| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evolution article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | Evolution is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 18, 2005. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Former featured article | ||||||||||||||||
 | Spoken Wikipedia | |||
| ||||
| A summary of this article appears in Natural selection. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
social and religious controversies
There needs to be a description about the atheist agenda to promote atheism by evolution materialism. Especially since dawkins has labeled teaching children religion is 'child abuse' like my edit that was just undone. its clearly that such a controversial topic is not only driven by passionate religious individuals as well as atheist naturalists. I think this is evidence since gravity is considered a theory and evolution is considered a fact. Wyatt 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
| These issues are addressed in the FAQ and other articles. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Evolution as bushy, and intelligence as only one adaptation
I most recently came across this in Ben Bova's FAINT ECHOES, DISTANT STARS: THE SCIENCE AND POLITICS OF FINDING LIFE BEYOND EARTH, HarperCollins, 2004, p 247. We vaguely think of evolution as a ladder with intelligence at the top. And that's just not the case. Evolution is bushy and goes in all kinds of different directions. Other useful adaptations include sharp eyes, strong legs, a keen nose, increased wingspan, a hunting strategy of sitting and waiting and thus conserving energy, having lots of offstring, long tail feathers to attract mates, thick wooly coats for mammals in cold climates, and etc, etc.
Bova also cites Stephen Jay Gould, who takes this same general view. And here’s a website giving the transcript of a Nov. ’96 interview between Stephen and political consultant/commentator David Gergen [1] . Now, Stephen doesn’t actually use the word ‘bushy’ here, which I have heard attributed to him in other contexts. But it’s a very, very good description of what he is talking about.
I agree with Mandaclair that the Huxley graphic is great for showing a previous view of evolution and it's kind of quaint in its own way, but it is definitely not the modern view! And if you look closely at the captions, they say "Gibbon, Orang, Chimpanzee, Gorilla, Man.” Yes, these five are the currently living species of great apes (six if you wish to count the bonobo chimp as a separate species). But we are cousins!
But this same idea, slightly more sophisticated, is still in wide currency. As a young boy (I'm now 44), I remember seeing a long line of about twenty hominids, as if the whole thing is so neat and orderly. It simply is not. In fact, if we list the usual cast: Ramapithecus, Sivapithecus, Oriopithecus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapien neaderthalis, all those cool cats! Well, most of these guys are our cousins, not our ancestors. (The immediate ancestor of us modern humans is Homo erectus, who is also the immediate ancestor of the neanderthals. So please note that we and the neanderthals are cousins.)
Another thing I might ask in the article is a longer, fuller explanations of L-amino acids in proteins. I take it this is the left-hand amino acids vs. the right-hand amino acids. This is a topic I find fascinating but don't know too much about. And as far as the writing style itself, sometimes a piece of wrting can include a technical description, and then a resaying of the same thing in briefer everyday language. I don't suggest this as anything mechanical and required, but rather as one more feathered arrow in your writer's quiver.
I think one of our main articles on a subject, like evolution, should be long (as long as it stays good!). One of the advantages of the Internet over a set of Encyclopedia Britannicas sitting on a shelf is that bandwidth is so much cheaper than printing! Yeah, I’ll kind of jump in the middle here. I think length in and of itself is not such a bad thing. FriendlyRiverOtter 00:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. If you see any possible improvements to the article, please make them! (If they're big changes, probably mention them on this page.) Gnixon 19:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Archival
This talk page tends to fill up quickly. Can we agree on a policy for archiving old discussions? I would suggest the following:
- Keep any discussion with a comment less than 2 weeks old. Regularly move older ones to the archives.
- For very long but ongoing discussions, use the hat/hab tags to hide older comments. Use the reason= parameter to explain. For example, {{hat|reason=Older comments hidden to save space. Feel free to continue the discussion below.}} produces
| Older comments hidden to save space. Feel free to continue the discussion below. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
blah blah blah blah blah blah |
- When someone raises a controversial subject that is addressed in the FAQ, leave the original post, but immediately use hat/hab on the inevitable flamewar that follows. For example,
- Evolution is unproven! It's a theory, not a fact! User:GenesisTellsAll
| This issue is addressed in the FAQ. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
... |
What do you guys think? Gnixon 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- An excellent suggestion Gnixon. The warning banners and FAQ do little to stop POV pushing and vandals, so addressing it in the Talk but hiding it seems reasonable. It is difficult enough to get consensus on the topic from evolution enthusiast without wasting time addressing side issues not related to the topic. I have to admit I was initially naive to the depths of concern over creationist and ID vandalisms-I thought the editors paranoid, but was I wrong. Fill spends quite a bit of time refuting such claims from creationist and ID proponents. I am shocked as some seems less than honest (not all I should amend)which does little for their cause. GetAgrippa 18:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Credit where due: the hat/hab archives were EdJohnston's idea. We could all try harder to keep our comments tightly focused and avoid starting off-topic discussions. Gnixon 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd propose regular archiving in a simple manner, not topic-by-topic, which is too labor-intensive to be done regularly by a human, and prone to error. It probably requires a bot to do topic-by-topic archiving without tons of work, and the available bots leave something to be desired. The hat/hab scheme for boxing up topics seems fine for questions answered in the FAQ. In general I'd suggest that this Talk page is too large when it gets over 120 kb and that the archiver should leave the most recent 80kb in place. EdJohnston 18:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yeah. I didn't mean that each topic should be archived separately. I imagined someone glancing at the page and saying, "none of the topics above here have comments within the last two weeks, so they all get archived." As for keeping the page to 80-120 kB, I think it's better to decide a reasonable time since last comment and cut on that instead. (Of course, keeping the page small puts an upper limit on that time.) This page fills up so fast that cutting on size will often remove ongoing discussions. Editors shouldn't miss the chance to comment on recent topics just because they haven't logged onto Wikipedia in the last 3 or 4 days. Gnixon 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Topical archiving
I must have missed when it happened, but this new archiving methodology isn't very useful. I remember there used to be, at the top of the discussion page, a great reference source that had archives of discussions by topic. For example, the "Evolution is only a theory" topic, which happens over and over again, had it's own link. One could go and read it, maybe realize "oh someone's said that, and it's been set aside." Now I can't find all that stuff. Anyways, all IMHO. Orangemarlin 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Archiving by topic is really useful, but also tons of work to maintain. I suspect people switched to the simpler scheme out of laziness. Keep in mind that this talk page generates about an article's length of comments every couple weeks. See also the discussion about an "Evolution Debates" archive and its deletion as a POV fork. Gnixon 18:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Too bad. It was nice to refer people to old arguments. If they didn't read them, we could beat them up mercilessly. It made my days so much happier. Orangemarlin 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- It would be useful if someone created such a table at the top of the page with links to discussions in the archives. Gnixon 17:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- With User:EdJohnston's help, I think I've found the pages OM refers to. They're linked to in the 2005 archives. Gnixon 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Bot archiving
To save us effort, I've set up User:MiszaBot to automatically archive conversations older than 2 weeks. Hopefully, I got all the settings right. If it causes problems, please let me know and I'll clean things up. If anyone doesn't like this idea, please say so. Or, if you like the bot but not the settings, certainly feel free to change them yourself---it's pretty easy. Cheers, Gnixon 16:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
Theistic Evolution
There is a need for a section about Theistic Evolution. Talk about Evolution's status in big religions such as Islam, and Christianity, and Hinduism, etc. Believe it or not, there are Muslims, Christians, and Hindus who believe in Evolution. Armyrifle 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, Theistic evolution.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 23:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, a link somewhere in the article might be nice. i kan reed 23:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please see the Social and religious controversies section. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, a link somewhere in the article might be nice. i kan reed 23:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is a science article that is not about religious beliefs at all. That some religious organizations feel the need to have a religious position on a particular aspect of science is best discussed elsewhere, and linked from the "social and religious controversies" section. thx1138 06:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Controversy (2)
The Social and religious controversy section is probably the most neglected one in the article, but it is one of the most important for many of the new posters on this discussion page. The section has long had "citation needed" tags. It discusses both objections to evolution and controversial social theories derived from it, but the two topics are not well-separated. The paragraphs seem to have each been developed independently and don't transition well. Can we try to improve things? Gnixon 16:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I attempted a major revision several days ago. I thought it would be uncontroversial since I only used the previous text and the introductions of the sub-articles, but the change was reverted by someone who preferred to discuss it here first. In response, I've created a Work in Progress page and copied my edit there. I would appreciate if people would take a look, comment at the bottom of the page, and make improvements. Thanks!! Gnixon 16:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to the users who made comments at the WIP page. I've recently made several edits to the Controversy section, keeping their comments in mind. Particularly, instead of trying to copy in the introductions of related articles, which made the section too long, I've simply organized the section with subsections and cut redundant material. One editor argued for cutting the "Social theories" stuff, but I've left it in for now. I hope this is satisfactory to everyone. Let's work hard to keep this section short, well-referenced, and free of both anti-evolution and anti-creationist POV. Gnixon 16:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleting the page. Gnixon 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Observation
Where are the examples of new species observed to come into existence? I've heard claims about medicines being invented by evolution and things, but I don't know of any where that evolution has actually been observed? This is different than seeing a chain of similar animals, because those animals are actually distant from each other even if they followed a similar path. All I've seen is beaks getting longer or shorter, but no real macro changes or new features. It would be nice to have some statements about it, but I may have just overlooked them. Wyatt 21:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
| This issue is addressed in the FAQ. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Suggestions from Mandaclair
A number of discussions with a biology lecturer.
Definition
Proposed definition of evolution for lead. General support. Concern about "biological" qualifier. Brief discussion of strategy for addressing creationist reactions.
| Hidden for length. Feel free to continue discussion. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Mandaclair recently made some interesting edits to the introduction. They were quickly reverted because they changed the lead significantly, adding a lot of detail, but her paragraph defining evolution seemed useful, and I wonder if we could work it in somewhere without making the lead too unwieldy:
The way she enumerates three processes and separates the technical definition from the vernacular could guide the introduction and first few sections of the article, especially if we can find a way to avoid getting too technical too early. By the way, she also made several good small changes to the intro that were reverted with the others. It'd be nice if someone went through the history and copied some of the changes back in. Gnixon 16:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|
Recommendations
A number of recommendations for the article. Few responses. Proposal of "Misconceptions" section discussed in later subsection.
| Hidden for length. Feel free to continue discussion below. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
If "bold editing" was a bit easier to accomplish, I might recommend the following (Comments by User:Mandaclair):
There are some ideas. Take 'em or leave 'em. I'm willing to help, as long as the debate and round-&-round is kept to a minimum. Kind regards, Mandaclair 19:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|
Cooks in the pot
More students using Wikipedia as authoritative source. Experts may be discouraged from contributing by "too many cooks in the pot."
| Hidden for length. Feel free to continue the discussion. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
A final note, for now (from User:Mandaclair): The main reason I have taken an interest in this article, is because University students are using Wikipedia more and more as an authoritative source -- a fact that is potentially exciting on one hand, and terrifying on the other. As someone who interacts with biology majors on a daily basis, it would make my job (and my colleagues' jobs) much easier if we helped out in making popular resources (like Wikipedia) as accurate as possible. Otherwise, we spend a lot of time helping students "unlearn" what they thought was true about Evolution (such as: it's all adapation, or it's all a directional process of improvement, or the notion that simply because we refer to "evolutionary theory", that therefore evolution must be some kind of tentative hypothesis that has not been "proven" one way or another... you get the picture.) Unfortunately, I am sure that many academics in many fields are deterred by the too-many-cooks environment at Wikipedia, and yet, they may feel compelled to help out in some way -- especially if their students use Wikipedia. All of that being said, the Evolution article (as it stands now) does cover most of the main points, and is a decent introduction to the field and its concepts. It could just be a lot clearer, a lot more accurate on some fundamental points, and it could cite more (and better) examples, in many places.
Thanks, and for now I think I'll leave most of the editing to the more passionate editors here -- I'm happy to help upon request, Mandaclair 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC) |
Natural selection
Proposed definition of natural selection. Criticism of adaptationist tone in article. Importance of superfecundity.
| Hidden for length. Feel free to continue discussion. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Here are some of the other changes I made last night, and the rationale (Comments by User:Mandaclair.):
The important thing about selection is that it is a *self-evident* process, in that: given the undeniable, observable biological facts that 1.) organisms vary, 2.) most variation is heritable 3.) organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive, and 4.) some heritable traits will influence reproductive success, it *necessarily follows* that heritable traits that increase reproductive success will increase in frequency, while heritable traits that do not increase reproductive success will decrease in frequency or disappear entirely. This is why a very common reaction in the scientific community to the publication of The Origin, was basically along the lines of: "well, DUH, how come *I* never thought of that?" It is self-evident to any thinking, rational human. Also, it is tempting to think of all evolution and natural selection as "adaptation to the environment", but that is a somewhat naïve point of view, mainly in that it is incomplete (many traits are preserved due to random factors, or evolutionary constraints that prohibit their disappearance, i.e. genetic linkage or developmental constraints. Adaptation need not enter into the preservation of traits over time.) I strongly recommend toning down the adaptationist tone of this article in general. Natural selection is perhaps best understood if reduced to the self-evident mathematical outcome of perpetuation of certain heritable forms due to the simple fact that there are more copies available to reproduce, and they are better at reproducing. Yes, adaptation occurs, but it is not the driving force. Mutation, drift, and selection are the driving forces. Also, any discussion on drift *must* point out that drift applies to sexually reproducing organsisms, since drift is generally understood as a result of random matings. Thus:
Again, with the concept of speciation and divergence, sexual reproduction must be assumed if you're going to invoke "interbreeding". Many organisms (including eukaryotes) are asexual, and so the ability to interbreed cannot define or describe the divergence process. Thus:
Great suggestions. Two things I'm a bit uncertain of: one is superfecundity - organisms certainly don't always produce more offspring than can possibly survive, and that's certainly not required for selection to take place. All that's required is that you do better than your neighbor, as in any race. And two is the above misconceptions section. I was never a fan of its inclusion before, and I don't want to see it making a prominent return. It hurts the article. Graft 19:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
|
Common misconceptions
Continued from Recommendations. Suggestion for section on common misconceptions about evolution. Some support. Concern that such a section would devolve into anti-creationist POV, as did a similar section before.
| Hidden for length. Feel free to continue the discussion. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi -- the last thing I'd like to reply to, is Gnixon's request for more details about "common misconceptions" about evolution. Here's the short list -- some of these may *seem* targeted for the creationists, but they're really not. Even atheists sometimes misunderstand the true meaning of the word "theory". I also realize that many of these issues are addressed piecemeal throughout the article as it stands, but a "bold rewrite" attempt might want to consolidate them into a single section. I think that would be extremely valuable. (From User:Mandaclair.)
Please e-mail me for questions or details. Thanks, Mandaclair 18:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
|
Changes implemented
Changes to intro by Mandaclair. Support for them from GetAgrippa.
| Hidden for length. Feel free to continue discussion. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Heads up -- I'm going to make a few changes, but none should come as a big surprise. Questions? See archive above.Mandaclair 18:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
|
Struggle to survive
Debate over "struggle for survival" phrase as too Victorian, Marxist, anthropomorphic. Defended as accurate description, used by Darwin. Resolution via "roundabout verbage."
| Hidden for length. Feel free to continue discussion. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Question, Graft: I see by your edit comment that you "hate the word struggle", but I wonder how much bearing your personal hatred of the word has, given the fact that Darwin consistently used the phrase "struggle for existence" throughout The Origin, and this "struggle" is very much viewed as fundamental to Natural Selection. Seems to me that any description of selection ought to be true to Darwin, at least...Mandaclair 23:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Graft on the issue of "struggle for survival" - it's a metaphor from an earlier age, and it's about as dated as "nature red in tooth and claw". No one talks about species interactions in those terms any more. Guettarda 05:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It is an old metaphor and the naive also equate it with the survival of the fittest metaphor, but the point I think Mandaclair is making is that biotic competition is a fact of life and superfecundity relates as organisms tend to reproduce more than can survive in any given ecological setting. The terminology maybe a contention but the point does need to be made. I think we would be remiss not to mention both as this is an encyclopedia and the audience needs the basics. Introductory text and books (Gould, Mayr, etc)all mention it to my recollection.GetAgrippa 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
In an attempt to dress up an old concept in less Victorian/anthropomorphic language, I have gone ahead and replaced the classic "struggle for existence" phrase with some roundabout verbage that, to my mind, means exactly the same thing: "organisms in a population are not all equally successful in terms of survivorship and reproductive success". Conceptually, it is identical to "struggle for existence" -- does this wording satisfy the dissenters?Mandaclair 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
|
Variation and Heredity
Call to cut Variation and Heredity sections. Some support for only summarizing variation and heredity within another section. Is adaptationist perspective a POV issue? How is evolution taught these days? Few comments.
| Hidden for length. Feel free to continue discussion. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I kind of feel like the short "Variation" and "Heredity" sections don't belong here (mainly because the way they are written does not really address Evolution). What do folks think about deleting these sections -- keeping in mind that there will be embedded links to the variation and heredity articles, throughout this one?Mandaclair 04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
|
Selection and Adaptation
Edits by Mandaclair to Selection and Adaptation section. Brief debate over ecological selection.
| Hidden for length. Feel free to continue discussion. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I have now made some bold(ish) edits to the Selection and Adaptation section, a bit more consistent with the way these concepts are taught in Evolution courses for biology majors. The previous version of this section was really a bit off... for example, the 3rd mode of selection is disruptive selection (not artificial selection), and all 3 modes could be argued to select against harmful traits and select for beneficial ones. I also tried to improve the description of sexual selection a bit, and removed the distinction of "ecological selection" because it seemed a bit redundant with the existing description of natural selection in general. "Ecological selection" is not a term I hear used a lot... it makes sense, sure, but I don't think it's any kind of standard category of selection... As I go through this article, though, I am generally very impressed with its quality. My intention here is just to tidy-up, not do any drastic rewrites! Thanks, Mandaclair 05:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
|
A note on the system of boxes just above (used for Mandaclair's comments and the responses): User:Gnixon is the one who wrote the summaries and created the system of boxes. (It would be more clear if he would add his own signed comment to announce the refactoring). In fact, it does save space on the Talk page, and I like the system, but perhaps not everyone does. Please respond here either for or against this type of refactoring. I think there is a consensus that it should be done for questions answered in the FAQ, but there is not yet a consensus for doing it more generally. There is a sub-question as to whether some further action should be taken on Mandaclair's suggestions. Respond here on that issue as well, if you have an opinion. EdJohnston 16:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- For' (obviously). You're right, Ed. I should have said something about it. I certainly hope the archiving and subject headings haven't stifled discussion, but it was getting so long and covering so many topics that I couldn't follow things anymore. Gnixon 20:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- For so long as its employed sparingly to avoid confusing new/casual readers. But it is so obviously useful for high traffic talk pages such as this; I hope to utilize it elsewhere. - RoyBoy 800 23:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Lead
Recent changes to the lead seem to have been well-received, but I think they've also exacerbated an existing problem: the lead is far too long and detailed.
WP:LEAD recommends that the lead be concise and accessible, and suggests that it should be between one and four paragraphs long. The current lead is 7 paragraphs long, and I think one could easily argue that its neither concise nor accessible to the average reader. What's more, from glancing at the table of contents, the lead hardly seems to be an "overview" of the article. (Granted, the article's contents are not well organized.) Some articles about major scientific fields have addressed the issue by including only the definition in the lead, then following with an "Introduction" section. I'm not sure that's the best solution, but we have to do something. Any ideas? I'll try to make a content-neutral revision sometime soon unless someone beats me to it. Gnixon 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
A survey about the lead took place here. Thanks, Ed, for mentioning it. Gnixon 18:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Reviewers during January's FAR stressed that this article needed work on being accessible to its readers, especially in the intro. See FAR section below. Gnixon 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Organization
A glance at the table of contents is enough to prove that this article has become very poorly organized. I'd like to undertake a major reorganization, one that is content-neutral but better sorts things under headings and subheadings. I think a similar change at Physics worked out well (compare before [3] and after [4]). I'd appreciate some input regarding what the table of contents should look like and what goes where. Thanks! Gnixon 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would need to review User:Silence's previous plan, and the feedback questionnaire that he created for the lead, to get some ideas. (It's all in this Talk page or the archives). He also made a list of issues he thought would need to be fixed to get back the FA status. I can try to dig up all the diffs pointing to that stuff later. EdJohnston 16:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The lead survey is here. Gnixon 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The featured article review, including Silence's extensive comments, is here. Gnixon 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
FAR
The featured article review in January resulted in delisting, but also produced a number of well-received recommendations from User:Silence and others. Not all of them have been carried out. I've copied Silence's list of recommendations in the hidden archive below. Please comment either within the archive or below it. Gnixon 19:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
| Silence's FAR recommendations. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
25 problems to resolve, for starters:
|
The references have been corrected, broken links removed, internal links were formatted according to WP:CITET, and outside references have been shortened. Other activities to make this an FA are required. Orangemarlin 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- For technical items where it's absolutely clear they've been resolved, I suggest striking through the items. Gnixon 19:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Gnixon, thanks for digging up this useful info. I struck out Silence's action item about external links, since they were reduced to nine back on 9 February. If I see more things I can fix I'll edit the boxed copy of his list you provided above. EdJohnston 20:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I also struck out some items that were completed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
- AOL, I'd like to strike out the infant issue. I agree with the idea of not over explaining concepts in article, but I would emphasize that a "phenotype" is not common knowledge. - RoyBoy 800 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fine to strike it out if it's no longer a problem, but the complaint was justified: "e.g., what makes you different from your neighbor" is far too casual language for an encyclopedia. Gnixon 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Language
After making extensive changes to help resolve items on his list, as well as making improvements to several related articles, Silence left this comment:
Unfortunately, I lack the biological expertise to fix some of this article's largest problems: the opaqueness of some of the more technical sections, lacking even an attempt to provide readers with context in many cases, rnders large portions of this article essentially useless as a general reference tool. What we need is some more work on clarifying concepts by people who are both very familiar with the processes and mechanisms involved, and able to explain them in sufficiently clear, engaging language. We need a Dawkins! :( -Silence 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
He also voted "remove" for similar reasons:
Remove unless dramatic improvements ensue. I can only do so much; the incredibly confusing mess of various parts of the "processes" and "mechanisms" sections will require a substantial rewrite by knowledgeable folk in order to be of any use to readers; there's nothing wrong with using complex concepts and important technical terms, but the article's frequent failure to keep its readership in mind and coherently explain these things, as well as poor writing quality in a number of paragraphs and inconsistency in references, makes the current article unfit to be an FA. Hopefully, if efforts aren't rallied beforehand, they will become more focused as a result of the demanding pressures of the FAC and peer-review process. -Silence 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Other reviewers also stressed the need to explain concepts in accessible language, especially in the Intro. Gnixon 19:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- You and I, given that we have strong disagreement on many issues pertaining to these articles, cannot be the only two who are involved. I would "hold your horses" until other editors weigh in with their opinions. You have a tendency to go "ready, fire, fire, fire, aim." Slow down. Orangemarlin 19:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whereas your tendency is "revert, revert, then maybe read." ;-) Just trying to be bold until there seem to be objections. I haven't yet changed anything about the article. I think the area where we disagree is pretty well-defined, so we can probably cooperate on other things. It's a shame that there haven't been many editors around here lately. Gnixon 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, what happened to the lead? It is way too long. I think it grew by creeping. Orangemarlin 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. See my comments above. Gnixon 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I have said over and over that this article needs to be accessible. Unfortunately, that seems to be a very difficult thing to achieve.--Filll 20:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- We're trying. Come back and help, this article needs you too. Orangemarlin 20:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Semantics
I'm not seriously proposing a move, but can anyone see how many of the problems we have here would be solved by changing the article name to "Evolutionary biology"? Many of the tensions on this page are due to confusion over whether we're writing about
- Evolutionary biology, a field of study like Physics.
- Theory of Evolution, as in, the Modern Synthesis, a theory like the Theory of General Relativity
- Evolutionary processes, as in the observable aspects
- Evolution by natural selection, meaning the concept of it, as in Darwin's revolutionary idea that changed science and society, like Adam Smith's Invisible Hand.
How did the English language come up so short here? How do other encyclopedias handle the problem? Gnixon 20:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let's keep the name Evolution. The idea of changing the name comes up promptly every six weeks, and is always rejected. The name has been this way since 2001. EdJohnston 14:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, I said I wasn't proposing a move! :-) On the other hand, I think it's worth discussing which definition we're writing about, or which parts of the article address each meaning. I also think we have almost enough material to make a separate "Theory of Evolution" article, and I wish we had enough to make "Evolutionary biology" (as in the branch distinguished from molecular bio). Gnixon 14:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
LUCA again
FYI, apropos our debate of a week or two ago, I today read a bit by Doolittle (and Eric Bapteste) about the Tree of Life, in PNAS, Feb 13 2007, titled "Pattern Pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis". He uses some strong language which I have no doubt will end up in some creationist quote mine (cf. his first sentence, "The meaning, role in biology, and support in evidence of the universal ‘‘Tree of Life’’ (TOL) are currently in dispute." Good read. Graft 22:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks Graft. I remember at one point in the past evolutionary webs was emphasized more than trees, but apparently it is a little of both. I agree this will end up in creationist quote mines. Doolittle admits that tree patterns suffice for most of life and that he is referring predominately to prokaryotes because of HGT and fusion events. He gets rather philosophical also (which I tend to agree with some of his sentiments but don't agree with reaction of stifling the whole pursuit). I do think that Doolittle is fatalistic about it as others disagree:
Kurland CG, Canback B, Berg OG. Horizontal gene transfer: a critical view. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Aug 19;100(17):9658-62. Epub 2003 Aug 5. Review. PMID: 12902542 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Lake JA, Rivera MC.
Deriving the genomic tree of life in the presence of horizontal gene transfer: conditioned reconstruction.
Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Apr;21(4):681-90. Epub 2004 Jan 22.
PMID: 14739244 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Ge F, Wang LS, Kim J.
The cobweb of life revealed by genome-scale estimates of horizontal gene transfer.
PLoS Biol. 2005 Oct;3(10):e316. Epub 2005 Aug 30.
PMID: 16122348 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Kurland CG. What tangled web: barriers to rampant horizontal gene transfer. Bioessays. 2005 Jul;27(7):741-7. PMID: 15954096 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE
I think Doolittle is correct to throw a red flag of reasonable doubt, but it should be a cautionary tale to proceed with caution rather than render it mute. In the end, the article will be used by creationist quote mines that another Darwinist scientist disproves evolution theory is feasible. GetAgrippa 14:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like stuff that would fit very nicely into a "current research" section. (Also, I wouldn't sweat the creationist angle too much. It's always easy to distinguish between arguing the details and arguing the big picture.) Gnixon 14:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Doolittle's last paragraph deals with the issue of Creationists:
- Holding onto this ladder of pattern is an unnecessary hindrance in the understanding of process (which is prior to pattern) both ontologically and in our more down-to-earth conceptualization of how evolution has occurred. And it should not be an essential element in our struggle against those who doubt the validity of evolutionary theory, who can take comfort from this challenge to the TOL only by a willful misunderstanding of its import. The patterns of similarity and difference seen among living things are historical in origin, the product of evolutionary mechanisms that, although various and complex, are not beyond comprehension and can sometimes be reconstructed.
- But I do think his point should be well-taken, that one shouldn't assume a rooted, branching tree extending back to the beginning of life when we have no way of showing that this must be the case for the deepest parts of the Tree of Life. I haven't read the above HGT review yet, but what do you think of Doolittle's central point - that the assumption that there's something to be identified beyond all that HGT is unfounded to begin with? Graft 16:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Adam has made some good edits regarding LUCA and HGT. Gnixon 12:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Suggested Edit
As a biologist, I have issue with the use of word 'design' in the following sentence in the 'Academic Disciplines' section: The capability of evolution through selection to produce designs optimized for a particular environment has greatly interested mathematicians, scientists and engineers. Could 'design' be replaced with 'biological processes and networks' or something similar? Evolution doesn't generate function through 'design' but with whatever paradigm works.
Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.191.134 (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
Done. Thanks for the notice. By the way, you can create an account and edit this article.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 06:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I've done a cleanup on Fisherian runaway and trimmed it somewhat. Can someone do a sanity check and make sure I haven't removed anything important? Also, it would be good if someone could add some references to it. (I'm posting here because Fisherian runaway is pretty low traffic.) Regards, Ben Aveling 08:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
BNME:Monkeys
bnme:this is myvirgn attmpt at a internet talk site. I can't type and I have to soetimes hit the keys twice to get em to work. If I a using someones post, please let me k(twice)now. With these thumbs I save monkeys. There had to be some miracle.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bnmeee (talk • contribs) 08:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
The lead
...My god, what happened to it? It's not a summary of evolution any more, it's back to using undefined jargon (genetic drift is *NOT* a term you can just drop into the lead without comment, and is generally completely inappropriate.
- I tried to raise the issue a few topics up, and there was no response. We seem to have a lot of editors here who are interested in the details of the theory, but not many who are interested in good writing. By the way, I explained there "what happened to it." Gnixon 12:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
...Really, I don't see how this article is ever going to reach FA again at this rate. For every step forwards, someone turns around and makes in incomprehensible to non-biology majors again. Does anyone really expect a layperson to understand the second paragraph with talk of the Hadean era, RNA world, and so on? Adam Cuerden talk 11:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the old verson of the lead. Maybe this and the new version can be combined into something useful? I dunno. I'm tired of this nonsense. It seems like every month a new simple lead gets made, then someone replaces it with an incomprehensible one.
In biology, evolution is the process of change with time in the inherited characteristics, or traits, of a population of organisms. Heritable traits are encoded in the genetic material of an organism (usually DNA). Evolution results from changes in this genetic material (mutation) and the subsequent spread of these changes in the population, and explains the observed changes over time in the fossil record.
Natural selection, one of the processes that drives evolution, results from improved reproductive success by individuals best adapted to survive and reproduce in a given environment. These successful survivors and reproducers pass their beneficial, heritable traits to the next generation. If these traits increase the evolutionary fitness of an organism, they will be more likely to survive and reproduce than other organisms in the population. In doing so, they pass more copies of those (heritable) traits on to the next generation, causing advantageous traits to become more common in each generation; the corresponding decrease in fitness for deleterious traits results in their becoming rarer.[1][2][3] In time, this results in adaptation: the gradual accumulation of new beneficial traits and the preservation of existing ones results in a population of organisms becoming better suited to its environment and ecological niche.[4]
Though natural selection is decidedly non-random in its manner of action, other more capricious forces have a strong hand in the process of evolution. Genetic drift results in heritable traits becoming more or less common simply due to random chance. This aimless process may overwhelm the effects of natural selection in certain situations (especially in small populations).
Differences in environment, and the element of chance in what mutations happen to arise and which ones survive, can cause different populations (or parts of populations) to develop in divergent directions. With enough divergence, two populations can become sufficiently distinct that they may be considered separate species, in particular if the capacity for interbreeding between the two populations is lost. Evidence such as the wide distribution of the canonical genetic code indicates that all known cellular organisms are ultimately descended from a common ancestral population.[1][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]
While the idea of evolution (as opposed to the fixity of species) is ancient, the modern concept of evolution by natural selection was first set out by Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin in a joint paper to the Linnean Society, followed by the publication of Darwin's 1859 book, On the Origin of Species. In the 1930s, the modern evolutionary synthesis combined Darwin's natural selection with Gregor Mendel's genetics. As more and more evidence was collected and understanding of the processes of evolution improved, evolution became the central organising principle of biology.[12][13]
Even the old version is too long by WP:LEAD standards. I really think a big problem is that editors can't decide if we're writing about evolution in general or about the details of the theory. I don't think natural selection and speciation need to be explained in nearly so much detail, and I don't think genetic drift needs to be mentioned at all (in the intro), but clearly other editors disagree. I'd love to see an expert (I don't qualify) try to write a concise 2-4 paragraph lead (not even "introduction", just "lead") that covers the big ideas in a readable, engaging way. Gnixon 12:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I always get a little defensive when people complain about Lead length. Lead length should never be an issue so long as the lead does indeed accurately summarize an article. If the article is long, detailed and conveys a complicated subject... I'm sorry but the lead had damn well better be long! :"D I get defensive, because a comprehensive (rather than light introductory) lead is essential; since, as I understand it, some projects propose to just use the leads of articles for various publications/replications. - RoyBoy 800 00:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's an interesting point. It often seems to me that big articles would do well to have something even more concise than WP:LEAD, followed by some sort of "Introduction" before getting to other topics. Maybe a good analogy would be the dustjacket and introduction of a book. The dustjacket has to be brief enough to grab the reader's attention, but an introduction has a beginning, a middle, and an end, and can be quite long if necessary. Gnixon 00:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds about right. Although not necessarily relevant, I have been heavily involved in shaping two leads. Abortion because it was mired in debate, and Blade Runner because I wanted it featured (after I had substantially increased the article size). I think the Blade Runner lead is a solid example of what a lead should be for beefy articles; and I actually had a minor disagreement with a user who was under the impression leads should be a few sentences long. If I remember correctly that helped tighten up the lead enough to then create the 4th paragraph. Um.... I should stop rambling now. - RoyBoy 800 00:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Pointedly abortion is very short, and that does make me consider expanding it to summarize the great article underneath... but I'd need to ditch my real life to make that happen. :"D RoyBoy 800 00:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Something we did for abortion is to create a subpage for debate and discussion of the lead, which helped focus things a great deal. Then when everything had been said and differences in opinion had solidified; many versions were created, criticized and rewritten, again and again in subsections to provide a chronology and direction for what the lead eventually became. - RoyBoy 800 00:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- As someone who used to edit here regularly, I must say the lead has gone seriously downhill. Step one: just put the old lead (from ~mid 2006) back and then try to make it a bit more user friendly. The current lead is just horrible. Mikker (...) 13:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the mid 2006 lead. It has one major problem in paragraph 2 - too many unexplained terms - but I think something could be made of it:
In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Through the course of time, this process results in the origin of new species from existing ones (speciation). All contemporary organisms are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is the source of the vast diversity of extant and extinct life on Earth.[14][15]
The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection (which includes ecological, sexual, and kin selection) and genetic drift; these two mechanisms act on the genetic variation created by mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow. Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. If those traits are heritable, they are passed to succeeding generations, with the result that beneficial heritable traits become more common in the next generation.[16][17][18] Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.[4]
The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, which was first set out in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book 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 allele frequency within a population from one generation to the next.[4]
The theory of evolution 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 staggering biodiversity of the living world. The modern evolutionary synthesis is broadly received as scientific consensus and has replaced earlier explanations for the origin of species, including Lamarckism, and is currently the most powerful theory explaining biology.
Because of its potential implications for the origins of humankind, evolutionary theory has been at the center of many social and religious controversies since its inception.
An early 2007 version reads
Evolution is the process in which some 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 mutations. Over time, the processes of evolution can lead to speciation: the development of a new species from existing ones. All life is a result of such speciation events and thus all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor. [1][19]
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.[1][20][21] Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.[4]
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 separate papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Detailed support for the theory was then set out in 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.[4] 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.[22][23][24]
Which is probably nearer what we need. Adam Cuerden talk 13:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Adam, for continuing to fight the good fight on behalf of accessibility. Yes, the current lead is a mess. I'd be in favor of restoring the old one (the last one you pasted) wholesale and then working from there.
- A question: what did the lead look like when this article qualified as an FA?--EveRickert 00:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, bloody hell, now it's nearly gone entirely. For what it's worth, this was the lead when it was an FA. It's not perfect, but arguably better than what's there now, or was there before:
- Evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a population within a species. Since the emergence of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, which states that all modern species are the products of an extensive process that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics. As the theory of evolution by natural selection and genetics has become universally accepted in the scientific community, it has replaced other explanations including creationism and Lamarckism. Skeptics, often creationists, sometimes deride evolution as "just a theory" in an attempt to characterize it as an arbitrary choice and degrade its claims to truth. Such criticism overlooks the scientifically-accepted use of the word "theory" to mean a falsifiable and well-supported hypothesis.
--EveRickert 20:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, the lead section when this article was an FA was quite lacking. It's better than what was there before, but why settle for the lesser of two evils when we can have a good? There's no reason we can't have a lead section that very briefly goes over the most essential aspects for someone who has absolutely no understanding of evolution, and then have the rest of the article go into things in more detail; although I agree that functionality is more important than blind adherence to arbitrary standards or conventions, there is a very important practical (and thus functional) reason for an article's lead section to be as short as reasonably possible: accessibility.
- Evolution is a complex topic, so none of us should be surprised to see some extremely important topics covered too little, or not at all, in the lead section; that is not only tolerable, but preferable, because it means that the lead section isn't bloated. The other main concern, then, is that the lead section be reader-friendly and, in particular, informative. This involves a difficult balancing act, but there's no reason we can't reach that point of equilibrium again; we've come very close in the past.
- For example, we may want to mention and link to "gene" at the start of the first paragraph, if only to account for the many uses of the word "genetic" that are simply unavoidable in the lead section to an Evolution article; however, we might not, on the other hand, need to mention DNA quite yet, and saving that for slightly later in the article will also spare us the difficulty of having to waste valuable lead space on footnotes (in the context of evolution, at least) like RNA. -Silence 21:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Spin-off
I think it would be really great if someone created a "Theory of evolution" article using the information already in this article. The idea would be to discuss the ins and outs of the modern synthesis and current research in greater detail without bogging down the Evolution article. For example, the lead we currently have, which is far too detailed for the average reader of this article, would work very nicely in "Theory of evolution." It would also be a great place to discuss issues like horizontal gene transfer, population bottlenecking, etc., which frankly aren't too interesting to the average reader. There's more than enough material here to make a good start on what could be a very interesting new addition to Wikipedia. Just like "Misunderstandings" spawned its own article, I think the time has come for "Theory of evolution" or "Evolutionary theory." Gnixon 13:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
| Discussions with an editor who objects to the idea. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Sorry, Gnixon, I wasn't arround earlier to show support - of course Orangemerlin is just a troll, better to ignore. I wanted to say this: I believe that many years ago we actually had an article, theory of evolution. I think it ended up getting merged with either Natural Selection (an obvious mistake, but because at that time theory of evolution really was about Darwin's theory of evolution not the modern synthesis) or it was merged into this article. Of course, evolution is both a fact and a theory (and perhaps we should even say so in the first paragraph). In any event, content forking when an article gets long and unweildly is common, and it is not at all the same thing as simplifying an article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC) |
Spin-off section 2
Back to the issue. What do people think of creating a more technical "Theory of Evolution"? (I'm a little disappointed that discussion on this article seems to have died down over the last couple weeks. Maybe it's the level of drama? I hope we can return to active, productive discussion---please let me know if I can somehow improve my role in it.) Gnixon 01:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't support having a separate 'Theory of Evolution' article. If the lead is having problems we should fix the lead, not just split off another article. The lead of Evolution was too technical around January 1, it got better till about March 1, and recently it became too technical again. I'd also support moving more technical material to subarticles, e.g. stuff about specific genetic mechanisms. Here are some topics that, while intriguing, might not need to be covered in our main article on evolution:
- DNA methylation
- Gene flow
- Epigenetics
- Non-DNA forms of heritable variation
- Transposons
- Hill-Robertson effect
- Muller's ratchet
Others may have their own suggestions for what's not needed in the main article. EdJohnston 01:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with the idea of moving things like that to main articles. (For the record, I wasn't proposing the other article only in order to move stuff from here. I really think it would be helpful to have a more technical article in one place, even if this one didn't change.) Gnixon 02:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is a great idea to move the topical material listed above to articles on those topics, however I don't like the idea of having multiple tiers of articles on the same topics. Two is plenty, possibly too many, we should not have three. My two cents... --TeaDrinker 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think we need Gene flow, and a brief mention of epigenetics. The others, well, the last two might be useful in explaining other things, but not more than a sentence each. Adam Cuerden talk 02:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that anything that is an important component of the theory of evolution ought to be mentioned here, with a link. But I see no reason why we canot have three tiers of articles: at the top, an article on evolution as fact and as theory that provides a general overview; then an article on the theory of evolution that goes into details about models for evolution, how they have changed, points of contention (comparable articles at this "level" would be evidence for evolution as well as articles on the evolution of actual species e.g. human evolution); then linked articles on natural selection, genetic drift, and other, more technical or contentions elements at play in current models/theorizing of evolution. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think we need Gene flow, and a brief mention of epigenetics. The others, well, the last two might be useful in explaining other things, but not more than a sentence each. Adam Cuerden talk 02:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is a great idea to move the topical material listed above to articles on those topics, however I don't like the idea of having multiple tiers of articles on the same topics. Two is plenty, possibly too many, we should not have three. My two cents... --TeaDrinker 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
A suggestion: since it seems you really want the article to be about the modern synthesis, why not call it "Modern Synthesis" and have "Theory of Evolution" redirect there? Hey look, there is already a modern synthesis article. Maybe instead of creating a new article, you could work on this one?--EveRickert 00:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable suggestion, but Modern Synthesis, at least in its current incarnation, seems to be specifically about the historical merging of Darwin and Mendel. I was thinking of something more general that, as Slrubenstein described above, would discuss various models and aspects of the modern theory. Gnixon 21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
More comments from Mandaclair
| Click here to expand. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I only want to mention that I will be working on the Speciation section a bit, and then I figure I'll leave the rest of this process to those who are more passionate about "the process". I do have two general suggestions though, about recent conversations: 1.) The desire to keep an article's lead "between four and seven paragraphs" or some other benchmark number set by Wikipedia seems absurd to me, as if both Silly Putty and the science of Evolution should be given equal lead lengths. Lousy, senseless standards pave the way for lousy, senseless writing. Do not fear a longer, more involved lead -- Evolutionary Biology is certainly worthy of it.
2.) The complaints about the article not being transparent enough to "non-biology majors" are unfortunate, but I would like to argue that nothing can be done about this. Evolutionary science *IS* a complex science -- arguably the most complex science in biology -- and thus it necessarily requires a sound understanding of many concepts (yes, including genetic drift). People who argue against Evolutionary Science mainly argue against it out of sheer ignorance of the core concepts. Thus, failing to provide those concepts in their entirety will only serve to perpetuate a senseless debate. There is no way to distill evolutionary science down into a bubblegum version that everyone can understand and reconcile with their pre-existing beliefs about science and origins, (just as there is no way to distill general relativity into a pop-science version), and I would strongly argue that any attempt to write a solid, accurate, and informative article about Evolution that is accessible to "the uneducated masses" (i.e. those who are afraid of, or unfamiliar with biological concepts) -- will ultimately fail. Thanks, Mandaclair 20:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
_____ I just saw the following comment by the now-departed Orangemarlin: "Evolution is complicated, and to simplify it demeans the subject. We try to spin off forks to more easily explain certain complications. But my biggest criticism of what you write is your assumption that people are either too stupid or too lazy to read this type of article. Once again, if they want the real FACT of Evolution read this article." To that, I say HEAR, HERE. I am glad to see that there was another editor who took this point of view (and I don't mean POV). Too bad he was also driven away by the frustrating environment around here. It's enough to make one want to scoop one's own eyes out with a spoon. I am currently pondering whether perhaps this group of editors may have a particular problem with anti-elitism, which is the most surefire way to drive off individuals who often have the most to contribute. A comment on my talk page, "Surely non-experts can contribute to articles in some ways and experts don't need to have their holy authority worshipped at every turn?" is the sort of comment that *Never* occurs in academic settings. My answer to that question, by the way, is generally NO. Non-experts are rarely as equipped with sufficient knowledge and experience to write the most accurate and representative articles on things. Sorry for the reality check, but that's why none of us is likely to be offered an authoring deal for a textbook or encyclopedia entry on resuable spacecraft engineering. Wikipedia is not journalism, and neither are other encyclopedias. The only thing I'll add is that "authority" is not holy and need not be worshipped, but a lot of progress might be made around here (and on Wikipedia in general) if people knew their limits, knew what they are (and are not) qualified to write about, and do not worship academic authority, but at least respect it. I see that this particular user has driven away another experienced editor recently, with his impossible attitudes and rhetoric. I encourage the rest of you, strongly, to do something about this. Meanwhile, I'm going to make some edits to Speciation in the next couple of days, and then give up on this process in favor of more pressing (and productive) matters. It's way too much work and wasted time, for way too little progress. I'm sorry if that sounds like a poor attitude about things, but it's a very prominent one (regarding Wikipedia), and it is certainly well-justified. Mandaclair 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Does someone need to separate you two?--EveRickert 02:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I think I'm done with the article for now (I know, I've said that before, but at this point I've really made almost all of the edits I felt were necessary -- finally got to the Speciation and Evidence sections). In the process I've gotten a lot of backlash for what people think is an impatient, arrogant, and dismissive attitude on my part. Maybe that is justified, maybe not, but if you're curious on my true point of view on those topics (and the recent history of the actual article), please have a look at my talk page. Thanks and I'll check back in again, one of these days... probably sooner rather than later :) Oh, and P.S. I am probably changing my username to TxMCJ. Not trying to be anonymous (y'all know who I am) but I'd like to cut down on some of the user-Googling, if you catch my drift. Thanks,Mandaclair 17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
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".
I'm tempted to revert, but I won't "own" this article... I think many of the bold deletions Silence made might be able to really simplify the lead, but the currently posted solution might be a bit overboard... we'd also need to make sure that all of that material gets re-integrated SOMEWHERE in the article, if not in the lead. It may be detailed information, but it's not trivial information. Also: I will differ on the claim that non-organisms are non-biological. DNA is not an organism, but it is biological. As is a virus. Mandaclair 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the new rewritten lead of Silence is an immense improvement. I could not believe how horribly the lead had deteriorated over the last few months. I think there is no problem with jamming technical material into the body of the article, but since the lead is probably all that over 90% of the readers will ever read, it better be well written. The lead should be short and succinct and interesting. It should not be overly technical but should give a rough idea about the subject matter. If there is material that you feel ABSOLUTELY must be included, put it in the body, not in the lead. Leave the current lead alone.--Filll 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- To avoid confusion, it should be noted that Mandaclair was responding to my initial edit (which just trimmed some of the trivia out of the lead section to make it easier to see what was crucial before expanding upon that), whereas Filll is responding to my (provisional) rewrite. I don't agree with Filll that we should "leave the current lead alone"—there are a lot of improvements to be made to it, and immediately after any major change we should expect plenty of discussion and revision. However, I agree with your point that most important topics in evolution shouldn't even be alluded to in the lead section, simply because there are so many dozens of them that it would overburden our readers, plus most of them are too technical to meaningfully explain in only a few words. Objective "importance" is not the only criterion for coverage in the lead section, nor even the most important one; practical value to completely uninformed readers is. -Silence 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for a much needed and very well done edit. Agree material lost should be covered somewhere in the article. Of course this version of the lead is open to improvement, but next time we find the lead spiraling out of control, I suggest returning to this very good one. Glad to see you back here, S. Gnixon 21:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Impact
The rewrite is indeed excellent and really accomplished a lot in one stroke. However, historic/current resistance to evolution should be tacked on near the end; perhaps after the 1st sentence in the 3rd paragraph. Without it, there is absolutely no sense evolution was a revolutionary paradigm shift... which reminds me, that paradigm shift also needs mentioned and wikilinked (what did evolution displace). - RoyBoy 800 21:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Mentioning controversy in the lead may or may not be a good idea in principle, but I'm worried that it will just become a big target for warring with creationists. The last sentence has nice wording about how important evolution is to biology, and the Controversy section displays prominently in the TOC. If we mention controversy in the lead, let's be very careful about it. Gnixon 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are talking to the guy who did the Abortion lead; not to boast or anything, but that beats Evolution hands down in the controversy category. :"D RoyBoy 800 21:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Haha, duly noted, but there's a lot more of substance about evolution that doesn't pertain to controversy and competes with it for space in the lead. That's to say, abortion is a relatively simple thing to describe, but its controversy is highly notable. Evolution has a somewhat smaller degree of controversy, and evolution itself is much broader and more complex. Gnixon 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- True :'D, but the quality science smackdown by Silence makes me not too concerned with that anymore. The science could bloat again if it wanted to, but if controversy/social aspects are kept in a paragraph on their own, so it can be compartmentalized successfully. Just as we did for abortion, people have been killed and clinics bombed, but we kept the second paragraph down to one sentence and well placed wikilinks. - RoyBoy 800 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see the need for such a tack-on, RoyBoy, as this is a biological article, rather than a sociological or historical one. The top priority of this article is to explain to our readers the scientific understanding of biological evolution; whether or not it constituted a "paradigm shift" (itself a somewhat controversial idea within philosophy of science; it would probably be opening an unnecessary can of worms for Wikipedia to endorse a specific perspective on it here!) is at best an afterthought, and arguably barely merits inclusion in the article body (perhaps in the "Social effect" and/or "History" section), much less in the lead. Remember that at the end of the lead section we haven't even begun explaining many of the basics of what is actually physically happening in evolution; compared to that, evaluations of its social significance are, at least for the purposes of a biology article like this, of peripheral importance.
- I also doubt that one sentence could properly convey the idea without misrepresenting the scope and significance of the controversy—especially since this would be the only sentence in the lead section not dealing directly or indirectly with the science of evolution. Describing "resistance" in such a context would imply that there is significant scientific resistance to evolutionary theory, which couldn't be further from the truth. Furthermore, I would like to keep the third paragraph as short as possible, and expand the "History" section instead where possible, because that section is currently woefully diminished. -Silence 21:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Top priority does not denote only priority, for an article, and especially for the lead. I hate to be the spoiled sport, but I must remind everyone here this is not a biology article. Okay? This is an article on the subject of evolution. This includes biology and controversy. No mention of controversy is a glaring oversight. See the Encarta beginning for a guildeline. Evolution displaced dominant historic views; if that isn't lead material, I don't know what is. The focus should, is and always has been on the biology. Great! That does not give us license to push other stuff to the bottom of the article. - RoyBoy 800 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is an article about biological evolution. (There are other articles for other types of evolution.) Thus, it is a biology article. Controversy is relevant here only insofar as it is relevant to understanding biological evolution. No mention of controversy in the lead section is infinitely less of an oversight than no mention of dozens of other, more important topics for understanding biological evolution, like the fossil record and DNA. Yet these, too, are mentioned nowhere in the lead. For an article as immensely complex and broad as this one, we simply need to stop trying to squeeze every single "important" topic into the lead section, or it'll grow unmanageably large once again; if something is "important" we should work first on improving its coverage in the article body, and only afterwards, if there is wide agreement, insert it into the lead. If anything even the current lead is a little longer than would be ideal.
- Every major scientific discovery in history has "displaced dominant historic views", in one way or another. Without proper context and details, this is too vacuously vague to be very useful to readers in the "bite-sized" format that a lead section demands.
- The introduction to the Encarta evolution article is twice as long as the lead section of evolution. Since that means that at least half of the information in that introduction wouldn't fit here without us beginning to re-bloat the newly-trimmed section, pointing to the inclusion of something there wouldn't be sufficient grounds for inclusion even if Encarta was the pinnacle of encyclopedic achievement.
- The fact that this article's focus is on biology not only gives us "license" to push other stuff to the bottom of the article (and to other areas of the article body, many of which desperately need just that kind of "pushing" in order to flesh out missing information!); it gives us the duty to do so. -Silence 22:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- False comparison, DNA is implicitly referred to in the lead multiple times, and fossils are simply mineralized relics of DNA variation. Heh, yeah that's a stretched connection... but the point is both are central evidence for evolution. Controversy is a different sub-topic entirely; having nothing to do with biology, but everything to do with evolution... especially historically, the history (of the controversy and evolution's historic context) are under serviced in the lead.
- I get the distinct impression that now that the lead is "in shape", nothing can be added? Another way to see it, is that you've created room for other notable aspects of evolution to be mentioned.
- Don't obfuscate the issue with re-bloat. Encarta is a clear example that an encyclopedic article and lead is not exclusive to its main subject. Ever. Encarta is long and I have no intention of replicating the topics/coverage it has.
- The disambig notice at the top clarifies what concept of "Evolution" this article is covering. It's function is to keep people from placing concepts from Stellar evolution here. It provides absolutely no editorial mandate to focus exclusively on the biological aspect of that concept. I'll understand if I need to repeat this several times since this has obviously been an assumption carried forward by the dominant/active editors here, but that disambig notice does not change the fact this article needs cover all aspects of biological Evolution. That includes controversy (religion), history, politics and if notable enough, sociology. I'm not debating this with you, I'm trying to, with as light a touch as possible to a valuable contributor, to say... incorrect. Disambiguation is just that, disambiguation; it does not set (or force) tone on an article. - RoyBoy 800 22:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- But aren't you underestimating the notability of the impact of biological science on society? For analogy, is it reasonable for the Physics lead to mention the impact of say, nuclear weapons and semiconductors? Gnixon 22:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- This article isn't analogous to physics because it discusses a biological process, rather than a field or discipline of science; the proper analogy would be between physics and evolutionary biology. The social impact of a certain area of science is of more relevance to the article on the study of a phenomenon (e.g., evolutionary biology) or the explanation of that phenomenon (e.g., modern evolutionary synthesis) than on the phenomenon itself (e.g., evolution). This is not to say that the social impact of such study isn't important enough to mention in this article, merely that it's not quite important enough for the lead section, if only because there's always so much vastly more important information that we're currently leaving out for the sake of brevity and comprehensibility. -Silence 22:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's what I get for picking a poor analogy. It's the idea of evolution that has impact, not the products of the field (physics). Maybe a better analogy would be Marxism or Adam Smith's take on economics. Meh. I agree with your comment below that these things should be addressed in the body before updating the intro. Gnixon 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- An analogy I would refer to is Age of the Earth, which I helped out on. While almost entirely science oriented there still needs to be mention of notable dissenting views. Now here is the kicker, those views have sub-articles, young earth creationism and such... but they do still merit a mention in the parent article. As they are indeed a part, a small part, but nonetheless a part of the subject matter for the article. - RoyBoy 800 23:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Information that should be left out. - RoyBoy 800 22:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- We don't have to say it was a paradigm shift, but we must provide historic context for evolution; and wikilink to the dominant scientific theory prior to Darwin. If memory serves, it Gradualism or something like that... Huxley comes to mind; it was based on slow changes of terrain being analogous to biological changes. I can't really remember. - RoyBoy 800 22:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think you make a good point that this topic deserves to be broader than just the science, but it will be challenging to discuss the social impact without bloating the lead or giving undue weight to objections to evolution. Do you have specific suggestions? Gnixon 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not this second, but it should be short, a sentence or two; although it think it could grow to a small paragraph with historic, Darwin's time, and modern sentences providing a clear understanding resistance has been notable, historic and is ongoing in certain places. - RoyBoy 800 22:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Such an addition might be a superb one for the exceedingly short section "History of modern evolutionary thought"; I recommend adding it there first. If something isn't even important enough for the article body, it's certainly not important enough for the lead section. Also, gradualism (proposed in 1795 by Hutton) is part of the essential basis of evolution (and of modern geology and evolutionary biology), not the "dominant scientific theory prior to Darwin"; perhaps you're thinking of Lamarckism. Regardless, none of this is remotely significant enough for the lead section. -Silence 22:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree it at least makes sense to start by including these things in the body before the lead. Gnixon 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not notable for a biology article, but this isn't just biology article. Again look at Abortion, we have sub-articles wikilinked in the lead; which is still very tightly written. - RoyBoy 800 22:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Common descent
Are we ever going to have a war about this? The lead now states common descent quite baldly as tracing down to a single ancestor. Are we resolved to ignore confusion on this subject, or should we somehow amend the sentence to clarify? Will I ever shut up about this? Graft 22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- If your problem is with the fact that we say "common ancestor" rather than "common ancestor or ancestral gene pool" (which will just confuse most readers, since we haven't yet said what a gene pool is), dictionary.com attests to the fact that a "common ancestor", in this context, need not be a singular, specific individual organism; it defines a "common ancestor" as "the most recent ancestral form or species from which two different species evolved". The universal common ancestor can thus be a grouping of organisms, at least as far as I can tell. That's the very reason that terms like last universal ancestor are so often used. -Silence 22:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Quoi? Non, as far as I've read. Maybe a population or species, as is certainly the case with "common ancestors" for sexually reproducing creatures, but certainly not a grouping of disparate organisms that are genetically distinct. Common descent should mean a single root to the tree of life. Graft 23:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- ^ a b c d Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-87893-187-2.
- ^ Lande, R. (1983). "The measurement of selection on correlated characters". Evolution. 37: 1210–1226.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Haldane, J.B.S. (1953). "The measurement of natural selection". Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Genetics. 1: 480–487.
- ^ a b c d e "Mechanisms: the processes of evolution". Understanding Evolution. University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 2006-07-14.
- ^ Gould, Stephen J. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Press. ISBN 0-674-00613-5.
- ^ Dawkins, Richard (1989). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press Press. ISBN 0-674-00613-5.
Lake, James A. (2004). "The Ring of Life Provides Evidence for a Genome Fusion Origin of Eukaryotes" (PDF). Nature. 431. Retrieved 2007-03-18.{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ UCLA Report (2004). "Ring of Life". Retrieved 2007-03-16.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ Doolittle, Ford W. (February 2000). "Uprooting the Tree of Life". Scientific American: pp. 72-77.
{{cite journal}}:|pages=has extra text (help)CS1 maint: year (link) - ^ Lake, James A. and Maria C. Riveral (1999). "Horizontal gene transfer among genomes: The complexity hypothesis". PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science). 96:7: pp. 3801-3806. Retrieved 2007-03-18.
{{cite journal}}:|pages=has extra text (help) - ^ Bapteste; et al. (2005). "Do Orthologous Gene Phylogenies Really Support Tree-thinking?". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 5:33. Retrieved 2007-03-18.
{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=(help) - ^ Gogarten, Peter (2000). "Horizontal Gene Transfer: A New Paradigm for Biology". Esalen Center for Theory and Research Conference. Retrieved 2007-03-18.
- ^ "IAP STATEMENT ON THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION" (PDF). the Interacademy Panel on International Issues. Retrieved 2007-03-20.
- ^ "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2006. Retrieved 2007-03-20.
- ^ Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-87893-187-2.
- ^ Gould, Stephen J. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Press. ISBN 0-674-00613-5.
- ^ Lande, R. (1983). "The measurement of selection on correlated characters". Evolution. 37: 1210–1226.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-87893-187-2.
- ^ Haldane, J.B.S. (1953). "The measurement of natural selection". Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Genetics. 1: 480–487.
- ^ Gould, Stephen J. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Press. ISBN 0-674-00613-5.
- ^ Lande, R. (1983). "The measurement of selection on correlated characters". Evolution. 37: 1210–1226.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Haldane, J.B.S. (1953). "The measurement of natural selection". Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Genetics. 1: 480–487.
- ^ Myers, PZ (2006-06-18). "Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?". Pharyngula. scienceblogs.com. Retrieved 2006-11-18.
- ^ IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)
- ^ From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws