Talk:Introduction to evolution
Move template
I obviously disagree strenuously with the tag that has been placed on this article to move this to evolution. This guy is some template happy character it seems. I complained on his talk page but I have obtained no reply.--Filll 02:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I see little to salvage in the article as it now stands.GetAgrippa 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please edit away to your heart's content. Let's make this accurate but still accessible, if possible.--Filll 03:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Needed
- We need pictures here. Something simple please and not too frightening.
- I would like to change the blue information box at the top of the article to a vertical blue information box down the right hand side of the article if possible--Filll 04:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to put
in this article but it did not work properly for some reason.--Filll 05:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Start with the theory?
I have just redone the opening, to start with a brief statement of the theory (largely cut and pasted from an earlier version). I think this is a good idea, even though the essential points are restated in the vertical box at the right. The bullet list can develop into a slightly longer and fuller version, while perhaps the box can be shortened further - two different ways of conveying the essential facts, for people with different ways of absorbing information. Also - I moved the stuff about wings down to join the hands because (a) it is another example of adaptive radiation and (b) I don't think it's a good idea to jump straight into a specific example like that, which perhaps gives too much of an impression that this is all that evolution is about. Maybe now a good idea to delete either the hands or the wings and leave just one example. Snalwibma 09:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I am disappointed to see that WAS 4.250 has simply reverted my changes without discussion. OK - some of it is wrong. But what about the principle? I still feel the present opening is quite inadequate, jumping straight into a specific example (which is in effect made redundant lower down the page) without setting out the basic idea. Snalwibma 10:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- The article requires complete revision, knee-jerk reversal at this stage are not productive. We almost need to put a disclaimer across the top "UNDER CONSTRUCTION". Try you edits again. This can work if we think in terms of informative, accurate, yet minimize the enormous amount of supporting details that are problematic in the Main article. Perhaps first you could outline the major topics for the article that are relevant to understanding evolution. Then discussion over the outline could follow. Then the actually text can be composed, with readability in mind. Don't throw in the towel .... yet! --Random Replicator 12:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Even the English on this version is stilted, because in Simple Wikipedia we are encouraged to write somewhat stilted English to try to aim for an article which only uses about 850 words of Basic English. However, for Wikipedia itself I think we can at least make sure the English is readable, but still keep it simple with less technical terms.--Filll 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I looked at what Snalwibma had done. I think it was a distinct improvement over this. I think rather than just revert mindlessly, we should edit the material we have here. It needs to grow organically. If some of what was added was not exactly correct, then it needs to be edited, not reverted!!--Filll 13:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll take it off my watchlist and let you guys proceed as you see fit. WAS 4.250 15:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's revert this to Snalwimba's version and let it evolve in a hopefully constructive direction.--Filll 15:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I like to critique more than write.... but would this be a suitable start as an intro? --Random Replicator 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Its hard to encapsulate Evolution in a short, readable, intro!!!! So be kind.
In a general way, evolution is described as the changes that have transformed life from its earliest origins into the diverse forms of life represented today. More specifically, the Scientific Theory of Evolution states that all living things share, at some point in their evolutionary history, a common ancestor. Evolution depicts life as a tree, with many branches arising from a single trunk. The tips of the branches represent present day life forms. Each fork in the branch represents ancestors common to all lines arising after the split.
Insert Image of Tree Here!!!!
The idea of common ancestry has its roots in the Darwinian Revolution. Charles Darwin, famous for his theory of natural selection, saw unity in life, with all living things related or descending from a common ancestor. Darwin describes these events as “descent with modification”. Darwin based his ideas of common ancestry on the principals of natural selection.
Natural Selection::::::::::::::::::::::::::
All common knowledge, so citations not required. Not familar with the rules and lack the skills to actually edit the article itself ... so this as far as I know to go with it.
Readability score of 46 or 10th grade level. --Random Replicator 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I like it. Fantastic.--Filll 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Pictures
A quick look gave these. I hope there are better ones but this is all i could find for now. David D. (Talk) 05:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  
|
 
|
- Those look good to me. To brighten it up a bit so it is not to dreary looking.--Filll 12:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping we could insert a evolutionary tree after discusion on the branches of life... there is one in the wiki photovault in which the copyright is expired. Link->
[1]
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pedigree_of_man_%28Haeckel_1874%29.jpg){kind=link}
I have no clue how to insert or resize but if someone wants to try to insert it if appropriate. --Random Replicator 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I gave it a try. I am not sure it is perfect but it is a start. Someone who is more expert or more patient than me can adjust it, resize it, etc.--Filll 20:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- You could try and make it smaller but with the blue box on the right it will be hard to fit it in without everything getting cramped. Another possible ___location is in the montage, i have placed one in there for you to compare with the one at the top. Obviously this montage needs a good legend to link it with the text. David D. (Talk) 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I like the picture at the top; as someone said "we need to break up the text to reduce the intimidation factor." The lead in sections seems to be coming together nicely. Its a start. I would like to see the next section 'simplify' the tie in between Darwin and modern genetics. Maybe Population genetics could be the next subheading, with a summary of Hardy-Weinberg principles? I think the key here seems to be minimize examples and details and not feel a need to defend or define every sentence/word. Also compact, concise sentences.The section on convergent and co-evolution was in the original transfered entry. It is just hanging there at the moment. Hopefully, it will eventually have a tie in to the section. I also recommend staying away from Creationist / Evolution debate. Refer all challengers to the main page ... they can fight it out there. That said ... should we continue or is this too redundant or perhaps distracting from the main article? I hate to invest the time; only to find the community at large thinks it absurd. --Random Replicator 04:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- To correlate with the main article, Modern Synthesis might be a better heading than population genetics. I read the main page on M/S and it is Titanic; an excellent section to condense here. Obviously this is a support document so it should perhaps correlate to the main page. --Random Replicator 05:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I am only a mathematical physicist but I think you are doing a fantastic job here. This looks great to me ! Of course, do not take my word for it since in this field, I am sort of out my main area !--Filll 05:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Precedent
I don't know if there is any policy on having less technical introductions on subects. Has this been done before? JoshuaZ 06:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes it has been done on special relativity, general relativity and quantum mechanics so far. So if physics can do it, so can biology I think. --Filll 06:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Numbered list
What has happened to the numbers in the list of five principles of natural selection? The picture of the tree gets in the way and deletes the numbering of the list. My knowledge of wiki markup and html has been stretched to the limit (doesn't take much of a stretch) trying to restore it. Someone must know how to do it! Snalwibma 08:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- It looks fine to me now. How does it look now? What browser are you using? --Filll 14:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I see no numbers, just the slashes, using MS Explorer with 21" wide screen. --Random Replicator 14:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Filll ... do you see numbers? --Random Replicator 14:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- WinME, IE6, 19" screen, wikipedia "cologne blue" and default skins - I see dashes for 1-4, then, just below the picture, "5. - Over time ...". Snalwibma 14:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have no skills in this area ... I just figured out how to do an embedded link to another reference ... I'm pretty excited about that thou!--Random Replicator 14:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I see no numbers, just the slashes, using MS Explorer with 21" wide screen. --Random Replicator 14:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I see all 5 points easily. We might need an expert here.--Filll 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Edits to list
I fixed a spelling error. I also did not want to use the word evolve to explain evolution in a sort of circular argument.--Filll 14:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Filll or anyone with skills ... can you set up the following Sub topics directly under the intro section (above the convergent stuff).
Modern Synthesis / Population Genetics
Evidence For Evolution
Subheadings Fossil Record
Comparative Anatomy
Artificial Selection
Molecular Biology
General References on Evolution
That can serve as a loose template for information to follow ...
Also, (all) please kep editng for errers and improvemments, at precent there seems to be about 4 of us with at lest some enterest in puting this togethar.--Random Replicator 14:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Very nice. --Random Replicator 16:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Bird Flu
Is anyone attached to the bird flu example... to me it is just hanging there as an after thought. Part of the challenge of reading the "main article is the supporting details that break the flow of the basic information. Examples in this one (perhaps) should be few and only because they are necessary to grasp the concept.?.? --Random Replicator 14:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Some stuff like the bird flu example come from the Simple article. Anything that makes no sense, remove it.--Filll 16:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted it. Still needs a closure sentence, I hate to end the intro passage with a list. --Random Replicator 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Populatin Genetics
Six Coronas for the head, Vikiden for the back ... Aerosmith blaring Honkin Your Bobo ... and I came out with a readability score of 44.2 10th grade level. Feel free to edit without apologies or comment. Filll don't abandon me brother .... if this section is too complicated we can fix it. You may be high .. You may be low ... You may be rich child ... you may be poor ... but when the lord gets ready .... you gotta move.... Refilling the cooler and off to Evidence section.--Random Replicator 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)