|
__TOC__
== "Sampling Error" ==
In the lead, can we come up with a way that "sampling error" in relation to genetic drift can be phrased in a more layperson-oriented fashion?--[[User:EveRickert|EveRickert]] 18:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
:"...as over large numbers the random changes tend to average out, but, in small populations, the fate of any one individual (and all his genes) matters far more." - A little wordy, but you could always use half of it (large or small).[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] <sup>[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]</sup> 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
::Hmmm.... nice start, but let's keep working on it.--[[User:EveRickert|EveRickert]] 19:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes the easiest way to fix a troublesome phrase is to just delete it. I think the simpler sentence still gets the point across, and more detail can be included in the [[genetic drift]] article.--[[User:EveRickert|EveRickert]] 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:No, I definitely want to keep that idea in there. Drift is hard to understand and important to understand. It is ESPECIALLY important that people understand evolution as a stochastic and not a deterministic process, including selection. I think a second clause simply explaining "sampling error" might work, but I'm also not overly concerned with making the idea of "sampling error" more accessible simply by making genetic drift less so. This is the article on evolution; our allegiance should be first to clarifying ideas relevant to that. [[User:Graft|Graft]] 16:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:Remember to balance completeness with conciseness in the introduction. Genetic drift is an important modification to the idea of evolution by natural selection, but I'm not sure it's so important that it needs to be explained in the introduction. [[User:Gnixon|Gnixon]] 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::This is not an article about natural selection, it is an article about evolution. [[User:Graft|Graft]] 18:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I wasn't clear. If I was introducing evolution to someone who hadn't heard of it, I would say something like... 1) we have all these different species because they evolved into their present forms; 2) they got there over a long period of time, mostly by natural selection picking from among random variations (this is where Darwin and everyone else went Aha!); 3) sometimes statistical effects are important, especially if populations are small (this is an importan issue if you're trying to understand evolution more deeply). I'm just saying that (3) might not make it into my introductory paragraph. I agree with Eve's comment below. [[User:Gnixon|Gnixon]] 21:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::::You're right, and Eve's right. I withdraw my objections. [[User:Graft|Graft]] 21:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Woot! Consensus has been reached! (Dontcha just love it when it's that easy?)--[[User:EveRickert|EveRickert]] 02:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Woot-woot! Yeah, baby, consensus---go all of us. This was a good discussion. Now can we come up with a good edit for the article? [[User:Gnixon|Gnixon]] 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:The reader is not going to come to an understanding of genetic drift via the lead. We want to keep them reading so they get to the more detailed sections, not have them stumble early on over unfamiliar jargon. Remember the lead is an introductory overview.--[[User:EveRickert|EveRickert]] 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:There is a difference between "simple" and "dumbed-down" ("horse with favoured odds" ??). At least a mention of genetic drift in the lead is necessary, for a simple reason: the uninitiated reader might come to believe that evolution = natural selection, a common misunderstanding that we should combat. Of course this does not mean that we should absolutely fudge a complete discussion of genetic drift in the lead. The current version seems OK to me on this point.--[[User:Thomas Arelatensis|Thomas Arelatensis]] 14:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::Right... The question wasn't about whether to cover genetic drift, just whether to use jargon, i.e. the term "sampling error," to describe it in the lead.--[[User:EveRickert|EveRickert]] 16:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::Speaking of which, I'm not wedded to that horse analogy. I just thought it was a good way to convey the mix of the action of drift and selective pressure. Feel free to ax it if you have a better notion. [[User:Graft|Graft]] 16:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The comments from MandaClair below are relevant to this discussion. [[User:Gnixon|Gnixon]] 17:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
== social and religious controversies ==
{{hab}}
== New lead ==
New lead: overly reductionist? In general I often applaud serious, bold attempts at massive streamlining, but I wonder if the lead edit by Silence isn't a bit extreme? Plus -- throwing the word theory out front so soon, in such a short lead, could cause all kinds of problems to arise due to the popular misundestanding of the word "theory".
| 