range if needed) is Wallace Arthur, 'The Origin of Animal Body Plans: A Study in Evolutionary Developmental Biology', Cambridge University Press, 1997.

2) For the edit I made dealing with the vestigial ball-and-socket joints in manatees for their "ghost" femurs, the general reference (I could get more info from this DVD, such as the specific lecture title) is David M. Kingsley, 'Evolution: Constant Change and Common Threads', Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 2006

3) For the edit I made dealing with human embryos starting off with the fish arrangement of 6 pairs of aortic arches, then remodeling during further embryonic development of humans bringing about the human configuration, the general reference (I could get page numbers if needed) is George C. Kent & Robert K. Carr, 'Comparative Anatomy of the Vertebrates: Ninth Edition', McGraw-Hill, 2001

4) I tried a couple of times to make a change to the Artificial Selection part but they were undone.

Artificial Selection is NOT a form of Natural Selection: the two are essentially opposites. Either:

a. The part about Artificial Selection should be deleted

b. The part about Artificial Selection should be moved so that it is no longer under Natural Selection

or

c. The part about Artificial Selection should be qualified: for example: "Artificial Selection, which is not a form of natural selection, ..."

:Welcome back!

:It's great that you have references for statements of fact. By all means, add the references to the article. There are numerous examples of how to do so present in the article already.

:As for whether artificial selection and natural selection are disjoint, there is a discussion on this topic ongoing below. Feel free to join us. For my part, I disagree with the claim that the two are mutually exclusive. [[User:N6|N6]] 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

<br /><br />

Looks like EVERY change I made was undone. It was a waste of my time to try to improve the page. --[[User:DNAunion|DNAunion]] 00:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

== Lateral Gene Transmission and hybridization ==

In the subsection on lateral gene transfer, there is discussion that this can be caused by hybridization. I'm confused as to how this is so. By definition, lateral gene transfer is transfer of genetic material other than from parent to child. Hybridization (per the linked article) has to do with interspecies (intergenus, etc) reproduction and the resulting children - nothing lateral there that I can see. Also, the linked lateral gene transfer article doesn't mention hybrids as a method.

I would recommend either clarifying HOW hybridization can contribute to lateral gene transfer or rewording the paragraph to remove the reference. As it reads, I'm just confused trying to figure out how they relate.

[[User:Muffinsmomusa|Muffinsmomusa]] 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Stephanie Barr 1/2/07

It is an artifact of editing. Initially it was worded as Gene flow-HGT and hybridization. The Gene flow article includes both. The sections were reorganized and hybridization found itself in an odd position. Perhaps we should change the subsection title to HGT and Hybridiation. I'll look at it. Article needs some clean up after reorganziations. Really in the classic Gene flow sense it is confusing to put HGT and hybridization. Perhaps each should have their own sections and pull Hybridization out for a subsection. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 21:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

== Restructure of sentence ==

Feeling that it may be good to explain my every edit even when soooo small.

'''"All life is a result of such speciation events and thus all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor. "'''

was rearranged. I hope it is clearer now and is a bit weightier to express that:

1. There was a single ancestor of all organisms. (NB I myself sometimes say "living organisms" when speaking but only in the context that I want to be precise and differentiate say from a biomass of dead organisms. Therefore I left the living out as it is superfluous although often used. I linked [[common descent]] and [[organism]] as well. The organism link is actually a nice article as it clearly shows some of the interesting debate about the definition of an organism and may get some people interested in reading this article. I'm certain though that the use in this contect makes it clear that it refers to all living things.)

'''and'''

2. We are all descendants of this original life due to the process of speciation (and therefore evolution).

[[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 22:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

:It's clearer, but is there any way to connect it to what came before? As it stands, it's making the right claim, but doesn't explain why evolution implies that. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well GetAgrippa has edited it since. It probaly reads better. However, there is an issue with the new edit.

''

"All organisms are related by common descent, having evolved over billions of years of cumulative genetic changes from a single ancestor."'' is the new version. However, my version said all organisms and was correct. This one says all organisms and is incorrect becasue a time frame has been introduced- It should be modified so that it clearly states all '''extant''' organisms. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)fogot to sign. And messed up the italics. But you know what I mean.

"I haven't edited that section in weeks as I recollect so it probably has been modified several times.[[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 01:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

::Apologies then. Must be my blurry eyes or my disfunctional processing 8) [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 13:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

== User conduct RFC: Raspor ==

For interested parties, FYI: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor]]

Anyone who has tried to resolve his issues through policy and reason will need to endorse the RFC if you agree with the summary I've provided, or add your own. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

== dave, thanks for removing the link to haekel, as everyone knows he has nothing to do with evolution ==

[[User:Raspor|raspor]] 14:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

:Perhaps you'd better read the [[history of evolutionary thought]] article. Enjoy, .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 14:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

==See also again==

I've gone through the list and removed some items which were clearly too detailed, off topic or misleadingly piped – there's a lot more to Australopithecus than Lucy, and just what the [[United States Office of Research Integrity]] has to do with evolution isn't explained in that article. These, and a couple I've left, were added in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=98163091&oldid=98115713 this edit] by an anon. In my opinion the list's already too long, and should be reviewed to reduce it as much as possible. .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 14:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

== holocaust denial ==

i noticed in the holocaust article there was a section on 'holocaust denial'

can we have a section on 'evolution denial' in the evolution article?

[[User:Raspor|raspor]] 16:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Already there: [[Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies]]--[[User:Roland Deschain|Roland Deschain]] 16:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

== Introduction ==

I think I am almost happy with the introduction. It seems clear enough without being over-technical. I just have one last issue with the sentence:

"This leads to the propagation of useful traits, and the weeding out of counterproductive ones"

Apart from the redundant comma I feel this doesn't sit correctly with the tone of the rest of the article? Perhaps it's the term "weeding out" which grates because it seems to imply and external force in the removal of traits. Then the term propagation which refers to reproduction where as I lean on the side of thinking of traits as being replicated. Anyway, I'm editing it to ......

This leads to the increase of useful traits and the reduction of counterproductive traits. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

:Thinks – how about "Over time this results in an increasing proportion of the organisms having useful traits, and fewer organisms with counterproductive traits." ... [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to advantageous and disadvantageous as these are common words used in the biological sciences.

I thought about the "Over time" addition and it was quite interesting. I immediately convinced myself it shouldn't be there. Then swung back to thinking that without it the meaning may be misconstrued.

However, I went back to the whole paragraph (I'd only been reading the previous sentence) and it is clear to me that it can stay without it. The gene frequency of a population can change in one generation quite rapidly so the sentence is correct. What makes it clear is the following sentence which states, "Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions." The time factor is in the paragraph for clarity.

What do you think Dave? [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

:Good points. However, it still seems to me that "This leads to the increase of" could be misconstrued. How about "Thus, more of the offspring will have advantageous traits and fewer will have disadvantageous traits.[2][4][5] Given enough time, repetition of this passive process..." ,, [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 19:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Have modified. Would you be so kind as to check it? Thanks [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 19:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

:I am really impressed with the first few sentences. They are beautiful.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 19:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

::Me too. Excellent piece of work. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 19:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Um, as now it reads "Given enough time, this passive process can result..." – didn't you like "Given enough time, repetition of this passive process can result..." ? .. just seemed a bit more explanatory to me.. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps it should be "Given enough time th'''ese''' passive process'''es''' ...? as it refers to both natural selection and genetic drift. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 01:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

== Basic Processes ==

Another troublesome sentence. I need help with this one please.

In natural populations, there is a certain amount of phenotypic variation (e.g., what makes you appear different from your neighbor).

I think the writer mean i.e what makes you appear ... However, I'm not happy with that because the implication to me is that it perpetuates a concept that many people have that phenotype is largely about what a person looks like. Whereas, the the far greater amount of phenotypical variation is biochemical in nature or concerns the internal organs (those not visible externally that is).

Is the part in parenthesis actually necessary anyway? [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

: How about, "In natural populations, there is a certain amount of genetic variability." And I agree with Candorwien, in that "what makes you appear different" sounds more like morphology, whereas phenotype could include something like a gene for sickle-cell anemia which wouldn't be immediately apparent. [[User:Tarinth|Tarinth]] 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

::For people like me who have to look [[Phenotype]] up, probably good to have something. Adapting the linked page's intro, how about –

:In natural populations, there is a certain amount of phenotypic variation, meaning differences in traits such as physical appearance and constitution including such aspects as size, eye color, or behaviour.

:Probably better to USify the spelling! .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 20:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I am British, living in Austria and I used to live and work in the US and Bermuda. My grammar and spelling sometimes go awry if I'm not focused on which one I'm writing in. 8)

Not too happy with "constitution" as it doesn't tend to be a word used in this context. What about ''"In natural populations, there is a certain amount of phenotypic variation, meaning differences in traits such as physical appearance, physiology or behavior."''[[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 01:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

:No need to apologise, what happened was that the computer spell checker underlined behaviour, and I let it change the spelling then couldn't remember the original spelling which presumably is from the US to match color. Your version looks good, the "constitution" came from the phenotype page and I'm no expert. Ta, .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 01:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Done! Made change. Put the explanation in backets. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 12:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

== "[[abbot]] [[Gregor Mendel]]" ==

I see no reason to include general biological information about Gregor Mendel (or any other figure) in this article. That he was an abbot does not help anybody to understand evolution. Interested readers are free to follow the wikilink to his article if they wish to know more about him. [[User:N6|N6]] 20:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we crossed lines, and were doing things at the same time. It is true if you wanted to know more about Mendel you can click the link - but that single word "abbott" may be the thing that piques interest in his biography. If you really don't know about Mendel, then he is just another name. If you do know about Mendel, then to me it seemed odd that he remained undistinguished from the list of scientists' names.

[[User:Trishm|Trishm]] 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The edits are happening thick and fast today! N6, While I was writing this note to you, somebody else reinstated "abbott".

[[User:Trishm|Trishm]] 21:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

== Mendel's occupation is indeed relevant ==

The introduction of Mendel was changed from "Abbott Mendel" to Mendel, with the comment that his occupation was not relevant.

I suggest otherwise, because in this case a profession speaks a thousand words. It says that he was extremely well educated - the church education system in Austria was exemplary, and priests were the most highly educated profession there was. He had time, and a good deal of autonomy.

It is also relevant that he was not a scientist as such - it indicates that the scientific method is not limited to the "club" of scientists. We treat his work as science because he was so systematic in what did, recorded and his analysis.

The fact that he was a churchman doing science is a connection that is worth making, for the benefit of those who believe that science is only for atheists.

Finally, I have never seen any article or documentary about Mendel which did not introduce him by his profession.[[User:Trishm|Trishm]] 20:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

:With respect to establishing verifiable facts for use in an encyclopedia article about evolution, Mendel's work stands on its own. Mendel's biography may well be of interest to those seeking context to his work, but that context has no specific relevance to our understanding of evolution itself, and as such it has no place in this article. The proper place for this information is the article on [[Gregor Mendel]], which is already linked for anybody wishing to learn more about him. It is not our job to pique anybody's interest in reading other articles or to prod them toward our preferred point of view with circumstantial evidence--"Well, if even an ''abbot's'' work supports evolutionary theory, then it ''must'' be on solid footing."

:It's worth noting that the word "abbot" was only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=98166962&oldid=98166380 added] a few hours ago by an anonymous editor. I reversed the edit because I did not agree that it was an improvement to this article. I still don't.

:Would other editors care to comment? I sense a potential edit war over this, so it would be good to get a 3rd opinion. [[User:N6|N6]] 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I always knew him as the "monk gregor mendel". Did he do his work only when he was an Abbott? how do you spell abbot/abott? Why remove the philospher disignations for others, who are less familiar?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

:I don't think {{user|Trishm}} and {{user|199.62.0.252}} are the same editor. Given the edit history, I suspect the latter is an incarnation of {{user|VacuousPoet}}.

:: I most certainly am not [[User:199.62.0.252|199.62.0.252]]. I do feel that if you don't put in Mendel's profession, you automatically imply he is a scientist. That is misleading. And for that reason alone, the fact that he is a churchman is important. Filll, I believe he did most of his work as a monk. I first became involved when I saw "Abbott" being removed.[[User:Trishm|Trishm]] 21:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

:::The implication is that he was doing scientific work, and certainly he was. What specific misleading implication do you see? [[User:N6|N6]] 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

:::: The implication is that he was a scientist, which he was not. By the way, the implication of his churchman status in my eyes is not ""Well, if even an abbot's work supports evolutionary theory, then it must be on solid footing.", it is "The religious controversy doesn't seem to have been a concern to Mendel". I'm not being anti-creationist here. [[User:Trishm|Trishm]] 22:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::By what definition of "scientist" was he not a scientist? Certainly he was not under the employ of a research institution, but this is hardly implied.

:::::If your intent is not to bolster the credibility of his scientific work by mentioning his profession, then what ''is'' your intent? What I don't understand is why you feel this is necessary to the reader's understanding of evolution. I won't disagree that it is relevant to the reader's understanding of Mendel himself, but again, they are free to read his article if they desire such understanding. [[User:N6|N6]] 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

:For [[User:199.62.0.252|199.62.0.252]]: Please stop mangling the article in defiance of [[WP:POINT]]. Being an ancient philosopher is a specific qualification for discussing the scientific origin of species. Being an abbot (or a monk) is not. There is a clear-cut difference here. I do not oppose the inclusion of all biographical information--just information that does not have specific relevance to the topic at hand. [[User:N6|N6]] 21:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

:: I think it is an interesting fact that he was a monk, in the same vein that Darwin received theological training. [[User:Jason Potter|JPotter]] 21:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

:::While it may be interesting, I think the place for it is Mendel's own article. Note that Darwin's theological training isn't mentioned either--and shouldn't be, I think, for the same reason. [[User:N6|N6]] 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

He did most of his work as a monk. When he was promoted he was unable to continue his studies. So call him Monk Gregor Mendel, or Gregor Mendel, a German/Czech/ etc monk.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is another thought. If we consider that social and religious controversy is worthy of inclusion in the article, which we do, because there is an entire section devoted to it, then Mendel's occupation is directly relevant to the topic. [[User:Trishm|Trishm]] 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

:If you can find a reputable published source that makes the point that Mendel didn't see his results as controversial to his religious beliefs, this would be an excellent addition to the controversy section, and I would be all for including it there. Making this point without a source, however, is a clear violation of [[WP:NOR]].

:If I've given you the mistaken impression that I subscribe to religious creationism, I apologize. I think evolutionary theory is one of the great triumphs of science. My stance on the inclusion of the word "abbot" here is solely based on my principles of Wikipedia editing :) [[User:N6|N6]] 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

::No, it's clear we have similar views on evolution. As for the reason for my stance, it's the same as yours. :) We were just educated in different countries. Let's agree to differ.[[User:Trishm|Trishm]] 23:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I took a good 10 or 15 courses in Genetics as a graduate and undergraduate student at renowned research universities--I don't recall ever calling Mendel anything but Mendel. Abbot or Monk is not an honorific title (Brother would be the appropriate one)--An abbot runs the monastery. I think this probably qualifies as one of the more silly discussions about edits I've ever seen. It doesn't belong. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 22:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

== Can't we give Peas a chance ==

If Medel's profession is not relevent as a non-scientist, why is a philosophers? Also, regarding friar/monk/abbot, don't you refer to people by the title they achieved, unless you say "then-monk" or something. [[User:199.62.0.252|199.62.0.252]] 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Vacuous poet

:I agree (I forget who with - I'm confused!) that Greek and Indian philosophers really need identifying labels (to leave them unidentified is perverse), and that Mendel probably does not need one. But it is at least ''of interest'' to know his profession (or whatever you call it), and it seems a shame to "censor" it! Given the heated debates, one suspects all sorts of impure motives... Why not leave "abbot" out of the main text but use it in the caption of the picture of Mendel? [[User:Snalwibma|Snalwibma]] 21:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

::His profession is not "censored" by leaving it out of this article. It's still mentioned in [[Gregor Mendel|his own article]].

::My main point here is that there is all kinds of extraneous information we could pull over from every wikilink in every article if we wanted to make each article a million words long, but that doesn't mean we should do so. This is just one of many pieces of wikilinked information that is just that: extraneous to this article.

::I don't think it's any more necessary to include his profession in the caption to his picture than it is to include it in the main text, but I would accept that as a solution if it is preferred by most other editors. A caption is at the least a ''less'' inappropriate place to include random biographical facts.

::My side of the debate is "heated" because my position on this admittedly minor point is clear-cut and obvious to me. I'm not in the habbit, as a general rule, of capitulating on even minor points just to avoid conflict. [[User:N6|N6]] 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

::: I'm afraid I don't avoid conflict either. But for me the issue is different, and equally clear cut and obvious - you lose context by defining relevance too tightly. It's a little bit like the fact that Aristotle was Alexander the Great's tutor. It is obscure, because it is not relevant when studying the philosophy of Aristotle, and it doesn't figure in Alexander's military campaigns. But it explains a lot about how Greek thought spread so thoroughly around Alexander's time, especially into India, where the leading philosophers found Alexander worth talking to. I am wary of packaging the topic so tightly that a single word indicating a relationship that you might not suspect otherwise (i.e. the church doing science) is considered off-topic.[[User:Trishm|Trishm]] 22:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

::::''a single word'' -- the length of the edit is not meaningful. If a single word doesn't merit inclusion in the article, then it should not be included. If it were the policy of editors to allow any small edit because it doesn't do ''much'' damage to the article, there would be an awful lot of damage done to the corpus of all articles by such small increments.

::::You overestimate the need to include "interesting" information from wikilinked articles. If the reader is skeptical or curious about Mendel's qualifications, they will follow the link to his article. [[User:N6|N6]] 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

''If Medel's profession is not relevent as a non-scientist, why is a philosophers?'' -- because ancient philosophers could hardly be called "non-scientists" given that ancient philosophy was largely concerned with scientific thought. [[User:N6|N6]] 22:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

== Clean slate/unofficial request for comment about "abbot" ==

The discussion above is getting hard to read, so I'm providing this space for other editors to weigh in on whether [[Gregor Mendel]] ought to be referred to as an abbot (or monk) in the body text (and/or the caption to his picture). [[User:N6|N6]] 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(Side note: I'm going to take a break from debating this point for a day or two. Arguing such minutiae at length is tiring and endangers my sense of perspective. [[User:N6|N6]] 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

:Having looked at the biography, the following passage (slightly trimmed) shows two things about his profession:

:"Mendel read his paper, "Experiments on Plant Hybridization", at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brünn in Moravia in 1865... published in 1866 in Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brunn... Elevated as abbot in 1868, his scientific work largely ended as Mendel became consumed with his increased administrative responsibilities"

:So Mendel was a Naturalist. As was Darwin. The term "scientist" largely gained its present meaning after publication of ''The Origin'', and many of Darwin's colleagues were Reverend clergymen, Cambridge [[University don|Don]]s, which was his aim until he was diverted into being a wealthy landowner and amateur naturalist. Point two, as has been pointed out, Mendel was not an Abbot at the time of his notable work as a naturalist. Best left out. ... [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not care what you do. When I learned about Mendel I was probably about 10 or 12 years old and never stepped into a biology classroom again after that. I like to call him Gregor Mendel the monk, but that is because that is how I learned it. Abbot sounds weird to me. He is very famous anyway. George Lemaitre, the guy who did the Big Bang was a Belgian Preist, so it is all sort of funny. --[[User:Filll|Filll]] 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It does seem a big discussion for a little thing. Still, heated discussion as it was, there have been no personal attacks. Nor is there any pushing a POV or an agenda on the topic. It is about the general question of what constitutes a good article. We can take heart in that. [[User:Trishm|Trishm]] 23:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

:Calling him Abbot Mendel does seem strange. I understand he did his work as a monk, and then dropped out when the duties of abbot took all his time. Did monks have a title, for instance Father Mendel. That would be appropiate. Otherwise "Gregor Mendel, Austrian monk," seems appropiate. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 00:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is part of good communication and data retention to create a word picture with multiple associations. Giving the reader something more than a mere name helps. If we find it relevant and useful to include an image of a man's face then why not also a single descriptive word that helps the reader distinguish him from others of the same name, that helps the reader form a mental image, that helps the reader form multiple associations for better memory retention, and humanizes an otherwise dry subject. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 01:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

He should not be referred to as abbot Mendel for several reasons. First off, we don't typically refer to people that way; we just use their name. Second, he's most commonly known as Mendel, NOT Abbot Mendel, and as he was not an abbot at the time it'd be inappropriate to refer to him as such anyway. A mention of him being a monk is alright, but calling him Abbot Mendel is just silly. [[User:Titanium Dragon|Titanium Dragon]] 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

::Gregor Mendel was a scientist. He was also elected Abbot at Brno after he did his work on genetics. He received training in natural sciences at the University of Vienna (which is about 3 km from where I am sitting now BTW). It doesn't help to explain who he was in this article. He has his own wikibiography. Here is a link in English for you to find more about him in a simple narrative style - [http://web.visionlearning.com/events/GMendel_July22_2005.htm]

::By clicking on the his name in evolution I assume that there is a plethora of information about the man which is why it is hyperlinked to make it easy to find.(I haven't done so.)

::Using a name to describe someone in this way except in their biography (and some of those examples are a bit harsh although true - and I really liked the man BTW) is pushing a POV imho. Examples:

*Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman ...

*LSD taker Richard Feyman ...

*Topless bar frequenter Richard Feynman ...

*Drummer Richard Feynman ...

*Physicist Richard Feynman ...

All have different connotations.

Hope I haven't laid that on too heavy. Anyway call the man Gregor Mendel.

If the issue of the philosophers is still niggling anyone open a different topic for that. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 03:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should discuss linkage disequilibrium, pop. genetics, and evolution. Spend more time on molecular issues, since that is the modern definition. Selfish DNA and noncoding DNA-junk DNA, transposons. Where is the level of selection-the gene (Dawkin),orgnanism (Darwin), population, deme debate? The gene number paradox- gene number and complexity. Why sexual reproduction?, etc. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 03:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

=== My Vacuous Response ===

I have seen the Right Reverend Gregor Johann Mendel referred to in the context of his pea experiments both with and without religious titles such as friar, monk, and abbot. The reason I think it is important is that there is a POV being pushed by a few editors that science and religion are incompatible. E.g., some of the editors and talk contributors on this article have attempted to label the Noah’s Ark article pseudo-science. They have refused to allow a fair characterization of a cited poll that college graduates are three times more likely to ''believe'', and I use the word believe literally, in intelligent design than non-college graduates, in an article on intelligent design and/or creationism.

Unless or until we get the pro-science POV out of this article, and make it more encyclopedic (e.g., by removing the straw man arguments used as a soapbox regarding scientific theory versus the laymen connotation of the word ''theory'' when the more difficult and almost as common if not more common contention is that that evolutionary origin of species is just a "scientific theory" and not a "scientific law", a scientific theory that is based on definitions that are still subject to debate by scientists, not falsifiable (or at least not as readily falsifiable) as "scientific laws" such as Maxwell’s equations, the Laws of Thermodynamics, Newton’s Laws of motion, and Gravitational Law. And yes, the theory of gravity has been modified to describe observed behaviors at the boundaries, but here on planet earth, in ad-hoc laboratories around the world, the modifications for most real world experiments are in the noise of measurement error, and as such, undetectable. That is to say, in regard to the law of gravity, it still stands unmodified unless you have some extra-ordinary circumstances and equipment.

Enough of the rant. If you’re not pushing an anti-religion point of view, the interesting piece of information, being friar, monk, or abbot, deserves to be in the article because:

#It is true

#It is citable

#It is pertinent as an exception to the colored view presented in these evolutionary articles that the church and science were enemies. (The truth is much more nuanced, with the church not only exhibiting strong opposition to some scientific theories, but also in fact being responsible for the promotion of other scientific advancements.)

Trishman wrote: ''I suggest otherwise, because in this case a profession speaks a thousand words. It says that he was extremely well educated - the church education system in Austria was exemplary, and priests were the most highly educated profession there was. He had time, and a good deal of autonomy. It is also relevant that he was not a scientist as such - it indicates that the scientific method is not limited to the "club" of scientists.''

I concur whole heartedly. As I have said, other commentators do include the title abbot, monk, or friar when referring to Mendel in the context of evolution.

Personally, I think this article should be scrapped entirely, and an objective person, such as a person who is not so interested in exaggerating the tensions between religion and science, were allowed to write an NPOV article in its place. The anti-God crusaders, and you know who you are, should refrain from modifying this or any science/religion based article except in the clear case of vandelism (e.g., replacing a whole section with DARWIN WAS A SATANIST, read the Bible for the truth).

Meanwhile, resistance to the reference to Mendel's profession/training/background is strong evidence of anti-religion POV, as well as a POV that wants to characterize science and religion as having only tension.

[[User:170.215.15.99|170.215.15.99]] 05:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Vacous Poet

P.S. In the interest of intellectually honesty, don't merely respond to what you consider my weak points; tackle the most difficult.

P.P.S. In any event, having the photograph's caption refer to him as Abbot or Monk (depending on when the photo was taken) will help explain his dress.[[User:170.215.15.99|170.215.15.99]] 06:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Vacuous Poet

:Have you noted that biologists rarely use laws while physicists often use laws? These are different sciences and to consider the theory of evolution to be lesser just becuase it is not "called" a law seems to miss the point. You appear to be trying to use a hierarchy of certainty from a rule book of science that does not exist. <strike>An aside, was Mendel ever the Abbot of his monastry? Or is Abbot just a title without rank?</strike> (re: the strike out; I just caught up reading above.) [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 06:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

::[[User:VacuousPoet|VacuousPoet]] has been disrupting this article and its talk page with the same crap for quite a while now. I would suggest [[WP:DFTT|not feeding the troll]] while we wait for this latest sockpuppet to be blocked along with the rest of them. [[User:N6|N6]] 06:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

:::N6 nice way to dodge the points. Talk about sockpuppet. [[User:170.215.15.99|170.215.15.99]] 06:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

::David D. You are right, and even fill, if he is trained in physics, should be able to admit that there is a bit of a rivalry among scientists regarding hard/soft science, and that in fact some physicists look down on those who take up biology as having the skills of being able to learn Latin and being able to memorize, as opposed to being able to precisely quantify and refine a theory, even if it does have a gravitational constant fudge factor. While no rule book exists, the fact that some scientists, e.g., many physicists at campuses across this country, believe that their field's scientific laws, being readily verifiable, repeatable, etc., are a higher quality of scientific theory than "life evolves, and sometimes this can lead to speciation, Genusiation, Familyation, Classation, Phylumation" and so on and so forth. Indeed, even with physics, there is the view that certain pursuits are futile in that they are not falsifiable. If physicists were as loose with science as biologists, we’d have gravitational theories like “objects with mass attract.” To what extent, who cares, it is a scientific fact, and not a conspiracy theory.

::In any event, the soapbox on gravity is a theory, evolution is a theory, etc., is just that, a soapbox intended to slay an easily slayed straw man.

::I still think reference to whatever position Mendal held at the time the picture was taken is encyclopedic vis-à-vis the science/religion controversies and their affects on the coloring of these articles. So do a non negligible number of authors who have written on the subject of science in the 1800s.

[[User:170.215.15.99|170.215.15.99]] 06:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Sigh, now you're editing "Abbott"--an incorrect spelling, an incorrect capitalization, and just plain incorrect when referring to his work on plants--in front of his name in other articles. You seem to have no respect for any of the policies of Wikipedia, in particular [[WP:SOCK]] and [[WP:POINT]]. [[User:N6|N6]] 06:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, another red herring, or should I say orange marlin. Talk about sock puppetry. Also, please do correct any contribution in which I misspelled abbot. Regarding capitalization, I've always thought that a title was capitalized, most especially if it is the first word in a caption.[[User:170.215.15.99|170.215.15.99]] 06:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Vacous Poet

I've sidestepped your points only in that you made them after they had already been addressed--and numerous times on this very page when it comes to your general ranting about an anti-God crusade. If you suspect me of being a sockpuppet, by all means open a case.

In general, don't expect anyone to take you seriously until you stop brazenly flouting Wikipedia policy. [[User:N6|N6]] 07:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls, he's a banned user. Revert vandalism appropriately. [[User:Titanium Dragon|Titanium Dragon]] 11:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, while he's blocked and in clear violation of any number of policies, I wouldn't call most of his edits vandalism. Apart from the obvious violations of [[WP:POINT]] I don't see true bad faith in all his edits. [[WP:BAN]] supports categorically reverting edits by banned users, but [[WP:BLOCK]] and [[WP:SOCK]] don't seem to support similar action against suspected sockpuppets of merely-blocked users (VacuousPoet is not actually [[WP:BAN|banned]]). I'm personally inclined to treat such edits as part of relevant content disputes until we see a decision on [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet|the sockpuppeting case]].

On the other hand, if you want to categorically revert his edits, I'm not going to stop you, and I doubt a 3RR case brought against you would succeed. However, given his past behavior, this is likely to lead to endless edit warring. [[User:N6|N6]] 11:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

:Very few people are pure trolls, but people do troll and I'd categorize his behavior here as trolling. Just because you make a few good faith edits doesn't make you not a troll or a vandal, just as an established user vandalizing a random page rarely doesn't make them a vandal. The main issue is that he is being disruptive and it is obvious to everyone that he just isn't going to "get his way", and he continually posts just to incite responses, or make edits which get a rise out of people. He does sometimes do constructive things, but he's been banned and has no respect for the rules of Wikipedia. If he had just sat and cooled his heels until he got unbanned, we'd not be having this discussion, but his utter disregard for the rules and general disruptiveness make him a troll. [[User:Titanium Dragon|Titanium Dragon]] 12:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I should not even answer this, but there is no anti-God conspiracy here. I think that it is just a matter of taste as to whether to include "monk" or "Abbot" or not. I learned him as "Gregor Mendel the monk" so I feel comfortable with that. Others did not. I bow to whatever is standard usage in biology. For the purposes of shoving their ludicrous attitudes in the face of creationists, I am glad to demonstrate that evolution is not antiGod by the fact that Darwin was a trained minister, and the author of the Big Bang George Lemaitre was a Belgian preist. So how can these two scientific theories be anti-religious or anti-biblical or anti-god? They are not. And creationist denial of these two theories of science on that basis is unfounded, willfully ignorant and aggresively stupid. I think that Mendel is so well known that there is little reason to put his profession in his title, as is true of Darwin. The philosophers are less well known, so a title is more appropriate. The nonsense above about fact and theory and gravity are just that; pure nonsense. I do not think there is any value to going over it again; there never is.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

==Artificial selection section==

It is an odd distinction to say we humans artificially select. I remember a Praexis test exam a few years ago was about hybrid corn and the question asked was it Darwinian evolution. The answer was no because it is artificial selection and not natural selection. I understand, but it struck me as odd. Are we humans not natural? Are we distinct from the other animals such that our interactions with nature and effect on evolution is deemed artificial? Not only did we domesticate plants and animals and mold their evolution but it also altered our evolution. Much like hummingbirds and orchid evolution in they both impact each other. Behavioral choices play a huge role in evolution nor do we fully understand why animals often make choices. It seems we still see ourselves as the apex of evolution and outside other animals. Maybe biodesign is a better word choice. Just a weird thought.[[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 03:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

:Have a look at T.H.Huxley's Evolution and Ethics Prologomena. Probably the best treatment of that, evolution of ethics, Social Darwinism, and human society as part of the natural world I know of. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 06:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

:Not a weird thought at all. Much of human thought, language, religion, morality, and choices is based on thinking of humans as different in essence from most of the rest of the world. In our lifetime we will create our intellectual successor and find kinship with our pets. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 06:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

::I don't think it is an odd distinction at all. Part of the issue that GetAgrippa has is to do with a misconceived paradox. The paradox runs:

::''I am human. I make a change. This is an artificial change. I am natural (part of nature). The change I made is natural. Natural = artificial. There is a paradox.''

::You should be able to see the trap there because it is linguistic. Artificial is a term we use to describe something created by humans. Artificial selection in this context is very useful because it describes humans consciously selecting traits. This is quite different to the concept of selection pressure working blindly in nature. With artificial selection the the selection pressure becomes much stronger and genetic drift becomes genetic push (pardon the use of genetic push I don't know if there is a term for this so I just made this up).

::Artificial selection is a special case of natural selection. It's nothing really to do with being elitist as a species it's just that one species (human) has an enormous influence on selection pressure for species it chooses. In the case that artificial = unnatural then its seems to be mostly valid and a fair term to use.

::I considered putting it in the intro for a moment but as it is a special case and there are many special cases it doesn't help the reader identify and become involved with the process. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 17:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

:::In theory, it doesn't -just- refer to humans; it refers to anything making conscious decisions about selecting a group for traits. So aliens could practice artificial selection as well. [[User:Titanium Dragon|Titanium Dragon]] 01:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

::In practice (that is by biological definition and common definition) it means created by humans. Even hypothetical aliens wouldn't count. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 12:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My point was the Praexis test question states that artificial selection is not natural selection nor Darwinian evolution. I think it is a capricious distinction and it is still natural selection. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 23:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to say that it was not natural selection but is part of Darwinian evolution. Darwin used artificial selection as both evidence and a justification for his theory of modified descent. The argument would be that because humans can do it so can natural selective forces. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 12:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Animals make behavioral choices that can select upon traits (like sexual selection birds plummage and lion's mane). The trait gains reproductive success in the population because of the choice. Is a lion choosing a dark maned mate artificial selection? I understand the distinction but biodesign seems more appropriate nowadays anyway.[[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 14:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

::Traits control behaviour. Unfit behaviour will eventually lead to the genes being eliminated from the gene pool. I'm not sure what selection of a dark maned mate means in this case though. Can you explain more please? [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 20:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I was referring to lion research on why females choose dark maned males. I believe that generally the darker manes is associated with maturity and good health, but it comes with a cost for the male lions of inefficient heat loss. I think game theory is now being applied. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:Um. Maybe the hybrid corn isn't Darwinian evolution as it's changed through hybridisation rather than variation and selection, whether natural or artificial? Another thought: does ''Darwinian evolution'' refer to his ideas or to the modern synthesis? ;) .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 15:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the Darwinian evolution specific is a good point. Variation is variation. Hybridization in wild sunflower or snapdragon populations is still evolution by natural selection (it is heritable genetic variation that results in fitness differences and speciation). [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:I'd like to chime in and agree with GetAgrippa here: selection pressure is inextricable from behavioral choice by members of a huge swath of the animal kingdom. Humans may be the only organism known to exert selection pressure for the explicit purpose of encouraging favorable genetic traits, but don't feel that this justifies a strict dicotomy between natural and artificial selection. Human brains arose from nature, and human minds are subject to natural influences from their bodies and genes as well as from the natural environment. It is entirely reasonable to define ''artificial selection'' as it has been defined, but I think it is a proper subset of ''natural selection''. [[User:N6|N6]] 19:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

::Or, I believe, both are subsets of selection. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 20:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

<br /><br />

Artificial selection is not natural selection.<br />

Artificial selection has humans making conscious decisions about which traits are selected for or against, and which particular members of a population will mate, in order to hit a target phenotype. So:<br />

1) In artificial selection, the traits we humans choose to select for are not necessarily beneficial to the species: for example, in dog breeding we have retained some traits that make the breed ''less fit'' over time. Thus we ''override'' natural selection.<br />

2) In artificial selection, we humans ''override'' sexual selection because we ''force'' certain members to mate. If we want male X to mate with female Y, it doesn't matter if X finds Y completely repulsive: ''we'' make the decision and they have no say .<br />

3) Artificial selection is ''teleological'' ... it is goal based and looks to the future with a plan. ''Current'' decisions are based on the ''future'', with the goal of trying to hit a particular target phenotype.

<br />

Darwin used artificial selection as an ''analogy'' to natural selection. His logic was something like, "Look everyone, you can see that humans have selectively bred dogs into various different breeds, and I believe that an analogous process occurs in nature, where the conditions organisms find themselves in perform the selecting by retaining individual differences that are beneficial to the organisms' survival and reproduction, and eliminating those that are not".<br />

As far as the "humans do the selecting, humans are part of nature, therefore, artificial selection is natural selection" logic, then isn't everthing natural? Is a car natural? Well, it's produced by humans, so it's natural?!?!?! If everything is natural, then the word is superfluous and meaningless. --[[User:DNAunion|DNAunion]] 00:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:"Natural selection" is an idiomatic phrase. You cannot break it down into "natural" and "selection", define those two terms, and then compound the definitions into a definition for the whole phrase. If natural selection is presumed to encompass artificial selection, this does not bear on the definition of the word "natural". This portion of your argument is entirely rhetorical and has no real merit.

:1) They are certainly beneficial to the species, because offspring exhibiting desired traits are more likely to breed. Wolves are not fit to live with humans, but this does not mean that wolves are "less fit" than dogs. Similarly, the fact that dogs are not fit to live in the wild does not make them "less fit" than wolves. Dogs and wolves live in different environments and subsequently have different requirements for fitness.

::Not certain this was a good analogy. It seems to confuse natural and artificial selection. Domesticated animals will also become feral (eg Dingo to keep on the same theme) which then are subject to natural selection. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 15:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:::It doesn't confuse anything; I'm making an argument that artificial selection is a subset of natural selection. I'm only "confused" if you assume ''a priori'' that this is false, which is a kind of silly thing to do considering that's the subject of the argument. ;) [[User:N6|N6]] 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:2) Is voluntary sexual selection required for natural selection?

::Use of the world volunatry inplies "free will" and should be kept out of arguments. Natural selection certainly includes sexual selection. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 15:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Of course natural selection includes sexual selection. The question was whether the absence of sexual selection means, in and of itself, that natural selection is not taking place. [[User:N6|N6]] 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:3) Again, does this contradict the principles of natural selection? That there may exist a long-term plan is not meaningful: there must also be a short-term plan used to exert the same short-term selection pressure seen in any other arena.

:It's possible that the accepted definitions of these two terms really are mutually exclusive, but if so I think this represents a flaw in scientific thinking, an artificial distinction (if you will) between selection pressure exerted by humans and selection pressure exerted by anything but humans. I'd be interested to see published references that make it clear that the two are considered separate.

::It's not a flaw in scientific thinking. It's a descriptor of a process where selection is artificial (created by humans). It's really very clear (honest).[[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 15:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Well, I'm disputing that this is the case. You're begging the question. [[User:N6|N6]] 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:As a final illustration, if artificial and natural selection are indeed disjoint, then to which class does antibiotic resistance in bacteria belong? It meets every possible criterion for artificial selection except that it is only an ''unintended side-effect'' of artificial selection pressure. Is this dividing line really to hinge on the state of mind of those agents making the selection?

::It belongs to natural selection. That's very clear again. Artificial selection is purposeful. Natural selection is not. Humans didn't try to create antibiotic resistance. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 15:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:::If the definition of artificial selection requires us to know the intent of the agents of selection, it's pretty much intractable. It's ''possible'' that some members of the medical community could have acted deliberately to encourage antibiotic resistance, but there is no way for us to know this. (I'm not alleging conspiracy, just pointing out that it is possible. Other examples doubtlessly exist that require less ridiculous "what if"s.) A cogent definition ought to make clear statements based on observable fact without reference to fuzzy and unknowable factors like intent. You don't want to make reference to free will in regards to sexual selection, but making free will an integral part of the definition of artificial selection is fine?

:::If artificial selection and natural selection are mutually exclusive, then the definition of natural selection hinges on the definition of artificial selection. This, too, is troublesome. What is natural selection? "Selection based on environmental pressures, provided those pressures are not exerted by humans, except when humans exert those pressures inadvertently (or on purpose but not with the intention of selecting for the selected traits)"? Perhaps this is really the consensus of the scientific community, but it seems a much more useful definition would be "selection based on environmental pressures". [[User:N6|N6]] 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:--[[User:N6|N6]] 01:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow lots of excellent discussion over a trivial thought. I understand that the domestication of plants initially selected on plants that retained their fruit and didn't sporadically disperse as usual. The longer the fruit sets the easier to harvest. I would presume that humans stumbled onto it more so than any planned selection and alterations as nowadays. I would suspect that the domestication of wolves into dogs was similar. We selected natural traits from wild type to generate the domesticate through time. This success is cooperative as we maintain the lines of plants and animals and we reap the benefits. Some ants farm specific fungi, so they have domesticated a wild type fungus to some degree. The wild type is successful in nature, but the domesticated is also successful. Fitness is the capability of certain genotypes to reproduce so the fact that humans propagate and are responsible for the fitness should not disqualify it. I think the domestication of most plants and animals has been via artificial-natural selection, but nowadays we have ventured into the realm of biodesign and are adding or creating traits into organisms. Roundup resistant cotton, lysine corn, etc. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 01:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

::However, genetic engineering is not the same as selection. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 15:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

::Having posted that I thought about it. Maybe I was too hasty. Genetic engineering could be modification of artificial selection or a third category such as Engineered Selection. However, I think that this would be a discussion outside Wikipedia. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 18:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

== Variation ==

I'm now on the variation section 1st para. I quite like the way this has been written. Some nice editing and thought has gone on here to get a pithy explanation. The changes I am porosoing and need some input on are:

1. Removing the word "new" in "new mutation". I dislike it because mutation implies a change therefore by implication it's new (to that genome). Also, it implies that a mutational change is one that has not occurred before (in any organism or population) which is most unlikely.

2. removing "at that site". The alleles will be at the same locus by definition (unless I've missed something!).

If both were removed this would reduce the paragraph by 4 words and I could then sleep well tonight 8)

[[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 17:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

:I'd be happy with that, but would like to see a quick explanation of mutations before removing new: since it's not been described much at that point, we can't presume things are too obvious. It needn't be in that section, of course. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 03:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean Adam. Although linked in the intro it isn't explained in the text at all briefly.

It does raise the issue also that mutation has its own section further down the page.

I'll think a little about this becasue there is a structural issue to the section - just noticing that the sub-heading "variation" would be better as ''causes of variation'' or sources of ''variation for instance''.

I'll do the "at the site" change - holding on the new (although to be truthful with or without it doesn't make any difference if mutation needs a bit of explanation).

Anyone else have a view? [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 06:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:Frankly, I suspect that the best thing we can do is simply set out a rule: Every term has to be explained at first occurence. It's probably the only way not to lose FA. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I (DNAunion) changed this sentence before but it has been changed back to:<br />

''Variation disappears when it reaches the point of fixation — when it either reaches a frequency of zero and disappears from the population, or reaches a frequency of one and replaces the ancestral allele entirely.''<br />

My understanding of fixation is that it is when an allele completely replaces the other, not when it is lost from a population. I propose the sentence be changed to:<br />

''Variation disappears when it reaches the point of fixation — when it reaches a frequency of one and replaces the ancestral allele entirely - or reaches a frequency of zero and is lost from the population.'' --[[User:DNAunion|DNAunion]] 22:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

==[[Gene]]s==

Can we get away with not defining the word Gene? [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The reader has to do some work. The article would be double the length and unreadable if every term was explained. We have to give the reader the fact they have some initiative. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

== Recent Reversion ==

An automated bot reversed [[User:Adam Cuerden]] recent changes to the article. Although I did not agree with them all, most of them looked pretty good in clearing up terminology and language. I didn't consider it vandalism. What happened? Here is the dif [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=98696592&oldid=98696506]] [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:It was a partial restore of a version from a week ago, with a few modifications. I suppose it thought I was edit warring or something, instead of just trying to get this past the FA review. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 19:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

::Actually, I think many of the current revisions have been hastily done. In cases - especially the into, the brevity and clarity is now replaced by an extended and weaker section. There are explanation in the introduction that do not need to be there. '''Not every term needs to be explained in an introduction'''. That is what the rest of the test is for. A simple link will do.

::Phrases like "Natural selection is a key part of this process" are fluff imho. It dopes not add to the understanding of the article.

::"Since some traits or collections of traits allow an organism to survive and produce more offspring than an organism lacking them, and genes are passed on by reproduction, those that increase survival and reproductive success are more likely to be passed on in comparison to those genes that do not." Overwordy and imprecise. The original was marvellous to read. This is imho not.

::This need reverting back or a clear explanation of why it was changed please.

::[[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the old one listed terms without explaining things. Saying that "Natural selection and genetic drift dare the mechanisms it works by" - or whatever it was - does nothing to enlighten anyone who doesn't know what they are. Particularly egregious with genetic drift, which isn't generally taught in basic biology classes.

As well, we can't presuppose any significant studying of biology, as encyclopedias are often used by 12-14 year olds working on homework. This means briefly explaining things, particularly in the introduction, which should be the simplest (as in easiest to understand to the uneducated in biology, not necessarily as in short) and clearest statement of the point possible. Since we can't even presume High-school/A-level biology, we need to define terms as we go, as much as possible. As it is, I was wondering if "genetic code" was too much to leave unexplained. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 08:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't designed for 12-14 year olds. There is a junior version for that Adam. With respect to readership I still maintain that clarity and brevity always win out on constant explanation. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 15:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:Well, perhaps I claimed a bit too much, but, still, I'm not entirely convinced the study of biology is as widespread as it should be, and I, at least, think the lead benefits from being as accessible as possible, as, the way it is now or so, even if the rest is too advanced, the lead is welcoming, and possibly even gives enough information that the rest of the article can be understood. I suppose we could put up a request for comment or something, and ask if the lead over-explains, or if it's thought useful. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 22:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:: I'm with Adam, a wikipedia article is a document meant for the public: the opening should be clear, concise, set the stage and use a vocabulary that even a 12 year old could understand. Anything else is alienating and perhaps even pretentious. If there are terms in the introduction that need explaining, that's a signal that you are trying to do too much with it. Wikipedia may not be designed for 12-14 year olds, but it is designed for people who know nothing about the subject at hand. Same result, really, as far as the intro goes.[[User:Trishm|Trishm]] 03:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

==Revision==

Since it has its own article, I've tried to trim History of evolutionary thought to a minimum. It probably needs a little more work, but I think this is a start:

== History of evolutionary thought ==

{{main|History of evolutionary thought}}

[[Image:Mendel.png|thumb|right|[[Gregor Mendel]]'s work on the [[Mendelian inheritance|inheritance]] of traits in pea plants laid the foundation for [[genetics]].]]

[[Image:Charles Darwin aged 51 crop.jpg |thumb|left|[[Charles Darwin]] at age 51, just after publishing ''[[The Origin of Species]]''.]]

''[[The Origin of Species|On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection]]'' by [[Charles Darwin]] provided the first convincing exposition<ref name="a">In the years after Darwin's publication and fame, numerous "predecessors" to natural selection were discovered, such as [[William Charles Wells]] and [[Patrick Matthew]], who had published unelaborated and undeveloped versions of similar theories earlier to little or no attention. Historians acknowledge that Darwin was the first to develop the theory rigorously and developed it independently. On Matthew, one historian of evolution has written that he "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 Darwinism. 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."</ref> of a mechanism by which evolutionary change could occur: [[natural selection]]. However, while he was able to observe variation, infer natural selection and thereby adaptation, he did not know the basis of heritability. He could not explain ''how'' organisms might change over generations. It also seemed that when two individuals were crossed, their traits must be ''blended'' in the progeny, so that eventually all variation would be lost.

The blending problem was solved when the population geneticists [[Ronald Fisher|R.A. Fisher]], [[Sewall Wright]], and [[J. B. S. Haldane]], married Darwinian evolutionary theory to [[population genetics]], based on work by [[Gregor Mendel]] which revealed that certain traits in [[pea]]s occurred in discrete forms (that is, they were either one distinct trait or another, such as "round" or "wrinkled") and were [[Mendelian inheritance|inherited]] in a well-defined and predictable manner.<ref name="mendelianrevolution">{{cite book | last = Bowler | first = Peter J. | authorlink = Peter J. Bowler | year = 1989 | title = The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society | publisher = John Hopkins University Press | ___location = Baltimore}}</ref>

The problem of what the mechanisms might be was solved in principle with the identification of DNA as the genetic material by [[Oswald Avery]] and colleagues, and the articulation of the double-helical structure of DNA by [[James Watson]] and [[Francis Crick]] provided a physical basis for the notion that genes were [[genetic code|encoded]] in DNA.

Or what about

----

== History of the modern synthesis of evolutionary thought ==

{{main|History of evolutionary thought}}

[[Image:Mendel.png|thumb|right|[[Gregor Mendel]]'s work on the [[Mendelian inheritance|inheritance]] of traits in pea plants laid the foundation for [[genetics]].]]

[[Image:Charles Darwin aged 51 crop.jpg |thumb|left|[[Charles Darwin]] at age 51, just after publishing ''[[The Origin of Species]]''.]]

Evolution is a concept that is recorded by the the [[Ancient Greeks]] and Romans. However it was not until the publication of scientific papers by Darwin and Wallace that the scientific community had a robust explanation of the mechanism of evolution. Shortly after, the publication of

''[[The Origin of Species|On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection]]'' by [[Charles Darwin]] provided the first explanation to the general public.<ref name="a">

However, Darwin had no mechanism for inheritance which was later revealed by [Gregor Mendel]]. Mendel revealed that certain traits in [[pea]]s occurred in discrete forms (that is, they were either one distinct trait or another, such as "round" or "wrinkled") and were [[Mendelian inheritance|inherited]] in a well-defined and predictable manner.<ref name="mendelianrevolution">{{cite book | last = Bowler | first = Peter J. | authorlink = Peter J. Bowler | year = 1989 | title = The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society | publisher = John Hopkins University Press | ___location = Baltimore}}</ref>

Later, the identification of DNA as the genetic material by [[Oswald Avery]] and colleagues, and the articulation of the double-helical structure of DNA by [[James Watson]] and [[Francis Crick]] provided a physical basis for the notion that genes were [[genetic code|encoded]] in DNA.

:::I saw a lot of what was written as insignificant to the topic. The reader is directed to a more detailed article. As I am pushed for time I am not adding a few bits of the puzzle that are missing (particularly post Crick and Watson) but this is my suggestion for brevity. It needs some refining but there ya have it ... bare bones [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:Excellent. Suggest one more sentence, along the lines of "Evolution theory has continued to develop and be revised as new information is found." Also shrink the Darwin pic a bit. Just a first thought, must cook my tea now, .[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Is that because Darwin has a big head? 8) [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 01:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I like yours far better, with Dave's addition. It's short and to the point. Add it in! [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll stick it in as a working model for now. I'm sure it can be improved though. Both suggestions taken on - picture size and "continues to develop". Why am I tempted to add the line "Must cook my tea now." 8=)

What is nice about this is it mentions that the concept is old but we can dispense with (for this article) irrelevances like Lamarckism and Erasmus Darwin. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 15:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:Always inclined to tweak and expand, here's a rather more wikified option. I've flipped the Chas. Darwin photie and modified the caption to show how long he'd been working on it, with a link to the reaction article. The Modern evolutionary synthesis wasn't linked, so I've worked that into the second para. Thoughts? ... [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 16:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

===History of evolutionary thought up to the modern synthesis ===

{{main|History of evolutionary thought}}

[[Image:Mendel.png|thumb|right|[[Gregor Mendel]]'s work on the [[Mendelian inheritance|inheritance]] of traits in pea plants laid the foundation for [[genetics]].]]

[[Image:Charles Darwin aged 51 cropr.jpg|thumb|150px|left|When [[Charles Darwin]] reached 51 his [[Reaction to Darwin's theory|theory was fully public]] after 21 years of work.]]

Evolution as a concept was put forward by the the [[Ancient Greeks]] and [[Ancient Romans|Romans]]. However it was not until the publication of [[On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection|scientific papers by Darwin and]] [[Alfred Russel Wallace|Wallace]] that the scientific community had a robust explanation of the mechanism of evolution. Shortly after, the publication of

''[[The Origin of Species|On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection]]'' by [[Charles Darwin]] provided the first explanation to the general public.<ref name="a"/>

However, the mechanism for inheritance was only revealed when [[Gregor Mendel]]'s work was integrated into the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]]. Mendel revealed that certain traits in [[pea]]s occurred in discrete forms (that is, they were either one distinct trait or another, such as "round" or "wrinkled") and were [[Mendelian inheritance|inherited]] in a well-defined and predictable manner.<ref name="mendelianrevolution">{{cite book | last = Bowler | first = Peter J. | authorlink = Peter J. Bowler | year = 1989 | title = The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society | publisher = John Hopkins University Press | ___location = Baltimore}}</ref>

Later, the identification of DNA as the genetic material by [[Oswald Avery]] and colleagues, and the articulation of the double-helical structure of DNA by [[James Watson]] and [[Francis Crick]] provided a physical basis for the notion that genes were [[genetic code|encoded]] in DNA.

Evolutionary theory continues to develop and be modified in light of new scientific discoveries.

::OK. seems a much better caption. Why is the image reversed. Isn't that a bit naughty? Anyway changing the main page. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 18:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:::The reversing point came up at [[Talk:Charles Darwin#Picture]] where [[User:LiquidGhoul|LiquidGhoul]] was positive it's ok with [[Public ___domain]] images – that article says "A creative work is said to be in the public ___domain if there are no laws which restrict its use by the public at large." and having had a look through image policy etc I've not found any restrictions. p.s. don't you like my revised text? There are quite a few wee changes: Evolution is a concept that is recorded by the the [[Ancient Greeks]] and Romans." becomes "Evolution as a concept was put forward by the the [[Ancient Greeks]] and [[Ancient Romans|Romans]].", the scientific papers and Wallace are linked accordingly, and "However, Darwin had no mechanism for inheritance which was later revealed by [[Gregor Mendel]]." becomes "However, the mechanism for inheritance was only revealed when [[Gregor Mendel]]'s work was integrated into the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]]." (Also I tried rewording the caption but am less convinced by that) Well, I thought it was pretty cunning.. sob.. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 19:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

{{{result|The result of the debate was}}} '''NO CONSENSUS''' to move article, per discussion below. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]^{([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])} 07:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

== Proposed move ==

[[Evolution]] to [[biological evolution]]. There are many other kinds of evolution. [[User:4.235.129.150|4.235.129.150]] 19:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''':Almost every search for it, howvere, will be looking for biological evolution. That's why we link a disambiguation page. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic]]. [[User:N6|N6]] 20:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''':Per Adam. [[User:Darkliight|darkliight]]^{[[User_talk:Darkliight|[&pi;alk]]]} 20:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''':per Adam. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 20:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''': Evolution, to almost everyone, means biological evolution. And why could the user who proposed this move spend the 2 minutes to become a registered user? [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Because [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] I suspect they want to p155 us off and waste our time. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 21:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

::::A great man once told me to '''always''' examine what's behind an idea. I hate to sound like a suspicious old man, but I'm not old, so I'm guessing that there is an ulterior motive to this proposal, and it's not to get us angry. Just look at the user's contributions. Just this proposal. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 06:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

* '''Support'''. What about the evolution of the Solar System, the evolution of concepts etc. Those are also evolution, but they're not biological evolution. [[User:Voortle|Voortle]] 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:This is why there is a disambiguation page linked at the top of the article. [[User:N6|N6]] 20:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

*'''Oppose''': as per N6, biological evolution is the primary topic. All other topics might want to use titles such as [[Evolution (sociology)]] to differentiate. Predominance to the term should be given to biological evolution.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] 21:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''': at the risk of repeating what is above, [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] states it perfectly. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 21:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''oppose''' 99% of people would look for evolution from the biological perspective at [[Evolution]] not [[Biological evolution]]. The is common practice in wikipedia to have the dominant use of the term as the article and not the disambig page. Not to mention all the redirects and pipelinks that would have to be fixed. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' This is one of the ideas with the least merit I have encountered. When someone says evolution, the vast majority of people assume biological evolution. Other kinds of evolution are on the disambiguation, which is as it should be. I could give a huge long set of reasons about why this is a very bad idea, but what is the point? --[[User:Filll|Filll]] 04:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' As per Adam --[[User:Roland Deschain|Roland Deschain]] 05:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' per Adam and David D. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]^{[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]} 05:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' As per Adam --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 06:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' for obvious reasons; someone uninvolved should [[WP:SNOW]] this waste of time. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] 06:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' Clearly matches [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic]] so as long as we have disambiguation link at top and then link back on disambiguation page to "Evolution (Biological)" or something we are fine. [[User:Ttiotsw|Ttiotsw]] 08:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''; biological evolution should be (and probably is) a redirect to here, not vice-versa, because this is what "evolution" most often means. [[User:Titanium Dragon|Titanium Dragon]] 15:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Support''', for what it's worth. From a purely logical point of view, it would make sense for the text currently at [[Evolution (term)]] to be the primary "Evolution" article, and for this article to have a name that reflects its content. And, considering the prominence that Wikipedia gives to Certain Topics, I wouldn't be surprised to find that a large number of people who come here are really looking for [[Evolution (Pokémon)]]. However, I can't really say that I have very strong feelings about this particular issue, and won't attempt to stave off the inevitable any further. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] 02:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

::Well that might be logical, but we are also trying to minimize keystrokes for a user of wikipedia. And believe me, most users will think biolological evolution when they think evolution and vice versa.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 03:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. Evolution, unless there's context to the contrary, means evolution in biology, and "biological evolution" isn't a common term for it. This article is about a concept and not a word. [[User:Robin Johnson|Robin Johnson]] [[User_talk:Robin Johnson|(talk)]] 07:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' That only makes sense when we create confusion with articles on Evolution of the Airplane, Evolution of Religion, etc. [[User:CMacMillan|CMacMillan]] 02:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' the biological use is far more common, and we do have a disambiguation page '''<font color="#FF0000 ">[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut]] [[User talk:Hut 8.5|8.5]]</font>''' 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' This nomination is invalid anyway because it's clearly controversial. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 21:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->

==What is evolution?==

N6 stated that the edit I made to the effect that evolution is not purely biological is contentious. What is contentious about it? The term is well used in a number of fields which are not biological. In fact, I plan to write an article on evolution (not just a disambiguation page, but evolution itself - the mathematical model/systems process which is behind "Evolution as a theory for the Origin of the Species") and there is a conflict because ''this'' article is mislabelled. What am I suppossed to call the other article? (Beside the point but, in case you're wondering, as a guy pursuing a Master's degree in a systems related field, I plan on doing a lot of work on the various systems topics - evolution just happens to be one of them.)-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 19:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:I think he meant - and I agree if this is right - that adding in rather long disambiguation statements muddles the issue a lot, and doesn't actually add much more than the disambiguation link at the top of the page. The article's confusing enough for new readers - I don't think it helps much to add, if you'll forgive the opinion, somewhat pedantic disambiguation statements into the lead. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 19:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

::"somewhat pedantic disambiguation statements" While I understand that it might seem like a merely pedantic statement, there really is a significant distinction to be made.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:What is contentious is that you are adding unnecessary words that muddle the introduction. The otheruses template is there for exactly the same reason. This is an article on biological evolution and beyond mentioning that fact at the top of the page, it has no responsibility to discuss any other uses of the word "evolution".

:To the layperson, "evolution" means biological evolution; it is entirely appropriate that this article be named the way it is. Nothing is mislabeled. Numerous articles on Wikipedia use potentially ambiguous page names to describe the most common usage, providing an otheruses template with a link to a disambiguation page.

:I'm sure you can come up with a different name for your article. "Evolutionary modeling" and "Evolution (systems theory)" are two possibilities.

:--[[User:N6|N6]] 20:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

::We agree that the article is about ''biological evolution'' rather than just evolution. Consequently, it should be called ''biological evolution''. Incidentally, if it were called ''biological evolution'', we could create a seperate article called ''evolution'' which actually focused on ''evolution''. While I agree with you that the layperson uses ''evolution'' incorrectly, the purpose of Wikipedia is to educate, not to perpetuate ignorance.

This article is mislabelled.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 20:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be grossly inappropriate to move an article on a thing, of interest to a great many people (I believe Evolution consistantly ranks in the top 100 pages viewed) almost universally referred to as plain evolution (not biological evolution) out of that name, and replace it in that spot with an article that is, frankly, rather esoteric and far from the public view. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 20:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychohistorian: Please see [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic]]. This is a textbook example. [[User:N6|N6]] 20:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:I retract my objection. While I still think my point is right, I have to agree that whether or not my point is right, it's still constrained by policy.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 20:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

::If you disagree with the guidelines in [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation]], I'd encourage you to discuss your objections on that article's talk page =) [[User:N6|N6]] 20:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I can't think of a single field of study where the word "evolution" out of context leads to the exact understanding of what is meant except in biology. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

== Proposal to merge misunderstandings section ==

Hey folks. After reading over the [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Evolution|FAR]] nom, the articles length was one of issues brought up and I have to say I agree. I thought it might be worth discussing merging the majority of the misunderstandings section to another article, as opposed to cutting valuable info on evolution itself.

Obviously some mention of the misunderstandings should be left on the Evolution page, but ultimately I think it should be properly dealt with at length elsewhere, with a ''Main page'' link or some such given at the beginning of the section.

We have the [[Creation-evolution controversy]] article at our disposal, and since the controversy article exists to cover any notable controversy, and reasons for it, I think it stands to reason that the misunderstandings section really belongs there as one of those reasons anyway. In this case a lot of the material is already (necessarily) covered there, so the merge wouldn't be that drastic.

Finally, it seems a waste to give as much space to misunderstandings of the concept as to the basic processes of the concept.

Anyway, just a thought since something needs to be done anyway. Cheers, [[User:Darkliight|darkliight]]^{[[User_talk:Darkliight|[&pi;alk]]]} 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

::I said something about this on my talk page recently, "There is no room for creationism imho in a biological article about evolution except to '''link''' to creationism as an alternative explanation to evolution or (depending on the scope of the article), '''link''' to any ID or link to historical perspectives (eg Scope's Trial or abuse of Darwin by the media of the day) etc under the '''umbrella that this is relevent to a reader under the context of science in society.'''

::So, I would go along with spinning it off. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that spinning off most of this section would be a good way to trim down the article. I'm not sure whether [[Creation-evolution controversy]] is the place to put it, though. In practice, those who hold such misunderstandings are almost universally creationists, but the misunderstandings themselves aren't necessarily relevant to creationism.

Of course, there is already discussion of this type in that article, so perhaps my small objection is moot. [[User:N6|N6]] 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

::We have to remember that the article doesn't need to be smaller. It is a fundamental topic in the life sciences and if it is bigger than expected that is appropriate. Proof-reading and diligent editing can remove perhaps 5% of the wording and improve clarity. Hack and slay can remove substantially more (that is remove fluff which is added which need not be there). I think the controversies are fluff for this article. Links out need to be made. (Sorry for repeating myself.) [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 01:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

<s>I'm ambivilent about it: It's a useful section, I think, but we can probably work some of it in to other sections more easily. That said, Creation-evolution controversy is heavy on talk about creationist claims, and very low on debunking of them, so it might make a useful addition there. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 04:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)</s>

Had another look and changed my mind. Move it to [[Creation-evolution controversy]] to remove some of the bias against evolution there. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 04:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that moving misunderstood material to the other page makes sense. [[User:Trishm|Trishm]] 09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:There are misunderstandings beyond the Creationist controversy, so a brief summary here is fully appropriate, and should not be part of the ''Social and religious controversies'' section. Moving it to the "controversy" page sounds good in terms of addressing the balance, and most if not all of the misunderstandings are propagated by creationists, but a new article linked as main from both articles might avoid problems with non-creationist misunderstandings. Anyway, a handy resource I've just come across is [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution] which is probably worthwhile as an external link. .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 11:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

::Yes. It is important to remember, as Dave points out, that although they have a high vocal presence on en.Wikipedia (NB it doesn't occur on the German pages) creationists are really a very minor issue. There are other more important misconceptions. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 18:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:I have often wondered here if it might not be best to have a couple of paragraphs saying a controversy exists with a link or two. Look at what we did on [[Introduction to evolution]]. I would like to eventually propose a much better version of the controversy article and subarticles so that information would be more easily found on this topic. I would rather this article be mainly preserved for the science. Just MHO.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 15:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the controversy should be linked. A couple of paragraphs is too little to do it justice and too much for a brief mention. A sentence or two at most. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 18:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

== Distinctions between theory and fact ==

Could somebody explain why (see diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=98696592&oldid=98696506] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=98697086&oldid=98696592]), verifiable, citable material was removed, and the rest of the uncited material in the section was kept? Even the bot recognized this as vandelism.

:For example, [[Ronald Reagan]] quipped during the 1980 presidential campaign, "Well, [evolution] is a theory--it is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it was once believed."<ref = Science_Friction><{{cite web | last = Thompson | first = Nicholas | title = Science Friction: The growing--and dangerous--divide between scientists and the GOP | url=http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.thompson.html | accessdate = 2006-12-31 }}</ref><ref = EVOLUTION_THEORY_COMMENTARY><{{cite web | last = Flank | first = Lenny | title = IS EVOLUTION "JUST A THEORY"? | url=http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/theory.htm | accessdate = 2006-12-31 }}</ref>

5 January 2007 (UTC) [[User:YouNeedASmackBot]]

::I don't think what Reagan said is particularly notable anyway; beyond being senile at the time, honestly, he's just not that big a figure in the field. Maybe its worth noting, maybe not. [[User:Titanium Dragon|Titanium Dragon]] 10:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I plan to introduce an abbreviated Reagan quote in the rewritten main [[Evolution as a theory and fact]] article. We just don't have the room for it here, however.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 10:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the rest of [[Evolution as theory and fact]] that you lifted it from?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:My mistake. It is on my rough draft of my rewrite of that article. So do not get too upset. Just give it a rest. --[[User:Filll|Filll]] 04:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:Nothing about [[Ronald Reagan]]'s observation at [[Evolution as theory and fact]]. Strange that new users who have not previously contributed to this article are allowed to come in and vandelize. 22:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) [[User:YouNeedASmackBot]]

I would presume this was removed because it's an unjustified and misleading statement by a nonscientist. Ironically, the citation provided uses the quote as an example of something Reagan said that is completely out of sync with the reality in the scientific community. It has no more place here than any other misleading quip from any other famous person. [[User:N6|N6]] 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:Seems to be the perfect quote in a section that is attempting to debunk misunderstandings of "nonscientists", then. 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC) [[User:YouNeedASmackBot]]

Oh, I see, block-evading champion {{user|VacuousPoet}} is back again. Other editors are discouraged from [[WP:DFTT|feeding this troll]]. [[User:N6|N6]] 23:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:User N6 is a sockpuppet suspect. [[Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/N6]] 23:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC) [[User:YouNeedASmackBot|YouNeedASmackBot]]

::Oh give me a break. Do you note anything on our pages? But I am adding you to the VacuousPoet list of suspects.[[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 01:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

== Lead ==

I have restored the lead to a version of a week ago, since in that week, it's been reverted to one from October, and, as stated on the FA review now ongoing, that version was a violation of WP:LEAD, and was sufficient reason to lose FA. I've also added in a quick gloss of mutation, per discussion on "Variation" above. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 04:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:I have re-restored to a version from 3-days ago, having found the exact point where it was reverted to approximately October: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=next&oldid=98025085]. <s>I'm going to try and find the version reverted to, and point up this sneaky revert. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 04:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)</s>

::That was a little excessive. Rather, I should say "please label reverts back to a (modified?) previous version as such, when possible. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

==New fork==

Since misunderstandings and controversy are not directly relevant to the study of evolution but are more iterative, I have [[WP:FORK|content forked]] them to a new article. Please help improve [[misunderstandings about evolution]]. Especially needed are categories and external links/resources. Thanks, --[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] 16:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

''Although the [[modern synthesis]] is a major achievement of modern [[science]]'' -- this seems dubiously appropriate to me. I'm going to replace it with something a little more specific and NPOV. If anybody has a problem with that, don't hesitate to yell. [[User:N6|N6]] 20:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

::To be consistent with the standard answer as at [[#holocaust denial]] above, would'nt it be best to rename it ''Misunderstandings and controversies'' ? .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 23:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is some discussion of this at [[Talk:Misunderstandings about evolution]]--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 23:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

== Lead vote ==

Please vote for one of the two leads that keep getting switched between, as I don't want to edit war, and this seems a fair way to do it:

===Version 1===

'''Evolution''' is the process in which [[heritability|inherited]] [[trait (biology)|traits]] become more or less common in a [[population genetics|population]] over successive generations. Over time, this process can lead to [[speciation]], the development of new species from existing ones. All [[extant taxon|extant]] [[organism]]s are related by [[common descent]], having evolved over billions of years of cumulative genetic changes from a single ancestor.<ref name=Futuyma>{{cite book | last = Futuyma | first = Douglas J. | authorlink = Douglas J. Futuyma | year = 2005 | title = Evolution | publisher = Sinauer Associates, Inc|___location = [[Sunderland, Massachusetts|Sunderland]], [[Massachusetts]] | id = ISBN 0-87893-187-2}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last = Gould | first = Stephen J. | authorlink = Stephen Gould | year = 2002 | title = The Structure of Evolutionary Theory | publisher = Belknap Press | id = ISBN 0-674-00613-5}}</ref>

The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are [[natural selection]] and [[genetic drift]]; these two mechanisms act on the genetic variation caused by [[mutation]], [[genetic recombination]] and [[gene flow]]. Through genetic drift, the frequency of heritable traits changes randomly. Through natural selection, organisms with traits that help them to survive and reproduce will have more offspring, passing these beneficial traits on to the next generation. This leads to advantageous traits becoming more common in each generation, while disadvantageous traits become rarer.<ref name=Futuyma/><ref>{{cite journal | author = Lande, R. | coauthors = Arnold, S.J. | year = 1983 | title = The measurement of selection on correlated characters|journal = [[Evolution (journal)|Evolution]] | volume = 37 | pages = 1210&ndash;1226}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | author = Haldane, J.B.S. | year = 1953 | title = The measurement of natural selection | journal = Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Genetics | volume = 1 | pages = 480&ndash;487}}</ref> Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied [[adaptation]]s to changing environmental conditions.<ref name="understandingevolution">{{cite web | url = http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_14 | title = Mechanisms: the processes of evolution | accessdate = 2006-07-14 | work = Understanding Evolution | publisher = [[University of California, Berkeley]]}}</ref>

An outline of the theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the [[Linnean Society of London]] in 1858 in [[On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection|separate papers]] by [[Charles Darwin]] and [[Alfred Russel Wallace]]. Detailed support for the theory was then set out in Darwin’s 1859 book, ''[[The Origin of Species|On the Origin of Species]]''. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with the theory of [[Gregor Mendel|Mendelian]] [[heredity]] to form the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]], also known as "Neo-[[Darwinism]]". The modern synthesis describes evolution as a change in the frequency of different versions of genes, known as [[allele]]s, within a population from one generation to the next.<ref name="understandingevolution"/> With its enormous explanatory and [[predictive power]], this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of [[antibiotic resistance]] in bacteria, [[eusociality]] in insects, and the [[biodiversity]] of Earth's [[ecosystem]].<ref>{{cite news | first=PZ | last=Myers | authorlink=PZ Myers | title=Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution? | date=2006-06-18 | publisher=scienceblogs.com | url =http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php | work =Pharyngula | pages = | accessdate = 2006-11-18}}</ref><ref>[http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the [[United Kingdom|United Kingdom's]] [[Royal Society]] (PDF file)</ref><ref>From the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]], the world's largest general scientific society: [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] (PDF file), [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws]</ref>

===Version 2===

'''Evolution''' is the process in which some [[heritability|inherited]] traits in a population become more common relative to others through successive generations. This includes both pre-existing traits as well as new traits introduced by accidental changes or damage (collectively called "[[mutation]]s") to the [[genetic code]] that produces a trait. Over time, the processes of evolution can lead to [[speciation]]: the development of a new species from existing ones. All [[organisms]] are related by [[common descent]] as a result of speciation from a single ancestor. <ref name=Futuyma>{{cite book | last = Futuyma | first = Douglas J. | authorlink = Douglas J. Futuyma | year = 2005 | title = Evolution | publisher = Sinauer Associates, Inc|___location = [[Sunderland, Massachusetts|Sunderland]], [[Massachusetts]] | id = ISBN 0-87893-187-2}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last = Gould | first = Stephen J. | authorlink = Stephen Gould | year = 2002 | title = The Structure of Evolutionary Theory | publisher = Belknap Press | id = ISBN 0-674-00613-5}}</ref>

[[Natural selection]] is a key part of this process. Since some traits or collections of traits allow an organism to survive and produce more offspring than an organism lacking them, and genes are passed on by reproduction, those that increase survival and reproductive success are more likely to be passed on in comparison to those genes that do not. Therefore, the number of organisms with these traits will tend to increase with each passing generation.<ref name=Futuyma/><ref>{{cite journal | author = Lande, R. | coauthors = Arnold, S.J. | year = 1983 | title = The measurement of selection on correlated characters|journal = [[Evolution (journal)|Evolution]] | volume = 37 | pages = 1210&ndash;1226}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | author = Haldane, J.B.S. | year = 1953 | title = The measurement of natural selection | journal = Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Genetics | volume = 1 | pages = 480&ndash;487}}</ref> Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied [[adaptation]]s to changing environmental conditions.<ref name="understandingevolution">{{cite web | url = http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_14 | title = Mechanisms: the processes of evolution | accessdate = 2006-07-14 | work = Understanding Evolution | publisher = [[University of California, Berkeley]]}}</ref>

Other mechanisms of evolutionary change include [[genetic drift]], or random changes in frequency of traits (most important when the traits are, at that time, reproductively neutral), and, at the population level, immigration from other populations can bring in new traits ("[[gene flow]]") and the [[founder effect]], in which a small group of organisms isolated from the main population will have more of the traits of the founders for many generations after isolation, even when some of the traits are detrimental.

An outline of the theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the [[Linnean Society of London]] in 1858 in [[On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection|separate papers]] by [[Charles Darwin]] and [[Alfred Russel Wallace]]. Detailed support for the theory was then set out in Darwin’s 1859 book, ''[[The Origin of Species|On the Origin of Species]]''. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with the theory of [[Gregor Mendel|Mendelian]] [[heredity]] to form the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]], also known as "Neo-[[Darwinism]]". The modern synthesis describes evolution as a change in the frequency of different versions of genes, known as [[allele]]s, within a population from one generation to the next.<ref name="understandingevolution"/> With its enormous explanatory and [[predictive power]], this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of [[antibiotic resistance]] in bacteria, [[eusociality]] in insects, and the [[biodiversity]] of Earth's [[ecosystem]].<ref>{{cite news | first=PZ | last=Myers | authorlink=PZ Myers | title=Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution? | date=2006-06-18 | publisher=scienceblogs.com | url =http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php | work =Pharyngula | pages = | accessdate = 2006-11-18}}</ref><ref>[http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the [[United Kingdom|United Kingdom's]] [[Royal Society]] (PDF file)</ref><ref>From the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]], the world's largest general scientific society: [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] (PDF file), [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws]</ref>

[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

===Poll===

*'''Version 2''' [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Version 1'''-[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC) They are not too different, but I lean towards shorter. The last paragraph looks to me like it should be divided up a bit. I would like it shorter. I think Silence might have some useful comments on these leads.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

*:*Peers at Version 1.* You know, actually, that's pretty good. I had missed some of the modification. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 22:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:::They both are so much better than what we had a few months ago, it is not even funny. Progress is definitely being made.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Version 1''' [[User:Silence|Silence]] 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Version 1''' reads more crisply--I like succint intros. The sentence about common descent is much clearer in 1 vs. 2, too. -- [[User:Scientizzle|Scientizzle]] 22:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Version 1''' - See discussion for reasons [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 02:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Version 1''' like Scientizzle said, its more crisp. While its more jargon-heavy, I think that's a benefit (by the precision and conciseness that it offers) whose detriments are easily overcome by making them wikilinks.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 02:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Version 1''' I love the conciseness.[[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 07:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Version 1'''. The two versions have substantially the same content, and 1 is a better piece of writing. As [[Henry Watson Fowler|Fowler]] says, "direct, simple, brief, vigorous, and lucid." [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] 02:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Version 1''' The first sentence is clear and concise, and hooked me straight away.[[User:Trishm|Trishm]] 03:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

===Discussion===

''(edit conflict)'' Could you explain to me why you prefer Version 2, Adam? I honestly don't see any advantages to it; it's less accessible to readers, has more ambiguous and gramatically wanting phrasings, much longer, and has more non-basic (and even trivial) information, while lacking some vital information. Perhaps if we discussed your concerns with my version, we could find ways to improve it; and if we discussed yours, we could find ways to incorporate important information that my version loses into an early section of the article. There's nothing wrong with compromise. Consensus-building discussion is more important in the Wikipedia editing process than simple popularity polls, though I see no problem with a straw poll to find out where people stand now. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

: *cough* because my mind skipped over the middle sentence as it's the end of a very long day, so I thought it was a different version. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 23:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

== I admit to butchery ==

<s>The section on "History of Modern Evolutionary Thought" was reverted after accusations that it was butchered. I spent some time (about an hour) rewriting it to make some sort of prose that read well and was as brief as possible.

Since then I have changed my mind and gone back to even graeter butchery. Here are the reasons:

<s>One of the comments to retain FA status was to reduce this section.

After some discussion (see errmmm discussion) I think a few of us had nailed down a fair version.

It was reverted. Accusations of butchery ... infamy, infamy .. they've got it in for me!

When I had attempted a half-way house (not really certain that works well most of the time as a conflict resolution BTW) I butchered it again. This part clearly repeated things about Darwin-Wallace and Mendel that were stated previousl in the article.

<s>Not pointing fingers (you can see the history) it would be nice if people didn't do reverts without reading the discussion and keeping abreast of the current progress on an article (ie this article). It also ended up back as '''History of evolutionary thought''' which was incorrect as the prior version only touched a small part of it. The current version hits (essentially) Darwin-Wallace and afterwards which I feel is more appropriate for the article. </s>[[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 02:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, cranky and tired. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 02:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

:I didn't revert, I proposed an entirely new (and heavily summarized from past versions) section. You, and whoever else suggested it, are simply mistaken in thinking that making this section so excessively short is an ''improvement''. If this article was proposed for FA with such a stubby "History" section, I would be forced to oppose its nomination.

:The history of evolutionary thought is one of the most important aspects of it; certainly the "History" section is hundreds of times more important than the "Evidence" section, yet the Evidence section is ''sprawling'' at this point. If you really want to shorten this article to a more reasonable seize, then start attacking sections like "Selection and adaptation" and the "Evidence of evolution" sections. There you'll (arguably) be benefiting the article; shortening the "History" section, in contrast, is damaging it, regardless of what comments the article's gotten on past FA reviews.

:Ideally, the "History" section should be about as large as our current "Academic disciplines" section (3-5 nice-sized paras); the section was much larger when it got the comment to shorten it, which was bad, but now it's so short that it's in an even ''worse'' state than when it was too large. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 02:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I acually crossed out the comment silence as you see before you posted. However, perhaps you would be so kind as to use the discussion area and share your thoughts clearly before or after your edits. It's hard enough to keep sane reviewing this article after all the recent sockpuppetry and creationist revisons than to have someone make more reversions and changes without explaining themselves. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 03:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

:OK, I'm glad to discuss or explain any edits that anyone has any issue with. I don't have enough free time to painstakingly detail every single edit I make ahead of time, since most are uncontroversial, but I'm certainly willing to go over any which anyone finds objectionable. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 03:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a shame, becasue this is an article that needs time and good communication to improve it. 8( [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 03:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

:I just offered both my time and communication in improving it. But I plan to make hundreds of edits to the article; I don't have time to discuss ''all'' of them, and I can't psychically anicipate all the ones that will be controversial ahead of times, so it's easier on all parties for us to discuss them as problems come up, rather than my spamming this Talk page with dozens of pages of painstaking details for each one before an issue even arises. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 04:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I say we should let silence take a whack at it and see how it looks. He has the background and experience in this kind of thing. It is not as though things cannot be reverse later if needs be. But if you look at the FA page on this article, he has a pretty ambitious program of editing planned out.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

:Indeed, anything I do can certainly be reverted if it crosses the line. Since we're entering into the beginning of an FA review, this seems like the perfect time to start implementing some major changes, so we have as much time as possible to discuss any controversial ones. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

:Maybe we could do one of those lists of things that need to be done to improve the article, then cross them off. I really think this is one beautiful article. I would marry it if were, well, you know, human. And a woman. :) [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 07:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

::Trouble is [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] you might marry it but you know that within a few months it wouldn't be the same. The romance would be over and the woman would you know ... seem different. There was simply too much variation in her, When you were introduced to her it all seemed fine but she came with a lot of history. There were a lot of people claiming she was divine and you fell for it. After a while, you too saw her drift away from you. Her relatives were odd, rather primitive in many respects, some seemed to be throwbacks to another age while others were simply spineless. All in all, it's a bad idea ... and I'll leave that problem about what sex you found here chromosomes were when you got her jeans off on the honeymoon for another time. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 15:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

==Armadillo image, etc.==

Is there any special need for the armadillo image in this article? It brings a lot of clutter, and very little necessary and unique information, to the page. At the very least, if we keep it I'd argue that we should both move it to a different part of the article and dramatically shorten its caption.

Also, I'm thinking we should remove 1 or 2 of the images in "Evidence of evolution", because they all currently deal with aquatic species and thus are a bit redundant. Any objections? We can replace them with more varied images of other types of evidence of evolution; there are plenty to choose fom already at [[Evidence of evolution]], for starters. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

:If no one else wants it, I would steal it for [[Introduction to evolution]]--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 04:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

::::: lol --- Filll I'm glad to see you are still a supporter for the 'common man'. Sure ... we will take their rejects!!!! I thought I would let the article settle awhile ... I am impressed that it is holding its own. Is it apathy that has spared us the firestorm of criticism or we that good?!?! I sent it out to my science teacher contacts for review (without claiming ownership) and they came back with positive reviews. A couple thought it should address LaMarckism and the misconception of acquired characteristics. A common problem among high school students. "The appendix will disappeared because it is not needed". If anyone reading would like to write something up? Introduction to Evolution. Several commented about the excess Dawkin's resources; all are excellent for lay-people... rahter than removing I wish someone well read on this topic would suggest a few more. Also, one of more more reliable critiques questioned the lack of citations. My argument is that it is a general introduction which translates to 'common' knowledge. Again, if anyone reading this has a different perspective --- combined with solutions; we are listening. We are not dogmatic --- with the exception of a desire to maintain readibility.--[[User:66.56.207.111|66.56.207.111]] 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Comments were added by: --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] 16:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow the Introduction to Evolution has really improved, and I have to say is much more encyclopedic than this article. Many of the improvements suggested for this article have been incorporated into the intro article and unfortunately never made it here. The resistance for any change in this article was so great for so long I am afraid a lot of apathy has set in. This article has always had the content but lacks in communication. Finally this article is being changed with little resistance which can be good and bad. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 13:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

:Are there any specific aspects of [[Introduction to evolution]] you feel we should incorporate into [[Evolution]]? Are you correctly note, resistance to change has lessened, in large part thanks to the ongoing FA review and encouragement to experiment by editors like Filll. So now's the perfect time to propose and discuss implementing changes. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 14:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

== 3-D DNA Molecule ==

Nice, but it sure takes a long time download for some reason. Is it overkill? I mean DNA is important to evolution (the Selfish Gene and all that), but it's not exactly the most critical aspect of Evolution, and there are two DNA molecules represented.[[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 07:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

:If other users agree that it slows load time significantly, then it can be replaced with the non-moving version, and a link to the moving version can be provided in the non-moving one's image description for people with faster loading speed to visit and view directly. However, I don't have any trouble at all loading the image quickly; does anyone else? -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 09:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

::Sorry, but on a broadband connection the page loads nice and fast, then the image takes a looong time (ok, perhaps a minute) to appear. It rotates so far then jerks back to the start, which is a little distracting – the idea of a static image with a link to the moving version sounds good. .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 11:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Let me clarify. Kind of like what Dave S said. It loads, then kind of stalls out, then continues to load, then stalls. I have a really high speed broadband, and I have rarely encountered this problem. But it really is no big deal. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

:::We had the moving version on the [[Introduction to evolution]] article page but people complained about load time, so I replaced it with the stationary version. I personally have no problem with the moving version.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 15:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

== Current controversies within the field? ==

I don't see much in this article about the many current controversies within the field, or a link to another article in which I might read more about those. (There's a section on controversies with creationists, which is a separate matter.) I'm thinking of things like the frequently heated arguments between Gould, Lewontin et al vs Dawkins, Dennett et al on a number of matters. --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 10:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

:These controversies start to get pretty sophisticated. Maybe we need a separate article for those?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 15:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

::We can list a few of the most important ones at the bottom of the "History" section; some, like the [[punctuated equilibrium]] issue, were formerly addressed in that section before the recent excess trimming. It shouldn't be difficult to at least very briefly touch on current controversies and disputes here; we can give dramatically more in-depth analysis in the lower sections of the daughter article [[History of evolutionary thought]]. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

:I'd start with a paragraph, as short as possible, in an appropriate article until someone makes it into an article. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Yeah, I had looked at [[History of evolutionary thought]] myself, but I didn't see anything there either. A few specific articles have sections on their controversial aspects ([[gene-centered view of evolution]] and [[punctuated equilibrium]]), but of course I can only find those if I already know that they're among the current controversies in the field. --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 21:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

==Selfish DNA hypothesis==

With all the mention of transposons, pseudogenes and noncoding DNA seems we should mention Dawkins-Doolittle-Crick Selfish DNA hypothesis somewhere. Maybe too specific. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is a nested hypothesis too specific for this article the more I think about it. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 23:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

:As with some of Gould's work, you can view it either as a very specific nested hypothesis, or as the foundation for a major model of evolution. I think both are accurate. My solution would be to develop detailed articles on the selfish gene approach and another detailed article drawing heavily on Gould's last work, and have links to both here with brief summaries. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 14:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

== Misunderstandings from Darwin's day ==

For some unexplained reason the insertion of Darwin's own complaints about misunderstandings of his theory has been reverted without explanation and it is suggested that it might be controversal. The full text is here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&oldid=99560394#Misunderstandings]. If anyone can explain why this is or might be problematic I'm happy to address the issue, but if we can't quote Darwin on Evolution then who on earth can we quote? [[User:NBeale|NBeale]] 15:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

:I think that the goal is to focus this article down to try to reach FA status. So a lot of things like that will have to get farmed out to other articles. It is a bit like going to the dentist.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

::Clarification: NBeale's desired edits can be seen in the left pane [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=99563627&oldid=99560394 here]. Please note the removal of some content and the addition of other content, the removal of one ref and the addition of another ref. This is not a simple "addition". Nbeale, you are approaching this from the wrong end. Please make a case here for '''why this should be changed''', don't ask others to argue why not. You want the change, you make the case for the change. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]^{[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]} 15:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

::'''Filll''', this article is already a featured article. The review is to ensure it still meets FA standards. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]^{[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]} 15:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to see the original status of the article when it was first a FA and compare to the extensive editing since. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 15:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

:Holy cow, you are right, it already ''is'' FA. Ok then, to keep it as FA, because a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then I bet.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 15:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

*Yes, it's already an FA, but it's unlikely to remain one if we don't make a lot more improvements, so for all practical purposes we can treat it as a non-FA that we're trying to bring up to FA quality.

*As for the changes I made, I explained them on [[User_talk:Silence#Misunderstandings_from_Darwin.27s_day|my talk page]] when asked, but Filll's explanation stands as well: we're trying to trim this article down as much as possible, so only highly important, informative additions are likely to be retained. I recommend adding details like the one I removed to [[Misunderstandings about evolution]], where there's more room (though there are currently ongoing discussions about possibly deleting that article and replacing it with something like "[[User:Silence/Evolution|Objections to evolution]]", so don't put too much effort into it at this time). -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 15:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

:I am not sure about the pertinence of [[User:NBeale|NBeale]]'s edits, but the whole misunderstanding section doesn't seem quite right. If the article was well written, and it is getting there, you do not need to clear up any misunderstandings, the article will provide an understanding. Is this an article on scientific theories and how the general public just doesn't get them, or an article on biological evolution? I'd contribute if I thought I could; but for now, I guess my comments on the misunderstanding section are all that I have to offer.

[[User:StudyAndBeWise|StudyAndBeWise]] 01:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

::Well the difference between the theory of evolution, and say, the theory of optical refraction or quantum mechanics, is that there are a horde of blood thirsty luddites who are frantic to have the article destroyed and object to it even being on Wikipedia in the first place. Just look at the material of the top of this page if you doubt that. It is a concession in a small way that this sort of trouble exists in this field, for a variety of reasons. Basically, this is the modern version of the objections to a spherical earth, or the objections to heliocentric theory.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 01:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi KC & others. To avoid confusion (for some reason the compare makes it look as though I am deleting a load of text when I am not) what I want to add is that confusions started in Darwin's time and that [[Darwin]] strongly disagreed with attempts by [[Herbert Spencer]] and other to extrapolate evolutionary ideas to all possible subject matters<ref> see [[Mary Midgley]] ''The Myths we Live By'' Routeledge 2004 p62</ref> and protested in the sixth edition of the ''Origin'' that "my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented" and pointed out that it was his consistent view that "natural selection has been the main, but not the exclusive, means of modification"<ref>''On the Origin of Species'' 6th Edition 1872 p 395. Quoted in Midgley ''The Myths we Live By'' p62</ref>. It is important to understand that there are two kinds of confusion about Evolution/Natural Selection: (a) denying that it applies when in fact it does (eg in biology) and (b) asserting that it applies when it does not (eg Spencer argued that helping the poor was 'unscientific' because it was against 'survival of the fittest' [[User:NBeale|NBeale]] 02:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

:Nbeale, the text you want to include might be better in [[Misunderstandings about evolution]] and/or [[evolution (term)]].--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 02:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

::From his talk page it seems that [[User:Silence]] intended to move the bit about Darwin objecting to misrepresentations to the end of the section, but I don't think he did. We must try to get away from an undue emphasis on the extremists on ''both'' sides of the Evolutionism debate - Darwin was a model of clarity and sanity here. [[User:NBeale|NBeale]] 03:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well dont worry about that. This article is under massive reorganization so it is not a good idea to put anything in it right now; it will just get reverted. Put it in one or both of those other two if you can see a good way to do it. Do you need help?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 03:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

:It is my understanding that you are invited to be bold on wikipedia, but that in doing so, you should also prepare yourself emotionally to have your boldness edited, modified, or even deleted by others. The hope is that those who edit, modify, and delete some or all of your work are doing so for the right reasons. [[User:StudyAndBeWise|StudyAndBeWise]] 16:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

==Modern Evidence section and Speciation sections ==

The pseudogene statement is an oversimplification. It varies as there are dead and resurrected pseudogenes. Humans display many processed transcribed pseudogenes, flies have few pseudogenes, within a species one organism may have an active gene and another a pseudogene, ,most prokaryote pseudogenes are related to processes losing function like in pathogenic bacteria. Seems pseudogenes are a reservoir of genomic elements that can be resurrected and used in adaptive evolution. I don't think junk DNA is a very accurate statement either nowadays Science 23 May 2003:Vol. 300. no. 5623, pp. 1246 - 1247 Not Junk After All. Wojciech Makalowski* [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 16:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is parapatric speciation not mentioned but allopatric, sympatric, and peripatric are? [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 05:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

IN the Gene flow article HGT and hybridization are included for sound reasons, however it creates a paradox. In the classic sense, restricting gene flow is essential for speciation. However, HGT and Hybridization both generate speciation so then gene flow is essential for speciation. Perhaps we should not mention HGT and hybridization are a type of gene flow. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 16:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Overall the article is improving and finally decreasing in length. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 16:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

==Process vs. theory==

I made similar comments in the talk page of the Creation-evolution controversy article, but I thought it might be best if I explain this here too. Ok...there is a distinction between a natural process and a scientific theory that, while it may be recognized, is certainly not being implemented. A natural process is something like a statement of fact: "the cup will drop to the floor when I release it from my hands" or "trees help prevent soil erosion." Evolution is a natural process; a statement of fact. It ''is not'' a scientific theory, which brings us to the crucible of what a scientific theory is: a wide system of rules that provide a ''mechanism'' to explain a series of naturalistic phenomena. Evolution is not that. ''Natural selection'', the main scientific theory that forms the mechanism for evolution, satisfies that role. We have to mention this somehow, despite public perceptions. Evolution is not a theory because it does not have a mechanism; it is a natural process. Natural selection is the theory. I propose that we take away the word "theory" whenever it appears in front of evolution, unless someone is making a charge. It is a horrible misnomer, and an irritating one.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 02:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

: Although I certainly understand the motivation for this, I wonder since this an encyclopedia if it might not confuse issues to avoid the use of the term "theory of evolution" ever, particularly when there are more than one mechanism in the theory (the original being natural selection of course).--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 02:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

:From what I know of "evolution", UberCryxic, this is incorrect. Random House defines evolution as "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift". This provides three mechanisms ''within'' the definition of evolution, including natural selection. The American Heritage Dictionary, likewise, defines evolution as "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species". This demonstrates that evolution encompasses both the factual ("change in the genetic composition fo a population") and the theoretical ("as a result of natural selection"). -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 04:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

:The phrase "theory of evolution" isn't meant to convey that the natural process of evolution is merely theorized. It signifies a theoretical framework of proposed mechanisms ''for'' the natural process of evolution. In other words, "evolution" and "theory of evolution" are separate concepts. This is analogous to the distinction between the process of gravity (any two massive objects experience a mutually attractive force in at least approximate accordance with Newton's law of gravity) and a theory of gravity such as Einstein's curved space-time. [[User:N6|N6]] 08:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The same editor came down heavily on me on the distinction between gravity and gravitation. I am a physicist and to be honest, we use them interchangeably (possibly incorrectly) all the time. However, it is fairly obvious to me that his science training is not particularly extensive from conversations with him yesterday. I am willing to entertain such notions to see where they lead, but only up to a point, when they confuse the arguement or introduce untruths into the article. I have to clean up a bunch of his changes at the controversy article.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 13:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Evolution isn't a fact the way you suggest here Ubercryxic.

:::You will get into terrible problems arguing that an observation is a process and there is a theory to support it.

:::There are observations and hypotheses. Theories being well supported hypotheses. A cup falls. This is not gravity. The theory of graviation explains this.

:::We shorthand this by saying the cup falls due to gravity (the cup falls and we explain it by our theory of gravity). Gravity is our explanation of the cup falling. It is not the process.The process is falling (or a more accuarte description thereof). I hope you see the distinction?

:::Because, to our repeated observations, the cup falls, the observation becomes a fact. Our theories wait for an exception to prove it. The theory may stand, fall or be modifed.

:::Evolution is a scientific theory which explains certain observations (facts). The mechanism is outined in the theory. (Please note I'm talking here about theories which themsleves have been proved many, many times and still stand - therefore effectively becoming facts).

:::And Filll is correct, unless you are working in a research area to do with gravity then the terms gravity and gravitation is effectively identicall. I know I doin't distinguish in everyday and most scientific uses unless I really, really need to (and that's been only once ever).

:::Finally, just before anyone gets the wrong end of the stick, I'm using the word "prove" in the sense of test. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 15:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Miscommunication is common due to common words commonly being used both to convey common experience and to also designate carefully defined things, yielding such interactions as:

#When I drop it, it falls due to gravity and when the astronaut dropped it it did not fall so there is no gravity in space. (There is gravity in space, both the astronaut and the object are falling at the same rate so it looks like its not falling) Yeah but they don't feel the gravity.

#Oh, look at that insect! (It's not an insect, insects have six legs.) Oh, you know what I mean!

#Evolution is just a theory and not a fact and I never saw anything evolve and besides a lot of people don't believe its true and facts are things everyone knows are true so it has to be just a theory and anyway that's what scientists do isn't it making up fancy theories and if it were a fact why would they still be studying it instead of something else that needs to be studied to see if is is a fact or not... [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 16:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

:::These are the sort of people who think the Guiness Book of Records is something to be learned. 8) [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

:This gets confused because we are a bit sloppy and use shorthand descriptions. For example, there are several "theories of optics", several "theories of quantum mechanics", several "theories of everything", several "theories of heat" (kinetic, caloric, phlogisten, etc), several "theories of gravity" (Aristotle, Galilean, Newtonian, Einsteinian, etc) and several "theories of evolution" (Lamarckian, Transmutation and Orthogenesis, Darwinian, neoDarwinian, etc). So the general public, who are generally completely ignorant of this, and sometimes as "dumb as as stump", just get lost and confused.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 16:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

For my usual non-expert rant, evolution is a series of facts and a series of theories which are grouped together in the synthesis commonly called the theory of evolution. The essential facts are that organisms can be grouped into an enormous and changing number of types called species, these show homologies consistent with common descent, fossils show even more change through the past in a consistent sequence, and heritable variation can be observed within species and into closely related species. The basic theories are; these indications do indeed show common descent, there's no reason for variation to stop at some "species boundary", and natural selection with its offshoots explains the development of this complexity. The alternative non-scientific hypothesis is that some entity beyond our ken performs miracles to create species/genera/kinds which are only allowed to vary within that boundary. Many people have faith in that hypothesis, but have been unable to produce scientific evidence to back it up. Would it help if we describe creationism thus? .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well stated Dave ... except the last bit. Perhaps a misapplication of hypothesis. Supernatural miracles can't be a hypothesis as either there are no repeatable observations or access to observations are limited to maintain the awe of the miracle. As they are not repeatable or not visible they cannot be used to create a hypothesis about the event. Hmm, (looks over shoulder), not seen many Creationists on this site recently. Do you think they're all planning to bash us with their bibles soon?? [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

:This is a lot to respond to and obviously I'm not going to get all of it, or even most of it. For that I apologize. To Silence: the relevant definition that you gave by Random House is this, "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation." That's the statement of fact, the natural process. The following, "by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift," is meant to reveal that evolution is inextricably linked to these processes, but it does not mean they are the same. Those last three are, indeed, processes, but they are also scientific theories. Evolution, by itself, is just a statement of fact. If we end up thinking that it is only synonymous with these theories, then we'd have to conclude that evolution was created by Darwin! But, of course, as even this article mentions, evolution as a concept was proposed ''way before'' Darwin.

:People are giving misguided descriptions of the problem at hand. Of course the cup falls because of the effects of gravitation, but that's not the issue. People could describe that the cup falls 5,000 years ago just as well as they could describe that it falls after Newton introduced the force of gravity or after Einstein completed General Relativity. The difference is that they could not really explain ''why'' it fell those 5,000 years ago. In modern times, we've conceived sophisticated mechanisms, inherent in the scientific theories, for explaining these phenomena.

:While I don't appreciate the ad hominem aspect of Fill's comments, I think I can ignore it. Nevertheless, he is approaching somewhere around the truth in recognizing that physicists screw these terms up all the time. For example, in the context of Newtonian mechanics, ''gravitation'' is the attractive force between two objects with mass. ''Gravity'' is the force between Earth and other objects with mass. See here: [http://alex.edfac.usyd.edu.au/methods/science/studentwork/MassoftheEarth/gravitationandgravity.htm]. The problem is that Newton's theory of gravitation is no longer held to be correct, so it makes no sense to use these terms when they were left in the dustbin of history. Now, "gravitation" is anything that, to get a tad colloquial here, has to do with things like planets orbiting the sun, stars orbiting the center of the galaxy, and so on. It's a much more general term that describes these effects. Today, our prime theory of gravitation is Einstein's GR.

:To Candy: you are making the same mistake as Silence. You are associating evolution with the scientific theories that make it work and refusing to see the distinction between the two; that is, that they are separate concepts, not the same thing. Evolution is just a statement of what happens in nature. That's it. It stops right there. If we want, and humans being curious we do, we can go on and talk about natural selection and puncutated equilibrium, which explain how evolution happens. By itself, evolution has no mechanism, and ''it is not'' a mechanism. Therefore, it cannot be a scientific theory. The proposed mechanisms that describe ''how'' evolution occurs are the aforementioned, among others. Again, please note that no one here, at least I hope, would consider evolution a scientific theory in the time prior to the publication of the Origin in 1859. Some people before Darwin had a hunch that life on Earth might change somehow, what we call evolution, but they didn't know why or how, which took Darwin to explain.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 20:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

::I'm confused. You admit a distinction between evolution and theories about evolution, but you object to... what? The use of "theory of evolution" to refer to evolution rather than theories about it? Where in this article is the phrase used in that way? [[User:N6|N6]] 21:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

:::In this particular article, there are two instances of "theory of evolution," but they are both used in the context of natural selection ("theory of evolution by natural selection"), which doesn't bother me too much, even though it is technically wrong (should be "evolution by the theory of natural selection" or "evolution by the theory and process of natural selection," since natural selection can be thought of both as theory and process, but evolution certainly not). The problem is for other articles, where evolution is often used with the word "theory." That's what bothered me, and I wrote about it here because this seems to be the hub for discussions relating to evolution.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 21:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

::::You are misunderstanding the English language, or at least you are grouping phrases in a way that is clearly not intended. It's "(theory of) (evolution by natural selection)", not "((theory of) evolution) (by natural selection)". [[User:N6|N6]] 21:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Further, even the phrase "theory of evolution" shouldn't be offensive: it signifies theories about evolution, not that evolution itself is merely theorized. [[User:N6|N6]] 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

:I also should note somewhat of a change of heart in Fill. When I broached the issue in the other talk page about the distinction between evolution as a natural process and theory, he was quite enthusiastic: "Quite correct. In my next version of the Theory vs. Fact section and article, I will make that far more clear, hopefully." He is, of course, right to say that I was correct, because this is fairly obvious. It's just taking so long because of the wider political context, which I think has affected everyone, scientists and non-scientists.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 21:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

UberyCyrix, I believe you misunderstand me. You ARE correct in pointing out that there is a confusion between process and theory, both of which sometimes get the same names and make things very confused (as I tried to point out with several examples above). I do NOT intend to make any ad hominem attacks on you. I am willing to entertain your gravity/gravitation distinction, and research it to understand it a bit better. Physicists are not known for necessarily always being precise in nomenclature, and this might be an example of where the standard usage is wrong. If so, I would be glad to learn it, but I am not sure that it would change how I write about it, especially since I am trying to use it as an example to cast light on this very confused area of evolution. And I am still concerned about the term "Theory of Evolution" which you will find has a huge number of google hits. We cannot unilaterally banish that phrase from the language, even if we wanted to. We are an encyclopedia. Perhaps there would be less confusion if that phrase had never been used. I could agree with that. It would have been better to have two words; evolution for the process, and evolution^T for the theory, or something like that. However, that is not the situation we are trying to describe, or trying to clarify.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 21:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

:Unfortunately, misunderstandings appear to be running both ways. The gravity/gravitation distinction is not important to me in this context. I only introduced that as an example to highlight what's wrong with thinking about evolution as a theory. I certainly did not mean for you to undertake a rigorous research program on it. I also did not state that you made any ad hominem attacks; I said you mentioned some ad hominem "aspects," which don't necessarily have to be attacks. For example, a compliment is just as much of an ad hominem aspect to the argument as an insult. Unless ad hominem aspects somehow relate to the argument, they should never be made. But like I said, I don't really care, mainly because of its irrelevance to the argument, but also because the truth is that you are more well-versed in the subject than I am, so it's not like I can contest the claim, even though contextually it means nothing.

:It is quite palpable that the words "evolution" and "theory" are often found together and are inextricable from each other. However, this should not prevent people from noticing and ''making'' the distinction doubly evident. There ''is'' a strong difference between the term "evolution" and "natural selection." At this point, the similarities are completely clouding that, mostly because of, as I said, the political context. When someone ignorantly asks scientists to explain why evolution is "just a theory," scientists are often compelled to get drawn into the game and clarify to that person that in science the term "theory" has quite a robust structure, and has had one ever since the logical positivists toyed with their ideas in the early 20th century. Biologists do realize that natural selection is the scientific theory; that's not news to them. They mostly speak about evolution in the context of those aforementioned people, trying to show them how they're misusing the word "theory" in a scientific context, when they ''should'' be telling them, "Hey douche [ok leave this part out], the basis for your conception is wrong. Evolution is not a theory. Conversation over."[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 21:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

:Also, with respect to "''Today, our prime theory of gravitation is Einstein's GR.''" I will note that GR is almost 100 years old, and starting to show its age. It does not account for repulsive gravity, and there is no quantum aspect to gravity, and it does not unify very cleanly with anything else. The assorted GUTs and TOEs and quantum gravity theories are evidence of the fraying edges of GR. GR is well on its way to being replaced. It is only that the Witten-type models are pretty much nonfalsifiable at this point that keeps it from being moved from the "current science" category to the "history of science" category. Even those are fairly ugly in a certain way, if you look under the hood, although the press just loves to fawn over this stuff with basically zero understanding.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

::Yes, it is showing age, but it's also still the most widely used scientific theory in cosmology today.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 21:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

*''"the relevant definition that you gave by Random House is this, "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation." That's the statement of fact, the natural process."'' - No, the relevant definition I gave you by Random House is this: "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift". Ignoring half of the definition because you don't think it's "relevant", in order to show that the definition is purely factual and non-theoretical, is begging the question. I gave you two dictionary definitions that included both facts and theories in the definition of ''evolution''; your response was simply to ignore the theoretical part, dismissing it out-of-hand as not "relevant". Clearly this is a weak rebuttal.

*''"That's the statement of fact, the natural process."'' - Pointing out that ''part'' of the dictionary definition is factual doesn't erase the fact that part of it is theoretical. Your argument is that evolution is never theoretical; my argument is that it is sometimes factual (referring to a process), sometimes theoretical (referring to an explanation for that process, such as the modern synthesis), and sometimes both (referring both to the process and its explanation). If you are correct, then we should dismiss all theoretical uses of evolution as simply incorrect, prescriptively advocating a certain definition as "right" and criticizing all others as "wrong"; if I am correct, then there are multiple uses of the word, and we should account for all of them, depending on context, and ''explain'' the confusion and ambiguity, rather than ignoring it. I substantiated my argument with dictionary citations; you substantiated it with nothing except your own repeated opinion. You'll have to do better than that if you want to redefine a word.

*''"The following, "by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift," is meant to reveal that evolution is inextricably linked to these processes, but it does not mean they are the same."'' - Of course they aren't the same. But that doesn't mean that one is "evolution" and one isn't. No two cats are alike, but they're still called "cats". The problem with your argument here is that I cited a ''dictionary'', not an encyclopedia. Whereas you might have a point if I'd cited an encyclopedia, as you could argue that only the beginning of the sentence was definitional, whereas the rest is going beyond that to explain the already-defined word, because I cited a dictionary, it cannot be argued that part of the definition is not part of the definition. You might argue that the dictionaries are ''wrong'', but you can't argue that they're simply not defining a word when they clearly are. If you were correct and the definition of evolution was simply and universally "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation", with no theoretical explanations involved, then why wouldn't those two dictionaries have simply put something like that in their entries for ''evolution''? The fact that they didn't requires explanation, and the simplest explanation is that there is a theoretical component to the very word ''evolution'', as it is commonly used in a biological context. Whether you personally feel that that usage is "wrong" doesn't somehow make it just go away.

*''"Evolution, by itself, is just a statement of fact."'' - Or it's a statement of theory. It depends on context. It is not semantically incorrect to say something like "According to evolution, all species have a common ancestor", or even "Evolution says that all species have a common ancestor", at least in a colloquial context. In these contexts, "evolution" is shorthand for "evolutionary theory". Ignoring such usage, despite how very common it is, is counterproductive and will cause more misunderstandings and ambiguities than it would resolve, at the very least for laypeople reading the evolution articles, who are our primary audience.

*''"If we end up thinking that it is only synonymous with these theories, then we'd have to conclude that evolution was created by Darwin!"'' - Which is not actually incorrect, as long as "evolution" is defined as "Darwinian evolutionary theory". We can say things like "Darwin proposed evolution by natural selection" (as opposed to "Darwin proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection") without causing confusion; we can likewise say "Darwin used evolution to explain the diversity of the world", or "Creationists believe that evolution can't account for the diversity of life in the world". These meanings may not be as "good" as meanings which are strictly limited to observed processes and events, but they still exist, and it is not Wikipedia's place to dismiss them out-of-hand. We should, instead, strive for ''clarity'' in which form of the word we are using. What is important is not the words we use, but the ideas we convey; sorry to say it, but Wikipedia's purpose is to be informative and reliable, not to reshape the English language according to our personal preferences. As long as we are clear and unambiguous in how we are using the word, and as long as there is no better alternative in a specific context (and remember, this must always be handled contextually and on a case-by-case basis), there is no purpose in ignoring an entire class of word definitions when neither common usage nor practicality demands it.

*''"But, of course, as even this article mentions, evolution as a concept was proposed ''way before'' Darwin. "'' - Sure, in a sense. But the modern view of evolution&mdash;which includes not only the more theoretical ideas of natural selection, but also even the basic parts of the definition like "genetic change"&mdash;is what determines the meaning of the word ''evolution'' in biology.

*''"you are making the same mistake as Silence."'' - What you see as a "mistake", we see as a point of view. If you wish to advocate your view without violating [[WP:NPOV]], you will need to provide strong evidence indeed that your view is uncontroversially and absolutely correct, and that everyone else's is simply based on misunderstandings or errors. You have failed to do so thus far, so you are not justified in calling something a "mistake" just because it disagrees with you. Alternative word definitions are not "mistakes".

*''"You are associating evolution with the scientific theories that make it work and refusing to see the distinction between the two;"'' - Of course we see a distinction between evolution as fact and evolution as theory. We just don't say that "evolution as theory" is nonsensical or meaningless. ''Evolution'' is a word with different meanings and senses, depending on its context. We can distinguish between those meanings without prescriptively mandating that one meaning be considered universally "right" while the other be considered universally "wrong", when both are in common usage and there is no clear reason to favor one over the other, except as the context demands.

*By the way, if you have sources to back your claims up, I recommend taking them to [[Evolution (term)]] to help flesh that article out. :) It's an interesting topic for discussion and analysis regardless of what definition(s) we end up settling on, so it's in our readers' best interests that we explain the issue to them (as long as, as I noted, you can back it up with reliable sources). -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 21:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

::<edit conflict> For another wee summary, we could say that evolution is a name for a series of facts showing that there is a process resulting in lots of species, these facts are explained in science by what is commonly called the theory of evolution, comprising natsel etc. Various people with faith positions, while usually accepting these mechanisms operating within species, contend that these explanations don't apply to "[[Created kind]]s" which require supernatural interventions. And think that should be called science too. Back to [[natural theology]]! .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 21:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, when we try to redefine terminology when it is in common usage, and in scientific usage, what do we do with THIS sort of stuff:

* [[Stephen Jay Gould]]: "''Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.''"<ref name=Gould/>

* [[Neil Campbell]]: "''Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate...''"<ref name=Campbell/>

* [[Ernst Mayr]]: "''The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact...And evolutionary change is also simply a fact...''"<ref name=Mayr/>

* [[Richard Lenski]]: "''Evolution...is both a fact and a theory.''"<ref name=Lenski/>

* [[Carl Sagan]]: "''Evolution is a fact, not a theory.''"<ref name=Sagan/>

* [[George Simpson]]: "''Darwin...finally and definitely established evolution as a fact.''"<ref name=Simpson/>

* [[R. C. Lewontin]]: "''...evolution is a fact, not theory''"<ref name=Lewontin/>

* [[Douglas Futuyama]]: "''...the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact...''"<ref name=Futuyama/>

* [[H. J. Muller]]: "''evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.''"<ref name=Muller/>

* [[Kenneth R. Miller]]: "''evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science.''"<ref name=Miller/>

* [[Helena Curtis]] and [[N. Sue Barnes]]: "''Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution...''"<ref name=Curtis-Barnes/>

(All from my rewrite of the Theory vs. Fact article).--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A nice comparison I saw made not that long ago (less than a year ago) and raised here an eternity ago (less than a year ago):

:the theory of evolution by means of natural selection

vs

:the theory of falling by means of gravitation

There is, of course, not one theory, but many theories regarding how evolution (the observation) occurs. Calling evolution a theory is a misnomer, but one that has become well established. Ideally "evolution" should be used to describe the process, and the mechanisms which cause evolution should be called that, mechanisms of evolution. But (much like gravity) the terms for the observation and the mechanism are used interchangeably...and are called evolution. ''We'' can't re-define usage, not even in the interest of clearer communication. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 22:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

::I like that example. I might just have to swipe it for the rewrite ! And of course, there are many other things that can influence evolution besides natural selection, just like there are many other things that can influence "falling" (that is, an object moving towards the center of the earth) besides gravity (electromagnetic effects, air friction, air movement and entrainment forces, collisions with cosmic rays and other particles, radiation pressure, etc).--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Silence, I am not going to respond in between your statements because I think that is confusing for everyone involved. I will instead reply in the same manner you did. Anyway…

Unfortunately, the problems of natural languages and their inability to convey clear meaning are quite evident here. What I actually quoted from you is the relevant definition of the term evolution, whereas you gave the definition of evolution with its associated scientific theories. That part is irrelevant, so I gave you the relevant one to understand my position, which you obviously don’t, noting the following: I would be begging the question if I were trying to show that evolution is different from, say, natural selection and automatically assumed that there is a difference, but I am not trying to show that. I have assumed it as true, as a priori, already. At best, you can attack my assumption, but this is not begging the question.

The mere fact that I highlighted that part of the definition in no way indicates that I am trying to change the linguistic and nomological attributes of the term “evolution.” It simply shows that the meaning of the term can be understood and has existed separately from the scientific theories that explain it. This is apparent from the existence of the idea of evolution before Darwin. Georges Louis Buffon, the great 18th century French naturalist and author of the 36-volume'' Natural History'', had speculated, in opposition to Linnaeus, that fossil studies revealed that the properties and appearances of various species changed as a result of environmental conditions. He wrote, “Life and movement, instead of being a metaphysical degree of existence, are physical properties of matter.” Those are some of the earliest conceptions of a good idea of what evolution means. But how many of us would call that a scientific theory? I notice irony here: you are accusing me of changing the meaning of evolution, but I am accusing you of doing the same thing. Evolution did not acquire meaning with Darwin, which is what your view commits us to. In fact, the very term ‘evolution’ was created by Herbert Spencer, so if there’s anyone that you should be lunging yourself after, it’s him, for creating so many misconceptions about what Darwin wrote.

Your statements in the second paragraph are deliberately misleading. If we want to understand evolution, and as I said we do, then we have to understand it in the context of the theories that have been proposed already. It’s no secret that nothing in biology makes sense without evolution, and evolution does not make sense without natural selection. It is this close affinity between the two that has led to the mistake you are now making.

Your third paragraph seems to emphasize linguistics above other aspects. This is a waste of time on your part because I am not saying that the dictionary got the definition wrong, or at least not too wrong. The dictionary put up a definition most connected with the sociological aspects of the term ‘evolution.’ It is not that wrong per se, but it does emphasize parts that do not need to be emphasized.

Your fourth paragraph brings to an important junction. If “evolutionary theory” means “evolution,” then I’m satisfied. But if, as I suspect, you’re blowing hot air, contriving arguments with no justification just to make your point, and “evolutionary theory” actually means the associated theories that explain the natural process of evolution, then we still have a very real problem. Then you can’t use them vicariously because they don’t mean the same thing, and that in and of itself will lead to more, not less, confusion. Evolution is no more a statement of theory than erosion, a cup dropping to the floor, or a soccer ball getting kicked into the net. Those are all natural observations and processes that humans have constructed scientific theories to explain, but they are not scientific theories by themselves. It does not make any logical sense to hold them in that regard, and I must convey my deepest surprise at your position.

On your next paragraph, here’s what is incorrect: Darwin did not conceive the notion of evolution. That happened long before him. As I said, the very term ‘evolution’ is a bastardly invention of Spencer, who was quite adept at manipulating what Darwin wrote. You’ll note in the Origin that, true to the title, the phrase “origin of species” creeps up a lot. This problem, of what and how it caused the “origin of species,” was one that was being investigated by many biologists, not just Darwin. But this “origin of species” is what should be synonymous with “evolution,” and in their time biologists knew the distinction (as they do now, of course, but look above as to why they talk about evolution as theory). That is, we all know that species change somehow (evolution), but we want to explain how and why they change (scientific theories). This is a distinction that needs to be noted. I am quite alright with your suggestions about Darwinian evolutionary theory. “Darwin proposed evolution by natural selection” is fine with me, but the reason why I made this an issue is because I do not notice that happening currently, at least in some Wikipedia articles (it’s not that much of a problem in this one).

Your conceptions on the “modern” or “Darwinian” senses of evolution make you a good candidate for meriting the accusations that you levelled at me. I would have no problem if this was specified, but it is not. We speak about “evolution” and that’s it. We don’t speak about “modern biological conceptions of evolution” or “Darwinian evolution,” which, if we did, would incur no wrath from me. When we say evolution, there is a whole history there, and it does not start with Darwin, which is something that people confuse all the time. What starts with Darwin, finally, is the big mystery about what propels evolution forward, and Darwin was not the only working on the problem, although he was the one that pretty much get it right (more or less). I notice that you are making this mistake and would advise that you discontinue.

Your charge that I have no evidence is silly. What do you think inspired my idea? I’m not that clever. Here is Chris Colby in ''Introduction to Evolutionary Biology'' (see here: [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html]) speaking about how “The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.” And again: “The theory of punctuated equilibrium is an inference about the process of macroevolution from the pattern of species documented in the fossil record.” That’s a linguistically great scientist right there! I could wish that all scientists were that careful about the way that they throw words around, but I guess that’s why we have linguists.

"Of course we see a distinction between evolution as fact and evolution as theory."

Haha! What??? And who is begging the question? There is no such thing as "evolution as theory." There's "natural selection as theory" or "punctuated equilibrium as theory," but evolution is an umbrella term referring to the changes in a population over time, and, again, it has a history behind it that you can't ignore just because you want to. I will gather many more sources if need be. I do, however, have no compunction about ''easily'' recognizing that most scientists are not very careful when it comes to this issue, so you'll have a steady stream of more people who have made this mistake than not out of ''sociological context'', not a rational one.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 23:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, in light of the quotes: I ''firmly'' believe that evolution is a fact. To me, evolution is as real as the keys that I'm typing on right now. In that sense, I think those quotes just confuse the issue, because nowhere was I implying that the status of evolution as factual is being threatened or something.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 23:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

:*I see that you failed to provide any references to support your firmly-held belief that evolution is not a theory. Consequently, it doesn't matter whether or not I agree with you; [[WP:NOR]] (not to mention [[WP:NPOV]]) prohibits us from attempting to abolish all uses of "evolution" in the theoretical (or factual+theoretical, as in the dictionaries I cited) sense. Furthermore, to add to Filll's ever-growing, and prestigious, list of scientists and academics who rejected the idea that evolution is not a theory, here is a quotation from [[Eugenie Scott]]'s excellent book on the creation-evolution controversy. Scott goes further than most of the above quotes to actually dispute whether evolution is a fact ''at all'', quite destroying the notion that all authorities or experts on the matter consider evolution to be a fact, rather than a theory; there seems to be more support, if anything, for the ''opposite'' being the case:

:::"Evolution, we hear from anti-evolutionists, is "only a theory" and should not be presented as "fact." Of course evolution is a theory, retort the evolutionary scientists. Theories are much more important than facts! Antievolutionists respond that even if evolution is a theory in the scientific sense (of explanation), it isn't a very ''good'' theory, and isn't supported by the evidence....

:::"One hears from many scientists, "Evolution is a FACT!!!" The meaning here is that evolution, the "what happened," is so well supported that we don't argue about it, anymore than we argue about heliocentrism versus geocentrism. We accept that change through time happened, and go on to try to explain how. What we mean and what is heard is often different, however. What the public hears when scientists say "Evolution is FACT!" is that we treat evolution as unchallengeable dogma, which it isn't.

:::"We must learn to present evolution not as "a fact" in this dogmatic sense, but "matter of factly," as we would present heliocentrism and gravitation as "facts," but they are not "facts" in my definition of "confirmed observations." Instead, they are powerful inferences from many observations, which are not in themselves unquestioned, but used to build more detailed understandings.

:::"From the standpoint of philosophy of science, the "facts of evolution" are things like the anatomical structural homologies such as the tetrapod forelimb, or the biochemical homologies of cross species protein and DNA comparisons, or the biogeographical distribution of plants and animals. The "facts of evolution" are observations, confirmed over and over, such as the presence and/or absence of particular fossils in particular strata of the geological column (one never finds mammals in the Devonian, for example). From these confirmed observations we develop an explanation, an inference, that what explains all of these facts is that species have had histories, and that descent with modification has taken place. Evolution is thus a theory, and one of the most powerful theories in science."

:*You should be glad that it isn't Wikipedia's job to pick and choose between word definitions and try to rewrite the English language. If it was, then it's at least as likely that we'd have to end up redefining ''evolution'' as purely theoretical, rather than purely factual. It's because we ''don't'' have to make decisions like that&mdash;we simply report on other people's usage, we don't weigh in on such disagreements any more than absolutely necessary&mdash;that we're free from having to argue back and forth about which is the "best" definition. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I second Silence's comment. I am glad to see Prof. Scott's text. It is easy to find several hundred other instances where scientists use or discuss the "theory of evolution". Well it might cause confusion, just like scientists who are too "stupid" or "careless" to distinguish between gravity and gravitation. But that is the nature of the world. We cannot remake it as we would like. We can only describe and explain the world as it is. Lots of stupid things in language exist, lots of misuse which becomes so common that it becomes standard usage, etc. I am sure all of us could give many examples. However, the mission of WP cannot be to undo over a century of misuse by many many millions of people and millions of scientists. We just have to deal with it as it is. If I could go back and in time and advise Darwin, or maybe one of his predecessors, to write "evolution" for the factual observed process, and "tevolution" for the myriad explanations for this process, it might help. Unfortunately, that is not an option open to us. So it is sort of silly to argue about how nice it would be (I realize you claim you are not trying to change usage, but if that is not what you are doing, then I am not sure what is going on here). Should we keep this in mind and be careful when writing? Of course. That is part of the reason I wrote the "theory vs. fact" article and sections, and why I am rewriting it to make it even more precise and cited with many many very high quality sources. But, beyond that, I do not know what we can do. It is what it is.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope that you read, with at least a modicum of attention, what I wrote. I did provide evidence, so your claim that I did not is astounding. Again, here is what Chris Colby writes in ''Introduction to Evolutionary Biology'' (you can find that here: [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html]):

*“The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.”

*“The theory of punctuated equilibrium is an inference about the process of macroevolution from the pattern of species documented in the fossil record.”

This is really weird, kind of like a mild nightmare. Did you even see this? Whatever, I'll just try to ignore it, though hopefully you can understand my obfuscation. If I get into an argument, I hope the opposing side will accord me the same respect that I give them. I even explicitly wrote that I myself did not think of the distinction. Where did I get it from? From biologists!

Filll's prestigious list also includes scientists that state that evolution ''is'' a fact and not a theory. Again, one is compelled to ask, did you even read Filll's list? Or are you lying? Just in case you missed those:

* Carl Sagan: ''Evolution is a fact, not a theory.''

* R. C. Lewontin: ''...evolution is a fact, not theory''

* Douglas Futuyama: ''...the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact...''

I am quite baffled, but I'm sure you have a good explanation for all this. All this hoopla, however, misses the point, one which I made quite clear earlier: scientists do make a mistake when it comes to this issue. They're not perfect and they're not linguists. Your author is hardly credible with a statement like, "we treat evolution as unchallengeable dogma, which it isn't." Of course it is! Simply because it is challenged sociologically does not mean that it is challenged empirically or rationally. Evolution is one of the most absolutely true things a human could ''EVER'' think of, simply because the evidence is so enormous that to "challenge it," which I take for "to joke about it," means one is already placing oneself on unrational grounds and holding completely unjustifiable standards. Her conclusion is spectacularly ridiculous. Imagine the following scenario, analyze on Scott's terms: I kick a soccer ball into the net. Let's see: everyone can confirm the observations; I've kicked the ball into the net. Nothing controversial there. Then we develop an inference, or explanation: the ball went into the net because my foot struck it. That's a scientific theory? Clearly it cannot be. It is absolutely silly.

All this aside, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and I'm not interested in debating you or Scott on that count. I just want you to recognize that I ''have'' offered evidence for my views, and so has Filll. Like I said, I can get more material in a similar vein, but I just don't think it's necessary, because you will always be able to find ''more'' than I. That does not make you right, however. It merely highlights the sociopolitical context that has inspired the use of the term 'evolution' in that sense. Scientists had to grow up too; they've grown up all their lives so often hearing "evolution is theory" that many have come to believe it, quite atrociously.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 00:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To Filll: I am not naive; I realize this will not change in Wikipedia, which is supposed to document already known human wisdom, not be avant garde. But I don't believe that it is too much to ask to say simply "evolution" where "theory of evolution" comes up; one could see it as just making a simpler phrase rather than introducing a whole new intellectual context (people won't see it that way, of course, but that's one way you ''could'' see it, letting your imagination run a little). Either way, there is substance in what I'm saying and I've highlighted that, even giving a legitimate reference, which apparently I didn't, according to Silence (*rolls eyes*).[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

:To me this seems like a "distinction without a difference", as it were, or an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We all KNOW that evolution is a process. We all KNOW that the modern synthesis/NeoDarwinian theory or even the Darwinian theory are commonly called the "theory of evolution". We all know this causes confusion, but is commonly used nevertheless. We could try to remove it or minimize its use in our article, but then there would be no frame of reference for people who know it as the theory of evolution. I am not aware that we are overusing the phrase. And I think that just replacing all instances of "theory of evolution" with "evolution" will cause even more problems and confusion. I think that replacing all instances of processes or facts of evolution with "process of evolution" might make for text that is graceful in all instances, although I do try to distinguish when I write (however, I am not sure I accomplish that). You have made your point. We agree with you. We actually agreed with you before you made it. So what should we do about it?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This claim does not have only terminological interest. It relates to problems in the philosophy of science (calling evolution a "theory" means we inject into the term "evolution" some sort of mechanism to describe itself) and in its history ("evolution" did not just pop into existence with Darwin; the term was invented by Spencer and the foundational problems of evolution were being tackled by other people besides Darwin; the very fact that Darwin got it right implies that we do note a distinction between what Darwin got right - natural selection - and the problem that he was working on - evolution). I already said what should be done about it: replace "theory of evolution" with "evolution," or, in another twist, explain the controversy that exists if you want to keep using the term "theory of evolution." I'd be fine with the second option; disclaimers never hurt anyone.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

:Can you give specific pointers to places on Wikipedia where "theory of evolution" is used to signify the changing frequency of alleles through successive generations? This entire debate is entirely academic without examples. I suspect the entire "problem" is that you are misinterpreting perfectly sensible uses of the phrase that really refer to a larger theoretical framework. [[User:N6|N6]] 00:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

:Cryxic, I read your entire post. Like I said, you provided no references that said that evolution is not (much less that it ''never'' is) a theory. Filll is the only one who provided examples of anyone saying that evolution isn't a theory, and Filll provided many ''more'' examples of people saying that it ''is'' a theory, so obviously that's grossly inadequate for proving that evolution can't describe a theory. You provided a single example of a resource describing the ''fact'' of evolution (and since that reference had to go to the trouble of saying "process of evolution" rather than just "evolution", your citation actually ''supports'' the idea that "evolution" is sometimes used to refer to a theory, rather than 100% of the time to an observed process); the resource mentions nowhere that it is incorrect to ever use the word "evolution" in a theoretical sense. And even if it did, we've already provided over a dozen references that disagree; clearly this is not as clear-cut an issue as you wish that it were, and consequently the correct response on Wikipedia's part is simply to neutrally report on the disagreement, not to weigh in on it by specifically advocating one view or another. As I said, an excellent place to discuss this disagreement would be [[Evolution (term)]], and another one would be [[Evolution as theory and fact]]; there's plenty of room to provide all the major views on the matter. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 01:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Google hits:

*"Theory of evolution" 1.08 million

*"evolutionary theory" 1.03 million

*"Darwin's theory" 0.627 million

*"Process of evolution" 0.527 million

*"theory of natural selection" 0.486 million

*"Darwinian theory" 0.319 million

*"evolutionary theories" 273 thousand

*"theories of evolution" 177 thousand

*"fact of evolution" 68.6 thousand

*"theory of biological evolution" 38.2 thousand

So...it does appear that the phrase "theory of evolution" is heavily used by someone. Perhaps incorrectly, but someone is using it. --[[User:Filll|Filll]] 01:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

:With all due respect, I think UberCryxic is wrong here. Natural selection is the ''process'' through which evolution operates. Evolution is a ''theory'' as well a ''fact''. These I think are very clear ''facts''. Btw, I won't be here to argue over it. :) [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 01:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I will address all of your points tomorrow. I have to watch Bush's speech in a few minutes, but I just want to say something to Xiner. I actually clarified before that natural selection is a scientific theory ''and'' can be thought of as a natural process. Both of those designations would be correct for that term. As it stands, your statement makes no sense because you are stating something along the lines of: the process of natural selection is the mechanism behind the scientific theory of evolution. That's non-sensical! The ''theory'' must contain the mechanism, and that theory is natural selection. Evolution is the process. Nice try though.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 01:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

:Natural selection is a process, not a theory. After reading the above comments, I think you need to show some citations before I reply again. Nice try, too. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 01:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Natural selection was Darwin's attempt at coming to grips with evolution. It is, historically and in every other relevant way, a theory first. But, as I said, it is also a natural process. Citations? I'll use the Origin of Species as my general reference. If you have read it, you should already know what Darwin was talking about. Of particular interest is Chapter VI, titled, quite appropriately, "Difficulties on Theory." But if you are insistent on a quote of some kind, then here is Darwin himself, from that chapter:

''Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered: but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.''

As you can see, Darwin himself treated natural selection as a theory. The word "theory" is found there and in other places throughout the book. There is no doubt that Darwin himself knew the difference between what he was proposing (natural selection) and this problem on the "origin of species," ie the problem of "evolution," to use the term that Herbert Spencer coined and that the rest of the world adopted.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

==Help with fact and theory==

Some authors say evolution is fact and theory, others fact and NOT theory. Er? Help. It's total linguistic confusion. No wonder because there are 2 principal meanings of "evolution", "fact" and "theory".

:EVOLUTION

:#The hypothesis that species change in their average composition from one generation to the next

:#The hypothesis that man and monkey share a common ancestor (or similar)

:FACT

:#Something which is directly observed

:#Something for which there is overwhelming evidence

:THEORY

:#Something capable of explaining, interpeting obervations and making predictions

:#Something yet to be proven, not fully established

Not realy surprising we have this mess!!! [[User:Axel147|Axel147]] 16:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are right we have a mess. That is why I and Orangemarlin wrote [[Evolution as theory and fact]]. Let me try to summarize what will be in the rewrite:

*A lot of scholarly sources

*evolution as a process and as a theory

*theory as a scientific explanation for data and theory as just a guess that is probably not true

*fact as truth and fact as scientific datum

*theory so well established it is regarded as fact because it would be perverse not to.

There will also be discussion of scientific hypotheses, laws, truth, predictions etc. All with lots of references and examples and quotes.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 16:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Google hits:

*"Theory of evolution" 1.08 million

*"evolutionary theory" 1.03 million

*"Darwin's theory" 0.627 million

*"Process of evolution" 0.527 million

*"theory of natural selection" 0.486 million

*"Darwinian theory" 0.319 million

*"evolutionary theories" 273 thousand

*"theories of evolution" 177 thousand

*"fact of evolution" 68.6 thousand

*"theory of biological evolution" 38.2 thousand

So...it does appear that the phrase "theory of evolution" is heavily used by someone. Perhaps incorrectly, but someone is using it. --[[User:Filll|Filll]] 01:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

:With all due resp

I sincerely doubt that Google hits mean anything approaching a marginal level of ''relevance'' when it comes to this matter specifically. It is not unfathomable to conclude that many of the hits for "theory of evolution" originate from creationist websites hellbent on casting animadversions upon evolutionary theory and evolution itself. The best that you have done is to show the sociological component behind thinking of evolution as a "theory." Regardless of all this, I support your efforts in the upcoming version of the article, at least as you have highlighted them here. I was particularly impressed with the point talking about evolution as process and theory. To keep some semblance of the status quo, but to also recognize that it is incomplete, I am fine with talking about the controversy and the problems surrounding the use of the term "evolution." Thanks Filll.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 20:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

:A question that might clarify the issue. How would you (that is, anyone involved in this debate) classify the statement: "The diversity of life that we see today and in the fossil record can be explained by descent with modification from a common ancestor over a period of billions of years"? I would call that a statement of the most basic "theory of evolution". Natural selection, et al, are _specific_ theories of evolution, proposed mechanisms for the modifications that the basic theory requires, but there is, I would argue, such a basic theory distinct from the specific theories, the facts which support it (morphological homologies, genetics, stratigraphy), and the process it requires (descent with modification). [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] 21:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

''The best that you have done is to show the sociological component behind thinking of evolution as a "theory."''

The phrase "theory of evolution" is '''not''' necessarily an assertion that the process of evolution is non-factual. Your continued insistence that this is the only possible meaning for this phrase is becoming preposterous. "Theory of evolution" is commonly used as a synonym for "evolutionary theory", to signify a theoretical framework built around the process of evolution.

Please acknowledge and address this point instead of continuing to ignore me completely.

--[[User:N6|N6]] 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

::N6, I think he is fine with it now. See my talk page.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 21:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

:::He's fine with your proposed solution, true. But this debate has still been framed from wire to wire by the assumption that "theory of evolution" must mean something that it often doesn't actually mean. There are perfectly correct and uncontroversial uses of this phrase even under the strict definition of evolution as factual process, and yet UberCryxic continues to declare all such usage categorically wrong.

:::Also, it's been exasperating attempting to make such a simple point that more or less defuses the entire debate and receiving no recognition from either side that I've even said anything at all. [[User:N6|N6]] 21:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This debate has been framed with the context of Wikipedia in mind. However, I have nothing more to say now, as I'm quite happy with what Filll will do. There can be no purpose to continuing this conversation within a wiki context, but I would be glad to discuss these issues with you either through e-mail or through our talk pages.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

==Archive time?==

It strikes me that it might be time to archive chunks of this page that are inactive now.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 21:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

==Lead==

With all respect, can we please stop changing simple words to more difficult words in the lead? The lead needs a reasonable amout of opernness and simplicity, and it must say that it's by no means horrible, but here's my thoughts:

Evolution is the process in which inherited traits become more or less '''prevalent''' ''[Why not common? We surely have enough difficult words as it is.]'' in a population over successive generations. Over time, this process can lead to speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All extant organisms are related by common descent, having evolved over billions of years of cumulative genetic changes from a single ancestor. ''[This doesn't really tie in very well with the previous sentences]''

The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection and genetic drift'''; these two mechanisms''' ''[[Replace with "which", to simplify phrasing?]]'' act on the genetic variation caused by mutation, '''genetic recombination and gene flow'''. ''[These terms are meaningless to the layperson, I suspect]'' Through genetic drift, the '''frequency''' ''[Not a horrible word, but given the difficult words we have to use, why include ones we don't?]'' of heritable traits changes randomly. Through natural selection, organisms with traits that help them to survive and reproduce will have more offspring, passing these beneficial traits on to the next generation. This leads to advantageous traits becoming more common in each generation, while disadvantageous traits become rarer. Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.[5]

The theory of evolution by natural selection was first propounded in detail in Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with the theory of Mendelian heredity to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, also known as "Neo-Darwinism". The modern synthesis describes evolution as a change in the frequency of different versions of genes, known as alleles, within a population from one generation to the next. With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, '''eusociality''' ''[This is a particularly specialist term]'' in insects, and the biodiversity of Earth's ecosystem.

[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 22:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

:Adam, I am completely behind you on this one, as I am sure you probably guessed. I do not care if there is fairly heavy technical material in the body of the article, but the LEAD and the introductory paragraphs of the sections (or at least the introductory sentences) absolutely must be readable by a high school student, or a junior high school student if possible. If you cannot make the entire LEAD that way, at least the first couple of paragraphs should be readable by anyone off the street. I know we have an [[Introduction to evolution]] article, but that is no reason not to try to make at least the first few sentences of this one accessible. That is all 99% of the readers of this article will read anyway, so we should at least make sure they can understand what the article is about before they move on. I am willing to sit and wait to a certain extent as the rewrite progresses, but I am definitely going on record as advocating accessibility. The fewer big words the better. No need to try to be pedantic, at least in the first few sentences. You can exhibit all kinds of circumlocution later in the article and be as abstruse as you like, but not in the first few sentences please. Thanks.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

::For example, why not replace extant with living? Or instead of cumulative, accumulated might be better? Or maybe something simpler yet? and so on.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

:::: Yea it really slows you down when you have to go to a dictionary to look up every word:

pe·dan·tic [pə dántik] adj. Too concerned with formal rules and details, e.g. in language Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] 22:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::Haha. Very funny. But it does prove my point...--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm generally behind the sentiment that simplifying the language in the lead is a good thing. Changing "prevalent" back to "common", for example, is a slam dunk--it was only changed recently, anyway.

On the other hand, I don't see any problem with mentioning "gene recombination and gene flow". My personal philosophy is that it's perfectly OK to use ''useful'' wikilinked jargon in a WP lead when no suitable and compact lay terms exist. A print encyclopedia might be obligated to tortuously define its terms in the lead or to remove important introductory information from the lead in the interest of accessibility, but the wiki format allows us to explain unfamiliar terms just by linking them. Others may disagree with this philosophy.

If we must avoid jargon in the lead, the wording should be changed in a way that retains the general meaning. Here's one example I feel is somewhat lacking: "the genetic variation caused by mutation and other processes." I'd prefer the existing wording.

--[[User:N6|N6]] 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

:I agree with you, but Gene flow is, effectively, migration, so we could say "The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection and genetic drift, which act on the genetic variation caused by [[mutation]], [[gene flow|migration from other populations]], and [[genetic recombination|the reshuffling of chromosomes]] during [[sexual reproduction]]." instead.

::This is moving in the direction of "tortuous" sentence structure, but I wouldn't object too strenuously. Removing "during sexual reproduction" would save some words without compromising accuracy: the sentence doesn't claim that all these processes occur in all species. [[User:N6|N6]] 01:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've applied some of the changes. I don't think anything is contentious, but here are the few that could be:

* "All [[extant taxon|extant]] [[organism]]s are related by [[common descent]]" to ". All known [[organism]]s are related by [[common descent]]": The first is quite possibly wrong, as there's no particular reason to believe [[panspermia]], so life on other worlds, if it exists, is almost surely not related by common descent to our organisms. The second says exactly what we know. If a stronger statement is desired, how about "All known organisms, living and dead, are related by [[common descent]]"?

* Cut the phrase "of cumulative genetic changes" - it seemed only to make the statement more confusing.

* "Genetic recombination" to "[[genetic recombination|the reshuffling of chromosomes]] during [[sexual reproduction]]" - it might not be explicit enough in including [[crossing over]]. Tweak? N6 suggests removing the reference to sexual reproduction, though I worry that without it it makes it unclear when the reshuffling happens.

* Cut "also known as 'Neo-[[Darwinism]]'" - trivial, and was damaging paragraph flow, and we've trimmed the history section anyway, so why elabourate on alternate terms in the lead?

* "[[eusociality]] in insects" to <s>"[[eusociality|social structures]] in insects" - reasonably accurate, but perhaps not ideal.</s> "the orginisation of colonies of insects" - Are we using British or American spelling conventions, by the way?

[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It does make it unclear when exactly the reshuffling happens, but I don't think that "when" is something that needs to be clear in this lead. We're just providing some context for the origin of genetic variation. For our purposes, mutation, recombination, and gene flow are processes that occur under some unspecified circumstances in some unspecified species. The particulars can be explained in the linked articles and/or in the body of this article. [[User:N6|N6]] 01:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

:True. Think any of the other changes might be problematic? [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

:Just about everything looks good. I've made a small change to the wording about insect colonies and changed to "organization" ("ize" endings appear to be preferred by the rest of the article). [[User:N6|N6]] 01:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

==Gene Flow==

The statement that Ernst Mayer thought gene flow to be counterproductive to speciation is true, but he was incorrect as more recent finds indicate:Hey J. Recent advances in assessing gene flow between diverging populations and species. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2006 Dec;16(6):592-6. Epub 2006 Oct 19. Also HGT and hyridization produce speciation so Gene flow occurs during speciation. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 21:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

== become more or less common ==

The first sentence. Become "more or less" common. Is there an alternative to "more or less" that doesn't carry the baggage of the phrase "more or less" that translates to <s>maybe, maybe not</s>". On second thought, maybe more or less has a 'feel" of indecisiveness. For example: No big deal, I could "more or less" give a crap whether it's changed or not. But seriously, no big deal so please don't beat me in the ground with endless paragraphs of why my thoughts are "more or less" befuddled.

An addendum: 100% of my high school research papers (science topics) used Wikipedia as a reference. There are many reasons why they shouldn't ... I already know this and it will be addressed. But the fact that they did, demonstrates that it is a primary tool among high school students. My guess is that few with a masters or phd's use Wikipedia for research. Your focus has been on the introduction; the hardest part to simplify, but please read through the entire article. There are many places there that could be crystalized. I'm guessing it would be easier than it has been on the intro. So ... if you feel a sense of ownership to any particular section, would you consider rereading and perhaps re-writing with at least some empahsis on simplification of vocabulary and perhaps breaking-up some very long sentences; not dumbing it down; (we did that next door in the intro) but, with an eye to readability; unlike this sentence that I am using to describe the delemia!

This is still one of my favorite lines: "Thus, over time even in the absence of selection upon the alleles, allele frequencies tend to "drift" upward or downward, eventually becoming "fixed" - that is, going to 0% or 100% frequency."

I did tell my students when viewing an entry to look over the discussion page. It would give them insight into the credibility of the article. I am so impressed with your commitment to excellence ... and you are not even paid. Cheers --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] 16:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

:Well, since it's "More or less common ''relative to others''", we could probably change to "more common relative to others" without much loss of meaning. The rest of the article is the next project. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 16:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

::I actually like "more or less common". In this case it isn't "more or less" common, it's "more common or less common". In any case it's now "prevelant" not common. Losing the "less" part of the structure though Adam implies that evolution or variation only happens when an allele frequency increases which is not so. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 18:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

:::That is an awful sentence by any standard. Unreadable by high school student and PhD alike.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 18:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

::::: Is the term "blueprint" misleading? As discussed below. I used it in the Introduction Article: Evolution occurs through changes in genes, the "blueprint" for constructing the organism. Should I change it to "instructions". Also. "inherited traits become more common or uncommon over successive...." Would "more common or less common" work for balance. Or perhaps just "increase or decrease" which takes fewer words. --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

*I tried to resolve the issue by changing it to "less or more common", but that was awkward-sounding. So I changed it to "more common or uncommon". But I still actually prefer "more or less common". I don't think that the connotation of triviality is significant here, and its irrelevance is sufficient that I don't think anyone will be led astray by it. It's also a lit simpler and smoother than other possible wordings, and avoids their ambiguities. So, I agree with Candy. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 00:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

== intro ==

Although Silence seemed to want to simplify the intro, his last edit involved adding an unnecessary sewntence. Moreover, that sentence used the very very problematic and misleading "genes as blueprints" metaphor - putting "blueprints" in quotation marks doesn't help; it is a bad metaphor and can only mislead people and we just shouldn't use it. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 16:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

::Aye, It was an unnecessary addition. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

:I don't care about the "blueprints" metaphor; any other way of conveying the same information in a clear manner will be adequate. If the purpose of the lead section of [[evolution]] is to explain evolution as clearly as possible to non-specialists, it is vitally necessary to explicitly state, at some point or other, that evolution operates through the [[heredity|hereditary]] unit known as the [[gene]]&mdash;and, ideally, we should explain, at least very briefly, what a gene ''is'' (briefly mentioning [[DNA]] is also something to consider, because of its importance and relevance). Waiting until the end of the third paragraph (after genetics has already been discussed in-depth in the second para, with much less common and less important terms like "genetic recombination" being referenced), and then only explaining and linking "alleles", rather than genes themselves, is unhelpful if we expect many of our readers to be unacquainted with [[genetics]], which seems like a fair expectation.

:I was prompted to make this addition by the recent comment noting how much more accessible the lead section of [[Introduction to evolution]] is than the lead section to [[Evolution]]. Although we shouldn't "baby" our readers as much as the Introduction article does, we should at the very least explain the same fundamental ideas that that article does, which includes explaining, either near the end of the first pragraph or near the start of the second one, the genetic basis of evolution. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 18:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

::I might also mention if anyone is feeling ambitious, we have the same problem at [[genetics]], [[gene]] and [[mutation]]. I think all of these could do with a more accessible lead, and possibly an introductory article. I have a stub for [[Introduction to genetics]] already that needs work.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 18:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The most exact definition is in the third paragraph, which explains alleles and genes, to some extent. Perhaps a little bit more on Mendelian genetics in that paragraph would be best? [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 19:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

*I've now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=100504868&oldid=100502885 heavily revised] the lead section of the article, removing some unnecessary details or roundabout wordings and trying to convey the basic ideas as simply and directly as possible. Feel free to revert and discuss the changes; we may end up implementing some and rejecting others, which is fine, but I wanted to see how they looked and to get the word out quickly. The major changes are:

**I redefined evolution in terms of genetics rather than traits. This definition seems to be more common (cf. dictionary.com), and more direct. Modern evolution is extensively concerned with genes, much more so than traits; a cursory look at the article will show that the entire "processes" and "mechanisms" sections (i.e., the heart and soul of the article) are concerned with genetics, which is unavoidable. If the reason this was avoided in the first paragraph was because of concerns over scaring people off with technobabble, then the concern is misplaced; someone who isn't immediately introduced to the gene will be confused for the ''entire'' rest of the article by the subsequent central focus on genetic change. Simplification should not be pursued to the extreme that it leads to ''inaccuracy'', as is the case if we try to brush genes under the rug in the lead section. By the modern, biological definition of ''evolution'', organisms' inherited traits can ''hypothetically'' change over successive generations without evolution being involved, as long as the unit of heredity is non-genetic; in turn, change in a population's genetic composition over successive generations is evolution by definition, even if the population's phenotypes or traits remain unchanged.

**I greatly shortened and simplified the lengthy listing of [[mutation]], [[gene flow]], [[genetic recombination]], and [[genetic drift]], which will be of minimal value to anyone completely new to the topic. Now that only a few words are consumed in referencing them, anyone interested will be able to either read further in the article or click on the individual links to find out more, but anyone not interested will be able to understand everything that the second paragraph is saying without needing to be familiar with genetic terminology. Plus it's greatly shortened, thanks to removing some redundant "genetic"s.

**I shortened the third paragraph by simplifying the [[allele]] reference (because genes are already mentioned now in the first paragraph) and removing the unnecessary minor examples of [[antibiotic resistance]] and [[eusociality]], which, though interesting, are likely to confuse new readers (as it has been noted recently that these are not common terms, especially "eusociality"), and give them the misleading impression that these are somehow ''central'' or ''vital'' aspects of evolutionary research, when they're really just meant to be interesting side-notes. By leaving such side-notes and examples until later in the article, we avoid cluttering the lead seciton and can give more much-needed time and space to truly central aspects of evolution, such as its explanatory value for the [[biodiversity]] of known life.

*There are also some other, more minor changes, which can be viewed in the differences. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 20:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

:I'm afraid I don't like the new lead sentence: It's perfectly accurate, but defines it in a much harder to understand way, in my opinion. I'd rather have the old-fashioned top-down definition first, as being easiest to understand, with the bottom-up modern synthesis definition - which requires more knowledge of genes - in the second or third paragraph. Others may disagree. [[User:84.19.233.186|84.19.233.186]] 21:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC) (Adam Cuerden)

*''"rm gene-centric view -- evolution is observable in populations even before we were able to look at the gene level"'' - The first sentence of my change was removed with this comment.

*Two points in response: First, the entire rest of the article is clearly written from a 100% gene-centric view. We are only deceiving ourselves, and our readers, if we do not acknowledge this. If the rest of the article is not 100% "gene-centric", then neither is "Evolution is the change in a population's genes over successive generations". It should also be noted that it is entirely undeniable that genes are always involved in, and critical for, evolution; noting that this is true at the beginning of the article, for the sake of not confusing our readers later, is uncontroversial, and needn't constitute being "gene-centric", which some would say implies that phenotypes aren't as important (which is contradicted by the very next sentence; if you want, we can even combine the two sentences into one, if being sufficiently neutral is more important than keeping the sentences simple and short).

*Second, the claim that "evolution is observable in populations even before we were able to look at the gene level" is trivially true, and profoundly irrelevant. This article is about modern evolutionary biology, not about the [[history of evolutionary thought]], and as such it should reflect (especially in the first paragraph!) the modern view of evolution, which is a thoroughly (and increasingly) genetic one, at least at its foundations. If dictionaries tend to define evolution [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution in genetic terms], and if we ourselves devote the most important parts of the article to describing evolution genetically, I see no reason not to at least ''acknowledge'' that common usage at the start of the article, even if we temper it by describing evolution in terms of "traits" at the same time.

*Yes, evolution can be observed without knowing anything about genetics&mdash;but so what? Clouds were observed for millennia before anyone knew that clouds were masses of water droplets or ice particles, but that doesn't mean that modern dictionaries or encyclopedias shouldn't start off a [[cloud]] article by explaining that fact about clouds. For the same reason we start our [[Cloud]] article with "A cloud is a visible mass of condensed droplets or frozen crystals suspended in the atmosphere above the surface of the Earth or another planetary body", rather than starting it with "A cloud is a big fluffy white thing in the sky" in order to acknowledge or make room for older understandings of clouds, we should similarly start [[Evolution]] by explaining the basic processes at work in evolution, as modern evolutionary biologists recognize it (and that basic process is genetic), not by trying to give a vague, roundabout explanation that doesn't really come close to explaining how evolution ''works''. We should not sacrifice informational value and straightforward coherency for the sake of avoiding being branded "gene-centric". -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 21:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

:::What do you call a sheep with no legs? ....duolc A! (You have to teach very young children to appreciate this). Cleaned up the intro sentence. "Genes" was too vague I felt so changed it to gene frequencies and removed uncommon as it's use in this respect is more suited to Dickensian English. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 08:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

::::"In biology, evolution is the process in which a population's inherited traits become more common or less common over successive generations through changes in gene frequencies." In biology, evolution is the change in a populations inherited traits though changes in gene frequencies over successive generations. Process seems odd. It should be more a phenomena. Gravity is described as a phenomena not a process isn't it(process of curved space time?)? Processes would also seem to refer to theory. The process of evolution by natural selection, or process of evolution by genetic drift can explain the life history of earth or explain the evolution observed. I guess it is both-Darwin observed the process, we now the molecular phenomena. It is not a big deal just my own perverse perspective. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 13:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::Could you explain why "genes" is too vague for the first sentence, Candy? Dictionaries variously use "change in the gene pool of a population", "change in the genetic composition of a population", or "change in the gene frequencies of a population", so the common theme seems to simply be "change in the genes of a population"; is it ''really'' necessary to make the first sentence even longer by adding "frequencies"? Especially since we already basically mention that in the first sentence as "become more common or uncommon".

:::::And, GetAgrippa, the reason it is correct is to describe evolution as a "process" rather than a "phenomenon" is because evolution, by definition, only occurs over the span of multiple generations. ''Features'' of evolution, like allele frequency changes, might be directly observable as individual phenomena through a microscope, but evolution itself only occurs over significant spans of time, depending on the species being observed. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 15:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

::Because modern biology relies on the understanding that it isn't changes in any old genes but the frequencies of the coding (or those assisting in coding) alleles. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 06:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Phenomena means observeable by the senses which does not negate using technology-gel electrophoresis or an electron microscope and our senses to make observations. Multiple generations is true, but with HGT and hybridization it is relatively quickly. There are a whole host of examples of animals that appear to be splitting into distinct species in real time as we speak or the last 50-300 years. It is more correct to say frequencies in agreement with pop. genetics also. Evolution is the fact of changes in gene frequencies and heritable traits through descent. The processes and mechanisms are mutations, recombinations, non-random mating, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow,etc. Evolution occurs through a process of mutation and natural selection, or hybridization and natural selection, or a founder effect and genetic drift,etc. Evolution is the phenomena and the processes are both biological and mathematical-genetics and modeling. Is gravity a process? The processes of gravitons or curved spacetime produces the phenomena. "Significant spans of time" is limiting evolution to macroevolution whereas microevolution is evolution in real time. The transposon responsible for insecticide resistance in world wide population of drosophila has occured the last 50-250 years. Plants can hybridize and generate speciation within a few generations. Speciation can occur without sequence evolution-reproductive isolation without sequence evolution: Speciation Without Sequence Evolution.Science 8 September 2006 313: 1360. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 18:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:''Phenomena'' are observable, yes, but "a phenomenon" is a single observation. Evolution is phenomenal, but not "a phenomenon"; it's more of a group of phenomena than a single one. Therefore it seems more accurate and clear to describe evolution as "a process": the individual phenomena within that process do not, on their own, constitute evolution. Rather, it is their being causally and temporally grouped together that makes them "evolution". -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

::Good point it is multistep mechanistically and thus is a process of processes. I am just concerned people will confuse the processes of evolution for evolution. Natural selection is not synonymous with evolution, but you have evolution by natural selection. Speciation is not synonymous with evolution but is a by product of evolution. You should address the usage of phenomenon in the gravitation article. Gravitation is a phenomenon through which all objects attract each other. This is true but not just a single event. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 20:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:::The [[water cycle]] is a process, but [[precipitation]] is a specific process within that process. It is possible to describe both as being processes without generating ambiguity, as long as we are careful in how we define ''water cycle'' (or how we define ''evolution''); in contrast, saying that the water cycle is a "phenomenon" is a bit too inexact. I don't think it will be a big problem as long as we are consistent. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 21:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, Genetic drift is a force that generally acts to ''remove'' variation, not create it: If a gene fluctuates randomly for long enough, particularly in a small population, it will become fixed when, by random chance, one of the alleles happens to reach 100%. I've reworked it accordingly. I've also added a few words around each of the short descriptions of causes of variation, and clarified the role of genes. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 17:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

::Well the intro seems to read like a butcher's offal bucket again. "All known organisms" did not evolve over billions of years. Only the current or extant ones did.

::"usually measured in terms of the genes that encode the traits". Allele is succincter and clearer. Genes that encode the traits is clumsy.

::"As differences accumulate in populations over time" As differences in what? Clarity is missing.

::"Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions" Please explain this to me! What on earth is it trying to say?

::I had objections to "In biology," before due to tautology. I take on board the remark the article should stand alone regardless of diambig and therfore withdraw my previous statements. [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 22:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I agree with point 1; "known" is not only inaccurate, but redundant, as we can't discuss unknown organisms, and we shouldn't speculate about purely hypothetical extraterrestrial life. "Living organisms" should suffice, and is less terminology-heavy than "Extant organisms". I'll try to revise the gene clause (now a brief sentence), both to avoid ambiguity and to avoid redundancy with the later mentioning of alleles; there's no reason to wait until the "history" part of the intro to explain how modern biology views evolution (i.e., in terms of [[allele frequency]]). Regarding point 3, I'm not sure what you mean; the differences refer to the accumulated variations in inherited traits in and between populations, as mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Perhaps the intro to [[Introduction to evolution]] will be clearer on this point? Regarding point 4, that sentence has been there for months, and has in no way been altered by recent edits to the lead section, so I won't try to explain or alter it. And I agree that "In biology" is important and necessary, as ''evolution'' has many non-biological meanings and we should not rely on dab notices for article text clarity when not absolutely necessary. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 22:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

::And no, the "In biology bit," was removed a few weeks ago by me. See history. So it is not correct to say it's been there for months. You entered cold on this one recently. (Which is why, some days ago, I asked you to read the discussions if you remember.) [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 06:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of problems with the last edits:

* "It is usually measured in terms of the [[allele frequency|frequency]] of [[allele]]s, the [[gene]]s that encode traits." - this is a terrible explanation of alleles. How about "in terms of the frequency of the [[gene]]s that encode the various traits, known as alleles" - this makes the relationship between genes and alleles clear.

* Removes the phrase "and bettwen" from "As differences in and between populations accumulate over time, this process can lead to [[speciation]", as well as other muddying rewrites. Populations of the same species diverging from each other is a classic mechanism of speciation, that the edit removes.

* Genetic [[mutation]], [[gene flow|migration]], and [[genetic recombination|reshuffling]] create [[genetic variation|variation]] in organisms, and [[gene flow]] randomizes it. - Gene flow in no way randomises it, and your edit statement saying that "migration from other populations" is an inaccurate description of gene flow is... completely and entirely wrong. That is the *precise definition* of it.

I've reverted it, as, freankly, every change in the last two seemed a bit muddled. Are you feeling alright? Because you are normally a good editor, don't get me wrong. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 01:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

:If any of my edits introduce errors or ambiguities, feel free to revert them; almost the only things I know about alleles, gene flow, and various other topics in genetics are what I've learned from Wikipedia itself, and the articles on and references to each of those are pretty unenlightening. Feel free to reword the sentence on alleles as you see fit, as I was simply trying to find a compromise between the previous version and Candy's request.

:"Gene flow randomizes it" was a typo (and an obvious one, since it would mean that "Gene flow" is mentioned twice, both then and earlier as "genetic migration"); that was meant to say "Genetic mutation, migration, and reshuffling creates variation in organisms, and [[genetic drift]] randomizes it." I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't notice the typo at the time, so I apologize for the confusion.

:As for "in and between", the passage originally only said "in", but I added "in and between" based on my limited knowledge of cladogenesis and anagenesis. As the first paragraph began to get longer, I removed the "and between" because noone had given any indication that it was an improvement, much less that it was necessary, so I figured it'd be better trimmed down a bit to account for the other added info; after all, "differences in a population" could potentially include "between populations", in that differences between populations leading to evolution are themselves the result of the prior development of differences within a population (or of a single population being isolated into two or more groups prior to the accumulation of differences). If you feel that "in and between" was indeed an important clarification to make in the lead paragraph, however, then feel free to restore it.

:As for "migation", you defined [[gene flow]] as "migration from other populations"; isn't it really "genetic migration to or from other populations"? Defining gene flow as solely being from other populations toward "this" one makes sense neither in context (as we aren't really writing from the perspective of only one population) nor in general (as it's not a one-way process). "Migration" is also ambiguous in this context, as it could apply to anything, not just the transfer of alleles.

:At this point, I'm strongly leaning towards simply removing these three troublesome terms from the lead section and moving them to the beginning of the "Basic processes" section, which immediately follows the lead and has enough room to allow us to clearly define all three terms. We can simply mention how natural selection acts on genetic variation in the second paragraph, and go into detail on what causes genetic variation immediately after the lead section, since it's an important topic, but a more complicated one because of the many factors involved. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 02:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

*nod* Did think that Gene flow thing was probably a typo, but genetic drift is probably a bit too important to diminish too much. I see your point about Gene flow now: It's mainly a difference in viewpoint, but changing it to "[[gene flow|migration]] between populations" makes it general. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 15:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

== Questionable Neutrality ==

Yesterday I brought a comment to the table that simpy states that the evolution article in Wikipedia is not neutral in some of its wording. The major issue being that the article infers that all scientists believe that evolution is fact. I have read many examples of biologists, paleontologists, geologists and other scientists who have their doubts to the validity of the theory. My suggestion is that for the article to preserve neutrality, it should state that not all scientists are convinced or at least say that "most" scientists agree, etc. etc. Since then I've been peppered with circular reasoning and ad hominem arguments that avoid the issue. Some people have even accused me of forcing my religious beliefs into the subject when I not once mentioned my religious beliefs. I did not advocate creationism, ID or any other alternative to evolution. That is not my purpose here. The argument that keeps coming back to me is that everybody who matters -- the "revelant scientific community" -- believes in evolution so there is no scientific debate. Only relgious and social debate. Since there is no scientific debate, the argument goes, there are no sides to be taken and therefore no bias to avoid. This just doesn't make sense. Of course there is no debate when the only scientists you allow in the debate room are the ones that agree with your presumption that evolution is fact and supported by all scientists. Maybe you can personally reject a source that does not agree with your POV but you can't ignore opposition when the goal is to preserve neutrality. If there are two (or more) sides to an argument, positioning the article to favor only one side is bias. I sense that I will get nowhere when it comes to atually making any changes in the language of the article, but I have made my objections to the neutrality known. [[User:Clayc3466|Clayc3466]] 18:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

:It probably would have been wiser to simply add this comment to the end of the neutrality conversation rather than delete everyone else's comments and replace them with a new one. [[User:Chickenflicker|Chickenflicker]]---[[User talk:Chickenflicker|♣]] 19:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Chickenflicker (which is very cool screen name), you're probably correct but the string was getting too long and convoluted. I simply grew tired of the thing. So I guess since I started the conversation I took some editorial perogrative and deleted the whole thing. [[User:Clayc3466|Clayc3466]] 19:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Listing Gould as someone claimed to "not agree" with evolution is always entertaining: Silence's contribution was very informative: the links and information given should certainly be added to relevant articles if not there already. .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 20:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

*Clayc, you have provided no evidence that evolution is in serious scientific dispute. Your other complaints are inapplicable to this article: the article states nowhere that 100% of all scientists in all fields agree with evolutionary theory, so it is a strawman to dispute that; and unsubstantiated claims of bias are not directly relevant to improving this article. I'll gladly discuss the very general issues you've raised, some of which are problems in [[philosophy of science]], but they are not relevant to improving this article: as long as your claims lack any compelling evidence, to include them would be a violation of Wikipedia's official policies ([[WP:V]], [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:NOR]]). I recommend that if you or anyone else wishes to further discuss this, it be taken to '''[[User talk:Clayc3466]]''', where I've moved the discussion thus far. We cannot waste any more of our valuable editors' time rehashing the same issue here, as you've been unwilling to directly respond to the last posts and have provided no evidence to support your claims. The End. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

----

==Gene flow section==

"The evolutionary process of divergence, which ultimately leads to the generation of new species, is thought to occur usually without any gene exchange between the diverging populations. However, until the recent growth of multi-locus datasets, and the development of new population genetic methods, it has been very difficult to assess whether or not closely related species have, or have not, exchanged genes during their divergence. Several recent studies have found significant signals of gene flow during species formation, calling into question the conventional wisdom that gene flow is absent during speciation."Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2006 Dec;16(6):592-6. Epub 2006 Oct 19.

Recent advances in assessing gene flow between diverging populations and species.Hey J.

Further while I agree gene flow is homogenizing, it can be useful as gene loss is significant in many examples of speciation and HGT and Hybridization can rejuvenate a genome and generate novelty and speciation. The last year has been a boom for HGT and hybridization studies. I guess we need to address this for NPOV. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 20:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

:It's also not written very well anyway, so let's change it. However, do keep the distinction with gene flow within a species and gene flow between species/highly diverged subspecies. In the former, it tends to homogenisation, but in the latter, it may create new species. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 23:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

::Well put Adam. Why don't you give it a whack. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. This needs a bit more referencing up, but I'm presuming you'll forgive that for now.... It's also a bit rough, as it's late.

[[Gene flow]] is the exchange of genetic variation between populations, most commonly of the same species (in which case it is simply an organism from one population migrating to the other population), but also between different species: Where two closely-related species have adapted for different environments, hybrids may form along the border between those environments, [Source: One of Gould's books. Alas, I forget which.] plants commonly hybridize (for instance, most commercially-grown [[wheat]] is a hybrid of three different species), [expand this a bit, I think] and Horizontal Gene Transfer in bacteria can share plasmids coding for beneficial traits even among greatly differing species.

Needs more work and length, but I'm dead tired. Tomorrow. But my idea is to use this, then use much of what we have as a section on within a species, then expand out to the hybridisation and HGT sections (probably nicking the HGT section currently up in variation)

[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 01:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Hybrids also often are adaptive to extreme environments-alpine butterflies, wild sunflowers, etc. Hybridization in plants often overcomes fertility problems by polyploidy. I think the HGT and hybridization would do well in the Gene flow section. I can help dig up references. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 01:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

== The Concept of A Theory ==

May I suggest a minor but critical change? The article does place emphasis on the misunderstanding of theory as "mere theory" in opposition to "scientific theory," but it would be much better to identify and define the word theory more specifically. In scientific terms, which I am familiar with, "theory" is an idea (a concept) that is supported by numerous proven hypotheses. In essence, a theory is, figuratively speaking, a pyramid, in which hundreds, maybe even thousands, of tested hypotheses lead to one general concept - the theory. Therefore, in the scientific community, unless evolution is proven incorrect, modified, etc., evolution is primarily considered a scientific fact. I am not speaking as a proponent of evolution, and I am neutral on this matter; it is my great hope that evolution and religion may one day conciliate. However, it is proper to say that evolution is strongly supported by and grounded in fact, and should not be titled "The Theory of Evolution," a name that unnecessarily fuels fundamentalist religious opposition, and is prone to misunderstanding by the average person. If anyone finds my considerations biased, please let me know before deleting my comments. Thanks. 06:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And one final addition! Some might find my comments already discussed in the "Just A Theory" Discussion Archive. However, that is not the case. The article still lacks a basic definition of theory, something that needs to be addressed. Since it would take too long to discuss the facts of evolution and/or its standing in the scientific/social/religious community, it would be far better if the article mentioned my hypothesis-oriented definition. I sincerely want to add this definition and edit the article, but I want general consensus before moving forward. 06:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:Unfortunately, there isn't really enough room on this article to give an in-depth discussion of this topic on [[Evolution]]; and it is of peripheral relevance in any case, the main article for discussing such a topic being [[Theory]]. My recommendation is adding this information to [[Evolution as theory and fact]], where there's more room for clearly explaining the distinctions. We cannot stop using "theory" just because it fuels fundamentalist misunderstandings, however; it is the common term in scientific discourse, and its usage as such outweighs colloquial usage in importance for a scientific article. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 06:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but I believe you misunderstood me. I am not suggesting that we stop using the word "theory." I only wanted for there to be a slight reference to the hypothesis-oriented definition in the article, as there is already a short paragraph devoted to explaining the difference between the scientific and nonscientific versions. The article already includes a "Misunderstandings" section, in which the article explains that theory is not "just a theory," but "in science, a theory is simply an explanation" (Direct quote from article). Since an explanation is already included (a short one that needs at least some mention in the main "Evolution" article, rather than the "Evolution as theory and fact"), I think it is much better to improve upon the "simply an explanation" line and identify theory's roots as an idea supported by a collective body of proven hypotheses. I will, in a few days, commence enacting my suggestions. Look over it, and decide for yourself if it is too long for the article, and merits movement to the side-linked "Evolution as theory and fact" article. [[User:LifeScience|LifeScience]] 08:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:We did have a section on "just a theory" or "theory vs. fact" in [[evolution]]. You can view it at [[Misunderstandings about evolution]], which is where that section is now. The problem is, [[evolution]] gets much too long if we put a huge amount of other material besides just the science in it. Anyone who is well-versed enough in science to read [[evolution]] already ''knows'' what a scientific theory is and does not need to have it spoon fed to them. For those who do not understand what a scientific theory is, there are links to the [[theory]] article and links to [[Evolution as theory and fact]]. [[Evolution as theory and fact]] is being rewritten and will include a lot more material and references soon. If you have more ideas, I would welcome them at [[Evolution as theory and fact]].--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. However, my additions would not be that long. I was suggesting that we change the article's rather meager line that states theory "in science, is simply an explanation." Furthermore, if you look at the article's section "Misunderstandings" (one of the listed subheadings), the article already begins to identify the difference between scientific and colloquial "theory" - something I wanted to expand perhaps one more line beyond the "simply explanation" definition. But I find further discussion of this topic unnecessary, as another user has already changed that line with a more proper, sourced definition. I'll check if the new definition flows with the overall content, and if not, I'll make some minor improvements. [[User:LifeScience|LifeScience]] 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:I gather that this definition of a theory comes from Hawking:

::''"a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make"''

:It does have some things to recommend it, however it is a bit vague I am afraid. If we are going to get into this level of detail, I would think it is more accurate to say that a theory is used to produce a model, and that model makes predictions which are then compared with observations, or something to that effect. However, I do not think that "explanation" is so bad for an encyclopedia article, especially one in a nonquantitative field like evolutionary biology.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 16:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

== Gene Flow Work ==

I've set up a new page for this at [[Evolution/Gene flow]] - I've done an opening - alas, without proper documentation, as yet - and sketched out the important categories we should cover. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 13:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

: Now at [[Talk:Evolution/Gene flow]] - no subpages in articlespace, guys. Drafts and workspaces should hang off talk:. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] 02:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

==Article perspective==

I hesitate to mention this. The article is written in the perspective of the Modern Synthesis and NeoDarwinism-natural selection acts on mutations. The article is somewhat modernized using different nomeclature for allele or gene than the historical so now it refers to a genomic change. The article should be modernized to introduce more modern ideas growing in the Modern Synthesis. There is a significant literature of articles and books that challenges the order. Jablonka and Lamb, West-Eberhard, Price, Agrawal, etc. believe that since (even Mayr)natural selection acts on the phenotype that organisms can speciate phenotypically before a genetic change or reproductive isolation-environmental driven isolation and then genetic change. It is recognized that even cloned genetically identical populations of cells will display differences just due to biological noise (stochastic and other)in gene expression even in the same identical environment and history-inherant nature of life. Models indicate a slight change in a protein could change the fitness of those organisms so evolution can be driven environmentally to produce phenotypes before a genetic change occurs. Phenotypic plasticity and epigenetic phenomena can be heritable and promote speciation.

Here is the intro from a MJ West-Eberhard paper: "The evolution of reproductive isolation is a defining characteristic of speciation. Reproductive isolation contributes to the diversification of species by creating genetically independent lineages, the branches of a phylogenetic tree. Each branching point of the tree of life is a speciation event. However, reproductive isolation alone does not create a new branch, because by itself it cannot produce the phenotypic divergence represented by the angular departure of a branch from the ancestral form. In the book celebrated by this colloquium, Systematics and the Origin of Species (1), Ernst Mayr called phenotypic divergence between populations "the other aspect of speciation." Mayr wrote that speciation has two parts: "One part... is the establishment of discontinuities," or reproductive isolation. "The other aspect is the establishment of diversity and divergence, that is the origin of new characters..." (ref. 1, p. 23). The origin of species differences, not reproductive isolation, were the main focus of Darwin's book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (2).

This second aspect of speciation, the origin of new characters, is the subject I address here. In particular, I will pursue Mayr's suggestion that "the workings of this process," the origin of new characters or novel phenotypic traits, "can best be studied if we analyze variation" (ref. 1, p. 23). I will take a close look at the origins of variation, starting with two simple questions. (i) Where does the variation, or the variant that makes a new trait, come from? (ii) What gets this second, divergence part of speciation, the origin of species differences, started?"

I think the Modern synthesis concentrates so much on genotypes, gene allele frequencies, and reproductive isolation that it misses the point that it is the phenotype which is being selected upon. Maybe this kind of literature belongs in the Current Research in Evolutionary Biology, but it gives perspective. There are also a whole host of models to explain speciation and it would be nice to mention some. The reason being different models support different perspectives. It is just a suggestion. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 16:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:I agree. By the way, this is an initiative that I think needs to be carried out on the articles on Gene and Evo-Devo. I think the key point is "It is recognized that even cloned genetically identical populations of cells will display differences just due to biological noise (stochastic and other)in gene expression even in the same identical environment and history-inherant nature of life. Models indicate a slight change in a protein could change the fitness of those organisms so evolution can be driven environmentally to produce phenotypes before a genetic change occurs. Phenotypic plasticity and epigenetic phenomena can be heritable and promote speciation." This is why "gene as blueprint" and any overly genetic determinist view of evolution is just wrong, no matter how deeply embedded in the popular imagination. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 16:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

::Question: Is this really a weakness in the "gene as blueprint" analogy? Two houses that use the same blueprints will still be dramatically different from each other in many ways. In addition to simple random differences that will inevitably arise in two houses that use the same blueprints, there may be different constructors, and the environment (foundation, etc.) can have dramatic impacts on how the house is actually built. If I'm in error, could you explain to me more clearly why the "gene as blueprint" analogy is misleading? -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 20:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I have heard DNA is the blueprint for life, but not the gene is a blueprint. The old classic concept of the gene as a blueprint for a protein is no longer in vogue. It is a heritable unit of information. It is not neccessarily just a blueprint. If so it is encrypted and has to be interpreted into a useful blueprint. Messenger RNA is a blueprint for a protein, but the gene is not just about proteins-regulatory, gene networks, coordinated events, etc. I guess that kind of information could still be considered a blueprint. Natural selection and environment can influence all levels (gene interaction and gene expression) of the development into an organism so part of the blueprint is the environment or at least the environment can change which parts of the blueprint to use. Something to ponder is the experiment where mouse cancer cells were cloned and developed into normal mice (despite drastic mutations, chromosomal abnormalities, and altered gene expression during the development) at birth they just all developed tumors and cancer. Weird, Huh. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

To some extent, I agree, but let's be careful not to go too far towards one branch of the research, to the exclusion of basic concepts. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 17:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:I do not think the issue is throwing out the baby with the bathwater - I think we all agree on the importance of genes and natural selection, for example. I do not think the issue here is moving to far in one direction or another in terms of models of evolution, I think the issue is that no good model of evolution was ever mechanical or deterministic (and the more we learn, the less mechanistic and deterministic we become) but that there has been a tendency in popularizations to make it sound as if evolution is a deterministic mechanical model. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 17:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Point. Let's do it. Anything with the [[Talk:Evolution/Gene flow|Gene flow section rewrite]] that'll need adapted towards this? [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 17:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

::The phrase the "gene as a blueprint" is not a trem I have heard before. I am familiar with the oft used analogy "DNA is a blueprint" from as far back as 1980 or so but it was qualified with the fact that blueprints are modified during the construction process to take into consideration other factors involved with expression within cells. UI don't know why the gene was introduced as "the blueprint" here. It certainly isn't appropriate (and I though we had managed to ditch it a week or so agao. Maybe I was mistaken? [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 21:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:Just to clarify, I was using that just as an example of one kind of problem we need to avoid. I was not trying to rehash a closed discussion, just clarify my point with an example. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 10:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, all that is happening is that the model is being refined by understanding where in the model stochasticity arises. This is just reducing misspecification error, as they say in statistics, on the path to variance characterization and reduction.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 14:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just pointing out stochastic events (using two reporter fluorescent proteins in bacteria, these experiments have been done in genetically identical populations of bacteria to demonstrate noise) occur but I should add that evolution has generated means to eliminate this noise in many circumstances. Just like many behaviors like bird song are both genetic-nature and learned-nurture, development and gene expression are influenced by environmental factors and generate diverstiy that is not the result of mutation or genetic change. NeoDarwinism propose that random mutations in a population are selected upon and then reproductive isolation generate species. Populations of certain island lizards (limb length) and snails (shell thickness) have been proposed to be speciation by natural selection acting on genetic change, however studies revealed it was phenotypic plasticity and no mutations or genetic alterations had occured from ancestral populations, but it is simple the influence of the environment on gene expression on this population of lizards and snails. There are numerous models for speciation that make different assumptions or address different means of speciation.[[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 16:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

== Lead ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=101586006&oldid=101366723 I've done a few minor tweaks of the lead] - nothing at all major. Only thing really of note is breaking the first, somewhat unweildy sentence into two, and rearranging some of its clauses to make it clear that alleles are variant genes, not variant traits. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 16:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"In biology, evolution is the process in which some of a population's inherited traits become more common, at the expense of others, from generation to generation. This is usually measured in terms of the variant genes, known as alleles, that encode the competing traits. "

Perhaps we should mention what the process consists of : 1) Populations of interbreeding organisms demonstrate variability in heritable traits and 2) these traits can become more or less common due to either chance (Genetic drift) or the trait confers an increased ability for these organisms to survive and reproduce within their environment such the trait gains success in a population with successive generations (Natural selection). Then go into gene and also mention gene expression as the phenotype because that what nature really selects upon.

Here is a suggestion: "In biology, evolution is the process in which some of a population's inherited traits become more or less common from generation to generation. The change in traits within a populaion can be the results of chance or more often the success of a trait is conferred from its ability to increase survival and reproduction within a given environment with successive generations." [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 14:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:HAve a look at the whole lead: that's dealt with extensively in paragraph two. The way I read the current structure is:

:*Paragraph 1: Definitions:

::* ''In biology, evolution is the process in which some of a population's inherited traits become more common, at the expense of others, from generation to generation.'' Simple definition

::* ''This is usually measured in terms of the variant genes, known as alleles, that encode the competing traits.'' Modern synthesis definition

::* ''As differences in and between populations accumulate over time, speciation, the development of new species from existing ones, can occur.'' - Procedural definition

::* ''All known organisms, living or dead, are related by common descent through numerous speciation events starting from a single ancestor.'' - "Top-down" definition, a.k.a. Macroevolution.

:*Paragraph 2: Processes involved

:*Paragraph 3: History.

::I'm having problems with this sentence. "All known organisms, living or dead, are related by common descent through numerous speciation events starting from a single ancestor." The part I don't like is the "living or dead". Half the time I laugh becasue it reads almost childishly and the other part of the time I get perplexed as to how it will be interpreted by a reader. Surely time to replace them with "extant or extinct"? [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 16:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Extant is a bit obscure. Is there another term we could use? (past and present?) [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 16:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

::::sorry Adam, I beg to differ. It's a very common word used in the biological sciences. Besides, we use extinct. I don't think anyone scientist would accept that we use "transparent" and "not see-through" or "non-transparent" in a minerology article surely? Is opaque is what would be used and it is as obscure as extant is imho [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 18:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

:::The problem I see is that the current definition is just evolution by natural selection because traits are more common emphasizing a competition in traits. Traits also become less common or are maintained. I don't know if traits become more common at the expense of the other trait is appropriate. The new trait may be a modified ancestral trait or a completely new and novel trait so there is not trait competetion just a new solution to increase the ability to survive and reproduce. Species split so the ancestral trait is not neccessarily lost or defective but it is just the new or modified trait and new species that may follow has the advantage in a certain environment. Obviously in the environment of the ancestor the new or modified trait that spurred the change and new species had no advantage-the traits don't neccessarily compete but the environment selects on traits. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 16:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Yes, but none of the variants actually deal with this, do they? "Change in frequency over successive generations" says *exactly the same thing*, only in harder to understand ways. And a new, novel trait that provides benefit *does* become more common at the expense of the old ancestral trait, except in situations where a gene is doubled (even in which case you can argue that it beecomes more common or less common relative to a "null" trait.) [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 18:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but I don't think we should lose the genetic definition to cover it. I'd be inclined instead to add a procedural definition as sentence 3 or so, very simplified, as we'll be discussing it in detail shortly thereafter. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 17:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree and that is why the original change in gene allele frequencies was the most accurate. However I think most thought this too complicated and jargony. Evolution occurs and may lead to speciation. Evolution is not defined by speciation but speciation is a by product of evolution-evolution occurs within a species and may lead to speciation or just increase the survival and reproductive success of the current species. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 18:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:Agreed, but it does say "''may'' lead to speciation." - It's not easy to get all the doubts and niggles into a short lead, but I think, over time, we've been moving towards greater and greater accessibility while maintaining accuracy fairly well. This'll be the next step in that process. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 18:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think people don't generally see the distinction of Darwin's topic of origin of a species with procedural speciation. Evolution is a genomic change (change in gene allele frequencies) with successive generations and speciation is the process of reproductive isolation of a genome. Evolution the process of traits gaining success by increasing survivability and reproduction with descent, and speciation the processes of reproductive isolation. However that is a fine point for later in the discussion so you are right "may" covers it. Natural selection is the predominate pathway for adaptive evolution so it probably deserves the most attention for the intro also so discuss genetic drift later. I guess I am being too anal-ytical again. Sorry! [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 19:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:So, what's a good one-sentence rocedural definition of Evolution to add to the lead? Having trouble thinking of one short and compact enough. 01:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

::I don't know either but you are on the right track. I think I suck at communication in encyclopedia format. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 00:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

== Evolution, the Catholic Church and Intelligent Design ==

Right now I am having trouble convincing some editors on [[intelligent design]] that the article may be giving undue weight to a non-magesterium Catholic position and also omits that theists reject intelligent design that contradicts evolution. It also omits that theists can reject it for reasons other than moral or ethical grounds, such as scientific grounds. My edit is at the bottom of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=101669583#Defining_intelligent_design_as_science] but is being rejected by only a few on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design#On_correcting_existing_theists_who_reject_ID_section]. If you think what I said has some meaning then pls do weigh in. Thanks to all. ([[User:CptKirk|CptKirk]] 00:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

:I'm certainly not an expert on all things Wiki, but I really think this should be discussed directly on the ID discussion section. I'm not sure what you're getting at, and I read what KillerChihuaha and Filll have said, and trust me on this, they both are always looking for any POV creep that occurs in edits in any Creationist article. So they'd support you if they felt you were going in the right direction. So, I'd go back to that page, make your case logically, and I'm sure that you'll get a say. I do think there are a few editors who support Creation are using some out of context speeches by the current Pope to make their viewpoint that the RCC supports creation. However, a careful reading of Ex cathedra statements and the Catechism of the church seem to indicate a rather liberal viewpoint of Evolution. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 09:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

::Bit off-topic for this page, no? Bitching and whining should generally be kept to the page to which said bitching and whining refers. Thank you. [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;</font>]] 11:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:::If I can bitch and whine just a little longer (apologies [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;</font>]]) ... For the record, accepting evolution has nothing to do with being "liberal". Or conservative for that matter. Politics need not interfere with scientific judgement (even if it often does). Similarly, one can perfectly accept the doctrine(s) of creationism while being a liberal. The polarisation of science along the political axis is not a ubiquitous feature of the cultural landscape of all countries. Anyway, enough of my ranting. ; ) --[[User:Plumbago|Plumbago]] 17:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

== Experimental evidence? ==

I recently saw [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5802/1111?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=anole+predator+natural+selection&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT this article](only available to signed-in members of the site) in Science and was wondering if it went in the evolution article, or natural selecion article, or whatever article. If it does, which one? [[User:Generalcp702|Generalcp702]] 16:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what we can do about this link, since it requires registration. i doubt you can copy and post it here. Can you write a quick abstract? Thanks. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 21:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a good paper demonstrating predator driven natural selection. It reminds me of the example of character displacement in Darwin's finches (of course not predator driven). The only weakness is they didn't do genetic analysis to demonstrate true evolution. Phenotypic plasticity would produce the same effect and it could be heritable. Of course now this is considered evolution, but I am curious is it epigenetic or genetic given the rapid nature. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 22:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I tell you some papers that have impressed me are the studies of Reiseberg on hybridization in wild sunflowers. He demonstrates that hybridization can produce adaptive evolution and reiterated the process of evolution. He demonstrated that the adaptive evolution to extreme environments was from hybridization and not mutation. He did so by creating synthetic hybrids from crossing ancestral parent species. The synthetics produced similar phenotypes and proved successful in natural conditions and similar to natural modern hybrid species. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 22:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

== Phenotypic plasticity ==

There seems to be an error near the head of the article in the "Basic processes" subsection. Firstly, the paragraph implies that all phenotypic variability is genetic in basis. Since [[Developmental biology|development]] is subject to ''in utero'' (''in ovo'', etc.) influences (both [[maternal inheritance]] and accidents), and an organism's phenotype can adapt and respond to the environment post-development, it might make more sense to say "This phenotypic variation is '''primarily''' the result of genotypes ...". The paragraph goes on to say "Variants in gene sequences in the individuals of a population and the interaction of a genotype with the environment are involved in phenotypic plasticity". I'd certainly agree with the latter portion of this (that genotype-environment interactions are involved in phenotypic plasticity), but the former seems incorrect to me (the article on [[phenotypic plasticity]] seems to agree). I'll make appropriate changes to the article, but wanted to document my reasoning here. Cheers, --[[User:Plumbago|Plumbago]] 09:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Very Good! I agree. I think it would be appropriate to mention the different perspecitves in the processes of evolution. Like molecular evolution and organismic evolution. I found some good articles that are free access that articulate the differences. These are the Pubmed citations and you can follow to articles for those interested.

Nei M. Selectionism and neutralism in molecular evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Dec;22(12):2318-42. Epub 2005 Aug 24. Erratum in: Mol Biol Evol. 2006 May;23(5):1095.

PMID: 16120807 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

West-Eberhard MJ. Alternative adaptations, speciation, and phylogeny (A Review).Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1986 Mar;83(5):1388-1392.

PMID: 16578790 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

West-Eberhard MJ. Related Articles, Developmental plasticity and the origin of species differences.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 May 3;102 Suppl 1:6543-9. Epub 2005 Apr 25. Review.

PMID: 15851679 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Fordyce JA. The evolutionary consequences of ecological interactions mediated through phenotypic plasticity.J Exp Biol. 2006 Jun;209(Pt 12):2377-83. Review.

PMID: 16731814 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I personally have a lot of problems with Neutralism and mutationism, but I thought Nei's paper was thought provoking. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Request ==

I would like to see the full evolutionary chain from bacteria, to invertebrate, to fish, to reptile, to mammal, to primate, to human with pics. I have never seen the whole chain. I think it would be very educational and demonstrative. [[User:69.211.150.60|69.211.150.60]] 14:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:This would be highly misleading on the [[Evolution]] article because it would imply that humans are the "goal" or "end" of evolution; such a chain would have no more academic value than a chain from bacteria, to invertebrate, to fish, to reptile, to dinosaur, to bird, to penguin. Selecting a specific "end point" is misleading and biased; we could just as easily judge bacteria to be the "end point" for evolution, since bacteria still exist and are just as "evolved" as humans and penguins (though as a matter of practicality, their specific evolutionary history is much harder to reconstruct because they are so small and lack hard body parts).

:However, it would be a superb addition to the [[Human evolution]] article, I agree. Something similar is available at [[Timeline of human evolution]], but less consolidated and summarized. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 15:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::However, one shouldn't entirely trust this: on the [[Timeline of human evolution]], humans depicted at 100 Kya appear to have already adopted [[1970s]] hairstyles. Yikes. Other than that though, it's not a bad place to start. It might be nice if it complemented the diagrams of our extinct ancestors with photographs of their nearest (in appearance at least) extant relatives. While scientifically inaccurate, it might give a better "feel" for what our ancestors were like. Cheers, --[[User:Plumbago|Plumbago]] 15:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Yeah, although personally, I think that one of our top priorities (outside of [[Evolution]] itself) should be getting [[Timeline of evolution]] up to featured-list quality. It has huge potential, but currently there's a lot of important information lacking, and irrelevant information (who cares when humans walked on the moon?) present, especially near the bottom. It also needs at least three times as much sourcing, especially for the debated or ambiguous things (e.g., dating certain occurrences), and needs to be kept up-to-date on recent research for those areas. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 15:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Perhaps though something could be said in the ''evolution'' article about how the theory of ''evolution'' by natural selection marked a major departure from the prevalent view (In England if not in Europe) of "the great chain of being;" how chain and even tree are not great metaphors for imagining evolution, how a bush might be a better metaphor (but still just a metaphor) for ''evolution''. However, if you think such a point is too tangential for this article perhaps it could go in one of the others you are considering ... [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::??? Which article? What does that have to do with any of the articles we're discussing? -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 15:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::: ....However, if you think such a point is too tangential for this article perhaps it could go in one of the others you are considering. Nevertheless, people talk about science as well as the natural world through metaphors, and "chain" is just a bad one, and I think it is worth addressing this point briefly in the generaly article. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the article the History of Life on Earth and a timeline of extinction and diversity or is it about macroevolution and then mechanistically explain how the diversity and changes came about? One subject is just the geologic, fossil, etc evidence that this is the sequence of events. How does evolution play a role in this, is a different topic and would have to bring in a lot of different opinions and perspectives. Slrubenstein brings up a good point for Macroevolution and life as perspective has and is changing. A timeline of life forms on earth is not an article about evolution (or the process). The processes of evolution have themselves evolved. Sex evolved so natural selection was initially ecological, phenotypic plasticity evolved, etc. Then these evolved processes have themselves influenced evolution. Some life forms in the Ediacara are not easily classified and so evolution may have been different. A time line of evolution can be a life history of planet and what lineages gave rise to what to the present. That last part is complex and you can get different answers from systematic anatomical vs molecular approaches.[[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 16:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:I would have no problem with seeing [[Timeline of evolution]] moved to [[Timeline of life]]. I agree that it is only about evolution in the sense that a history of coins is about coin-minting. The article is also ambiguous in that "evolution" can refer either to biological evolution, or to cosmological evolution, or many other things; "life", in contrast, is unambiguous. It is also problematic in that many of the currently-included aspects of the article are completely unrelated to biological evolution, yet are important (such as the date of when the Earth was forced); perhaps an alternative title would be "Timeline of the history of the Earth" or "Timeline of Earth", analogical with our current top-level article on the history of the Earth and of life, [[History of Earth]]? One problem with such a move that I can see is that it disrupts the current similarity between this article's title and the title of [[Timeline of human evolution]], suggesting that that article is about evolution while this one isn't. But it's certainly something to discuss. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 20:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Wow! I hadn't seen the Timeline article. A lot of work has gone into this, but it is an odd mix and the title is misleading. That is a problem with History of Earth and the Timeline article. I would say fuse them but it would be too long.[[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 20:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::They should '''NOT''' be fused. One is a list ([[Timeline of evolution]]), the other is an article ([[History of Earth]]). Just like we have [[Timeline of human evolution]], a list, and [[Human evolution]], an article. We should improve the titles and contents of each, not destroy one article in favor of the other. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 23:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::: I didn't see any links to the Timeline Article from this page .... should there be? --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] 23:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:I was just kidding they should be fused. I just don't think Timeline of evolution is an appropriate title. I haven't read History of Earth yet. Given the length of Timeline it has been around awhile. I am surprised there is no link. A Macro-evolution theory article would be a nice offshoot of the Timeline article. Present evidence that supports various hypotheses, fossil evidence, and molecular evidence that supports evolution and how things are related and how they came to be. Timeline touches on it in some places. The Timeline article is a significant effort kudos to the authors. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 00:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::There's been a link from [[Evolution]] to [[Timeline of evolution]] for a long, long time. It's in the "History of life" section. As for a timeline or description of macroevolution's history, I think that would be a good addition to [[Macroevolution]] itself. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 17:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::There is a Macroevolution article too. Man I am out of the loop. You are right, Silence, about the Macro article would benefit from a timeline.[[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 12:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:::: Yep right there for all to see; well except me. If it had been a posionous snake .. I guess I'd be dead now. --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::Just don't take any apples from it ;) ... [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 23:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::I never noticed either. Some scientist, eh, very observant. Damn, I'm just getting blind, or senile, or both. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I never cease to be amazed at the profusion of articles that exist on certain topics. Often different parallel efforts produced by different groups of editors that did not know about each other, and did not cross link enough, so certain articles are essentially orphaned, and unknown. Even in popular areas. Of course, what goes on in WP is just a microcosm of what happens in the real world on this issue. It is quite common, obviously and easy to do. So I would not feel too bad about finding out a few "unknown" articles slipped into a nook or cranny. As I compile my list of "creationist" and "intelligent design" organizations and individuals, it slowly gets longer and longer. Some of them have articles here that are completely disconnected from the main body of articles. Some important figures are completely ignored in WP.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 13:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

==Requested move==

Filll has provided a heads-up for a discussion at [[Talk:Level of support for evolution#Requested move]]: I've trimmed out the discussion from this page to avoid duplication. .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 08:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Of possible interest to editors of this page:

*'''[[:Level of support for evolution]] → [[:Endorsement and rejection of evolution]]''' —(''[[{{{4|Talk}}}:Level of support for evolution#Requested move|Discuss]]'') ......... (duplicate of comment from --[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] 05:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC) trimmed out)

::I believe we have the start of a disagreement on this issue.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 05:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(duplicate of response from -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 06:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) trimmed out)

== Another request, suggestion ==

I have looked at the article on human evolution and it is very good. I think it could use a cladistics chart like this http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Diversity/turtle_origins.htm.

I have looked but could not find one. [[User:69.211.150.60|69.211.150.60]] 15:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is finding a good cladistic chart for humans. There is a lot of controversy of different assumptions giving different evolutionary histories and some question of the validity of cladistic analysis towards hominid evolution.[[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:Can you give me any links? I would like to research this and maybe add it to one of the articles. I just have not found anything on the internet. [[User:69.211.150.60|69.211.150.60]] 14:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

== All organisms related? ==

''All organisms, including extinct species, are related by common descent through numerous speciation events starting from a single ancestor''

This statement is absurd and infact plays upon the beliefs of those who believe in Earth's uniqueness, some sort of panspermia or even divine creation. It should be changed to ''all known'' or ''all observed'' instead. If you *want* to drive a point then I'd guess ''all terrestrial'' would be much better too - even though that's somewhat less certain definition (known, studied & observed native species vs. all species found on Earth including possible "visitors" like, perhaps, [[Red rain in Kerala]]). However, a definitive statement about something that is completely unknown is extremely unencyclopedic, let alone scientific: ''All organisms'' as a term also encompasses every unobserved & unknown organism regardless of its or their (planet of) origin. - G3, 20:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Visitors? Yeah right!!! The thesis that the Red Rain is anything but a bunch of algae or dust is conjecture. And the two researchers who published the article ''speculate'' that it might be extraterrestrial matter, possibly comet dust--not living material. Sheesh. Every single organism on this planet has DNA and, therefore, shows common descent. Yes, there ''might'' be something out there that doesn't have DNA, but it hasn't been discover in the organisms found in every environment on earth. This is a great article, specifically because it does not include supernatural into it, because supernatural cannot be proven. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 21:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:We have been through this a million times. There is no need to write this article so that every sentence second-guesses itself just because the conclusions upset some philosophical musings within the general society. This is the way the evidence points and 150 years of scientific confirmation more than justifies this simple induction.--[[User:Roland Deschain|Roland Deschain]] 21:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::Deschain, there's no evidence that extraterrestrial life does not exist (absence of evidence is only evidence of absence if we would ''expect'' to have evidence, which we would not even if life exists, or if the evidence we have indicates that a certain thing is too improbable to occur, which we also lack), so it is mistaken to claim that. The real reason we don't currently include "known" is because [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a crystal ball]], but that merely says that we shouldn't presume future discoveries, not that we shouldn't ''leave room for the possibility of'' future discoveries; therefore I could see a strong argument being made for adding "known" here, though I also understand why there is reluctance to do so.

::On the other hand, I could see an even stronger argument being made for removing "including extinct species" from the sentence, as it's clearly redundant and adds no necessary information to the lead section, which should be as short and concise as possible. "All organisms are related by common descent through numerous speciation events starting from a single ancestor." is sufficient. (And I think we should also be discussing smoother and less convoluted ways to word the second half of the sentence as well; "by common descent through numerous speciation events starting from a single ancestor"? Horribly awkward.) -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Silence, I understand your point. As I said, we've been over this a million times. I have no problem with drilling home the tentative nature of science in every sentence, '''if''' it is done in every scientific article. However, it is clear that only in this article is such a wording called for, for obvious reasons. Nobody is in the matter article, demanding that we say: "All ''known'' matter is made up of atoms" or "All ''known'' suns obey the laws of gravity". Science is inductive and tentative. Let's leave it at that and not degrade this article into a second-guessing and tentative mess just because some people don't like the conclusions of a vast mount of evidence. To truly ridicule this notion, imagine me going to the ''human'' article and demanding this change: "All ''known'' humans breathe air". At one point in time the vast amount of evidence trumps this strange need to degrade scientific conclusions.--[[User:Roland Deschain|Roland Deschain]] 21:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::::The majority of biologists accept that it is plausible that extraterrestrial life exists ''somewhere''. Therefore, it is the consensus scientific view that there is at the very least a ''significant possibility'' (and in fact, for most biologists who bother to consider the matter at all, a near-certitude) of life existing ''somewhere'' in the universe that is not related by common descent to life on Earth. Therefore it is a [[false analogy]] to compare "all ''known'' matter is made of atoms" to "all ''known'' organisms are related by common descent"; no physicists claim that there is a significant chance of any matter ever being discovered that is not made of atoms, whereas I can't think of a single biologist who disputes the significant possibility of extraterrestrial life. Science is inductive and tentative, yes, but it is the very ''fact'' that it is tentative that makes it important not to make presumptions about the rest of the universe just because we haven't ''seen'' extraterrestrial life. Attempts to compare this situation to things like "All known matter is made of atoms" or "All known suns obey the law of nature" are fallacious; there is ''no good reason'' to believe that some suns don't obey gravity, or that matter isn't made of atoms. In contrast, there is ''no good reason'' to believe that there ''isn't'' any extraterrestrial life in the universe, so your analogy actually works in exactly the opposite way than you intended. Saying (or in this case implying) "There is no extraterrestrial life" is akin to saying "There are X species in existence" (rather than "There are X ''known'' species in existence"). ''Known'' is appropriate in cases where there is good reason to believe that there are exceptions somewhere (as is the case both for the currently-known number of species, which scientists expect are not ''every'' species in existence; and as is also the case for the existence of extraterrestrial life, because the overwhelming majority of scientists expect that Earth ''isn't'' the only place in the universe with life). It is not speculative to acknowledge the scientific consensus that extraterrestrial life is ''quite possible''; it is only speculative to jump the gun and try to make specific claims ''about'' that life, or about the discovery of it. I therefore see no problem with inserting "known", if only once; your repeated insistence that this has been discussed before may be true, but it is irrelevant, as I've seen and been in a number of those discussions and never seen any of them satisfyingly resolve this problem without appealing to "known" or similar. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 02:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Actually, not all scientist believe that there is extraterrestrial life. The Rare Earth Hypothesis is founded on very strong science, and I am inclined to believe that extraterrestrial organisms probably don't exist. Although your logic seems to indicate that the lack of information may mean something, there is logic that the lack of data means that it doesn't exist. We shouldn't invent it. From a statistical analysis, if we have examined 10% of organisms on earth that are from a wide variety of environmental niches, I'm inclined to say that the probability of finding a non-common descent organism approaches zero. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 16:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

::::: Well let's change it to "All life on earth is related by common descent." This way we get around your objection about extra-terrestrial life (which I find very weak) and we still don't have to go down the road of tentative language which plagues this article.--[[User:Roland Deschain|Roland Deschain]] 02:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::: Seems like hair-splitting to me, and your argument against the extraterrestrial argument seems ''absurdly'' weak to me: it's like arguing for replacing "There is no known natural cause for near-death experiences" with "There is no natural cause for near-death experiences". In contexts such as these, "known" is not wishy-washy, but necessary for factuality. "Known" is not any more tentative than "on Earth" (make sure to capitalize the planet). But I suppose either would work. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 02:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::: I've added ''"on Earth"''. Restricts the broadness of the sentence without adding that pitiful tentative language. While we are at it, shouldn't we make sure that the sentence "All suns obey gravity" be changed to "All suns obey gravity in our universe" ;) (kidding kidding).--[[User:Roland Deschain|Roland Deschain]] 02:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

::The article is about evolution of life on earth (and only known to exists on earth). Only ten percent of present species of life is believed to be identified and the fossil record is similarly incomplete. I guess we need to rewrite the article that evolution occurs and pertains to known fossils and life that has been identified on earth. Come on. This talk of extraterrestrials is absurd and way off topic, since it is not a verifiable scientific fact. If the topic were origin of life then the mention of an extraterrestrial origin would be reasonable. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 02:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps just say:Evidence supports that all organisms on Earth,past and present, have evolved through common descent from a single ancestor. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 05:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quotation from [[Richard Dawkins]]' recent book ''[[The Ancestor's Tale]]'' on this subject. As you are no doubt well aware, Dawkins is not one to mince words or try to tone-down his points, so I don't think you can fairly dismiss his precision of language here as merely "second-guessing" or "tentative":

:"We can be very certain that there really is a single concestor [common ancestor] of all surviving life forms on the planet. The evidence is that all that have ever been examined share (exactly in most cases, almost exactly in the rest) the same genetic code; and the genetic code is too detailed, in arbitrary aspects of its complexity, to have been invented twice. Although not every species has been examined, we already have enough coverage to be pretty certain that no surprises&mdash;alas&mdash;await us. If we now were to discover a life form sufficiently alien to have a completely different genetic code, it would be the most exciting biological discovery in my adult lifetime, whether it lives on this planet or another. As things stand, it appears that '''all ''known'' life forms can be traced to a single ancestor which lived more than 3 billion years ago'''. If there were other, independent origins of life, they have left no descendants that we have discovered." (emphasis added)

This indicates to me that "known" would be acceptable in this context, without conveying a sense of scientific timidity or exaggerated second-guessing. It is not comparable to the examples given by Roland above, like "all ''known'' matter is made of atoms". -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 09:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Known" organisms is an exact distinction but I don't think it is necessary for an encyclopedia article. Given the scientific nomenclature that has been removed as jargon (but more exact and precise terminology), then the argument could be made to re-introduce the more correct and exact wording that has been removed in the whole article by the same token. It is not misleading to leave out "known". The article doesn't explicitly state the modern definition of evolution as a change in gene allele frequencies with descent. Almost all encyclopedic articles emphasize Darwin or his notion of Natural Selection, which has little resemblance to the Modern Synthesis nor the changes that have ensued the last forty years. The version from months ago was more scientifically accurate, but I agree it was not accessible. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 15:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

:I personally do not advocate removing the most accurate scientific discussions ''completely'', only for moving them from the LEAD and the introductory paragraphs of the major sections. I would prefer that we do retain the more sophisticated discussions in some places in the body. However, this might have to wait until after the current revision cycle is complete; I am not sure.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 16:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

::Ah, Dawkins. Well, let me reply with this:

::*"In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, '''the genealogical relatedness of all life''', transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Talkorigins]

::*"The theory (common descent) specifically postulates '''that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related''', much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Talkorigins]

::We could go back and forth out-quoting each other (I haven't brought Gould into the equation yet). The simple fact remains: only in this scientific article is such wording called for. In no other scientific articles do we need carefully partition near-certainties from slightly-less-than-near-certainties. However, this is a minor dispute and I will leave it up to other editors to weight the evidence and resolve it. Just remember: "Gravity is the only '''known''' force to cause an apple to fall towards a larger mass" because tomorrow we might find another new force ;). --[[User:Roland Deschain|Roland Deschain]] 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Think I prefer the term "to be attracted" Roland. 8) [[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 12:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:::: <small>(can't resist)</small>. Well, the apple just rolls down the space-time curvature created by a huge mass we so lovingly call Earth. ;)--[[User:Roland Deschain|Roland Deschain]] 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Of the two examples you just provided, the second one agrees entirely with what I just quoted: it specifically says "'''all of the earth's ''known'' biota are genealogically related'''". So both Dawkins and talk.origins support using "known", even though Dawkins is an eminent scientist, and talk.origins a well-respected site on evolution, both of whom presumably know full well that all claims in science could, if taken to the point of absurdity, be qualified with "known". They use "known" nevertheless because they realize that ''unlike'' those other claims, in the case of biology there ''is'' strong reason to believe that this claim does not apply to various ''unknown'' organisms. Whereas there is absolutely no reason to suspect that there is matter that is not made of atoms, or stars that do not follow the laws of gravity, there is essentially a ''certainty'' that unknown organisms exist, and a ''near-certainty'' that some of those unknown organisms are not related to the others (specifically, extraterrestrial ones somewhere in the universe). Dawkins and the "29+ Evidences" page thus both realize that "known" is a valuable, informative, factual, and non-trivial inclusion in any in-depth description dealing with common descent (e.g., an encyclopedia article on evolution!). '''The fact that "known" is inappropriate in ''some'' scientific contexts does ''not'' mean that it is inappropriate in all of them!''' -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 06:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I support including the word "known", we have yet to have identified all present organisms, to be scientifically correct it must say "all known organisms" rather than "all organisms". [[User:Dionyseus|Dionyseus]] 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

::Roland is correct. We haven't explored every nook and cranny of the universe or the atom and we can still make good predictions. Evolution only applies to organisms on earth so extraterrestrial life is out of the equation, and we only need to sample varying populations not examine every organism or species. All life on earth shares a common genetic code and the repertoire of structures, motifs, domains, signatures, etc. is highly conserved and used in varying degrees and complexity to generate all life. There is a molecular economy of life to reuse gene parts and gene networks to generate novely:like the molecular paths in eye development conserved from jelly fish to humans, or a developmental pathway in jaw development being deviated to form the ossicles of the ear, or parathyroid hormone-peptides conserved in fish to humans using similar Calcium receptors and similar cell signalling events to regulate calcium concentrations by absorption in gut or gills and calcium release from bone or scales, some heat shock proteins conserved from bacteria to humans, parallel evolution of invertebrate and vertebrate CNS features, etc. The common origin of life is undeniable. That all life is related by common descent is a fundamental assumption of cladistics and all biology-use of animal models to study every aspect of biology. If these basic assumptions were not accurate then biological and medical achievements would still be in the Dark Ages with little or no progress. You don't have to qualify with "known" to be scientifically accurate,if so every science article would have to be qualified. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 04:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

:::No room for prediction, it's either we know or we don't know, we haven't yet identified all present species so clearly we don't know, so it would have to say "all known organisms" rather than "all organisms". Also, even if we're only talking about organisms on Earth, it is entirely possible that a meteorite can carry living organisms from another planet, and maybe even survive in our planet. [[User:Dionyseus|Dionyseus]] 06:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

:::''"Roland is correct. We haven't explored every nook and cranny of the universe or the atom and we can still make good predictions."'' - You're absolutely, 100% correct. We can make countless good predictions, despite how incredibly limited our knowledge of the universe is. The dispute here isn't between "We can't make good predictions" on the one hand, and "We can make good predictions" on the other hand; your argument is thus against a [[straw man]]. Rather, the dispute here is between "'There is no extraterrestrial life' is a good prediction" and "'There is no extraterrestrial life' is not a good prediction". The dispute is not over whether we ''can'' make good predictions, but over whether ''this is an example of'' a good prediction! Whereas you and Roland are arguing for the former, Dionyseus, Orangemarlin, and myself are arguing for the latter, on the grounds that there is no ''reason'' to conclude that Earth is the only life-bearing place in the universe, and that the noninclusion of "known" in this one specific context implicitly denies the possibility of such life existing&mdash;or, worse yet, implies that evolution would be falsified if we ever discovered such life!

:::''"Evolution only applies to organisms on earth"'' - False. Evolution applies to all life, according to every modern version of the theory. Scientific facts do not solely apply to the known: for the same reason that it is safe to say "gravity applies to unknown stars", it is equally safe to say "evolution applies to unknown organisms", even if it applies in a ''different way'' to those stars, or those organisms. But this is immaterial anyway, because it is simply a falsehood to claim that there is anything in the definition of ''evolution'' that restricts it to Earth alone. No such aspect of the definition exists.

:::''" so extraterrestrial life is out of the equation"'' - [[WP:NOR]]. Do you have any references of scientific publications or institutions saying "evolution cannot apply to extraterrestrials"? Your own personal views on this matter don't belong in this article; neither do mine. That's why "known" is a good addition: it avoids making any implicit or explicit claims about these issues, but simply states the clear and factual consensus position of science: all known life is related.

:::''"and we only need to sample varying populations not examine every organism or species."'' - I agree. But all of our samples are Earth-bound, even though we have no reason to believe that life exists solely on Earth, and, indeed, have excellent reason to believe that it doesn't (because there is nothing so unique about Earth that we would have reason to believe that the same circumstances never have and never will occur anywhere else in the entire universe; as noted above, such a view is more creationistic than scientific). We thus cannot make conjectures about the characteristics of extraterrestrial life based solely on observations of terrestrial life; hence the value of the qualifier "known" or "on Earth" in this context.

:::''"The common origin of life is undeniable."'' - The common origin of known, ''terrestrial'' life is undeniable.

:::''"That all life is related by common descent is a fundamental assumption of cladistics"'' - No, the fundamental assumption of cladistics is that all life ''which cladistics has been applied to'' is related. To generalize this to mean that all life, or all hypothetical life, in the entire ''universe'' is related, is as absurd as generalizing from "every planet the size of Earth we've seen has life" to "every planet the size of Earth has life". If extraterrestrial organisms that were not related to Earth organisms were ever discovered, cladistics would probably be applied to them exactly as it's applied to Earth organisms; they'd just be their own cladistic network, entirely separate from the terrestrial life network.

:::''"You don't have to qualify with "known" to be scientifically accurate,if so every science article would have to be qualified."'' - This is a clear example of the [[slippery slope]] fallacy. "If you do X, then you'll have to do Y"; this argument is fallacious because we ''don't'', in fact, have to do Y in order to do X. This is because Y is not a consequence of X: using "known" in contexts where it is appropriate (e.g., "all known life is related by common descent") does not somehow necessitate using "known" in contexts where it is inappropriate (e.g., "all known stars are affected by gravity"). To argue that we shouldn't ''correctly'' and ''accurately'' use a word just because there are hypothetical uses for that word which would be incorrect and misleading is absurd: you might as well say that we can't use the word "evolution" because creationists abuse the term. "Known" is appropriate in contexts where it adds important and relevant information that is non-trivial, as is the case for the difference between "all organisms in the universe, including extraterrestrial ones, are related by common descent" (the necessary implication of "all organisms are related by common descent" in a non-colloquial context) and "all known organisms are related by common descent", the latter of which is accurate and informative, and the former of which is inaccurate and misleading. In cases where it is more enlightening to use "known", it should be used; in cases where it is less enlightening to use it, it should not. This is clear enough, is it not? To make nonsensical attempts at a ''[[reductio ad absurdum]]'' against a ''correct'' use of "known" (and one supported by both Dawkins and talk.origins, as the quotes above show), just because one could hypothetically write a clearly ''incorrect'' use of it, is an extraordinarily weak and insubstantial argument. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 06:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

:::: We have excluded the option of extraterrestrials by the ''"on Earth"'' qualifier, which get this unneeded variable out of the equation. Another (very weak) topic can be started on evolution as it might apply to non-Earth life (kinda hard as we have zero data), but every single piece of data published deals with Earth life, so lets stick with what the science says. The extraterrestrial argument is very weak as it takes us right out of the range of experimental science. Let's stop bogging down this discussion with pointless what ifs (what if extraterrestrial life exist in the case of biology, what if other universes exist in the case of astronomy). Especially in astronomy, where an infinite parallel universes are a real possibility, the qualifier '''known''' is very appropriate. I'm sorry I don't have time to reply the few other argument that do not rest on the extraterrestrial postulate, but as a molecular geneticist and evolutionary biologist, I can tell you you are way off when you try to argue within the actual discipline. --[[User:Roland Deschain|Roland Deschain]] 16:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never read an article disputing gravity is universal. I have read articles disputing life is universal. Scientist may assume that life evolves elswhere, but that is a conceptual statement. You cannot exclude that life elsewhere is not carbon based, DNA based, or cellular. The strict definition of evolution applies to genomic change with descent. Life elsewhere maybe peptide based. I guess we could add a section about the possibility of life elsewhere and what that would constitute but it doesn't seem appropriate for this article (maybe origin of life).

''"Evolution only applies to organisms on earth"'' - False. Evolution applies to all life, according to every modern version of the theory.

So we don't need to qualify with "known"?

"To generalize this to mean that all life, or all hypothetical life, in the entire ''universe'' is related, is as absurd as generalizing from "every planet the size of Earth we've seen has life" to "every planet the size of Earth has life"." You are contradicting yourself. You say that all modern versions state all life evolves (a generalization) then you state that you cannot generalize that all life is related by common descent. Anyways as I have said before, "known" is more accurate. I guess my fear (or paranoia) is that creationist will grab on to qualifiers: All known organisms on Earth are related by common descent, but the vast majority of living or extinct organisms are uncharacterized and thus may have been created by forces other than evolution. So I agree with being accurate and concise and for that reason the aricle needs to be rewritten to include all the correct nomenclature, add terms left out like parapatric speciation, and remove misleading statements. Candy also has expressed his concerns over the articles present status and I am sure others will sound out after all the present editing effort has subsided. So to be accurate it should state: All known organisms on Earth are ...... Hmmm, You know organisms (organism generally refers to cellular) don't include viruses which evolve and are related by common descent. Actually it would exclude some fungi and other life also the more I think about it. I am glad that the article has been shortened. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 16:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

At my prior job I heard a visiting scholar, a philosopher, present a lecture on how all life is descended from a common ancestor. The point is, he was speaking as a philosopher of science, i.e making a philosophical proof. I wish I remember his name - at the time the talk bored me because it seemed so obvious to me, but of course he was making a proof not obvious to philosophers. Now, it is possible that his argument was really mor enarrow, that ''if'' one accepts the theory of evolution ''then'' one must also accept the principle of common ancestry. Anyway, my point is that this is something argued not only by empirical scientists but by philosophers and it may be worth acknowledging at some point in the article this fact. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 17:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

== request for comments ==

Would people who regularly watch this page please consider commenting here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligence#rename_this_article]? Thanks, [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 13:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the intro now reads like it did a few months ago. Quite stilted, contains non-sequiturs, rather jumbled. I thought for a while it was getting better but I never seem to get past the intro although it certainly reads better than if often has in the past. At least it's the right level for an intro imho.

"In biology, evolution is the process in which some of a population's inherited traits become more common, at the expense of others, from generation to generation. "

*This can happen without evolution taking place of course. The expense of others is vague in the utmost. From generation to generation is also vague. What is this trying to say? Possibly the wooliest intro yet!

"This is usually measured in terms of the variant genes, known as alleles, that encode the competing traits. As differences in and between populations accumulate over time, speciation, the development of new species from existing ones, can occur."

*In terms? Ack. Poor expression. Variant genes = alleles = nope. Alleles at the same loci perhaps. Vague again. Lots of commas - shouldn't be such a big need. Needs rephrasing. This sentence should be active not passive. In addition, I feel it should be talking about a species gene pool. The use of "populations" doesn't even necessarily really refer to the same species.

"All organisms on Earth, including extinct species, are related by common descent through numerous speciation events starting from a single ancestor.[1][2] "

*They are not related through numerous speciation events. They are simply related through common descent. This sentence woffles.

"Mutation of the genes, migration between populations, and the reshuffling of genes during sexual reproduction creates variation in organisms. While a certain random component, known as genetic drift, is involved, the variation is also acted on by natural selection, in which organisms which happen to have combinations of traits that help them to survive and reproduce more than others in the population will, on average, have more offspring, passing more copies of these beneficial traits on to the next generation.

*This is a huge sentence for an introduction. No wait. It's just a huge sentence. Snip, snip!!

*A certain random component, known as genetic drift, is involved ... please. Come on biologists you know this whole sentence is odd in the extreme.

"This leads to advantageous traits becoming more common in each generation, while disadvantageous traits become rarer. [1][3][4] Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.[5]

* Why is this a non-sequitur? Because environmental conditions are suddenly introduced and I have no understanding why! The reader will also be purprexed no doubt.

"The theory of evolution by natural selection was first put forth in detail in Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species."

* Again, where does this come from? Surely better to mention that Darwin had one of the first mechanism which could be tested and that this was called ... I still object to Wallace being left out. Degrading his contribution is a big mistake.

"In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis.[5] With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.[6][7][8]"

*I like this sentence.

Well, you asked for my input and here it is ....[[User:Candorwien|Candy]] 22:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

== request for comments ==

On race and intelligence, please [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Request_for_comment] [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 13:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

:Don't all these requests for comment belong better on Project talk pages than on other article talk pages? This page is specifically for discussing the [[Evolution]] article. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 13:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I did do that. But I believe informed contributors to this page have the knowledge to make useful comments in this matter. I do not think it is inappropriate or unusual for people to call attention to contributors to one article of an issue of possible interest at another article. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 13:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)